|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Sept 30, 2011 11:01:51 GMT -5
we posted that article in the thread about the guy, but that one didn't have those pics. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RE: Last Temptation of Christ outstanding movie. ballsy? sure. thought provoking? yes. deliberately blasphemous? NO. some say harvey kietel was mis-cast.... maybe. and willem defoe is a very Caucasian jew ;D what made the movie compelling is it absolutely DID humanize jesus- but not the way people think. i remember a co-worker and i discussing it, he was aghast that i had seen it given that i am percieved conservative on alot of issues. but the movie isn't really controversial in it's actual content when you actually consider the context. the story ( i have the novel, but haven't read it yet) is basically a "fleshing-out" of actual gospel narratives. seriously. in the bible, jesus loves kids. he comes from a big family. it makes sense then, that IF jesus had a chance he'd WANT a family in the conventional sense. the movie does NOT say that that is what jesus did, just that it is something that any man of that era and culture would WANT. therefore: it was a TEMPTATION. and anyone who followed it through would have seen that message clearly and not be so bothered. granted, scorcese could have mitigated some contraversy by being more subtle about....jesus.... y'know.... "doin' it" but other than that it's much ado about nothing. the other (relatively minor) issue was the depiction of judas and the suggestion that jesus sympathetic to him. again, in the bible, there are times when " they {the jewwish followers} siezed jesus..in order to make him king" but jesus refused and actually HID FROM those followers! no wait a second! if jesus was SUPPOSED to be king of the jews, and the jews were "cursed" for not accepting him- then WHY would jesus resist being made king? it makes no sense. christian apologia re-invented the concept of jewish messiah (previously ANY annoited king of th ejews was messiah) into a redeemer that "needed" to die for human sin. it still makes no sense to curse jews for not making him king when clearly at least some of them did. if jesus was clairvoyant then he knew what judas was up to and could have prevented it- but he allowed it to happen (in the gospel narrative) so the quandary is, how can judas be the bad guy if he facilitated what jesus was supposedly supposed to do anyway and did nothing to prevent. it's the circular logic of it all that makes even christian apologists wonder what was the deal. the bible mentions two factions of jewish religion : pharisees and Sadducees. they differed on particular points of interpretation of the scriptures and so forth. though not mentioned in the bible there was also the essenes who were a monastic group as well as the zealots who wanted to overthrow roman occupation. it has been suggested (and in the story "last temptation" it is depicted) that judas was a zealout who wanted to jesus to overthrow rome, jesus (the human historical figure) got cold feet ( he did not want to be king) and his "betrayel" was revenge for that disappointment. and by now i am sure no one cares about this topic anymore.  |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 30, 2011 11:16:06 GMT -5
You'd be up for shaving Jon Peters balls as you read scripts for him one day? I'd stop short at eating his shit... ;D Good to know! |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Sept 30, 2011 13:18:14 GMT -5
Agreed. I see it as an "alternate universe" story. Besides, if Jesus was not tempted at all then it takes away the power of the story. I thought religion teaches people to acknowledge temptation - and reject it. If you don't feel it in the first place then its all a waste of time.
The bible-belt community really are awful. Same goes for most hard core religious folk. Critical thinking doesn't enter their tiny minds.
And yes, the casting choices certainly are interesting ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 30, 2011 16:10:18 GMT -5
I think it's an awesome movie--- and knowing that Scorcese's background (originally planning to be a priest--- but not able to come to terms with the ideals of the church and what he was able to see on the streets apparently made it hard to resolve--- though not sure exaclty how he fell into filmmaking after that, but it's an interesting place and viewpoint to start with)--- It sure did NOT sound like a project meant to shock for shock's sake.
Some members of my family are uber-religious in the Christian faith, and one relative adamantly won't see the film--- when asked why, and she said that it was unbearable for her to envision Christ as a being with overly human/sexual needs--- knowing other things about the context (both personally/otherwise), I didn't see the rejection as closemindedness as more as fragile psychological necessity.
On the plus side, I've seen how some need certain faiths to overcome personal things that come up in life; to me, the questioning and discussion about Christianity I found necessary and interesting to me at the time the movie came out---
So.... time that the movie (in spirit) popped its head up in Superman Returns, I thought: "WOW. What audacity! But it also carries over from Donner's STM conception as well--- taken to a deeper level."
Anyhow....
