Why do movies based on the Bible usually suck?

Page 5 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

05 Mar 2013, 10:24 am

Giftorcurse wrote:
I'm waiting for Christopher Nolan to direct a movie about Jesus. :roll:


What about a Quentin Tarantino biblical movie?

:P


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

05 Mar 2013, 11:36 am

thomas81 wrote:
Giftorcurse wrote:
I'm waiting for Christopher Nolan to direct a movie about Jesus. :roll:


What about a Quentin Tarantino biblical movie?

:P

Coming soon to a theatre near you... (banned in Australia, of course)...

Danny Trejo as Jesus in "Messiah's Twelve: Apocryphic Cut"

Image

*Spoiler Alert* Judas (played by Tim Roth) doesn't make it to the end credits. Well, his jawbone does, but only because Mary Magdalene (played by Michelle Rodriguez) rams it into the eye socket of Pontius Pilate (played by Tarantino himself)...



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

05 Mar 2013, 12:12 pm

Sonorum wrote:
The Bible wasn't written to be a "ripping good yarn" though. ...Does this make it problematic to adopt? Absolutely; it just wasn't conceived as a drama and the adaptations that have worked best have been liberal ones; adding, deleting, and changing things for the sake of a compelling human story. But inevitably, the fundies get angry, and that's a big part of your market right there. A lot of nonreligious people, or people of other faiths, will be turned off seeing it because of its content alone. And needless to say, fundies don't like their sacred scripture changed and tend to limit what can be portrayed on screen for moral and theological reasons, even if it would have been a good artistic choice.


The Bible does contain some ripping good yarns. What ends up getting deleted are the sexy bits that would make for a compelling story, while violence sometimes gets exaggerated. The modifications intended to pacify the fundies result in shoddy products.



globalwolf2010
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 106

05 Mar 2013, 12:34 pm

Most movies based off of the Bible are dull and uninteresting because they're produced by religious studios with an extremely small budget. Yes, you can make a good movie on a small budget, but you have to really know what you're doing, you have to know your limits, and everyone involved has to be totally on board with the project. That means you can't have some grandiose idea that would work if you had a high budget (otherwise, you'll end up with truly awful special effects), you can't hire bad actors who toss out large hams for critics to devour, and maybe above everything else, you have to want to make a good movie. Not a movie that will convert a lot of people to your religious system, not a movie that will drag in a huge box office, but a good movie. You have to be able to define what that is in both technical and emotional terms, and you have to be capable of making it happen on both fronts.

When you're missing any of those necessary things, you can't fall back on the sort of computer wizardry that made 2012 bad but not awful, or on famous actors who are going to draw people in regardless of whether the movie is any good or not. You'll just create an awful movie that some young-ish evangelicals are going to see because their pastor saw it and decided that the portrayal of faith was moving.

Good movies based off of the Bible exist, but they're usually older and/or produced by major studios. Say what you want about it, but Charlton Heston's The Ten Commandments is a work of cinematic art appropriate to the middle half of the last century. The Passion of the Christ, while disturbing and intensely violent, is also an emotionally moving film. Both, however, were made with large studio budgets, good acting, historical research, and a significant deal of dedication to portraying their creators' religious beliefs and to creating great works of cinematography. You don't get that with films produced by small faith-based start-ups who are trying to make converts.



ColdDish
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 28

05 Mar 2013, 1:10 pm

Trolls and the bible suck.



TheValk
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 644

05 Mar 2013, 1:14 pm

Seems like a wonderful source for all sort of great painting though.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

05 Mar 2013, 2:31 pm

There's this Simpsons episode where Ned Flanders makes these gory Biblical epics and that they changed the stories to make them even gorier makes it funnier still. They should have built the entire episode around that and not have Mr Burns just withdraw the movie because Marge did not like it.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

05 Mar 2013, 3:28 pm

Fnord wrote:
Weren't there other historical events happening around the same time as Biblical events?

