Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recommended Posts

PtolemyGlenn    15

Will this movie producted in Hollywood where its about money not truth. Make it a realistic as the Bible. I seriously doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
mnn727    616

Was not a fan of Noah and I'm afraid Exodus will follow Noah's lead.

 

Yul Brenner is Pharaoh -- not sure about the new actor

 

So let it be written, so let it be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Garden Girl    3,286

I doubt it will be particularly complimentary to our faith and traditions, but one thing is for sure: everything Ridley Scott does looks fantastic.  It will be a visual treat, if nothing else.

 

I agree about Ridley Scott as a director...

 

GG

Share this post


Link to post
Stargazer    3,333

Well, the movie's out, and you commenters have perhaps seen it now? I have not. Not yet.

But were your expectations met?

Share this post


Link to post
Rock_N_Roll    111

I've seen the movie.  Overall, I liked it.  Great special effects, etc.  I didn't care for the portrayal of God as a child, however. 

It's not nearly as bad as Noah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Stargazer    3,333

I've seen the movie.  Overall, I liked it.  Great special effects, etc.  I didn't care for the portrayal of God as a child, however. 

It's not nearly as bad as Noah. 

 

Perhaps Noah was bad in some respects, but I can't wait to see it.  Although obviously I have waited, since I haven't seen it, yet.  I don't go to the cinema more than three or four times per year.

Share this post


Link to post

Great special effects. Fantastic costumes. It was truly epic. I tried to overlook the historical inaccuracies until they just became too numerous. Egyptians seemed too European. Hittites are not black Africans. Why was Moses sporting a beard when he thought he was an Egyptian? To me the most glaring oversight was Miriam not being part of the exodus. She was an extremely important leader in the biblical text and she just disappeared after her confrontation with the Pharaoh. The crocodiles were extremely cool but would not have produced enough blood to justify the first plague. Why was Sigourney Weaver even in this movie? Joshua and Aaron hardly opened their mouths to say anything although Aaron Paul was extremely adorable as Joshua. (I'm quite partial to him though because he went to high school with one of my kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Stargazer    3,333

Great special effects. Fantastic costumes. It was truly epic. I tried to overlook the historical inaccuracies until they just became too numerous. Egyptians seemed too European. Hittites are not black Africans. Why was Moses sporting a beard when he thought he was an Egyptian? To me the most glaring oversight was Miriam not being part of the exodus. She was an extremely important leader in the biblical text and she just disappeared after her confrontation with the Pharaoh. The crocodiles were extremely cool but would not have produced enough blood to justify the first plague. Why was Sigourney Weaver even in this movie? Joshua and Aaron hardly opened their mouths to say anything although Aaron Paul was extremely adorable as Joshua. (I'm quite partial to him though because he went to high school with one of my kids. ) I did like the portrayal of Moses and Zipporah. God as child? I'm still trying to figure that one out - not sure what was up with that.

Yeah, that's kind of like me being really torgued off that Peter Jackson didn't show "The Scouring of the Shire" when the four hobbits returned home to find that it had been taken over by Saruman and his minions. Saruman got killed off at the end of The Two Towers, instead of being allowed to flee by Treebeard. The Scouring was one of the best parts, and showed the hobbits generally as good warriors when they got riled up.

But I guess that's not the topic of the thread.

So, Katherine, did you want Exodus to go on for six hours instead of how long it actually took? Just be thankful Ridley Scott didn't make a two- or three-parter out of it.

Share this post


Link to post

So, Katherine, did you want Exodus to go on for six hours instead of how long it actually took? Just be thankful Ridley Scott didn't make a two- or three-parter out of it.

Noooooooo!  I would just take away some of Pharaoh's pointless (Commodus-like) dialogue and give it to Miriam.  They also could have completely gotten rid of that local Pithom leader and some of the truly bizarre action going on there.  It was not nearly as well-paced as Gladiator.

Share this post


Link to post
Deborah    2,001

Yeah, that's kind of like me being really torgued off that Peter Jackson didn't show "The Scouring of the Shire" when the four hobbits returned home to find that it had been taken over by Saruman and his minions.

 

Or meeting Bombadil. The scouring of the Shire though would have been another whole movie but points out I think that evil doesn't just automatically go away. It still has to be defeated.

Share this post


Link to post
Calm    21,222

The Shire is something we all can relate to on a much more personal level than the fantasy of fighting a dragon or powerful wizard.  It was petty, greedy bullies who intimidated the community because no one wanted to draw attention to themselves and thus just allowed their freedoms to be taken away from them one by one.

 

And yet they were able to completely turn things around when the community found hope and passion in the form of the returning hobbits, even though they only contributed some leadership and the bulk of the work was done by the community at large.

 

It was one of my favourite parts of the books, if not favorite.  It felt more dimensional for one thing, characters were more realistic, more human than the humans portrayed in the grander themes.

 

Now I find that subject worth another movie more than a nonstop war epic of dragons and goblins/orcs.

Share this post


Link to post
Daniel2    1,592

The visuals were fantastic, loved the Egyptians.

The first half of the story was great, when it was focusing on the human relationships between Moses and Ramses.

The movie became terrible once supranatural elements were introduced. It is clear that Scott (who is a director I really like and enjoy), approached the story from the viewpoint of a non-believer. In his version, Moses never prophesied or predicted the plagues, he sent a written warning half-way through. Moses was very reactionary, rather than acting as a prophet of God that warned Moses of the plagues if he would not let the Hebrews go. He was equally reactionary with regards to the parting of the red sea, which seemed like the result of some natural weather phenomenon (the waters receeded because of a tsunami, somewhere else...??) rather than proactively parting the red sea as an act of God.

