Paul Verhoeven's Jesus of Nazareth

[Abudefduf]

edit

 

[Airwings]

Dude, other than Passion of the Christ, how many mainstream made Jesus films have you seen recently?

Dude, it's only been EIGHT freaking years since the last one. When will we get time to breathe?
There have been numerous films about Jesus over the years. Is it better to make a new film about him every X year, instead of trying with other bible stories??? I just ask.

 

[Project862006]

8 years thats almost a decade lol

you act like we have gotten 7 in the past 8

yet we get super hero films sometimes 3 a year

 

[craigdbfan]

I don't see a problem with this. In fact I'm highly looking forward to it.

Verhoeven + Jesus? Yes, please. This is going to be awesome.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Dude, it's only been EIGHT freaking years since the last one. When will we get time to breathe?
There have been numerous films about Jesus over the years. Is it better to make a new film about him every X year, instead of trying with other bible stories??? I just ask.

I could read this in either a sarcastic or serious way.

Eight years since the last major Jesus film. That's a long time. You'd think after the massive success of Passion, there would be more mainstream Jesus based, Biblical sort of films.

 

[Alonsovich]

I was just watching the Robocop "making of" documentary. Verhoeven does talk a bit about Jesus there (especially regarding Murphy's death scene, so probably expect a very over the top crucifixion scene). He defines Jesus as a Che Guevara of his time. He probably already had this film in his mind for a long time, possibly the 80s even, so this announcement doesn't shock me one bit. Totally looking forward to it. Last time he made a Jesus-related movie we got a classic of the 80s cinema about death and resurrection.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I could read this in either a sarcastic or serious way.

Eight years since the last major Jesus film. That's a long time. You'd think after the massive success of Passion, there would be more mainstream Jesus based, Biblical sort of films.

Although Passion of the Christ was actually not based on the Bible, or at least most of it wasn't.

 

[Airwings]

Eight years since the last major Jesus film. That's a long time. You'd think after the massive success of Passion, there would be more mainstream Jesus based, Biblical sort of films.

Other biblical films yes, but why Jesus almost everytime?

Soon there will be one or two Jesus every year.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Other biblical films yes, but why Jesus almost everytime?

Soon there will be one or two Jesus every year.

They need to establish the character for the upcoming Super Best Friends movie.

The release schedule is kind of like this:

Jesus (2013)
Jesus 2 (2015)
The Incredible Buddha (2016)
Mohammed: The Last Prophet (2017)
Lao Tzu: Spirit of Vengeance (2017)
Super Best Friends: The Rise of David Blaine (2018)
Jesus 3 (2020)

 

[Nightmare]

i'll probably watch this and anticipate it. A film about my Lord and Savior always peaks my interest. But I'll watch with a close eye. I pretty much have my beliefs set as to what happened. But hopefully it's close to the story I know of.

 

[Roose Bolton]

They need to establish the character for the upcoming Super Best Friends movie.

The release schedule is kind of like this:

Jesus (2013)
Jesus 2 (2015)
The Incredible Buddha (2016)
Mohammed: The Last Prophet (2017)
Lao Tzu: Spirit of Vengeance (2017)
Super Best Friends: The Rise of David Blaine (2018)
Jesus 3 (2020)

Can't wait to see Buddha steal the show

 

[Pink Ranger]

"Puny god. Oh wait, that's me."

 

[Asgard]

Interesting.

From what Ive seen, Jesus has always been portrayed as a supernatural creature who led a cult which grew into a religion.

In Verhoeven's vision, Jesus sounds like the same guy except hes just a man with no supernatural abilities.

Hope it gets made and released.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Dude, it's only been EIGHT freaking years since the last one. When will we get time to breathe?
There have been numerous films about Jesus over the years. Is it better to make a new film about him every X year, instead of trying with other bible stories??? I just ask.

man you're gonna hate it when they remake jesus christ: superstar then.

 

[Ajendo]

Although Passion of the Christ was actually not based on the Bible, or at least most of it wasn't.

How familiar are you with the new testament?

 

[Bim]

The most controversial: that Jesus might have been the product of his mother being raped by a Roman soldier, which Verhoeven said was commonplace at the time.

I consider myself an open minded person, but i think this is a bit too much for me lol.

The one book (saga) Jesus related i'd love to see on the big screen is one in spanish called "Caballo de Troya" (Trojan Horse). That's my favorite depiction of Jesus ever.

 

[Bruce Malone]

The Passion was a distorted take on the bible through mel gibson's feverish mind. It was far from faithful.

 

[Ajendo]

Out of curiosity which parts do you think weren't faithful to the bible?

 

[danoyse]

I could read this in either a sarcastic or serious way.