Did you know that Cyrus II, Pythagoras, Siddharta (the Buddha), and Confucius were all alive at the same time? This was during or soon after the "Ionian Enlightenment Period". Why hasn't there been a glut of movies focusing on the life of one of these men? Didn't they also contribute to human development?


The content of the bible is more comparable to the myths, than to the histories, of other ancient peoples. And Hollywood has had hits with movies based on Jason and the Argonauts.

And wasnt Cyrus II the villian in '300'?



knowbody15
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 6 Aug 2012
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 469
Location: California

05 Mar 2013, 3:46 pm

I can't wait for "Exodus: The Plan." Can a group of Jews build the tabernacle according to the Torah's specific guidelines or will some of the corners be crooked?

Or how about "Genesis: Measure Twice, Cut Once." 3 hours and 45 minutes of Abraham giving himself a circumcision.

"613" 5 hours of a scrolling list of all 613 commandments listed in the Torah. I heard commandment 17 and commandment 60 are both being considered for an Academy Award.....


_________________
?Being happy doesn't mean that everything is perfect. It means that you've decided to look beyond the imperfections.?


Sonorum
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 8

05 Mar 2013, 6:02 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Sonorum wrote:
The Bible wasn't written to be a "ripping good yarn" though. ...Does this make it problematic to adopt? Absolutely; it just wasn't conceived as a drama and the adaptations that have worked best have been liberal ones; adding, deleting, and changing things for the sake of a compelling human story. But inevitably, the fundies get angry, and that's a big part of your market right there. A lot of nonreligious people, or people of other faiths, will be turned off seeing it because of its content alone. And needless to say, fundies don't like their sacred scripture changed and tend to limit what can be portrayed on screen for moral and theological reasons, even if it would have been a good artistic choice.


The Bible does contain some ripping good yarns. What ends up getting deleted are the sexy bits that would make for a compelling story, while violence sometimes gets exaggerated. The modifications intended to pacify the fundies result in shoddy products.


Again, like I said, there are some good stories in the Bible, but it was not compiled as, or meant to be, an "entertaining" storybook. The poster I was quoting was objecting to the Bible being poorly written (not the same thing as having uninteresting stories from a conceptual point of view); I argue complaining about the Bible's dry style (and other interjections like laws and digressions related to proper worship) makes no sense because it wasn't meant to engage like a piece of pure entertainment.

I grew up on the Bible, and am actually quite enthusiastic about more people reading it in general. I think it's sad that we are losing such an important part of our cultural history. But I think people need to be mature enough to understand what they are looking at, otherwise they might give up, intimidated by its sometimes plodding style and confused at the genealogies, stories that are truncated to the point of being confusing (especially to someone with little cultural knowledge and historical background to the text; these tend to be the ones no one has heard of mind you), objecting to a moral system very different to our own (you don't need to, and I think shouldn't agree with it, but you need to understand where it is coming from and accept it as a given to them if you are going to understand it), and descriptions of the numbers of armies and members of the tribes of Israel.



Last edited by Sonorum on 05 Mar 2013, 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

05 Mar 2013, 6:19 pm

Sonorum wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Sonorum wrote:
The Bible wasn't written to be a "ripping good yarn" though. ...Does this make it problematic to adopt? Absolutely; it just wasn't conceived as a drama and the adaptations that have worked best have been liberal ones; adding, deleting, and changing things for the sake of a compelling human story. But inevitably, the fundies get angry, and that's a big part of your market right there. A lot of nonreligious people, or people of other faiths, will be turned off seeing it because of its content alone. And needless to say, fundies don't like their sacred scripture changed and tend to limit what can be portrayed on screen for moral and theological reasons, even if it would have been a good artistic choice.


The Bible does contain some ripping good yarns. What ends up getting deleted are the sexy bits that would make for a compelling story, while violence sometimes gets exaggerated. The modifications intended to pacify the fundies result in shoddy products.


