Read, Brandon, read. Nobody has said it wasn't at least literal to what few words the Bible says about the Crucifixion. This leaves it wide open to a visual interpretation. Gibson has had far too much top say about the film and I'm sure he regrets some of it. Let the film stand on its own -- it doesn't need to be defended. Those who see the need to defend it are bound to rationalize what has been the critical points made about the film. Just go back to theater and enjoy it again. Mel needs the box office. After all, he's "What Women Want."
And John doesn't always agree with Mathew.
John pretty much disagrees with everyone, includeing the gospels of Timothy, Titus, Mary, Stephen Peter, and Thomas. John was probably the last to be written, and may have drawn on what had become popular oral tradition.
THat's all true and the meager attempt to turn this into a theological discussion is a diversion. By estimates of bad taste and overdrawn melodrama, this does not work as a movie. It works on the level of an action film with some crying towel manipulation thrown in. It wouldn't matter who was being brutality beaten and executed -- I found "The Green Mile" to bring about some honest tears about the cruelty and mistaken morality of capital punishment. It is true that intelligent, sensible people will not be driven to hate Jews or Italians because of the film. The rest, well I don't really want to address the rest.
John does not disagree.
And there was not that much money put into advertising the movie, considering the press did it for free.
He spent 25$ of his own money to make the movie.
It grossed 76.2 million on the weekend and a grand total of 117.5 million. That is a lot of money. He made all his money back and then some. And the movie does not have to make 150 million to get the money back.
Come on--The Tigger movie cost Disney 10 million to do everything and they made 70 million. Every movie doesn't have to break 100 million to make money back.
He's made his money back plain and simple. And he didn't even have to do a media blitz because the media did the blitzin' on their own dime. As did everyone who started saying how it was a horrible film. No such thing as bad press--that created more buzz and put more money into the movie. Good job everyone--y'all had a helping hand. pat yourself on the back.
John and Paul, that's all folks talk about....poor Ringo, I say. I might note, the gospel of Ringo was sadly absent in Mel's new "love me daddy" venture. (Just how many threads are there here regarding this film?)
well i'm certainly glad that there has been enough discussion of the film, here and elsewhere, that i won't find it necessary to go and spend my own money to see it, in order to come to a fair conclusion; most non-hysterical thumbs are most decidedly down! (thanks, Betty)
The cost of the movie including distribution and promotion is in excess of 50M. It's done 76M -- it must break the 130M to make money. Obviously someone is oblivious to the cost of marketing a film and how much it has to make before it makes a profit. Mel's company is doing the accounting which is a plus for him (no monkey business in the Hollywood accounting). I don't doubt that the film won't make a profit and the controversy drove some people to see it. The church groups and the busing I'm sure did a lot also. Doesn't change the critical failure -- the majority of the reviewers that are giving it a good review are of insignificant reputation. On Rotten Tomatos it still stands at critically a rotten tomato. That is going to effect its chances of ever getting any awards.
(And you've got some big pictures coming out including "Troy")
Awards--so what. It appears to me that no one here cares about awards--so why does that matter.
And I want sit stating that is how much it cost to do the film. I think you are wrong.
That you believe the cost of production (which has also been quoted as 30M for Mel's out of pocket) is the only cost of getting a movie to your local cineplex speaks miles about your credibility. Don't give up your day job. If nobody cares about awards, tonight's Oscar show is predicated on other shows of the past to bring in viewers in the billions.
I stated on A2K--which is why I said Here.
You still haven't given me proof of that. Just because it comes from you doesn't make it fact. I dont' care who you are--if you want proof from me I want it from you. And until you give it to me I think you are just making it up.
He made his money back.
It is a good thing it won't get awards. He knew it wasn't going to. And he doesn't care. That isn't why he made the film. But that does put a damper on the way you want to protray Mel on this forum. Ooops.
Lightwizard wrote:Now your just boring me.
Sorry since it wasn't for you.--so you really are boring yourself.
When you post on an open public forum it is for everyone. You can cut-and-paste until you are blue in the face your borrowed opinions (oh, I forgot, you already have a blue face -- how appropriate). I am underwhelmed.
And still haven't shown where you come up with your magic numbers.
And you are right even one can see it, but no one made you read it. That is why you can't blame me for you being board when you are the one who chose to read it.
