... Well, I tried it !

[ironglow]

.
  Some time ago, a movie came out starring one Russell Crowe, which was purportedly the story about Noah and his ark.  I saw the trailer on TV...but it looked more like a Sci-fi film, than a Bible epic !   So I passed...... on wanting to partake of viewing the movie.

   Well, it came up for free  on one of the available venues, so I figured I would give it a chance.  I watched it through, and found it to be more false and more Sci-Fi than I thought in the first place.

  The Bible narrative was barely recognizeable, and neither Ham or Japeth had wives aboard the ark... I cannot imagine where they found their wives !  Somehow, Tubal Cain stowed away upon the ark...and unlike the Biblical experience, Noah had to fight the people outside the ark.

   Now for the Sci-Fi part..Noah didn't have to fight them alone.. he had some "super hero' rock people fight for him !  Yeah!  Big, humanoid figures, made of black rocks and glowing, with heat coming out from fisures ibetween the rocks!

   When will Hollyweird ever learn?  If they want to make a Bible epic, they should stay reasonably close to the truth.  Why?  Well, few non-believers will care to see it...and Christians want the truth.

  They may or may not have invested big bucks in that film, but it is not unfair to say it flopped......

[BUGEYE]

We didn't see it.
Thanks for the heads up.

[ironglow]

.
   Yes Bug, it was really weird.  The movie showed Shem's wife giving birth on the ark..twice.  Quite a show, when thye were only on board the ark for 364 days 
     https://creation.com/how-long-was-noah-on-the-ark

     ....And to add some drama to the scene, it had Noah driven to the point where he wanted to kill his grandchildren.
   
   It made for much drama, but very little true Biblical account.

[O-mega]

And here I was hoping the ark was a spaceship with DNA from every species on earth.  I guess I will have to look for it and watch it.

[Dee]

Mel Gibsons' catholic version of "The Passion of the Christ" was no better. I  watched a few trailers and nixed it. A "female satan" really?
Our whole church went to see it as a group when it came out. I and a few others passed on the trip.

[Lloyd Smale]

embarrassing to admit but we went to the theater when it first came out. thought it was a legit movie about the ark. We walked out after a 1/2 hour.

[ironglow]

.
  I saw "The Passion", and don't recall where Satan appeared inthe guise of a woman, nor have I heard that claimed.

   The most widespread complaint I have heard inthat regard, was that a number of butt-hurt folks complained that Gibson made the devil to look like Obama.

    https://variety.com/2013/tv/news/internet-chatter-runs-amok-with-satan-obama-nonsense-1200325276/

[Dee]

.
  I saw "The Passion", and don't recall where Satan appeared inthe guise of a woman, nor have I heard that claimed.

   The most widespread complaint I have heard inthat regard, was that a number of butt-hurt folks complained that Gibson made the devil to look like Obama.

    https://variety.com/2013/tv/news/internet-chatter-runs-amok-with-satan-obama-nonsense-1200325276/

Rosalinda Celentano played satan in The Passion.
Even newspaper reviews remarked that Gibson gave satan a feminine connotation.
It was in numerous reviews, and on several religious discussion TV shows.

So I guess you didn't notice it when  you watched the movie, and I guess you didn't hear about it in your little world up there, but a lot of other folks all over the
res of the country noticed, and it was talked about by more attentive critics and viewers.
Guess you just missed it.

[ironglow]

.
   I stand corrected,  I looked up this Rosalinda  woman and realized that she actually played what some considered an Obama look-alike.
 
      Of course, I doubt many realized that was a woman, without looking elsewhere.  Sure looked like an ugly man to me !      

    Makeup sure changed her in that photo above as shown in the photo above..

   I suspect there were a reasonable number who are not "in my little world" who weren't aware of a woman being used to portray Satan.

  Despite the Roman Catholic scenes in the film, I believe that Gibson may have performed a service, in that  the movie attracted many people who had very little contact with ant Bible stories.

