# RotK and Passion



## kingpaul (Mar 2, 2004)

Just read an interesting article.

Seems that Passion had a larger 5 day opener than RotK did; $125.2M vs. 124.1M.


----------



## KenM (Mar 2, 2004)

The bible is the only book that outsells LotR. IMO I think The Passion won't make as much, people will see it once.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 2, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> IMO I think The Passion won't make as much, people will see it once.



Seen it twice, myself.

Going again this weekend with my grandparents (who haven't been inside a cinema since the Ford administration).

/anecdotal


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 2, 2004)

I'll be skipping the Passion. I prefer to see fantasy set in mythical worlds with magic, elves, and hobbits.


----------



## Krieg (Mar 2, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'll be skipping the Passion. I prefer to see fantasy set in mythical worlds with magic, elves, and hobbits.




*sigh* And this thread was going so well.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 2, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> *sigh* And this thread was going so well.



 There's a good reason Passion isn't getting threads here...it IS religion. That makes it hard to avoid the problems that come along with it...

I, too, though, am skipping Passion. My reasons are my own.


----------



## Dimwhit (Mar 2, 2004)

I read that about the first week figures. Very impressive. I do think that The Passion won't have the legs that RotK had/has, but still... I've heard that it should break 300 million here in the states. It should have a good run through Easter. Not RotK numbers in the end, but amazing numbers considering  Mel paid $25 million to make out of his own pocket and almost couldn't find a distributor.

I guess we know who's laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## kingpaul (Mar 2, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> There's a good reason Passion isn't getting threads here...it IS religion. That makes it hard to avoid the problems that come along with it...



Very true, which is why I hadn't delved into what the movie was about.  I just thought folks would be interested in seeing that its 5 day run beat out RotK's 5 day run.

I haven't seen it yet, but plan on seeing it at least once.


----------



## Krieg (Mar 2, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> There's a good reason Passion isn't getting threads here...it IS religion. That makes it hard to avoid the problems that come along with it...
> 
> I, too, though, am skipping Passion. My reasons are my own.




I have no desire to watch it in the theater but will probably rent it just so I can put the praise/criticism of the film into my own perspective.

I just don't see the need to take an unprovoked shot at those who see this film as something more than mere entertainment.


----------



## Sir Whiskers (Mar 2, 2004)

I'm not surprised that it's done well so far - given all the publicity, good and bad, a lot of folks are curious. The more interesting question is will it continue to bring in the crowds a few weeks from now.

I've heard the movie is well done, but very intense and violent. I'll probably see it at some point, but not right now. It took me a while to decide to watch Schindler's List (best movie of all time, IMO) and Saving Private Ryan (horrible movie, IMO) - in both cases, I waited until I was in the right mood to appreciate that type of movie.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 2, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> I just don't see the need to take an unprovoked shot at those who see this film as something more than mere entertainment.



Its a spiritual issue.  Best responded to with prayer and kindness.  Sorry to hear that you don't believe in Jesus, Darrin.  I couldn't live without Him.


----------



## Krieg (Mar 2, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Its a spiritual issue.  Best responded to with prayer and kindness.  Sorry to hear that you don't believe in Jesus, Darrin.  I couldn't live without Him.




Since my own beliefs lie somewhere between agnosticism & atheism I am hardly one to pray. 

I just prefer it when folks leave their baggage at the door.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 2, 2004)

Not a big surprise, that; there are many more Christians than fantasy fans and many many churches are going to bus their entire congregations to see it, if they're not running it themselves. Two of the large churches here are hosting viewings and they have congregations in the thousands.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 2, 2004)

I saw The Passion over the weekend, and it was one of the most powerful and moving movies I've ever seen in my life.  My opinion of Mel Gibson is even higher after seeing this film.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 2, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> I just prefer it when folks leave their baggage at the door.



Sorry. I should have saved that for Nutkinland. I'm not going to disrespect these forums any further by going into the reasons behind my lack of faith.


----------



## Particle_Man (Mar 2, 2004)

The movie will have 3 audience-types.  a) Those who see it only because of the hype, and want to see what the fuss is about, b) Christians, and possibly c) Some of those into the whole S&M fetish scene.  The latter is not a strong economic force compared to the first two, and the former will likely disappear after the first two weeks, then resurge in the first two weeks of rentals.  But category b could keep this movie making money for quite some time.  But I think that the Lotr trilogy will still make more money as a whole, in the long run.

All of this is IMHO.


----------



## NiTessine (Mar 2, 2004)

Somehow, this movie fails to interest me. It's difficult to explain, really. It's a mix of not having any interest in the story, knowing the ending, and having already been entertained by news of the cast and crew being repeatedly struck by lightning more than most movies.


----------



## Mark Chance (Mar 2, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> I just prefer it when folks leave their baggage at the door.




Rhetorical question of the day: Then why bring _your_ baggage in here to clutter up what was intended to be a discussion of movie receipts?




			
				kingpaul said:
			
		

> Seems that Passion had a larger 5 day opener than RotK did; $125.2M vs. 124.1M.




The numbers for The Passion of the Christ are indeed impressive. I'm of the opinion they'll stay that way for a while. There isn't a day goes by that the major news services don't run a story related to the film. Since movies generally live or die by word of mouth, that's a heck of a lot of word of mouth.

In the end, at least in terms of money, Mel Gibson'll be a record-breaker for this one.


----------



## Henry (Mar 2, 2004)

I'm certainly happy that Gibson succeeded in his endeavor, and am not surprised at the turnout - it has been fueled by everything from religion to curiosity.

But we'll need to keep actual religious discussion out of the equation here. But then, the excessively cool people replying to this thread already know our policy, so I actually feel silly bringing it up. 

Onward!


----------



## Kesh (Mar 2, 2004)

I think the numbers are just slightly inflated, considering some church groups are buying out entire showings to give away in the hopes of conversion. And I doubt they'd be able to get every one of those tickets into the hands of someone who would actually go view it.

Plus, I _lost_ most of my respect for Gibson over comments he made regarding this film. Being disrespectful is not a way to get on my good side.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Mar 2, 2004)

With the world wide population of christians, I would not be surprised for this movie to do very very well. Maybe not a Billion, but 600-700 million easy.  I also think it will be the largest DVD sales ever.  Mel Gibson is a talanted director and actor who put every part of himself into getting this done right and it is a spectacular movie.  PJ did the same thing with LoTR and found many converts for the fantasy realm.


----------



## Dimwhit (Mar 2, 2004)

Kesh said:
			
		

> I think the numbers are just slightly inflated, considering some church groups are buying out entire showings to give away in the hopes of conversion. And I doubt they'd be able to get every one of those tickets into the hands of someone who would actually go view it.
> 
> Plus, I _lost_ most of my respect for Gibson over comments he made regarding this film. Being disrespectful is not a way to get on my good side.




Assuming it doesn't take this thread too far over, I'm curious what comments you're taking about. I heard several interviews with him, and nothing he said seemed disrespectful. But maybe I missed something.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 2, 2004)

Yeah, I've been sort of watching this progression for TPoTC.  Frankly, I'm not surprised at how well it's doing.  Unlike RotK, which is just a spectacular fantasy movie to a lot of people -- even most fantasy fans -- TPoTC is not only a religious feature, it's one that has been endorsed by a lot of Christians in addition to receiving a lot of publicity.  The publicity is so intense that for a week, various TV talk shows have discussed it ad nauseum...

I would like to say that there is _no_ reason for this thread to develop into some sort of discussion about faith or lackthereof beyond the responses of how certain demographics may impact box office sales.  The original poster, in her/his wisdom, simply noted that TPotC is competing with the success of RotK.  That's it.  If folks want to debate the cinematic merits of the film, that really belongs in another thread... and even that will be difficult because a lot of people will be bringing baggage of all sorts to the discussion that will marr objective discourse.

As for whether I'll see the film or not...  I don't intend on it.  Although I'm curious, I can't sit through what I've heard is a substantial amount of time spent watching someone be tortured no matter who or what the person is.  Not my sort of thing...  Hell, I got embaressed when I watched _American Pie_ because of the stupid antics of the main protagonist (not because he was horny, but because he was constantly making a donkey out of himself).  

Still, I may buy the score.  A lot of very dismal music that seems to reach a powerful, righteous creschendo... My kind of thing.


----------



## Wombat (Mar 2, 2004)

I'll probably rent it someday, if for no other reason that to hear Aramaic spoken.

