I haven't seen a thread about it yet...

[Aredubjay]

Originally posted by Mr. Pockets
I've certainly read enough about the film to understand that it only works if you know the background, because it only covers the last 12 hours of Jesus's life. I'm glad people enjoy it, but if it's not a complete story and you have to read supporting material to 'get' it, to me it just doesn't work as a film. I don't think I'd understand much of what was going on.

I think most people know the "basic" premise of the story of Christ. Y'know, he was born and made Christmas and hung out healing people for a while with his 12 homies then they killed him. If anyone has an "inkling" about the crucifixion story, it's a good clarification experience, but, yes, if you're totally clueless about Christ, there are two things you should do: !) Go to the movie with someone who KNOWS the story, so you can ask questions (someone you trust not to PREACH to you), or, 2) Don't bother going. Just my 20.00 (That's 2 cents adjusted for current inflation of gasoline prices)

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally posted by Aredubjay



I think most people know the "basic" premise of the story of Christ. Y'know, he was born and made Christmas and hung out healing people for a while with his 12 homies then they killed him. If anyone has an "inkling" about the crucifixion story, it's a good clarification experience, but, yes, if you're totally clueless about Christ, there are two things you should do: !) Go to the movie with someone who KNOWS the story, so you can ask questions (someone you trust not to PREACH to you), or, 2) Don't bother going. Just my 20.00 (That's 2 cents adjusted for current inflation of gasoline prices)

I'll most likely do the latter, because while I do understand the basic story, I don't know a thing about the characters in the film or their pertinence to the events. I think if the movie was done as more of a seriesthat gave more background, I might be better inclined to see it. Since it covers such a short period, after so many important story events have already occurred, it's clear to me that the film is meant for a very specific (albeit large) audience.

[Noir]

i saw the movie. then i went to see how well the movie did. i think mel knew how much he was going to make off that movie. mel knows that violence sells. look at all his other movies. until the production of this movie, i didn't even know mel's religious views. i still think it's all for the money. $83.8 million dollars on the first week. the next runner up was 50 first dates which came up to $12.5 million dollars.

i saw the movie. then i went to see how well the movie did. i think mel knew how much he was going to make off that movie. mel knows that violence sells. look at all his other movies. until the production of this movie, i didn't even know mel's religious views. i still think it's all for the money. $83.8 million dollars on the first week. the next runner up was 50 first dates which came up to $12.5 million dollars.

....I have to disagree. Mel did not make the movie knowing he would make $$ due to the nature of voilence. I don't even think it was a money issue for him. He did spend $25 million of his own money to make it happen.

[Aredubjay]

Originally posted by Noir
i saw the movie. then i went to see how well the movie did. i think mel knew how much he was going to make off that movie. mel knows that violence sells. look at all his other movies. until the production of this movie, i didn't even know mel's religious views. i still think it's all for the money. $83.8 million dollars on the first week. the next runner up was 50 first dates which came up to $12.5 million dollars.

I'll step out on a limb and disagree, here. 30 million, out of pocket for Mel on a high risk investment to start with. THEN, no one would distribute it because it didn't have any "Big" names in the credits. And, certainly, with the success of his past endeavors, I doubt that poor Mel was anywhere near soup line material at the time he started the project, nor, if the movie didn't make a dime.

Incidentally, the "controversy" (most of it negative) has done as much to fuel attendance as the subject matter, in my opinion. Certainly the subject matter coupled with the shear numbers of those who claim to be Christians would stand up on its own (Over 80 percent of the populace claiming to be Christians with a little over half of the Christian populace claiming Church affiliation). Add that number to the "curiosity seekers" and and you've got a formula for lots o' money -- whether you were asking for it, or not.
Just my opinion.

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally posted by Aredubjay
Incidentally, the "controversy" (most of it negative)

I don't think that's the case at all. Some of the media hype has been around alleged anti-semitism, but I don't think 'most' of the sentiment has been negative. From what I can tell, the vast majority of people who have seen the movie have only good things to say about it.

I think the vast majority of people had their minds made up before they saw it, and that's contributed hugely to its success at the box office, but by a landslide the reaction I've seen to the movie has been positive.

[Aredubjay]

Originally posted by Mr. Pockets


I don't think that's the case at all. Some of the media hype has been around alleged anti-semitism, but I don't think 'most' of the sentiment has been negative. From what I can tell, the vast majority of people who have seen the movie have only good things to say about it.

Notice, I didn't say "sentiment." I said "controversy." Pre-release negative publicity started a year before the movie was released, and the lion's share of it was negative. This was an early driver to the movie.

