Sept. 23, 2002, 10:29 a.m. CST
Sounds like an interesting project, but I bet you a gazillion bucks that the studio MAKES Mel subtitle it.
Sept. 23, 2002, 10:32 a.m. CST
I think it sounds like an amazing film. It is absolutely true that it will not be released without subtitles. I mean, maybe the cinematography will be so outstanding that we don't need words...that's what they tried to do before the talkies, right? But honestly, if he wants to make a film which the majority of people don't understand, why not just make a silent film? It sure as hell better be an amazing visual experience if the viewer can't comprehend the plot line!!
Sept. 23, 2002, 10:34 a.m. CST
If it were up to you, HP, every movie would just be one continuous shot of Brian Cox, sitting on the toilet. Classy, guy...
Sept. 23, 2002, 10:36 a.m. CST
It sounds like it's about the last 12 hours in the life of a famous guy who was tortured and killed. Of course, he was killed for his beliefs, and those beliefs happened to be religious ones, but still...
Sept. 23, 2002, 10:38 a.m. CST
Mel Gibson is among the most believable male actors working today. His emotions on screen are gut-wrenchingly authentic. I'll grant you that his direction is lacking and that lately his box-office numbers are down. However, the man can act his ass off. Personally, I think you spew such crap just to start arguments. I've watched you HP, and that seems to be your modus opernedai.
Sept. 23, 2002, 10:40 a.m. CST
Brian Cox on a toliet, that is some funny stuff.
Sept. 23, 2002, 10:42 a.m. CST
If your first post was "Nuff said" why did you post more? Nuff is Enough!
Sept. 23, 2002, 10:46 a.m. CST
by TheGinger Twit
Maybe it'll tell the story the way the bible tells it and not how the church dictates. Maybe it'll have the biggest walkouts this side of Freddy got fingered. Phewy... bet some top executive isn't allowed to forget greenlighting that piece of shite.
Sept. 23, 2002, 10:51 a.m. CST
by TheGinger Twit
But then, you really think he's still a top executive? Man that thing left a foul taste in my mouth. Expressing his talents my butt hole.
Sept. 23, 2002, 10:52 a.m. CST
If Gibson plays Christ I'll fall on the floor laughing. That's like casting Betty White to play Jeffrey Dahmer.
Sept. 23, 2002, 10:53 a.m. CST
by TheGinger Twit
I just can't imagine this. What's his game?
Sept. 23, 2002, 10:55 a.m. CST
Gibson won't be playing the lead role--read the article. He's offering it to Jim Caviezel. Although I'm not Catholic, Gibson's approach and desire to make this movie intrigues me. I'm sure it will garner the undeserved criticisms that "The Last Temptation of Christ" received, but hopefully this will get made nonetheless. Ditton on the necessity for subtitles--Aramaic and Latin would be a great option on the DVD, but it will be required for the theatre audience.
Sept. 23, 2002, 10:56 a.m. CST
by TheGinger Twit
I can garantee you now, the time this film comes out will be a very different world from now... NO ONE WILL CARE about this film.
Sept. 23, 2002, 10:57 a.m. CST
Oooh. I'm excited about this one. Whenever I see a period piece from ANY era, I always can't help but think 'phhht, as if they'd all be speaking American English back then.' Making this film with authentic languages is a good idea. And so is not using subtitles. No really. If any story can get by without comprehensible dialogue, its this one. Whether you're a devout Catholic, a Bible-hating atheist or a sheep-buggering satanist, chances are you know about Christ's last 12 hours on Earth. Though I wonder - will Mel make himself Jesus Christ, in 'freeeeedom!!!!!' bellowing Braveheart fashion? Probably.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11 a.m. CST
by Elliott Ness
But seriously, this sounds like one of Mel's practical jokes. And a good one for that! Too bad people at this side seem so desperate for news lately, they'll believe anything. Common guys, face it, the man is pulling your leg. Aramaic tongue, yeah right.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:02 a.m. CST
I just read the original article, and I think I changed my mind. Maybe it will be okay to not have subtitles. Maybe simply watching the story unfold and hearing these dead languages behind it is an amazing idea. It's like watching 2001 with Ummagumma.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:05 a.m. CST
You're probably right. Who's gonna play Christ's mother, Jeannine Garofalo? Jim Caviezel speaking a dead language? Right.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:18 a.m. CST
Jackie Chan is going to play Jesus.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:24 a.m. CST
He knows the obstacles ahead of him, but he wants to make this film, funding it by himself through Icon. It's a wonderful choice by a superstar. And his choice of actor is great too. He's put a lot of thought into this and we all know the story behind the making of "Braveheart." If Mel Gibson puts his mind to something, he'll do it -- regardless of what stands in his way. Yes, this isn't going to be commercial. Yes, it's going to be a challenge. But that's part of what makes it so attractive, so special. I wish Mel all the luck in the world because this film, just the concept of it, sounds amazing!
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:25 a.m. CST
Chris Tucker as Pontius Pilate.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:30 a.m. CST
As to the "first" part of the New Testament, the Gospels, partly because Mark mentions the Jewish-Roman war of the 70s AD, and because Matthew and Luke quote Mark, the consensus of mainstream modern scholarship is that the gospels were written decades after Jesus' death -- by people who never met Him! The gospels are not mentioned by in any other Christian writings -- Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, for example -- until after about 150 AD. Many scholars guess they existed before 150 AD -- but there is no evidence they did. The next time you're in Church, ask yourself: "What about what I'm hearing was new with Christianity, and what was already part of other religions in a culture where over and over again new religions were built with old parts?" When they get to the part about the the uniqueness of Jesus' life and theology, remember your co-religionists Origin, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and how they wrote that Jesus was not unique. You're hearing about a dying-resurrected Godman myth that predated Christianity by hundreds of years. More people have died in his name than under any other philosophy. "But He came to bring peace!" Yeah, right. Do you actually read the book? Or do people tell you what to read? Look.Here's the Gospel of Luke: 26. For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. Peaceful? More from Luke: 36. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Christianity is not at it's root, what you see in church. The churches are better now at whitewashing it with ten cent explanations. Lest you think I'm just bitching about religion, I'm a graduate of a N. Texas divinity school. Oh, and the rest of the Bible... Where is the land of NOD Look it up. And THINK FOR YOURSELVES. Great site Harry.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:31 a.m. CST
by Steve T
Sheep? Looks to me like he's trying to do something different and get a positive use out of his Hollywood pulling power. I have no great love (opposite in fact) of organised religion, but I would never be arrogant enough to dismiss the millions who do. Besides, believe he's the son of God or not (I don't) there's actually quite a lot of positive message to learnt from the story (IMHO there's a lot organised religion could learn from the book they keep bashing us over the head with). True or not, this is one of the great myths of all time and can stand a fresh treatment.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:34 a.m. CST
Judas is from Krypton.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:34 a.m. CST
Its gonna suck!
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:35 a.m. CST
by Bad Guy
"...lately his box-office numbers are down." -KONY 1) SIGNS (2002) $213,032,514 2) THE PATRIOT (2000) $113,330,342 3) WHAT WOMEN WANT (2000) $182,805,123 4) LETHAL WEAPON 4 (1998) $129,734,803 5) RANSOM (1996) $136,385,379. Yeah, dude, it would appear nobody is going to see Mel Gibson movies anymore. Sorry to be a dick, but you need to check your facts before making statements like that.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:39 a.m. CST
Its gonna suck!
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:40 a.m. CST
That last entry really flattened an otherwise light-hearted discussion...
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:42 a.m. CST
Does anyone know how to SPEAK Aramaic? Like Latin, it's a dead language, but at least with Classical Latin we know how it was spoken. That knowledge has been handed down. But no subtitles--WHOA!!! I would go see it if I knew what was being said--since they're going to have to embellish on what dialogue is in the Gospel--but if I can't understand a thing being said, why the heck should I bother? Mel's gone off his nut with this.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:43 a.m. CST
I have to admit, I find this whole concept intriguing. It brings to the fore an interesting fact: that if we were able to witness the last hours of Christ's life we would be in the interesting position of knowing exactly what was happening without being able to understand a single word spoken (considering you're not familiar with ancient languages). The idea of presenting the story in the true languages will add a tremendous amount of reality to the film. Whether the dialogue will be poetic enough to carry the visuals without subtitles is questionable, but you have to applaud the courage it takes to even propose such an idea in the current creative climate. I think if this is to be done, Gibson is the man to do it. His Catholic devotion is well known, but I've never known him to be the slightest bit preachy. I haven't always enjoyed his films, but I respect his range of interests. Good luck with your ballsy project, Mel.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:43 a.m. CST
That last entry really deflated an otherwise light-hearted discussion now, didn't it?
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:54 a.m. CST
by ryan mecum
its about time somebody tackled this subject. this sounds like the best film currently in the process of getting made. hollywood has dodged jesus movies for so long, and i think this would be unbelievably well received. ryan
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:54 a.m. CST
by Mister Pink
I'm not even a Christian but this is a wonderful, ballsy thing for Gibson to do. I think that Mel is hoping to achieve a genuine verisimilitude here. He is going for an almost documentary like feel; a sense that you are watching the actual historical event on film. So you won't understand what people are saying, so what. (actually, I have three years of college Latin under my belt so I'll understand at least SOME of it) Everybody knows the basic story. I don't think you'll get lost. BTW Mel Gibson is NOT playing Jesus. Read the fucking link people. Gibson is just directing. JC is being played by some guy named Jim Caviezel, who was in "The Count of Monte Christo" and "High Crimes." It is true, however, that Pontius Pilate will be played by Hulk Hogan. I was not excited when I first heard that MG was making a Passion play movie but Jesus fucking Christ, this is brilliant. We need MORE of this kind of thing. We NEED people with clout to give an absolute FUCK YOU to Hollywood conventions and make films that come sincerely from the heart. Personally, I don't even believe in God but I admire the fuck out of Gibson's courage and vision here. mark my words people, this will make all the other Jesus movies look like absurd, laughable shite.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:56 a.m. CST
There's lots to draw from.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:59 a.m. CST
This movie will be grossly miscast. Contrary to what mainstream tabloids would have you believe Jesus was not a 'blond-haired blue-eyed' caucasian by any means. He was born in JERUSALEM, in the MIDDLE-EAST, at a time when the middle east was nuthing more than desert. He obviously could NOT have been white...
Sept. 23, 2002, 12:07 p.m. CST
That's why we should thank our lucky stars that Jackie Chan is playing the role.
Sept. 23, 2002, 12:21 p.m. CST
.... Unless he's financing it himself. You guys can't be serious thinking that Mel can put together an honest and truly great pic about the final hours of Christ.... The guy who did The Patriot, Braveheart and We Were Soldiers..... Yeah, he'll treat the material with honesty. Unbelieveably, some of you guys think this will be anything more than just a waste of time. Trust me, I've seen Mel's boat, he's so rich at this point he's not even human - yeah, he'll do something like this right. I can't wait for the Burger King tie-in. If this isn't a prank I'd be very surprised. It's either a desperate art house facsimilie from people who think this gives them some credibility or its just a big joke and we're all a bunch of suckers for talking about it..
Sept. 23, 2002, 12:22 p.m. CST
Well someone had to...
