If you can make a Jesus Film, what would you do?

[patrick457]

9.) Time passes. In comparison to before, only a handful of people travel outside now due to poor visibility. The soldiers are sitting near the crosses, waiting for the dust to lift. The almost-deafening silence which continued for three hours in the execution site is now broken by Joshua’s scream in His native Aramaic: êlî, êlî, lâmâ šəbaqtanî. The guards are startled, when one of them suggest that He might be calling Eliyahu, as he have heard that Jews consider him as a rescuer in distress. One of them mockingly suggests that they should see whether Eliyahu would indeed come, takes his sponge-on-a-stick (perhaps the same kind the Romans use in their toilets as bottom-wipers), puts some posca on it and offers it to Joshua. Joshua, upon drinking, says a single word (‘Finished’), draws up His remaining strength and screams one finall time, as the screen fades out to black and the sound of a low rumble becomes audible.

10.) Fade-in to late afternoon Jerusalem. The sandstorm had finally cleared by now, and normal life is slowly recuperating. A group of men (including Nikodemos the Pharisee), accompanied by the centurion who supervised the execution, walk towards the execution site. One of them, an aristocrat named Joseph, has just received permission from Pilatus to take the body of Joshua and bury it. As they walk, the centurion off-handedly mentions to Joseph that Joshua died nobly (if rather quickly): He may be innocent after all. They arrive - the faithful women are still nearby, watching over Joshua - and the centurion orders his men to ‘speed up’ the other men, and to make sure Joshua is dead. As the other soldiers break the legs of the criminals, one stabs Joshua’s side using a spear, and after doing so, the centurion now allows Joseph to take Joshua, who orders his servants to remove the nails.

11.) Straight cut to Joseph’s servants carrying the body of Joshua, now wrapped in a shroud and bound with linen strips, to a garden-slash-cemetery near the execution site, as Joseph and Nicodemus walk behind, with the faithful women with them. Miriam, Joshua’s mother thanks the two men for their efforts.
Joseph’s men enter inside a newly-hewn tomb which Joseph owns, and upon placing the corpse in a shelf (without much fanfare and in a great hurry), go out and ‘roll’ a blocking stone on the tomb’s small entrance, plugging the doorway. Everyone then goes off as the sun sets and the shofars blare, signalling the beginning of the Shabbat.

 

[patrick457]

I have imagined on occasion Jesus as being almost lovingly sarcastic. In one of the Gospels Peter says he doesn’t understand a parable and Our Lord responds “Are you being witfully dull?” It almost sounds like He says with an amused snicker : “Really? You don’t get it? Are you being stupid on purpose?”

Well, you know sense of humor runs in the ‘family’. It was His Dad that made the platypus, after all. And sarcasm is certainly no stranger, either. This from the same God who said sarcastically, “Go and cry out to the gods whom you have chosen; let them save you in the time of your distress.” (Judges 10:14)

 

[Silyosha]

Great question! Wow, I think about making movies about historical events all the time–I think they’re the most interesting kinds of films, personally. So…first of all, as a previous poster said, I’d really like to shoot the movie in Morocco. There are some really ideal areas there that could be made to look very authentic and accurate. I’d definately go all out on the costumes and set, and as for the language, I think it would be awesome to have the script in Aramaic and Latin, like in TPOTC, but maybe that’d be unreasonable. I’d want to portray Jesus as completely human, but with a very discernable atmosphere of holiness around him. I’m not sure how to describe it, or how you’d acheive it on film, but the way I picture Jesus, there’s a sense of such great power and love and greatness around him. I don’t know who I would cast, but the actor would have to be able to portray that somehow.

 

[patrick457]

Great question! Wow, I think about making movies about historical events all the time–I think they’re the most interesting kinds of films, personally. So…first of all, as a previous poster said, I’d really like to shoot the movie in Morocco. There are some really ideal areas there that could be made to look very authentic and accurate. I’d definately go all out on the costumes and set, and as for the language, I think it would be awesome to have the script in Aramaic and Latin, like in TPOTC, but maybe that’d be unreasonable. I’d want to portray Jesus as completely human, but with a very discernable atmosphere of holiness around him. I’m not sure how to describe it, or how you’d acheive it on film, but the way I picture Jesus, there’s a sense of such great power and love and greatness around him. I don’t know who I would cast, but the actor would have to be able to portray that somehow.

Great answer!

