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.

Comments

Elessar Oronro

Joss Whedon

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.

Feb 10 - 11:59 PM

jeanpaul

solomon sassoon

[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.

Feb 11 - 07:36 AM

Brianpro

Brian Prothero

[b]I think not[/b]
At Lord of Rings wackos admit its fantasy. Christians acutally believe there is truth to all that nonsense.

Feb 11 - 01:35 PM

scarh791

Tom Ivers

But the splatter is what made the original so damn FUNNY!

Feb 11 - 09:29 AM

MadameBovary

Robert Smatheson

[b]or maybe[/b]
This is just an excuse to re-release the movie.

Feb 11 - 02:56 AM

The Iron Invader

Matthew D.

Oh no. An unrated version that actually misses certain scenes? Awkward.....

Anyway, the film blew.

Feb 11 - 07:22 AM

jeanpaul

solomon sassoon

[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.

Feb 11 - 07:36 AM

Brianpro

Brian Prothero

[b]I think not[/b]
At Lord of Rings wackos admit its fantasy. Christians acutally believe there is truth to all that nonsense.

Feb 11 - 01:35 PM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

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.

Feb 11 - 07:56 AM

245_trioxin

thomas carter

[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.

Feb 11 - 08:16 AM

scarh791

Tom Ivers

But the splatter is what made the original so damn FUNNY!

Feb 11 - 09:29 AM

JimD73

John Donohue

[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.

Feb 11 - 01:06 PM

Brianpro

Brian Prothero

[b]I think not[/b]
At Lord of Rings wackos admit its fantasy. Christians acutally believe there is truth to all that nonsense.

Feb 11 - 01:35 PM

polnikes

josh tavenor

[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

Feb 11 - 01:37 PM

kenporules

Tim K

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.

Feb 11 - 01:54 PM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

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.

Feb 11 - 04:11 PM

the_shadow

Zayed Khan

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

Feb 11 - 05:21 PM

the_shadow

Zayed Khan

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

Feb 11 - 05:21 PM

Hanniballistic

Ryan Berry

[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.

Feb 11 - 08:00 PM

Writer_x

A.J. Bernhagen

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.

Feb 11 - 08:13 PM

Hanniballistic

Ryan Berry

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.

Feb 12 - 08:27 AM

Jarofclay74

Benoit Morrier

[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.

Feb 12 - 07:12 AM

Hanniballistic

Ryan Berry

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.

Feb 12 - 08:27 AM

Elessar Oronro

Joss Whedon

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!

Feb 12 - 09:04 AM

jeanpaul

solomon sassoon

[b]This sensitive?[/b]
Wow, King! The first lines in your post PROVE exactly how close-minded, wrong-convention ridden, and LOUD are exactly those 'enlightened', quick to join the perfect and just 21'st century, people in TRUTH really ARE! Go on finger pointing, pal... Well, I'm gonna go glue a Jesus fish to my car now... Just so you feel comfy...

Feb 14 - 05:37 AM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

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.

Feb 12 - 10:52 AM

Elessar Oronro

Joss Whedon

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.

Feb 12 - 12:36 PM

cabezone

First Last

Why do people continue to "debate" religion? It's not a debate. You either choose to beleive in things that are not acutally provable or testable, or you don't.

You change the minds of people who "believe". Religion is based in believing things that are not provable. It's called "faith". If someone believes that the mighty Thor guides their actions, whatever.

Feb 12 - 01:21 PM

scottybarkbark

jonathan watterman

[b]elassar[/b]
are you sure your sunday school teacher got frustrated asking you "logical, science based" questions or got frustrated having to deal with a close minded lil twerp like yourself. as for creationism i believe in that whole heartedly, i support the belief that a loving intelligent creator created us rather than the theory of evolution which you evolutionists would rather us believe.

Feb 12 - 06:34 PM

cabezone

First Last

How is choosing not to believe in fairy tales closed minded? The bible is simply one of the worlds oldest fantasy book, a very important and powerful book, but a fairy tale nonetheless.

Feb 13 - 03:37 AM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

Cabezone, closed-mindedness can also refer to your approach to Christians (or all religious people), not just Christianity.

A fairy tale is a story told for purely symbolic purposes, or in a more modern sense, mostly for entertainment. The Bible is neither. The writers had specific points in mind when they wrote, and the Church Fathers who compiled the books and letters of the New Testament did so based on, in part, what would provide the most accurate picture of Christ, His teachings, and the teachings of His closest followers.

We can debate all day about what parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally, historically, typologically, or whatever, but it's inaccurate even from a non-believer's standpoint to define it as a "fairy tale." The writers had no intention to entertain; they didn't believe in most cases that their writings were "symbolic" in the way we mean that. Biblical scholars can learn these things the same way they do about other ancient histories: studying the culture, linguistics, society, and if possible, the writers themselves.

Besides which, occurences in the Bible are independently verified by outside sources, including other historians that had nothing to do with Christians, or outright hated them. I mean, there's more purely historical proofs for the Bible's accuracy in conveying history than we have for other works that no one questions.

This is a very vague defense, on purpose. Like with the other issues we've discussed, I don't think this particular thread has the patience for a full on Biblical debate. But let me ask you this: have you even read through the entire New Testament? You should, if for no other reason than to be educated about what it actually says and how it's actually written.

Feb 13 - 08:20 AM

cabezone

First Last

You at least know the world is flat right?