Sept. 23, 2002, 12:23 p.m. CST
by Mister Pink
Anathema: Everything you see is correct, I agree completely. As a matter of fact, almost every aspect of the Jesus myth was lifted directly from earlier Greco-Roman mystery cults (For instance consider the story of Mithra. Mithra was born in a manger, to a virgin,on December 25. His birth was witnessed by shepherds who followed a star to get there. Mithraists had a ritual where the drank wine, which they claimed was Mithra's blood and ate bread which they claimed was his body. They also had a Mystery ritual in which a carved figure of Mithra was placed into a replica of a tomb. After 3 days the tomb was opened and Mithra had miraculously "vanished." All of this dates from at least 200 BCE. Mithra was a Sun God, also called Sol Invictus (invinvible sun) The death and resurrection of Mithra represented the winter solsitice. When Paul was selling Christianity to the Romans, He fused it with Mithraism to make it more palatable) HOWEVER that does not mean that a great movie cannot be made from largely mytholigical source material(for instance, the Trojan war is a heavily mythologized story with a kernel of historical truth. i doubt you would say that this could not be good source material for a movie.) Afa: I agree. The one thing which bugs me about Gibson's idea is that he really SHOULD have found a truly middle- eastern actor to play JC.
Sept. 23, 2002, 12:24 p.m. CST
...he had a penchant for anal sex, as well.
Sept. 23, 2002, 12:26 p.m. CST
other than the fact that movies about christ and christianity are usually trite and completely irrelevant, this article brings up a good point... WHY THE FUCK AREN'T MORE MAINSTREAM MOVIES IN LANGUAGES OTHER THAN ENGLISH?! i mean dear lord, how many more movies will be put out with german soldiers speaking english to each other (with german accents...sometimes). fuck the american public and it's aversion to subtitles, fuck it right in the ear.
Sept. 23, 2002, 12:31 p.m. CST
interesting choice for a user ID. Romans 9:3, wherein Paul states - "For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh", literally - he was willing to be separated and rejected from Christ, if by that means he could procure the salvation of my brethren. and didn't they teach you to cite a CHAPTER as well as BOOK when referencing the Bible?
Sept. 23, 2002, 12:33 p.m. CST
And Matrix 2 and 3! Go MEL!
Sept. 23, 2002, 12:33 p.m. CST
Reading your post, the term Educated Idiot comes to mind.
Sept. 23, 2002, 12:39 p.m. CST
Get mad at modern "Christians" all you want. DON'T put down Jesus, who hung out with hookers, crooks, gamblers, thiefs and other lowlifes. HE represented everything that a man should be; he lived humbly and sought only to enrich people's lives. Anyone who has read the Bible knows this. I hope that Gibson brings out this realistic side to Jesus. And if anyone can bring this project to life, its Gibson; the guy's passionate. Oh, and I always find it funny how the people who bring down Christianity are usually tolerant of just about every other religion out there (even Muslim). Talk about a double standard.
Sept. 23, 2002, 12:39 p.m. CST
You say: "Yeah, dude, it would appear nobody is going to see Mel Gibson movies anymore." The fact is, a domestic box-office run totaling less than $150M amounts to 'not so good' these days. At $10 per ticket, it comes out to fifteen million viewings which is less than "Friends" or "The Sopranos" can get in a week, much less a three month theater run. Don't get me wrong, I like Gibson as an actor and am a fan of his work, but his numbers (Signs excluded) aren't great.
Sept. 23, 2002, 12:39 p.m. CST
Shitner as Christ, Tom Boswick as Mary Magdalene, Roseanne Barr as Pontius Pilate. We've got a cast!
Sept. 23, 2002, 12:43 p.m. CST
I don't give a shit about jesus christ and I'm not a fan of organized religion but this sounds waaay better than that superman jive .
Sept. 23, 2002, 12:48 p.m. CST
by Elliott Ness
Subtitles not required, since no one would be there to read them anyway.
Sept. 23, 2002, 12:58 p.m. CST
by Magic Milkmaid
I always wanted to make a Sci-Fi film where all the main characters are various types of aliens and they don't speak English at all. Some of them are just vapour clouds that just hiss. I wonder whether anyone would ever pick that up....
Sept. 23, 2002, 1:06 p.m. CST
Jim Caviezel (Frequency, Count of Monte Christo) is a great choice to play Jesus. Like Mel, he is a devout Catholic and will play the part with respect and sincerity. I'm not a Catholic (I'm an evangelical Presbyterian), but I'm pretty sure Mel will do a good job of directing/producing this film. I don't expect it will do the box office figures of his mainstream films, but it will probably make a profit. By the way... whoever says that BILLIONS of people have been killed in the name of Christianity should be sent back to remedial math. Oh, and who is set on destroying America (blowing up planes/buildings) and just about anyone else? Hint: It's not the Christians!
Sept. 23, 2002, 1:07 p.m. CST
He shall be ressurected.
Sept. 23, 2002, 1:17 p.m. CST
by Eomer Fudd
I have a great idea for this movie!!! They should put in an action scene with Jesus surfing down a stairway on a shield, throwing nails at people.
Sept. 23, 2002, 1:17 p.m. CST
by The Hawk
This may sound weird coming from a guy from Utah, but I think we should wait and try to give Mel the benefit of the doubt. He has a religious background as a Catholic and enough actual faith to try this experiment. So just relax and maybe the Latin and Aramaic dialogue is just a rumor. Remember that a few years ago, Paul Verhoeven wanted to make a movie about Jesus as well. Thank the Deity you worship or thank just plain luck that he hasn't made it and pray it NEVER EVER comes to pass.
Sept. 23, 2002, 1:27 p.m. CST
Does the phrase "Straight to the Trinity Broadcasting Network" mean anything?
Sept. 23, 2002, 1:29 p.m. CST
The last hours of his life? Already been done. I'm not sure what poignancy Gibson thinks he can add that hasn't already been expressed in one of the thousands of "Greatest Story Ever Told" movies already created. *sigh* Honestly, how many times must we watch the same friggin story OVER and OVER? I mean, I know your faith is important to you, so do a story about it, but for God's sake (so to speak) do something original, people!!
Sept. 23, 2002, 1:29 p.m. CST
Maybe not, but according to HP, he had an insatiable penchant for anal sex.
Sept. 23, 2002, 1:31 p.m. CST
this proves that Mel Gibson has lost his mind. he has always had religion, but he has crossed over into the scizophrenic / paranoid / messianic stage that some famous people cross over into when their stars have dimmed. like Jerry Lewis with the infamous Clown Movie, like Michael Jackon with everything he did after Thriller, like George Lucas with his Star Wars prequals, like John Travolta with his Battlefield Earth. they begin to feed into a delusion of granduer, have messianic hallucinations, believe their own bullshit, and, in service to these illusions, make some of the most painfully bad and awkward statements in history. the idea, in and of itself, is interesting, but Mel Gibson is not the guy to do it.
Sept. 23, 2002, 1:33 p.m. CST
Darren Aronofski is the guy to do it, I think. Mel Gibson has too much of a glossy reputation for it.
Sept. 23, 2002, 1:33 p.m. CST
Yup. Little heathen here actually agrees with the guy. Faith is a beautiful thing, whether you have it or not. Don't try to take it from those who are blessed enough to experience it.
Sept. 23, 2002, 1:39 p.m. CST
How about, Jesus and Satan are brothers. Growing up, they never really got along, Satan was always tempting Jesus' pals. Jesus has a tough time growing up, really confused, very 'angst-y' and always had a crush on one girl that he could never seem to get enough courage to ask out. Jesus discovers he can fly at a young age and Ma Mary claps for him and stomps her feet, Jesus finally finds the courage to ask out that girl (who has a new, frizzy haircut) and she's impressed with him now, too. So one day, while milking a cow or something, Satan disappears, just like that - gone. Now cue 20 years later when Jesus has become a big STAR, Satan's come back to try to take some fame for himself. That's when Jesus finds out Satan implanted him with a special mechanical chip that monitors his every move! So Jesus invites a bunch of pals to a kegger, where he meets Michael and Judas and all those guys - who teach him how to have a fun time in Jerusalem. They go carting through the town square, like the wild bunch they are. They overthrow bird cages and generally just piss off the religious leaders of their time. Then Satan shows up to kill him as Special Agent Stanley Satan, like Chapman did to Lennon, but Satan has just a little gun, then Jesus pulls out a big gun like in the Matrix and says: "you know, Stan, when you're trying to assassinate the son of God.... size matters!' And with that last sassy comment, Satan is shot and thrown back, like 50 feet to everyone's astonishment. But! He comes back as a dragon and whips him with his tail. But! Then Jesus calls on the power of lightning and send him back into hell for the finale over a limp bizkit track. Then he gets married to that one girl, but is crucified soon thereafter, kinda like in Titanic. YEAH! Sounds good, but at the very end end, we see that Satan may not really be dead, which leaves everyone wondering, is he or isn't he? Then they'll want to come back for the sequel! YEAH!
Sept. 23, 2002, 1:45 p.m. CST
...people complain that there's no will to experiment in Hollywood, then when they do, everyone pisses on it. Yahoo. C'mon, people, if Mel goes for the no subtitle thing, it's not as if he's going to have long scenes of discussion between people. It will be a visual telling of a story, much like (first example that comes to mind) the extended subtitle-free scenes in DON'T LOOK NOW. You get what's happening, without having to know the specific text of what's being said. This can be an extremely powerful device, and since I'm assuming Mel knows he's not gonna be making HARRY POTTER sized numbers with this, it might turn out pretty Godammned powerful (no pun intended...wait, that was intended.) Also, Anthema, you make some good points, and certainly seem to have a better grip on historical reality than the average whining dolt, but unfortunately, much of your post sounds like it was written by a whining dolt, so go back to the drawing board.
Sept. 23, 2002, 1:46 p.m. CST
Veris in temporibus sub Aprilis Idibus habuit concilium Romarici montium puellaris contio montis in coenobio. Tale non audivimus nec fuisse credimus 5 in terrarum spatio a mundi principio. Tale numquam factum est sed neque futurum est. In eo concilio de solo negotio Amoris tractatum est, quod in nullo factum est; sed de Evangelio nulla fuit mentio. 10 Nemo qui vir dicitur illuc intromittitur. Quidam tamen aderant qui de longe venerant. Non fuerunt laici sed honesti clerici. Ianua Tullensibus aperitur omnibus quorum ad solacium factum est concilium. 15 Hos honestos sentiunt, intus et suscipiunt.
Sept. 23, 2002, 1:57 p.m. CST
Mr Pink, I wonder where you get your information from about Mithraism. Could it have been from manuscripts which date decades or even centuries AFTER Christianity had already spread? "The only dated Mithraic inscriptions from the pre-Christian period are the texts of Antiochus I of Commagene (69-34 B.C.) in eastern Asia Minor. After that there is one text possibly from the first century A.D., from Cappadocia, one from Phrygia dated to A.D. 77-78, and one from Rome dated to Trajan's reign (A.D. 98-117). All other dated Mithraic inscriptions and monuments belong to the second century (after A.D. 140), the third, and the fourth century A.D. (M. J. Vermaseren, Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae, 1956)." - Edwin M. Yamauchid, "Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?". and this quote also: The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, much too late for it to have influenced anything that appears in the New Testament. Moreover, no monuments for the cult can be dated earlier than A.D. 90-100, and even this dating requires us to make some exceedingly generous assumptions. Chronological difficulties, then, make the possibility of a Mithraic influence on early Christianity extremely improbable. Certainly, there remains no credible evidence for such an influence." - Dr. Ronald H. Nash, "Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?"
