1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Mel's Movie: Preview vs Final Cut

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Forever settled in heaven, Feb 25, 2004.

  1. Forever settled in heaven

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Ratings:
    +0
    having viewed the preview, i was just wondering what the final cut was like. perhaps those who see it this week n later cld fill me in:

    1. in the opening was Isaiah dated at 400BC?

    2. did "his blood be on our heads n our children's" get deleted, either in subtitles or in Aramaic/entire scene (for those who can understsand the Aramaic)?

    3. the androgynous Satan, fr male-ish hood in Gethsemane to ugly madonna at the crucifixion

    4. the Emmerich insertions: Jesus falling off the overpass, Mary mopping up the blood, falling again n again n again, Veronica

    5. Mel's extra: the freshly crucified Jesus flipped like a burger, face up, face down, then face up again

    6. the Pieta tableau

    7. the adult naked male bum leaving the tomb in the final, resurrection scene

    for those who watched both the preview n final cut, i'd like to know if anything got inserted in the final.
     
  2. Brother Adam

    Brother Adam New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Messages:
    4,427
    Ratings:
    +0
    I won't answer due to your lack of respect.
     
  3. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Ratings:
    +0
    Can anyone interpet FSIH's post?

    Don't be so touchy Adam. Get over the "wow" of the movie and get back to serving God. I think it's wonderful you have been adherently effected by the movie, but lets not lash out at the ignorant to the actual film.

    Answer him truthfully to his ignorance, maybe you can actually help him? or her?
     
  4. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Ratings:
    +0
    I just wish folks would get as excited about the REAL Jesus in the Bible as they apparently are over fakery. :rolleyes:
     
  5. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Ratings:
    +0
    A-men! Sister! A-men!
     
  6. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Ratings:
    +0
    "Mary mopping up the blood, falling again n again n again, Veronica"
    Falling 3 times and Veronica actually predate Emmerich by many centuries.
    Anyhow I've read some reviews of the theatrical version, those 3 apparently made it in.
     
  7. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    7. You see his upper legs/ thighs NOT his naked bum as you call it.

    Diane
     
  8. vaspers

    vaspers New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    608
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thanks dianetavegia.

    At least answer methodically the objections Forever Settled has raised.

    FSiH opened my eyes even more than the weird Mel/Diane Sawyer interview when Mel said all people are children of God and everybody goes to heaven, which makes Jesus' sacrifice totally meaningless then.

    But it's God's Holy Word that opens our eyes fully. BEHOLD: false depictions of Jesus are worse than none at all. Error is hard to overcome--recall the Pharisees.
     
  9. Forever settled in heaven

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Ratings:
    +0
    so ... were "his upper legs/ thighs" clothed?

    remember, i didn't make the movie (n mighta made it differently, had i made one), n i've never alleged that Mel depicted a full-frontal. just the facts, pls.
     
  10. vaspers

    vaspers New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    608
    Ratings:
    +0
    It's funny this dichotomy of preposterous proportions.

    If you question the film, some say you are ignorant, critical, on a high horse, obsessed.

    If you praise the film, some say you are rallying behind a great evangelical tool. (Yet Mel is not in any way an Evangelical, he's in a cult called Latin Rite catholic and has some association with members of Opus Dei.)

    If your son died for you, say he somehow took your stomach cancer from you and experienced the disease agonies himself, and Mel videotaped live every excruciating moment of misery, pain, groaning, and wretching...would you gleefully run to view the video and encourage strangers to see it?

    If so, I hardly know what to say. :(

    Behold: Hebrews 6:6.
     
  11. Forever settled in heaven

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Ratings:
    +0
    thx, but they weren't even objections at all!

    i'm just interested to compare notes w those who saw the final cut (as opposed to my viewing of the preview, which the organisers claimed was 98-99% confirmed, except for some special effects). n then i read that Mel wld take out that "anti-semitic" line/scene.

    what "lack of respect," Adam?

    why the anger, when i'm just asking for verification? [​IMG]
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Ratings:
    +0
    I just watched the interview for the third time last night. He DID NOT say that everyone goes to heaven.
     
  13. vaspers

    vaspers New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    608
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes, as I understand his words, he did.

