- Joined
- Aug 29, 2005
- Messages
- 155,176
- Reaction score
- 24,541
- Points
- 218
Pass. 

It’s probably a little of both. I think people in those circles know who he is and like his acting because hes Q-anonYep. It's all about playing to the QAnon crowd, who are out there spreading it's gospel, trying to get others to watch it.
That's not how QAnon works.It’s probably a little of both. I think people in those circles know who he is and like his acting because hes Q-anon
Hmmm why are you so familiar with how it works seems a little sus….That's not how QAnon works.
Hmmm why are you so familiar with how it works seems a little sus….
The real Q all along.
![]()
"The Passion" Sequel Aims To Film Soon - Dark Horizons
Over a span of around eight years now, actor/filmmaker Mel Gibson and his “Braveheart” screenwriter Randall Wallace have been working together on the script for the sequel to Gibson’s 2004 film “The Passion of the Christ”. Now Wallace himself has offered a new update as part of an interview with...www.darkhorizons.com
Even more than Caviezel, Mel Gibson is no stranger to controversy himself. His career hasn't been the same after his public meltdown.I just can’t see this film performing at all like the previous.
If it was a different cast it would have more of a chance, but Jim is bat**** crazy now. The controversy around that I imagine will have some kind of impact. A la Ezra and Flash (Ezra was more of a story than Flash that him being in it for many overshadowed the film).
To my memory, when the first film came out it was a lot more of a broad audience.
Sound of Freedom did well for what it was...Why the f*** does this need to be a two parter? I still see it doing really well because of the whole right wing Jim Caviezel following. We just don't need this movie though.
Sound of Freedom did well for what it was...
It only did "well" because of that shady astroturf "pay it foward" campaign at the end of the movie. Stupid QR code.Sound of Freedom did well for what it was...
I have always felt that having films depicting Jesus is always borderline blasphemous, or at least that it borders on it. I don’t understand the support for these films.
My understanding is that, in the early days, there was some concern about cinematically depicting Jesus. OTOH, the tradition of Passion plays extends back several hundred years (going in and out of favor depending on the era, region and denomination). And for the most part, these plays were officially sanctioned by religious authorities. So it would have been tricky to make an argument of piety just based on the medium. I.e., live-action/theatrical versions of Jesus are okay, but celluloid versions are not.I have always felt that having films depicting Jesus is always borderline blasphemous, or at least that it borders on it. I don’t understand the support for these films.
I could be wrong, but I think that in the earliest days, such as the first two centuries of the church, they didn’t really depict a physical form for Jesus in their art. He was more depicted in a symbolic, geometric form. I think this was for two reasons: first, so as not to over-emphasize any particular physical depiction and plant any visual in people’s minds (the Bible only describes Jesus as not looking special) and secondly in order to try to capture not just the physical but the spiritual. Since the Roman church began depicting Jesus and onward, he has increasingly become more and more Caucasian and with softer, prettier features. In reality, he was a laborer. As a carpenter, he probably milled his own wood. So he would have probably had some rough features from sun exposure and manual labor. But over the years, western cultures increasingly mold him into their own image, both physically as well as spiritually. (Arguably, one of the offsets of this can be seen in the state of right wing politics today and the current evangelical movements that aren’t accurate depictions of Jesus’ life or teachings, but are instead reflections of those people’s biases). Arguably, not depicting the spiritual is a big issue with the original Passion movie, which put an enormous emphasis on the physical suffering of the crucifixion when, if you are to believe the biblical tradition, was actually secondary to the spiritual torment that Jesus supposedly experienced in the form of rejection and separation from God as he took on the punishment for all of the sin throughout human history. Instead of showing that cerebral and spiritual torment, you were instead shown over two hours of Christian torture porn.My understanding is that, in the early days, there was some concern about cinematically depicting Jesus. OTOH, the tradition of Passion plays extends back several hundred years (going in and out of favor depending on the era, region and denomination). And for the most part, these plays were officially sanctioned by religious authorities. So it would have been tricky to make an argument of piety just based on the medium. I.e., live-action/theatrical versions of Jesus are okay, but celluloid versions are not.
Cinematic representations of Jesus are almost as old as cinema, itself. (The oldest appears to be from 1897 — essentially a film recording of a staged Passion play.)
Islam, of course, famously (infamously) proscribes depictions of Muhammad. But Christianity, with respect to Jesus, not so much.