Two sold today; the last one sold in 2007. Wassup with that?
Title: Jesus of Nazareth
Logline: Jesus is a radical prophet who performs exorcisms and is convinced he will find the kingdom of Heaven on earth. The Romans see him as an insurrectionist and Jesus does not know he will be sentenced to die on the cross by Pontius Pilate.
Writer: Roger Avary
Agent: David Unger
Agency: International Creative Management
Prod. Co: Muse Productions
Genre: Drama
Logged: 6/20/2012
More: To be based on the 2011 book "Jesus of Nazareth" by Paul Verhoeven, Susan Massotty and Rob Van Scheers. Chris Hanley will produce. Verhoeven will also direct.
Title: The Well
Logline: Focuses on the complex relationship between Judas and Jesus.
Writer: Oliver Hermanus
Prod. Co: Swift Productions
Genre: Drama Thriller
Logged: 6/20/2012
More: Didier Costet will produce. Hermanus will also direct. The film is budgeted at $5 million. Casting is underway.
Jesus of Nazareth - LOL.
Logline: Jesus is a radical prophet who performs exorcisms and is convinced he will find the kingdom of Heaven on earth. The Romans see him as an insurrectionist and Jesus does not know he will be sentenced to die on the cross by Pontius Pilate.
This is what happens when people with no faith try to write movies of faith. Remember back in the '90s when NBC did the tv movie about the biblical story of Noah and the flood? Remember pirates attacking Noah's ark? And Abraham being buddies with Noah?
This movie, Jesus of Nazareth, just based on the logline I feel I am right, will enrage Christians. Remember the movie The Last Temptation of Christ and all the hoopla over the premise of Christ wondering, in his final moments, if he should have given up his message and married, thus avoiding the cross?
Christians will have a problem with this movie because Christ came to earth because the kingdom of Heaven was no where on earth, and he knew his whole life he was destined for Calvary.
Well, bad publicity is still publicity, ain't it? LOL
I wouldn't mind a BOOK OF REVELATIONS movie. Didn't Jesus fight demons in that? Of course that would probably offend Christians, too. Jesus carrying a sword and killing things.
If irreverence did the trick, then "Jesus Christ, Vampire Killer" (http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0311361), would have resulted in an Armageddon ordered up from the Holy See.
I thought of that one which was hilarious, and ultimately very spiritual, in comparison to the Abe Lincoln thing that's coming out.
I did my own take on the Second Coming and dumped it up to the Kairos Prize. Ultimately it was passed on by them though they said thanks for sending.
History, if that's what it is, is legitimate stuff to take on, and the audience can decide.
Plus, the Church can take it. You'll see -- the Pontiff won't issue any fatwas.
I wonder if the AS reader was offended with my SP “When Spirits Help”? It is about the drunken twin brother of Jesus, (Matthew) who is immoral and waits for the second coming (His time) preaching at a TV station in the Smoky Mountains. Of course, no one knows this until the end of this Christmas tale.
Couldn't you just pitch BOOK OF REVELATIONS as JESUS VS. ZOMBIES?
Dean
In the Gospel of John Jesus is the Kingdom of Heaven, in the synoptic gospels Jesus is a representative of the Kingdom of God (Heaven) who shows others how to join. The Kingdom and Heaven are actually one in the same. The gospels tell us that Jesus believed the Kingdom of God was already here, but that a complete version was just over the horizon.
I agree that a screenplay which postulates that Jesus didn't know he was headed for the cross is ridiculous. First, anybody that caused as much trouble as Jesus did was going to die. And Jesus went out of his way to force the issue. From a dramatic standpoint all the energy goes out of the story if he was just a prophet. But this is sadly often the case when studios try to be controversial with a new slant. In truth, the Jesus of the gospels is not the Jesus commonly advanced by traditional Christianity. When Constantine came along the church watered down it's teachings to represent the state.
I don't think there is a way to represent the historical Jesus on film. The best we can do is offer different takes of Jesus. Read the Gospel of Mark, probably the most historical accurate portrayal of Jesus, and see if that Jesus is anything like the no you know. And the gospel stops with the women finding the tomb empty and they being very afraid. No report of the resurrection.
I should explain the original Gospel stops there. Another ending was added later.
OR...
the story in the gospels went through several versions.
In an early version, the Kingdom of Heaven was the replacement for our current world. They had no idea how large the universe is, of course, or that earth was only a small planet in a galaxy of 200 million stars.
When that didn't happen, they changed the story. But did it badly, so parts of the earlier story remain in the text.
I suppose, 1,900 years after the deadline passed for the end of the world, the Christians need to explain it somehow.
Read the letters of Paul, Calvin. Those of us who are still alive at the end... will rise up into the sky to meet Jesus. Pure End of the World stuff. Definitely not the same thing as heaven.
when is the Flying Spaghetti Monster going to get his own film?
