Why can’t we get movies like “To Kill a Mockingbird” or “Doctor Zhivago” any more?

You know, something that tugs at your emotions, doesn’t involve CGI and the acting isn’t performed by no-talent hacks?

Heck, even a Martin & Lewis or Don Knotts comedy is head and shoulders above anything done by Meyers.

Sigh, I miss the old days.

Historical fiction is fiction wrapped around events and locations which actually happened and exist. The movie Titanic is an example of historical fiction. The main protagonists did not actually exist. In fact, they put the girl in a suite which was known to be empty. Everything else outside of the protagonists, their story, and their interactions with other passengers actually happened (or are is based on something which actually happened).

The quote I posted about the documents, architecture, etc. supposedly being true was from outside of the story. It was not one if his characters making a claim, it was Dan Brown, the author speaking as Dan Brown before the story actually began. He said everything but the story was accurate. It was not.

Simply put, things which he claimed were historically accurate are not historically accurate. His book is not historical fiction, it is all fiction. It is his attempt to pass off fiction as fact which is offensive.

The problem is that Dan Brown claimed it is historical fiction.

historical fiction- fiction set in the past, can be of any genre.

Dale Brown used some historical elements in his story. Fiction is fiction….what is your point?

I understand what Christ went through. But a 2+ hour replay of his torture does not make a good film.

It’s not the torture itself that makes the story worthwhile. In fact, the torture makes it pretty darn hard to watch. What makes this story so fascinating is that Jesus chose to go through it willingly because he thinks the results are worth the suffering.

The temple splitting in two clearly represents the Jews who went on to believe in Christ and those who didn’t. Showing the foundation of a temple literally split in two is such a ridiculous misinterpreatation that I had no choice but to laugh.

I agree that there were problems with the movie, both artistic and theological. (What was up with the Satan and his demon child?) But this one isn’t much of a stretch.

According to the accounts, the skies did darken, there was an earthquake, and the veil separating the Holy of Holies from the rest of temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom (important in relation to Jewish traditions which are not in the Bible). The floor itself probably wasn’t split, but Hollywood is so used to hype that it falls within “artistic interpretation.”

Overall, I would have preferred some things to be different, important things were omitted, and weird, confusing stuff was included. Even so, it’s an important event which needs to be told, even though it’s hard to watch. No one can ever say that everything worthwhile is always easy.

they actually respect that unlike the Christians who conveniently ignore that commandment.

“Thou shalt not kill” is not an accurate translation. The correct translation is “You shall not murder.” This has been known for decades.

Here are the translator’s notes from the WEB translation of Exodus 20:13:

The verb (rasah) refers to the premeditated or accidental taking of the life of another human being; it includes any unauthorized killing (it is used for the punishment of a murderer, but that would not be included in the prohibition). This commandment teaches the sanctity of all human life. See J. H. Yoder, “Exodus 20, 13: ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’,” Int 34 (1980): 394-99; and A. Phillips, “Another Look at Murder,” Journal of Jewish Studies 28 (1977): 105-26.

This is right up there with the “Da Vinci Code”….which was and still is a work of FICTION.

Yes it is. The problem is that Dan Brown claimed it is historical fiction. In fact, this is a statement from the front of his book:

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

This claim is what the fuss is all about because the claim is absolutely not true. Even non-christian historians are offended at his revisionism and passing off a known hoax, The Priory of Scion, as true.

I also like how they respect the cow. Cows are gentle creatures and want to give milk to us IF we treat them well. Sadly, in our culture we have zero respect for these sweet creatures and just and abuse her for her flesh and milk. We separate her from her babies so we can take the milk that the baby would normally have. Then, we so unkindly and cruelly take the baby, put him in a crate to become veal. We could learn a lot from the Hindus, we would be the better for it.

Anyway, having said that, when I saw this poster I laughed. I can laugh at myself and my interests. I have not seen the movie…if it seriously puts down the religion that’s another story but if it’s just tongue and cheek comedy, it’s good to be able to laugh at ourselves and not take things so seriously. You can still have respect for something and laugh at yourself.

And having said that, a lot of people in Hollywood could use respect for all kinds of spirituality/religion. I know they think they are above it all and much too sophisticated for all that. How ignorant they are.

On June 21st, 2008 at 11:37 am, lgm said:

On-my-soap-box said (#21):

I wish you would PLEASE shut your pie hole about Christians.

When you stop sliming Islam. Mine is an allergic reaction to your irritation.

I think it is the Islamofascists that are “sliming Islam.”

I brought up Temptation because I honestly never understood what the problem was. People call it blasphemous, but the reasons cited for its blasphemy – namely the temptation part – aren’t blasphemous.

I was asking a question in good faith. I wanted to know what the problem was. And I haven’t heard anything other than “it’s crap” and “it takes figurative speech literally.”

The Passion is guilty on both of those counts.

The temple splitting in two clearly represents the Jews who went on to believe in Christ and those who didn’t. Showing the foundation of a temple literally split in two is such a ridiculous misinterpreatation that I had no choice but to laugh.

It’s the equivalent of me using CGI to show a camel walking through the eye of a needle after some rich dude died.

cSoap, I was trying to have someone explain something I didn’t understand. All in good faith. If you thought that was some kind of attack, then, well, get a grip.

Thought the Pope himself gave Mel Gibson’s production a thumb’s up. It was the Jews who had felt it was a bad portrayal of their religion.

Actually, I think you’re referring to “The Passion of the Christ.”

lgm: As soon as Christians start beheading apostates, non-Christians, and turn women into property, then we’ll talk. Your insistence that all religious are equal is disingenuous at best, and downright ignorant.