Ridley Scott's "Exodus" - Part 1

[Herolee10]

It's not like Hollywood has never produced some great biblical classics in the past.

"Ben-Hur", "The Ten Commandments", and "The Passion of the Christ" are three great examples in my opinion.

 

[Marvolo]

It's not like Hollywood has never produced some great biblical classics in the past.

"Ben-Hur", "The Ten Commandments", and "The Passion of the Christ" are three great examples in my opinion.

Ben-Hur and Ten Commandments came out 50 years ago and the zeitgeist of this country has changed considerably since then. Many Many things have happened since then. And Hollywood itself today has gone through many changes since then.

As for the Passion of the Christ, it was an independent film paid for entirely by Gibson and his own studio, Icon, and it was shot at Cinecittà Studios in Rome. Icon distributed it theatrically, and Fox distributed it on DVD and blu-ray. Hollywood had nothing to do with its production.

 

[Herolee10]

Ben-Hur and Ten Commandments came out 50 years ago and the zeitgeist of this country has changed considerably since then. Many Many things have happened since then. And Hollywood itself today has gone through many changes since then.

As for the Passion of the Christ, it was an independent film paid for entirely by Gibson and his own studio, Icon, and it was shot at Cinecittà Studios in Rome. Icon distributed it theatrically, and Fox distributed it on DVD and blu-ray. Hollywood had nothing to do with its production.

1. That is true, I had forgotten to think about the passage of time since those films had first come out.

2. I had almost forgotten about that as well. But, Gibson's film did show that biblical films can still be very profitable at the Box Office when done right, but I guess it can't be said that the film wasn't controversy free.


Well, then what about "Prince of Egypt" as an example? That film, though animated and probably aimed more towards the younger audience, was still more accurate to the story itself while presenting the whole "brother conflict" that Ridley seems to have been inspired by in the first place for making this film.

If anything, I think the reason why this film could potentially rub some people the wrong way is that...unlike past biblical projects, where regardless of the director's affiliation towards the subject in real life, they would still present the story in a way that was befitting to the source material....this film (Exodus) will probably feel like the story of Exodus told (explained) from the perspective of an Agnostic person, which explains why every supernatural event in the story won't be solidified as having been a result of God's work and just be left either in the air or be downright said that it wasn't God's doing, which will feel like a insult to the religious groups.

 

[Herolee10]

Also, I like to add..that if this film is just covering the "Exodus" part of Moses's story, then I don't see why Hollywood would feel so worried about how religious groups (both sane and extremist) versions would react to this film.

As far as I'm aware, the Exodus portion of Moses's story is something that most of, if not all, the religious groups associated with the material agrees on when it comes to how it was written in the Bible/Torah/Pentateuch

 

[Marvolo]

There is something to keep in mind. This is a Ridley Scott film. He play's ball with the studios and they in turn give him some freedom. He does get studio exec notes like most directors, but for the most part Scott makes the film he wants to make. If the film skirts God or tells the story a certain way that leaves things ambiguous then its most likely the way Scott wanted to tell it. If that's the case then its likely that Scott did this simply because that's how he wanted to tell the story.

Something else to keep in mind, the way Scott tells this story doesn't mean the man is agnostic or anti-God. Its entirely possible that the man just had a story he wanted to tell in a specific way because it was a film he'd like to make. Not everyone lets their religious beliefs inform on their hobbies and work. Storytellers often go places in a story or do things in a way that don't adhere or line up with their own personal beliefs.

On the other hand its possible that Scott simply likes to handle God this way or that Scott himself takes a more naturalistic approach to the idea of God and his miracles.

