Gibson' Passion: What is Hollywood supposed to "get"?

[tdn]

In the weeks before Mel Gibson's Passion opened, I heard of a lot of religious people saying "Now maybe Hollywood will get the message." Does anybody else remember that? Since then, I've been wondering what they might have meant by that. Here are my guesses:

*Make more movies about Christ. No one wants to see movies about Hobbits, big sinking ships, or crazy mathemeticians. Finally, the Academy has something to vote on.

*Movies about Christ are the real money makers. New Line Cinema would have thought well about this before they filed chapter 11.

*Make movies that zealots will love, and you'll see a rash of people bootleggin' for the Lord.

[Checkmite]

In retrospect, perhaps the message is "cram as much violence, blood and gore as possible into your movies".

[Suezoled]

Maybe they think we should blame more Jewish people for stuff. Or maybe the christians want more movies with subtitles. Or maybe more Romans running around. Or maybe they want more Mel Gibson directed films. I just don't know.

[smalltlalk_2k]

that there should be a "Passion of the Christ" saturday morning cartoon show.

seriously, I think he was trying to say that christians like to watch movies about their religion and that everything doesn't have to be about the EVILs of sex,drugs,and rock-n-roll.

[Silicon]

I think there's some anti-semitism in the comments I heard awhile back.

Along the old lines of "Of course he can't make a film in aramaic with no stars about Jesus. Those Jews in Hollywood won't let him."

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sequel: "The Passion of the Christ on a Pogo Stick."

The one after that: "The Passion of the Christ in a Minivan."

~~ Paul

[wjousts]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
In retrospect, perhaps the message is "cram as much violence, blood and gore as possible into your movies".

In that case, I waiting to see how many church groups will get together to go see Kill Bill Vol. 2. :D

[Hamish]

Originally posted by tdn
Movies about Christ are the real money makers.


I think they really missed a trick with the mechandising though. Where are all the Passion Jesus chocolate bars, happy meals and plastic lunchboxes?

I really wanted a Pontius Pilate action figure (with hand-washing action).

[c4ts]

I want a crucified Jesus voodoo doll.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Hamish


I think they really missed a trick with the mechandising though. Where are all the Passion Jesus chocolate bars, happy meals and plastic lunchboxes?


Here.

http://www.catholicsupply.com/christmas/_borders/39388.JPG



http://www.catholicsupply.com/christmas/passion.html

I actually find the merchandising quite tasteless. Why would a christian WANT to wear a nail around his neck, as if it's the nail of christ?

Isn't that like singing "Gladly the Cross I'd Inflict on Him".

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
In retrospect, perhaps the message is "cram as much violence, blood and gore as possible into your movies".

Yes, but put it in a religious context so that you can justify it.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Judging by the headline of this piece (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3549289.stm), what Hollywood needs to get is that the viewing audience likes to see people come back from the dead.

The more people who do that in a movie, the better.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by tdn
In the weeks before Mel Gibson's Passion opened, I heard of a lot of religious people saying "Now maybe Hollywood will get the message." Does anybody else remember that? Since then, I've been wondering what they might have meant by that. Here are my guesses:

*Make more movies about Christ. No one wants to see movies about Hobbits, big sinking ships, or crazy mathemeticians. Finally, the Academy has something to vote on.

*Movies about Christ are the real money makers. New Line Cinema would have thought well about this before they filed chapter 11.

*Make movies that zealots will love, and you'll see a rash of people bootleggin' for the Lord.

Why did every "mainstream" distributor reject the Passion? Why were Hollywood estimates for gross intake so low? Why were established critics been so negative about the movie before even seeing it?

Obviously the movie was meant to appeal to "religious" types. How many Hollywood films produced in the past 10 years can make that claim?

Your cyncicism is cute, but try to spend a few moments thinking about the above questions. If you want to think that zealots are the majority audience for the movie you are clueless, what is driving the movie is people with all degrees of faith.

Are there more Tolkien zealots than Christian zealots? How about Star Wars zealots? Were those movies blockbusters because only zealots went to see them? Of course not.

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
In retrospect, perhaps the message is "cram as much violence, blood and gore as possible into your movies".

I think a few moviemakers had already figured this out, Mel included... Making Jesus the victim, just widened the demographics of the potential audience a bit.. I think this is more evident today, as we see that " Dawn Of The Dead " edged out " The Passion.. " this weekend...


