The Passion rotten so far

[Imran Siddiqui]

Many non-believers are prepared to accept the movie for what it is.

Actually I don't think they are... there is a reason they are non-believers . Most of them are going to see it to see wha the hype is about.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually I don't think they are... there is a reason they are non-believers . Most of them are going to see it to see wha the hype is about.

And then we have people like MrBaggins who seemingly would go to a Terminator flick and complain about the how fictional it is.

[MrBaggins]

As I said.. I can suspend disbelief watching a fictional movie.

[DinoDoc]

Then why all the posts about something you consider fictional? I fail to see the difference.

[MrBaggins]

Its being BILLED as a historical account... and there were some arguments further up in the thread that the resurrection was a factual event.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Its being BILLED as a historical account...

It's being BILLED as a religious movie (something you would consider to be a work of fiction).

[MrBaggins]

Irrelevent.

The synopsis written by Newmarket says

The Passion of The Christ is a film about the last twelve hours of Jesus of Nazareth's life. The film opens in the Garden of Olives (Gethsemane) where Jesus has gone to pray after the Last Supper. Jesus resists Satan's temptations. Betrayed by Judas Iscariot, Jesus is arrested and taken back to within the city walls of Jerusalem where the leaders of the Pharisees confront him with accusations of blasphemy and his results in a condemnations of death.

It says nothing about fictional representation.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
The synopsis written by Newmarket says

Are we going to get into a semantic arguement over if it is OK for you to assume that a movie about someone who you might not even believe exists using a book you believe to be a fairy tale as a primary source is fictional or not?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Are we going to get into a semantic arguement over if it is OK for you to assume that a movie about someone who you might not even believe exists using a book you believe to be a fairy tale as a primary source is fictional or not?

I don't know, yet. Too early to tell.

[DinoDoc]

Ok just checking because that would be annoying.

[MrBaggins]

Are you going to actually refute what I said... or? just ask more rhetorical questions?

/me chuckles and shakes his head

Make a statement, if you are.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Are you going to actually refute what I said... or?

Yes. It is OK for you to assume that a movie about someone who you might not even believe exists using a book you believe to be a fairy tale as a primary source is fictional. I hereby give you permission to treat religious movies as fictional.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I hereby give you permission to treat religious movies as fictional.

*sighs* Which is fine when you're making the film, and write a synopsis saying...

"This is the fictional account of blah blah blah" or "This is my telling/view/opinion of blah blah blah"

However, we're discussing a specific film where that hasn't been done.

[Ramo]

How can one argue with that?

Not arguing, just providing you with some enlightenment. If it makes you happier, it's some professor of theology.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
A couple of my coworkers saw it, and their reaction was pretty much what I had guessed my assessment will be: If you're not a believer, you're essentially just watching 2 hours of some guy being horribly tortured and put to death. Since I have a low gore tolerance, I think I'll save it for Netflix.

I think this is a normal reaction. I haven't seen the film, but even I admit I am somewhat queasy.

I remember doing the stations of the cross on Good Friday when I was a kid. I was horrified even then about what happened to Jesus.