THE PASSIONS RE-CUT

Remember discussing h0w will mel make more money from a special 2 disc edition DVD of the Passions? Well....its seems its not enough...he is G0ing f0r a 2nd Theatrical Release...S0mething like "director's cut" in theaters... Its Called THE PASSI0N RE-CUT and its premiering On March 11th. The new Poster can be seen in - EXTERNAL LINK - is f0ll0wed by the tag line "a new version f0r new viewers to be inspired". Theres als0 a trailer.
Well...he is g0nna d0 it again...

I find it sort of interesting that this started out as yet another interesting "discussion", only to turn to a fist fight over certain people's opinions. A lot of you have made some very well thought out and relevant comments so far. The rest of you have used this thread as a personal attack free-for-all. Whether you agree with one person or not, or just plain think they're daft for the comments they've made, it shouldn't become the focus of the thread.

While I may not be the member with the most longevity here, I think I've talked with Eddie enough, and read enough of his reviews to know that while he (like most of us here) is oppinionated about one thing or another, Eddie gives it to you strait, or as he see's it. You can't fault the guy for that. Most of the "gripes" against Eddie, that I've seen so far, have been just as "hypocritical" as you (that are) are blaming him for being... Which, only serves to prove Sean's point earlier on in this thread. The issue of publicly disrespecting fellow emplyees stands. At this stage in our anal "politically correct" society, this shouldn't even be a question. It's completely unprofessional.

To the point. Whether we THINK that Gibson changed this or that, for what ever reason, is irrelevant. We may never know the true reason he did. I can speculate all day long, that I think he did it for more sales. And, quite honestlly, (being a person that's "trying" not to watch so many 'R' movies, with the eventual goal of not watching them altogether) I applaud Mr. Gibson for releasing a version of his film for people like myself to watch. While I might be a minority (and I use the term loosely) in that sense, it's still nice to know that I'm not forgotten about. While there is a point to the argument of "if you can't watch a movie 'how it was intended' to be watched, then you shouldn't watch it at all", I think it's short sighted to think that I can't get the same messages, or thoughts brought across by the director, by taking out the gratuitous sex, gore, or other content. But, that's another discussion altogether.

We're all given to becoming heated over one thing or another, but the fact that personal attacks are still being displayed on the message boards, is frustrating, and completely childish. If you can't bring your point across without demeaning, or belittling someone else, you're showing just how small your intellect is.

- Josh

Do you like Michael Moore's work or not?

Score ten points for Ranjan for somehow connecting The Passion and Wal Mart. hahaha

Good work my friend. :)

Luc

Sorry for writing that you gave it a 6. The point - there are lot of things around us that are based on false pretence and in the corporation terms false marketing. We still buy products and shop in the big stores. Do you shop at Walmart? If yes, then my question - why it is so difficult to rate this movie. I believe both Walmart and POTC aims at making money and wide consumer base. I think Walmart kills local businesses and hence in the same way POTC make us feel as if we are idiots. If the movies sucks it sucks. No getting away from it.
--Ranjan

hy·poc·ri·sy

1: An expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction.
2: Insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have or understand.

Eddie,
With all due respect to your past and present comments:), I would like to remind you that you also changed your mind when you rated POTC. During the theatrical release you gave it a 9/10 (if I remember it correctly). Later on you gave it a 6. Now personally I don't care why you changed your mind:). Infact I like people who are honest:). You were no hypocrite when you changed your mind. The point I am making here is people in fact do have right to change their minds. If Gibson is planning to release a strip down flavor of grotesque violence, so be it. It is his prerogative!! Is it for money. Of course heck yaa. Now we will have 4 flavors of DVDs. I don't think removing violence from the movie questions his integrity. We have seen so many director cuts released one by one in the past. I believe a same movie can be made in different ways. This goes for very profession - software developement, photography, writing and of course sports. The point is - we should be all nice in forums and stop blaming Christians, Republicans blah blah. In the end we all know how to be nice to everyone. Don't we?
--Ranjan
PS: Is POTC a good movie?:)

Oh, for the love of Pete! A guy changes his mind and he's a hypocrite?!?

Does that make it hypocritical that John Kerry voted for the Iraqi War, but voted against the $85 million of fluff that diddn't even provide armor for the soldiers fighting said war and their military vehicles? Please!

In the secular world, if someone changes his mind, that's okay. But if someone of religious persuasion makes a similar change, he's automatically a hypocrite. Unless it's politics, and then he's a "flip-flopper." Guess "thonger" didn't go over too well.