A remake of " Ben Hur " cannot be too far off..


I envision a Ron Howard effort ( now that he has explored gore with " The Missing " ) with Tom Hanks as Ben and Bill Paxton as Messala..

[tdn]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Why did every "mainstream" distributor reject the Passion? Why were Hollywood estimates for gross intake so low? Why were established critics been so negative about the movie before even seeing it?

Obviously the movie was meant to appeal to "religious" types. How many Hollywood films produced in the past 10 years can make that claim?


Good questions, for which I have no answers. If what Hollywood is supposed to "get" is that religious films might actually pull in box office dollars, then perhaps the question is valid. Then again, Hollywood has a long list of religious movies to its credit, though you may have to go back to the mid-80s to find any.

Your cyncicism is cute, but try to spend a few moments thinking about the above questions. If you want to think that zealots are the majority audience for the movie you are clueless, what is driving the movie is people with all degrees of faith.

Are there more Tolkien zealots than Christian zealots? How about Star Wars zealots? Were those movies blockbusters because only zealots went to see them? Of course not.

I never said that zealots were the sole audience members of this movie. I said (rephrased) that there were a lot of organizations that made bootlegs of this movie, and I suspect that there were mant zealots among them.

Better?

[evildave]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Judging by the headline of this piece (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3549289.stm), what Hollywood needs to get is that the viewing audience likes to see people come back from the dead.

The more people who do that in a movie, the better.

According to the news last night, that zombie movie just surpassed the Jesus movie in boxoffice sales. You might be onto something.


Of course, the REAL message Hollywood needs to get is to indifferently exploit more superstitious people by producing "must see" movies that reinforce their wacky beliefs, based on the characters and premises they believe are real.

So, more stories with supernatural content! The ignorant masses DEMAND it!


Don't skimp on the drippy bloody makeup for realistic-looking brutal injuries, even where NOT applicable!

The Jesus camp has proven that bloody and depraved violence is A-OK for young children's viewing. It's actually desirable! So, MORE GORE!

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/news/archive/local_15245452.shtml
Comments: The movie brings the Bible alive in each viewer’s heart. I have been in churches most of my life and I have never even pictured how the events may have actually taken place. I loved the movie and have seen it twice now. I recommend it to every adult and children over 12.

http://www.record-journal.com/articles/2004/03/19/news/news01.txt
Priest brings schoolchildren to movie

[Silicon]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Why did every "mainstream" distributor reject the Passion?

That's something I JUST DON'T GET.

After all, it's a box-office axiom that films starring unknowns subtitled in two dead languages ALWAYS are blockbusters.

And if there's one thing those religious people want, is GORY movies! They're always complaining to Congress how Hollywood needs to TONE UP the violence in movies.

Oh, and the fact that until about a year ago, Mel was still telling people that he was refusing to even subtitle it! That move alone would have kicked it beyond Titanic into the popularity stratosphere!

Why didn't EVERYONE see the box-office GOLDMINE here!??!

[smalltlalk_2k]

hmm... I might buy one of those necklaces with the nail. You never know when you need a stake to fend off the vampires. I wonder if i can get jar of Passion of the Christ garlic?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Silicon


That's something I JUST DON'T GET.

After all, it's a box-office axiom that films starring unknowns subtitled in two dead languages ALWAYS are blockbusters.

And if there's one thing those religious people want, is GORY movies! They're always complaining to Congress how Hollywood needs to TONE UP the violence in movies.

Oh, and the fact that until about a year ago, Mel was still telling people that he was refusing to even subtitle it! That move alone would have kicked it beyond Titanic into the popularity stratosphere!