More interested on a linguistic and setting/costuming level than anything else.  Having talked to several people of various persuassions who had seen the film, apparently what you believe before the film is more or less what you believe after the fact.


----------



## Dimwhit (Mar 2, 2004)

Wombat said:
			
		

> Having talked to several people of various persuassions who had seen the film, apparently what you believe before the film is more or less what you believe after the fact.




I couldn't agree more. If you believe it's anti-semetic before you see it, you'll think so after. If you believe it's going to move you before, it will when you see it. If you expect to be grossed out and horrified by the violence, then you certainly will be. I believe that holds true for the majority of people who see it.

I'll tell you, though, outside of the blood, it was a beautiful film. The sets, clothing, etc. were great and seemed very authentic to me.


----------



## kingpaul (Mar 2, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> The original poster, in her/his wisdom



His


----------



## danbala (Mar 2, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I couldn't agree more. If you believe it's anti-semetic before you see it, you'll think so after. If you believe it's going to move you before, it will when you see it. If you expect to be grossed out and horrified by the violence, then you certainly will be. I believe that holds true for the majority of people who see it.
> 
> I'll tell you, though, outside of the blood, it was a beautiful film. The sets, clothing, etc. were great and seemed very authentic to me.




But did you believe it was beautiful going into the movie


----------



## Dimwhit (Mar 2, 2004)

danbala said:
			
		

> But did you believe it was beautiful going into the movie




Stop making fun of me with my own words.


----------



## Mark (Mar 2, 2004)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> RotK and Passion




They'll both wind up in my DVD collection, eventually.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 2, 2004)

It's interesting, watching the film. We saw it on the weekend (my religious beliefs don't really include any proper nouns, for what it's worth) and for, I imagine, just about anyone raised in the West, the funny thing is that there's no tension.

It's not melodrama. I mean, you KNOW how it ends, right? There's not likely to be many spoilers on this one.

So, devoid as it is of narrative tension, the only reason to really watch the film is to consider the presentation of the spiritual/philosophical/religious ideas the story itself contains. The story of the Christ is a great story because of how it illustrates so many truths of human existence. Which of those you find most compelling has more to say about you and your beliefs than it does about the story -- and the film is exactly the same in that regard. Reading reviews of the film I am struck by how revealing they all are of the reviewer's philosophical stance. Rather than of the film's stance.

The film's qualities as a movie are almost uninteresting to me. The performances are GREAT across the board, the effects mostly well-done, occasionally I think the direction gets a little too broad (too many wide-angle close-ups of laughing Roman soldiers, I think), but overall it's a lovely, detailed, well-conceived picture. But who cares? It's what it makes you THINK about that's interesting, it's what it reveals to you about your own feelings and thoughts and beliefs.

Which is something I noticed about _Fight Club_ when it came out. While it was a well-done movie, what was really interesting about it was the way it made people think. The outbursts it provoked and the thoughts it generated.

Not many movies actually make me think. So thanks, Mr. Gibson, for that much.

I hope the above does not contain anything anyone finds offensive. Please just let me know if I'm unintentionally slagging off some belief set -- I'd be more than happy to remove anything that upsets or offends. I believe that the story of Christ holds tons of value for all readers, regardless of their feelings on its historical accuracy.


----------



## Green Knight (Mar 2, 2004)

> But category b could keep this movie making money for quite some time. But I think that the Lotr trilogy will still make more money as a whole, in the long run.




Well, that's pretty obvious, considering we're talking about three separate movies, each with two versions of DVD's on sale. The Passion is one movie which likely will only have one DVD version of it put out (No Theatrical Version DVD with a later Expanded Edition to come out, later). So yeah, the trilogy will make more money. But I think it's very likely that Passion may equal any one of the trilogy (FOTR, TTT, or ROTK). The fact that it's surpassed ROTK's 5-day total is saying something. 

As for a previous comment about this movie not having legs, I disagree. I already know of plenty of people who've gone back to see it a second time, and then a third time. A lot of the theatres in which it's played have sold out with people having to be turned away, which means that there are still people who want to see it but haven't been able to see it. Also, Easter's coming up next month. So we may see ticket sales of The Passion pick up again next month as those who've already seen it decide to see it again, and those who haven't seen it get spurred into seeing it due to the holiday (Hey, what better to do on Easter day then watch a movie about Christ dying and being resurrected?). 

Nevermind the power of word of mouth. The movie with the #1 5-day opening is Matrix Reloaded. However, it only got to $280 million. Why? Because word of mouth killed it. It was still a hit, but it's the only movie to break $100 million within the first week which didn't go on to break $300 million later on. The reverse is true with The Passion, since a vast majority of the people who come out of it think it's a great movie. So good word of mouth will help the movie attract more people it wouldn't have gotten, otherwise. 



> I think the numbers are just slightly inflated, considering some church groups are buying out entire showings to give away in the hopes of conversion. And I doubt they'd be able to get every one of those tickets into the hands of someone who would actually go view it.




I disagree. They're buying tickets for their members so they'll have the theatres all to themselves. They're not just buying tickets willy nilly (Can't believe I used that phrase...) for perfect strangers, but for their members who want to see it. Maybe some church groups are doing that, but most of them are just buying out theatres for their members. 



> Plus, I lost most of my respect for Gibson over comments he made regarding this film. Being disrespectful is not a way to get on my good side




I don't know what comments you're talking about it, but remember the context. The man was being publicly villified, castigated, and accused of being an anti-semite. The only way it seemed Mel could placate some of his critics would be to make a movie about him crucifying his father, rather then Jesus. The hate directed in his way got REALLY bad, and is still going on. Suffice to say, when you're getting attacked from all sides people tend to lose their cool in situations like that. I've got issues with my father, but I'm not about to tear him to pieces in public the way a lot of these critics wanted Mel to do to his. Would anyone else be willing to do that to their father, even though their father may've said/done some bad things, just to appease someone who's been relentlessly attacking and insulting you? 

Anyway, I haven't seen it yet due to a severe lack of funds, but I hope to be seeing it this weekend. I'll definitely be getting in on DVD, though. 

BTW: Anyone else think that this movie may potentially turn into a holiday tv tradition, some day, like how they show The Ten Commandments every year for Easter on ABC? Mel or somebody at Icon has said that they would want it to air on tv only if it didn't get interrupted by commercials, but I can see some network types still thinking it'd be a worthwhile thing to do every year. Maybe let a sponsor get to do one big commercial before and after the movie ("Tonights presentation of The Passion of The Christ is brought to you by Ford motor trucks. Built Ford tough!" followed by a 10-minute ad).


----------



## Dimwhit (Mar 3, 2004)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> BTW: Anyone else think that this movie may potentially turn into a holiday tv tradition, some day, like how they show The Ten Commandments every year for Easter on ABC? Mel or somebody at Icon has said that they would want it to air on tv only if it didn't get interrupted by commercials, but I can see some network types still thinking it'd be a worthwhile thing to do every year. Maybe let a sponsor get to do one big commercial before and after the movie ("Tonights presentation of The Passion of The Christ is brought to you by Ford motor trucks. Built Ford tough!" followed by a 10-minute ad).




Only if Mel releases a PG-13 version of it on DVD. I just don't see the networks showing the theatrical release on TV every year. But one with not quite so much gore...very possible.


----------



## Wereserpent (Mar 3, 2004)

I probably will not see it.  Mostly due to lack of interest in the subject of the movie.

But it does not surprise me that it has done a little better than LOTR.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 3, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Only if Mel releases a PG-13 version of it on DVD. I just don't see the networks showing the theatrical release on TV every year. But one with not quite so much gore...very possible.



 I highly doubt that.  Mel Gibson was asked in an interview whether he thought it was appropriate to make an R-rated movie about Christ, and he replied with "Crucifiction isn't PG-13."

So, if the Passion of the Christ does appear on TV, Mel Gibson will probably only allow it to air uncut.  This isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility, though; a few years ago Shindler's List appeared on TV mostly uncut (the only edits were to remove some profanity).

But then again, the Passion of the Christ is a much more controversial movie than Shindler's List was, so that might prevent it from airing on network TV.


----------



## Numion (Mar 3, 2004)

Passion has done so well at the box-office that there's going to be a book about it


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 3, 2004)

There is already a novelization of the movie.  

As for "The Gospel According to Mel," it's smart move on his part to release the movie during the Christian Lent season.


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Mar 3, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It's what it makes you THINK about that's interesting, it's what it reveals to you about your own feelings and thoughts and beliefs.




