Stone holm Posted December 20, 2014 Posted December 20, 2014 Against my better judgment, and hers too, I took my wife to see the new Moses or Exodus movie. Why is it the playwriters just can't resist changing Bible stories? My wife who almost got up and walked out swore she would never go see one again. I mean really, leaving out Moses making demands and portraying God as a little kid throwing temper tantrums.
carbon dioxide Posted December 20, 2014 Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) The reason the Bible movies are so bad is that there is not enough material in the Bible to tell a good 2 hour long movie on a particular topic. So the movie writers have to make up a whole bunch of stuff to fill in the huge gaps. Since everyone has a different take on what the scriptures are saying, if their view does not match the writer they will not like the depiction of the story that is told in the movie. Edited December 20, 2014 by carbon dioxide 1
Stone holm Posted December 20, 2014 Author Posted December 20, 2014 The reason the Bible movies are so bad is that there is not enough material in the Bible to tell a good 2 hour long movie on a particular topic. So the movie writers have to make up a whole bunch of stuff to fill in the huge gaps. Since everyone has a different take on what the scriptures are saying, if their view does not match the writer they will not like the depiction of the story that is told in the movie.Not true, DeMille took up the time and stayed fairly faithful to the story. Exodus has great stories to be told a and so does Genesis, no reason to make up stuff or change the stories, the stories are wild enough on their own. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted December 20, 2014 Posted December 20, 2014 The reason the Bible movies are so bad is that there is not enough material in the Bible to tell a good 2 hour long movie on a particular topic. So the movie writers have to make up a whole bunch of stuff to fill in the huge gaps. Since everyone has a different take on what the scriptures are saying, if their view does not match the writer they will not like the depiction of the story that is told in the movie. I would take serious issue with that view. It isn't that there is not a tremendous amount of compelling material to make a biblical film, but that so many differing points of view are held by the public, and such emotional commitment has already been made by people, that a film that satisfies everyone is nearly impossible. It is much easier to spin a yarn involving biblical themes which does not call beloved notions into question. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is a very successful example of this, and "Ben Hur" another. I won't even mention "Life of Brian." That scriptwriters must fill in some gaps in any story is not surprising. They do that with all books and stories, true or false, well written or not. DeMille's "Ten Commandments" is a good example of the basic story, with mise en scene supplied through careful research -- even without modern special effects (CGI). I might quarrel with some of DeMille's interpretations of the biblical text (making Moses a great, heroic speaker, when the biblical story leaves all that to his brother Aaron -- Moses himself was very humble and had a speech impediment), but the public continues to love it. Over time, the entire Bible has been filmed in one way or another -- including John Huston's "The Bible: In the Beginning" in 1966, and a TV series called "The Bible" (ten hours in 2013, which was enormously successful, and even received emmy nominations). Other filmed treatments are available online at http://watchbiblemovies.com/ , and http://www.christianfilmdatabase.com/review/abraham-the-bible-collection/ . Each film must be judged independently, on its own merits.
Ham Clam Posted December 20, 2014 Posted December 20, 2014 "The Gospel of John" on Netflix right now is excellent ... if you like to be read to.
BCSpace Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 (edited) Why Is It That Movies On The Bible Are So Bad? May of the people who make them don't understand the scriptures or the value and meaning they have to believers of them. Some feel the need to change things to make a movie 'viewable'. Some to advance their own interpretations. Still others to mock and twist. Having said that, I found the recent Noah movie with Russell Crowe to be an interesting take despite some of the ridiculous things added to it. For example, the LDS notion of fallen angels or the 'sons of God' in Genesis is quite a bit different than that of other faiths. Plus in that case, there is very little to go on and many blanks have to be filled in. Edited December 22, 2014 by BCSpace
Robert F. Smith Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 Here is a very harsh review by a biblical scholar of the recent "Exodus" film. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/excruciating-exodus-movie-exudes-errors/?mqsc=E3784973&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=BHD+Daily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=E4BD19 . If this had been written about anything by the old FARMS Review, one would never hear the last of it -- how cruel those apologists are, etc. Telling the truth in an evenhanded way is just not acceptable to some people.
altersteve Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 I'm in the minority on this one, but I really liked Noah. That, along with The Prince of Egypt, The Ten Commandments, The Last Temptation of Christ (I know that's a controversial choice too), and The Passion of the Christ are the only biblical films I truly enjoyed. I just thought Exodus was boring, poorly paced, and too thinly written (although the visuals and acting, especially Joel Edgerton's performance as Ramses, were fantastic).
Calm Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 So maybe rewrite the script and dub them for the movie you want.
The Nehor Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 Not true, DeMille took up the time and stayed fairly faithful to the story. Exodus has great stories to be told a and so does Genesis, no reason to make up stuff or change the stories, the stories are wild enough on their own.DeMille took massive liberties with the story. they were just not of a particularly controversial nature. Making Moses more politically powerful, adding a love story, pretty banal stuff really. If you make God a more active character (DeMille did not) you are definitely going to provoke some emotion over perceived differences. Joseph Smith talked about how his people would endure all kinds of privations and torments and then go to pieces if you challenged their views on spiritual things. Things have not changed since.
Stone holm Posted December 22, 2014 Author Posted December 22, 2014 I don't see that DeMille took any really important changes to the core story -- but this one did. I mean where would you possibly get God as a small boy out of Exodus, and the demands made by the Prophet to Pharoah are pretty fundamental, and nowhere in the Bible do you have Moses as leading a military revolt prior to the various demands and plagues. I think the back story about Moses being a military leader before being banished is justified. Overall DeMille did a much better job.
altersteve Posted December 23, 2014 Posted December 23, 2014 I think the child in Exodus was a manifestation or representation of God, not God himself. But I might have misunderstood.
Stone holm Posted December 23, 2014 Author Posted December 23, 2014 So you think manifestation of God as an obnoxious violent kid was okay -- why not just stick with the burning bush, or some kind of voice?
Recommended Posts