Jump to content

Talk:The Passion of the Christ: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
JJPII (talk | contribs)
488 edits
JJPII (talk | contribs)
488 edits
Line 199: Line 199:
== The Passion of the Christ: Resurrection - spin off ==
== The Passion of the Christ: Resurrection - spin off ==


The sequel to [[The Passion of the Christ |The Passion]], entitled ''The Passion of the Christ Resurrection'',<ref>{{cite website |title=Mel Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' Sequel Titled 'Resurrection' |url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mel-gibsons-passion-christ-sequel-titled-resurrection-943363}}</ref> ought to have its own page. The Passion was a huge success and its sequel should get the proper attention. [[Jim Caviezel]] is saying that the sequel will be "the biggest film in history."<ref>{{cite website |title=New 'Passion of the Christ' will be 'the biggest film in history,' Jim Caviezel promises |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2018/01/29/jim-caviezel-jesus-christ-passion-sequel/1074871001/}}</ref> Further, there is a lot of information out there in the public arena, and definitely enough to make an interesting page about it. For example, it has been reported that Jim Caviezel will reprise his role as Jesus,<ref>{{cite website |title=Jesus returns: Jim Caviezel to reprise his role in sequel to ‘Passion of the Christ’ |url=https://aleteia.org/blogs/deacon-greg-kandra/jesus-returns-jim-caviezel-to-reprise-his-role-in-sequel-to-passion-of-the-christ/}}</ref> [[Maia Morgenstern]] will return as the [[Blessed Virgin Mary]], and [[Christo Jivkov]] and [[Francesco De Vito]] will return as [[John the Evangelist |St. John]] and [[St. Peter]], respectively.<ref>{{IMDb title|5795232}}</ref> In addition, [[Mel Gibson]] is set to direct it,<ref>{{cite website |title=Mel Gibson confirms 'Passion of the Christ' sequel |url=https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/mel-gibson-confirms-passion-of-the-christ-sequel}}</ref> and is teaming up with [[Braveheart]] [[screenplay writer]], [[Randall Wallace]],<ref>{{cite website |title=Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ sequel to be called The Resurrection |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/hollywood/mel-gibson-s-passion-of-the-christ-sequel-to-be-called-the-resurrection/story-XnUyqyDFtQAtJYQ45vghLL.html}}</ref> who co-wrote ''The Resurrection'' screenplay with Gibson.
The sequel to [[The Passion of the Christ |The Passion]], entitled ''The Passion of the Christ Resurrection'',<ref>{{cite website |title=Mel Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' Sequel Titled 'Resurrection' |url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mel-gibsons-passion-christ-sequel-titled-resurrection-943363}}</ref> ought to have its own page. The Passion was a huge success and its sequel should get the proper attention. [[Jim Caviezel]] is saying that the sequel will be "the biggest film in history."<ref>{{cite website |title=New 'Passion of the Christ' will be 'the biggest film in history,' Jim Caviezel promises |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2018/01/29/jim-caviezel-jesus-christ-passion-sequel/1074871001/}}</ref> Further, there is a lot of information out there in the public arena, and definitely enough to make an interesting page about it. For example, it has been reported that Jim Caviezel will reprise his role as [[Jesus]],<ref>{{cite website |title=Jesus returns: Jim Caviezel to reprise his role in sequel to ‘Passion of the Christ’ |url=https://aleteia.org/blogs/deacon-greg-kandra/jesus-returns-jim-caviezel-to-reprise-his-role-in-sequel-to-passion-of-the-christ/}}</ref> [[Maia Morgenstern]] will return as the [[Blessed Virgin Mary]], and [[Christo Jivkov]] and [[Francesco De Vito]] will return as [[John the Evangelist |St. John]] and [[St. Peter]], respectively.<ref>{{IMDb title|5795232}}</ref> In addition, [[Mel Gibson]] is set to direct it,<ref>{{cite website |title=Mel Gibson confirms 'Passion of the Christ' sequel |url=https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/mel-gibson-confirms-passion-of-the-christ-sequel}}</ref> and is teaming up with [[Braveheart]] [[screenplay writer]], [[Randall Wallace]],<ref>{{cite website |title=Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ sequel to be called The Resurrection |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/hollywood/mel-gibson-s-passion-of-the-christ-sequel-to-be-called-the-resurrection/story-XnUyqyDFtQAtJYQ45vghLL.html}}</ref> who co-wrote ''The Resurrection'' screenplay with Gibson.