Bing!  That's hittin' the nail on the head.  What you get from this movie really depends on what you bring to it...but it will make you think, in one way or another.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 3, 2004)

For what it's worth, I just saw The Passion for the third time tonight. 

7:00 on a Tuesday evening, and the theater was about half full. 

At this rate, I expect to be fluent in Aramaic by June.


----------



## kingpaul (Mar 3, 2004)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> At this rate, I expect to be fluent in Aramaic by June.



*chuckle*

There was an article in my local paper talking about one sect of Catholicism still speaks Aramaic, and how that the use of that language is dying out.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 3, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It's what it makes you THINK about that's interesting, it's what it reveals to you about your own feelings and thoughts and beliefs.




Alright, I'm going to do my best to keep religion out of this post. 

Sure, Passion makes you think...and I would expect it makes you think about some fairly important things...but what makes this any different than what I've gotten out of reading Dune, which to me was very powerful and sure made me rethink a lot. Many movies and other books have done this for me to...in fact, I try to stick to things that DO cause me to think about things I normally wouldn't.

I guess my point is, it seems like too many people are talking about how this movie makes you think and teaches you about yourself. Are we, as a people, to the point where we've lost so much that we can't think about very important matters about ourselves from things that are DEFINATLY fiction(not getting into religion here)? In a way, it almost feels like when I get something deep and profound out of something liike Dune or Lord of the Rings, people just laugh...but with Passion, its perfectly alright to get something powerful out of it.

...hmm, maybe I'm just bitter.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Mar 3, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It's not melodrama. I mean, you KNOW how it ends, right? There's not likely to be many spoilers on this one.




With that to recommend it, it'll probably beat _Titanic_.   

And while I personally have minimal interest in seeing the movie, I am interested in seeing how it does over time.  My gut says it will probably do pretty well -- certainly better than Matrix Reloaded in the long haul, possibly better than RotK.  If it beats out Tolkien, though, it better darn well beat that ship movie, too.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 3, 2004)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> I don't know what comments you're talking about it, but remember the context. The man was being publicly villified, castigated, and accused of being an anti-semite. The only way it seemed Mel could placate some of his critics would be to make a movie about him crucifying his father, rather then Jesus. The hate directed in his way got REALLY bad, and is still going on. Suffice to say, when you're getting attacked from all sides people tend to lose their cool in situations like that. I've got issues with my father, but I'm not about to tear him to pieces in public the way a lot of these critics wanted Mel to do to his. Would anyone else be willing to do that to their father, even though their father may've said/done some bad things, just to appease someone who's been relentlessly attacking and insulting you?




Without getting too deep into the issue, this being EnWorld and all, I think you have dismissed his critics as simply "haters" a bit too lightly.  Mel could have "plactated his critics" by saying that he loves his dad, but disagrees with his father's views concerning both jews and the issue of the holocaust.  That's it.  Nobody was asking him to denounce his father for all time and for all things, nor was he asked to tear his father apart.

If my dad, for example, went around insulting black people and using the N-word on TV, and I was making a film about black slavery, you can bet I would say "I love my dad, but we obviously disagree about some issues, and this is one of those issues".

The issue was relevant given the film he was making.  The context is a film called Passions of Christ, which in Europe just so happens to have been the name of a certain type of plays, called Passion Plays, which were about this very subject and which also played a huge role in "villifing, castigating, and accusing" the jews of all sorts of evil, pre-WW2, and fostered massive anti-semitism which helped lead to the creation of the very holocaust Mel's father denies.  Add to that the fact that Mel portrays many (but not all) jews as particularly evil in this film, originally including a line from only one gospel which historically was used to "villify, castigate, and accuse" Jews throughout the world of all sorts of evil, portray's Pilot (who history tells us really was actually very evil, and considered a mass murderer by most) as a relatively sympathetic character, and I think it is fair to at least ask Mel what is up. 

What his dad said is relevant since Mel claims his dad never lied to him about anything, including the holocaust, in the context of Mel having made a film with a rather suspicious title, originally including a rather suspicious line which even the Catholic church denounced in Vatican 2, and some rather suspiscious portrayals of jews when compared to the Pilot character.  

It's fair for people to ask Mel questions about this issue, without being tarred as people who simply hate Mel.  You should be able to ask questions about this kind of thing without being lumped into the catagory of hater.

As for the movie itself, I saw it, I liked it, and I don't think it was anti-semetic.  And yet, I agree with critics who say his decisions regarding the Pilot character were both unfortunate and inaccurate.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 3, 2004)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Add to that the fact that Mel portrays many (but not all) jews as particularly evil in this film,



The Jews in _The Passion of the Christ_, both those who oppose Jesus and those who stand with him, are portrayed as they are described in the Bible.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> portray's Pilot (who history tells us really was actually very evil, and considered a mass murderer by most) as a relatively sympathetic character, and I think it is fair to at least ask Mel what is up.



Pilate's dialogue and behavior with Jesus and the high priests in the film is almost verbatim from the Bible.  I think its obvious what Mel was up to.  Making a film depicting the last 12 hours of Jesus' life as it was documented in the Bible.  And I found it to be an amazing effort.

For me the most interesting bit of trivia about the film is that for the close-up shot of the Roman soldier nailing Jesus' left hand to the cross, it was Mel's own hand that drove the nail in, out of recognition for his sins.

The most emotionally moving film I've ever seen.


----------



## Dirigible (Mar 3, 2004)

> ...it was Mel's own hand that drove the nail in, out of recognition for his sins.




As oppsoed to it being recognition of his egomania ? 



> With that to recommend it, it'll probably beat Titanic.




Stole my thunder, amigo.



> There is already a novelization of the movie.




Oooh, who'd they get to write it?
...
Naah, nevermind; that's a can of worms we don;t need ot open here...


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 3, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> The Jews in _The Passion of the Christ_, both those who oppose Jesus and those who stand with him, are portrayed as they are described in the Bible.




Not true.  You have words from people, but not personality.  You never see text like "and so and so grimaced and leered at him".  Mel made a decision to portray people as he did.  He decided to make some of the jewish people more nasty than their words might suggest.



> Pilate's dialogue and behavior with Jesus and the high priests in the film is almost verbatim from the Bible.  I think its obvious what Mel was up to.  Making a film depicting the last 12 hours of Jesus' life as it was documented in the Bible.  And I found it to be an amazing effort.




As I said above, Pilate's personality is not portrayed in the bible. His words are basically the same, but at no point to you feel Pilate is compassionate in the bible.  The character, however, was played as compassionate.  Facial expressions, sighs, and simpathetic looks were all added to the Pilate character, none of which is in the bible.  It was a decision.  And, I think it was a bad decision, since apparently Mel knew quite well that Pilate was known for being cruel and sadistic.  That character in the film was not portrayed as cruel an sadistic - though his troops were (and yet Mel also knew Pilate trained those very troops to act just like that, because that is how Pilate himself acted).



> For me the most interesting bit of trivia about the film is that for the close-up shot of the Roman soldier nailing Jesus' left hand to the cross, it was Mel's own hand that drove the nail in, out of recognition for his sins.
> 
> The most emotionally moving film I've ever seen.




I'm glad you liked it.  I did too.  But don't dismiss people who don't like it, or have some concerns about it, out of hand.  There is reason behind the questioning.  Mel Gibson added and subtracted things, mostly personality rather than spoken words, from the Bible based on his own belief of how things should be portrayed, and it is perfectly fair to dislike those changes, or question them.


----------



## Mythtify (Mar 3, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> I just prefer it when folks leave their baggage at the door.



It is insulting to imply that if a person has relegious beliefs, that it is "baggage".  It implies that anyone that has relegius beliefs are automicly a lesser person. 

A person with religious beliefs is not any lesser or greater a person than anyone else.  Everyone has a paradign that they operate through.  It is just as wrong for somebody to say that I my world view is wrong, or something is wrong with me, because I am religious; as it would be for me to say that anybody who dosn't have a religious world view is lost.

We as a community should be respectful of each other's world views, even if we don't agree with them.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 3, 2004)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Not true.  You have words from people, but not personality.  You never see text like "and so and so grimaced and leered at him".



"The high priest tore his clothes.  'Why do we need any more witnesses?' he asked.  'You have heard the blashpemy.  What do you think?'
They all condemned him as worthy of death.  Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, 'Prophesy!'  And the guards took him and beat him."  --Mark 14:63-65.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> As I said above, Pilate's personality is not portrayed in the bible. His words are basically the same, but at no point to you feel Pilate is compassionate in the bible.



