Resurrection AKA The Passion of the Christ 2 (Jim Caviezel/Mel Gibson)

[squeekness]

Pass.

 

[Erik20]

This is actually happening? I thought it was a joke...

 

[samsnee]

Yep. It's all about playing to the QAnon crowd, who are out there spreading it's gospel, trying to get others to watch it.

It’s probably a little of both. I think people in those circles know who he is and like his acting because hes Q-anon

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It’s probably a little of both. I think people in those circles know who he is and like his acting because hes Q-anon

That's not how QAnon works.

 

[Deck Rickard]

I’m with Jack White on this. Eff Gibson, Wahlberg, Joe Rogan and any of these other A-holes who worship at the altar of Trump, bigotry and bull****. They can make their horrible content if they want to but I’m not going anywhere near it.

 

[Eddie Dean]

That's not how QAnon works.

Hmmm why are you so familiar with how it works seems a little sus….

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Hmmm why are you so familiar with how it works seems a little sus….

 

[TheWiseGuy487]

Hmmm why are you so familiar with how it works seems a little sus….

 

[Lily Adler]

The real Q all along.

 

[:eek:]

Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ 2 Will Be Split Into Multiple Parts

Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Sequel, The Passion of the Christ: Resurrection, will be split into two parts.

www.comingsoon.net

 

[:eek:]

https://www.darkhorizons.com/the-passion-sequel-aims-to-film-soon/

 

[Cap2024]

https://www.darkhorizons.com/the-passion-sequel-aims-to-film-soon/

I just can’t see this film performing at all like the previous.

If it was a different cast it would have more of a chance, but Jim is bat**** crazy now. The controversy around that I imagine will have some kind of impact. A la Ezra and Flash (Ezra was more of a story than Flash that them being in it for many overshadowed the film).

To my memory, when the first film came out it was a lot more of a broad audience.

 

[Drizzle]

I just can’t see this film performing at all like the previous.

If it was a different cast it would have more of a chance, but Jim is bat**** crazy now. The controversy around that I imagine will have some kind of impact. A la Ezra and Flash (Ezra was more of a story than Flash that him being in it for many overshadowed the film).

To my memory, when the first film came out it was a lot more of a broad audience.

Even more than Caviezel, Mel Gibson is no stranger to controversy himself. His career hasn't been the same after his public meltdown.

 

[DarkKnight88]

As an actor, yes. But as a director his last film was as recent as 2016 Hacksaw Ridge did well at the box office and he got a Best Director Oscar nomination.

As for Jim Caviezel, I don’t know much about him personally but if Sound of Freedom can make 250M+, I can’t see this doing much worse.

And this is way bigger IP lol

 

[Hurm...]

Why the f*** does this need to be a two parter? I still see it doing really well because of the whole right wing Jim Caviezel following. We just don't need this movie though.

 

[Lily Adler]

Why the f*** does this need to be a two parter? I still see it doing really well because of the whole right wing Jim Caviezel following. We just don't need this movie though.

Sound of Freedom did well for what it was...

 

[Arnold Rimmer]

Just gonna say this: screw Mel Gibson and screw Caviezel equally. Why does Mel keep getting work? Nobody likes him anymore. We threw Kevin Spacey to the curb so why can this guy take the hint? His association with QAnon makes it worse.

 

[Cap2024]

Sound of Freedom did well for what it was...

Exactly. For what it was.

As said - I didn't say it would bomb, I say not perform like the previous.

Passion earned $612,060,372 million worldwide in 2004; adjusted with inflation that has to be around 800 million I'm guessing.

Only earning 250M+ would severely be not performing anywhere close to the same. Even if it manages to reach 500 mill. I'm guessing they're hoping for a box office close to or above the first one due to inflation, not coming in at a low tier amount by comparison - especially when inflation is brought into account.

While religious films can often do well, this has a major QAnon nut who can't help but turn things into a media circus a la Ezra Miller. That limits the kinds of Christians flocking to go see it too (far from all are conspiracy nuts).

The first hit broad and mass audiences to be one of the best earning films of the year (the fifth highest earning). With all the (justified) controversy, I just can't see that happening again.

 

[Arnold Rimmer]

Sound of Freedom did well for what it was...