    He was talking about how "we are all the children of God" and in reference to going to heaven, salvation, eternal life, whatever you want to call it, he said "Christians just have an easier ride."

    Please clarify if you still don't agree. Am I wrong? How so? You Johnv are a good debate opponent, so I await your response. [​IMG]

    Okay, i'll go watch it again too, and take notes. I will withdraw my comment if i have misquoted or distorted the "words of Mel". Sure wish people had the same concern for distorting the Word of God.
     
  14. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Ratings:
    +0
    To discuss it further would not be possible, really, without opening the can of worms of the same old arguements: "unsaved children of God vs creations of God", "Salvation for God alone to judge" "age/state of accountability", and "OSAS". No noeed to go there, as those are all better suited for other threads (and have been debated ad nauseum).

    What we have hear is a statement made in an interview that was, well, rather ambiguous. He didn't clearly say that "everyone goes to Heaven", nor did he say that "only born agains go to heaven", nor did he say that "only those that God elects goes to heaven", etc etc etc. The man's not a theologian, and not a preacher. He's an actor/director (and a good one at that). It's interesting to note, though, that on another thread, there's discussion over a statement made by Mel about his non-Catholic wife not going to Heaven because she's not Catholic. Clearly, that statement and the statement discussed here are in conflict. I do take it from Mel's general context, though, in this invervies, that it is NOT Mel's opinion that everyone's got a free pass to Heaven.

    I don't think you distorted Mel's words. Rather, you applied an ambiguous statement in a manner differently that I.
     
  15. Forever settled in heaven

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Ratings:
    +0
    good grief, this isn't some sorta trick question or anything.

    can't somebody step up to the plate n answer some simple questions of fact? [​IMG]
     
  16. Forever settled in heaven

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Ratings:
    +0
    ok, the truth's been confirmed.

    Bro. James' protest reads:

    "3) Jesus was wearing clothing when He came out of the grave. *Not* the way to end."
    http://pub1.ezboard.com/fbibleversiondiscussionboardfrm12.showMessage?topicID=590.topic&index=17

    i tend to agree--it's more respectful to have Him clothed. after all, it must be for the right reason that Mary Magdalene exclaimed, "Rabboni!" when she saw the resurrected Christ. ;)

    in light of Mel's macho movies, i do wonder, though, what went thru the director's head when he planned that final shot.
     
  17. Brother Adam

    Brother Adam New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Messages:
    4,427
    Ratings:
    +0
    1. in the opening was Isaiah dated at 400BC?

    I recall something about 700BC.

    2. did "his blood be on our heads n our children's" get deleted, either in subtitles or in Aramaic/entire scene (for those who can understsand the Aramaic)?

    It was not in the film

    3. the androgynous Satan, fr male-ish hood in Gethsemane to ugly madonna at the crucifixion

    I'm not sure what your talking about.

    4. the Emmerich insertions: Jesus falling off the overpass, Mary mopping up the blood, falling again n again n again, Veronica

    I see these as a good way to fill in history rather Mel use his own imagination.

    5. Mel's extra: the freshly crucified Jesus flipped like a burger, face up, face down, then face up again

    Historically, this is probable.

    6. the Pieta tableau

    Again, you'lll have to explain

    7. the adult naked male bum leaving the tomb in the final, resurrection scene

    This is what I find offensive, but someone already answered you. Its not cool to call an actor a "bum"
     
  18. Grace

    Grace New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    2,174
    Ratings:
    +0
    Do you mean "bum" as in a person...or "Bum" as in hind end?
     
  19. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    He means the upper legs crossing as Christ walked out of the tomb. Again, I asked our pastors and the other's who went with me and everyone saw that less than one second of skin as upper legs and a step being taken out of the tomb. NO ONE perceived it as a naked backside.

    Diane
     
  20. Forever settled in heaven

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Ratings:
    +0
    ah, thank you! i can now see the ambiguity in my original wording! [​IMG]

    i meant the latter--not the front end, which wld've earned the movie a different rating fr R.

    which leaves the question ... is it disrepectful to show Jesus in the nude (even fr the rear/side), or in the "skin" as some ppl prefer to put it? even for a second?

    n how accurate might that be, if He were soon to be sighted by a woman (Magdalene) outside the tomb?
     
Loading...