# The Bible



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Had hopes for this one, being on the History Channel, but it is so damn corny. It's kind of addicting in a way that you want to see how bad can they make this. The director must have read _Directing for Dummies_ written by *Edward D. Wood Jr.* in his prep to do this.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Drucifer said:


> Had hopes for this one, being on the History Channel, but it is so damn corny. It's kind of addicting in a way that you want to see how bad can they make this. The director must have read _Directing for Dummies_ written by *Edward D. Wood Jr.* in his prep to do this.


Some years ago I viewed a interview with Hollywood director Mervyn LeRoy. The topic of censorship came up and how directors worked around it before the motion picture rating system came into play. He went on to say if they were to film the Bible exactly the way it is written it would receive a X rating! Given that it would have been better if they made it a theatrical release in the style of "How The West Was Won" with multiple directors. Think of the possibilities. John McTiernan directing the action scenes and Paul Verhoeven directing the love scenes.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Nothing can beat the Hallmark TV-miniseries/movie "Noah's Ark".

That was so galactically bad I felt sorry for Jon Voight and Mary Steenburgen (sp?).


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> Had hopes for this one, being on the History Channel, but it is so damn corny. It's kind of addicting in a way that you want to see how bad can they make this. The director must have read _Directing for Dummies_ written by *Edward D. Wood Jr.* in his prep to do this.


I got it DVR'ed but thanks for the heads up. I'm not even going to waste my time watching it.


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

Guess we won't be seeing the story of the Levites Concubine anytime soon . . .


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

^^ Isn't that letting _others_ decide for you?


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Nick said:


> ^^ Isn't that letting _others_ decide for you?


Nice Nick, kind of ironic given the topic of the show :lol:


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

It was the highest rated show in its time slot. And it was praised on _The View_ this morning.

They especially liked the parting of the 'Red' sea.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

For the most part, the show got only mixed reviews. As a presentation of the Old Testament and the New Testament it was very incomplete but what are you going to do in the time available???

IMHO it would take at least 36 hours to offer a reasonably proper presentation of just the stories of the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament (with a lot of fades if it isn't on Cinemax or Showtime). And you can't avoid making some controversial translation choices. I won't even talk about the how political issues of the 4th, 16th, and 17th centuries shaped the Christian biblical canon, or how it's stories differ from Jewish and Muslim writings.

Understanding all the issues, they did ok IMHO.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

I asked What Would Jesus Do? last night and he replied he'd rather watch Californication. Benedictus qui venit (blessed is he who comes).

BTW, thanks a lot for the parting of the Red Sea spoiler! I thought Moses was gonna provide jet skis!


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Maruuk said:


> I asked What Would Jesus Do? last night and he replied he'd rather watch Californication. Benedictus qui venit (blessed is he who comes).
> 
> BTW, *thanks a lot for the parting of the Red Sea spoiler! I thought Moses* was gonna provide jet skis!


I didn't say Moses.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Benedicti quo vadis dictum - veni vici vidi e pluribus unum, per se.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Nick said:


> Benedicti quo vadis dictum - veni vici vidi e pluribus unum, per se.


...ouya areay goingay ootay getgay iedfray.

[Bonus points if you know what movie that came from]


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

I pulled the plug as I was unable to finish the second episode late last night.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

I watched the part about Moses finding out he's slave trade. All heavy-handed exposition and grade-B acting. Brutal stuff. I guess Christians will find it inspiring. But mainly bad actors will find it inspiring that you can suck and still get work in Bible epics!

BTW, the actor they chose for Moses is incredibly weird looking--looks like an alien or something. Maybe that's a subplot!


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Every bible hero, so far, is coming off like some kind of wacko. It went from kinda funny to annoying in only two episodes.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jul 9, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> Every bible hero, so far, is coming off like some kind of wacko. It went from kinda funny to annoying in only two episodes.


I have to agree. They are portrayed as being rather stupid, or just weird. I thought it would give me an additional insight from a different point of view, but it's not accurate enough for that, and as you say, it has very quickly become annoying and irritating.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

They're not ADDING anything to the cultural mythology so why bother? At least _The Passion of the Christ_ attempted to bring something new to the table. What's their next series, _The Phone Book_??


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

Saw a few segments and thought it was a poor production. I had high hopes but I would not waste the time watching. Trying to sync the OT and NT with our own modern perspective is hard. This mini-series failures to me were not only the screen writers perspective but also because it was too low-budget.

Watching the death of Samson and the "thousands" of Philistines was awful to watch because all one could see was about 2-dozen actors on screen a bad temple set. Also the sets looks like something from a “C” - grade version of the movie “Godzila” circa 1960.


----------



## frederic1943 (Dec 2, 2006)

And they showed Samuel killing Agag the Amalekite king. What they didn't show was that he also killed all the women, children and livestock.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

One of the best religious miniseries, IMHO, was _Masada_. I loved it then; I love it now. Superb.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

When are they going to do The Quran? Muhammad in the Battle of the Ditch personally beheads 900 Jews in one night, tossing their headless bodies into the ditch dug around Medina. Then he divides up their women taking half. Then he goes back to his 9 year old wife (they could cast Honey Booboo!). That's entertainment. The Quran is like an X-rated version of Game of Thrones on crack. Makes the Bible look like Leave it to Beaver.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Church AV Guy said:


> I have to agree. They are portrayed as being rather stupid, or just weird. I thought it would give me an additional insight from a different point of view, but it's not accurate enough for that, and as you say, it has very quickly become annoying and irritating.