BTW, something just dawned on me since asking that: what you and I may often think of as ‘realistic’ may not be so true-to-life after all.

 

[Silyosha]

That link makes for some really interesting reading! I wonder what sorts of things in the “Jesus films” today are actually extremely inaccurate?

 

[patrick457]

That link makes for some really interesting reading! I wonder what sorts of things in the “Jesus films” today are actually extremely inaccurate?

Well, there’re quite a number that I know of - some of them are pretty long-established - but here I’ll give my top ten (some of these I’ve already posted for the umpteenth time on this thread - I’m very sorry about that ).

1.) Are we really to expect that the Romans wore armor 24-7always?

2.) Speaking of armor, we often see the Romans in Jesus films almost always wearing legionary armor, though it seems more likely that they were auxiliaries (usually wearing mail armor). Not to mention that all of their helmets seem to be (inspired by) the Imperial helmet-type (in use late 1st century BC - early 2nd to 3rd century AD ) - but this is hardly the only type of helmet at the time of Jesus: there are more plainer (and much older) models such as the Montefortino (4th BC - 1st AD) and the Coolus (3rd BC - ca. AD 79).

3.) In recent years, there has been some efforts to emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus and the people around Him. One of these efforts include showing Him wearing a tallit every now and then - something the Pharisees are always stereotypically shown to wear as well. Here’s the rub: the tallit as we know it today - a shawl-like piece of cloth - most likely did not look like that at the time of Jesus, since the tallit seems to have originally merely referred to the outer garment (i.e. the cloak or mantle) that men draped over their tunics on a daily basis. In Numbers 15:38-39 and Deuteronomy 22:12, the Israelites are commanded to add the tzitzit, or the tassels, to the “four corners of [their] garments” as a remembrance of the commandments of the Lord. And which article of clothing had four corners in those days? The cloak, of course. It was only much later that the tallit increasingly shrunk and became a ceremonial garment - because fashions changed and most people were no longer wearing mantles. So in my personal opinion, a much more historically accurate way of showing Jesus’ Jewishness is to place the tzitzit on His cloak!

4.) Speaking of Pharisees, we often picture old, dour men in long dark/black robes, possibly with a tefillin and a tallit on the side. We don’t actually have any record as to the specifics of their clothing - for that matter, we don’t know that much about the Judaism/s of the 1st century save for (1) what the ancients were kind enough to write down and (2) what we can reconstruct from later practice. For all we know, they could have dressed quite normally. And nah, they’re not all wealthy or had positions of power: the Pharisees were actually teaching a lay-oriented, rather liberal* form of Judaism and thus attracted people from all walks of life, and they actually do not hold any political power at the time of Jesus, since their rivals, the Sadducees - the folks you should look for if you want to see rich and influential people - had it.

• ‘Liberal’ in the sense of: (1) they believe in things that only fully blossomed (revealed?) after the Exile, such as the afterlife, a literal resurrection of the dead and a more complex and fully-developed angelology: things that earlier works of the Bible, say the Torah, are quite silent about; and (2) they preach a more participatory, grass-roots form of Judaism that extended beyond the Temple, in which rituals were not monopolized by an inherited priesthood but rather could be performed by all adult Jews individually or collectively, since all Israel are, according to the Law, a “kingdom of priests” - reason this is the reason why Pharisees was at times seen as quite ‘legalistic’, and is probably the cause why they were able to survive the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

5.) To give off a ‘Middle-Eastern’ flavor, some films will show Jewish clothing of the period as being pretty much Arab-like, complete with a keffiyeh (aka ghutra). In reality, there does not seem to have been much difference between what Jews in Judea wore with what many other peoples were wearing at the time. For one, the basic articles of clothing were pretty much the same in many areas (tunic + cloak + in some cases, sandals). Not to mention that there would have been Roman influence: some fragments of tunics discovered in fact show clavi (two colored stripes that run down the length of the tunic), a popular adornment across the Roman Empire. So, they would have worn garments like this or this.

 

[patrick457]

6.) Most Jesus films that I know of show Jesus being nailed with one nail across both feet, clearly under the influence of Western religious art. In reality, the whole convention of portraying the crucified Jesus with only three nails was one that had its origins in the late Middle Ages. The older portrayal has Jesus’ feet nailed separately (notice that in Eastern icons they still portray Jesus pierced with four nails), something that archeology and the oldest portrayal of the crucifixion of Jesus may support.
In some films (especially older ones), the crosses are VERY tall - again, under the influence of Western iconography. The Romans are lovers of efficiency; it’s more likely that the crosses are either as tall as or only slightly taller than a man’s height, since very high crosses are more cumbersome to erect and to take down, if you’ll think of it. There are a few cases when we hear of people being crucified on high crosses, but the fact that they had to mention they were tall may imply that that was not the norm.