If you want to talk integrity, then from Mel's (and my) standpoint, the most integrous decision is to spread this specific message to as many people as possible. If that means artistically changing a reported 5-6 minutes of the film (i.e., George Lucas) to make it palatable to a new, larger audience, then so be it. As I recall, the big answer to the whole George Lucas fiasco was, "if you don't like it, then don't buy it." Such an answer indicates it's not such a big deal after all. Funny that feathers ruffle over The Passion.

Kerry was right to conscienciously stand against the ludicrously ill-advised funding and strategy for the Iraqi War, just as Mel is right, from his belief-mandated standpoint, in exposing as many people as possible to this story.

The real newsflash here is that we are all hypocritical. We all change our minds. We all make bad decisions. That's why we despise it in other people; it reminds us of our own shortcomings.

I'm stepping down from my soapbox now.

Sean (actually, i think the soapbox caved under the weight!...) :)

I think it is Mel Gibson once again exploiting religion to make more money. Just watch Payback and ask how can this guy be allowed to make a movie about Jesus.

Chin,

Without getting into the why's and how comes, the short of it is, it has to do with my beliefs. I'll leave it at that. ;)

- Josh

Is Passion of the Christ a movie depicting how Jesus truly suffered for our sins?

...or is it a movie about how Jesus got the crap beat out of him?

I can't decide....

Quick question to Josh:

Why are ratings so important to determining your viewing a film?

Now this is what I'm talking about! Excellent and relevant points so far!

Sorry to have bitten anyone's head off with my last post. I just thought the attacks were a bit over the edge. Sean made some fine points about opinions, and respect. I hope we can adhere to it. As Eddie mentioned, we're all guests here.

TGP,

I agree with about 90% of what you mentioned. I do differ however, on the violence issue. I think a lot of people (not all) can discern from the implication of whats going on, or going to happen in a scene, currently happening, or following a scene without actually showing it. Case in point. You mentioned "Braveheart". One of the most disturbing scenes (in my cinematic experience) was the scene where Braveheart is slowly having his "innards" pulled out of him. No gore was shown. No splattering of blood on someones face. Nothing but the incredible emotional shots of Gibsons face. It's STILL very hard for me to watch, and to me, brings the point across far better than, if we were to have seen every single gory minute of the actual event. I sort of place the violence and gore issue, in the same boat that I place movies that are CG heavy, or SFX heavy. "Usually", they're heavy on these things, because they have little to no storyline. After all, they have to find some way to weasel the money out of our pockets, right? While there are some exceptions to the rule, I find that it's generally true.


Eddie,

I guess I heard wrong. Mind you, this was second hand information, however I heard that the POTC edit was to be PG-13. Being that I never saw the original (and I don't think I will) it sounds like I may be out of luck.

- Josh

On one hand, I believe that this is a good idea. I myself do like this film. I agree that the film has extreme violence (not unnecessary however, for you can't make an accurate or intenese film about crucifixion without it) and I also know that the film could have focused more on the ultimate message than the violence, but that is not what the film was made for. This movie does not replace the Bible or church, and it doesn't try to do that. It is only supposed to be an accurate depiction of Jesus' betrayal and death with some glimpses into his life, and for that the film is a success. This "recut" business is a good and a bad idea. For one, it will open up the audience for those who do not want to see the violence. My mother works at the church, and most of the staff including herself did not choose to see the film. On the other hand, this is a bad idea because it will likely lessen the impact of the film and make many think that Mel is looking for more $. I don't see the point in those complaints. The AMerican society is built on capatalism and making money, face it, it's true. Gibson did donate lots of the film's $ and his film inspired, raised awareness or introduced Christianity to some people (mind you, I said introduced, this film is not a complete summary of the entire message of the Bible and more theological sources are necessary beyond this film). He also enraged many with the controversial violence. He also kept some of the $ for himself. BIG DEAL! He made the film, he deserves to keep some of the money. I hear rumors that Mel is planning to helm a film about Jews and Hanukkah. This does seem somewhat like God-sploitation but so be it. As seen by Braveheart, he likes historical epics and violence. But violence can be a very effective tool. After all, many of the greatest films of all time are R-rated.

Did anyone visit the website and listen to the music? I was thinking of buying the soundtrack earlier, but on this site the music sounds exactly like James Horner's work in "Glory". Does anyone agree?

Eddie,

You had me at repudiating... ;)

Sean (i know it was one of the last things you said, but man, repudiating! gotta love a word like that!...)

