Shorter, Less Violent "Passion"
A shorter, less violent cut of "The Passion of the Christ" will be released on March 11th in most major markets, according to Variety. Titled "The Passion Recut," the new version will have 5 to 6 mins of its most violent scenes removed. Mel Gibson hopes to capture the audience segment who skipped the original movie due to its depiction of violence with this new cut. "Recut" will be released unrated because even with some of the scenes removed, it will still get an "R" by the rating board. There is also talk to bring the movie back to theaters every Easter.
Related Items
| Celeb: | Mel Gibson |
| Movie: | The Passion of the Christ |
(1-20 of 58 posts) | Reply
on Feb 10 2005 11:59 PM What's this? An admission from Gibson himself that this film was over-the-top and extremely violent? Buddha be praised! This fim is sick, disturbing, and misses the point. It was relief for me to see very few Oscar nominations for this glorified snuff film. Here's hoping it fades away to obscurity...but, knowing the Christian wackos, it won't. (Reply to this) |
|
on Feb 11 2005 02:56 AM [b]or maybe[/b] This is just an excuse to re-release the movie. (Reply to this) |
on Feb 11 2005 07:22 AM Oh no. An unrated version that actually misses certain scenes? Awkward..... Anyway, the film blew. (Reply to this) |
on Feb 11 2005 07:36 AM In reply to this comment (#819661) [b]christian wackos?[/b] Christian wackos? From a guy called Elessar? It's better to be a Christian wacko, than a Lord of the Rings one. (Reply to this) |
|
on Feb 11 2005 07:56 AM Ok, Elessar. We get it. You have free speech. That doesn't mean you have to use it to offend people. Unless you actually like being closed-minded. And what's with this "missed the point" stuff? How much of YOUR life has been spent studying Jesus? Regarding the Passion, I think this is a good idea, regardless of your opinion of the film as an art piece. The violence didn't bug me, but I can see how it would turn a lot of people off. (Reply to this) |
|
on Feb 11 2005 08:16 AM [b]was this really necesarry?[/b] this may not be the best place to start a first impression, but i felt inclined to post to this particular thread. if this was truley the passion uncut, then all the violence would be cut out not just 5 or 6 minutes. i admit as an avid horror movie fan, that this film achieved making me nausious from the violence portrayed in mel gibson's interpretation. but then i thought this must have been how it happened. if gibson really wants to educate people on this and not make a profit for himself, then he should be showing this for free. i.m.h.o. being a christian by birth, but not out to change the world to my beliefs, i am glad that gibson made the changes to his film so that the squeamish can finally see his work about jesus, but am sadddened to think that if he was really this passionate about this story he would not be going out for the big bucks. (Reply to this) |
on Feb 11 2005 09:29 AM In reply to this comment (#819661) But the splatter is what made the original so damn FUNNY! (Reply to this) |
on Feb 11 2005 01:06 PM [b]You Can't Cash In On Jesus[/b] C'mon, The Passion without gore? Now, I am not some right-wing Christian, in fact I'm closer to aetheism than Cathlocism, but I saw The Passion and appreciated for what it was. It wasn't an uplifting movie, it was a gritty look at a popular belief. Whether or not it was my belief had no effect on my viewing. However, for using it as a documentary in Christian and Catholic schools, a toned down version would be a good idea. Just don't cash-in and market it widely. I never thought I'd say this, but you can't cash in on Jesus. (Reply to this) |
|
on Feb 11 2005 01:35 PM In reply to this comment (#819664) [b]I think not[/b] At Lord of Rings wackos admit its fantasy. Christians acutally believe there is truth to all that nonsense. (Reply to this) |
|
on Feb 11 2005 01:37 PM [b]why mel??[/b] the Passion was an OK movie that seemed to reliey upon the shock of the violence in order to get its message across. now without the violence it seems that Mel's just trying to cash in by attracting the younger audience that couldnt get in before who arw wondering what its all about. convienient how its so close to easter too, agaion trying to attract the religous crowd who feel the need to be "inspired" by christ's struggle (Reply to this) |
on Feb 11 2005 01:54 PM What's next, editing Hayden Christiensen's face over Judas? I enjoyed The Passion (and I'm an agnostic) but this is just a pathetic cash-in for the same people that buy full frame DVDs and The Lion King 2. "There is also talk to bring the movie back to theaters every Easter." Even Jesus would probably find that ridiculous. This may be the most authentic Jesus movie out there, but it sure as hell isn't one I'd want to watch every year on a religious holiday even if I was a Christian. If they're going to do that, then they might as well make some sappy preachy feel good crap and release that every year instead. (Reply to this) |