7.) Ever notice that the surroundings are pretty clean in Golgotha? In reality, there would’ve been birds of prey, wild dogs and mice, all chomping and pecking down on the corpses that were either dumped in a ditch or left to hang on their crosses. Not to mention swarms of flies out there coming to bite you and bodily fluids that would have littered the area (being crucified does not stop you from having bodily functions ). The crow that pecks out the bad thief’s eye in Mel’s film is a very good example of this.

And since we’re talking about Golgotha, you can be pretty sure that many think Golgotha is a bare hill or a high mountain away from the hustle and bustle of the city. The Romans, in reality, preferred to crucify their victims either in the place where they were arrested or in public areas where more people can see them: roadsides were ideal, as Spartacus’ men can testify. And there’s really nothing in the Gospels which suggest that Golgotha was a hill; on the contrary, they all just say that it was ‘a place’, suggesting a more wider area. Apparently it was only in the 5th century that the meaning of ‘Golgotha’ was narrowed down to denote the rocky outcrop that stood on it. These has led one scholar to theorize that Jesus was actually crucified nearer the roads some distance away from the traditional site (the Rock of Calvary).

8.) Last Supper scenes being outright clones of Leonardo. 'Nuff said.

9.) According to this site:

Notice how that in traditional art and film Jesus is nailed to the front of the cross. This introduces a physically (sic) impossibility. A person nailed to the front of the cross could not rest his back against it. He would be forced forward, leaning out away from the cross. Have you noticed how in movies and paintings Jesus is usually upright with his back and buttocks touching the cross upright? Impossible. It’s only possible to simulate that position (his back and buttocks touching the front of the cross) by having your “Jesus” standing with all of his weight on a foot-platform. If you don’t do that, you’ll have to use a harness hidden beneath his loin cloth to literally strap his buttocks to the upright (as they did in what was actually an otherwise great movie—The Gospel of John), because without it “Jesus” will lean out away from the cross dramatically. (They discovered this accidentally in the making of the movie. They must have been surprised when the Jesus character leaned outward. They filmed him like that and left it in. But in other shots, he has been strapped to the cross to “fix” this. I wonder if the filmmakers realize that they stumbled across the problem I’m addressing here, that Jesus couldn’t have been crucified like in old paintings and movies.) Nailed to the front of the cross, a crucified man’s pelvis and chest will lunge forward away from the vertical post.​

 

[patrick457]

10.) In recent years, there has been also efforts to emphasize that crucifixion was a normal part of the sea of civilization: we see some people being crucified, we have a few references to crucifixion, and we see other crosses in Golgotha (another likely possibility). That being said, for some inexplicable reason, when we see other folks being crucified, the filmmakers feel they have more freedom to portray these men being crucified ‘unconventionally’, but when we come to Jesus’ execution, the filmmakers somehow default into the ‘traditional’ manner - i.e. the way we always see it in paintings, in sculptures, etc. Be consistent, people!

Case in point: the 1999 film Jesus, starring Jeremy Sisto. When John the Baptist and Jesus recall their childhood, we see men crucified in this way:

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/9215/crucifixion.png

The crosses look like roughly-hewn logs, and are not very tall. But later in the film:

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/1344/cruzw3.jpg

Voila! Jesus and the two criminals are apparently so special, they get very high crosses made out of specially-smoothened planks.
We can see this in a few films as well, such as the 1961 King of Kings, as well as Mel’s The Passion of the Christ, where everyone else carries just their crossbeam, but Jesus gets to carry His whole cross*.

• This is actually a near-impossibility in real life: a full cross would have weighed probably over 220-300 pounds (136 kg). If a healthy man can’t drag (notice that the records we have talk of portare/bastazein ‘carrying’, not trahere/syrein ‘dragging’, the cross) that thing for long, how much more Jesus, with His weakened state and all?

Yep, that’s pretty much my top ten. Sorry for my repetitiveness
Now, back to regular programming.

 

[patrick457]

Something just struck me: Jesus’ ministry is supposed to have lasted for a period of around one to three years. But for some reason, films show Jesus (and everyone else) looking pretty much the same throughout that period of time. Don’tcha think they would’ve ‘grown up’ a bit?

