- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Will The Resurrection sequel be able to top “The Passion of The Christ”?
Posted on 4/1/25 at 7:20 am
Posted on 4/1/25 at 7:20 am
I’ve been closely following the development of this upcoming film since it was announced in 2018. Gibson has stated that it would be an “acid trip” and go into different realms of the Resurrection story.
My main question is, what kind of film is Mel wanting to make? Does he want to make it more of a historical epic like the first film or does he want to go the cheap route and make it more conventional like The Chosen?
Part of what made the first film so good is that it put heavy emphasis on realism and cinematography. It was immersive and really made you feel like you traveled back in time to the Levantine region in the first century. The music was masterful and had so much emotion put into it. The cinematography had a golden, dark hue to it (especially in the first part of the film when Jesus is questioned by Caiaphas).
If Mel wants it to do as well as the first one, he needs to make a unique, unconventional film that will draw people to theaters. That will be extremely difficult to do in today’s age compared to 20 years ago given that traditional cinema is dying and the younger generations are going to theaters less and less.
If it’s going to take place immediately right after the first film, Mel would be better off cloning the cinematography style and music of the first film. Have the exact same costume styles as the first film and get John Debney (the composer for the first film) back on board to compose a beautiful score.
My main question is, what kind of film is Mel wanting to make? Does he want to make it more of a historical epic like the first film or does he want to go the cheap route and make it more conventional like The Chosen?
Part of what made the first film so good is that it put heavy emphasis on realism and cinematography. It was immersive and really made you feel like you traveled back in time to the Levantine region in the first century. The music was masterful and had so much emotion put into it. The cinematography had a golden, dark hue to it (especially in the first part of the film when Jesus is questioned by Caiaphas).
If Mel wants it to do as well as the first one, he needs to make a unique, unconventional film that will draw people to theaters. That will be extremely difficult to do in today’s age compared to 20 years ago given that traditional cinema is dying and the younger generations are going to theaters less and less.
If it’s going to take place immediately right after the first film, Mel would be better off cloning the cinematography style and music of the first film. Have the exact same costume styles as the first film and get John Debney (the composer for the first film) back on board to compose a beautiful score.
5
Posted on 4/1/25 at 7:29 am to BuckeyeWarrior
quote:
Part of what made the first film so good is that it put heavy emphasis on realism
That is going to be determined on a viewer by viewed basis. Jesus being executed via crucifixion is universally accepted. The passion could put heavy emphasis on realism because the part of the story covered was purely materialistic
That probably won't be possible since Gibson has said this story will not just cover the resurrection but also the descent into sheol.
Extremely excited for production to move forward on this one as I am confident Gibson will do something great here.
Posted on 4/1/25 at 7:38 am to BuckeyeWarrior
Gibson has my trust. I am a fan of way too many projects he has been involved with. No doubt in my mind this will be excellent.
Posted on 4/1/25 at 7:43 am to msutiger
Since the film will have a non-linear story, Gibson will have to take massive creative liberties when formulating the plot. In my opinion, this is an element that will make or break the film. It could go really well or extraordinarily bad.
Posted on 4/1/25 at 10:42 am to Honest Tune
I just read an article that said the film will be English instead of Aramaic. What the frick? Aramaic is what made the first film so good, it added a sense of realism. fricking come on Mel.
Now my expectations for this film have dropped exponentially.
Now my expectations for this film have dropped exponentially.
This post was edited on 4/1/25 at 11:02 am
Posted on 4/1/25 at 12:56 pm to BuckeyeWarrior
quote:
Part of what made the first film so good is that it put heavy emphasis on realism
This may ruffle feathers but The Passion of the Christ is an exploitation film through and through. It was like hostel with Jesus. And I think it’s a very well made movie…but go back in time to 2004. Man, general audiences had no idea what they were in for. Church going people buying out theaters to see what is basically torture porn. People were taking their kids to see that movie. How many kids were traumatized is a hell of a question. It’s one of the oddest cases of a hugely successful film that’s content would never in a million years go hand in hand with its intended audience.
