BrandoFan Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I felt compelled to say this again... What is your faith denominaiton, honey-buns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 5 day really if you include the weekend. I would guess at least 50 million for the 5 day period. I thought the biggest 5-day (if it opens on a Wed) gross was 114 Mill for Spiderdork back in 2002. Maybe I am wrong and one of the LOTR beat it. Titanic still holds the record for almost 600 Mill in the overall NA BO. So 80 Mill in the first 5 days is a safe bet you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 how many of the ticket sales will be from people in seats and how many of the ticket sales will be from churches buying out whole theatres Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 What is your faith denominaiton, honey-buns? None of your business... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 how many of the ticket sales will be from people in seats and how many of the ticket sales will be from churches buying out whole theatres Doesn't matter. BO = BO = BO = BO = BO = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 None of your business... I should have known back in the Israel-Palestine thread that you were a no-good coward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I thought the biggest 5-day (if it opens on a Wed) gross was 114 Mill for Spiderdork back in 2002. Maybe I am wrong and one of the LOTR beat it. Titanic still holds the record for almost 600 Mill in the overall NA BO. So 80 Mill in the first 5 days is a safe bet you think? Let's just say it's unlikely that "Dirty Dancing - Havana Nights" and "Eurotrip" are unlikely to give it much of a run for its money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 "Dirty Dancing - Havana Nights" I can't believe they are releasing that. My sister and I saw a preview of that and all they did is re-make the original one with a Spanish flair to it. Some moves (and DD is one of them) are not meant to have sequels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I can't believe they are releasing that. My sister and I saw a preview of that and all they did is re-make the original one with a Spanish flair to it. Some moves (and DD is one of them) are not meant to have sequels. It's got one of the leads from Yu Tu Mama Tambien in it. The camp fare like Honey and Flashdance and that NY ballet academy movie I forgot the name of.....If you treat them as comedies, with talentless hot chicks of dubious racial make-up fellating scenery and uttering craptacular lines....is there anything better! No Havana Nights for me though. It doesn't look like "so bad it's good" that i love. Sadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 here at 2 links to reviews of The Passion..one pro , one con http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html http://www.nypost.com/movies/18806.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Don't worry, it looks like Mel did some editing -- it may not be historically accurate, but the AS edge has likely been dulled. We'll see. Speaking of propaganda....have you SEEN some of the sick s*** Palestinian filmamakers, both at home and abroad, are making and winning awards for? TotW pales in comparison. :puke :puke :headshake Be careful what you call propaganda...there are A LOT of regular Soxtalk posters who believe EVERYTHING the "palis" say! (You know who they are!) The "palis" are grasping at straws, blaming EVERYTHING on the Jews. Then they have the "balls" to basically say, please make the big, bad Israelis tear down their evil wall, so our terrorists can attack them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Be careful what you call propaganda...there are A LOT of regular Soxtalk posters who believe EVERYTHING the "palis" say! (You know who they are!) The "palis" are grasping at straws, blaming EVERYTHING on the Jews. Then they have the "balls" to basically say, please make the big, bad Israelis tear down their evil wall, so our terrorists can attack them! So if Canada wanted to build a wall through your yard in Chicago to protect them from all of the pollution and crime, you wouldn't have a problem with that? The problem isn't the wall. The problem it isn't their land! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 So if Canada wanted to build a wall through your yard in Chicago to protect them from all of the pollution and crime, you wouldn't have a problem with that? The problem isn't the wall. The problem it isn't their land! Yeah but it'd be o.k. cause the wall would be made of ice and broken hockey sticks instead of concrete. P.S. that was Canadian land before it was American land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Yeah but it'd be o.k. cause the wall would be made of ice and broken hockey sticks instead of concrete. P.S. that was Canadian land before it was American land. Hey 54'40" or fight Canuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 So if Canada wanted to build a wall through your yard in Chicago to protect them from all of the pollution and crime, you wouldn't have a problem with that? The problem isn't the wall. The problem it isn't their land! The disputed (I will not use the term "occupied") territories, were never Palestinian territories. (They could have been IF Arafat had agreed to Clinton's Peace Initiative, but the "palis" want ALL of Israel, not just the disputed territories; that much is obvious!!!) If the "palis" would EVER show that they respect Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, they might have a nation of their own. Until they do so, the "palis" don't deserve anything! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Yeah but it'd be o.k. cause the wall would be made of ice and broken hockey sticks instead of concrete. P.S. that was Canadian land before it was American land. Geez, quiet down over there in America II. On a lighter note, some my friends went last night to see the movie. I am going to ask them today what they thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Once again John Kass proves why he is the best writer of any of the Chicago columnists. A waitress came up, carrying a pot of coffee, a friendly woman from the South. She wanted to talk about "The Passion of the Christ," Mel Gibson's incredibly powerful film that opens Wednesday, as Christians around the world begin preparing for Easter. "Did you really see `The Passion?'" she asked. Yes, I said. "So should other people see it?" she asked. Yes, if they wish. If they're adults. It's not for children. "You know that feeling you get after a good movie and it's in your head and in your heart?" she asked. "How long does that last?" I could have told her it could last a lifetime, but didn't. Another thing I didn't say was that at the press screening, there was at least one writer unable to move when it was done. Before he got up to leave, he wiped tears from his face. So I just told her that I saw it, as will many. "What's wrong?" she said. I felt strange talking about it, since I have my own difficult struggles with faith. "What makes you different?" the waitress said. "Welcome to the club." As we talked, there in the corner of the snack shop with the lunch-hour rush finished, another waitress came over. Then another. Then the young hostess. "So, how was it?" the young hostess asked. "Is it bloody as they say?" Bloodier, I said. No matter what you've read or heard, it's bloodier and more terrible than you can imagine. They had heard how sadistic the Roman soldiers were in the scourging of Christ. "Well, it happened," the young hostess said. "He took our sins upon himself. He redeemed us by his pain and suffering. That's what he did. So if it's bloody, at least we know why we've got to remind ourselves." I bit hard on my tongue, to keep my face even, to keep my lip from quivering. The waitresses waited there, kindly looking away, until I regained my composure. It strikes me as odd that so much of the media focus has been on Christ's blood in the movie--and, yes, it is bloody. Some seem unwilling or unable to understand the reason for the depiction of so much torture. Some critics think it was overdone. Yet the waitresses understood that Jesus Christ's suffering was necessary. And that it provides context for understanding his compassion, even for those who demanded his crucifixion. The waitresses aren't critics. They work with plates, not words. Yet they understood. "But what did you think?" the first waitress asked. "Because I'm going to see it," she said, "we're all going to see it on Sunday. We're going together, but I'm powerfully worried." About what? "About Christ's pain," she said. "I mean, we know why he had to go through it. But since I'm going to see it, it worries me some. "It worries me that I'll see my poor Jesus suffer so much for me." We talked about other aspects of the movie and the publicity around it, including the charges of anti-Semitism. "The Passion of the Christ" is not anti-Semitic. And though Gibson has been harassed every day in print and on TV and radio as an anti-Semite, from what I saw in the movie, the constant barrage was unfounded and unfair. If you're a Christian, you don't walk out of the movie with an urge to hurt Jews. You walk out in awe of God's love for mankind. "So what's the hardest part to see?" another waitress said. "Not the whipping?" The whipping was gruesome. But the two hardest lines in the movie have nothing to do with blood, which is perhaps why they haven't received much public scrutiny. As Christ is dying upon the cross, the Jewish high priest Caiaphas approaches. Caiaphas mocks Christ, saying that if Jesus is indeed the Messiah, then he could end his suffering by simply coming down from the cross. "Oh, father, forgive them, they know not what they do," Christ says. "Even now, he prays for you," shouts the good thief Dismas at Caiaphas, who was unable to comprehend the love from the mouth of his ruined victim. Blood was not central to that exchange, but it seized me. And there was one other line that is especially unyielding. It takes place in a flashback to the Last