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Anyone else who wishes to add something?

Going in a completely different direction, I’d really like to see a film about Christ’s journey to Ur, as portrayed in the visions of Catherine Anne Emmerich. This journey is discussed in the last part of Vol. III of “The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations.”

I’m reading it now, and I’m absolutely fascinated with the descriptions of ziggarauts and the teachings taking place.

 

[GEddie]

Going in a completely different direction, I’d really like to see a film about Christ’s journey to Ur, as portrayed in the visions of Catherine Anne Emmerich. This journey is discussed in the last part of Vol. III of “The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations.”

I’m reading it now, and I’m absolutely fascinated with the descriptions of ziggarauts and the teachings taking place.

Such an obscure work would be far too risky to base an expensive production on, IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Pons]

Nice thread. Patrick made another thread for his own ideas, but this subforum may get more traffic. I may cross-post there.

It’s very sobering to think Jesus may have had his last drink using the Roman equivalent of toilet paper. To further the impact, perhaps one should show these sponges-on-sticks in Pilate’s bathroom or such beforehand (not “in action” )

About the brothers of the Lord, I was reminded of a little discussion I had with our Eastern brothers years ago. Very fascinating to know their views.

Let’s say we go by the oldest tradition and make them Joseph’s children. (I think it’s too much to expect Joseph was ever-virgin too. He didn’t have to be in the same boat to be faithful to Mary.) This opens up a lot of interesting subplots where one’s imagination can run wild without violating doctrine, even if the “Latin” image of “just the three of us in Nazareth” is dropped.

Apparently, according to Coptic tradition and illustrated by their icons, older foster-brother James joined the Flight to Egypt.

Could this mean he was part of the party to Bethlehem as well? Perhaps he was pressed upon to help with the birth or something. And how old would he have been, especially compared to Mary? Could he not have been too far off? Hrm. Interesting to picture him learning to cope with treating someone closer to a big sister in age as his mother. Or if Joseph was already middle-aged, perhaps James could be closer to the more familiar image of a young Joseph. A twist for Latin audiences but not so for some of our Eastern brothers.

Then one could build James up as the big brother in Christ’s life, which of course leads to drama when the latter begins his ministry, since John 7:5 says: “For his brothers did not believe in him.” (When do Joseph’s other sons enter the picture during the “hidden years”?) We all know the symbolism of Jesus entrusting his Mother to John. But who says there wasn’t some sad family strife behind it as well? Oooh.

Could it be significant that scripture says the risen Jesus individually appeared to only Mary Magdalene, Peter and then James - as opposed to appearing to the 12 apostles as a group, or even as small as the pair in Emmaus?

In any case, James joins the disciples and is present at Pentecost. Perhaps one could have scenes where Peter and the sons of Zebedee welcome James and other sons of Joseph into their fold. As time passes, Peter makes James the first bishop because he has the most “experience”. This is based on tradition that James was a holy man in his own right. This is not to take away from Peter’s own special leadership later known as the Papacy, etc:

After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels’ knees.

Also, if one follows more Eastern traditions, the sons of Zebedee were nephews of Jesus:

Salome, the wife of Zebedee and mother of James and John, is one of Joseph’s daughters and older step-sister of Jesus. Matthew 20:20-21 makes a lot more sense when you understand that only an older sister would have the boldness to ask what she does.

.…as there is no term for step-brother or step-sister in Hebrew and Aramaic, neither is there a term for step-mother, so Mary would rightly be called the mother of James and Joses as the betrothed of Joseph their father.

 

[patrick457]

Nice thread. Patrick made another thread for his own ideas, but this subforum may get more traffic. I may cross-post there.

It’s very sobering to think Jesus may have had his last drink using the Roman equivalent of toilet paper. To further the impact, perhaps one should show these sponges-on-sticks in Pilate’s bathroom or such beforehand (not “in action” )

About the brothers of the Lord, I was reminded of a little discussion I had with our Eastern brothers years ago. Very fascinating to know their views.

Let’s say we go by the oldest tradition and make them Joseph’s children. (I think it’s too much to expect Joseph was ever-virgin too. He didn’t have to be in the same boat to be faithful to Mary.) This opens up a lot of interesting subplots where one’s imagination can run wild without violating doctrine, even if the “Latin” image of “just the three of us in Nazareth” is dropped.