  Sure, some may have left the theater and soon forgot what they had seen.  ..But there is very little doubt  that some went on to sek out what they had been missing.  there are testimonies to that effect.

  One portrayal of Satan..albeit abstract, which was very moving and effective..was the scene of the crow on the cross. That was moving, at least for myself...

[Dee]

LOL, 

[DEACONLLB]

I have never and I mean never seen any movie that Hollyweard put out that even came close to the bible. For years they ran the 10 commandments on TV and after watching it the first time I said to my wife why don't they throw away the script and use the bible but no Hollyweard has to take I think it is called poet licenses.

Deaconllb

[Dee]

I have never and I mean never seen any movie that Hollyweard put out that even came close to the bible. For years they ran the 10 commandments on TV and after watching it the first time I said to my wife why don't they throw away the script and use the bible but no Hollyweard has to take I think it is called poet licenses.

Deaconllb

I agree Deacon, but some are more easily impressed than you and I.

[Bob Riebe]

I have never and I mean never seen any movie that Hollyweard put out that even came close to the bible. For years they ran the 10 commandments on TV and after watching it the first time I said to my wife why don't they throw away the script and use the bible but no Hollyweard has to take I think it is called poet licenses.

Deaconllb

You simply cannot make a movie about Biblical events and be dead-on accurate as it is only an abstract of what happened, all that is there is all that is need for salvation but you cannot make a movie without improvising heavily.

[Dee]

I have never and I mean never seen any movie that Hollyweard put out that even came close to the bible. For years they ran the 10 commandments on TV and after watching it the first time I said to my wife why don't they throw away the script and use the bible but no Hollyweard has to take I think it is called poet licenses.

Deaconllb

You simply cannot make a movie about Biblical events and be dead-on accurate

Of course you can. Its ridiculous to believe one has to alter the truth, in order to tell the truth. Your statement doesn't even make sense Bob.

[Bob Riebe]

Im

I have never and I mean never seen any movie that Hollyweard put out that even came close to the bible. For years they ran the 10 commandments on TV and after watching it the first time I said to my wife why don't they throw away the script and use the bible but no Hollyweard has to take I think it is called poet licenses.
Deaconllb

You simply cannot make a movie about Biblical events and be dead-on accurate

Of course you can. Its ridiculous to believe one has to alter the truth, in order to tell the truth. Your statement doesn't even make sense Bob.

I has nothing to do with altering the truth/abstract that is in the Bible, there simply are too many gaps to make a movie that is not very short and choppy; of course you could make four different version of the New Testament versions of Jesus actions but then they do not all cover the same things, while they do tell the same version of the good news.
In one of my  English classes we had to take a print story and turn parts of it into a broadcast script -- what you suggest is like the dudes who would come up while landscaping and say "all ya gotta do is..." BS --  there is a HUGE WORLD of difference between the written word and the spoken word basic grammar to complex dialog.
A movie script is not a narrated story, that would be a simple documentary, not a movie any producer would spend money on.

Gibson's movie of the Passion, regardless of add-ons probably did more to show what Hell Jesus went through for us to ignorant and curious persons, than a church service preaching to the choir; that was worth it alone. (Now if the portrayal of Satan is more important to some than Jesus suffering portrayed in the movie, every one chooses their own preferences,)

[Dee]

The movie was made to make money and boy it did, and to hell with the facts.

Gibson spent 45 million in production, and advertising, and the movie grossed 612 million. Gibson netted 567 million dollars on "The Passion".

Gibson ignored Biblical facts for "cinemas' sake".
I doubt he even knows the facts, but he knows how to sell a movie.

This thread, is like all threads. Everybody has their opinion.
My opinion based on scripture is, the movie was blasphemous trash successfully marketed as Christian viewing material. Complete with graven imagery, and corrupted scripture. Other opinions may vary, but the truth is still the truth.
Changing Biblical facts for the sake of, "cinematography" is still lying.

But like I said. That's my opinion,  and others may vary.