The film depicts Pilate as heeding his wife's warning (Matthew 27:19) and being afraid (John 19:8).  The film presented him as being conflicted because of a mandate from Caesar that if there was an uprising in Jerusalem he would see Pilate's blood, and he was afraid of an uprising from the people if he spared Jesus, and of one from Jesus' followers if he crucified him.  I didn't get a whole lot of compassion from his character, he was obviously looking out for his own skin.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> And, I think it was a bad decision, since apparently Mel knew quite well that Pilate was known for being cruel and sadistic.  That character in the film was not portrayed as cruel an sadistic - though his troops were (and yet Mel also knew Pilate trained those very troops to act just like that, because that is how Pilate himself acted).



The Bible doesn't make any mention of Pilate being cruel and sadistic toward Jesus, but it certainly does of the Roman soldiers who flog and taunt him.  In both the Bible and the film, Pilate knew Jesus was innocent, had the power (as far as he knew) to free him, yet "handed him over to them to be crucified." (John 19:16)  Not exactly someone on Jesus' side.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> I'm glad you liked it.  I did too.  But don't dismiss people who don't like it,



You know I did no such thing.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> or have some concerns about it, out of hand.



Ditto.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> There is reason behind the questioning.  Mel Gibson added and subtracted things, mostly personality rather than spoken words, from the Bible based on his own belief of how things should be portrayed, and it is perfectly fair to dislike those changes, or question them.



I agree.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Mar 3, 2004)

I haven't seen any rude or disrespectful comments from Mr. Gibson, but I thought the Passion was a good movie. One of the things I especially liked was the person who played Satan. I think it was a guy, but shrouded in those robes I really couldn't tell. I waqs concentrating on the subtitles so I can't remember if his voice was male or not. Also, the Passion made me buy Testament.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 3, 2004)

We're teetering on a slippery slope, folks...

Anyway, I think there needs to be a distinction between the Biblical record, Catholic (and perhaps general Christian) tradition, and historical evidence/facts.  From my perspective, it's clear that Gibson and co. are working from a mixture of Biblical record and Catholic tradition more so than historical evidence/fact.  This is why certain elements may come across in the film.  Gibson, from what I've seen and heard, is not interested in creating a historically accurate portrayal in terms of doing research on Pilate, the roles Jews _could_ have played (and there's not much official out there), and so on.  If there was anything historically accurate in the portrayal, it's the violence of being tortured and crucified... which then plays into the whole point of the narrative regarding sacrifice within Judeao-Christian thought.

I think this is important to note because people are seeing this film for different reasons.  A lot (quite a few I know and clearly many on these boards) are seeing it because it reinforces their faith and dedication.  Others are seeing it because of their curiosity.  Frankly, I don't see these reactions as any different to why people see many films.  The major difference here is that we're dealing with one of the big three "monotheistic" religions, the dominante religion in the West, and a very well known actor/director.  

What I think is ashame here, more than anything else, is the general inability to critique this film as just a film... particularly if the review is negative.  I think this is where "baggage" comes into play for many sides of the field.  I've seen a few talk shows in which negative reviews were responded to almost as if the critic were some sort of blasphemer or heretic.  I also find it unfortunate that most of the people who were crying anti-semitism hadn't seen the film... just heard about it (and, although it is a film adaptation of a Passion Play and although many of these plays did demonize Jews, I think Gibson should have been given the benefit of the doubt before people jumped all over him).

If this thread last much longer, I'll be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## Diavolo (Mar 3, 2004)

i have not seen 'passion' yet, but am really eager to go see it. i will go see this for the aspect of film making and story. i have no care about it's realationship with the bible, or the beliefs of people. i will also see if because in my experience, the movies that critics say aren't good, and movies that create contraversy with people how are so dead-sit in there ways that anything that changes their prespective of reality is just wrong, these type of movies tend to be the ones that are really great. i've noticed time and time again people complain about things that they either don't understand (matrix trilogy) or that contradict their current beliefs(passion, dogma). and they are the ones that will attack a perfect movie and shot it done. honestly it makes me sick. nuff said for now.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 3, 2004)

Being born a Roman Catholic, I am really interested to see this film.  I won't get into faith or religion as per the rules but I wouldn't want to anyway.  I've been interested in this film since news first leaked.  I want to know if I should take my Mom to see it despite the gore (I will view it myself before mentioning anything to her) and things like that.  That and it just looks like a visual feast about a story that I know very well.


----------



## Dimwhit (Mar 3, 2004)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> I haven't seen any rude or disrespectful comments from Mr. Gibson, but I thought the Passion was a good movie. One of the things I especially liked was the person who played Satan. I think it was a guy, but shrouded in those robes I really couldn't tell. I waqs concentrating on the subtitles so I can't remember if his voice was male or not. Also, the Passion made me buy Testament.




Nope, it was a woman who played the Satan character. Hard to tell, though...


----------



## Kesh (Mar 3, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Assuming it doesn't take this thread too far over, I'm curious what comments you're taking about. I heard several interviews with him, and nothing he said seemed disrespectful. But maybe I missed something.




Mostly his assertion that non-Catholics would not be going to Heaven. Apparently, his wife is Episcopalian, and he felt it was a tragedy that she wouldn't be going to Heaven with him.  

I personally find that sort of attitude distasteful, but as always, YMMV.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 3, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Sure, Passion makes you think...and I would expect it makes you think about some fairly important things...but what makes this any different than what I've gotten out of reading Dune, which to me was very powerful and sure made me rethink a lot.



Very little difference indeed. I think in fact, that making you think about yourself rather than making you think about the events of the narrative is a hallmark of truly great stories.

One of the things about the story of Christ is that it's simple. Take all the "narrative" out of it and you have: Man suffers. Man is transformed. There's really only two "events" in the plot. He has a really bad day but at the end of it, he is transformed. The little kernel of truth at the core of this story is that if you want to transform yourself, it's going to hurt. And "The Passion" strips out most of the other details and cuts straight to this little kernel.

Which is a quality of great stories -- they clearly illustrate truths. You could make a claim that _Dune_ does the same thing. Or _Hamlet_. Or _Fight Club_. Like you say, lots of stories do this.


			
				Ankh-Morport Guard said:
			
		

> In a way, it almost feels like when I get something deep and profound out of something liike Dune or Lord of the Rings, people just laugh...but with Passion, its perfectly alright to get something powerful out of it.



There's a wonderful line from a Zen book I have kicking around that might give you some comfort: 


			
				Some Zen Guy said:
			
		

> Thinking that enlightenment can only come from respectable sources, from great wise men or religious authorities or venerated texts, is a form of arrogance. Man thinks he is so special, so intelligent, so important, that he can only be enlightened by sources that match his illusions of his own importance. When in truth, the man who opens himself to enlightenment from the lowliest of sources -- he is truly enlightened because he has let go of that ego that demands to have its illusion of significance supported.



Enlightenment, wisdom, good ideas: they can be found anywhere. Anyone who doesn't think so is closing their mind to the true nature of the world and pretending to an importance they don't possess.

One of the purposes of literature is to provide wisdom. To show us what is true -- not to represent reality, but to show what is true in reality. In our lives. Great literature ought to do this -- and great readers ought to look for it. If you're not looking for wisdom, if you're not trying to decide for yourself what is true or what is not -- what are you doing with your life?

Besides scoring hot chicks, of course. 

But I'm saying "Bravo!" to you -- finding wisdom in fiction. That's why it's there and anyone who scoffs at such a past-time is closing themselves off from one of the most important tasks all human beings face.

Whew. That got a little serious there. Take it or leave it.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 3, 2004)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Mostly his assertion that non-Catholics would not be going to Heaven. Apparently, his wife is Episcopalian, and he felt it was a tragedy that she wouldn't be going to Heaven with him.



 If he believes it, I think it's perfectly acceptable for him to say it. Indeed, I'm glad he thinks it's a tragedy -- I prefer that sort of attitude to, say, forceful conversion, or suggestions that such people are not human or don't deserve to be treated with respect or loved. Which many people of strong beliefs throughout the world and history have decided is appropriate behaviour.

It's perfectly acceptable to think something is true and to say so. I prefer such statements to be made with compassion and consideration, which I think his statement (if your report is accurate) was done.