Supper, when Christ turns to his disciples and says: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father but through me." I cried when the actor said those words. It is the hardest line in all of Christianity, the center of it all. Some days it appears just within reach, and some days it seems so completely unattainable. [email protected] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Once again John Kass proves why he is the best writer of any of the Chicago columnists. awesome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 those lines may have moved Kass and may move others - from the point of viuew of a movie being an interpretation, that is fine one thing that bothers me greatly is that this movie passes itself off as exactly from the Gospels the movie line spoken to Caiaphas is not anywhere in Scriputre the line from the Last Supper was not said in the Last Supper narrative and there is no record of Caiphas being on calvary mocking Jesus that day anyway that I can recall at all this movie is Mel Gibson's version and it passes itself off as totally from the Gosepls and it is not Ebert's review is very interesting - he likes the movie to give it a thumbs up but his review is most interesting - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 baggio, why not post both of those reviews here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 There is nothing revealing in Ebert's review. He says it is a great, not anti-Semetic movie that happens to be the most violent movie he's ever seen. Certainly nothing contrary to what Kass said. "one thing that bothers me greatly is that this movie passes itself off as exactly from the Gospels" How does the movie do that? Who does that? The official movie website states that it is an ADAPTION of the four gospels. Adaption means based on the Gospels. The TV ads for the movie don't really say much of anything. I've seen Gibson say that it is the story as told in the Gospels. If it isn't exact it is because it is a movie and not a documentary. The movie Eight Men Out is based on the historical facts of the Black Sox Scandal, but being a movie and not a documentary, it takes liberties with words, time frame, and characters, and even actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I am suprised noone picked up on the Aileen Wuornos/Monster facts vs. fictional license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 sorry Bob, you are not a church goer the ads that the churches have been flooded with and the marketing campaign for the film used in the stuff sent to churches makes the claim it is exactly what the Gospel's say which is why so many churches have sold his tickets for his movie which is why they used a purported quote from the pope (which the Vatican denies) that "it is what it is." You can parse that all to hell Bob, and argue what the meaning of "is" is, but I have seen plenty of the way this has been marketed to churches which is one reason it angers me so. I differ with Ebert on some of his comments - thought it was an insightful review and there are plenty out that that see it as antiSemitic, Bob - baggio being open minded posted one of those yesterday at whitesox.com along with the Ebert review Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 sorry Bob, you are not a church goer the ads that the churches have been flooded with and the marketing campaign for the film used in the stuff sent to churches makes the claim it is exactly what the Gospel's say which is why so many churches have sold his tickets for his movie which is why they used a purported quote from the pope (which the Vatican denies) that "it is what it is." You can parse that all to hell Bob, and argue what the meaning of "is" is, but I have seen plenty of the way this has been marketed to churches which is one reason it angers me so. I differ with Ebert on some of his comments - thought it was an insightful review and there are plenty out that that see it as antiSemitic, Bob - baggio being open minded posted one of those yesterday at whitesox.com along with the Ebert review That's fine. You're right, the only things I've seen or heard about the movie are the official ads, website, and the reviews. That and the 200 posts here on the movie. Hence my question. As far as the anti-Semitism, I haven't seen the movie yet, but from reports from people who have, it sounds like the Romans are the ones who come off as the real guilty party, and from those who know about the subject than me, that sounds like the way it should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I wonder what Village Voice's J. Hoberman has to say about it. The man has been right-on a lot in the last 20 years. These peeps, mostly college students and twentysomethings from Canada and US discuss the flick: http://www.fametracker.com/ijsbb/forum.cgi...s=20&s=date&g=0 Just make sure you click "show all messages" on the right -- it will take you back to Feb 17th 2004 when the thread was started. Otherwise, you'll only see what was posted today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.