Sept. 23, 2002, 2:01 p.m. CST
by sackley whistle
Your moronic comment is exactly what makes people hate religion and its sheep. I have more spirituality and heart and soul than most christians, catholics and jews i know...and i am of no religion. because i follow what my heart and soul tell me to do, not what a misguided, misinterpreted, mislead faith tells me to do. Loving god is surely about embracing and experiencing everything your soul - the most godly part of you - wants to do. And tolerating evryone's ideas for they come from everyone's individual experiences. Which together, is god's experience. Don't judge, don't be a hypocrite. Just accept that people are different, and they are individual free thinkers. Why say noone likes them for being free-spirited? Are you renouncing god or something? can you follow this, or have you been brainwashed too? @the whistle man@ (you know how to whistle don't you?)
Sept. 23, 2002, 2:18 p.m. CST
disk one or two (i'm guessing studio), and at what point in the film do you start it? and, if you loop the music, does it re-sync with the movie the second time around ala darkside/oz? thanks
Sept. 23, 2002, 2:21 p.m. CST
That just like in Hollywood, nobody knows nothing about anything.
Sept. 23, 2002, 2:28 p.m. CST
The only problem with the synch is finding a copy of "Ummagumma" on cassette tape. The original Ummagumma was a double LP released in 1969. You can find it on CD. One disc has live songs on it, and the other disc was done in the studio. The cassette tape is a re-release of the studio version, that came out in 1973. It's not available on CD. That's why it's hard to find. The re-release version has the songs in a different order than the original. (Note I took the songs off both cd's, live and studio, which I needed, and burnt them onto a new cd and the synch worked quite well for me.) It is in this order in which the songs synch with the movie: Astronomy Domine The Narrow Way- part's I-III Grantchester Meadows Several Species Of Small Furry Animals... Sysyphus: part's I-IV The Grand Vizier's Garden Party- part's I-III How To Synch It Up: First you need the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey"(1968) by Stanley Kubrick. And the songs that you might have burnt onto a CD. The synching will begin on side 2 of Ummagumma with "Several Species.....". Pop in 2001: and fastforward to "The Dawn Of Man" and then let it play. Put your CD into your CD-ROM, push play, pause, then rewind it to the beginning of the CD. Count "The Dawn Of Man" as scenic scene 1. You will unpause the CD right when the 9th scenic scene starts. It's where the sky is blue with rock formation below. The rock with the hole through it. You should get familiar with this scene, so you know when to unpause the tape right when the scene pop's up. Mute your T.V. after you have unpaused CD (or before, it doesn't matter).
Sept. 23, 2002, 2:41 p.m. CST
Yeah, billions have been killed in the name of religion. Even the religion of atheism. Ask Stalin about that. And the next time one of you staunch atheists feels like calling religious people a bunch of sheep, try listening to yourself. You're bleating. sk
Sept. 23, 2002, 2:45 p.m. CST
You are absolutely right. That may be the most succinct thing I've heard someone say about religion in a long time. The "sheep" may have once been the followers of religion. Now the real sheep are the followers of anti-religion.
Sept. 23, 2002, 2:48 p.m. CST
"When their stars have dimmed?" Two of Mel's last three movies ("Signs," "What Women Want") are his two biggest hits ever!
Sept. 23, 2002, 2:56 p.m. CST
by Bad Guy
Okay, Kony, you say, "The fact is, a domestic box-office run totaling less than $150M amounts to 'not so good' these days." Wouldn't that depend on the budget of the picture? I'm sure the producers of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" are doing backflips over their, just over 100M B.O. take, so far. "What Women Want" had a budget of $65M and brought in over $182M. "Ransom", budget: $80M, B.O.: $136M. "Signs", budget: $62M, B.O.: $213M and counting. True, my other two examples of "Lethal Weapon 4" and "The Patriot", underplayed domestically, when compared to their budgets, but the figures I gave in my earlier post were just domestic box office, it did not include worldwide B.O, video/dvd rentals and sales, etc. And you HAVE to take all that into account. I got these figures from IMDB and I'm not sure if under "Budget", they were also counting advertising. Oh, and not EVERYONE is paying $10 per ticket for every showing. Here, in metro Detroit we're paying, on average, about $8 for full price and $5.50 for a matinee. A lot of people go to the movies during matinee prices.
Sept. 23, 2002, 3:14 p.m. CST
by Ludwig Curious
Okay, so Mel Gibson wants to end his career. Never mind Mad Max... this is Mad Mel. I can imagine this becoming a big hit in Catholic high schools though. Latin teachers lining up for copies. It'd be a great way to teach Catholic kids Latin. Other than that, what reason does this film have for existing ? Curiosity ? Yeah, that's it.
Sept. 23, 2002, 3:16 p.m. CST
by Mister Pink
First of all you quote a pre-Christian document of Mithraism and then you say that this is the "ONLY ONE," as if you haven't just proved my point for me. If there is EVEN one pre-Christian source, then Mithraism pre-dates Christianity DOESN'T IT. As a matter of fact there are Persian sources for Mithraism which date back to the 6th century BCE. Many of the Mithraic motifs originated with Zoroastrianism. (Zoroastrianism BTW is where we get ideas like good and evil, satan, Heaven and Hell, and a final day of judgement).Ronald Nash is a Southern Baptist preacher with no genuine credentials besides a philosophy degree. He is NOT a historian or archaeologist and he has a specific religious agenda, namely evangelical Christianity. There WAS a second century CE revival of Mithraism in Rome, and Roman Mithraism is what Nash is referring to in his apologetic arguments. He conveniently ignores all of the older, pre-Roman sources for Mithraism. You need to look for literature besides that which is written by reassuring Christian apologists. who are simply telling you what you want to hear. Let me reiterate before I go. Even ONE pre-Christian reference is ENOUGH to prove pre-existence.
Sept. 23, 2002, 3:20 p.m. CST
Sept. 23, 2002, 3:30 p.m. CST
...that`s totally weird, crazy and stupid!! WHAT THE FUCK??!!! realistic??? for me as a catholic it`s important to set the stories of the bible up in my world...WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ME??? that`s important... in my opinion that`s just a crappy idea!
Sept. 23, 2002, 3:39 p.m. CST
Yeah, maybe this is Die Hard 4! I didn't knock this film, much earlier, I was quite supportive.
Sept. 23, 2002, 3:56 p.m. CST
Wow, what stimulating, thought provoking comments. Sheesh! Mel isn't asking you to convert folks, but he seems to have succeeded in showing what bigoted, anti-social losers some folks can be. I thought Star Wars or Lord of the Rings spawned the most juvenile talkbacks, but some of you have hit a new low. While the internet gives you the courage to spew hateful demeaning dialogue, a little tact isn't too much to ask for. Of course, many of you have no respect for each other, much less yourselves, I guess it's too much to ask that you show a little respect for another's religion and not belittle it. If tearing down religious icons makes you progressive, learned, or somehow gives you a greater hold on common sense or reality than by all means go ahead. Just remember, there's a special cinema in hell for film geeks, but it only shows trailers for Adam Sandler movies and the feature is Barney's Great Adventure: The Movie. Rot in hell, you heathen bastards! Ha! (Childish final statement added to ensure no post in this talkback has any redeeming value.)
Sept. 23, 2002, 4:05 p.m. CST
A voice! speaking in my brain! And yet--it comes not from asgard! What sorcery is this???
Sept. 23, 2002, 4:26 p.m. CST
Gibson has repeatedly said he won't be playing Jesus in THE PASSION. The role is reportedly slated for Jim Caviezel (High Crimes, The Count of Monte Cristo, Frequency). Caviezel is also a devout Catholic BTW, about right age-wise, and not an unreasonable choice physically. And I think he's got the acting chops to honor the role.
Sept. 23, 2002, 4:46 p.m. CST
anathema1973: when you graduated from "N. Texas divinity school", did they teach you to cite chapter as well as verse? For the convenience of the rest of you, the passages anathema is citing are Luke 19:26-27 and Luke 22:36. And he's full of shit (anathema, not Luke). It's a typically ignorant and deceptive way to attack: ignore the many, many, MANY NT passages, quotes, and examples about PEACE and non-violent behavior, and instead take a few quotes and warp them out of context to reverse their underlying meaning. Allow me to shed some light on the verses which he has so grotesquely misrepresented: *****  Luke 19:26 -- " 'For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.' " This passage directly echoes Matt. 25:29 and Luke 8:18. All three quotes come at the end of parables about *spiritual* ownership. In the Kingdom of God, those who are spiritually rich are magnified, whereas those who are spiritually bankrupt are diminished. Luke 8:18 is particularly explicit on this last point: "whoever does not have, even what he SEEMS to have will be taken from him." This important scriptural lesson has absolutely nothing to do with the equible distribution of material possessions. *****  Luke 19:27 -- " 'But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.' " These are words spoken by the ruler in the parable, having "went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom" and returned. Many parables feature a similar figure -- a king, a landowner, a nobleman -- who instructs his subjects, departs for a time, and returns to judge his subjects with rewards and punishments according to their works. Thus, the example anathema cites is a foreshadowing of the LAST JUDGMENT and has nothing to do with Christians being encouraged to hunt down and slay non-Christians. It must be noted that whereas the *ruler* is shown meteing out this final judgment, followers of Christ are explicitly instructed to "judge not" (Luke 6:37). Furthermore, the gospel of Luke itself makes it abundantly clear that the correct interpretation of parables requires spiritual discernment (Luke 8:11). "Therefore take heed HOW you hear" (Luke 8:18). If, on the other hand, you want simple instructions from Christ on correct behavior, why not try "just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise" (Luke 6:31). *****  Luke 22:35-36 -- "And He said to them, 'When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?' So they said, 'Nothing.' Then He said to them, 'But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." We see here Jesus preparing his disciples for his imminent arrest. However you want to interpret his instruction to have swords on-hand, you cannot possibly suggest he means for them to be used for aggressive purposes: a few short verses later, one of the disciples attempts this very thing, and Jesus refutes the action, healing the victim! (Luke 22:50-51) In fact, Jesus' purpose in asking them to have swords may have been for the express reason of demonstrating that it was futile to use them! How else are we to read Luke 22:38, where, following Jesus' comment that anyone who does not have a sword ought to buy one, his crowd of disciples comes up with a whole TWO swords, and Jesus says "It is enough." He does not arm them in order to assert the rightness of bloodshed in His name, but rather the opposite! anathema thinks he is exposing contradictions within the peaceful message of Christianity, but he only exposes his own ignorance. His schooling in divinity seems to have done him about as much good as it did the Pharisees.
Sept. 23, 2002, 4:49 p.m. CST
If he isn't black then I'm not intrested. I'm sick of seeing skinny, long haired white boys playing Jesus. There is a perfectly good discription of Christ in the bible. How you get a scrawny hippy white boy out of that discription is beyond me. Hell, even the Romans of that time weren't white. Not saying they were Black but they certinly were people of color.
Sept. 23, 2002, 4:51 p.m. CST
Sept. 23, 2002, 4:54 p.m. CST
Three Oranges, I'm sure you were being sarcastic but atleast The Rock would be the right race.
Sept. 23, 2002, 4:59 p.m. CST
Wellll, I was basically quoting writer William Goldman if that helps you at all. In regards to Mel's Jesus movie, I say go for it. The fact that people are arguing that an audience wouldn't watch it or would watch it goes back to my first point.
