The Passion of the Christ

Ghost [PX] · Post by **Ghost [PX]** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 6:20 pm

Thanks, I'll take a peak at it.

On a side note... Isn't it interesting how this thread has completely deviated from its original topic?

Samurai · Post by **Samurai** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:32 pm

Yes, but not nearly as much as LeVar's birthday discussion.

And to correct my previous comment about the number of people who saw Jesus after the resurrection: it was about 500.

THE JEW (RaVeN) · Post by **THE JEW (RaVeN)** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 12:22 am

Spot reserved for when mid-terms gimme a break.

Heidi18 · Post by **Heidi18** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 11:19 am

Isn't it interesting how this thread has completely deviated from its original topic?

I wouldn't say this has compeltely changed from tis original topic seeing how you and the Jew are talking about biblical stuff still.

Ghost [PX] · Post by **Ghost [PX]** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 11:28 am

The First Passion of the Christ Fatality,

While many people crowded theatres for the first night's showing of The Passion of the Christ, one woman in East Wichita, Kansas never got a chance to see how the movie ends. The woman in her late fifties collapsed during one of the violent scenes of Christ's crucifixion. The movie was stopped and nurses in the audience did CPR on the woman. She died later at the hospital.

Man that sucks! Now the papers are gonna say that Mel Gibson is trying to kill people with heart attacks or shock by the movies graphic effects.

Related topic due to biblical nature? Yes
Still very different topic though.

Heidi18 · Post by **Heidi18** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 11:30 am

i suppose the main idea has changed, but the biblical part still lingers

Ghost [PX] · Post by **Ghost [PX]** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 11:33 am

I'd be very surprised if it didnt, given the subject matter being discussed (THE BIBLE) :lol:

Angmar · Post by **Angmar** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:21 am

Yeah um. This topic interests me. But I am tired, so maybe I'll contribute a bit later.

So far I'm with the Jew, and I think I'm pretty safe in that statement, sharing denominations and schooling and all.

As far as The Passion itself, First Things liked it, and I trust them to a fairly large extent.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0 ... erlev.html if you're interested, a good and intelligent read regardless of faith I'd say.

[PX]IronFist · Post by **[PX]IronFist** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:24 am

Many critical reviews I have read really didn't like it. They said it was gory just for the sake of gore.

Heidi18 · Post by **Heidi18** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:48 am

but if you read the parts in the bible where Jesus gets crucified he goes through a lot of sh**. So the movie needs to be gory for it to be fairly realistic.

Ghost [PX] · Post by **Ghost [PX]** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:28 pm

Theres a line between Gory and Realism, that almost every review I read said The Passion crossed.
Yes jesus was beaten and whipped, yes he was tortured, however, the extent to which it is portrayed in the movie almost seems ridiculous when I read the reviews and see the stills.

Mel Gibson's version of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life has the Christian savior being bound and chained, thrown off a bridge, beaten and spat upon, kicked, mocked, his shoulder ripped out of its socket and in an excruciating (and repetitive) 30-minute torture scene, flogged until he's nothing more than a bloody pulp.

By the time the movie makes it to the crucifixion, the cross - not to mention Jesus' mission - seems like an afterthought.(...) Lost in the film's beautifully lit orgy of abuse is the sense of who Jesus was and why the Jewish priests - Gibson's villains in this old-fashioned melodrama - wanted him crucified.

Taken from Here

Now, correct me if Im wrong, but wouldnt the message that Jesus was being crucified for be more important than a bloody portrayal of the act itself? Im not even religious and that makes more sense to me. Gibson could have done this movie without any gore and probably would have gotten the message across better.

[Fallen]TSB · Post by **[Fallen]TSB** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:46 pm

I dont think so.. it has been done before with out hte gore (but it was kind of boring..).. the whole movie was made by mel (who is clathlick sp?) what ever and the way they see it from what i know it "The Passion" (means the suffering) of the christ (and chris means massia (More or less God) So really the title and everything works with the move and I think if you read the bible no one seems to think about it that he really suffered they just kind of .. oh yah bet that hurt but dont really think about it.. this put it in a new light.. that he really did do this stuff and that the stuff he went threw was crazy.. it was to show what he did for us.. (more or less to be thankfull it was not us who whent threw it and that he died for our sins..)

WEEE I just felk like typing..

[PX]IronFist · Post by **[PX]IronFist** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:21 pm

Heidi18 wrote:but if you read the parts in the bible where Jesus gets crucified he goes through a lot of sh**. So the movie needs to be gory for it to be fairly realistic.

[Fallen]TSB wrote:I dont think so.. it has been done before with out hte gore (but it was kind of boring..).. the whole movie was made by mel (who is clathlick sp?) what ever and the way they see it from what i know it "The Passion" (means the suffering) of the christ (and chris means massia (More or less God) So really the title and everything works with the move and I think if you read the bible no one seems to think about it that he really suffered they just kind of .. oh yah bet that hurt but dont really think about it.. this put it in a new light.. that he really did do this stuff and that the stuff he went threw was crazy.. it was to show what he did for us.. (more or less to be thankfull it was not us who whent threw it and that he died for our sins..)

WEEE I just felk like typing..

Right. But there is a difference between realistic Gore and just having it be Gorey for sensationalism. I haven't seen the movie (or actually been to ancient Rome) so I can't really speak about how realistic it was.
I am just saying that alot of reviews say it was too gorey - even for the subject at hand.

Ghost [PX] · Post by **Ghost [PX]** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:43 pm

As am I.

Yes, it may get the message across better if there was gore, but most reviews I've read (And I read quite a few) said that the level of gore that there was, was far too much. People lose track of the message because they keep seeing jesus bleeding from every orifice and a few new ones the Romans gave him.

Not the purpose of the movie if I remember it correctly...

THE JEW (RaVeN) · Post by **THE JEW (RaVeN)** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:15 pm

Well, there's only about one way to find out if there was too much gore. I, voluntarily, will whip someone with a cat o' nine tails, pierce somebody's side, strip them down, kick, punch, spit on, shove, name-call, shove thorns into their flesh, make them carry a heavy load a long distance, and then nail someone to a cross to determine whether or not it's believable.

Who's gonna be the other volunteer? The things I do for you guys.