Whether or not he's CORRECT, is of course an entirely different question, one which I suppose we'll all get an answer to one day or another.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 3, 2004)

Mythtify said:
			
		

> It is insulting to imply that if a person has relegious beliefs, that it is "baggage".  It implies that anyone that has relegius beliefs are automicly a lesser person.
> 
> A person with religious beliefs is not any lesser or greater a person than anyone else.  Everyone has a paradign that they operate through.  It is just as wrong for somebody to say that I my world view is wrong, or something is wrong with me, because I am religious; as it would be for me to say that anybody who dosn't have a religious world view is lost.
> 
> We as a community should be respectful of each other's world views, even if we don't agree with them.



Out of context, dude.  He wasn't saying anybody who is religious has baggage, he said anyone who has baggage with religious folks has baggage.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 3, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Anyway, I think there needs to be a distinction between the Biblical record, Catholic (and perhaps general Christian) tradition, and historical evidence/facts.  From my perspective, it's clear that Gibson and co. are working from a mixture of Biblical record and Catholic tradition more so than historical evidence/fact.  This is why certain elements may come across in the film.  Gibson, from what I've seen and heard, is not interested in creating a historically accurate portrayal in terms of doing research on Pilate, the roles Jews _could_ have played (and there's not much official out there), and so on.  If there was anything historically accurate in the portrayal, it's the violence of being tortured and crucified... which then plays into the whole point of the narrative regarding sacrifice within Judeao-Christian thought.



Regardless of your belief in the Bible as a spiritual work, it's the most detailed historical document of the area we have.  I'm not sure why you're trying to separate history from the Bible when the Bible is the only real historical record that we have for this event.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 3, 2004)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Mostly his assertion that non-Catholics would not be going to Heaven. Apparently, his wife is Episcopalian, and he felt it was a tragedy that she wouldn't be going to Heaven with him.
> 
> I personally find that sort of attitude distasteful, but as always, YMMV.



You'd be surprised by other religion's views.

BTW, you'll have to cite your source as to where he made that alleged "assertion."


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 3, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'm not sure why you're trying to separate history from the Bible when the Bible is the only real historical record that we have for this event.



 Let us say that one can try support one's interpretation using a "scholarly" approach, in which as many sources as possible are consulted and the interpretation accords as accurately as possible to the combined results, or one can try to support one's interpretation using a "literary" approach, in which only one source is consulted and the interpretation is, in fact, an interpretation of THAT source, rather than an attempt to determine what "actually" happened.

There are numerous sources giving us information on the people, the places and the practices of the time, some that are arguably of greater veracity than the Gospels (the origins of which are a  matter of serious debate academically). Not all of these sources agree with each other, so in creating an interpretation, does one attempt to resolve these differences? Mel Gibson has said that no, he's not interested in doing that. He is making a "literary" interpretation of the Gospels.


----------



## Endur (Mar 3, 2004)

Passion will be the top-selling movie of all time (it will exceed Titanic).

FYI: I thought ROTK was the most intense and emotinoal movie I have ever seen, but I understand why Passion will probably be seen by more people, since the Passion is history and religion, but is not fantasy.



			
				kingpaul said:
			
		

> Just read an interesting article.
> 
> Seems that Passion had a larger 5 day opener than RotK did; $125.2M vs. 124.1M.


----------



## Dimwhit (Mar 3, 2004)

Endur said:
			
		

> Passion will be the top-selling movie of all time (it will exceed Titanic).




That sounds like someone aching to place a bet...


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Mar 3, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'll be skipping the Passion. I prefer to see fantasy set in mythical worlds with magic, elves, and hobbits.




I feel that it (re: bible) is the literature just like LotR, not to taken as more than anything else, just a book.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Mar 3, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> BTW, you'll have to cite your source as to where he made that alleged "assertion."




I read an online article about this, can't quote it, don't care much for Mel's opinion these days.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 3, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Regardless of your belief in the Bible as a spiritual work, it's the most detailed historical document of the area we have.  I'm not sure why you're trying to separate history from the Bible when the Bible is the only real historical record that we have for this event.



Actually, it's the most widely distributed work that discusses the time it supposedly portrays.  Because Christianity is very powerful and people, including many scholars, are dealing with issues of faith vs. historical accuracy, it's unlikely that a lot of information regarding the time frame and what was really going on will ever be widely distributed. 

I don't believe the Bible is a historical work.  It has its place in history, certainly, but _a lot_ of material has been compiled from other sources that, while probably having their own agendas as much as the Bible, are not steeped in religious intent.  Furthermore, not one of the canonized gospels was written prior to a generation after the death/disappearance of Jesus, and each was written in order to make a religious statement, not a historical one.  

In order to keep this thread and my role in it on point, it's my contention that any portrayal of Jesus that includes his torture as an act of Passion and then follows up with his crucifixtion and subsequent resurrection is not intended to be a historical work, but a spiritual one.  Or maybe some people do perceive it as historical while I see it clearly as another myth that just happened to come along at the right time.  

What this boils down to is a lot of people are unaware of why the Jews would have have blamed by early Christians, why this became part of the tradition, why Jews were demonized based upon religious beliefs throughout medieval Europe, and why we see this movie in this fashion.  It's not intended to paint a historical picture beyond trying to capture the kind of violence a tortured and crucified man would have suffered before dying.  And, even in that depiction, I think Gibson and co. are still offering a spiritual position (I've heard from friends of mine who've seen the movie how many people who traveled in Church groups cried during the presentation.  Although I'm sure a lot of people would have cried regardless of this being Jesus or not -- say a well done Aslan from Chronicles of Narnia -- I suspect that the reaction is much the same as what I've seen in some churches).


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 3, 2004)

Not a Moderator but just thinking maybe the issue of the Bible's historicity is a topic best left for other venues...


----------



## Eridanis (Mar 3, 2004)

Seems to me that things are OK so far - and will remain so as long as discussion stays respectful, serious and on topic.

Henry and I are on the case.


----------



## CrusaderX (Mar 4, 2004)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Mostly his assertion that non-Catholics would not be going to Heaven. Apparently, his wife is Episcopalian, and he felt it was a tragedy that she wouldn't be going to Heaven with him.




I doubt that Mel ever asserted such a thing.  During his interview with Diane Saywer on ABC, Mel specifically said that non-Catholics can go to heaven.  And this is what the Church teaches, after all.  So if Mel is a faithful Catholic, he's going to believe that non-Catholics can indeed go to Heaven.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 4, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> "The high priest tore his clothes.  'Why do we need any more witnesses?' he asked.  'You have heard the blashpemy.  What do you think?'
> They all condemned him as worthy of death.  Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, 'Prophesy!'  And the guards took him and beat him."  --Mark 14:63-65.




Kai, I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing now.  That scene went on for nearly 10 minutes in the film, with long bouts of yelling and demanding death and spitting and punching and kicking and grimacing and sneering and angry cries and fist shaking etc....The extent of the scene simply is not described that way in the bible. You can interpret it the way it was portrayed in the movie, but you can also interpret it other ways.  You could say that "some began to spit..." implies that others held back and did not express outrage, for example.  And yet, Mel decided to have the entire crowd react in outrage.  Is that how it went? Who knows.  But Mel made a decision to add some color to the scene, to add additional emotions.  It's perfectly fair to dislike Mel's intepretation of the text, portraying the entire crowd of jews as a bloodthirsty mob instead of a few of them.



> The film depicts Pilate as heeding his wife's warning (Matthew 27:19) and being afraid (John 19:8).  The film presented him as being conflicted because of a mandate from Caesar that if there was an uprising in Jerusalem he would see Pilate's blood, and he was afraid of an uprising from the people if he spared Jesus, and of one from Jesus' followers if he crucified him.  I didn't get a whole lot of compassion from his character, he was obviously looking out for his own skin.




Let me try and be even more clear.  History reports that Pilate was a mass murderer.  He slaughtered thousands of people.  He was a vicious, cruel, and unusually barbaric individual.

Mel portrays Pilate's troops as that kind of people, but not Pilate himself, despite Mel saying in interviews that he knows Pilate was just as bad as his troops, and is in fact the one who trained them to be that way.  Pilate is portrayed in the movie as simply a ruler in a tough position, trying to protect himself while also trying to do the right thing.  And yet, there was no reason at all within the biblical text to portray him that way.  There is plenty of stuff there to portray him as the sadistic murderer he seems to have been.

Do you see why it is troubling to me that Mel made the decision to add some anger to the crowd of Jews, while he also made the decision to subtract some sadistic tendancies from the Pilate character?  Both are up to intepretation from the biblical text, and yet Mel made different decisions for the two types of characters.