Why didn't EVERYONE see the box-office GOLDMINE here!??! Wittily put, but you've actually hit the nail on the head: the success of this movie defied conventional wisdom, which indicates that a recalibration of conventional wisdom is in order. As Mark Steyn wrote (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040307-104358-4379r.htm) recently:One reason Hollywood assumed Mel had laid a $30 million Easter egg was that the elite coastal enclaves who set the cultural agenda haven't a clue about the rest of the country when it comes to religion. They don't mind Jesus when he's hippy ("Godspell") or horny (Terrence McNally's "gay Jesus" play "Corpus Christi") but taking the guy seriously is just for fruitcakes.Steyn elaborates in The Spectator (no link, sorry):Leaving aside for the moment the question of anti-Semitism, the most notable characteristic of the negative reviews is a metropolitan condescension that Mel Gibson has had the bad taste to make a religious movie about a Jesus who isn't an Episcopalian social worker with enlightened views on women, gay marriage, and so forth. Jesus, they assure us, is about "love", not "violence". Fine. Make your own Jesus movie. But this is the one Mel wanted to make, and it seems there are many millions of Americans prepared to sit through an R-rated movie in Aramaic and Latin on Christ's suffering.The message Hollywood may be prompted to "get", in other words, isn't necessarily a particular message contained in the movie so much as simply a wake-up call that it currently is profoundly out of touch with American religious attitudes. I have no idea what practical steps this realization calls for, but no doubt it's in Hollywood's best interests to figure out why it miscalled this one (and the unknown-actor-dead-language angle doesn't fully explain it).

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
.... simply a wake-up call that it currently is profoundly out of touch with American religious attitudes. .....


... Those attitudes having something to do with paying big bucks to watch a two hour beating cum torture-fest, culminating in a horrific, graphically depicted execution?


As others have hinted at and pointed out; has all that has been misssing from the here-to-fore denouncement of the hollywood violence glut, by the religious right ( and not so-right ), been the absence biblical characters?

I'm sure, that now that they know where the money is, they will catch on real fast...

[Silicon]

You know, a lot... A LOT of biblical films made by religious filmmaking companies have been flops.


There are a lot of them that don't even get noticed by mainstream audiences.

From the Omega Code to Veggie Tales: The Movie, there are a lot of religious flops out there as well. Not to mention some that never get released, but go a direct-to-video route, like The Gospel of John.

Maybe the "message" to Hollywood should be:
Let's make some GOOD religious movies.


Cause THESE ones are CRAP:

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2002/09/03/christian/print.html

[Temporal Renegade]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Sequel: "The Passion of the Christ on a Pogo Stick."

The one after that: "The Passion of the Christ in a Minivan."

~~ Paul

I'm waiting for the Bob Fosse-inspired "CHRIST!",
done with the same aplomb and style as "PIPPIN" or
"SWEET CHARITY".

That's some good watchin'! ;)

[MLynn]

Originally posted by Temporal Renegade


I'm waiting for the Bob Fosse-inspired "CHRIST!",
done with the same aplomb and style as "PIPPIN" or
"SWEET CHARITY".

That's some good watchin'! ;)
Wasn't that "Godspell?"
Nice avatar, by the way. ;)

[Marc]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Sequel: "The Passion of the Christ on a Pogo Stick."

The one after that: "The Passion of the Christ in a Minivan."

~~ Paul

no, no ,no.... The real sequel is Dawn of the Dead. In the first movie we had one person rise from the dead, in the sequel Everyone gets to come back! :p

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes


I think a few moviemakers had already figured this out, Mel included... Making Jesus the victim, just widened the demographics of the potential audience a bit..

Um, as opposed to making Jesus the violent aggressor?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Silicon


That's something I JUST DON'T GET.

After all, it's a box-office axiom that films starring unknowns subtitled in two dead languages ALWAYS are blockbusters.

And if there's one thing those religious people want, is GORY movies! They're always complaining to Congress how Hollywood needs to TONE UP the violence in movies.

Oh, and the fact that until about a year ago, Mel was still telling people that he was refusing to even subtitle it! That move alone would have kicked it beyond Titanic into the popularity stratosphere!

Why didn't EVERYONE see the box-office GOLDMINE here!??!

I don't know, I would have bet all the money I have that the movie would have grossed $100 million minimum. I don't know why everyone didn't think as I did.

As for the subtitle stuff, I don't underestimate people; given the content of the movie, the director, and the buzz, that was irrelevant to me (the subtitles that is). Even without subtitles it would have grossed over $100 million.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes



... Those attitudes having something to do with paying big bucks to watch a two hour beating cum torture-fest, culminating in a horrific, graphically depicted execution?

If that's all the movie is to you I'm sorry, the most moving parts of it were the mother/son interplay.

