 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.164.230.183
Saw today for the first (and last) time. Simply awful. Gibson makes Costner look like a great director.
Follow Ups:
I thought it was very well done. I disagree with everyone who says this is over the top violence-wise. All one needs to beat it is to read our own current news. Though I went to catholic school for 6 years I've always been an atheist. But I like to be informed about these things. I found the movie fascinating and continue to hold Gibson as a great modern director. My main criticism of the film would be the lack of character development in Jesus. It would've been nice to have a little more back story of Jesus dealing with his disciples prior to the events covered in the film. I also think Gibson should've chosen a more suitable actor instead of a white guy though I have no real problems with Bale's performance. I probably will watch this again someday.
Rob CThe world was made for people not cursed with self-awareness
.
His approach. He could have dialed back the graphic violence. The story doesn't need embellishment. A director with a lighter touch would have done a better job. At least Jesud didn't have blue eyes.
The brutality was way over top. Too graphic and went on too long. Thats how I viewed it originally. As I reconsidered, though, it became clearer to me that Gibson's movie wasn't about Jesus' death. Everyone dies. Everyone knows "Jesus died for our sins". So what's new? What he conveyed was the extreme brutality and sadism Jesus endured in that death, and he couldn't really get that across without heavy graphic representation.I think Gibson's intent was to make it difficult for the Christian viewer to skip over the brutal nature of Jesus' suffering and jump to the "Happy Ending" of the Resurrection. Modern Christianity tends to promote a warm'n fuzzy relation with Christ and discounts the reality of the suffering part of His sacrifice. We tend to not to want to know much about that distastefull part. Gibson showed it in all its real gruesomeness. Roman records of their treatment of criminals show he didn't exaggerate.
I also think Gibson demonstrated more solid cinematic skill in conveying his theme than many leading directors who get a lot more credit for skill than they deserve. I thought the his use of fast flashback sequences and his framing of Mary's perceptions, though not subtle, were brilliant. He got volumes from his actors with minimal dialog. Most directors are afraid of the material and too subtle or indirect. Thats why most religious-themed movies suck.
"Modern Christianity tends to promote a warm'n fuzzy relation with Christ and discounts the reality of the suffering part of His sacrifice."Well, I grew up in the South as a Baptist and then Church Of God when my mother thought the Baptists were becoming to liberal. Believe me, neither sugarcoated anything.
I can't test your premise that the graphic scenes were correct because I'll never watch the film again. I simply feel it was an absolutely awful film and I have no interest in Gibson's (or Tom Cruise's for that matter)religious beliefs.
On the same level with professional wrestling. If it were about any other subject with as much sadism in it then it would have been banned or heavily rated XXX. This happens about every 10 years, another story of Christ. Just to make money! Maybe Hulk Hogan should direct! George Stevens tried hard with THE GRESTEST SOTRY EVER TOLD with Max Von Sydow as Christ and is probably the best portrayal yet. Ray Hughes
"I take you as you are
And make of you what I will,
Skunk-bear, carcajou, bloodthirsty
Non-survivor.
Lord, let me die but not die out." THE LAST WOLVERINE by James Dickey
if you don't like the movie fine. If you have insightful critiques even better. but making silly claims that the movie was made for the money just makes you look ignorant. If you knew anything about the history of this movie you would know that it is one of the few movies that was made without box office consideration.
No box office consideration? Puh-Lease! If Mr. Gibson meant this film as the "gift to humanity" he so obviously sees it to be, why didn't he also pick up the tab for us all to see it? I'll stick with the written version... ;-)
"No box office consideration? Puh-Lease!"Puh=lease explain why some one would put their own money into a huge production that on the surface has no box office appeal and no distribution deal. If you can explain how on would do that with profit in mind you win.
" If Mr. Gibson meant this film as the "gift to humanity" he so obviously sees it to be, why didn't he also pick up the tab for us all to see it? I'll stick with the written version... ;-)"
Do you understand the difference between a willingness to lose money for a personal vision and a desire to give money away for a personal vision. If you do then you should understand the lack of logiv behind your argument. If not then there is nothing to talk about.
to his personal wealth, without EVER thinking that it might be a profitable venture. Because Passion is a documentation of Christian beliefs, there can be no questioning the possible motivation of its creator. God himself wrote the screenplay (also risking His reputation in Hollywood), Gibson green-lighted it three days later. God, Mel, and everyone else involved were shocked when the film became a runaway success at the box office... After all, with so few Christians in the United States, the film's intended audience amounted to only a handful of people. There was NO WAY this film was EVER going to make money... the fact that it did is miraculous! Thank you for your sacrifice Mr. Gibson.Analog Scott, your logic is unflappable!
"to his personal wealth, without EVER thinking that it might be a profitable venture."Obviously. the first rule of film making is don't use your own money because it is a bad investment. Now lets consider Mel's situation when he decided to put millions of dollars into this movie out of his pockets. The movie had no distribution deal, no advertising budget and zero support form the commercial film world's infrastructure. No film has ever returned the the money that Gibson put into the this project without any such support. Then look at the sube=ject matte and style. the last biblical based movie to make profit was what? the 10 commandments? How many subtitled movies have ever made the money needed to make a movie like this one profitable? yeah Mel Gibson risked his millions because he thought The Passion was a great get rich quick scheme.