It only did "well" because of that shady astroturf "pay it foward" campaign at the end of the movie. Stupid QR code.

 

[BoredGuy]

Passion of the Christ 2: The Christening
Passion of the Christ 2: Christ Harder
Passion of the Christ 2: Religious Bugaloo

 

[Babillygunn]

I have always felt that having films depicting Jesus is always borderline blasphemous, or at least that it borders on it. I don’t understand the support for these films.

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

I have always felt that having films depicting Jesus is always borderline blasphemous, or at least that it borders on it. I don’t understand the support for these films.

You saw how during the production of the first movie, Caviezel got struck by lightning. If you're a believer, there are things you just don't play with.

 

[Dr.]

I have always felt that having films depicting Jesus is always borderline blasphemous, or at least that it borders on it. I don’t understand the support for these films.

My understanding is that, in the early days, there was some concern about cinematically depicting Jesus. OTOH, the tradition of Passion plays extends back several hundred years (going in and out of favor depending on the era, region and denomination). And for the most part, these plays were officially sanctioned by religious authorities. So it would have been tricky to make an argument of piety just based on the medium. I.e., live-action/theatrical versions of Jesus are okay, but celluloid versions are not.

Cinematic representations of Jesus are almost as old as cinema, itself. (The oldest appears to be from 1897 — essentially a film recording of a staged Passion play.)

Islam, of course, famously (infamously) proscribes depictions of Muhammad. But Christianity, with respect to Jesus, not so much.

 

[Babillygunn]

My understanding is that, in the early days, there was some concern about cinematically depicting Jesus. OTOH, the tradition of Passion plays extends back several hundred years (going in and out of favor depending on the era, region and denomination). And for the most part, these plays were officially sanctioned by religious authorities. So it would have been tricky to make an argument of piety just based on the medium. I.e., live-action/theatrical versions of Jesus are okay, but celluloid versions are not.

Cinematic representations of Jesus are almost as old as cinema, itself. (The oldest appears to be from 1897 — essentially a film recording of a staged Passion play.)

Islam, of course, famously (infamously) proscribes depictions of Muhammad. But Christianity, with respect to Jesus, not so much.

I could be wrong, but I think that in the earliest days, such as the first two centuries of the church, they didn’t really depict a physical form for Jesus in their art. He was more depicted in a symbolic, geometric form. I think this was for two reasons: first, so as not to over-emphasize any particular physical depiction and plant any visual in people’s minds (the Bible only describes Jesus as not looking special) and secondly in order to try to capture not just the physical but the spiritual. Since the Roman church began depicting Jesus and onward, he has increasingly become more and more Caucasian and with softer, prettier features. In reality, he was a laborer. As a carpenter, he probably milled his own wood. So he would have probably had some rough features from sun exposure and manual labor. But over the years, western cultures increasingly mold him into their own image, both physically as well as spiritually. (Arguably, one of the offsets of this can be seen in the state of right wing politics today and the current evangelical movements that aren’t accurate depictions of Jesus’ life or teachings, but are instead reflections of those people’s biases). Arguably, not depicting the spiritual is a big issue with the original Passion movie, which put an enormous emphasis on the physical suffering of the crucifixion when, if you are to believe the biblical tradition, was actually secondary to the spiritual torment that Jesus supposedly experienced in the form of rejection and separation from God as he took on the punishment for all of the sin throughout human history. Instead of showing that cerebral and spiritual torment, you were instead shown over two hours of Christian torture porn.
This co-opting and corrupting of the physical and spiritual image of Jesus is one of the ideas that theologian Francis Schaeffer discussed in his book The Escape from Reason.
It’s all kind of interesting. I’m not completely sure where I stand on the issue, but I know that I cringe whenever I see nativities with a pale baby Jesus who has wavy blonde hair and blue eyes

 

[Spider-Fan]

I have no idea if this will come anywhere near what the 1st movie did, but assuming this gets made unless the budget is like 200 mil, it's going to do great. Say what we will about Mel as a person, he's a great director and the people this will be marketed to still like Mel, and it's rare that Christian movies get real money or real talent working on these. Mostly these people have stuff like Kevin Sorbo movies or Pureflix. So this will do fine business for what I imagine this will end up costing