Sept. 23, 2002, 5:02 p.m. CST
You mean Jesus was half Samoan!?!? <slaps forehead> sk
Sept. 23, 2002, 5:05 p.m. CST
Speak not of which you know not regarding Mithraism. The Roman mystery cult of "Mithras" has been assumed to be the same as the worship of "Mithra". In fact, it is likely that they are share little apart from the names of their deities. The evidence we have of the Roman cult is basically non-literary. There are no extant documents from within the group. The only writings we have about them are from their opponents (such as the early Church fathers). However, we do have archaeological evidence of Roman Mithraism in the form of carvings found in mithraea (Mithraic worship caves). All this evidence points to the central importance of the tauroctony, an event where Mithra is depicted as killing a bull. The location of these carvings within every mithraeum, and in fact in the central location of every mithraeum, indicates the centrality of the tauroctony. However, and this is crucial point, NONE of the Mithraic documents from the pre-Christian Persian Mithra cult show Mithra as having ANYTHING to do with a bull. There are other points to be made here, but all this to say that the academic consensus about Mithraism, such as it is, seems to be that the Roman and Persian religions are not to be equated. I'm not going to directly address the other claims (born in a manger, etc). Suffice it to say that they are either astonishing over-simplifications or outright mistaken. So-called skeptics can be so gullible. At least get your information from a reputable source. (Hint: This rules out the books in the "Occult" section of the bookstore with the sensationalistic titles and the publishers you've never heard of.)
Sept. 23, 2002, 5:27 p.m. CST
by The Llama
That was a very curious post, because it mixed together so well some historical accuracies with some assumptions. Now, I'm not really a practicing Christian...just an historian of the time period. And I do know that most historians, Christian and non, agree that the gospels were written around 70 AD, NOT 150. The Church fathers avoided quoting from the gospels because they were trained in classical schools of thought to use reason in order to substantiate belief systems. In addition, just because we understand it to have been WRITTEN then, doesn't mean it was widely available. No Kinko's in ancient Rome, you know. And, if we accept that they WERE written around 70 AD, that only means they were written after Jesus of Nazareth's death--what about that implies that the authors never knew him? He would have died around 30 AD. Anyway, that aside, I find this to be a fascinating experiment with movie-making, but I suspect you're right--he'll be forced at some point to add subtitles. But I wonder if they'll release it in a version WITHOUT? Would be interesting to see both and compare.
Sept. 23, 2002, 5:32 p.m. CST
Assuming Christianity is truly a revelation of God, I would EXPECT to find a set of common symbols and elements the world across. Why should what is supposed to be the complete fulfillment of authentic spirituality take place entirely removed from the ecumenical human experience of spirituality up to that time? That would be a rather sloppy and unconvincing way for God to go about preparing the world for His coming in to the world. Indeed, one of the *central miracles* of Christianity is precicesly that what had formerly been relegated to the realm of myth and what was hidden outside of history was made INCARNATE. For a well-explained essay on this subject, see C.S. Lewis's "Myth Became Fact" (found in the compilation "The Great Miracle"). To quote Lewis: "We must not be ashamed of the mythical radiance resting on our theology. We must not be nervous about 'parallels' and 'pagan Christs': they *ought* to be there -- it would be a stumbling block if they weren't....For this is the marriage of heaven and earth: perfect myth and perfect fact: claiming not only our love and our obedience, but also our wonder and delight, addressed to the savage, the child, and the poet in each one of us no less than to the moralist, the scholar, and the philosopher." Now, you may abuse Lewis (and I'm certain some will), and you may choose not to *believe* that myth really became fact (most of you probably don't), and you are welcome to reason-out and defend your various points-of-view until you're blue in the face ... but please don't expect that you're doing anything revolutionary by "exposing" Christ as a mythic figure. Of COURSE Christ is a mythic figure; he may be MORE than that, but he is certainly nothing less!
Sept. 23, 2002, 5:32 p.m. CST
Can I now say that I have killed the Dude Abides? sk
Sept. 23, 2002, 5:48 p.m. CST
by Mister Pink
You actually gave a pretty informed response(you knew about the whole bull thing) but you didn't really address my central point, which was that many aspects of Christian mythology were derived from pagan mystery cults. It is a FACT that Christmas is based on the Roman Saturnalia which celebrates the death and resurrection of the sun (Sol Invictus). It is a FACT that pagan mythology is filled with virgin births and resurrections. 6th century accounts of Mithras say that he was born of a virgin with only a few shepherds as witnesses. Mithras was referred to as "The way, the truth, and the light," as well as "the Word," "The son of God," and "The good shepherd." Worshippers definitely practiced a "communion" with wine and bread. Mithra was placed in a rock tomb called "Petra." He was removed three days later with great celebration. Persian Mithraists believed in a coming day of judgement in which the evil would be punished and the good would go to "paradise" (a Persian word). All of these are irrefutable facts. I do not get my info from the "occult" section of the bookstore but from years of academic study. I'm sorry the truth does not jibe with the carefully constructed fantasy world of fundamentalist Christianity. BTW Mithraism is far from the only pagan mythology which influenced Christianity, only one of the most important.
Sept. 23, 2002, 5:52 p.m. CST
Don't worry about me! I'm all right! The window...look out of the WINDOW!!!
Sept. 23, 2002, 5:58 p.m. CST
by Mister Pink
WHY should anybody ASSUME that? Why should anybody arbitrarily decide that THIS mytholgy, alone in all the world's mythologies is TRUE and all others are FALSE? Why would God give a shit anyway WHAT anybody believes. You're either a good person or you're not. BELIEF has nothing to do with it.
Sept. 23, 2002, 6:13 p.m. CST
One common theory I read while researching (i.e. not reading from the occult section or from Southern Baptist preacher/pseudo-professors) Mithraism was that it was an older pagan religoin imported from Persia by Legionnaires returning from the front. There it was enveloped in the roman pantheon of gods and demi-gods and eventually transformed into Sol Invictus (The Invincible Son, I mean Sun), which was a chief religion of the legions and politicians (many of whom were former soldiers). The sacrificing of bulls was very central to the religion in Rome, but never appears outside the Empire. It was most common in Rome and also along the border marches of England, Gaul, the Rhine and Persia where Legionnaires were many. The virgin story and the birthday on the Winter Solstice are both components of Persian Mithraism and also parts of other pagan religions of the time. Mithra was also the final judge and the prince of peace and bringer of light and many other such titles applied to Jesus Christ. Magicians and prophets and oracles abounded at that time across the ancient world, and many Christian teachings have parallels in contemporary religions of the time. This could lead one to believe that either God was planting the "truth" everywhere or that it's all bull and just a load of human invention, but that's a judgement best left to each individual I believe. I think what is most interesting from an objective standpoint (as opposed to an apologist or anti-Christian standpoint) is that large parallel between religions of the time. It would be dificult to believe that all the religions of that time could exist insulated from oneanother. Let's not forget what Easter is named after (Eustre, the pagan fertility goddess) or around the time it occurs (spring equinox). The Roman Empire at that time had amazing religious tolerance (except for Christians whom they viewed as atheists) and the religious variety was astounding, and fascinating.
Sept. 23, 2002, 6:27 p.m. CST
Sept. 23, 2002, 6:29 p.m. CST
While it's a strange example.......That CAVEMAN movie had it's own made up language and no subtitles but you could always tell what was happening. Good storytelling doesn't always mean heavy dialogue. Anyone whose read a Will Eisner comic or watched a Pink Panther cartoon knows that............ It may actually ADD something to the film. By not knowing what the characters are saying exactly, you have to focus more on their actions and raw emotions to follow whats happening. Could actually work!
Sept. 23, 2002, 6:31 p.m. CST
by Super Mendez
Bruce Campbell, of course. And since Mel Gibson is attached to it, how about Joe Pesci as Pontius Pilate. That is if Michael Palin is unable to reprise the role. Sarah Michelle Gellar could play Mary Magadalene, because hey, she's a slut, it's not too much of a stretch.
Sept. 23, 2002, 7:14 p.m. CST
by Magic Milkmaid
He's managed to keep up his Angelina Jolie/buggery quips for months! Ever reliable and always gets a laugh.
Sept. 23, 2002, 7:16 p.m. CST
Mister Pink: my point was not to convince you why you ought to believe in God, only to suggest that the fact that Christianity shares elements with a multiplicity of pagan religions (and it does) is not necessarily an indictment against it. I made this point by examining the same "evidence" from the perspective of one who *does* believe. That is why I used the word "assuming". I do not, of course, expect you to just blindly "assume" that Christianity is true. (Although it is on the basis of its being true that I recommend Christianity, not merely because it is "good." After all, "Do unto others" is an old and universal philosophy, and I would therefore not be offering you anything new or unique. "Jesus Christ is the son of God," on the other hand, is an idea specific to a person, a time, and a place ... one which is all-important if true and irrelevant if false) Props to "The_Fiend" for a reasonable commentary.
Sept. 23, 2002, 7:36 p.m. CST
First of all, the Church is going to have a fit about this. Second, the guy must have some financing in place, because this seems like a really risky project. The two-languages thing is going to kill it, even though I think it's a great idea. Jim Cavieziel is a good actor but he's awfully pretty.
Sept. 23, 2002, 8:10 p.m. CST
by Moose of Heaven
It should be Greek and Aramaic, with some Latin for the VERY few Romans who were in Palestine at the time. While Jesus of Nazareth's native tongue was Aramaic - it being the dialect of Galilee, where he grew up - nobody would've understood him the moment he set foot outside his home province. Like most Jews of his era he would've had to be bilingual, using Greek to talk to anyone else when he was traveling. Greek was the universal language of Judea at the time, having been forced on the Jews by the much more intrusive Greek conquest before the Romans arrived, and used to conveniently cut through the various regional dialects that had sprung up. As for the Romans, their presence in the middle east was never as great as any of the Jesus films has suggested... it was slight at best... they didn't consider it an important territory and ruled it mostly through proxy governments like the Herods overseen by a local governor and some minimal military support. "Bible films" have completely distorted the popular conception of first-century Palestine by drowning it in centurions like some Roman police state... ridiculous. ---------------- As for this movie, they can only possibly make it work with the following cast: Gibson - Jesus; Norton - Judas; Walken - Pilate; Hogan - The 12 Apostles; Shatner - God.
Sept. 23, 2002, 8:39 p.m. CST
Like Strider355, I hope that Gibson brings out this realistic side to Jesus, too. In fact, I especially hope they quote this humble and compassionate man when he says in Luke 19:27,
Sept. 23, 2002, 8:58 p.m. CST
I dunno, what would be a nonliteral way of understanding that passage?
Sept. 23, 2002, 9:14 p.m. CST
by FD Resurrected
I'd rather be laughing at baby Jesus on http://www.divine-interventions.com/baby.html. Direct hate mail to www.normalbobsmith.com I would be very interested if Terrence Malick were slated to direct a film about the life of Jesus in extinct languages without subtitles. Mel Gibson's not the man to pull it off.
Sept. 23, 2002, 9:20 p.m. CST
scroll up and read admonisher's post about that very same scripture. you're taking it a bit out of context.
Sept. 23, 2002, 9:22 p.m. CST
Er ... I mean ... That link offends even me.