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Oct 1, 2011 15:48:21 GMT -5
Novels, Movies and Songs that are Widely Misinterpreted(Note: scroll down to see what this person says about the Superman movies, mainly about SR) SUPERMAN RETURNS The story you heard about this movie was probably something along the lines of this: After the disaster that was Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, Warner Bros. basically mulled about for decades trying to figure out what it wanted to do with the Superman franchise. Then, after the September 11 attacks and the success of the Smallville TV show, America was “ready” for a new Superman film, and Warner Bros. decided to go with a sequel to the classic 1970s movies instead of a reboot. The film was an utter disappointment with fans, because it only showed Superman taking on yet another Lex Luthor plot and throw a giant Kryptonite mountain into space. No big action sequences, no toe-to-toe fight with a super-villain. The film did poorly at the box office, and will go down in history as a flop. But was this really fair? I actually liked Superman Returns, and I disagree with its critics. Here’s why. If we are to assume that Superman Returns is a sequel to the classic series, then we should assume the film will have the same tone, thematic elements, and storytelling style, even if these are “updated” somewhat. The classic Superman films were not action schlock. They were dramatic movies written by the same guy behind the Godfather series, and even starring some of the same actors. They didn’t feel the need for Superman to beat anyone down – in fact, that would have gone against his character. In Superman he stops Lex Luthor by reversing time (silly, I know), and in the second film, no matter which of the two versions you watch, Superman wins by outsmarting his enemies instead of defeating them with brawn. Superman III sees him take on Richard Pryor. No, seriously. The only Superman film to feature him actually in a toe-to-toe beat-down with a super-villain is Superman IV, the universally-deemed worst of the set. See, Superman was always about there being a moral to the story. It was about doing the right thing. I think Superman Returns delivered on that score. The lesson I got from it was “You don’t have to be Superman to do something good”. Lois discovers Lex Luthor’s evil plot; her fiancé attempts to save her from Luthor’s henchmen; Lois and Richard save Superman; and even Luthor’s girlfriend dumps the crystals Luthor was using for his scheme so that they can’t hurt anyone again. But no. America didn’t want to see a moral lesson, they wanted to see an action movie recreation of Superman beat someone down. Now they are working on a reboot of the franchise to be released in 2013, that will be directed by Zach Snyder. The guy who directed 300, Watchmen, and Sucker Punch. And if there is any doubt as to where the film is going with the story, this is what Superman will look like: catflag.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/novels-movies-and-songs-that-are-widely-misinterpreted/
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Oct 1, 2011 17:40:54 GMT -5
Y'know, Star.... the most maddening thing (to me) is looking at the boxoffice, looking at the reviews at Rottentomatoes, and once an internet 'tide' is started..... something gets quoted so much that a modest success suddenly becomes a 'historic flop'.
THAT, I think bugs me more than anything else about the whole SR deal. I don't mind that people have differing opinions/reactions to the film, but the rewrite of history is just bizzare.
Also, I have this odd feeling that the boxoffice (and dvd sales) may well show the 'real' reaction ultimately to something.
Hollywood has (for the longest time) assumed that fans will ALWAYS do quadruple business for a fantasy film, and that a 'hit' with fans translates necessarily into a 'hit' overall.
Unfortunately, that hasn't happened with "Scott Pilgrim", which everyone seems to love- young or old - but boxofficewise was a dud.
Conversely, the hated "Wolverine" movie made a lotta cash.
Point being: what ultimately counts? But it gets me that the echoing of SR as a dud keeps getting bandied about- even in a positive article on it.
I'm starting to wonder how many 'mainstream' folks who enjoyed SR- but usually aren't as verbal as Superman fans- made up the boxoffice for SR?
Maybe it's more possible that the type of fans who see things a million times were more outnumbered by the folks who neither love nor hate Superman, but had a mild interest to enjoy it once, then move on?
Anyhow, reading again (even though the end of that bit was positive for SR) someone calling SR a 'box office flop' and will 'go down in history' annoyed me- because it was no "Catwoman" nor "Green Lantern"- which were REAL flops (in more ways than one)>
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Oct 1, 2011 18:17:10 GMT -5
Same here.
I found his opinion on the Superman films interesting and largely agree with him, but he's obviously not well-informed on the facts regarding this film. Or maybe he's 'heard' quite often what a "flop" SR was and is now believing it as fact. It happens a lot online. There is a very vocal hatred for this film online no doubt, but the good thing is that there is also a lot of love for it. The haters are just so vocal (including here the 'Smallville Army') and apparently WB heard them and thought that noone wanted to see a sequel to the film. At least that's my theory, because the film made a lot of $ WW. Not as much as WB wanted, but it was no flop, there was plenty of interest in the film and many of the critics loved it. The film deserved a sequel. A reboot wasn't really needed.
