Why? Haven't we all read the book, okay haven't at least one fourth of us at least read those parts of the book and the rest know the details through Pop Culture Osmosis? Who are they trying to sell this too? North Korea? Taiwan? Sri Lanka?
Modified Ura-nage, Torture RackWho cares? They're both good stories. What difference should it make if people had read/seen/heard the story before? People know about Hamlet, should they stop doing that because everyones familiar with the "to be or not to be line"?
Theres sex and death and human grime in monochrome for one thin dime and at least the trains all run on time but they dont go anywhere.The Abraham Lincoln Vampire movie just reminded me I want to read that book sometime. Now if a movie is telling a different tale than a book, but has a similar premise, I could see some appeal. But I wasn't interested in Passion Of The Christ for the same reason, I could see a passion play for less than half the price, and did, many times actually.
Not as many people have read Hamlet as the Bible, and not as many people are willing to give you copies of Hamlet for free in an effort to save your soul("the Christians are evil proof", "God Loves All People, read his word", "The times for seen by John will soon be upon us!"
edit:but that's just my opinion, you all can go see them if you want to, I won't think less of you for it but I'll probably never understand
edited 14th Jun '12 6:56:40 PM by Cider
Modified Ura-nage, Torture RackBy the same token, the entire world knows the tropes of the science-fiction or western genres. So why do we still make sci-fi and western movies?
Ditto Snow White — why make two more versions of that story?
I can't answer the question sufficiently in this space, but suffice it to say that those films aren't the same experience. There's a worthiness to this kind of reiterative work, because they aren't reiterations. They're variations.
After all, it's all been done before. This website it proof enough to that.
This post has been powered by avenging fury and a balanced diet.Is it just me, or are there not a lot of different sections from the Bible that people are interested in trying to make movies from? I can think of Moses, Jesus, this new on about Noah, and...that's about it, as far as I'm aware. Maybe Revelations too, depending on how broad you're willing to use that classification in relation to end of the world movies.
Why is it bad that someone who is not a Christian is making films about Christian mythology? Would you criticise Clash of the Titans on the basis that its makers don't follow ancient Greek religion?
Scepticism and doubt lead to study and investigation, and investigation is the beginning of wisdom. - Clarence DarrowAs far as I know an atheist Pier Paolo Pasolini's The Gospel according to Matthew is one of the most highly rated and faithful Biblical movies.
You know what'd be interesting? A Bible Epic made in Japan by people who don't really understand the Bible.
And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)Heh... Not sure the world could take that.
Let's see...
Neon Genesis Evangelion: Japanese director uses Jewish mysticism about Adam, Eve, Lilith and the Tree of Life. Result:
And lets not forget Chrono Crusade. A story about a nun with a gun, that shoots holy water bullets as she hunts demons in 1920 era America.
Madoka Magica turned out pretty good though. That one was based on Faust.
edited 16th Jun '12 1:40:12 PM by Sackett
The difference between genre tropes, and the Bible, a single book with three accepted canons at most, is that genres are much more malleable. Even then, I can make Snow White a man without being called sacrilegious and offending those guys who run Child Fund and hope chests for Haiti. You can do a whole lot with Biblical material, but you have to be careful because a lot of people both know the material and are personally invested in it. The average Hollywood sludge shows most of their staff isn't talented enough or caring enough for anything really ambitious.
I have more faith in Warner Bros Animation than in the Hollywood machine. They gave us Coal Black And De Sebben Dwarfs but they at least never went so far as to make Frank Miller's 300 so much worse it was too racist for Iran.
At best California's studios are just going to tell the same story we all know, that if you don't happen to know you can read much cheaper with an abridged version of the Bible. Maybe when it is something they can manage not to derail with audience appeal characters, romantic subplots and explosions I'll be more hopeful but for now the best I can hope for are retellings of tales most of the world already knows and that is not a good enough to hold my interest.
Modified Ura-nage, Torture RackAny film that makes the Ayatollahs literally froth at the mouth with incandescent rage gets a pass in my book. I would much rather watch 300 than any bible film.