Sept. 23, 2002, 9:29 p.m. CST
You can't have a Mideast type play Jesus for an American audience. It's that simple. By the way, how many of you geeks know that the concept of the Virgin Birth is simply a mistranslation of the Greek for first-born? Jesus was more accurately Mary's first born, not a virgin birth. But that virgin birth thing sure sounds appealing, doesn't it? That's how plays and movies get written. You also should be aware that Christ on the Cross is simply an update of Prometheus on his Rock. Jesus was in fact a reworking of the whole Prometheus story. This doesn't mean the man didn't do good deeds and change the concept of the Hebrews' Avenging God to the Christians' Loving God. He was a rabbi, for heaven's sake! Presumably he did some of the things they said he did. It's simply impossible for some folks to separate fact from fiction, especially when the fiction involves forgiveness and redemption.
Sept. 23, 2002, 9:33 p.m. CST
by a goonie
i am a Christian. i am fascinated by faith. i love faith. i love movies that attempt to translate, understand, or make profound discoveries about faith. certainly my favourite would have to be "The Last Temptation of Christ," which is quite simply the best Scorcese film i have ever seen. i am a huge supporter of Mel Gibson. the man is an immense talent hiding behind a Harrison Ford-size level of celebrity. he's only directed two movies, and only one of them is amazing. let's hope this is two for three.
Sept. 23, 2002, 9:55 p.m. CST
by Smeg For Brains
The cast better be mostly of middle eastern decent. Everyone with half a brain knows that jesus wasn't the long haired Charles Manson looking white guy that we always see in films. Again, accuracy in language is meaningless without accuracy all around.
Sept. 23, 2002, 10:04 p.m. CST
Sept. 23, 2002, 10:29 p.m. CST
WPOIreo KDJFeej Fejrkem,vn feirioa dkjfaeiiadlm,ang hhh rta qqq terty tkltryk hsjksoiotjm hs fgh t tshi io opopooo i tghg jdgf hdf gfhsfg hdh h dghs gh sgfhf hfdh dgh sdfg g rr d d effdfawert aeh dghg jyety hsfgf sdfgs fgrtyh jfjkjk gjkd gfhasgfweqrq qwer qwe qewr qe w qe edtr rt hg hhyj hm jk il ,j hh gfv f rffbfgb f ws j f klfd k d j g fd e tgyt yt y ttrrytehujk fv hjnf vcdsssfhkilk bvdf d sfg sf r rrtsfgvscvsdfgsadf fdd fdae - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"And the Oscar goes to. . . . . ."!!!!
Sept. 23, 2002, 10:43 p.m. CST
well, it actually is the nobleman still speaking, but that really doesn't matter since Jesus is referring to himself. However, he is referring to the final judgement day, not present times (then or now). Is it still a facet of God? No doubt. Make no mistake, He is a loving God who wants to give us humans every chance to turn our lives around and have a relationship with him even though we don't deserve the chance. But if we reject Him, there will literally be Hell to pay. Personally, I'm not a big fan of always preaching the "fire and brimstone" sermon so people can get scared and rush to get saved so they can have their fire insurance, but I still believe it to be fact.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:18 p.m. CST
I mean, it's not like we don't have enough filmed versions of the Jesus fable. But this one's going to be different. Right. I'll be impressed if he casts a middle easterners in all the roles. It would be funny to watch the western world react to the idea that Jesus wasn't a 6' tall anglo saxon hippie-looking dude, but rather a dusky-skinned, big-nosed, black-haired Arabic man, as history would suggest. Of course, none of this is interesting to me. I've just about had it with "faith" in this country. It's become a sick obsession to re-tell the Bible over and over, in hopes that some of us heathens who don't think it's worth the paper it's written on might convert. I'm not interested. How about a nice story about how the Christian religion caused the deaths of millions of people, resulted in unchecked child molestations, wife beatings, and hate crimes. The feel-good vibe of religion needs to be dispelled, and Hollywood needs to represent the non-Christian point of view on film some time... Or aren't there any atheists/humanists/agnostics in Hollywood?
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:21 p.m. CST
Jesus doesn't need sex appeal. The only description of Jesus' features in the Bible is that he was ordinary looking. When the soliders captured them in the garden, Jesus had to convince them he was Jesus. He wasn't some skinny white guy with blue eyes. He was a Palestinian Jew who grew up doing hard labor before he began teaching. Jim Caviziel and Oded Fehr are not exactly average, if you ask me. If Mel wants to do it right, he'd cast an unknown as Jesus, and not someone we've all seen in movies before to make it seem more believable. This is a very ambitious project - I'm surprised he'd cast a relatively known actor in the part.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:30 p.m. CST
I have no faith in Hollywood casting this thing properly, were it to happen. Monica Belucci as Mary Magdelene? Give me a break. The woman is beautiful, no doubt, but if Gibson fills this picture with Hollywood-types instead of trying to make it as historically accurate as possible it's going to look incredibly pretentious. Especially when you have these Hollywood types trying to speak aramaic and latin.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:38 p.m. CST
You're one of those people that thinks that every famous figure in pre-history MUST have been black, right? Uh, no. Jesus and the rest of his people would have been basically Arabic. The ancient Egyptians weren't black either. They, too, were Arabic. The NUBIANS were SORT OF black, but a northern, middle-eastern variant, and not the south African blood that most African Americans can claim as heritage. Any African American who claims a lineage that ties them to the pharoahs or Jesus is making things up to glorify their own race. I'm all for blacks getting credit where it's due, but stealing the racial heritage of the middle easterners is not a good way to do it. I'm Native American, and you don't see me claiming that Plato or Aristotle are in my heritage... I don't mean to be inflammatory, but man- Those historical figures were NOT black, and I'm a little annoyed by the number of young black people who want to take credit for building the pyramids and being descendants of Nefertiti or Tutankhamun. If ANYbody is a descendant of Nerfirtiti or Tutankhamun, it's guys like Osama, Muamar Quadaffi, and Saddam Hussein. Westerners may dislike Arabs, but that's no reason to try to strip them of their heritage.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:46 p.m. CST
you're complaining because there are too many "Jesus movies"? I find that pretty funny since Christians are constantly mocked whenever they complain of too many movies with senseless violence, sex, and bad language. Well let me tell you what we've always heard, "YOU DON'T HAVE TO WATCH IT." I'm sure the Vin Diesel XXX franchise will thrive for your personal enjoyment for years to come.
Sept. 23, 2002, 11:55 p.m. CST
This "family man, good Catholic" thing is a sham. Just ask any of the (attractive) female PA's from "The Patriot". Also, who the fuck keeps deleting my references about Jason Lee being a scientologist?
Sept. 24, 2002, 12:07 a.m. CST
by Noriko Takaya
3 of them, actually. A serious, historically accurate all-out bloodbath of a trilogy that spans the whole of the 1st Crusade, from the initial call to arms by Pope Urban II in 1095 to the seige of Jerusalem in 1099. It would make Gladiator, Star Wars and Conan combind look like juvanile crap. Do *not* pretty it up. Show all the mayhem and slaughter, the glory and the horror: the battles, the burning cities, the torturing, the looting, the rape, sack and massacre that went on in the name of religion. Take the viewer into the minds of the people on both sides who could do these things in service of their god. And at the end, they could show Jesus and Mohammad up in heaven looking down going "Yup. Assholes. Every one of them." Then have Mother Mary trying to restrain God from novaing the sun. Toppu o Nerae!
Sept. 24, 2002, 12:13 a.m. CST
by Cysm Ltyh
the willis/bellucci film is a war film, initially titled 'man of war' then something like 'vertical rescue'. new title is better, and belluci is a godess. and last temptation followed christ up to the crucifixion, after which he rose from the dead ie continued to live ie said film was not about jesus's last days and mel'll need an actor good enough to ignore all is directions - vincent cassel?
Sept. 24, 2002, 12:16 a.m. CST
Of course this movie, if made and unsubtitled, will not be appreciated by mainstream audiences. But neither was 2001, if I remember correctly. The quality of the film will be realized in its ability to let the viewer form his or her own ideas about the story. Truthfully, I think it will be a fantastic experiment; I think most people will find themselves searching for their own words for this story, and that will leave the audience with a lot of personal investment. Faith, in reality, is a difficult thing for a person to explain, and those of us that have grown up with and around it have been saying for years that it should be a personal experience, not thrown out there for everyone to be forced to agree with. Here, Mel Gibson is attempting to take what is arguably the most famous story in history and allow people to draw their own conclusions on it, see it from their own eyes, and add to it what they feel it deserves. Allowed to use their imaginations, I think that people will find themselves writing perfect dialogue and understanding everything about the movie. After all, it certainly won't be more incomprehensible than something like Mulholland Drive, can it? Don't toss this one off so easily, whether it's the worst or the best film of when it comes out, it will be talked about for years.
Sept. 24, 2002, 12:19 a.m. CST
Would I see the movie? Yes. The language thing is kind of odd. I am not anti- Religious by any sense of the word. Religion is what gets millions of peoples minds off their own mortality and is quite sublime and peaceful for those who wish not to be reminded of it. The Bible is one of the most beautiful books ever written...no, I take that back. Lancelot Andrews, the chief translator under King James, fashioned a great piece of English literature out of rough Greek/Aramaic/Chaldaen sources. Many omissions were made in the canon of the church, the Pseudepigrapha (21 books)Apocrypha (19 books), and over 150 New testament writings. So what is the Bible really? It is a book that is indispensable for those who would like a full appreciation for literature from Chaucer to Goethe to Ginsberg. But it's just a book.
Sept. 24, 2002, 12:38 a.m. CST
Ah, wonderful stereotyping. Yes, of course, why would an atheist/humanist/agnostic, or pragmatist or freethinker for that matter, want anything besides violence, sex, and bad lanuage, heathens that we are? God forbid a nontheist produces something meaningful and significant. Surely we couldn't come up with anything as spiritually redeeming as Mel's "Payback," right?
Sept. 24, 2002, 12:42 a.m. CST
by Mark Twain
Possibly. I would be shocked if this got made, but I support Gibson's desire to do it. I suspect few people would see it, but wow! And they say Hollywwod won't take chances. I'll eat my hat if this gets done.
Sept. 24, 2002, 12:56 a.m. CST
by Clark Clay
Sept. 24, 2002, 1:08 a.m. CST
The guy's from the Middle East (Israel, actually), he has a commanding bearing about him (Jesus was known for being a charismatic speaker), and would fit right into the period setting without any trouble. That, and he's got the potential to become a big star (he was the one thing that EVERYBODY loved about the MUMMY movies) and this would be just the thing to set his career skyrocketing. (As for him not being "average," well, Jesus was a carpenter. I would expect that he would have been in good physical shape.) But Caviezel might be able to pull it off (Jeffrey Hunter and Max Von Sydow were able to capture who Jesus was on film with great success), so I'm not going to complain about the casting too much. My main concern is Gibson's not wanting to use subtitles. Being a Christian myself (Baptist, specifically), I sympathize with Gibson's intention of trying to make it as accurate to the period as he can in terms of the details, but why forego subtitles? There's a line between artistic integrity and just being plain loony, and Gibson's riding the line really carelessly here. There's no point in making a passionate, heartfelt film about Jesus' life and death/rebirth when nobody would be able to understand a word the actors are saying. All the effort would just go to waste. If he wants to shoot the film in the ancient languages of the period, that's fine. By all means, do it. But don't forego subtitles. The audience at least deserves to know what the actors are saying. KING OF KINGS and THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD wouldn't have been anything even approaching the classics they are if the audience would have been going, "WTF are they saying? Shouldn't there be subtitles or something?" A little common sense would be nice here, especially considering who the film's subject is. Show the big JC some respect here. People at least should understand what he and everyone else is saying on film.