" Because Passion is a documentation of Christian beliefs, there can be no questioning the possible motivation of its creator."
That is simply idiotic. You guys aren't qustioning his motives you are just inventing them. Your presumptions would be no less ridiculous if the movie were about anything else. Christianity has nothing to do with it.
" God himself wrote the screenplay (also risking His reputation in Hollywood), Gibson green-lighted it three days later. God, Mel, and everyone else involved were shocked when the film became a runaway success at the box office... After all, with so few Christians in the United States, the film's intended audience amounted to only a handful of people."
Dude name the last biblical based subtitled mega hit tht ha no distribution deal or advertising budget. if you think anyone expected as box office hit you are clueless. Nothing like this has ever happened. If Mel Gibson did this movie for the money he is a genius.
"There was NO WAY this film was EVER going to make money... the fact that it did is miraculous!"
It is. It broke just about every rule in box office history. But hey, if you can cite one prediction by you or Mel Gibson or anybody else that this would be a box office hit please do so. prove me wrong.
"Thank you for your sacrifice Mr. Gibson.
Analog Scott, your logic is unflappable!"
Maybe you should invest all your money in making another biblical based subtitled movie with no distribution deal. I mean if it's such an obvious money maker should work a second time. Don't miss your opportunity to get rich quick. All you need to do is risk everything you own.
I'll refrain from trying to persuade you any further re Mr. Gibson's intentions or motivations. Especially since you have decided to make this an ugly affair... referring to my obviously sarcastic commentary with: "That is simply idiotic." I'll wrap this up by saying, enjoy your Lethal Weapon movie marathon. I hope you're not so rude to people in real life (if you have one)!
You are the one who deposited sarcasm in a thread in which, up to that point, consisted of reasoned, intelligent discourse. I have heard that statistically less than 10% of films make money (generate a profit). If you want to make money, film is not the investment you should be in. When is the last time you invested your net worth on anything? Did you know it would be a sure bet? One question you have still not answered is why, if Passion was sure to be a money maker, why was there not anyone at any studio willing to front the money, given that they are in the business of making money, and presumably know a hit when they see it?
But here's the simple answer to your question ie:"One question you have still not answered is why, if Passion was sure to be a money maker, why was there not anyone at any studio willing to front the money, given that they are in the business of making money, and presumably know a hit when they see it?"
They gravely miscalculated the appeal a film like this could have, and I'll bet they'll think a little more carefully about the next "religion" picture pitch that comes their way. It's not hard to imagine the types of preconceptions or biases someone in Hollywood might have about a project like Passion. I can honestly say that I'm not really surprised that the film has done as well as it has. Also, the notion that "they" will know a hit when they see it becomes more and more dubious. Have you noticed that all the big studios now have their little boutique brands like Fox Searchlight and Sony Classics? These exist only because of successful independent films from smaller houses like Miramax. Maybe Gibson couldn't get anybody to bite on his idea because HE IS PART of the big blockbuster-action-mulch-engine that basically shuns films like the one he wanted to make. It's like being a loud, obnoxious frat-boy who one day decides to instantly become a fey intellectual. In other words, maybe he was trying to sell his picture to the wrong people. Why would this surprise anyone?
Anyhoo, cheers to ya
Sarcasm is not humor. If sarcasm was humor, it would be called humor. Lemme see if I understand your last point: Gibson pitches this film to multiple studios, people who are paid very well to spot a money making film. All those studios make the same miscalculation? Oddly enough, though, Gibson, generally an actor, though sometimes moonlighting as a director, and occasionally as a producer, was able to see the enormous profit potential of the film where the studios could not?Did Miramax and these other so-called independent (which are not independent, but that is for another day) studios line up to contribute? The engine, as you put it, is interested in making gobs of money, and do not care what dress it wears. If explosions sell pictures, they make explosions. Look at the history of Hollywood. They have run through their gangster era, their western era, their science fiction era, their romantic comedy era, their horror era, all in the name of commerce. If Gibson comes in with an idea that will generate bucks, they do not ask whether the film contains explosions, they ante up.
The bias in Hollywood was that a religious picture cannot make money. Your argument that Gibson is part of that estalblishment only supports the argument that this was not a film designed, nor one he believed, would make gobs of money. The logic is thus: If Hollywood does not believe that a religious film can make money, and if Gibson is part of the Hollywood system, then Gibson did not believe the film would make money.
Your argument that the studios will think twice about releasing a religious film also supports that argument. Hollywood is not about crashes, explosions, or any other subject matter, except to the extent that they make money for the studios. They will willingly release religious films if they make money on them.
And not being surprised that the film has done well is not the same thing as saying that it was expected to do well. There are stocks that I am not surprised have done well, but when it came time to invest, I did not believe they would do well. Monday morning quarterbacking is always easy.