In short, the film reflected the views by a non-believer who appeared to want to try to show that the plagues and miracles were the result of natural phenomenon, rather than divine intervention.

As such, I don't think the story resonated with any audience, which is why it failed financially.

I HIGHLY recommend Dreamworks' animated Prince of Egypt, instead.... in fact, after watching Exodus: Gods and Kings, my husband and I went home and watched Prince of Egypt and discussed how much "better" (from a religious perspective) and Biblical the cartoon version was.

Share this post


Link to post

The visuals were fantastic, loved the Egyptians.

The first half of the story was great, when it was focusing on the human relationships between Moses and Ramses.

The movie became terrible once supranatural elements were introduced. It is clear that Scott (who is a director I really like and enjoy), approached the story from the viewpoint of a non-believer. In his version, Moses never prophesied or predicted the plagues, he sent a written warning half-way through. Moses was very reactionary, rather than acting as a prophet of God that warned Moses of the plagues if he would not let the Hebrews go. He was equally reactionary with regards to the parting of the red sea, which seemed like the result of some natural weather phenomenon (the waters receeded because of a tsunami, somewhere else...??) rather than proactively parting the red sea as an act of God.

In short, the film reflected the views by a non-believer who appeared to want to try to show that the plagues and miracles were the result of natural phenomenon, rather than divine intervention.

As such, I don't think the story resonated with any audience, which is why it failed financially.

I HIGHLY recommend Dreamworks' animated Prince of Egypt, instead.... in fact, after watching Exodus: Gods and Kings, my husband and I went home and watched Prince of Egypt and discussed how much "better" (from a religious perspective) and Biblical the cartoon version was.

I'm not sure it's failed financially.  They are still almost 50 million short of the their costs, but I think over time, they may make a profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Deborah    2,001

I HIGHLY recommend Dreamworks' animated Prince of Egypt, instead.... in fact, after watching Exodus: Gods and Kings, my husband and I went home and watched Prince of Egypt and discussed how much "better" (from a religious perspective) and Biblical the cartoon version was.

 

The animated version was excellent and I loved the music.

Share this post


Link to post
BlueDreams    4,879

Yeah....I'll wait till DVD. The only reason is literally the white-washing of the characters....where the only characters with any ethnic heritage that wasn't from europe were assigned roles as servants, thieves, etc. This one really bothered me, so I'm not watching it until it's on DVD or it's on Netflix. The only draw for me is the special effects (and yes, I watched movies just for the special effects). It's probably also because artistic depiction of ancient religious figures as largely pale looking europeans is a pet-peeve of mine that is not alleviating over time. It didn't help that the guy said they wouldn't get the funding he wanted if they casted "Muhammed so-and-so." I'm kinda pleased that they'll make far less than they anticipated. So I'll wait a very long time before watching it...probably when I'm in a critical mood so that I can have something inert to nitpick.    

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Bernard Gui
      OK, I admit I have never considered the red heifer.
      What do we Mormons think of this? I don't remember hearing it discussed.
      Fos a more thorough discussion, see this if it interests you.
      https://www.templeinstitute.org/red_heifer/red_heifer_contents.htm
       
    • By boblloyd91
      Hi all! In looking at the thread title I was wondering what you felt has strengthened or weakened your testimony of the BoM the most. I can start out by saying I have always found sheum to be a fascinating tidbit of evidence, in that it is an Akkadian word that was used in the text. I also could include neas in this as well. I could think of more but those stand out the most to me. Tell us yours!
    • By Five Solas
      Peppermint Patty's thread, "Grant Hardy's Presentation on The Book of Mormon" got shut down before salgare's question to Scott Lloyd ("can one claim the BoM is inspired fiction and still be exalted?") could be clearly & concisely answered--so I thought I'd turn it into a poll. 
      What do you think? 
      --Erik
    • By Cold Steel
      Ordinarily I enjoy presentations by FairLDS, but recently I've been trying to make sense of Darwinian evolution and found this address by Stephen Peck. Entitled Why Evolution and LDS Thought are Fully Compatible, I thought there might be some relation between the title and the content. But if there is, I'm afraid I'm missing it. I'd hoped it might help me in some discussions with some atheists, also my understanding of the topic. On the one hand we LDS have a pronounced view of Adam, the Prince, the Ancient of Days, Michael the Archangel, Eve's Main Squeeze. The first man, who brought sin into the world and head of the first dispensation. 
      On the other, we have man existing supposedly for millions of years. Neanderthals, Lucy and the Taung Child. Completely indisputable, you can't argue with science! Only I didn't find anything useful in his address. Is evolution a cold, hard fact? If so, where does Adam come in? How old is the oldest writing extant? How do we know man has been here for millions of years? And how do we know Lucy and the Taung Child are related to man and not just some unrelated creatures? 
      Can anyone help me out?
       
       
       
    • By HappyJackWagon
      As I've been studying the BoM this year for Gospel Doctrine I have a nagging question I can't fully itch.
      We are taught that Lehi and his family are led from Jerusalem to the new world to establish a righteous people.
      But there is no discernible remnant of Lehi's people in America. So I wonder if the purpose is to raise up the BoM for the people of this day. But I still have to wonder why Lehi would have been necessary. Why wouldn't Christ have established his church among the people who were already here?
      It's kind of like Raiders of the Lost Ark. If you take Indiana Jones completely out of the story the Nazi's still accomplish their aim and open the ark of the covenant and get their faces melted off.
      Take Lehi and his family out of the story and we have the same outcome and evidence of their existence as if they had really been in the Americas. There was no righteous posterity to connect his day with ours. There was no lasting Christian tradition that survived after Moroni.
      The only "evidence" of the value of Lehi's involvement is the BoM which just as easily could have been written by the American natives.
×