Posted on 4/1/25 at 1:01 pm to pevetohead
quote:
This may ruffle feathers but The Passion of the Christ is an exploitation film through and through. It was like hostel with Jesus.
If that's your takeaway from The Passion of the Christ, you missed the point of it entirely.
Posted on 4/1/25 at 1:30 pm to MemphisGuy
That’s not my takeaway, but as a movie it’s an exploitation movie. I remember the discourse around the film was about how violent and brutal the film was, and we are all lying here to say that didn’t make it part of the intrigue.
Yes the takeaway is Christ being tortured and dying for the sins of humanity. But that is not really what sold the film and made it the topic of discussion. There had been dozens of Christ films that never had the hype and discourse of this movie. Part of it was Mel Gibson, part of it was the huge budget, but let’s be frank - all anyone could wrap their heads around is the fact that it was an R-rated Christ movie. I’m sorry but that is the definition of exploitation film.
Yes the takeaway is Christ being tortured and dying for the sins of humanity. But that is not really what sold the film and made it the topic of discussion. There had been dozens of Christ films that never had the hype and discourse of this movie. Part of it was Mel Gibson, part of it was the huge budget, but let’s be frank - all anyone could wrap their heads around is the fact that it was an R-rated Christ movie. I’m sorry but that is the definition of exploitation film.
Posted on 4/1/25 at 1:46 pm to pevetohead
It was a gigantic success because there was something about the film that audiences couldn’t get enough of. Some of that might be the brutally violent scenes, but I guarantee you that the music and cinematography played huge roles as well. John Debney did a phenomenal score on the film. He’s easily one of the greatest film composers of all time. He’s up there with Danny Elfman and John Williams.
And I disagree that it’s an exploitation film. Gibson is a genius with the way he shot the violent scenes; they flow in a melody that’s story driven. He shows just enough to get a reaction out of audiences but pulls back to keep them watching. It’s a brilliant filmmaking technique and is the exact reason why Mel Gibson is the definition of an artist.
And I disagree that it’s an exploitation film. Gibson is a genius with the way he shot the violent scenes; they flow in a melody that’s story driven. He shows just enough to get a reaction out of audiences but pulls back to keep them watching. It’s a brilliant filmmaking technique and is the exact reason why Mel Gibson is the definition of an artist.
Posted on 4/1/25 at 3:20 pm to BuckeyeWarrior
Agree to disagree…somewhat. I think you and I both appreciate the movie and Gibson’s brilliant direction.
For the record I don’t use exploitation movie as a put down either
For the record I don’t use exploitation movie as a put down either
Posted on 4/1/25 at 9:39 pm to BuckeyeWarrior
Can’t believe that’s been 21 years. I went to see it twice.
Posted on 4/1/25 at 9:49 pm to BuckeyeWarrior
I think it will. It contains the story that is the entire crux of Christianity. I think it will be the in the top 3 movies of the year.
Posted on 4/2/25 at 4:09 am to pevetohead
quote:
all anyone could wrap their heads around is the fact that it was an R-rated Christ movie.
For me, it was the first time the kid gloves were off and it wasn’t made for Sunday school Jesus movie
It showed the brutality and the brunt of humanity’s sin being burdened on Jesus and confronting the audience that this man knowingly did this for those who follow him.
It’s easy to read the words in the Bible but then when you see the beatings and whippings and flesh and blood spraying the wall and his body slowly becoming beat to a pulp, it drives home just what a sacrifice it was
This post was edited on 4/2/25 at 4:10 am
Posted on 4/2/25 at 7:29 am to BuckeyeWarrior
Did Mel state the film will be non-linear?
Posted on 4/2/25 at 9:21 am to BigNastyTiger417
quote:
Did Mel state the film will be non-linear?
Yeah he said it on Joe Rogan’s podcast.
News broke last week that filming will begin in Rome of this summer and that three of the actors from the first film (Jim Caviezel, Maia Morganstern, and Francesco de Vito) will all be returning. The actors for John, Abenader, and King Herod unfortunately all passed away not too long ago.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News