Let me put it this way. The scene that really got me was when John/Mary/Mary ran to a place on the road where they could get close to Jesus, because Mary (mother) asked John to bring her there, she wanted a closer look. When they got there, she froze up, as if she had a change of heart. For at least 30 seconds she stood there, afraid to look at her son. The last person on earth who wanted to see the "two hour beating cum torture-fest" was the guy's mother. Yet she went ahead and saw it anyways.

See, suffering has meaning when it is observed. Unobserved suffering is an atrocity, a tragedy beyond belief. We can never appreciate the holocaust because it is an unseen quantity; seeing the actual ways in which the millions died would overwhelm us. But if you feel connected with your fellow human beings you will not shy away from them when they are suffering.

As Christians we are called to a close relationship with Jesus. If he is a stranger to you I suppose I understand why you wouldn't want to see his suffering, or don't understand why others would.

I submit that if it was "just" a violent gore fest, it wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is. Of course this forum will only focus on what it wants to focus on. I've had worthwhile discussions with others on aspects of this film that would mean nothing to any of you, because you will only focus on what you want to focus on. Yes the bloodshed and gore was real. Jesus didn't take a stretch limo to Golgotha. The movie is called the Passion. Anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of the word understands what that means. For centuries Christians have celebrated Good Friday, Palm Sunday, and stations of the cross. This is a realistic take on what Christians have observed for 2000 years.

But you have a problem with the translation of these traditions into a film. It's best to keep the concept sterile. Avoid violence and suffering, particularly if it actually happened. Water it down or ignore it. Suffering is problematic, and it's best to minimize it in any and all ways. Those who want to portray suffering as it really is are disordered. No, this sort of reality is unpalatable. Realism is only good if it makes people comfortable.

-Elliot

[dmarker]

Ultimate realism for historical events, let's make a movie about the Inquisition, and let's not leave out the torture's in god's name.

Elliot, do you think that Christians would take their kids to see a realistic movie about the crimes of Christ's followers?

Originally posted by elliotfc


If that's all the movie is to you I'm sorry, the most moving parts of it were the mother/son interplay.

Let me put it this way. The scene that really got me was when John/Mary/Mary ran to a place on the road where they could get close to Jesus, because Mary (mother) asked John to bring her there, she wanted a closer look. When they got there, she froze up, as if she had a change of heart. For at least 30 seconds she stood there, afraid to look at her son. The last person on earth who wanted to see the "two hour beating cum torture-fest" was the guy's mother. Yet she went ahead and saw it anyways.

See, suffering has meaning when it is observed. Unobserved suffering is an atrocity, a tragedy beyond belief. We can never appreciate the holocaust because it is an unseen quantity; seeing the actual ways in which the millions died would overwhelm us. But if you feel connected with your fellow human beings you will not shy away from them when they are suffering.

As Christians we are called to a close relationship with Jesus. If he is a stranger to you I suppose I understand why you wouldn't want to see his suffering, or don't understand why others would.

I submit that if it was "just" a violent gore fest, it wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is. Of course this forum will only focus on what it wants to focus on. I've had worthwhile discussions with others on aspects of this film that would mean nothing to any of you, because you will only focus on what you want to focus on. Yes the bloodshed and gore was real. Jesus didn't take a stretch limo to Golgotha. The movie is called the Passion. Anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of the word understands what that means. For centuries Christians have celebrated Good Friday, Palm Sunday, and stations of the cross. This is a realistic take on what Christians have observed for 2000 years.

But you have a problem with the translation of these traditions into a film. It's best to keep the concept sterile. Avoid violence and suffering, particularly if it actually happened. Water it down or ignore it. Suffering is problematic, and it's best to minimize it in any and all ways. Those who want to portray suffering as it really is are disordered. No, this sort of reality is unpalatable. Realism is only good if it makes people comfortable.

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc


..............................................

But you have a problem with the translation of these traditions into a film. It's best to keep the concept sterile. Avoid violence and suffering, particularly if it actually happened. Water it down or ignore it. Suffering is problematic, and it's best to minimize it in any and all ways. Those who want to portray suffering as it really is are disordered. No, this sort of reality is unpalatable. Realism is only good if it makes people comfortable.

-Elliot

I wonder if you really missed my point, that an R rated violent, gory movie with Jesus as the main character, seems to be all it takes to attract an audience who otherwise condemns such movies..

