The Town of Odyssey

I don’t know what this movie is like, but it’s a pretty good trailer.

Jesus is british.

Jesus is attractive.

Jesus is Epic™.

Why is Jesus so hot?

While there are some discrepancies, it doesn't look too bad. And the fact that Jesus' voice is very easy on the ears doesn't harm anything.

I'm waiting for one of these Hollywood Jesus filmmakers to read Isaiah 53:2 and take it seriously.

Jelly wrote:I'm waiting for one of these Hollywood Jesus filmmakers to read Isaiah 53:2 and take it seriously.

Right? Shouldn't Jesus look like a ratchet homeless man? Not another Hemsworth brother.

Well, as we all know, you can't just be moderately good-looking in media. You're either Elephant Man or George Clooney. No such thing as in-betweeners. What would the world be like if we couldn't split it into "Pretty People" and "Ugly People"?

Maybe I'm the only one, but I think I would prefer to read subtitles. Somehow movies like these seem more effective that way.

Why does it matter what the actor looks like?

bookworm wrote:Why does it matter what the actor looks like?

It matters because you wouldn't cast an African American to star in a biopic of Abraham Lincoln. You wouldn't cast an Asian to play the role of Gandhi. And we shouldn't keep casting Brad Pitt look-alikes to play Jesus.

History is being warped to suit our Western sensibilities. I'm tired of seeing white, hip Evangelical youth pastor Jesus with a British accent. I want to see the dark-skinned, Jewish rebel who speaks Aramaic. I want an accurate reflection of history.

edit: ric, you're definitely not alone.

^ Like button! My thoughts exactly. =P It is rare that I agree 100% with Jelly, but this is one of those times.

It's good to see that there are more christian movies coming out!

(Btw, this is my 400th post)

godisawesomeness99 wrote:It's good to see that there are more christian movies coming out!

It sure isn't.

My hopes aren't high for this one, or for Noah... I get the feeling that there's some hidden agenda behind them, considering the fact that they're both being released this year.
I mean, think about it. This isn't just "Passion" remake...
However, feel free to ignore my ramblings; I've always been a bit of a conspiracy theorist, at heart.

~JCGJ~ wrote:My hopes aren't high for this one, or for Noah... I get the feeling that there's some hidden agenda behind them, considering the fact that they're both being released this year.

Exodus is also coming out this year.

Here are some cheats to help you decide which Bible movies are worth your time (and money):

- Noah is a production of Darren Aronofsky, an filmmaking auteur who has directed experimental, psychological thrillers. His take on the story will be very different than the typical Sunday School story of Noah and the flood, and is guaranteed to be interesting. (I wrote a blog post explaining why the marketing for the film is totally misleading.)

- Son of God is basically a recycling of the Bible mini-series released on the History channel last year. So in other words, a brilliant marketing scheme.

- Exodus is slated to be a Biblical Epic starring Christian Bale. It apparently hopes to recall 300 and Braveheart in terms of stylistic action, which makes me think it'll have a slightly different perspective than Prince of Egypt. Also, while Noah's director has personal artistic investment in his film, Exodus is a director-for-hire project set up by the studios, because obviously Biblical Epics are making a trendy comeback.


Bonus pro-tip: 'Christian' is a noun, not an adjective. There's no such thing as a Christian movie. When you buy your movie ticket to see the latest Biblical epic, you're telling Hollywood that church people are willing to pay money for films that affirm their worldview. For a secular industry that's only interested in profit, this a perfect way to tap into the market of a major subculture.

I really don’t get why you’re always so negative about these kinds of movies Jelly.
I think they’re great, because while they may not be 'accurate' they get people’s attention and make them interested in the Bible and I can’t see how that’s a bad thing.

Am I being negative?

Criticism is not necessarily negativity. It can be healthy and constructive. I base my criticism on quality and value, and what is ultimately true about the human condition. I consider myself an idealist in that regard. If I feel a film is lying to me, however, I will not hesitate to point out its weaknesses. This is the kind of attitude we should always strive for. How can we claim to have a valuable worldview if we're not willing to engage in critical practices?

Noah is an example of a film that will catch many people by surprise because it won't be an easy pill to swallow. Those who were hoping to shut their minds off and watch a spectacular recreation of "safe" Noah will end up condemning it outright, because their minds are still shut off. I hope to find the middle ground. I want to keep my mind open.

I think they’re great, because while they may not be 'accurate' they get people’s attention and make them interested in the Bible and I can’t see how that’s a bad thing.

So bait and hook, eh? Let's put cardboard carrots on the end of our ten foot poles and stick them out into the open so we can reel people in with mediocrity and superficial promises.

No. The point is not to lure people into responding to a narrow interpretation of the Bible. The point is to inspire a desire for God. If a film sucks, that's a bad thing. It doesn't matter how accurate it was or how interesting it made the Bible seem.

I haven't seen any of the films we're talking about yet though.

Jelly wrote:The point is not to lure people into responding to a narrow interpretation of the Bible.

Which Noah isn't going to be I thought you said.

Jelly wrote:The point is to inspire a desire for God.

Of course! And I don't see why these movies can't do that.