Eight years since the last major Jesus film. That's a long time. You'd think after the massive success of Passion, there would be more mainstream Jesus based, Biblical sort of films.

There was a movie called The Nativity Story, about the birth of Jesus, that was released not long after Passion was, but it didn't do well.

I think there's more of a market for Christian-themed films, like the Kirk Cameron-produced films like Fireproof and Courageous. Even movies like Soul Surfer fall into that category as well. They cost nothing to make, and do very well at the box office. That seems to be the more recent route for religious-themed films these days.

And besides, Jesus is too busy splitting his time on Broadway, since he's currently appearing in Godspell, Jesus Christ Superstar, and The Book of Mormon right now. He couldn't possibly have time to make a movie.

 

[Thundercrack85]

So, basically, it's all a lie? In the movie, I mean.

This guy has balls, I'll give him that.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Out of curiosity which parts do you think weren't faithful to the bible?

There are tons i can't list them all my self but there are papers that have been written about all the inaccuracies in the film.

Here is some good info:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/apr/01/passion-of-the-christ-mel-gibson

http://www.archaeological.org/pdfs/papers/Comments_on_The_Passion.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3515997.stm

 

[The Guard]

Sounds interesting.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm all for a human take on Jesus. That last time we got a human(ish) Jesus, it was Last Temptation of Christ, which is probably my favorite Scorcese film. Seeing Verhoeven put his talents into material he is really passionate about? Sign me up.

 

[Ajendo]

Bruce, thanks for the links. I read the guardian link and wow, the artistic liberties that the film took in order to produce a movie which they highlight is asinine. Who cares about Jesus stamping on a snake, the fact is, he was scared about what he was about to endure and wanted out but realised what he was about to go through he had to go through,
which is why he existed in the first
place. Gibson shoving Satan into
the scene was a metaphor for
Christ wanting to opt out and call it
quits. The stamping of the snake
was a metaphor for Christ
accepting his fate and ridding
himself of the temptation to opt
out.

As for the chairs and tables thing, I
don't know why Gibson went where he did with it but it's
harmless and light hearted fun
between a
man and his mother, playing
upto Christ's trade skill as a
carpenter. No big deal.

The Jews not being
responsible for Jesus' death
and the catholic church
agree??? Well I guess Jesus
just walked upto the
Romans, said a few "your
momma" jokes and
suggested crucifixion as an
appropriate punishment for such
behaviour. But hey the Catholics
worship and pray to Mary so...(I was raised a catholic,
went to catholic school and all that
but realised the catholic church in some regards is utter...well let's just say I see things differently in some areas.)

I don't understand why this
is a big deal. The Jews and
the particular generation who were
responsible for the persecution of
Christ were dealt with accordingly
(70AD).

As for Christ's torture, Christ was
beaten and disfigured beyond
recognition before he even made it
to the cross so by contrast in reality Gibson held back in this regard, which I'm sure many people would find hard to believe considering what we saw in the film. We can call it torture porn now but back then that sort if brutality was the norm. There were no human rights or geneva conventions. Just straight up hardcore punishment being dished out.

It's weird, being crucified was one of the worst and most severe and humiliating ways to be killed and yet when people read the noble or talk about the crucifixion, they just gloss over it like, "yep and he was put on the cross, bowed his head and died. Moving on..." so many people fail to understand the significance of being killed in such a way and what the whole process entails. But then again we've all seen pictures, crucifixes and movies if Christ's crucifixion where he just about breaks a sweat, a trickle of blood if they want to be "edgy".

At the end of the day the POTC was a film deliberately focusing on the moments leading upto and including Christ's death and resurrection and those moments were horrendously brutal. Wether one is a follower of Christ or not, surely, if one understands or is familiar with why Christ died then does it not stand to reason that his death would incur the most painful type of suffering and humiliation one can go through if he's supposed to die by saving mankind from eternal damnation. If it was as simple as "oh and then Christ died blah blah blah..." then he might as well have not bothered the torture and the crucifixion and settled for a significantly less elaborate death like being shanked by a Roman with his big pointy sword.

I'll look at the other links later.

 

[Spider-Who?]

The other links are a waste of time, and minus the Satan bit, really don't deal with the gospels, but historical details Gibson got wrong (language, roman armor, etc). I think Bruce just skimmed the articles and assumed.

Yes, Gibson (like every director ever) did take some liberties and get few things wrong (which is something impossible to avoid especially when dealing with historical films), but the core elements of the film do not contradict the story told in the bible. He did have o flesh scenes out and add others because if he went word for word from the bible, the movie would've been 30 minutes long. But again, the important events and their order are accurate to the bibles account.