All I'm saying is that the reason this film is what it is may not be the result of some greater hollywood issue and may simply be a result of a storyteller having a story to tell and telling it how he wanted to tell it. And if this is how Scott wanted to tell the story then I have to respect that, because its his film and he has a right and a freedom to his ideas and beliefs and and a right to express them how he wants to express them as long as they are not harming anyone.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

All I know is, Bruce Wa... I mean Moses does say that he's being shown the way by God in the film according to the trailer. That's far from ambiguous. For myself, I liked NOAH and it had unambiguous supernatural events and the power of God in it and people made a stink about it anyway.

 

[Herolee10]

There is something to keep in mind. This is a Ridley Scott film. He play's ball with the studios and they in turn give him some freedom. He does get studio exec notes like most directors, but for the most part Scott makes the film he wants to make. If the film skirts God or tells the story a certain way that leaves things ambiguous then its most likely the way Scott wanted to tell it. If that's the case then its likely that Scott did this simply because that's how he wanted to tell the story.

Something else to keep in mind, the way Scott tells this story doesn't mean the man is agnostic or anti-God. Its entirely possible that the man just had a story he wanted to tell in a specific way because it was a film he'd like to make. Not everyone lets their religious beliefs inform on their hobbies and work. Storytellers often go places in a story or do things in a way that don't adhere or line up with their own personal beliefs.

On the other hand its possible that Scott simply likes to handle God this way or that Scott himself takes a more naturalistic approach to the idea of God and his miracles.

All I'm saying is that the reason this film is what it is may not be the result of some greater hollywood issue and may simply be a result of a storyteller having a story to tell and telling it how he wanted to tell it. And if this is how Scott wanted to tell the story then I have to respect that, because its his film and he has a right and a freedom to his ideas and beliefs and and a right to express them how he wants to express them as long as they are not harming anyone.

See, and this is why I like trading posts with you Marvolo.lol It's so hard at times to find a poster to have this type of discussion where people can respectfully trade discussion despite having different beliefs.

Yeah, as much as I may not personally like the way that Ridley is telling this story, I still have to respect the guy's decision to tell it in the way he wants to since everyone is allowed is have freedom in what they want to express in their work.

All I know is, Bruce Wa... I mean Moses does say that he's being shown the way by God in the film according to the trailer. That's far from ambiguous. For myself, I liked NOAH and it had unambiguous supernatural events and the power of God in it and people made a stink about it anyway.

lol; if anything, it's just really the whole "Red Sea" comment that's gotten me irritated.

I can't think of a single interpretation (film or story) where God was presented as not being responsible for what's considered to be the biggest supernatural event in the Exodus story.

 

[Human Torch]

At least people aren't offended by excessive cursing, guns, excessive murder, drugs use, guns, torture porn, rape, nudity, crazy sex, guns, racism, blood and guts found throughout Hollywood movies.

Good thing no one is offended by those!

But this God business. Sheesh. THAT is something to be offended by!

 

[Human Torch]

It's the same thing as any other movie adaptation.If the director doesn't get the source material,they ought not be making the movie.I'd rather see a faithful adaption than some dreck that has a "name" attached.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Faithful adaptation?

 

[Human Torch]

Faithful adaptation?

Uh,yeah "faithful adaptation".As in God being the cause for the entire story happening,and Moses not having a screw loose for hearing His call.

Y'know,something the three major world religions have believed for a few years now.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

All that is important is that Moses thinks God is responsible. Whether an all powerful being is or isn't is irrelevant to the story.

 

[Human Torch]

Like I said,it's a fundamental part of three world religions.I think most people expect more than your limited expectations.

 

[Herolee10]

Uh,yeah "faithful adaptation".As in God being the cause for the entire story happening,and Moses not having a screw loose for hearing His call.

Y'know,something the three major world religions have believed for a few years now.

Like I said,it's a fundamental part of three world religions.I think most people expect more than your limited expectations.

Agreed. The film wouldn't be forcing nor telling real life people to believe in God. But the film should at least treat the character of God, in the context of the film, as a real character.

Now, one could get away with what Ridley is trying to pull off if you were to do a character like King David for example, since there aren't any supernatural events that takes place within the context of the story.