However, just like ''The Passion'', ''The Resurrection'' is already stirring up controversy. Some are concerned and dismayed that Mel Gibson is going to direct another film, others are worried about the alleged antisemitism in ''The Passion'' may continue in the sequel.<ref>{{cite website |title=Mel Gibson Is Making Passion Of The Christ 2. Here’s Why You Should Be Worried. |url=https://forward.com/schmooze/393410/mel-gibson-is-making-passion-of-the-christ-2-you-should-be-worried/}}</ref> In addition, some are saying that ''The Resurrection'' will have obstacles that ''The Passion'' didn't have to worry about.<ref>{{cite website |title=Mel Gibson’s sequel to The Passion of the Christ will face challenges its predecessor didn’t |url=https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/31/16955448/passion-of-christ-sequel-mel-gibson-jim-caviezel-hell}}</ref>
However, just like ''The Passion'', ''The Resurrection'' is already stirring up controversy. Some are concerned and dismayed that Mel Gibson is going to direct another film, others are worried about the alleged antisemitism in ''The Passion'' may continue in the sequel.<ref>{{cite website |title=Mel Gibson Is Making Passion Of The Christ 2. Here’s Why You Should Be Worried. |url=https://forward.com/schmooze/393410/mel-gibson-is-making-passion-of-the-christ-2-you-should-be-worried/}}</ref> In addition, some are saying that ''The Resurrection'' will have obstacles that ''The Passion'' didn't have to worry about.<ref>{{cite website |title=Mel Gibson’s sequel to The Passion of the Christ will face challenges its predecessor didn’t |url=https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/31/16955448/passion-of-christ-sequel-mel-gibson-jim-caviezel-hell}}</ref>

Revision as of 19:35, 7 February 2020

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 19, 2008Peer reviewReviewed

"Woman dies during screening"

I don't see how this section, while interesting, can possibly be relevant. Firstly, with the total time spent in cinemas and the incidence of death from heart attack, it must happen regularly. Secondly, it says nothing about the film in question. Thirdly, I doubt this has been reported about any other film. The Daily Mail says that Cate Blanchett's father died of a heart attack in a cinema, but doesn't bother to state which film he was seeing. Fourthly, there is no connection made in the article between the death and the film, except for a vague statement that critics have used the death as an argument against the film. That might be because of the violence, but certainly the official sources didn't make that connection. Hence the section really ought to go. StAnselm (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the info interesting and relevant. as I said. Hence, my suggestion WP:3O. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Based on the available evidence, this doesn't warrant inclusion. It would be worth including if it were used to criticize, say, the level of violence in the movie but that is not the case. Of the three references provided, two are mere news items that reported the death at the time the incident took place and are of marginal value. The third is not available online so we don't know what it says. Regardless, that would be just one reference and probably not a reliable one at that (there appear to be many Catholic Heralds). I suggest removing that section in its entirety. --rgpk (comment) 23:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been so removed. Never particularly liked it myself. Always seemed like it was purely for shock value and given undue weight.oknazevad (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no big deal. Time to move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by User:71.239.128.44