Again, like I said, there are some good stories in the Bible, but it was not compiled as, or meant to be, an "entertaining" storybook. The poster I was quoting was objecting to the Bible being poorly written (not the same thing as having uninteresting stories from a conceptual point of view); I argue complaining about the Bible's dry style (and other interjections like laws and digressions related to proper worship) makes no sense because it wasn't meant to engage like a piece of pure entertainment.


Well, I find it to be entertaining. Even the laws can be hilarious.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Mar 2013, 7:09 am

kxmode wrote:
Image


Jewel Staite is in that movie! She is Kaylee from Firefly. I have the hots for her.

ruveyn



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

06 Mar 2013, 7:59 am

Too bad it was just a Photoshop Class project.

The actress who played Hagar in the History Channel's The Bible is rather cute.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... lockbuster

Quote:
the World Evangelical Alliance (a “global ministry working with local churches around the world to join in common concern to live and proclaim the Good News of Jesus in their communities,” according to its website) has thrown its support behind the series. On the WEA’s site, Chief Executive Officer Geoff Tunnicliffe writes that the series is “compelling, gritty at times and spiritually moving.”


Blech! The show is dumber than Heck.



globalwolf2010
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 106

06 Mar 2013, 10:41 am

Sonorum wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Sonorum wrote:

Again, like I said, there are some good stories in the Bible, but it was not compiled as, or meant to be, an "entertaining" storybook. The poster I was quoting was objecting to the Bible being poorly written (not the same thing as having uninteresting stories from a conceptual point of view); I argue complaining about the Bible's dry style (and other interjections like laws and digressions related to proper worship) makes no sense because it wasn't meant to engage like a piece of pure entertainment.

I grew up on the Bible, and am actually quite enthusiastic about more people reading it in general. I think it's sad that we are losing such an important part of our cultural history. But I think people need to be mature enough to understand what they are looking at, otherwise they might give up, intimidated by its sometimes plodding style and confused at the genealogies, stories that are truncated to the point of being confusing (especially to someone with little cultural knowledge and historical background to the text; these tend to be the ones no one has heard of mind you), objecting to a moral system very different to our own (you don't need to, and I think shouldn't agree with it, but you need to understand where it is coming from and accept it as a given to them if you are going to understand it), and descriptions of the numbers of armies and members of the tribes of Israel.


Parts of the Bible kind of vary in their intent, since they weren't really written as a book (with the singular indefinite article in the front). Some, like Leviticus, are law codes written with a similar intent to Hammurabi's Code or Justinian's law collection. Most people would probably have had the relevant parts of those books taught to them, but they weren't exactly intended to be read for entertainment. Others, like the Psalms, were intended to be used for public worship services, and so of course they include beautiful pastoral imagery and intimate reflections on the human state.

It's also important to remember that the original audience for the Biblical text probably wouldn't respond to things the same way that we do. Reading the genealogies in, say, Genesis, is boring, but when you look at writings from the ancient world, people were absolutely fascinated by things like that. The entire second chapter of Homer's Iliad is dedicated to saying who sent how many ships to Troy. The names in the text probably had a lot more meaning to the original readers, recalling now unknown tales of heroism or villainy, rather than just being meaningless words on a page (we know that this was the case with Enoch, at least).

I don't think that the Bible is poorly written, although you have to understand what you're reading at any given time (and skipping over Leviticus and Deuteronomy if you're just reading for the literary value is probably not a bad idea; Kings and Chronicles, too, are a bit skip-able from that standpoint). All in all, though, it's not really any less enjoyable from a literary standpoint than any ancient writing translated to English.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

06 Mar 2013, 10:55 am

globalwolf2010 wrote:
Parts of the Bible kind of vary in their intent, since they weren't really written as a book (with the singular indefinite article in the front). Some, like Leviticus, are law codes written with a similar intent to Hammurabi's Code or Justinian's law collection. Most people would probably have had the relevant parts of those books taught to them, but they weren't exactly intended to be read for entertainment.