|
on Feb 11 2005 04:11 PM I don't think the Passion in theaters every Easter is gonna fly. That's what DVDs are for. I get the feeling that was part of a press release testing the waters more than a serious suggestion. And yeah, I'm sure none of you would want to make ANY money on months worth of work, paid for out of your own pockets. To quote kenporules, "even Jesus would probably find that rediculous." The bottom line is, if you disliked/hated the Passion this won't make any difference in your lives. If you liked it, either as a movie or a religous piece, it's good news. As far as Lord of the Rings goes, you all do know Tolkien was a serious Catholic, don't you? Look it up. So as allegory, LOTR is, you know, Christian. Sorry to burst your little AD&D agnostic fantasy bubbles, but that's the way it is. (Reply to this) |
|
on Feb 11 2005 05:21 PM In reply to this comment (#819672) Prof. Tolkien clearly stated in his foreword that it was neither an allegory for his personal beliefs nor for the world war. once again the bubble defies the odds and stays intact! :D (Reply to this) |
|
on Feb 11 2005 08:00 PM [b]Who cares?[/b] Powerful movie when I saw it, crap when I rewatched it. It's a one-timer for me. "We get it. You have free speech..." -ninjaandy Damn right he does. (Reply to this) |
|
on Feb 11 2005 08:13 PM The reason that he would want to re-release the film during Easter is so people would remember exactly what it was that Jesus did. If some individuals want to complain or even mock the gore, then I would say they are clearly missing the intent (and that is not good at all). The purpose of the movie is to make an impression in our minds as to exactly what really did happen. Often times people get the idea that Jesus is a story and nothing more. They would be wrong. The crucifixion really did happen and it wasn't a pretty bed-time story you tell your kids right after finishing up a Dr. Sues book. The pessimism on this thread is almost unbearable. If Gibson cuts out the worst of the gore, it isn't so he can make more money. I'm sure he has plenty already. It would be to draw in those that are more squeamish––not to pick their pockets––but to reach out to them in a way that doesn't make them want to vomit. Ellesar: I'm sure you've got your pie in the sky idea of what the Passion is "really" supposed to mean. But whatever it is I suggest you just ignore it. Too bad...I suppose you'll go on staring at the shadows on the wall and call it real. (Reply to this) |
on Feb 12 2005 07:12 AM [b]More money?[/b] Mel Gibson never did The Passion for money. He did as a personnal project and never anticipated a success at the box-office. It was a project of faith, a project of evangelization. As a Catholic, I think it's a great idea for Mel Gibson to release the film every year for Lent, if only to help Christians meditate on the central mystery of their faith. One other thing : Mel Gibson did not promote financially his film for Oscar nominations. If it was "glory" or "money" he was after, he could easily have done that. Nor did he release any "Director's Cut DVD" or "Special Edition DVD" full of extras. The DVD is as plain as it gets. (Reply to this) |
|
on Feb 12 2005 08:27 AM In reply to this comment (#819675) I wouldn't go as far as to say, "The purpose of the movie is to make an impression in our minds as to exactly what really did happen." No one truly knows EXACTLY how it happened. (Reply to this) |
|
on Feb 12 2005 09:04 AM Wow. Never thought I'd strike up such furvor over a little Christian put down. Settle, relax...go back to glueing Jesus fish to your cars and beating up homosexuals or whatever the hell it is you people do. As for my name being from LOTR, it's called a login name. It's not real. I'm NOT a big LOTR nut. I liked the films, but so did most people. I just thought the name sounded interesting. The point of this whole post is to point out the irony of Mr. Gibson cutting the violence from his film when he defended it so "passionately" last spring. I, for one, refuse to give Gibson much credit anymore. Not since I saw an interview with him where he admitted thinking that his wife (his wife!) was going to hell because she didn't believe what he believed. Does this make any kind of logical sense? What kind of person is he? This just shoes the hypocrasy of most organized religions. Are we really supposed to believe (Catholics, I'm talking to YOU) that you will go to eternal hell if you eat meat on Fridays? What kind of "loving, merciful God" would do that? Wake up and join the rest of us in the 21st century, please! (Reply to this) |
|