The recent edits by this user have not been particularly constructive. Will this editor please note that all claims must be backed up by a reliable source in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. More problematic is that the edit is also removing a reference that is used to source a pre-existing claim in the article, which leaves that claim in the state of being unsourced. If the editor does not know how to add sources, another editor can add them for him if he provides them with the text they are being used to source on this talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the section on the 'devotional writings' just putting a Jesuit's position from the Jesuit magazine 'America' leaves an incredible slant. First off his view of the movie was as a film critic not a theologian. Second every Catholic knows that 'America' and the Jesuits are so anti magesterium that a balanced article would conversly quote the other side which I did w/ a quote from the Cardinal Newman Soc. I assume the author of the magazine quote was taking advantage of laymen, non-Catholics & ignorant Catholics. Either way the deletion of a legit quote doesn't seem Wikipdiesh or can I also assume that my source isn't considered legit? If so please recommend a more palatable reference. & yes I don't know the tech way to set up a footnote on this but either way deleting a cited reference is equally unpalatable
Regarding the section on ancient languages used under the 'Controversies' section, now this is totally in the relm of purely objective facts of history. As a phd in Roman history and the work I cited, it is well known that Latin was used, albeit in a limited manner which is what I changed the wording from "improbable" to 'limited'. And not only is it well established that some Latin was used in doing business w/ Rome but it's safely assumed Christ himself was semi conversant. To lable this as a controvery belies certain misleadings of the general laity to heap on so called issues w/ the movie from various academic and clerical fields that just don't exist in an effort that through shear weight the public can be brainwashed. Please tell that at least on this totally objective, well established fact on language this can't even be corrected. I'll contact the other administrator as well about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.128.44 (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have still failed to address the reasons for why your edits were reversed. In the case of the first part of your edit, it is irrelevant what you think of America Magazine. A the end of the day it is a national publication and a reliable source. An organization blog is not reliable per WP:SPS. The second part of your edit is borderline vandalism, since you keep removing a reference that is used to source a claim, and replace it with another unsourced claim, resulting in two unsourced pieces of information. Please stop removing the source, and provide a WP:RELIABLESOURCE] for the information you have added. Betty Logan (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Betty Logan and will note that this IP was blocked and then resumed to run against policy. History2007 (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys we've added more references/cites & even softened some points but our points are in the historic record for both changes & the point at the beginning about Catholics questionning where we added "some" is just modifying another opinion which by the way you said were irrelevant. Tell us what was wrong with using Reilly, Weigel and Nagle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.128.44 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP has received a 31h block for EW. Hopefully when they return they'll be willing to more thoroughly discuss their desired edits to the article before implementing them and will read up on how to properly cite sources. Doniago (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • For their benefit I am going to through each part of their edit, since they don't seem to appreciate the problems with it:
  1. scholar and author George Weigal asserts the Church does not know which is true the life of Emmerich is one that practiced the "athleticism of Christ regardless of conjecture – This is poorly written and doesn't make any sense. That particular section is discussing the legitimacy of the Brentano text that the film is partially based on, and the edit seems to be a non sequitur.
  2. 'The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God', Basic Books, 2005 – Even if the previous sentence was a valid addition to the article, the reference for it has mutliple problems. It notably omits an author and a page number, which are both vital for the source to be WP:VERIFIABLE. The reference is poorly formatted too, although if we have all the details another editor can address that problem. For further advice on how to add a reference see WP:CITEFOOT.
  3. Patrick J Reilly of The Cardinal Newman Society "found the devotional writings inspiring and historically faithful to the life of Emmerich" and most Jesuit positions outside the magesterium, especially from magazine film critic priests claiming authority in canonical matters. 2/28/04 Cardinal Newman Society Blog. – Again, the sentence is poorly structured. What exactly is Reilly stating about the Jesuit position? Regardless, the claim is not properly sourced, and in any case blogs are not reliable sources as per WP:BLOGS.
  4. Latin was mainly spoken by the elites to do business with Rome, legions worth of troops and administrators during this early period of Roman administration. Use of Latin ended after Heraclius' reign during the early Eastern Roman (Byzantine) period. While Greek was used more often elite natives certainly were conversant while it's safe to assume Christ was familiar enough to be functional. DB Nagle, The Ancient World – Inserting a claim between another claim and the reference that sources it is simply unacceptable. For a start, the new claim is still unsourced, but this type of editing looks deceptive because it is made to look like the new content being added is referenced by the source currently in the article, when this is not the case. If you want to add this claim to the article, it needs to be referenced by a WP:RELIABLESOURCE, and the claim should be added after the pre-existing claim and source i.e. you should not add a new claim to the article in such a way that a current claim is split from its source.
Before making any further edits to the article I strongly suggest you propose them here first, by including the exact wording and the source and obtain a WP:CONSENSUS. Betty Logan (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning Strikes

the BBC article in question is unattributed (no author) hence unacceptable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3209223.stm

also, the claims are unverified.

furthermore (from the article), this sounds like bollocks: "I'm about a hundred feet away from them when I glance over and see smoke coming out of Caviezel's ears."

i mean seriously... you didn't notice the giant lightning crack? your ears weren't blown out by the subsequent shockwave? dafuk... not to mention you weren't blinded? how on earth did you notice that... 70.54.38.145 (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced that source with two others. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second Highest Grossing Rated R movie.

Passion of the Christ will be Second Highest Grossing Rated R movie because of matrix reloaded Rated R movie grossed $742,128,461 source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix_Reloaded Passion of the Christ grossed $611,899,420 which will become Second Highest Grossing Rated R movie after Matrix Reloaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram nareshji (talk • contribs) 15:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

· I was just checking this again in the light of Deadpool's recent performance at the box office. According to BoxOfficeMojo.com[1] The Passion of the Christ still has the highest US domestic gross of an R-rated film, above Deadpool, American Sniper and The Matrix Reloaded as of 19/4/2017 Meddlingmonk (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm?page=R&p=.htm

Languages in 1 cent Palistine.

The majority of NT scholars would not agree that Greek was the defacto language in 1 cent Palestine. The majority of the native population would have spoken Aramaic. The Roman soldiers latin. Greek would have been only used by the very elite in the society. This is well documented in text by Ehrman, Metzger and others. This part of the article should be reviewed against scholarly works, not doctrine.