Can you say ' hypocracy ' ?



Unpalatable? Do you really have a problem with the idea that I don't find watching torture ' entertaining ' , much less the idea that it wouldn't occur to me for a moment, that it would be a good idea to take my son to see this movie?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by elliotfc


I don't know, I would have bet all the money I have that the movie would have grossed $100 million minimum. I don't know why everyone didn't think as I did.


Yeah, but true believers generally think that way about everything.

You probably thought the Veggie Tale movie would pass Finding Nemo.

(MAYBE IF IT HAD MORE GORE!)


I bet more christians brought children to see PotC (not Pirates of the Carribbean) than brought them to see Veggie-Tales, the Movie.

Which gives us a good indication why religion today continues to be violently expressed, in the real world as well.

[c0rbin]

According to the news last night, that zombie movie just surpassed the Jesus movie in boxoffice sales.

I thought Jesus was a zombie!

[Temporal Renegade]

Originally posted by MLynn

Wasn't that "Godspell?"
Nice avatar, by the way. ;)

Nah...in this one, the disciples line up at a bar (a la 'Irma La Duce') and sing stuff like "Can't Help Lovin' That Son O' God!"

And, of course, the show-stopper, "I'm Getting Martyred In The Morning", by The Big J-Man and the
Gethsename Men's Choir (I'll tell ya, that Roman guy really has an ear for music...)

Thanks, by the way. :D
Have TARDIS will travel!

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by evildave
According to the news last night, that zombie movie just surpassed the Jesus movie in boxoffice sales. You might be onto something.

Well, not really. For this weekend, yes, but the Jesus snuff film has been out for several weeks while this was the first weekend for the Zombie film. Not a fair comparison.

[Algebra34]

According to the news last night, that zombie movie just surpassed the Jesus movie in boxoffice sales.

Hey hey pal. Watch it. That's not funny. Zombies are not more important than Jesus. Got it? Now the beatles...? that's a whole different story. And the beatles don't even need to spell their name with a capital "B".

[fromdownunder]

Five years, seven months and three days. Is this a record?

Norm

[arthwollipot]

Holy Zombie Jesus Thread!

[Wolfman]

Holy Zombie Jesus Thread!Dammit...I wanted to say that :(

[Jontg]

It's like modern art.

[quarky]

I thought Jesus was a zombie!

Think of the lord as the first vegetarian zombie. He showed other zombies that they don't have to eat people's faces and liver to express their individuality.

wasn't there a movie that had Brad Pitt as a vampire that sacrificed drinking human blood for the good of all? He gave us his eternal life through his sacrifice.

It makes perfect sense when the stars look good and are in alignment.

[Hux]

Personally, I found Gibson's remake of "The Life of Brian" to be unnecessarily violent and the humour was very thin.

My suggestion for marketing would be: Crown of Thorns Fridge Magnets.

[H3LL]

Wow!

The resurrection is real!





But only long dead threads.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=14&pictureid=1706

.

[TimCallahan]

Of the many Jesus films that have been made, the only two I've seen that impressed me in the least are "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "The Passion of the Christ." I never saw the Italian film of the Gospel according to Matthew, so I may have been impressed with it had I seen it. Most Jesus films are forgetable simply becuase they're done with such ecumenicism and reverence that, in not offending anyone they also don't make any impact on anyone. They remind me o those mawkish Protestant Jesus paintings showing this very Anglo-Saxon J.C. with the soft-light halo behind him. or those stained glass windows of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane praying and looking soulfuf - but certainly not agonized or sweating blood. I have yet to see a Jesus move featuring a really sSemitic Jesus, a guy with swarthy skin, black hair and an aquiline nose.

Both "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "The Passion of the Christ" had content that offended people, and both were memorable. As to the Gibson film, I find its strong points to be the use of Aramaic - and Latin - for the sake of certain verite, and the unflinching portrayal of the horrors of crucifixion. At the same time, it did seem to wallow in the gore more than was necessary. Not content to have Jesus flogged once, Gibson added a second flogging, this time with a cat-o'-nine-tails. Then there's the amount of blood spilled in the two floggings. From that much blood lost it's doubtful Jesus would have made it to Calvary.