Leviticus 10 wrote:
Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, each took his fire pan, put live coals in it, added incense, and presented it to the Lord. But this fire was not holy, because the Lord had not commanded them to present it. Suddenly the Lord sent fire, and it burned them to death there in the presence of the Lord. Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord was speaking about when he said, ‘All who serve me must respect my holiness; I will reveal my glory to my people.’” But Aaron remained silent.

Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel, Aaron's uncle, and said to them, “Come here and carry your cousins' bodies away from the sacred Tent and put them outside the camp.” So they came and took hold of the clothing on the corpses and carried them outside the camp, just as Moses had commanded.

Then Moses said to Aaron and to his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, “Do not leave your hair uncombed or tear your clothes to show that you are in mourning. If you do, you will die, and the Lord will be angry with the whole community. But all other Israelites are allowed to mourn this death caused by the fire which the Lord sent. 7 Do not leave the entrance of the Tent or you will die, because you have been consecrated by the anointing oil of the Lord.” So they did as Moses said.


Leviticus 15 wrote:
The Lord gave Moses and Aaron the following regulations 2 for the people of Israel. When any man has a discharge from his penis, the discharge is unclean, 3 whether the penis runs with it or is stopped up by it. 4 Any bed on which he sits or lies is unclean. 5 Anyone who touches his bed 6 or sits on anything the man has sat on must wash his clothes and take a bath, and he remains unclean until evening. 7 Anyone who touches the man with the discharge must wash his clothes and take a bath, and he remains unclean until evening. 8 If the man with the discharge spits on anyone who is ritually clean, that person must wash his clothes and take a bath, and he remains unclean until evening. 9 Any saddle or seat on which the man with the discharge sits is unclean. 10 Anyone who touches anything on which the man sat is unclean until evening. Anyone who carries anything on which the man sat must wash his clothes and take a bath, and he remains unclean until evening. 11 If a man who has a discharge touches one of you without first having washed his hands, you must wash your clothes and take a bath, and you remain unclean until evening. 12 Any clay pot that the man touches must be broken, and any wooden bowl that he touches must be washed.

13 After the man is cured of his discharge, he must wait seven days and then wash his clothes and take a bath in fresh spring water, and he will be ritually clean. 14 On the eighth day he shall take two doves or two pigeons to the entrance of the Tent of the Lord's presence and give them to the priest. 15 The priest shall offer one of them as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering. In this way he will perform the ritual of purification for the man.

16 When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body, and he remains unclean until evening. 17 Anything made of cloth or leather on which the semen falls must be washed, and it remains unclean until evening. 18 After sexual intercourse both the man and the woman must take a bath, and they remain unclean until evening.

19 When a woman has her monthly period, she remains unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her is unclean until evening. 20 Anything on which she sits or lies during her monthly period is unclean. 21-23 Any who touch her bed or anything on which she has sat must wash their clothes and take a bath, and they remain unclean until evening. 24 If a man has sexual intercourse with her during her period, he is contaminated by her impurity and remains unclean for seven days, and any bed on which he lies is unclean.

25 If a woman has a flow of blood for several days outside her monthly period or if her flow continues beyond her regular period, she remains unclean as long as the flow continues, just as she is during her monthly period. 26 Any bed on which she lies and anything on which she sits during this time is unclean. 27 Any who touch them are unclean and must wash their clothes and take a bath; they remain unclean until evening. 28 After her flow stops, she must wait seven days, and then she will be ritually clean. 29 On the eighth day she shall take two doves or two pigeons to the priest at the entrance of the Tent of the Lord's presence. 30 The priest shall offer one of them as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, and in this way he will perform the ritual of purification for her.

31 The Lord told Moses to warn the people of Israel about their uncleanness, so that they would not defile the Tent of his presence, which was in the middle of the camp. If they did, they would be killed.

32 These are the regulations about a man who has a discharge or an emission of semen, 33 a woman during her monthly period, or a man who has sexual intercourse with a woman who is ritually unclean.


One would have to be pretty dry not to get at least a chuckle out of Leviticus.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

06 Mar 2013, 11:03 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
One would have to be pretty dry not to get at least a chuckle out of Leviticus.

Image