But this is WB. I expect anything from them. And I laugh at their faces by the way Marvel seem to be doing well enough with their more recent superhero movies. WB are so incompetent when it comes to the DC characters in general. It's a big shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Oct 1, 2011 18:49:48 GMT -5
Oh and regarding Scott Pilgrim, yes it flopped in theaters, but its fanbase it's growing and growing every day. People who didn't see it on theaters are discovering it on cable and DVD. It's just a very good, fun and well-made film. It's hard not to appreciate it on some level. Even Chris Brown loves it. I think the film is already a cult classic. www.facebook.com/OfficialBrandonRouth#!/ScottPilgrim |
|
|
|
Post by Paul (ral) on Oct 1, 2011 18:52:13 GMT -5
Chris Brown? The singer?
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Oct 1, 2011 19:01:37 GMT -5
yes him: twitter.com/#!/chrisbrown he even tweeted about how much he loved SP. He likes Edgar's films a lot. |
|
MerM
New Member
Posts: 6,665
|
Post by MerM on Oct 1, 2011 19:11:40 GMT -5
I found his opinion on the Superman films interesting and largely agree with him, but he's obviously not well-informed on the facts regarding this film. Or maybe he's 'heard' quite often what a "flop" SR was and is now believing it as fact. It happens a lot online. There is a very vocal hatred for this film online no doubt, but the good thing is that there is also a lot of love for it. The haters are just so vocal (including here the 'Smallville Army') and apparently WB heard them and thought that noone wanted to see a sequel to the film. At least that's my theory, because the film made a lot of $ WW. Not as much as WB wanted, but it was no flop, there was plenty of interest in the film and many of the critics loved it. The film deserved a sequel. A reboot wasn't really needed. Well, he didn't say it was actually a flop, just that that's what people seem to consider it. |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Oct 1, 2011 22:30:56 GMT -5
That's another posibility. He wasn't very clear on what he meant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2011 2:28:33 GMT -5
Fixed that for you.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,820 
|
Post by atp on Oct 2, 2011 3:29:55 GMT -5
The only Superman film to feature him actually in a toe-to-toe beat-down with a super-villain is Superman IV, the universally-deemed worst of the set. WTF? I'm sure I saw a Superman movie where Superman battled Zod, Non and Ursa in the streets of Metropolis. Maybe I was dreaming. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul (ral) on Oct 2, 2011 19:40:33 GMT -5
Yeah that's what I was getting at...I mean, there will never be a sticker on the front of any movie that says "Recommended by Chris Brown". |
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Oct 2, 2011 20:13:07 GMT -5
Yeah that's what I was getting at...I mean, there will never be a sticker on the front of any movie that says "Recommended by Chris Brown". That's what I was thinking...who gives a shit. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 2, 2011 21:45:19 GMT -5
Ronald Reagan? The actor?  Y'know, Star.... the most maddening thing (to me) is looking at the boxoffice, looking at the reviews at Rottentomatoes, and once an internet 'tide' is started..... something gets quoted so much that a modest success suddenly becomes a 'historic flop'. THAT, I think bugs me more than anything else about the whole SR deal. I don't mind that people have differing opinions/reactions to the film, but the rewrite of history is just bizzare. Also, I have this odd feeling that the boxoffice (and dvd sales) may well show the 'real' reaction ultimately to something. Hollywood has (for the longest time) assumed that fans will ALWAYS do quadruple business for a fantasy film, and that a 'hit' with fans translates necessarily into a 'hit' overall. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened with "Scott Pilgrim", which everyone seems to love- young or old - but boxofficewise was a dud. Conversely, the hated "Wolverine" movie made a lotta cash. Point being: what ultimately counts? But it gets me that the echoing of SR as a dud keeps getting bandied about- even in a positive article on it. I'm starting to wonder how many 'mainstream' folks who enjoyed SR- but usually aren't as verbal as Superman fans- made up the boxoffice for SR? Maybe it's more possible that the type of fans who see things a million times were more outnumbered by the folks who neither love nor hate Superman, but had a mild interest to enjoy it once, then move on? Anyhow, reading again (even though the end of that bit was positive for SR) someone calling SR a 'box office flop' and will 'go down in history' annoyed me- because it was no "Catwoman" nor "Green Lantern"- which were REAL flops (in more ways than one)> It would kinda suck if Green Lantern gets a sequel while SR didn't. Both underperformed but GL was a worse film IMO. I took one look at Cloudallax and LMAO. I can't believe someone tried it...AGAIN  If SR didn't deserve a sequel GL doesn't either. They should just start everything that failed fresh with a reboot. I am curious though about which one was the bigger money loser for WB: Superman Returns or Green Lantern? |
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Oct 2, 2011 22:21:36 GMT -5
I find this comparison of SR with GL downright offensive.