There's also the wierd bit where a sympathetic wife of Pilate gives Mary, the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene a stack of towels. You expect the two Marys to use them to staunch the blood from all the stripes Jesus has gotten. Insead, they use it to clean up the blood from around the whipping post. This relates to a particularly Catholic view that the blood of Jesus was precious: When I was in college, my RC room-mate went to a local parish called "Precious Blood."

Even more offensinve than the excessive gore, however, was the portrayal of the Jews. The high priest, Caiaphas, comes off like one of the ayatollahs; but the worst offense was using the line from Matthew 27:25, "His blood be on us and on our children." In the U.S. this line wasn't translated in the subtitles. However, Gibson woud have done everyone a favor by not usin the line at all. Hollywod doesn't need to "get" using material that can serve as props for anti-Semitism.

If Hollywood should "get" anything from "The Passion of the Christ" it would be the same thig it might "get" from "The Last Temptation of Christ": When making religion-based movies, don't be afraid of offending people.

[Lucian]

Of the many Jesus films that have been made, the only two I've seen that impressed me in the least are "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "The Passion of the Christ." I never saw the Italian film of the Gospel according to Matthew, so I may have been impressed with it had I seen it. Most Jesus films are forgetable simply becuase they're done with such ecumenicism and reverence that, in not offending anyone they also don't make any impact on anyone. They remind me o those mawkish Protestant Jesus paintings showing this very Anglo-Saxon J.C. with the soft-light halo behind him. or those stained glass windows of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane praying and looking soulfuf - but certainly not agonized or sweating blood. I have yet to see a Jesus move featuring a really sSemitic Jesus, a guy with swarthy skin, black hair and an aquiline nose.

Both "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "The Passion of the Christ" had content that offended people, and both were memorable. As to the Gibson film, I find its strong points to be the use of Aramaic - and Latin - for the sake of certain verite, and the unflinching portrayal of the horrors of crucifixion. At the same time, it did seem to wallow in the gore more than was necessary. Not content to have Jesus flogged once, Gibson added a second flogging, this time with a cat-o'-nine-tails. Then there's the amount of blood spilled in the two floggings. From that much blood lost it's doubtful Jesus would have made it to Calvary.

There's also the wierd bit where a sympathetic wife of Pilate gives Mary, the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene a stack of towels. You expect the two Marys to use them to staunch the blood from all the stripes Jesus has gotten. Insead, they use it to clean up the blood from around the whipping post. This relates to a particularly Catholic view that the blood of Jesus was precious: When I was in college, my RC room-mate went to a local parish called "Precious Blood."

Even more offensinve than the excessive gore, however, was the portrayal of the Jews. The high priest, Caiaphas, comes off like one of the ayatollahs; but the worst offense was using the line from Matthew 27:25, "His blood be on us and on our children." In the U.S. this line wasn't translated in the subtitles. However, Gibson woud have done everyone a favor by not usin the line at all. Hollywod doesn't need to "get" using material that can serve as props for anti-Semitism.

If Hollywood should "get" anything from "The Passion of the Christ" it would be the same thig it might "get" from "The Last Temptation of Christ": When making religion-based movies, don't be afraid of offending people.

Wouldn't the verite be a bit closer to veritas if he hadn't used church Latin?

[CurtC]

...paying big bucks to watch a two hour beating cum torture-fest...

I know I'm replying to a five year old post, but I think dashes need to go on both sides of the word "cum" to keep anyone from getting the wrong idea.


This is a realistic take on what Christians have observed for 2000 years.

Well, a lot of what was in the film is more recent tradition that's built up over the years, especially that German nun who had hallucinations visions of the Passion.

[Beerina]

Think of the lord as the first vegetarian zombie. He showed other zombies that they don't have to eat people's faces and liver to express their individuality.

wasn't there a movie that had Brad Pitt as a vampire that sacrificed drinking human blood for the good of all? He gave us his eternal life through his sacrifice.

It makes perfect sense when the stars look good and are in alignment.

Eating transubstantiated flesh and blood is an even better solution for zombies than is donated blood or animal blood for vampires! Heck, Jesus solved the ethical dilemmas for both zombies and vampires! And made the Frankenstein procedure unnecessary as a side effect!

[Third Eye Open]

there has been a lot of zombie threads lately.

[quarky]

The good news is that zombies and vampires are (evidently) able to remain nourished on fresh rat's blood. This works out quite well in rat-infested cities. A win-win scenario.