Feb 13 - 11:36 AM

Elessar Oronro

Joss Whedon

She got frustrated with my questions because I wanted PROOF...you know, that little thing with evidence attached to it? I cannot, and will not, accept anything on faith. I just can't. I demand that my students provide evidence to support their hypothesis, otherwise it's invalid and they fail. If only religion had to measure up to same stringent requirements. Think about this, scottybarkbark, if you think I'm so closed-minded: what if you took a child, raised him as normally as possible, in an average loving household, but denied him any exposure to organized religion. Then, when he turned 18, you gave him the Bible. Do you think he would believe one word of what he was reading? Of course not! It'd be like believing all those Weekly World News reports you see in the checkout line. People BELIEVE religion because they've had it slammed into their head from the moment they were born. Or they are "born again" as adults because they were weak, booze drinking morons. Logical, sensible adults don't believe in these fairy tales. Religion is holding the human race back from evolving. Think how many fewer wars and conflicts we would have if everyone just subscribed to scientific, logical thinking.

Feb 13 - 10:15 PM

scottybarkbark

jonathan watterman

TEELL ME ELESSAR WHERE IS THE PROOF EVOLUTION HAPPENED? HMMM? I HAVE ONLY SEEN THEORIES ON HOW EVOLUTION MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED? OH AND ITS FAIRLY SAD WHEN YOU CANNOT TAKE SOMETHING ON FAITH.

Feb 14 - 07:50 AM

the_shadow

Zayed Khan

thanks. thats quite a contradiction to what he wrote for the 2nd edition, but i suppose ppl have a habit of being fickle.

Feb 12 - 03:57 PM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

You're right about that, and I suppose it makes sense. He did say in that letter that it was "unconciously" religious at first. What he apparently meant by that was that his faith was so deeply ingrained in him it came out in his work, and only after much consideration did he realize how much it resembled Catholic teachings. He then promoted that understanding when asked.

I also think I shouldn't have used the word "allegory," which as a specific meaning. Sorry about that (a little imprecision causes a lot of problems . . .) He didn't necessarily mean LOTR was a direct symbolic representation of Christianity, or was meant to express Church doctrine. Honestly, his linguistic and Nordic studies were, you could argue, equally important elements along with his religion in the formation of the story.

I think my only point (if you could call it that) was that all the Christian bashers that liked LOTR were unwittingly being hypocritical, as Tolkien spent a good part of his efforts defending and promoting Catholicism, even incorporating it into his masterwork. I mean, come on -- lembas is communion, the ring is symbolic of carrying one's cross (and Sam does his "Christian" duty, bearing the "cross" despite his fears that he won't be able to do so), Galadriel is the Virgin Mary (even the terms used to describe her during the mirror episode are very close praises of Marian devotional prayers) . . . there's too much to deny, especially considering he lived as a faithful, loyal, and devoted Catholic his whole life.

After his death, his eldest son and a few others (Peter Beagle, for example, who wrote forwards for LOTR) set out on what amounts to a campaign to separate the work from the faith. And here we are.

Feb 12 - 05:49 PM

Elessar Oronro

Joss Whedon

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.

Feb 12 - 12:36 PM

cabezone

First Last

Why do people continue to "debate" religion? It's not a debate. You either choose to beleive in things that are not acutally provable or testable, or you don't.

You change the minds of people who "believe". Religion is based in believing things that are not provable. It's called "faith". If someone believes that the mighty Thor guides their actions, whatever.

Feb 12 - 01:21 PM

scottybarkbark

jonathan watterman

[b]elassar[/b]
are you sure your sunday school teacher got frustrated asking you "logical, science based" questions or got frustrated having to deal with a close minded lil twerp like yourself. as for creationism i believe in that whole heartedly, i support the belief that a loving intelligent creator created us rather than the theory of evolution which you evolutionists would rather us believe.

Feb 12 - 06:34 PM

cabezone

First Last

How is choosing not to believe in fairy tales closed minded? The bible is simply one of the worlds oldest fantasy book, a very important and powerful book, but a fairy tale nonetheless.

Feb 13 - 03:37 AM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

Cabezone, closed-mindedness can also refer to your approach to Christians (or all religious people), not just Christianity.

A fairy tale is a story told for purely symbolic purposes, or in a more modern sense, mostly for entertainment. The Bible is neither. The writers had specific points in mind when they wrote, and the Church Fathers who compiled the books and letters of the New Testament did so based on, in part, what would provide the most accurate picture of Christ, His teachings, and the teachings of His closest followers.

We can debate all day about what parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally, historically, typologically, or whatever, but it's inaccurate even from a non-believer's standpoint to define it as a "fairy tale." The writers had no intention to entertain; they didn't believe in most cases that their writings were "symbolic" in the way we mean that. Biblical scholars can learn these things the same way they do about other ancient histories: studying the culture, linguistics, society, and if possible, the writers themselves.

Besides which, occurences in the Bible are independently verified by outside sources, including other historians that had nothing to do with Christians, or outright hated them. I mean, there's more purely historical proofs for the Bible's accuracy in conveying history than we have for other works that no one questions.

This is a very vague defense, on purpose. Like with the other issues we've discussed, I don't think this particular thread has the patience for a full on Biblical debate. But let me ask you this: have you even read through the entire New Testament? You should, if for no other reason than to be educated about what it actually says and how it's actually written.

Feb 13 - 08:20 AM

cabezone

First Last

You at least know the world is flat right?

Feb 13 - 11:36 AM

Elessar Oronro

Joss Whedon

She got frustrated with my questions because I wanted PROOF...you know, that little thing with evidence attached to it? I cannot, and will not, accept anything on faith. I just can't. I demand that my students provide evidence to support their hypothesis, otherwise it's invalid and they fail. If only religion had to measure up to same stringent requirements. Think about this, scottybarkbark, if you think I'm so closed-minded: what if you took a child, raised him as normally as possible, in an average loving household, but denied him any exposure to organized religion. Then, when he turned 18, you gave him the Bible. