Mel Gibson is making a sequel to Passion of the Christ

originally posted by: IridiumFlareMadness

"a few minutes at the end where the devil was some kind of weird baby getting carried around? " Huhh???????????????
What movie did you watch SisterDelirium? It wasn't 'The Passion of the Christ."

Naw, there was someone carrying around a creepy baby that was grinning at Jesus as he was being beaten.
Never knew why the devil would delight in that since it was supposedly Jesus' crucifixion that screwed him over. But there is a lot about the story that doesn't make any sense.

It's literally all I saw of it and I considered that Satan-baby-thing a big bucket of nope.

Christian movies are meant to evangelize, I guess, but they so often do the opposite. Bad theology, cheesy acting, weird art-house elements... people who already equate Christian beliefs with bizarre superstitions/strange fairytales will only have their worst criticisms confirmed.

The Drop Box documentary is probably a better Christian film with actual Christian values. I'm not saying it's perfect, but films like the Drop Box are more Christian than, say, the Passion is to me. I see movies like that and don't see Christ--I see a distorted pantomime. I see a pastor and his congregation trying to save the least among us... I see Christ.

I've said it before and will say it again... I don't even recognize the weird plastic Savior(tm) that America is allegedly so fond of evoking.

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
I hope he gets the language correct this time.
Oh I like Gibson apart from his anti English movies.

Lol. Braveheart was anti-history, anti-reality, pro-f***** stupid as well as being anti-English. The Scots should have been insulted instead of making it the official documentary for the lands. All Mel missed was having them wear curly red wigs and say 'och aye' mid sentences.

Now half of Scotland thinks they were running roond in th' nuddy al painted bloo och aye until the middle ages.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Well I am know your thread is more about the movie.

But since you asked?.

The wound's and scourging in the movie were based on real roman devices used in that film and I believe Mr Gibson also took a lot of inspiration from the Shroud of Turin.
Now wether you believe it genuine as I and many million's of other do or not is irrelevant as it is the most anthropologially correct image of it's type in christianity and it is not alone either have you heard about a matching image but with his eye's open that was thought by the church to be the veil of Veronica, not the one in the Vatican which IS fake but the one that appeared after the sack of Rome probably taken there for safety in the italian village of Manopello, it is not however the Veil of Veronica but rather a grave cloth like the shroud, however though made from a rare and once very expensive material called mussel silk made from mussel shell's that resists' paint and can not be dyed it could be a painting based on the shroud though there is also a lack of proof of pigmentation or pain upon the cloth.
For comparison
shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com...


The way that the Christ was scourged in the film was as it was described in the Bible as well, the hooked and barbed whip's and flails are genuine replica's based on actual Roman device's used for scourging from the period.

a reply to: LABTECH767

So what your saying is that The Passion of the Christ was the most realistic depiction of your interpretation of the real life of Jesus?

I get all of the attention to detail with Roman weaponry and wardrobe and what not.

But I could say that Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) was the most realistic depiction of Jesus and it wouldn't be anymore correct or incorrect than your assertion.

Again, as I've mentioned I have not seen the film. But the only people I know that believe it to be the (no pun intended) holy grail of Christ films were Christians themselves. Ignorant Christians, that is.

I remember being in high school and hearing students talk about how their entire family had gone to see it. One girl in my chemistry class said that her 6 year old little brother was crying and left the theater feeling terrified, only to say that it was totally necessary for her sibling to be traumatized by the film because that's the way it really happened.

I so desperately wanted to turn around and tell her what a stupid bitch she was but I neglected to. Being a vocal opponent of Christianity or any organized religion for that matter was social suicide when I was a teenager, but especially Christianity as I grew up living in the bible belt of Kentucky.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

You could indeed but your's is going to be a very noisy heaven so I suggest you take ear plug's just in case.

You make a good point about children at an early age not understanding and in fact teaching them with a sledge hammer (metaphorically) like that could do far more harm than good.

I understand as well why so many like yourself do not want to accept any religion and it is often more than just a rebellion against the one in which you were raised or in which you found yourself but even from a simply human approach you have to recognize the importance religion plays in a society.

It does help to bind social structure together.

Over here in England the censor gave the film an 18 rating due to it's shocking content and yes I agree there is no need to expose an innocent mind to that as it definitely could cause far more harm than good so I regard those as irresponsible parent's, you can't shelter a child forever but there is an age and a time to learn certain thing's.

You and indeed anyone are free to believe or not, I have stated my belief and respect your own as you have your reason's but think about it, you are talking about the ultra conservative bible belt states of the US and they have a very peculiar view of Christianity which as you know includes some probably insane lunatic's using poisonous snakes in some state's to other's preaching a politically right wing and very twisted view of Christianity when in fact Jesus had far more in common with Marx (who stole many of his idea's) than he did with the modern church's, in fact the early church's were essentially commune's with shared wealth and work, the ill were cared for, each was given just what he needed and no one lived to excess as they were all one family in there sight.

What we see today is evengelical TV such as TBN which has now been exported to the UK, some really nice people and then some that make your skin crawl, one bragging about getting a baptismal area built on the Jordan (hold on a moment did'nt Jesus say do good work's in secret), this same guy divorced his wife and paid her allimony out of Church fund's but hey it is his business right, I think you know the one he has a name like my favorite meal Haggis but not quite the same then another of them drives a Ferrari and all on church donation's.

So I do get were you are coming from especially in the state's, those guy's are all my arse as we say in England, they preach donation's but there view of charity is found in filling there own pocket's, so much so evangelical hypocrite's whom are only preaching (And preying on there congregations) for there own benefit. (Maybe I am being a wee bit unfair to them though)
The counter argument would be do they do more good than bad, is making people feel good about themselves ACTUALLY doing good though?.


I love Christianity but I think that most today have the wrong end of the stick yourself included and also many believer's, it is not so much your belief' as your view of the organised religion that is the point, well I guess someone has to organise it but a lot of the time it is the wrong people and they taint it with there own motivation's.

Let me ask you this, if they obeyed the lord, gave away there wealth to the poor keeping only what they needed, worked for the common good and created a Utopian society based on his ideal's in which no one was without shelter or food or clothing would you feel so bitter toward's it.

You know those same hypocritical traitor's, those same false preachers and wolves in sheep's clothing fall back on old testament to justify there way of mis preaching the gospels of Christ.

SO obviously we are on different side's but perhaps we have more in common than you might think.


Now think about this, Christ had little time for priest's and preacher's, he often referred to them as hypocrite's being rewarded here by there fine clothing and status in society while he cared more about the common folk.

Now is it possible that if met him and even did not believe that just maybe you would like him and his message religion aside?.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I had originally typed up a rather lengthy response to your... rather lengthy response.

But I think I can some up my response with one sentence:

Jesus was a magician.

Let me ask you this, if they obeyed the lord, gave away there wealth to the poor keeping only what they needed, worked for the common good and created a Utopian society based on his ideal's in which no one was without shelter or food or clothing would you feel so bitter toward's it.

If... If... If...

If things were as you speculated in that quote above, then there would be no need for religion, and therefor no need for a savior.

I'm a big proponent of one of Dr. Timothy Leary's concepts, and that is your brain is God.

Saw the first one, it did change my life a little bit. It had an effect on me is about the best I can say. Thats even with NOT believing that Jesus was the living God. Jesus was Jesus. What got me was the willingness to make a sacrifice like that for what He did believe in, and what he thought was for a greater good.

I will certainly watch the Resurrection . As far as traumatic for kids?? My 3 year old will throw a fit if he doesn't get to watch the Walking Dead (Jesus?) reruns while I am doing stuff. I think he can handle the Passion. Only problem is he will probably ask me if Jesus is a zombie. I guess that kind of is right??

a reply to: reldra


www.google.com.au... -B2kQsAQIGg

So these images are not from the movie then?

Is this some sort of Mandela effect

"a few minutes at the end where the devil was some kind of weird baby getting carried around? " Huhh??????????????? What movie did you watch SisterDelirium? It wasn't 'The Passion of the Christ."

Glad to read this. I like Mel and I've enjoyed him as an actor and as a director.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

Glad to read this. I like Mel and I've enjoyed him as an actor and as a director.

And bloody awful as a human being.

a reply to: alldaylong

Nah, he just openly speaks his mind and has some issues with alcohol. Not even remotely as bad a guy as the media vultures have portrayed him ass. I'm happy to see him back at making films and see no reason why he shouldn't be getting on with his life and career.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: alldaylong

Nah, he just openly speaks his mind and has some issues with alcohol. Not even remotely as bad a guy as the media vultures have portrayed him ass. I'm happy to see him back at making films and see no reason why he shouldn't be getting on with his life and career.

So the wife beater and racist stories where just that? Stories.

a reply to: alldaylong

Everyone has a breaking point and there are always two sides to every story. The "racist" stuff is utterly meaningless. Words and rants rooted in emotion and lubricated with liquor don't make someone a racist nor does the classification of "racist" tell the full story of any person.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Mel Gibson is a great actor and a brilliant film maker. I concur with those sentiments.

However, Mel Gibson's father was a bit of a Nazi sympathizer. One has to wonder whether or not that was passed on consciously or unconsciously to his son's creative process.