However, to do a story like Moses and go about it where it treats God as a figment of Moses's imagination is downright disrespectful to the religion in my honest opinion.

And you know what I find somewhat hypocritical as well? The fact that if anyone who believes in this religion voices their opinion about not enjoying the take that Hollywood has gone with the material, we're labeled as being fanatics or oversensitive.

However, if Hollywood chooses to portray a comic book property where they disregard a lot of core elements associated with the given property, thus resulting in fans having issues with it, then it's considered reasonable and no one really blinks a eye... and this is coming from someone who is a Christian in real life that loves Comic book heroes/films.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Like I said,it's a fundamental part of three world religions.I think most people expect more than your limited expectations.

That is not the point. Don't point to "source material", and then disregard it because it doesn't make the religious part of you happy.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Agreed. The film wouldn't be forcing nor telling real life people to believe in God. But the film should at least treat the character of God, in the context of the film, as a real character.

Now, one could get away with what Ridley is trying to pull off if you were to do a character like King David for example, since there aren't any supernatural events that takes place within the context of the story.

However, to do a story like Moses and go about it where it treats God as a figment of Moses's imagination is downright disrespectful to the religion in my honest opinion.

And you know what I find somewhat hypocritical as well? The fact that if anyone who believes in this religion voices their opinion about not enjoying the take that Hollywood has gone with the material, we're labeled as being fanatics or oversensitive.

However, if Hollywood chooses to portray a comic book property where they disregard a lot of core elements associated with the given property, thus resulting in fans having issues with it, then it's considered reasonable and no one really blinks a eye... and this is coming from someone who is a Christian in real life that loves Comic book heroes/films.

And what the hell does that have to do with anything? We live in a world where religion can be insulted, disrespected and explored in anyway anyone likes.

And yes, you are being oversensitive. Complaining about how a film depicts religion is being oversensitive. And if you want to classify yourself a fanboy for your religion, do so by all means. But you do realize what you are saying about your religion when you do that right?

Everyone knows that going online to complain about how your favorite characters are depicted on film or on the page is the height of first world problems. It is a way to kill time that is ridiculed by the very people who do it. I say this as someone who does this all the time and enjoys it immensely. But if that is what you want to boil your religion down to, by all means do it.

 

[Quasimod0]

You're takin it too far, Darth. I too would like too see a more faithful adaption of the Bible story. With God being an actual character and being responsible for the miracles that take place in the story.

All that is important is that Moses thinks God is responsible. Whether an all powerful being is or isn't is irrelevant to the story.

It is incredibly relevant to the story, as told in the Bible. If its just Moses thinking that God is responsible, then that is totally different from the Bible story. The story is about God leading his people out of Egypt, through Moses.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You're takin it too far, Darth. I too would like too see a more faithful adaption of the Bible story. With God being an actual character and being responsible for the miracles that take place in the story.

How have I taken it too far?

You can want it, that doesn't mean that those who make films that don't agree with your sensibilities are doing a thing wrong. I believe in God. That doesn't I don't watch South Park.

It is incredibly relevant to the story, as told in the Bible. If its just Moses thinking that God is responsible, then that is totally different from the Bible story. The story is about God leading his people out of Egypt, through Moses.

Moses is the story of a believer. Whether what he believes in is real is irrelevant. What matters is that he believes. The power of belief is what is important.

 

[Quasimod0]

We'll just have to agree to disagree man. I think its pretty important for God to be real in the story.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Is it important that God is real for the story, or that God is real? What is the significance of God being real for the tale?

 

[Quasimod0]

For this particular story I mean. Without God, the story is no longer about God protecting his chosen people and leading them out of slavery. Plus the whole business with the blood of the lamb on the doorpost, and the angel of death. And how that signifies how God protects those who obey him.
I guess without Him, its just about a man who demands that his people be set free. And then a bunch of random plagues happen at just the right time to convince Pharaoh to let them go. And then a sudden earthquake occurs right before they cross the Red Sea.