Got a rat problem?
Invite liberal vampires to dinner.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Here.

http://www.catholicsupply.com/christmas/_borders/39388.JPG



http://www.catholicsupply.com/christmas/passion.html

I actually find the merchandising quite tasteless. Why would a christian WANT to wear a nail around his neck, as if it's the nail of christ?

Isn't that like singing "Gladly the Cross I'd Inflict on Him".

It's not even an iron nail. How are ya supposed to nail a guy to a post using a pewter nail? It'd just bend and dent. Where's the fun in that? There's only one too. Is it the leftover from the set, where they used just one for both feet, and had a left-over? Ideally, it would be the full set. A necklace with three nails and a hammer. Gotta be prepared just in case ya meet big sky daddy Jr.

A

[CurtC]

Since we're speaking of zombies, this sometimes circulates before Easter:I would like to wish everyone a happy Zombie Awareness Day, and remind everyone to AIM FOR THE HEAD. Let us not forget the story of the Roman centurion who forgot this most important of rules. His gut-shot blunder during the small zombie outbreak in Jerusalem around 30 CE led to millions more deaths throughout the centuries that followed. If you don't AIM FOR THE HEAD, your zombie may go on to found a major religion, and we already have more than enough of those.

[Beerina]

there has been a lot of zombie threads lately.

Now that I think about it, you're right. And that's because there're more zombie movies coming out every few months than even the tired, "suave, sexy" vampire movie sub-genre.

Looks like Hollywood "got it!" :)

[Beerina]

Only some kinds of zombies are killed by decapitation. Others are perfectly fine without a head, because they're reanimated by binding a spirit to the corpse, and the spirit does all the thinking; the head is just more dead matter.

[quarky]

Could a zombie without a head cut off a non-zombie's head ,and attach it to his stomach, on the gaping wound there, and grow a hybrid zombie out-growth with its own appendages, like a parasitic twin, except the host zombie would be the parasite on its own living human tumor-like addition?

[pakeha]

An interesting idea, quarky.

No one's mentioned the definitive reference to the 'Passion', in the historical document 'mr deity and the scripts' episode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukG_rFWi170

[Hux]

Could a zombie without a head cut off a non-zombie's head ,and attach it to his stomach, on the gaping wound there, and grow a hybrid zombie out-growth with its own appendages, like a parasitic twin, except the host zombie would be the parasite on its own living human tumor-like addition?


They told me this was the place to come to meet the great questions of Philosophy head on. :D

[Maia]

Now that I think about it, you're right. And that's because there're more zombie movies coming out every few months than even the tired, "suave, sexy" vampire movie sub-genre.

Looks like Hollywood "got it!" :)

So my evil plan to write a multibook series about suave, sexy zombies and stun the world is right on track, then. :)

[kurious_kathy]

In the weeks before Mel Gibson's Passion opened, I heard of a lot of religious people saying "Now maybe Hollywood will get the message." Does anybody else remember that? Since then, I've been wondering what they might have meant by that. Here are my guesses:

*Make more movies about Christ. No one wants to see movies about Hobbits, big sinking ships, or crazy mathemeticians. Finally, the Academy has something to vote on.

*Movies about Christ are the real money makers. New Line Cinema would have thought well about this before they filed chapter 11.

*Make movies that zealots will love, and you'll see a rash of people bootleggin' for the Lord.

Even though this movie is a bit too graphic and bloody, it does portrait the truth of how Christ suffered. I think everyone should see it at least once. Granted when I went to see it in the theater I almost walked out when the flogging started, but I stayed and just cried like a baby. In my opinion if someone watches Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and doesn't feel some remorse or conviction over their sin that put Jesus on that cross, well there's just something really wrong with that.

As for why religious people may have said that Hollywood should get the message, my guess is that the producers need to know Jesus and repent too. If more film makers would get saved just think of the better films they could make! Christians want to see less crud and swearing in movies for a start. We do not like GD in every movie, nor sex, nor violence, nor crime, or horror. Have people really sunk so low that they want to entertain themselves with all the wrong, ungodly things?

[arthwollipot]

Yes.

