Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why do movies based on the Bible usually suck?

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

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Mar 2013, 11:40 am

According to the Christian myth, Jesus is God's -only begotten son-. In short God Himself f*cked Mary the Virgin until her eyes crossed. Afterward, God asked Mary, was it good for you?

ruveyn



Last edited by ruveyn on 06 Mar 2013, 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Mar 2013, 2:21 pm

ruveyn wrote:
According to the Christian myth, Jesus is God's -only begotten son-. In short God Himself f*cked Mary the Virgin until her eyes crossed. Afterward, God ask Mary, was it good for you?

ruveyn


Now that would be a good approach for a Biblical movie!



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Mar 2013, 2:26 pm

globalwolf2010 wrote:
Kings and Chronicles, too, are a bit skip-able from that standpoint).


Really? You didn't like the stuff about Saul, David and Solomon? This also seems to be the part of the Bible where we start to get somewhat-verifiable history.

globalwolf2010 wrote:
All in all, though, it's not really any less enjoyable from a literary standpoint than any ancient writing translated to English.


This is debatable. Aristophanes' plays are quite enjoyable.



globalwolf2010
Raven
Raven

User avatar

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

06 Mar 2013, 3:59 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
globalwolf2010 wrote:
Kings and Chronicles, too, are a bit skip-able from that standpoint).


Really? You didn't like the stuff about Saul, David and Solomon? This also seems to be the part of the Bible where we start to get somewhat-verifiable history.



Saul, David, and Solomon are kind of interesting, but they get the royal treatment, so to speak. Most of the kings described just get a short description of how long they ruled, what they did, and how they died. There are quite a few of them, and Renaissance artists did some fun things with the brief mentions given to a handful, but other than that, they're not as detailed or as interesting as, say, the stories of the Judges (some of them are a little short, but those make up for it by containing statements about the military use of ox-goads). The purpose of Kings and Chronicles seems like a sort of short course in the history of the divided monarchy, more than anything. They make several references to longer descriptions in other books that we don't have any more, so a lot of people think they were probably trying to condense those into something a little more concise.

Quote:
globalwolf2010 wrote:
All in all, though, it's not really any less enjoyable from a literary standpoint than any ancient writing translated to English.


This is debatable. Aristophanes' plays are quite enjoyable.


I wasn't trying to say that older writing isn't enjoyable :). I was trying to say that the Bible, at least where it's supposed to be enjoyable, isn't dull to read. It looses a lot of the power of the original through a combination of being translated (which robs it of word play), and being old enough that literary styles aren't always obvious (the Psalms are poems, but they weren't even rhyming in the original Hebrew; they have one line followed by two covering roughly the same topic), but it's still as fun as, say, reading Homer or Ovid in blank verse.