Sure it is, I mean, it CAN be humorous.It's becoming clear that you did not properly absorb the point that I'm attempting to make, so I'll make this short and sweet:
1.Mel Gibson knew that there was a market for this film.
2.Mel Gibson made the film with his own money.
3.Mel Gibson made (and is still making) shitloads of money off his film.
4.If you think Mel Gibson made this film purely as "personal sacrifice" you better think again... Why would he make a film that he believed no one would want to see?
5.If you cannot understand what I'm saying, let's call it a day.
Cheers
ROSS: Then there is this return. It would seem that God is saying, 'I will bless this thing.' Obviously, He has.
GIBSON: He doesn't always smile on you with material reward. That's not always necessarily part of it. In this case it was. But I was prepared for it to not work at all. I didn't know that it would. Fortunately, it touched a lot of people. Therefore, they went and saw it and recommended it to other people. I have to say the champion of this push was the evangelical community. They were really rock solid. It did extremely well and many people loved it, and they sent correspondence. But I got some correspondences that were on the lines of 'ah, it was great, but I wish I could have taken my Aunt Martha or Uncle Frank.' They stayed away because they had heard of the more wrenching aspects of the film. It's pretty brutal in spots – and intentionally so. But I got enough of those things, like, 'I wish I could have taken a 15-year-old,' so I thought maybe there is room to reenter the edit and find another way, keeping the impact of the film, the integrity of the film, but extracting some of the more wrenching or brutal aspects of the film, and therefore making it available to a wider audience. That's, in effect, what I've done. It didn't get a PG-13. It's still hard, but it is not as hard. It's not as big of a release as the other one. It's already been out there, but bearing in mind that it's been softened some to attract a wider audience, I think it may do all right. And if it doesn't, that's OK, too.
ROSS: Are you disappointed by the fact that you weren't recognized by the degree you might have been at the Oscars?GIBSON: No. Disappointment doesn't come into it, because I didn't expect anything.
ROSS: Really?
GIBSON: Well, if you don't expect anything, you can't be disappointed. It is exactly what I expected not to be recognized, so I didn't do the massive marketing campaign. I just put the film out there and said if they are going to judge it, then judge it on its own merits.
Everyone knows that making a religious film targeted towards believers, given that less than 50% of the American population attends church regularly, of which teenage boys have no interest in attending, much less in taking their dates to, and which offer no hope of any foreplay, together with depictions of extreme gore and violence, for lack of better words, and subtitled, requiring attendees to actually read (they do not read at home, why in a movie?) is a sure recipe for megabucks. Gibson obviously knew this. Heck, I can't quite figure out why the multiplex is not littered with Passion, Part Deaux.
According to you!;-)
nt
I rented the DVD. I turned it off when Jesus was scourged by the gang of sadistic Roman soldiers. I certainly wouldn't let any of my children look at it and anyone I held to respect. And I never want to ever see it again! It's cinematography was sloppy. BRAVEHEART was much better done from a production value point of view. And this attempt to be truthful to this extinct foreign tongue was ludicrous. But it has a following I'm sure. In 10 more years we'll have another rendering. Gee, I wonder what Orson Wells would have done. He did want to make a Jesus film with himself in the title role. Ray Hughes
"I take you as you are
And make of you what I will,
Skunk-bear, carcajou, bloodthirsty
Non-survivor.
Lord, let me die but not die out." THE LAST WOLVERINE by James Dickey
"I rented the DVD. I turned it off when Jesus was scourged by the gang of sadistic Roman soldiers. I certainly wouldn't let any of my children look at it and anyone I held to respect. And I never want to ever see it again!"Your comments above are very much like what others have told me. In fact it was comments like those that lead me to not see the movie. It was enough for me to know I had no interest in seeing it.
" It's cinematography was sloppy. BRAVEHEART was much better done from a production value point of view. And this attempt to be truthful to this extinct foreign tongue was ludicrous."
having not seen the movie it's hard for me to respond, however I see why someone would do a movie like this in the actual language if one thought they wer truly dedicated to absolute accuracy.
"But it has a following I'm sure."
Clearly.
"In 10 more years we'll have another rendering."
Entirely possible.
" Gee, I wonder what Orson Wells would have done. He did want to make a Jesus film with himself in the title role. Ray Hughes
"I take you as you are
And make of you what I will,
Skunk-bear, carcajou, bloodthirsty
Non-survivor.
Lord, let me die but not die out." THE LAST WOLVERINE by James Dickey"
Not sure the point of that but your assertion that this movie was made for profit still doesn't hold water. I suggest you read up on the back story of the making of this film.
This was a film that Gibson could not get the major studios to bite on. The bean counters did not think it had any prospect to make any money. Gibson financed the film himself. Hollywood execs. live to make money. Look at much of the dreck they release. To think that a film was actually designed to make money, and then the bean counters simply failed to see what they so regularly see in other projects, is ludicrous. And since when have subtitled films made money in America?
I was really knocked out by Satan. When he (she) first appeared I struck me that is what he could really have looked like at that time. Brilliant stroke of using a woman with a shaved head and a heavy stare.
Ex nihilo, nihil fit . . .
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