Isn't it necessary for there to be a real divine presence for many things in the story to even occur?

 

[Herolee10]

Is it important that God is real for the story, or that God is real? What is the significance of God being real for the tale?

I feel like you're trying to turn this debate into another "Atheist vs Christians" thread.

It's a story that was created long ago to tell of how God liberated his people from bondage. How is it not important that God is presented as being "real" in the context of the story?

So, is it important that Thor is really an Asgardian from the realm of Asgard? Or that he just thinks he's an Asgardian?

Is it important that the "Force" is considered real within the Star Wars Franchise, or just viewed as simple parlor tricks where only its users think its real?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

For this particular story I mean. Without God, the story is no longer about God protecting his chosen people and leading them out of slavery. Plus the whole business with the blood of the lamb on the doorpost, and the angel of death. And how that signifies how God protects those who obey him.
I guess without Him, its just about a man who demands that his people be set free. And then a bunch of random plagues happen at just the right time to convince Pharaoh to let them go. And then a sudden earthquake occurs right before they cross the Red Sea.

Isn't it necessary for there to be a real divine presence for many things in the story to even occur?

But it isn't the story of God. It is the story of Moses. Moses is the leader, he is the one protecting his people. Now whether any of this is "possible" without a real divine presence is up to science. When I was a kid I didn't realize it was scientifically possible to "walk on water".

Now none of us know the exact story Scott is trying to tell, so there is no telling that if there is no God, why he is doing so. He might have a very sound reason for the story he is telling.

I feel like you're trying to turn this debate into another "Atheist vs Christians" thread.

It's a story that was created long ago to tell of how God liberated his people from bondage. How is it not important that God is presented as being "real" in the context of the story?

So, is it important that Thor is really an Asgardian from the realm of Asgard? Or that he just thinks he's an Asgardian?

Is it important that the "Force" is considered real within the Star Wars Franchise, or just viewed as simple parlor tricks where only its users think its real?

See above.

Also, you do realize that the Asgardians of the film verse are very different from the comic version? So if you are going to use that example, they really shouldn't support turning the divine into something explainable with science. That is what they did with the Asgardians in the MCU.

But that is what you should do. Take this like it is a comic book take on a deity.

 

[Herolee10]

The only reasons for why Ridley wanted to make this film, as far as we've seen and heard, is basically because he wanted to tell a story of two brothers who go to war with each other.... despite the fact that there really isn't any text in the bible to justify or state that Moses and Ramses were that close to begin with....along with probably wanting to do his usual large scale battle sequences that are set in ancient times.

And as for the Asgardians' example; the point that I was trying to make is that divine or not.....their existence isn't questioned in general.

Ridley has pretty much stated that God or Moses isn't responsible for the parting of the red sea in "his take" of the story and it seems like he wanted to find a scientific reason/realism to explain the plagues since he didn't want a divine presence to be responsible for it.

And honestly, I can't see how anyone...who really knows about this story, could say that it isn't a story about God. He is one of the primary protagonists in the entire story. To say that he isn't is just a flat out lie.

 

[Marvolo]

The only reasons for why Ridley wanted to make this film, as far as we've seen and heard, is basically because he wanted to tell a story of two brothers who go to war with each other.... despite the fact that there really isn't any text in the bible to justify or state that Moses and Ramses were that close to begin with....along with probably wanting to do his usual large scale battle sequences that are set in ancient times.

That's irrelevant to Scott. Scott wanted to tell the story he wanted to tell. Kingdom of Heaven is based on real historical characters and events but Scott changed all kinds of things about those people and events so that he could tell the story he wanted to tell. In Gladiator he took things from various eras of the Roman Empire and mashed them together to make a more compelling story. This is Scott's MO, and it's nothing new. Really, none of us should be surprised by the way this film turned out.