Go ahead. Just *try* to portray Moses being lost in the desert for 40 years without making him look like a clueless idiot dying for someone to invent the GPS.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

djlong said:


> Go ahead. Just *try* to portray Moses being lost in the desert for 40 years without making him look like a clueless idiot dying for someone to invent the GPS.


Oh I don't know. Steve Martin or Jim Carrey could probably pull it off. :sure:


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

I'd call it "Hangover IV: The Resurrection". Twelve Jews wake up in Jerusalem having no memory of the day before. Then one of them asks, "Where's Jesus?" Mayhem ensues.


----------



## garddog32 (Aug 27, 2004)

djlong said:


> ...ouya areay goingay ootay getgay iedfray.
> 
> [Bonus points if you know what movie that came from]


I don't think you have the quote quite right, but I'm pretty sure you were going for Johnny Dangerously.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jul 9, 2007)

frederic1943 said:


> And they showed Samuel killing Agag the Amalekite king. What they didn't show was that he also killed all the women, children and livestock.


The King James bible in 1 Samuel 15:33 it clearly says that "Samuel hewed Agag in pieces" so it was a bit more than just him killing Agag.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Sounds like the next Tarentino flick...


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

garddog32 said:


> I don't think you have the quote quite right, but I'm pretty sure you were going for Johnny Dangerously.


I was trying to remember the scene from "Top Secret!" where pop-star Nick Rivers (Val Kilmer) is on his way to his supposed execution at the hands of the East Germans.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

"The Bible's" depiction of the Devil explains why the show is so popular! Get thee behind me Barackzeebub!


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Maruuk said:


> "The Bible's" depiction of the Devil explains why the show is so popular! Get thee behind me Barackzeebub!


The History Channel and the show's creators have responded:


> ...Responding to the speculation, the History released a statement saying, "History channel has the highest respect for President Obama. The series was produced with an international and diverse cast of respected actors. It's unfortunate that anyone made this false connection. History's 'The Bible' is meant to enlighten people on its rich stories and deep history."
> 
> Executive Producers, Mark Burnett and Roma Downey called the connection "utter nonsense." And Downey said, "Both Mark and I have nothing but respect and love for our President, who is a fellow Christian. False statements such as these are just designed as a foolish distraction to try and discredit the beauty of the story of 'The Bible.'"
> 
> ...The actor's name is Mohamen Mehdi Ouazanni. According to his IMDb page, he has appeared in several religion-focused television-movies, including a 2006 adaptation of "The Ten Commandments" and a 2000 film called "In the Beginning." Burnett and Downey said, "He has previously played parts in several Biblical epics -- including Satanic characters long before Barack Obama was elected as our President."


 Glenn Beck has managed to turn "The Bible" into publicity for himself. He's good at that.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Whether or not the producers put an Obama lookalike in there as the Devil intentionally or not, how could the similarity not be caught way up front? Films are cast meticulously. All angles of the actors' faces are examined, there are screen tests, etc. And NO ONE noticed the resemblance throughout the entire process to the _American President?_ Ridiculous.

I think it's a riot. Obama haters are loving it, and even Obama fans are getting a chuckle out of it. Only the Devil is pissed off, he thinks he looks way more like Robert Guillaume!


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Worse than even a typical Syfy movie and special effects to match. 

History has done some good stuff lately, but this is just plain embarrassing.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Its ratings don't seem to make the opinions of you and others here matter one bit.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Same with rap music. You can fool most of the people most of time.


----------



## donalddickerson2005 (Feb 13, 2012)

mreposter said:


> Worse than even a typical Syfy movie and special effects to match.
> 
> History has done some good stuff lately, but this is just plain embarrassing.


Have you seen the ratings for this. Heck NBC would love to have that on there weeknight shows.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Porn gets awesome ratings, too. Very similar production values...


----------



## Jaspear (May 16, 2004)

Maruuk said:


> Porn gets awesome ratings, too. Very similar production values...


Imagine the ratings a production of the Bible would get if Hollywood would adequately fund it and treat the subject with respect. This one is succeeding in spite of Hollywood and the networks.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Jaspear said:


> Imagine the ratings a production of the Bible would get if Hollywood would adequately fund it and treat the subject with respect. *This one is succeeding* in spite of Hollywood and the networks.


At what?


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

I think if you produced an alternate-reality series in which the South won the Civil War, you'd get killer ratings in the South. Nobody ever went broke pandering to a large-demo, captive audience. That's why half of all movies are targeting males 12-18.

But pandering is generally the enemy of good.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jul 9, 2007)

Jaspear said:


> Imagine the ratings a production of the Bible would get if Hollywood would adequately fund it and treat the subject with respect. This one is succeeding in spite of Hollywood and the networks.





Drucifer said:


> At what?


I think he means succeeding at this, from TV by the Numbers:



> HISTORY's 'The Bible' Week 3 Delivers 10.9 Million Viewers
> 
> HISTORY'S THE BIBLE WEEK 3
> 
> ...





> Cable Top 25: 'The Bible' Tops Cable Viewership for the Week





> HISTORY Wins Week With Cable Primetime Adults 18-49 & With Primetime Total Viewers


I think you would have to call it succeeding. It sure isn't failing, despite the poor production values.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

It's succeeding at attracting eyeballs. But then, so does porn.


----------



## Game Fan (Sep 8, 2007)

So far, I've enjoyed it.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

NBC has ordered the "sequel" if that's the right term.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/07/01/nbc-to-air-the-bible-followup-from-mark-burnett/?hpt=hp_t3


----------