Sept. 24, 2002, 1:15 a.m. CST
Sept. 24, 2002, 1:36 a.m. CST
This is a very intriguing project, by the sound of it, and it is a good idea to get a relative unknown (albeit a white one) to play Jesus, but I sincerely hope GODPAINART was joking when he said Mel Gibson is the greatest actor and director alive ---- he's a decent director, but don't you think Martin Scorsese would do a better job with this? Oh, wait, he already did.
Sept. 24, 2002, 1:47 a.m. CST
Here's the concept: Jesus is dying and we follow Him and His pals during his last 12 hours before death by crucifixion. The whole thing's in Latin and Arabic and it's set in a real New York apartment with a dozen actors as the gang performing the whole thing improv style!! We shoot 12 hours of footage, cut it down to 90 minutes, add an MTV style soundtrack and we're done!! It can't lose!! Well, at least it sounds better than Abrams' Superman script.
Sept. 24, 2002, 2:44 a.m. CST
by The Llama
Hey, no offense, but I think you missed one detail--if you're going to use the Bible as a text, it pretty clearly states that Jesus was not an only child. Take a look at just one of the passages that says such--Matt. 13:55.
Sept. 24, 2002, 2:46 a.m. CST
by The Llama
Actually, Costner's big sophomore directing bomb was Waterworld...THEN he went on to waste our time with The Postman.
Sept. 24, 2002, 3 a.m. CST
Get it right: ditch Caviezel. Get an ordinary-looking Jewish man.
Sept. 24, 2002, 3:04 a.m. CST
It's not about whatever you think about religion, or the meaning of Jesus. It's about the last few moments of this man's life. It's about what faith is to the people that are around him and the faith in him before and when he dies. And that's what you're supposed to think about. I think it's obvious about the message that Mel Gibson is trying for here.
Sept. 24, 2002, 3:52 a.m. CST
Go Mel! Go fuck Hollywod! Who cares about commercial prospects , besides do you even need money still?
Sept. 24, 2002, 4:29 a.m. CST
Whether it works or not, this should serve a lesson to powers that be in Hollywood, who repeatedly rely on overused formula, (which Mel is sometimes quite guilty as well if I may add), to take SERIOUS risks on PASSIONate artists WITH commercial value. So Mel, go kick some ass!!!!
Sept. 24, 2002, 7:38 a.m. CST
Now THAT would be an interesting twist... Jor-El goes back in time to become the ultimate representation of a religious savour icon... and he reveals this in the future to show Superman's holy stature and that he is actually the 2nd coming of Jesus! Wow, what a story!
Sept. 24, 2002, 8:37 a.m. CST
Mark, the movie will get made, but it will most likely wind up on the shelf. That's the tragedy of it all. Most movies get made, they just never get sold. HP, I heard Mel is re-writing the story a bit. Pontius Pilate is going to give Jesus an ultimatum: anal sex or die. We all know Jesus' choice. He said "yes" to God, too!!
Sept. 24, 2002, 8:54 a.m. CST
by Rand Race
Mithra was a Persian God, not a Hellenistic one. I believe you are confusing Mithra - one of many, many reborn Gods (including of course The Christ) - with the Dionysian Mysteries from which much of Christian pagentry was lifted. Mithraism was Christianity's foremost competitor in the Roman Empire, being the prefered religion of the legions, until Constantine's conversion.
Sept. 24, 2002, 8:57 a.m. CST
Who exactly is going to pay to sit through a religious epic in this day and age? No-one. For it to be on the same scale as "The Ten Commandments" it would need to cost more then could ever be recouped. Not even a cameo from an ageing Heston as Moses could save this film. Plus, this will probably end up with an adult classification, automatically excluding a major proportion of the gullible masses who still believe in Santa Claus, God etc.
Sept. 24, 2002, 8:59 a.m. CST
I just had a wondeful vision of a John Woo directed crucifixion scene. There's always hope! That's what the bible says anyway...
Sept. 24, 2002, 9:36 a.m. CST
This is from the New York Daily News, Rush and Malloy: Angelina Jolie's body double in the upcoming Lara Croft sequel is none other than a man, temporarily tamed to resemble the curvy actress. "We managed to fit him with a pair of false breasts, which didn't look too bad," said one insider on the set. "When it came to Lara's tight-fitting trousers, there was very little we could do about this guy's shape," the source tells London's Daily Mail. "His relevant bits were strapped down" ...
Sept. 24, 2002, 10:09 a.m. CST
by jack dulouz
you know i don't have faith, but i envy those who do and think this film would be amazing if they do not subtitle it. if they do, i have no interest. But half my problem with organized religion is that it tries to simplify something you cannot. And puts words in people's mouths and then says - no really, he said THIS and then uses that to govern when it is easily false. But to tell this story, whether it happened or not, without 'words' in a time when i think most people are looking for something to believe it, would be amazing. and i disagree, if this film were done right, it could make a killing at the box office (not that i care but someone somewhere does). but i think it cant be heavy handed, it can't exclude different religions too much, should tell a universal story about a man who loves people very much and has to die for them, even though he is scared to. Now whether he is the son of god, or if he just believes it in his head or whatever doesnt even matter then. you get to that root, the decision to have faith and to be completely selfless and that is hugely powerful whether it is truth or fiction or a mix.
Sept. 24, 2002, 10:18 a.m. CST
This TB is painfully boring.
Sept. 24, 2002, 11:21 a.m. CST
But will Jesus have organic or mechanical webshooters? And what of the Pharisee hulk dogs, etc, etc?
Sept. 24, 2002, 1:28 p.m. CST
Someone up there said that a movie with Jesus crashing a jet into a building would be an accurate portrayal of him. Obviously this guy hasn't read the Bible. And anyone who believes that Jesus told people to "bring their enemies before him" so he could kill them, obviously hasn't read the Bible, or doesn't understand it. Go read the Good Book before you start quoting it. Jesus healed a soldier who was arresting him; he put his ear back on. Jesus asked God to forgive the Romans who were crucifying him. Jesus stood up against the religious establishment, basically told them all to bugger off. Jesus was the ultimate hippy. Go read the Gospels and see for yourself. Like I said before, don't go saying Christianity is evil just beacuse some fundamentalist assholes blow up abortion clinics. That's just as fair as saying Muslim is evil just because some fundamentalist assholes blew up the Twin Towers. They are not true practicers of their faith.
Sept. 24, 2002, 1:36 p.m. CST
Scorsese's Christ story is bad, BATTLEFIELD EARTH bad. It includes a whiny angst-filled Jesus, a preachy Judas with an improbable Brooklyn accent, a Peter Gabriel pop soundtrack, and worst of all, it was a narrative mess; the story was all over the place. I love Scorsese, but you could throw this in with other famous misfires like Spielberg's 1941, or Lucas' HOWARD THE DUCK.
Sept. 24, 2002, 1:44 p.m. CST
IT WAS MINE!!!
Sept. 24, 2002, 2:02 p.m. CST
"It includes a whiny angst-filled Jesus." You mean a questioning individual, like the guy (if he did exist) would have been? "a preachy Judas with an improbable Brooklyn accent" Yes, let's pick on Harvey, and not Willem for Jesus, who would indeed have looked fair and spoken ENGLISH (if you're going to pick on a movie for something like that an accent, then you have to pick on everything else). "Peter Gabriel pop soundtrack" Yes, movie should be required to use music consisting of only the instruments they had at the time of the story being told (there goes EVERY medieval and before movie ever). "it was a narrative mess" Well, that's just kind of unfair, given the material being worked with.
Sept. 24, 2002, 2:05 p.m. CST
I figure, whatever you need to keep yourself in a stable frame of mind in this often painful and confusing reality we all live in is fine, as long as it doesn't make you stupid and/or insane. as long as it doesn't make you do stuff like hate or persecute others for their differences, or do kooky stuff like fly panes into buldings. personally, i have a respect for all religions in terms of their texts and insights into the human psyche. also, for how they lay out a system of basic human ethics and morality. also for their imagery and archetypes. one of the problems i have with some religions, however (especially Catholicism), is that they tend to hinge these ethical / moral guidelines on fear of retribution from some supernatrual source. for instance: if you do these things, you will be punished. so this means that people will hold back from "sinning" because they are afraid to go to hell, for instance. i don't believe there is any afterlife punishment, and that the rewards are reaped in this world: what goes around comes around kind of thing. again, even this is dodgy because, if your good to others, this doesn't mean they are going to be good back to you. this can be seen succintly in the story of Jesus who basically is betrayed and murdered by the people he tried to help. the idea is to be good, regardless of payment in return. the good acts are their own reward. it's very difficult and very true. that's why most people are selfish and tend towards cruelty: it's easier. so, i guess people do need to be frightened into being "good". it's just a shame, that's all. why can't we all just get along? sniff, sob, choke. heh, seriously though...
Sept. 24, 2002, 2:20 p.m. CST
I'm referring to the part where one of the black slaves in prison relates his understanding of the Christ story to another, while paging through an illustrated Bible. It is a moving, lyrical scene that is visual story-telling at its best. Bravo, Mr. Spielberg.
Sept. 24, 2002, 3:01 p.m. CST
One can debate all day about Mithraism. No, we have no knowledge of the Roman form of the mystery. Yes, the Persian religion predates Christianity. No, it's not established that the Persian religion relates to the Roman one. Yes, most Mithraic documentation comes from the 1st century and later. No, the Christian canon was not "closed" until well into the 5th century, making all points about canon rather moot. Yes, Origen et al refer to the commonality of Christian faith. No, Origen et al do *not* know nothing of the gospels, many of them seem to refer to Matthew although without direct citation. What's missing in all of this? Judaism. Jewish religious language was the number one influence on early Christianity; Hellenistic religious language was number two, and then became number one after about the mid-3d century. Mithraism may be uncannily similar (mainly because secular "apologists" of the science of history, like myself, wanted to make it so), but it is certainly not the primary influence. Paul's letters know nothing of the Mithras story (i.e., the Jesus birth story); clearly, the story was not all-important for Christian worship until well into the 2nd century. It would be well not to mistake formative Christianity with patristic and post-patristic Christianity. It cheapens the tradition and even atheists like myself should be ashamed of that. But what *I* want to know is: why the hell are they filming this in LATIN? Palestine was a Greek and Aramaic speaking region. Latin was not the dominant language and even the "centurions" (which presumably they will have in the film) spoke mainly Greek. Silly people. Oh, and in case my credentials are in question: B.A. Religion '95, Yale M.A. New Testament '01, present New Testament grad student, Emory University. I know whereof I speak.
Sept. 24, 2002, 3:14 p.m. CST
"Nice Try", but your flashy argument is old and tired. Whether you like it or not, in 100 years time the Bible will still be the No.1 Bestseller of all time and your name will be long forgotten (even by your own family). Religious themes make for good source material and the Bible has certainly produced some good stuff. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted/ Your knee jerk reaction only shows your ignorance of true faith, but I'll voucher if the movie is any good you'll wind up going to see it anyway.