C1 Palestine? "Palestine" (Syria Palestina) wasn't invented until 135 146.198.237.183 (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Passion of the Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ft. 86

Citation/Footnote 86 is presented as being a public statement made by the USCCB & the ADL. When I clicked on the link the article referenced shows the cited text to be only the personal opinion of one of the participants of the joint dicussion between the USCCB & the ADL. Therefore I am going to change the article to reflect that fact. Here is the citation: Pawlikowski, John T. (February 2004). "Christian Anti-Semitism: Past History, Present Challenges Reflections in Light of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ". Journal of Religion and Film. Here is the linked article: http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/2004Symposium/Pawlikowski.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.214.133 (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That "personal opinion" is actually a report of the scholarly consensus. Reverted. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Passion of the Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Passion of the Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Passion of the Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Passion of the Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Passion of the Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inexplicable Reverts...

FlightTime OK, I don't get your argument about how I didn't cite reliable sources, because I didn't add any new sources in any of my edits on this page at all. That aside, I don't get why you would possibly want to revert all of my edits on this page because they merely edited, updated, or removed some things that needed to be edited/updated/removed (especially my addition of the "Citation needed" tag and the removal of the unnecessary MPAA rating that was out of context and is discussed in a different section anyway).--Neateditor123 (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123[reply]

I am simply questioning your source. If others think the source is Ok and reliable, then I'm good with it. Stop drama mongering. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FlightTime What do you mean by "source" anyway? Just wondering as that would probably clear up a lot of issues here. Again, I see nothing wrong with my edits and don't see any reason why they shouldn't remain on the page.--Neateditor123 (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123[reply]

Sequel Filming

I am aware that the sequel is currently filming in top secrecy because this was revealed in local Spanish language news outlets a while ago as beginning May 10th for a projected Easter 2020 release, given the movie is being filmed in the same locations as the original film and Gibson has made it a top secret project again. But can we please have direct confirmation the production is actually occurring? I cannot find an English source yet and the original Spanish source is difficult to relocate. Thanks. Colliric (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Passion of the Christ: Resurrection - spin off

The sequel to The Passion, entitled The Passion of the Christ Resurrection,[1] ought to have its own page. The Passion was a huge success and its sequel should get the proper attention. Jim Caviezel is saying that the sequel will be "the biggest film in history."[2] Further, there is a lot of information out there in the public arena, and definitely enough to make an interesting page about it. For example, it has been reported that Jim Caviezel will reprise his role as Jesus,[3] Maia Morgenstern will return as the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Christo Jivkov and Francesco De Vito will return as St. John and St. Peter, respectively.[4] In addition, Mel Gibson is set to direct it,[5] and is teaming up with Braveheart screenplay writer, Randall Wallace,[6] who co-wrote The Resurrection screenplay with Gibson.

However, just like The Passion, The Resurrection is already stirring up controversy. Some are concerned and dismayed that Mel Gibson is going to direct another film, others are worried about the alleged antisemitism in The Passion may continue in the sequel.[7] In addition, some are saying that The Resurrection will have obstacles that The Passion didn't have to worry about.[8]

Lastly Jim Caviezel has also said that The Passion of the Christ: Resurrection will "Shock the audience."[9] Also, Mel Gibson has said, in an interview with Steven Colbert, that it might include Jesus's decent into Hell[10] and, in an interview with Raymond Arroyo, that it would include a flashback to the fall of the angels.[11]

  1. ^ "Mel Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' Sequel Titled 'Resurrection'".
  2. ^ "New 'Passion of the Christ' will be 'the biggest film in history,' Jim Caviezel promises".
  3. ^ "Jesus returns: Jim Caviezel to reprise his role in sequel to 'Passion of the Christ'".
  4. ^ The Passion of the Christ at IMDb
  5. ^ "Mel Gibson confirms 'Passion of the Christ' sequel".
  6. ^ "Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ sequel to be called The Resurrection".
  7. ^ "Mel Gibson Is Making Passion Of The Christ 2. Here's Why You Should Be Worried".
  8. ^ "Mel Gibson's sequel to The Passion of the Christ will face challenges its predecessor didn't".
  9. ^ "Mel Gibson's Controversal 'Passion of the Christ' to get Sequel That Will 'Shock the Audience,' Jim Caviezel Says".
  10. ^ "Mel Gibson Confirms Sequel To 'Passion Of The Christ'" (Interview).
  11. ^ "Mel Gibson on "The Resurrection" movie script" (Interview).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Passion_of_the_Christ&oldid=939644847"