There is just no comparison. SR did so much better than GL in every level. but whatever...
|
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Oct 3, 2011 8:02:32 GMT -5
I am curious though about which one was the bigger money loser for WB: Superman Returns or Green Lantern? Superman Return had a 1.45 ROI. Green Lantern...a 1.10. I would be SHOCKED if it got a sequel. As noted before...any comic book movie with an ROI of under 2 did NOT get a sequel or it got rebooted (exception being heckboy): Blade: Trinity -- 1.99 Batman and Robin -- 1.90 heckboy 2 -- 1.88 Hulk -- 1.79 Incredible Hulk -- 1.75 Punisher -- 1.64 heckboy -- 1.50 Superman Returns -- 1.45 Watchmen -- 1.42 Elektra -- 1.30 Losers -- 1.16 Howard the Duck -- 1.03 Catwoman -- 0.82 Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World -- 0.80 Punisher War Zone -- 0.29 Jonah Hex -- 0.23 |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 3, 2011 8:54:28 GMT -5
I am curious though about which one was the bigger money loser for WB: Superman Returns or Green Lantern? Superman Return had a 1.45 ROI. Green Lantern...a 1.10. I would be SHOCKED if it got a sequel. As noted before...any comic book movie with an ROI of under 2 did NOT get a sequel or it got rebooted (exception being heckboy): Blade: Trinity -- 1.99 Batman and Robin -- 1.90 heckboy 2 -- 1.88 Hulk -- 1.79 Incredible Hulk -- 1.75 Punisher -- 1.64 heckboy -- 1.50 Superman Returns -- 1.45 Watchmen -- 1.42 Elektra -- 1.30 Losers -- 1.16 Howard the Duck -- 1.03 Catwoman -- 0.82 Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World -- 0.80 Punisher War Zone -- 0.29 Jonah Hex -- 0.23 Interesting. Relatively speaking GL did worse than Elektra and The Losers. Thats hilarious. I was curious because while SR cost more than GL it also made more. But SR had a huge budget. Supposedly 260 million or more. GL cost over 200 million and thats not even including its marketing. I figured the margin of loss between the two would be comparable since SR cost so damn much. Both movies are at the opposite end of the spectrum as far as tone, action, etc. but the consensus by some seems to be that they failed to deliver in quality. GL had the comic book action people felt were lacking in SR but it was presented in such a poor way. WB really don't have a clue outside of Batman. It shouldn't get a sequel but I could see a small chance of WB, in desperation, going forward with trying to develop one. if it does get a sequel I'm gonna call bullshit though. GL was a bomb. a massive green stink bomb. It is too bad the Hulks and heckboy II didn't do better. I kind of thought of those movies as the modern take on the classic Universal Monster series. Could have been fun but oh well. Maybe Hulk will get yet another chance after The Avengers. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Oct 3, 2011 10:35:38 GMT -5
Fucking-OUCH!
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 3, 2011 10:46:17 GMT -5
You know who produced Howard The Duck right?  |
|
ShogunLogan
New Member
If you shoot me, you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.
Posts: 10,095
|
Post by ShogunLogan on Oct 3, 2011 11:12:36 GMT -5
You know who produced Howard The Duck right? I read an interesting tidbit on Howard the Duck...it was made around the time Lucas built his massive Skywalker ranch. He was banking on Howard getting him back in the black after such an expensive venture. Of course, Howard 'laid an egg' and Lucas was hurting. In comes his friend Steve Jobs who pays an above-market price for Lucas' newly formed CGI animation division. This division eventually becomes......... ......Pixar. So, there you go. Because of Howard the Duck, we got Pixar! |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,053
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 3, 2011 12:03:40 GMT -5
You know who produced Howard The Duck right? I read an interesting tidbit on Howard the Duck...it was made around the time Lucas built his massive Skywalker ranch. He was banking on Howard getting him back in the black after such an expensive venture. Of course, Howard 'laid an egg' and Lucas was hurting. In comes his friend Steve Jobs who pays an above-market price for Lucas' newly formed CGI animation division. This division eventually becomes......... ......Pixar. So, there you go. Because of Howard the Duck, we got Pixar! yeah I've read about some of that before too. Lucas REALLY overestimated how successful his Howard the Duck film would be. he was one of the guys that pushed for it because he thought about what could be done on a technical level. It got away from being the movie other people wanted to make. It certainly wasn't Steve Gerbers comic in a lot of ways. Lucas felt it would be easy to do with his technology but it wasn't and the film ran into problems during production. I think it was a case of Luca's ego getting in the way of his common sense in thinking that the film would be a success because he produced it. As for Pixar...thank goodness it turned out that way. Their output over the years has been fantastic for the most part and it seems like they had a lot of creative freedom. The productions also have a lot of heart instead of only pushing the technological boundaries. I have some doubts that that would have happened if the company that would become Pixar had stayed under Lucas. |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Oct 3, 2011 12:10:32 GMT -5
Scott Pilgrim's box office was a damn shame. Great movie, and deserved to do better. Perhaps it's a DVD/Blu hit.
|
|