Sept. 24, 2002, 4:53 p.m. CST
by son of jango
This movie is gonna be a colossal flop, especially if there is no subtitles. I have to give Gibson props because it is a ballsy move and it sounds like a subject he's very passionate about, but ballsy + passionate doesn't equal "good idea". Without subtitles, Gibson will be making a movie that only 15% of the world's population and even less of the U.S.'s would be able to understand. Does anyone speak Aramaic anymore !?! And it's not like the story of Jesus lends itself well to physical acting or pantomime, so you can't rely on body language or facial expressions to make up for the lack of dialogue. Most movies about Jesus are heavily reliant on dialogue and if Mel goes the proposed direction he is going with this, then this movie will be an utter failure. I always cringe when a celebrity wants to spearhead a project that deals with his/her faith or a cause because the whole thing just stinks of pretensiousness to me. This movie has the potential to be Battlefield Earth bad.
Sept. 24, 2002, 4:58 p.m. CST
is, as Joe Bob Briggs pointed out, that you already know the ending. Mel should jazz it up a bit, like in the remake of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" he made with Homer Simpson. Christ rises after three days - and he's really pissed. He kicks down the door of the Temple and slaughters all the Pharisees. Then he confronts Pilate: after some whoop-whooping and slapping around, Three Stooges style, he drags the hapless Roman to Golgotha and nails him to the cross. Just before he walks into the sunset, he quips, "Hang in there, Pontius!" Actually, I think Jim Caviezel is a decent choice for Christ, though when I picture him in a beard I think of his bloodthirsty Confederate guerrilla in Ang Lee's Civil War movie "Ride With the Devil."
Sept. 24, 2002, 5:02 p.m. CST
I have this great idea...Let all of talkback's most prolific thinkers try this on their (some extremely swelled, some not so) heads. Pretend there are two, super-powered beings. One is all powerful; the other, while still very powerful in his own right, is only but a shadow of the other, but a diabolical shadow. We'll refer to the Higher power as "the Great ONE," and the lesser power as "little god." The Great ONE is a master artist, a master of everything. He creates out of his passion a creature called man. He loves man, and sets him up in an incredibly simple, yet complex environment, where a balance must also be struck, and trusts him to independence. Unfortunately, little god sees this as an awesome opportunity to inflict pain on his enemy (or flame him, for those who live on the Internet, where all could haves are could ofs), and being of infinite intellectual powers, he causes man to cross the line of balance that the Great ONE has drawn. Man crosses this line with the best of intentions, thinking this will bring him closer to the Great ONE, but inadvertently succumbs to the world on the other side of that line. This world of the rule of the little god, where the Great ONE is no longer in direct communication; where his beloveds have chosen for themselves. You see, the Great ONE grieves for his beloved ones; he made them as a direct reflection of himself, and in three parts. He made them body, soul, and spirit. The body contains the soul, which is the unique individual, and which also contains the spirit. When man crossed the line, he was unaware that, once on the other side of the line, he would lose conscious awareness of a very big part of himself; his spirit. Oh, he did not depart from his spirit. No; for without the spirit, the soul cannot reside within the body. No, the hard-line to the spirit was not cut. Instead, it was scrambled, never again to be fully recognizable while residing within the body. The little god knew exactly what he was doing...just the first little step in a much larger plan. So here is man...struggling to fill the gap...filling it with all the garbage that little god can provide. Little god's biggest and best trick? Convincing man that he really does not exist, allowing man to give himself all the credit, and even killing in the name of the Great ONE. Gee...I wonder just what that other 90% of human brain matter could possibly be used for...maybe naming every creature on earth? Or helping out little god by debating the fact that neither exist. What Mr. Gibson is doing is probably the most honorable thing a Hollywood icon like him could possibly do. Unfortunately, he will likely destroy his career in the process, since educating the uninformed (or misinformed) is, after all, a big no-no. After all, little god has spent an infinite amount of time making sure that any Biblical education is either trite, or illegal. It is, after all, where you direct your worship. For most these days, their object of worship resides in their mirror. Oldest trick in the good book. "Eat of this, and you shall become like God..." "Proclaiming to be wise, they become fools." Christ came to wipe away the lines, to provide a way back to the Great ONE. He was perfect, the ONLY perfect human who ever existed. There is NO Christian alive that can honestly live up to the title so long as they are bound by the flesh. It is impossible. We are a bunch of blind, pride-filled sheep. Why does Christ refer to us as his sheep? Because sheep are the stupidest creatures on the planet. The shoe fits, as so many talkbackers effortlessly prove daily. All are hypocrites, no matter what label they choose to wear, be it Christian or atheist. A true Christian will acknowledge this, while an atheist does the finger pointing with little god's own favorite "H" word on the tip of his soon-to-be-forked tongue. If you're an atheist, you will not be in hell two seconds before you change your views, for all the good it will do you then. If you're a believer, take courage: the daily taunts provided by puppets of little god are merely there to make you stronger. They do, after all, fulfill their little god's desires, and wear the puppet strings proudly. I look forward to Mel's effort. I only hope this feature about Christ is portrayed more realistically than all previous films. I expect to see him torn to ground beef at the flogging. I expect to see a man so torn apart that he should have been dead before even bearing the cross. May God bless Mel Gibson in this endeavor, and anoint this film to open blind eyes, and touch loveless hearts that have only experienced the cheap artificial love of the god of this world.
Sept. 24, 2002, 5:14 p.m. CST
by Bababooey Fett
Why would a self described atheist waste his time doing graduate work in "New Testament" studies? Rather like a gay man spending all of his time at a strip club. What's the deal?
Sept. 24, 2002, 6:30 p.m. CST
what everyone has to remember is that Judaic prophecies from the beginning of mankind in Genesis (as mentioned above) throughout the Old Testament refer to the prophecies of Christ's birth, death, and resurrection. Therefore Paul or anyone else would not have "stolen" the idea from any other religion; it was already in his own! And I'm sorry if I offended you Nightwatchman and any atheists/agnostics. You have the right to your beliefs. But I don't think your beliefs would change even if you knew Jesus wasn't a warmonger, or if you knew there was no substance to the Mithraism theory. Even if I dug up a blood-stained cross that scientists proved to be some sort of God-blood, I still don't think any of you would believe, so I don't think harping on any of these things are important. It's just like George Michael said, "Ya Gotta Have Faith." Did I just destroy my own credibility? Feel free to email me if you'd like to discuss further.
Sept. 24, 2002, 7:07 p.m. CST
C'mon. Spare me the arty pretention. What is the point of filming a movie in a language/languages that no one speaks, AND NOT PUTTING IN SUBTITLES? Answer, none. If all this is true, Mel would be best advised to come to his senses and put the little yellow words at the bottom of the screen. Either that, or have Monica Bellucci naked in every single scene. THAT, I would go to see. Actually, if Mel isn't interested in letting his audience understand the dialogue, then why bother with dialogue? Why not just go ahead and make a silent movie?
Sept. 24, 2002, 9:09 p.m. CST
When someone says something like "If you're an atheist, you will not be in hell two seconds before you change your views, for all the good it will do you then" it's probably asking too much to ask them "Prove it." Why is it that in most matters of the world, empirical evidence is the final arbiter, and yet in matters of religion, all empirical evidence is triumphed by something called "Faith." Rationalize it all you want, but believing something without any evidence, (i.e. faith) that's just nuts. Even crazier is attacking those that don't share your faith/hunch/belief. I guess if you can believe in an magic old man on thrones in the skies and a little evil man in red who boils people in sulphur for having premarital sex, it isn't too far of a jump to telling people that they are going to hell. And if you believe that story about Jesus, I got a great story about green martians and a three-eyed whore that you'll just love. In all seriousness, I think that this is a great idea for a movie though. Though I'm an athiest, I think there are many many good things to be found in the Bible, along with many bad things I suppose. For every part that reads like an epsiode of COPS, there are parts that are at the bare minimum a good guide to personal morality, whether or not there's a giant cosmic Santa with naughty and nice lists or not.
Sept. 24, 2002, 10:40 p.m. CST
I have no problem with any religion that has no problem with me. The trouble is, all the Abrahamic religions demand their adherents to subscribe to a dichotomous world view. That means there's "us" -- the good guys -- and "them" -- the bad guys. The result is nothing more than hateful, bloody tribalism, and whoever ain't in the tribe is, a priori, the enemy. From that follows demonizing, villifying, and stereotyping all that don't hold the tribe's beliefs, which makes it easy to say, "Even if I gave you hard evidence, like God-blood from the holy cross, you'd never believe, 'cause your different than us. You're incapable of seeing The Truth. Why don't you just go to your stripclub, heathen?" It makes it easy to assume you know everything about "them" without ever bother to find out who they are, what they think, or why ... like you've just done, tengohead74. The current president of the United States has stated he doesn't believe nontheists can be patriots. Certain religious leaders have sided with the Taliban, and blamed atheists, gays, pagans, and the even ACLU for the terrorist attacks. Bitter? Me? Oh, a tad.
Sept. 24, 2002, 11:19 p.m. CST
As I've said in an above post, I'm not into the whole "fire and brimstone" sermon thing. And I'm sorry if I offended you Nightwatchman, but I think you misunderstood me mostly because I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to imply that you could never understand because I'm better than you, because I'm certainly not. In fact the apostle Paul claimed to be the worst of all sinners. I was trying to say that I'm never going to produce enough evidence to convert the world to Christianity; it can be done only through love and faith. I realize the word "faith" may seem like a cop-out, but it's a cornerstone of Christianity, more than just a way of getting around a lack of evidence. And I don't agree with our President's statement, mostly because I don't put a lot of stock in patriotism. And I certainly don't agree with "religious leaders" motivated by political agenda or otherwise who cheer on the Taliban, and I don't blame you for being bitter about that. Christianity is about love, first and foremost. Not certain people or certain times, but for everyone all the time. I just ask everyone to please remember that although *I* think Christianity is the perfect(only) true religion, it happens to be practiced by a bunch of incredibly imperfect people.
Sept. 24, 2002, 11:50 p.m. CST
And therein lies the eternal problem: I say there's something inherently flawed with the belief system; you say the followers are the ones that are flawed. And never the twain shall meet.
Sept. 25, 2002, 12:58 a.m. CST
You're absolutely right, everything is relative. Gibson makes money, no question. I'm not suggesting the contrary. My original point was that he hasn't had many BIG paydays. His movies are almost always respectable, but rarely spectacular when it comes to domestic box office grosses. If you're looking to prove someone wrong, consider it done. I don't particularly want to argue.
Sept. 25, 2002, 12:58 a.m. CST
Carl Sagan wrote it best in his CONTACT screenplay: PALMER: "Did you love your father?" ELLIE: "Yes. Very much." PALMER: "Prove it." Anyone who says believing in things without proof (faith) is ridiculous has absolutely no hope or love in him. I can't prove that God and my spirit exist any more than I can prove that I love my ma. The effects are proof enough for me; I'd die for my ma. Thousands of Christians (including the apostles) have died for their faith (without taking a tower down with them); people fall crying on their knees every Sunday at my church. That's proof enough for me.
Sept. 25, 2002, 1:13 a.m. CST
There, the official word is in!
Sept. 25, 2002, 2:17 a.m. CST
Sagan wrote the novel the screenplay was based on. Other people wrote the shooting script (although Sagan has a "story by" credit, whatever that means). I haven't read "Contact" but based on other books he's written, especially "The Demon-haunted World," I have a hard time believing Sagan would use such an egregious equivocation. Don't you think there's a big difference between subjective emotion (love) and the objective reality of a clearly defined object (God). And anyway, why you do need faith to know you love your mother? Wouldn't that emotion be something you're fully convinced of?