> The Bible doesn't make any mention of Pilate being cruel and sadistic toward Jesus, but it certainly does of the Roman soldiers who flog and taunt him.  In both the Bible and the film, Pilate knew Jesus was innocent, had the power (as far as he knew) to free him, yet "handed him over to them to be crucified." (John 19:16)  Not exactly someone on Jesus' side.




The bible doesn't mention the clothing that most people wore either, but Mel went to the trouble of examing historical examples of the dress of the time to accurately portray them in the film.  Why go to that extent for things like dress, but not for the type of person Pilate is known to have been, given a certain vagueness in the bible concerning his personality?

King Agrippa I wrote a letter to the emperor Caligula about Pilate's "corruption, his acts of insolence, and his rapine and his habit of insulting people, and his continual murder of persons untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending, and gratuitous and most grievous inhumanity." 

Likewise Philo wrote that Pilate was an "unbending and recklessly hard character," famous for "corruptibility, violence, robberies, ill treatment of the people, grievances, continuous executions without even the form of a trial, endless and intolerable cruelties." 

So cruel was Pilate that he was eventually recalled by Rome for his sadistic actions. When a Samaritan prophet gained a large following, Pilate's method of dispersing his followers was typical: he slaughtered four thousand of them when they gathered on their holy mountain. Even the brutal Romans could not overlook this atrocity, and Pilate was recalled to Rome in 37 CE. 

So, are you really telling me that the only possible logical decision for Mel to make concerning Pilate was to portray him with the personality seen in the movie?  Don't you think it would have also been a logical decision to portray Pilate as a lot more cruel and sadistic, while speaking the same lines found in the bible?  And, if it is possible to you that the second intepretation would be an equally fair interpretation, can you understand why it troubles me that Mel chose the version he did, rather than the more antagonistic version of Pilate, given his intpretation of the jewish characters in the movie?




> You know I did no such thing [dismiss people who dislike it or have concerns about it]




Well, here is what you said in response to my concerns "I think its obvious what Mel was up to. Making a film depicting the last 12 hours of Jesus' life as it was documented in the Bible."

To me, that is dismissive.  My concerns went to things that differed from the bible, based on personalities portrayed in the film beyond words found in the bible.  In response, you said it was obvious that it was just stuff documented in the bible.  That is dismissive, in my opinion.  I'm just asking that you look a little deeper, and ask yourself if there were times in the film that Mel made the decision to portray people (not their words, but their body language, verbal tone, additional actions not mentioned in the bible, etc..) as more or less angry, more or less cruel, more or less antagonistic than a literal reading of the bible might suggest.  And, if you find it conceivable that Mel made some of those decisions, why do you think he did it?

I don't think it was out of anti-semitism.  However, I do think it is worth asking.  Nor does it make me a Mel hater for asking these questions.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Mar 4, 2004)

On the subject of critiquing Passion as a film, I thought it dragged a bit towards the end, but that's probably just because I already knew the ending  A dragging feeling started around the time Jesus fell and Mary had a flashback of him falling. The walking-to-Golgotha went on a tad long.


----------



## Greatwyrm (Mar 4, 2004)

I'm a Christian, but I'm not really sure I want to see this.  Not that I don't think anybody should see this, just not me.  Watching it would just feel like being witness to an execution.  I don't think I'd feel any more comfortable watching this than I would sitting ringside for some guy going to the electric chair.

I've seen some very good theatrical portrayals of the Passion.  None were quite as graphic as what I've seen in clips from the movie though.  As a side note, I saw Roger Ebert on TV the other night.  He said if nothing else, this movie proves the MPAA will _never _ give a movie an NC-17 rating just based on violence.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 4, 2004)

Greatwyrm said:
			
		

> I'm a Christian, but I'm not really sure I want to see this. Not that I don't think anybody should see this, just not me. Watching it would just feel like being witness to an execution.



I've seen so many Stations of the Cross that they had become a rote pantomime. The film shook me out of my Sunday-morning complacency.

For that alone I am grateful.



			
				Greatwyrm said:
			
		

> He said if nothing else, this movie proves the MPAA will _never _give a movie an NC-17 rating just based on violence.



All due respect to Roger Ebert, but he's simplifying the issue.

If this film had focused on the graphic torture and crucifixion of Some Random Guy Named Ted, the MPAA would have slapped an NC-17 so fast it would make your head spin.

But Jesus Christ? The Gospels? NC-17? Never.

Jack Valenti knows better than to face the firestorm of negative publicity that such a move would have ignited.


----------



## Henry (Mar 4, 2004)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> If this film had focused on the graphic torture and crucifixion of Some Random Guy Named Ted, the MPAA would have slapped an NC-17 so fast it would make your head spin.
> 
> But Jesus Christ? The Gospels? NC-17? Never.




WIth respect to this point, I agree with Wormwood. An extended torture sequence would likely have garnered something more stringent. However, I am waiting to see if this depiction is as violent as, say, Kill Bill 1. If it is not, then I may be forced to conceed the point to Good Old Roger.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 4, 2004)

MrFilthyIke said:
			
		

> I read an online article about this, can't quote it, don't care much for Mel's opinion these days.



Then don't bring it up. Since you have, you have to back your words by citing a source.


----------



## Mythtify (Mar 4, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Out of context, dude. He wasn't saying anybody who is religious has baggage, he said anyone who has baggage with religious folks has baggage.



That being the case, I apologize.  It is easy to take things out of context.  No hard feelings I hope.


----------



## Trainz (Mar 4, 2004)

You guys are trying very hard (and somewhat successfully) to keep this thread ENworld-friendly, but I'm afraid it won't last long. Call it a hunch. I just think the subject is way too sensitive.

Reading all the posts, I had to bite my tongue quite a few times. There is too much under-the-table innuendo going on.

Anyways, good luck. I see Henry is keeping a close watch. Keep that in mind before clicking that "Submit Reply" button.  

Don't read the following if you have strong feelings about this issue:



Spoiler



You had to look, didn't you ! ;-)


----------



## Green Knight (Mar 4, 2004)

> I feel that it (re: bible) is the literature just like LotR, not to taken as more than anything else, just a book.




Suffice to say that the early Hebrews, as well as the early Christians, would disagree with you on that one. 

Anyway, for the guy who said that The Passion would be the highest grossing film of all time, want to put $20 on that?  I don't think it'll outgross Titanic (Damn those 14-year-old girls. Damn them* TO HELL!!!*), but I do think it'll get up there. 

BTW: Yeah, Kesh is right. Mel did say that. However, I don't see what the big deal is. Last I checked, EVERY religion said they were the one true path. If you don't believe that, then why do you even believe in that religion in the first place, if you believe that all religions are equal or whatever? Is that kind of certainty REALLY any different then an atheist's certainty that there's no afterlife? Mel says if you ain't Catholic then you're going to Hell. Atheists say that no matter how good you are you're still gonna vanish into the same oblivion that everyone else, good or bad, vanishes into. That applies to any kind of moral position a person takes, ranging from religion to politics to ethics and philosophy and so on. Either you stand for something, or you're a wishy-washy person who doesn't stand for anything. Whatever the case, much ado about nothing.


----------



## kingpaul (Mar 4, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Then don't bring it up. Since you have, you have to back your words by citing a source.



I did a quick search, because I was curious, and here's what I found:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452


----------



## Henry (Mar 4, 2004)

Trainz said:
			
		

> You had to look, didn't you !




Well, I did, darn you!


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 4, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> I don't believe the Bible is a historical work.  It has its place in history, certainly, but _a lot_ of material has been compiled from other sources that, while probably having their own agendas as much as the Bible, are not steeped in religious intent.  Furthermore, not one of the canonized gospels was written prior to a generation after the death/disappearance of Jesus, and each was written in order to make a religious statement, not a historical one.



With the exception of a few of the Greek and Roman writers, and of course modern historians, that's pretty much always been the case.  That doesn't mean that we don't consider heiroglyphics on the walls of Egyptian tombs historical, or the "national archives" of Hattusas historical, or any number of other works that were, in many cases, composed under even more dubious historical circumstances than the Bible.

As I said earlier, regardless of one's opinion of it, the Bible is, and likely always will be, the best and most detailed historical document of the area and the time period.

As barsoomcore said, that doesn't mean it necessarily jives completely with other sources we do have, but nobody's denying that the various sections of the Bible were written with an agenda.  Also, as you point out, the Bible isn't so much a "book" as it is a latter compendium of other writings, many of which the time of writing and the author are not well known.  In addition to that, the influence of later editors is difficult to determine.