Apparently, according to Coptic tradition and illustrated by their icons, older foster-brother James joined the Flight to Egypt.

Could this mean he was part of the party to Bethlehem as well? Perhaps he was pressed upon to help with the birth or something. And how old would he have been, especially compared to Mary? Could he not have been too far off? Hrm. Interesting to picture him learning to cope with treating someone closer to a big sister in age as his mother. Or if Joseph was already middle-aged, perhaps James could be closer to the more familiar image of a young Joseph. A twist for Latin audiences but not so for some of our Eastern brothers.

Then one could build James up as the big brother in Christ’s life, which of course leads to drama when the latter begins his ministry, since John 7:5 says: “For his brothers did not believe in him.” (When do Joseph’s other sons enter the picture during the “hidden years”?) We all know the symbolism of Jesus entrusting his Mother to John. But who says there wasn’t some sad family strife behind it as well? Oooh.

Could it be significant that scripture says the risen Jesus individually appeared to only Mary Magdalene, Peter and then James - as opposed to appearing to the 12 apostles as a group, or even as small as the pair in Emmaus?

In any case, James joins the disciples and is present at Pentecost. Perhaps one could have scenes where Peter and the sons of Zebedee welcome James and other sons of Joseph into their fold. As time passes, Peter makes James the first bishop because he has the most “experience”. This is based on tradition that James was a holy man in his own right. This is not to take away from Peter’s own special leadership later known as the Papacy, etc:

Also, if one follows more Eastern traditions, the sons of Zebedee were nephews of Jesus:

Thanks for this!

As for the appearance to James, St. Jerome did say once:

Also the gospel which is named according to the Hebrews, and which was recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which also Origen often used, refers after the resurrection of the Savior: “But the Lord, when he had given the shroud to the servant of the priest, went to James and appeared to him. James indeed had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour when he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he saw Him risen from among those who sleep.” And again after a little bit: “‘Bear forth,’ said the Lord, ‘a table and bread.’” And immediately is added: “He bore bread and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to James the Just, and said to him, ‘My brother, eat your bread, for the Son of Man has resurrected from among those who sleep.’”

 

[Pons]

We’re going into Acts territory, but why not? A miniseries would probably work better than a single film. If one makes this James an important supporting character before Acts, it only sets up his role as bishop, the Judaizers, conflict with Paul, etc. Then unlike the stereotype sometimes encountered, Peter would have supported, not opposed Paul, though he falters due to the incident Paul writes about in Galatians. I think one writer described Peter as likely the “bridge” between Paul and James, which prefigures the adoption of “supreme pontiff” (“supreme bridgemaker”) as a Papal title.

Yeah, I think an Acts miniseries centered around Peter, Paul and this James would rock and there’s no reason not to keep it compatible with Catholic beliefs while acknowledging the importance of the Eastern Churches.

One could show how important James was as the first bishop of Jerusalem. Peter and the sons of Zebedee give him the chair. But they are still the leading members of the 12 Apostles, which James is not part of despite their teamwork. This sets them apart (and as those of us in communion with Rome would say, higher). One is reminded of John Chrysostom contrasting James as the teacher of Jerusalem and Peter as the teacher of the world. Of course, Peter comes to hold the chair of Antioch and then Rome, but Jesus didn’t assign him to a single place when they were face-to-face. That would come in time.

Tradition says James the Lord’s brother has at least one full brother, Jude. For this imaginary film/miniseries, let’s make him distinct from Jude Thaddeus. James the son of Alphaeus is also distinct from this James, as is Simon the Zealot from another of the Lord’s brethren Simon.

It would be interesting to see how Peter likely coped with the factions or “politics” of the early church. Keeping all the people having the same names would add to the portrayal of Peter’s role of feeding the Lord’s sheep as well as His lambs (the distinction is thought by some to symbolize clergy and laity). Perhaps one could have one of the other Apostles like Bartholomew privately expressing his discomfiture at the “Johnny-come-latelys”. Then Paul, the biggest “Johnny-come-lately” of all, comes along and shakes things up even more.

And have the Apostle Jude say “it’s a hopeless cause” at one point.

 

[patrick457]

We’re going into Acts territory, but why not? A miniseries would probably work better than a single film. If one makes this James an important supporting character before Acts, it only sets up his role as bishop, the Judaizers, conflict with Paul, etc. Then unlike the stereotype sometimes encountered, Peter would have supported, not opposed Paul, though he falters due to the incident Paul writes about in Galatians. I think one writer described Peter as likely the “bridge” between Paul and James, which prefigures the adoption of “supreme pontiff” (“supreme bridgemaker”) as a Papal title.