Sept. 25, 2002, 3:25 a.m. CST
I heard Gibson quoted somewhere basically saying "If it turns out shit, I'll put subtitles on it". Ah, the sweet smell of evaporating artistic integrity. He also admits "I might be mad, but maybe I'm a genius as well." That'll help secure a deal Riggs.
Sept. 25, 2002, 7:27 a.m. CST
You could pretend that the universe started with a "big bang" and created billions of stars and planets. One of those planets, Earth, which is not in the center of the universe or even of the galaxy, spawned simple life. Life evolved over billions of years, creating millions of diverse creatures, one of which was man. This evolution left behind an incredible amount of ordered, undeniable evidence.----Man's brain grew to the size that he was able to contemplate his own mortality and wonder about how the world worked and what his place was in it. Man devised myth and religion to explain the unexplainable and to provide a moral framework for developing societies. Tribes of humans spread throughout the world and devised their own versions of these religions. Man became more organized and so did the many religions. ----This went on for centuries until at one point in comparative recent human history, the Christian version of religion was conceived. It took many prior beliefs and myths and re-told them as its own. As all religions had done before it, it was declared THE true faith, but with a twist - if a person did not follow the Christian dogma, they would not only be miserable and die, they would go to hell and suffer pain and torment for ETERNITY!! This was great marketing and greatly helped the crusaders persecute and convert the peaceful peoples of other religions. If they did not convert, they were often tortured and killed.----Even as science and history explained many of the religion's answers, many Christians refused to realistically look at their place in the universe and among the many myths and religions that preceded them. They assumed that they were the chosen ones and that the good people of the rest of the world's religions (the majority on the planet) were still going to hell. They continued to think they were the center of the universe and not contemplate the possibilities of other life on the many billions of other planets out there. If there were other intelligent life out there, would these other beings be going to Christian Hell too? Were their alien versions of religions also false?---In sticking with their fundamental, unwavering interpretation of the myths of the religion, and by refusing to adapt it's good moral teachings to a constantly changing and updating world, the hardcore Christians became increasingly out of touch with society and lost many of their flock. Unable to as easily force their dogma on others in a religiously free society in the US, they claimed to believe in free religion but cried "bigot" whenever someone disagreed with them. Or tried to stop them from forcing public school children of different religions to recite Christian prayers, even though prayer by individuals was not forbidden. Not taking into account that they would freak out if someone suggested forcing their kids to recite a Buddhist of Muslim prayer.----Yeah, Dumbpeoplesuck, that's a LOT less realistic than your "pretend" idea with the supernatural "Great ONE" and "little god", and that everyone who is not Christian (the majority of the world and perhaps universe) is really a "puppet of the little god". That's plain crazy.----Now, I'm not an atheist (Catholic, actually) and I'm not at all discounting the importance of spirituality and a moral belief system, and I don't even hate fundamentalist Christians but get out in the world and realize that the Bible ain't the only book out there and that it was probably never meant to be taken literally. There are billions of people out there (more than you) with similar morals and beliefs that practice different religions. They aren't all evil.
Sept. 25, 2002, 1:34 p.m. CST
by The Llama
I certainly can't argue with you on a linguistic level, since I'm not familiar either with Greek or Hebrew. I do know, however, that most Bible scholars tend to accept that Jesus was not an only child, both today, and even in ancient times (hence the scramble of early church fathers to argue how Mary could still be a virgin no matter how many children she had). NOT being able to argue with you linguistically, I would point out that you are drawing the same sort of conclusion that you advise others not to draw. The very vagueness that you are quoting indicates to me that it is just as easy to interpret that they WERE brothers and sisters. If the words are vague, how could one ascertain so completely otherwise? Now...as a professional historian and one with admittedly amateur Biblical knowledge, I'd have to point out that many would, and have argued, that just as it is incorrect to read ancient documents completely from a literal standpoint, it's similarly dangerous to read them from a completely interpretive one. There are a number of plausible alternative explanations, i.e. Jesus of Nazareth was handing over her SPIRITUAL care to John, symbolizing that with Jesus gone from the picture, it was now up to John to shepherd and guide her in the fledgling faith. Such an act would find resonance by mirroring a more secular act which placed her temporal well-being into his care.
Sept. 25, 2002, 2 p.m. CST
Sagan wrote the Screenplay before he wrote the novel, with Ann Druyan. The screenplay sucked I guess cuz he shelved it and wrote the novel. THEN someone came in and re-wrote the screenplay. Read the foreward to the novel. And as far the novel goes, it's even MORE spiritual than the movie. I know Sagan was no Christian, but after reading Contact, I think that deep down he knew there was more to life than carbon compounds. And Faith IS an Emotion. it's Love. It's a feeling of Love and a reassurance that Someone Up There loves us.
Sept. 25, 2002, 2:08 p.m. CST
by The Llama
Yes, I'm aware of that mistranslation. If you'll read my comments about "virginity" in context, you'll just see that I'm pointing out the evidence that most theologians, from modern scholars to the ancient church fathers, agreed that Jesus of Nazareth was not an only child.
Sept. 25, 2002, 3:09 p.m. CST
Sagan was at best an agnostic (ie weak atheist). After his death, when asked whether or not Carl believed in God at the end, his wife said, "Carl didn't want to *believe*, he wanted to *know*." I think he wanted there to be a protective, fatherly god to watch over us, but the desire for such simply wasn't good enough. And, yes, faith is an emotion. But so is hate. So is fear. The attack on the WTC was done by people acting on faith. Horrible things can happen when we allow emotion to run our lives. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Vulcan; emotion is the reason for living. But when we make decisions, reason and knowledge are a much better and more consistant guides.
Sept. 25, 2002, 3:15 p.m. CST
Hey, Blade, good to see you! Did you check out Harry's review of Below? What do you think? I think HP has taken a leave of absense, my friend.
Sept. 25, 2002, 3:26 p.m. CST
The first reason, John, that some people follow the Christian faith is because they were steeped in it from childhood on. The second reason is that some people need the security of an afterlife to tide them over until death. In other words, they are miserable. I never understand that reasoning, b/c to me, the idea of a big fat nothing when we die is far easier to stomach. If there IS some kind of afterlife, and if there ARE all these levels you have to pass in order to reach supreme happiness, like a video game, then why would I want to partake? It sounds like agony to me. And for my luck, I'd be one of the losers who can't "find the light" and I'd walk around for eternity, lost and miserable. Eff it! One thing I do not understand is your distinction between Christianity and other religions. To me, the irony of it is all the same. God is a hateful bastard in all faiths, as far as I can see.
Sept. 25, 2002, 3:29 p.m. CST
no matter how much this stinker loses you are still going to Hell
Sept. 25, 2002, 3:42 p.m. CST
that good ole focuses solely on the life and death of a man who may have been a prophet and certainly was a good speaker. By excluding the whole religious premise and focusing on the flesh and blood, maybe it will be easier for some people to swallow. Or maybe he could tell the story of Jesus' chronic diarrhea problem, and shoot 12 hours of Jim Caviezel squatting over a hole in the ground.
Sept. 25, 2002, 5:39 p.m. CST
by Lenny Nero
It's interesting actually having someone of interest here at LMU. He's been talking to one of our theology teachers. (That linked story may have said that, but I didn't read it, so don't bitch me out for repeating information)
Sept. 25, 2002, 8:17 p.m. CST
Just an addendum to Blade's excellent post: While most of the common citizens of the empire participated in the Cult of the Emperor and worshipped whatever city-state god protected their town, many of the intellectual pagans had adopted a modified monotheism that recognized a Supreme Being towering over the pantheon. Judaism was given a pass from participating in the Cult of the Emperor because it was seen as a religion with tradition and roots. To the Romans, Christianity was just an upstart religion that had no roots and spit at tradition. Hence, the Christians were labeled "Athiests" by the Romans. It was because of that lack of tradition that Christians were fed to the lions while Jews were not. On a side note, only one group of people every really rebelled against the Romans, and that was the Jews. And they did it twice! That's moxey. Course it did get their temple torched. An excellent book on pagan attitudes toward early Christianity is "Christians as the Romans Saw Them" by Robert Wilken of I believe Yale. At least read the critiques by Celsus and Porphory. Celsus got an entire book written against him, "Contra Celsum," by the great Christian thinker Origen of Alexandria, and I think an entire generation and then some of Christian apologists wrote against the teachings of Porphory. Celsus had a wicked wit on occasion, laying this one on early Christians: "And everywhere they (Christians) speak in their writings of the tree of life and of resurrection of the flesh by the tree-I imagine because their master was nailed to a cross and was a carpenter by trade. So that if he had happened to be thrown off a cliff, or pushed into a pit, or suffocated by strangling, or if he had been a cobbler or stonemason or blacksmith, there would have been a cliff of life above the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or a rope of immortality, or a blessed stone, or an iron of love, or a holy hide of leather. Would not an old woman who sings a story to lull a little child to sleep have been ashamed to whisper such tales such as these?" ZING!
Sept. 25, 2002, 8:41 p.m. CST
Two scientists, both atheists, travel back in time to witness the death of Jesus. They then decide to interfere, by stealing his body from the borrowed grave and bringing it back to the present. They figure this will allow Jesus's followers to make up the concept of Jesus risen from the grave, but they are planning to dispel this myth by exhibiting his corpse in the modern world. They want to refute the resurrection concept. But on the third day after they have snatched the body and returned to the present, before they can publicly display it, it disappears.
Sept. 25, 2002, 11:15 p.m. CST
I seem to recall a movie a few years ago called Gundam (?) where they had several different languages being spoken with no subtitles offered. At least this was how it was on the version that I saw.
Sept. 26, 2002, 1:01 a.m. CST
I mean, what do you hope to achieve with a fictional "what if?" story? Let me explain by way of example. **So the creations succeed in taking over all scientific knowlege and research. They suppress, destroy, and warp all accumulated evidenced supporting biological evolution, the age of the earth, and the age of the universe. And then, a million years later, humans evolve anyway.** See? Glib stories do not make convincing arguments.
Sept. 26, 2002, 1:12 a.m. CST
If he's locked into the language idea, then maybe he'll throw some realism to the casting department. Let's see some middle-eastern actors in these parts. I'm sick to freakin' death of seeing surfers pretending to be Israelites.
Sept. 26, 2002, 1:39 a.m. CST
That was the most eloquent and concise explanation of the Roman attitude towards the Christians and Jews I've read. I like to think about the other conquered people's attitude towards the Emperor as divinity - obviously the pagan Celts and Germans had not trouble incorporating another god into their pantheon, and they may well have worshipped the emperor more sincerely than many Romans. The Britons made Claudius a god while he still lived, without any encouragement from the Romans.
Sept. 26, 2002, 4:27 p.m. CST
... wouldn't the Bible be the ultimate deception? Or, on the flipside, how about this: Harlan Ellison introduces the titular last story in "Deathbird Stories" this way: "And as a final parting shot, a rewritten Genesis, advancing the theory that the snake was the good guy, and since God wrote the PR release, Old Snake just got a lot of bad press." And that's my parting shot.
"Hey, dad, what do you think of your son now?" -Filter
Nov. 9, 2002, 2:24 a.m. CST
you shiftless motherfuckers "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." -Denis Diderot
Feb. 23, 2006, 1:01 p.m. CST
by ryan mecum