None of that changes the fact that the Bible is, and likely always will be, the best and most detailed historical document of the area and the time period.  You just have to go into things with your eyes wide open about the limitations inherent in it as a historical work.  But, as I said, they aren't really unique or even overpowering limitations compared to many other historical works that are also widely accepted.


----------



## CrusaderX (Mar 4, 2004)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> I did a quick search, because I was curious, and here's what I found:
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452




From that msnbc piece:

_“There is no salvation for those outside the Church,” Gibson replied. “I believe it.” _

Yes, Catholicism teaches that there is no salvation outside of the Church.  Catholicism also teaches that non-Catholics can go to heaven.  These two statements seem to be contradictory, but according to Catholic belief, they're not.

Basically, Catholicism teaches that the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church instituted by Christ at the time of the Apostles.  According to the Catholic Church, Christ didn't create Protestant Churches or Churches of other faiths.  Catholics believe that He created only One Church as His earthly instrument of salvation.  So if and when non-Catholics are "saved", they owe their salvation to Christ's instrument of salvation, the Catholic Church founded by Christ, whether they realize this or not.

Please note that I'm not posting this to preach to anyone or to damn anyone or to start flames.  I'm simply posting a part of Catholic theology as I understand it (and as elaborated on at the website below) to clear up the confusion as to what Mel Gibson said regarding his wife, in light of official Church teachings.  This is a widely misunderstood topic, and the confusion pretty much deals with a question of semantics.  And it's even possible that Mel himself might not fully understand official Church teachings.  But it's also interesting to note that Mel never directly said the words "my wife could be going to hell", yet msn's headline was still "MEL GIBSON SAYS HIS WIFE COULD BE GOING TO HELL" in big bold red letters.

And, as I mentioned above, Mel directly told Diane Sawyer during their ABC televised interview a few weeks ago that non-Catholics can go to heaven.  I heard him say this with my own ears, and saw the words come from his lips with my own eyes.     So it may all come down to msn not reporting all the facts, or not putting Mel's words in their proper context.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ315.HTM


----------



## Trainz (Mar 4, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Well, I did, darn you!









Ah ha !


----------



## Henry (Mar 4, 2004)

I also noted that some of the discussion is starting to go into the realm of theology and specifically Gibson's theology. Not trying to call names or squelch anyone's position, but this thread needs to be about the film itself and how it's doing box-office wise, not the theology of its makers or their statements or the statements of those speaking against him.

We're being civil, but I'm not letting the door get opened into uncivil territory. There are places for that discussion, but this isn't it.

Thanks, all.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 4, 2004)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Anyway, for the guy who said that The Passion would be the highest grossing film of all time, want to put $20 on that?  I don't think it'll outgross Titanic (Damn those 14-year-old girls. Damn them* TO HELL!!!*), but I do think it'll get up there.
> 
> BTW: Yeah, Kesh is right. Mel did say that. However, I don't see what the big deal is. Last I checked, EVERY religion said they were the one true path. If you don't believe that, then why do you even believe in that religion in the first place, if you believe that all religions are equal or whatever?




1) For the record, Judaism does not believe it is the one true religion.  In fact, technically speaking, it is more difficult to get to "heaven" under judaism, if you are jewish, than it is for a non-jew who behaves in a "good" manner during life.  This is why you rarely see attempts to convert people to judaism, and also why "chosen people" is not necessarily a good thing...but merely means you have greater responsibility in life.

2) This movie is going through the roof on HSX.com as far as movie stocks go.  I bouth 1000 shares at a low rate, and it's made my quarter.  I'm kicking myself for not buying the full 50,000 shares when I had the chance.  Ah well, it's fun to be greedy with play-money.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 4, 2004)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> And, as I mentioned above, Mel directly told Diane Sawyer during their ABC televised interview a few weeks ago that non-Catholics can go to heaven.  I heard him say this with my own ears, and saw the words come from his lips with my own eyes.     So it may all come down to msn not reporting all the facts, or not putting Mel's words in their proper context.
> 
> http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ315.HTM



Sounds like the NBC affiliates are miffed that they couldn't score an interview with him. Don't you hate it when they resort to sensationalist journalism? The piece is based on a secondhand source. I would not be surprised if he declines any interview from NBC-affiliated news agencies in the future.

While we have varying opinions, either based on alleged past statements he made or current statements regarding the film, one thing for sure, the film makes people talk about it.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 5, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Not trying to call names or squelch anyone's position, but this thread needs to be about the film itself and how it's doing box-office wise,



My favorite quote about the film is now from the February 20th edition of _Entertainment Weekly:_



> Buoyed by advance ticket sales driven by churches and other Christian groups, _The Passion_ could pull in $30 million in its first five days.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 5, 2004)

I'd like to add that Gibson has gotten a ton of free publicity and advertising because of the subject matter alone.  This is easily the most free advertising ever for a motion picture from my limited vantage point.  What better topic to get people buzzing?

I'm not saying this was Gibson's intention at all, just a byproduct.  Thoughts?


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 5, 2004)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I'd like to add that Gibson has gotten a ton of free publicity and advertising because of the subject matter alone.  This is easily the most free advertising ever for a motion picture from my limited vantage point.  What better topic to get people buzzing?
> 
> I'm not saying this was Gibson's intention at all, just a byproduct.  Thoughts?



Gibson's intention was to get the word out on the film strictly "grass roots" style, that is through his now widely publicized private screenings to Christian pastors and evangelists.  Many who saw the film before the release had their own radio shows and congregations through which to spread the word.

That, plus the subject matter, plus the controversy, plus the fact that literally millions of Christians have been hoping and waiting (and praying) for a cinematic rendition of the Gospels with top tier production values.

I wonder if the success of The Passion will lead Gibson or others to create similar films based on other books of the Bible.  I'd love to have an updated collection of epic films based on King David, Moses, Samson, Gideon, etc.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 5, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I wonder if the success of The Passion will lead Gibson or others to create similar films based on other books of the Bible.  I'd love to have an updated collection of epic films based on King David, Moses, Samson, Gideon, etc.




Although it isn't really a story in the Bible, I would _love_ to see a remake of Ben Hur using high production values and modern special-effects technology.

A remake of _The Ten Commandments_ is another one I would like to see.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 5, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Gibson's intention was to get the word out on the film strictly "grass roots" style, that is through his now widely publicized private screenings to Christian pastors and evangelists. Many who saw the film before the release had their own radio shows and congregations through which to spread the word.



Yeah, I knew about that part.  I'm actually more referring to the ton of major magazine articles, TV spots and the like.  Those of course being the byproduct of the subject matter.  It has been interesting to watch this whole thing unfold.  Now, I just have to see the film...   


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> That, plus the subject matter, plus the controversy, plus the fact that literally millions of Christians have been hoping and waiting (and praying) for a cinematic rendition of the Gospels with top tier production values.
> 
> I wonder if the success of The Passion will lead Gibson or others to create similar films based on other books of the Bible. I'd love to have an updated collection of epic films based on King David, Moses, Samson, Gideon, etc.



That would be pretty cool.  They would have to be handled properly, of course.  But yes, the re-telling is important and should be done.


----------



## Endur (Mar 5, 2004)

Sure.  If I win, you spend another $20 on The Passion.  If you win, I'll spend another $20 on Return of the King.



			
				Green Knight said:
			
		

> Anyway, for the guy who said that The Passion would be the highest grossing film of all time, want to put $20 on that?  I don't think it'll outgross Titanic (Damn those 14-year-old girls. Damn them* TO HELL!!!*), but I do think it'll get up there.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 5, 2004)

I would love to see the story of The Maccabees retold in a blockbuster film.

For those not familiar, after the Greek Empire under Alexander The Great and his successors had conquered the land of Israel, Greek social customs became the norm in Judah. Many of the Jews adapted themselves to Greek ways. However, the good will ended when Antiochus IV came to power.

Antiochus was a madman who attempted to destroy the Jews and all worship of their singular-God. He had any Jew who would not worship the Greek idols  put to death. Praying to God, or observing the Sabbath were also capital offenses. Mothers found with circumcised infants, according to Jewish law, were killed along with the child. He had many scrolls of the Holy Scriptures burned, although many were very likely saved by being hidden out in the wilderness in a manner similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The greatest outrage committed by Antiochus occurred in 167 B.C. when he entered The Great Temple in Jerusalem, erected an altar to Zeus, and sacrificed a pig on it. That desecration triggered a rebellion by a group of Jews led by the priest Mattathias and his five sons. When Mattathias died in 166 B.C., the leadership went to his son Judas, who was nicknamed "the Maccabee" which means "the hammer." The name Maccabee was also used for other members of the family who took part in the uprising, and eventually to that group of Knights who took part in the rebellion.