It wasn't particularly offensive to Muslims, otherwise they wouldn't be banning it on racism. It was offensive to Iranians because they know the army that warred with Greece was predominately white men, not Mestizos, Blacks and Mutated far Easterners. They could have at least used Arabs, that would have been an understandable, forgivable mistake. There was that bit they left out about Athens kind of provoking the conflict to begin with but that's another issue.
The point is, Hollywood is bad at these. At best, we're going to get the same story we already know. "Passion Of The Christ" was an Easter play with torture porn tacked on it. At worst, Sadly Mythtaken has some of them documented already. I'd rather they butcher battle ship.
Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack...Iranians aren't Arabs or white. Although I'm not well-versed on the Battle of Thermopiles, so maybe Xerxes' army was made mostly out of whites (It wouldn't surprise me; the Mongolian armies under Genghis Khan were mostly made out of non-Mongolians).
Also, are there any popular films that are about the life of Jesus? People seem to have this odd fixation on just his birth and death, probably because they like chocolate eggs and Christmas cookies.
edited 19th Jun '12 10:53:39 AM by Scardoll
Fight. Struggle. Endure. Suffer. LIVE.Well, either way they definatley weren't made up of monsters, ninjas, monster ninjas and Satan. I don't think it would have been such a big deal if Frank Miller wasn't insane (in a bad way, not an awesome way) but there you go.
And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)I don't know about popularity but Pasolini's The Gospel according to Matthew is very respected classic.
There is a film just titled Jesus, that portrays His life.
Two Moses films? Hasn't Hollywood done that story enough? Can't they pick something different like Judges, David, Elijah/Elisha, or Esther?
On the other hand, I wouldn't have expected a Noah movie.
I want to see a movie about the people in the book of Judges.
Not from Hollywood. There was this guy named Barack in judges, and that would discredit the whole Arabic phobia thing the USA is on right now. Then again, Barack could easily be "interpreted" as coward and there are black Jews...
Modified Ura-nage, Torture RackRidley Scott + Moses = Mind Blown. Speven Speilberg + Moses = Mind also blown. Imagine if they were collaborating on the same Moses film. That would be amazing.
edited 20th Jun '12 4:46:55 PM by cfive
I don't think Barak's likely to get a villain upgrade. He was a bit...cautious, but the New Testament lists him as a hero of the faith, so he can't have been that bad. His only problem was that he refused to go into battle unless the Lord's prophetess was with him.
I think the only thing that would interest me in another Moses movie was if he knew he was an Israelite the entire time like in The Bible instead of have it be a dramatic revelation.
Wow, I'd almost forgotten this thread existed. Since these productions do seem to be going forward I think it's good to start up the conversation again.
Call me crazy; but I'm wondering if the reason atheists like Scott and Aronofsky are trying to create movies like this is to prevent people with genuine religious conviction from making them first.
In these tough economic times, I think there is large, untapped audience just waiting for the return of the Biblical Epic. Something atheists like Scott and Aronofsky probably wouldn't be happy to see. So they create their own "take" on these stories so genuinely religious people can't make their own.
"The point is, Hollywood is bad at these. At best, we're going to get the same story we already know. "Passion Of The Christ" was an Easter play with torture porn tacked on it. At worst, Sadly Mythtaken has some of them documented already. I'd rather they butcher battle ship."
From what I understand, Passion of the Christ was a largely independent production. But you're right, I would have a hard time trusting modern Hollywood with this, unless it was, of course, directed by someone like Randall Wallace.
edited 3rd Feb '13 4:12:14 PM by Albor
Noah is one of those interesting cases where there's never been a big movie about it. I think part of it is the "And mankind grew wicked" thing. Although, with that movie, I hope they don't give the pre-flood parts a generic 'Bible' look, because that is extremely unlikely.
Not Three Laws compliant.
Apparently we've got two Moses films and one Noah film.
The Noah film is to be directed by Darren Aronofsky.
One of the Moses films entitled God's and Kings will possibly be directed by Steven Speilberg. Another is to be by Ridley Scott.
Ridley Scott is openly atheist and I don't think Aronofsky is particualry religious. I'm going to have to assume these two are planning deconstructions rather than something in the vein of the Ten Commandment's, whcih reflected the high religiosity of the period it was made.
The only one I hold any hope for is Speilberg due to his involvement in the wonderful Prince of Egypt.
Though I have to ask... where is Randall Wallace when you need him?