[quarky]

Yes.

and furthermore:

If there was some sort of eternal life, or switching of dreams, or parallel universes, or even time travel, people would gravitate towards mini-lives of amazing violence and passion...not endless peace. It would be more akin to choosing what movie to watch. If we could travel in time without fear of permanent death, wouldn't we chose to experience the gutsy stuff, like hunting mastadons with spears, or fighting in a revolution, or having a life of utmost debauchery and 'sin'?

[Moochie]

In the weeks before Mel Gibson's Passion opened, I heard of a lot of religious people saying "Now maybe Hollywood will get the message." Does anybody else remember that? Since then, I've been wondering what they might have meant by that. Here are my guesses:

*Make more movies about Christ. No one wants to see movies about Hobbits, big sinking ships, or crazy mathemeticians. Finally, the Academy has something to vote on.

*Movies about Christ are the real money makers. New Line Cinema would have thought well about this before they filed chapter 11.

*Make movies that zealots will love, and you'll see a rash of people bootleggin' for the Lord.

Better still, throw in some zombies and vampires and watch the genre take off.


M.

[TimCallahan]

In my opinion if someone watches Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and doesn't feel some remorse or conviction over their sin that put Jesus on that cross, well there's just something really wrong with that.

Here, I think is what at least some Christians think Hollywood should "get" that it in fact doesn't get - and I don't either. You're saying that my sins put Jesus on the cross, even though I wasn't in existence until nearly 2,000 years after the event. Furthermore, most of us can't see that we've committed sins that are so egregious that a death penalty needs to be exacted for their atonement.

Of course, the only way one can make your argument that our sins put Jesus on the cross is to invoke the doctrine o original sin: in essence, that we're guilty of a sin we didn't commit because we were born as a consequence of sexual desire. I don't really see any point in arguing this with you, because I've found that such arguments go nowhere.

Perhaps it would be simpler to concentrate on what Hollywood should get to have you give some specific examples of films that exemplify the type of movies you think Hollywood sould be turning out.

[Marduk]

So my evil plan to write a multibook series about suave, sexy zombies and stun the world is right on track, then. :)

probably best to go with a suave plan to write an evil multibook about stunned zombies and sexy the world back on track imo
:p

[Simon39759]

Even though this movie is a bit too graphic and bloody, it does portrait the truth of how Christ suffered. I think everyone should see it at least once. Granted when I went to see it in the theater I almost walked out when the flogging started, but I stayed and just cried like a baby. In my opinion if someone watches Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and doesn't feel some remorse or conviction over their sin that put Jesus on that cross, well there's just something really wrong with that.

As for why religious people may have said that Hollywood should get the message, my guess is that the producers need to know Jesus and repent too. If more film makers would get saved just think of the better films they could make! Christians want to see less crud and swearing in movies for a start. We do not like GD in every movie, nor sex, nor violence, nor crime, or horror. Have people really sunk so low that they want to entertain themselves with all the wrong, ungodly things?


Well; I never asked Jesus to climb on that cross.

If he asked me my opinion, I would have said that I was fine with dealing with the consequence of my own acts. If I run a stop-light, I am fine with paying the fine, I don't want my neighbour to end up paying for me, regardless of the fact that he might be happy with paying it for me. And I especially don't want my neighbour to be put to death to atone for my sin, it's not his place to pay for may failings and, death conviction for such a small offence is disproportionate and cruel for that 'crime' anyway, just as an eternity of suffering is disproportionate and cruel for the limited transgressions in our lives.

Also, there is the fact that Jesus sacrificied himself for what he himself decided was unforgivable sins.
-'He, Simon, I am going to die for you'.
-'Don't do that, man, that crazy.'
-'No... I love you so much, I will do it... For you.'
-'Dude, stop that, that's creepy, I don't need even need you to'.
-'Yes you do, your sin as unforgivable otherwise'.
-'They are, I mean, who said that?'.
-'I did'.
-'I... ok... You decided you could not forgive me... Unless somebody died, and that should be you?'.
-'Why yes... I need to be nailed and a cross and flogged for me to forget your sins.'
-'You could not just decide to forgive me for whatever I have done (not clear on that still) and skip on the nailing and dying part? If anything, it would only add to the thing I would need forgiveness for.'
-'Don't forget the flogging. I really need the flogging.'
-'Dude, if you are into getting flogged, by all mean, please yourself, but, please, leave me out of that...'