The Maccabee's were seriously outnumbered, and their opponents were armed with the best military weapons and training of the time.  However, with bravery, military genius, and no doubt much luck and stealth, the Maccabees achieved an amazing series of victories through the land. By 164 B.C. they gained control of The Temple and rededicated it. Their eventual victory and purification of The Temple is today commemorated by Jews with the annual Festival of Hanukkah (and the story really ends with an 8-day party, not really the miricle of the oil, which arose later in history).

I really think it would make a fine film.

I also think the siege of Masada would make a fantastic film, and would be perhaps as sad if not sadder than Passion, with much more opportunity for LOTRs-type panoramic views of castles and Gladiator-level recreation of buildings.

More on Masada here:

http://masada.cdshop.co.il/story/synopsis.html


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Mar 5, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I wonder if the success of The Passion will lead Gibson or others to create similar films based on other books of the Bible.  I'd love to have an updated collection of epic films based on King David, Moses, Samson, Gideon, etc.




That would be unmitigatedly awesome. I would see all of them. Until The Passion, I don't think much anything along the lines of The 10 Commandments or Ben-Hur has been done lately (except those animated movies). I would also like to see a Maccabees movie.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 6, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I wonder if the success of The Passion will lead Gibson or others to create similar films based on other books of the Bible. I'd love to have an updated collection of epic films based on King David, Moses, Samson, Gideon, etc.



Personally, I'd like to see some faithful, professional interpretations of the New Testament.

The Gospels themselves contain enough material for a film festival.

Even cooler would be a huge, effects-filled rendition of the Revelation of St. John.

The controversy over _that _project would be awesome.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 6, 2004)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Even cooler would be a huge, effects-filled rendition of the Revelation of St. John.



I know, I can't help but think of the Rider on the White Horse from Revelation 19:11 everytime I see Gandalf charging down the mountain at the end of The Two Towers.


----------



## Steve Jung (Mar 6, 2004)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> /snip/
> I also think the siege of Masada would make a fantastic film, and would be perhaps as sad if not sadder than Passion, with much more opportunity for LOTRs-type panoramic views of castles and Gladiator-level recreation of buildings.
> 
> More on Masada here:
> ...



Have you seen the mini-series from 1981? IMDb link.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 6, 2004)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I would love to see the story of The Maccabees retold in a blockbuster film.



The question now becomes: Who shall direct/produce the film: Gibson, Spielberg, or Scorsese?


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 7, 2004)

Just got back from taking my grandparents*. Fourth viewing for me. 

The matinee show wasn't a sell-out, but the theater _was _very full. 

It seems to me that while attendance is dropping off, the process is very gradual.

I predict this film will go the distance, but wishful thinking may be coloring my opinion.

*They loved it, but I'm not surprised. They're so Catholic they make the Pope look like a Unitarian.


----------



## Particle_Man (Mar 7, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> The question now becomes: Who shall direct/produce the film: Gibson, Spielberg, or Scorsese?




Peter Jackson, man!  How could you of all people fail to mention him?


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 7, 2004)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I predict this film will go the distance, but wishful thinking may be coloring my opinion.





Well it looks like it made $51,392,365 this weekend.  No idea if that puts it behind or ahead of predicted...


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Mar 7, 2004)

Y'know, with the success of TPotC, and with the current trend in Hollywood to remake films, I wonder if there's some writer, producer, or other bigwig out there thinking about remaking _The Ten Commandments_ (possibly w/ Chuck Heston playing the elder Pharoah or some other elder-gent part).

However, I also think that it'd be nice to see other big-production films based on religious figures/events outside of the Judeo-Christian realm (or, at least outside the typical focus on Christ).  Perhaps a film about Buddhism & the Buddha, Gautama Siddartha.  Or, how about going later on in the Judeo-Christian tradition, & perhaps about a key event/person in Islam (which I'm not sure would be acceptable, considering any film possibly being deemed as idolatrous [spelling again]).  Or maybe even something from Hinduism (like Krishna, the avatar of Vishnu, or the Mahabharata).

But, OTOH, I'd like to see something pulleed from literature, like Milton's _Paradise Lost_ or the like--something that deals with the sacred, though not necessarily drawn from a sacred text.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 7, 2004)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Peter Jackson, man!  How could you of all people fail to mention him?



Not that I want to label him as a genre film director, but I'm afraid he'll make such a biblical film too fantasy-like.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Mar 7, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> As I said earlier, regardless of one's opinion of it, the Bible is, and likely always will be, the best and most detailed historical document of the area and the time period.




actually, thats whats called an opinion. Just saying, its pretty silly to say, in essence, "regardless of opinion, my opinion is true."  :\  To call it the best and most detailed, begs the question of its accuracy. If it is inaccurate, it isn't the best, and the number of details are irrelevant to it as a "historical record" if the details were added over oral retellings for years before anyone cannonized the accounts.

The bible as history is a very complicated question, and giving your opinion "regardless of opinion" is just arrogance. It is the connonical telling of a story very important to you. Leave its absolute accuracy out of it, and I doubt there is anyone here who will argue the point. But if you want it to be a historical document, yet benefit from the board rules that would make any serious challange to that assertion forbidden religious argument, you are preaching your religion's accuracy to a captive audience. That seems to me inappropriate.

Kahuna burger


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 8, 2004)

AFGNCAAP said:
			
		

> Y'know, with the success of TPotC, and with the current trend in Hollywood to remake films, I wonder if there's some writer, producer, or other bigwig out there thinking about remaking _The Ten Commandments_ (possibly w/ Chuck Heston playing the elder Pharoah or some other elder-gent part).




As neat as that would be, I think Charlton Heston's acting days are over.  He's suffering from Alzheimer's disease.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Mar 8, 2004)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> BTW: Yeah, Kesh is right. Mel did say that. However, I don't see what the big deal is. Last I checked, EVERY religion said they were the one true path. If you don't believe that, then why do you even believe in that religion in the first place, if you believe that all religions are equal or whatever? Is that kind of certainty REALLY any different then an atheist's certainty that there's no afterlife? Mel says if you ain't Catholic then you're going to Hell. Atheists say that no matter how good you are you're still gonna vanish into the same oblivion that everyone else, good or bad, vanishes into. That applies to any kind of moral position a person takes, ranging from religion to politics to ethics and philosophy and so on. Either you stand for something, or you're a wishy-washy person who doesn't stand for anything. Whatever the case, much ado about nothing.




Three points. One, I know many people from different religions who consider their religion to be *their* path to salvation but are open to the idea that other religions may providean equally valid path to others. Your first point is innacurate, and make sweeping generalizations about essentially a whole world of people who you may not have made an effort to understand before telling them what they believe.

Second, and more specificly, your off the cuff comments about the entire population of atheists are also false. Non believers in g/God(s) come in many flavors, some of whom do believe in an afterlife and many of whom lack that belief, but also lack the certainty so many critics falsely assign to them. 

Third, saying anyone who isn't as hidebound and dogmatic as you seem to think they need to be is "wishy washy" and believes in nothing, says a hell of a lot more about your own shortcomings than it does those who don't need to impose their beliefs or decisions on the whole world in order to justify them to themselves. 

Basicly, you have attempted to tell everyone on this board what they believe, instead of sticking to what you believe, or the beliefs actual people have shared with you. I considerthat rude in general, and insulting to my philosophy which you have lied about in particular.

kahuna burger


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 8, 2004)

Could y'all _please _not get this thread closed until we see next week's Box Office returns?

Pretty please?


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 8, 2004)

Total domestic box office returns as of Mar. 7, 2004: $212,034,000 (Estimate)

Comparison to LotR (over same 2 weekend period):
Fellowship of the Ring: $155,862,412
The Two Towers: $200,058,231
The Return of the King: $222,268,708

Very interesting.

Source: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=passionofthechrist.htm


----------



## Henry (Mar 8, 2004)

I'm closing this thread for two reasons:

1) The topic was the box office receipts in comparison to ROtK and other blockbusters. I think the film has proven it has a good deal of popularity, more than many critics assumed it would.

2) The discussion of religious theology, and personal beliefs, is getting a little too heated for what's considered healthy discussion. When the line crosses between discussion of a religious-related topic, and the actual religions themselves, it's time to close things down to both cool things down and keep the board on-topic.


----------