Eddie,

Wow! As Josh said, this has pretty much become a lynch mob in very short order. I apologize if any of this was instigated by me.
As usual, I think you and I are on the same page, but in different books. It's great to have varying opinions, and I respect that you are as up front with yours as I am with mine.

As to everyone else: Please, let's respect each other's opinions here just as we expect our own to be respected!

That being said, my point was likewise that hypocrisy and mind-changing are not the same thing. I can't see where Mr. Gibson changed his fundamental beliefs in this situation. That to me would be hypocrisy. If I were telling this story to my peers, I would tell it the way that he did last year. However, if I'm telling it to my kids here in Toon Town who are between the ages of 6-10 years old, I would certainly tell it in a more palatable way. I'm not believing two things at the same time which are contradictory; I am simply respecting the audience to whom I'm speaking.

I don't think changing one's mind indicates a mistake was made in the first place. I have often expanded my opinions when presented with new facts. Does that make my earlier mindset wrong? No. Somewhat narrower perhaps, but not wrong.

Ultimately, is money the reason here? Maybe so. I won't presume to think I know Mr. Gibson's motivations, but as Ranjan stated, it is his prerogative to make alterations as it is his film and artistic expression.

Sean (man, splinters from that soapbox are diggin' into my ankles!...) :)

Just a note for Kristian, my note about payback was just ment as a sarcastic, cynical joke. I truely don't give a flying fuck what mel gibson does. Not to bring religion into it or anything but I am a catholic so I do have mixed feelings on the movie, but like i've said before, what you gonna do, it's a film and he's a film maker let the man work. peace

Chris,
I think that the basic understanding of why someone identifies with or is unable to identify with Christ's sufferings as depicted in The Passion have to do with his or her belief system.

For me, it resonates soundly due to my faith and conviction that Christ died for my sins. To me this film depicts a harsh and mostly accurate (according to many historians, not just Bible historians) portrayal of the brutality which Jesus endured. Not just because the Bible says so, but because the Bible outlines specific punishments not described in detail. For example, many books write that "Joe got shot." However, when Paul Verhoven makes a movie of "John got shot," it shows the bullet entering the front of his head and then switches to the shot where the back of his head blows off and chunks of gore fly at the camera lens. The Bible says that Jesus was scourged, beaten, and crucified. This film simply depicts what that punishment would look like for anyone, but alas Jesus is the punished here.

I can watch this film and see that it's not about Jesus' life; it's not about Jesus' ministry; it's about what He gave and gave up for us.

As a Christian, and not a higher-minded individual, I patently understand that this will not have the same resonance for someone who is not a Christian. Likewise, just as you may be baffled by my reaction, it is impossible for me to look at this as "ludicrous" and a "comedy" as you have previously written. Of course you are entitled to your point of view just as we all are, but the fundamental fact is that our differences in belief determine how we will respond to such a topic.

As misguided as it seems to me being a Christian, I can respect the fact that you and Eddie are atheists, just as I hope that you respect the fact that I do believe in a God who cares so much for me that he bridged the gap between this world and Eternity because I can't do it myself. I am just a man.

I am also a thinker and artist. Me beliefs may determine how I live my life, but surprisingly (or maybe not) I think you, Eddie, I, and many others here probably wrestle with many of the same questions. Due to my beliefs, it is not for me to judge someone who does not have the same beliefs as me. I'm only supposed to open civil dialogue to help others understand why I believe what I believe and how important it is to me. Though our beliefs differ our brains work in a similar way, and I look forward to many more stimulating conversations in the future.

As for the "demon baby," this film is replete with classical imagery such as "The Pieta" and "Madonna and Child," well-loved depictions oft-used by the Catholic church which Gibson aligns himself with. The "demon baby" seems to be an antithetical depcition of the "Madonna and Child" that Satan is tauntingly using against Mary, one of the two subjects of the classic piece of art. This pays twisted homage to a lauded and classic piece of art lending added resonance, at least to me. This is similar to other film depictions of art such as "The Girl with the Pearl Earrings." As such, I'm not sure why this helps define the film for you as comedic, but our outlooks differ, and as previously stated this likely accounts for our differences in perception.

Thanks for letting me throw in my two cents. However, my fingers are cramping up, so we'll return to it later!

Sean (longwinded: yes! short of breath: no!...) :D

Did they change the ending? Just wondering.

[Post edited by Michael_B2004 on Jul 5, 2005]

[Post edited by Michael_B2004 on Jun 19, 2005]