on Feb 12 2005 10:52 AM Elessar, where can I see that interview? Cuz that would be crazy, if he said it like you say he did. Somehow I get the feeling you missed something, though. No, you don't go to hell for eating meat on Fridays. You go to hell for telling God to stick it. But it's so much more complicated than this thread would allow. If you really care, go to catholic.com and look around. Hanniballistic . . . yeah. Free Speech . . . damn right . . . way to add to the discussion there. Shadow, I'd agree, except Tolkien himself wrote: "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision." (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, ed. Humphrey Carpenter, London: Allen & Unwin, 1981, p. 172) If you really want to know about Tolkien, read it. You will be enlightened. Also, Joseph Pearce's Tolkien: Man and Myth. Great stuff. Totally off topic, though. So what have we established: I'm a crazy Catholic nutjob, Elessar is an expert on Christian beliefs despite his not actually knowing them, and Mel Gibson may or may not like earning money. Oh, and free speech exists. Thanks, hannibal. Man, I am such a jerk. (Reply to this) |
|
on Feb 12 2005 12:36 PM In reply to this comment (#819679) I saw that interview on Primetime Live with Diane Sawyer. It was probably the biggest interview before the Passion's release. Diane was pressing Mel on the tenants of his belief system and he came up with the logical gem that his beloved wife was going to hell, according to his church. I'm suprised he's still married after that one. No, I don't care to learn more. Thanks for the offer though. But it would help if anyone could explain to me the purpose of not eating meat on Fridays. I'm certainly not an expert on Christian beliefs...I gave up trying to understand them a long time ago. I was raised with strict attendance to a Southern Baptist church. Pretty amazing I left without believing any of it. Guess my Sunday School teacher got frustrated at me asking all sorts of logical, science based questions. And then there's the whole thing with me teaching middle school science and having to stifle laughter whenever a kid admits he believes the "theory" of creation. (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |
Related Links
Related Articles
-
Mel Gibson Plans a Mexican Vacation
(4)
-
Gibson and DiCaprio are Going Norse
(26)
-
Mel Gibson Heading to Mexico
(3)
-
Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster Reunite for The Beaver
(11)
-
Edge of Darkness Image Posted
(0)
-
Donner: Lethal Weapon 5 "Dead in the Water"
(7)
- Further Reading: Marion Cotillard and Forest Whittaker in Abel Ferrara's Mary (3)
-
Lethal Weapon 5 Awaits Mel's Approval
(6)
-
Three More Follow Gibson to the Edge of Darkness
(2)
-
Lethal Weapon 5 on the Way?
(17)
Most Discussed
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Avatar, Sherlock, and Alvin Team Up To Break Records (359)
- Critics Choose Must-Sees and Worsts of 2009 (181)
- RT Editors Choose Their Favorite Films of 2009! (122)
- RT's Ten Most Popular Movies of 2009 (54)
- Weekly Ketchup: Peter Jackson's Secret Sci-Fi Project (37)
- Total Recall: New Year's Eve Movies (33)
- RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: 9 and Paranormal Activity (31)
- Critics Consensus: The White Ribbon Is Certified Fresh (15)
- Friday Harvest: Sherlock Holmes, Toy Story 3, and more! (10)
- What We're Watching on Blu-ray from 20th Century Fox! (2)
Latest News
- Critics Consensus: The White Ribbon Is Certified Fresh (15)
- RT's 2010 Movie Preview -- Happy New Year! (0)
- RT's Ten Most Popular Movies of 2009 (54)
- Total Recall: New Year's Eve Movies (33)
- Critics Choose Must-Sees and Worsts of 2009 (182)
- RT Editors Choose Their Favorite Films of 2009! (122)
- What We're Watching on Blu-ray from 20th Century Fox! (2)
- RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: 9 and Paranormal Activity (31)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Avatar, Sherlock, and Alvin Team Up To Break Records (359)
- Weekly Ketchup: Peter Jackson's Secret Sci-Fi Project (37)
Latest Interviews
- Five Favorite Films With Peter Jackson (72)
- Robert Downey Jr. talks Sherlock Holmes & Iron Man 2 - RT Interview (21)
- Director Ruben Fleischer Talks Zombieland (2)
- "I Don't Hate Women": Lars von Trier on Antichrist (17)
- Eric Bana talks Love the Beast - RT Interview (12)
- Fight Club Sound Designer Reflects on Film's 10th Anniversary (24)
- James Schamus talks Taking Woodstock - RT Interview (8)
- John Hurt Talks Harry Potter, Quentin Crisp and Alien - The RT Interview (16)
- Terry Gilliam Talks Doctor Parnassus (24)
- Wes Anderson Talks Fantastic Mr. Fox - RT Interview (9)
Latest Features
- RT's Best of the Decade! (189)
- Five Favorite Films With Peter Jackson (72)
- The Effects of Where the Wild Things Are (37)
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 2 (8)
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 1 (37)
- Five Favorite Films With Avatar's Sam Worthington (60)
- Exclusive: The World of Where the Wild Things Are (10)
- Sundance 2010: RT's 10 Most Anticipated Movies (44)
- 10 Horrifically Profitable Films (48)
- Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies (108)
RSS Feeds