Yeah, I think an Acts miniseries centered around Peter, Paul and this James would rock and there’s no reason not to keep it compatible with Catholic beliefs while acknowledging the importance of the Eastern Churches.

One could show how important James was as the first bishop of Jerusalem. Peter and the sons of Zebedee give him the chair. But they are still the leading members of the 12 Apostles, which James is not part of despite their teamwork. This sets them apart (and as those of us in communion with Rome would say, higher). One is reminded of John Chrysostom contrasting James as the teacher of Jerusalem and Peter as the teacher of the world. Of course, Peter comes to hold the chair of Antioch and then Rome, but Jesus didn’t assign him to a single place when they were face-to-face. That would come in time.

Tradition says James the Lord’s brother has at least one full brother, Jude. For this imaginary film/miniseries, let’s make him distinct from Jude Thaddeus. James the son of Alphaeus is also distinct from this James, as is Simon the Zealot from another of the Lord’s brethren Simon.

It would be interesting to see how Peter likely coped with the factions or “politics” of the early church. Keeping all the people having the same names would add to the portrayal of Peter’s role of feeding the Lord’s sheep as well as His lambs (the distinction is thought by some to symbolize clergy and laity). Perhaps one could have one of the other Apostles like Bartholomew privately expressing his discomfiture at the “Johnny-come-latelys”. Then Paul, the biggest “Johnny-come-lately” of all, comes along and shakes things up even more.

And have the Apostle Jude say “it’s a hopeless cause” at one point.

I’ll admit I smiled at the final part.

 

[jrash4]

Hi Patrick,

I love history and especially that of the Roman Republic/Empire. I agree with you on your comments about the armor Romans wore at the time Christ. Based on the research I’ve done, I think your comments were spot on! I cam across your sight quite by accident. I was actully googling images of Roman soldiers and came across a picture of what looks like two men dressed in auxiliary costumes. When I clicked on the photo, it was connected to your sight. I wanted to check the photo out more and went through your sight and did not see the photo again. I am envolved in Christian drama and passion plays, and though I know it’s not possible to know for sure, I was wondering if you thought that particular photo was a fairly acurate representation of what the soldiers at the time of Christ looked like?

I look forward to your reply

 

[jrash4]

Hi Patrick,

I enjoyed your (name removed by moderator)ut regarding Jesus films. I am some what of a student of ancient history and totally agree with what you said regarding Roman armor. It was auxiliary troops best wecan tell in Judea and not legionaries so the armor they would have worn was chain mail not lorica segmentata that is always shown in movies. I was interested in the photo I seen that linked me to your page. I was actually researching Roman soldier images on google and clicked on a photo of two men in Roman costumes, they were linked to your sight. Where did you find the photo and do you know anything about the costumes they were wearing?

 

[Calvarynut]

Jeffrey Hunter all the way as Jesus, Selena Gomez as Mary. I would shoot it in English and following a blend of all 4 gospels. Golgotha needs to look more bloody, and just like king of kings in 1961, have more crosses than just 3 spread out all over it.

 

[Richard320]

I always thought that Mel Gibson should have immediately followed up The Passion of the Christ with Acts. That movie was HUGE, huge buildup, huge amount of media attention, huge money. He already had the cast lined up!

Special effects could have so much fun - a flash and the Shroud of Turin gets left behind in the tomb. Copy that scene from Terminator II where the cop-villain-robot goes through the bars except it would be Jesus walking through the door to the upper room. Another flash and Paul gets knocked off his horse. For the blood-and-guts fans, what could be better than St Steven getting stoned? Pentecost.

But, alas, Mel’s next project was something else…

 

[GEddie]

I always thought that Mel Gibson should have immediately followed up The Passion of the Christ with Acts. That movie was HUGE, huge buildup, huge amount of media attention, huge money. He already had the cast lined up!

Special effects could have so much fun - a flash and the Shroud of Turin gets left behind in the tomb. Copy that scene from Terminator II where the cop-villain-robot goes through the bars except it would be Jesus walking through the door to the upper room. Another flash and Paul gets knocked off his horse. For the blood-and-guts fans, what could be better than St Steven getting stoned? Pentecost.

But, alas, Mel’s next project was something else…

I just hope that his Maccabean project gets out of development hell.