Yes, most people who have seen the movie are saying good things and the sentiment is positive for the most part now that the movie has been released.

Yes, most people who have seen the movie are saying good things and the sentiment is positive for the most part now that the movie has been released.

...With the exception of the media

[Aredubjay]

Originally posted by JLittell


...With the exception of the media

In particular "SOME" media.

Of course, Andy Rooney didn't wanna go see the movie because he didn't wanna "spend 9 bucks just for a few laughs."

[petesvx2]

What's his movie called that's about Vietnam?

[Aredubjay]

Originally posted by petesvx2
What's his movie called that's about Vietnam?

We were soldiers. Another good movie. He played a good ol' Kentucky boy in that movie.

[Noir]

Originally posted by JLittell


...With the exception of the media

who cares what the media says .

vultures

on another note, how many of our jewish members of the boards have seen this movie? i live in a predominately jewish neighborhood (4 synagogues within a 3 mile radius) and of course there's the thing against Mel Gibson movies, but none of my neighbors i've asked has any interests in viewing the movie at any time. they have their minds made up and have already judged the movie without watching it.

he did choose a great formula whether to make a buck or not. i did recognize some of the actors in the film, most of which starred in many foreign films. before i knew of the controversy, i stumbled upon a trailer for the movie. i've been raised a christian(not by choice and i'm not a christian ), yet i wanted to see the film to see someone else's representation of a part of the bible. that's why i saw the movie (then again i watch alot of 'B' movies that everyone else doen't watch or majority of the people think are 'crappy' movies.)

i did read recently before the film was released that Mel invited many people of the clergy (of both parties) to prescreen the film. from what i read the intent was to gain popularity with some of the leaders (which it did) and have them 'spread the word' to get support. i thought it was interesting when organizations started booking out theaters for their members to view the film.

Harry <--still thinks he was convinced that he could make a buck. high risk, high gain .

[petesvx2]

Just think of how that since he put it all in subtitles, most likely to keep historically accurate, it can now be played anywhere in the world, just change the subtitle language.

[Aredubjay]

Originally posted by petesvx2
Just think of how that since he put it all in subtitles, most likely to keep historically accurate, it can now be played anywhere in the world, just change the subtitle language.

This another reason people were saying (pre release) that the movie would fail. How soon they forget (Crouching Tiger . . .).

[Aredubjay]

Originally posted by Noir


who cares what the media says .

vultures

on another note, how many of our jewish members of the boards have seen this movie? i live in a predominately jewish neighborhood (4 synagogues within a 3 mile radius) and of course there's the thing against Mel Gibson movies, but none of my neighbors i've asked has any interests in viewing the movie at any time. they have their minds made up and have already judged the movie without watching it.

he did choose a great formula whether to make a buck or not. i did recognize some of the actors in the film, most of which starred in many foreign films. before i knew of the controversy, i stumbled upon a trailer for the movie. i've been raised a christian(not by choice and i'm not a christian ), yet i wanted to see the film to see someone else's representation of a part of the bible. that's why i saw the movie (then again i watch alot of 'B' movies that everyone else doen't watch or majority of the people think are 'crappy' movies.)

i did read recently before the film was released that Mel invited many people of the clergy (of both parties) to prescreen the film. from what i read the intent was to gain popularity with some of the leaders (which it did) and have them 'spread the word' to get support. i thought it was interesting when organizations started booking out theaters for their members to view the film.

Harry <--still thinks he was convinced that he could make a buck. high risk, high gain .

If I were Jewish, I probably wouldn't go see the movie. Why should I? I would think that it would be "Fable" to our Jewish brothers (Much like "The Last Temptation" was to Christians -- No, I didn't and won't see this movie). Unless, of course, they just wanted to see what their Christian brothers were talking about, so they'd understand them better. The only other reason would be to try and judge how anti semitic it is.

The actor who played Jesus was "The Count of Monte Christo" and also played opposite Ashley Judd in "High Crimes." I've always liked his work.

You could say that Mel was "selling" his movie to Christians with his pre-screenings. I prefer to think he was trying to get a "temperature reading" of the Christian community. After all, if Christians don't like it to begin with, and he is proclaiming it as an accurate dipiction, it ain't going nowhere and he definitely doesn't want to tick off the ONLY audience the movie is actually geared for.

I also hate that the Church Folks are making an "event" out of the movie by buying up blocks of tickets to distribute to their congregations. If they're going to buy blocks of tickets, I think they should distribute them to those who DON'T go to church, and pay their own way in. But then, I've been labeled a "rebel" from time to time.