Andrew
You are correct that the New Testament talks about a new Heaven and a new earth. Not only have a read a good part of Paul's letters, I had to study him in seminary. It seems Paul began with the same assumption that the Kingdom would be fulfilled in his lifetime but, by the later letters, Romans, seemed to have realized that wasn't going to happen and started to prepare for a longer stay.
Realize that Mark is a main source for Matthew and Luke. Matthew contains the entire content of Mark. Paul, and probably Mark, had contact to the historical Jesus through the first person witness of Jesus' family and the disciples.
I believe the gospels provide a good summary of Jesus' teachings and life. Not all historical events, but stories close enough that they could have happened with Jesus, and are trustworthy for building a faith that leads to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I don't think God seeks perfection but relationship which would explain why the gospel authors, knowing that in some cases the accounts of one would differ from the accounts of another, went ahead and wrote what they felt God and the church needed rather than exact history. And I think it's time Christians and the church stopped apologizing for that, or try proving that these texts are without historical error. God will do what God will do.
Brenton
Probably when he gets millions of Spagettian followers.
There is nothing in the Gospels that is accurate enou8gh to build a personal relationship with Jesus.
Jesus had been dead, at least twenty years, before the Gospel of Mark was written.
As you admitted, Paul was a member of a religious cult that preached a general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. He never met Jesus, had no personal knowledge of Jesus, but he used the resurrection of Jesus as a preaching tool to persuade people the world was about to end with a general resurrection of the dead. Didn't happen.
That's the answer, Calvin. It didn't happen. The world didn't end with a Kingdom of God, or a general resurrection, or anything else. The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and that was the proof that the claims of this religious group were false.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I was hoping one of them would be a Jesus Quintana movie.
"Passion of the Christ 2: Christ Harder"
Jesus fights demons in a post-apocolyptic New York.
Need I say more?
Sorry Andrew -
I support your right to express your opinion, but I don't have to respond to it. Nothing in your last post, and your present argument, strikes we as being worth any bandwidth.
Lauri, come to think of it, I'm shocked we haven't seen a slew of movies about Jesus after the success of "Passion". It's a sure bet in some ways. These sound like projects that can appeal to the masses for not a ton of money.
This doesn't sound quite as controversial as "Temptation" but, yes, it will enrage the Christians, thereby giving it more and more media.
Calvin,
Claiming that you have a personal relationship with a man who died 1,900 years ago is a sign of delusional thinking.
He grew up in a culture so radically different from anything you've experienced, saying you have a "personal relationship" is inaccurate. You have a fantasy.
It's probably better if you don't respond... but you KNOW what I'm saying. You don't know anything about Jesus. You have a Fantasy about a Savior who forgives sins, but that wasn't the reality. That's the story.
I have a very strong suspicion that, if you were put in a room with Jesus, you would never identify him as the person you think you have a personal relationship with.
I think this would make a great movie. I wouldn't use the name Jesus because that causes too much controversy. But a man likie Charles Manson, the leader of an End of the World cult... long dead... and the disciples who still think they have a personal relationship with his memory. Have to think about that one.
There are a few movies already based on the Tribulation. "Left Behind" and another series from the 70s, both are more or less geared to scare impressionable teens into faith.
Seen all three of the LEFT BEHIND movies, but never read the books. I was curious of what happened next, but the film's were cancelled. Last I heard the authors were trying to get a theatrical reboot going.
Gordon Currie from PUPPET MASTER 4 & 5 played the Anti-Christ. :)
@ Nick - They made "The Nativity" in the wake of "The Passion" and it didn't do so well. So maybe that convinced "them" that there was no market after all?
Clearly there IS a market for faith-based movies of all kinds (as Tyler Perry, among others, has proved), but the studios don't seem to be much interested in the old school sword-and-sandals Biblical epics.
OTOH, Ridley Scott's doing a Moses movie... So maybe we're seeing a come back?
When a big director has a passion project as big-back-then Mel Gibson did, or Scott with Gladiator and now Moses, they get made. Specs from commoners like us will be ignored forever.
On the subject of offense, that's what always happens when you use historical evidence instead of faith. But it won't damage anyone's faith. It'll just bring out the mock outrage to gain publicity for various groups and increase their congregations, donations, etc.
"Down with this sort of thing!"
(Father Ted joke)
Has Verhoeven worked much on any big studio pictures lately? This may be his gambit to get back into the club.
Calvin, if you believe God does not demand perfection from us (humanity), then what is the purpose of the cross? I thought God said he was sorry he created Man, which lead to the Great Flood and the Rainbow. Because of Noah's faithfulness, God promised He would never again destroy the Earth.And we have the Rainbow as God's covenant. So His plan changed to salvation. He sent His only begotten Son, Jesus, for the purpose of living a sinless life (because Man was constantly complaining it was impossible to live a sinless life), and to spill His righteous blood to cleanse us of our sins. Sinful Man cannot exist in the presence of a sinless God. So it takes the power of God to please God. Christ came to earth specifically to prove that you can life a good life without sin, and to die on the cross and shed his blood to cleanse us of our sins. Am I wrong?
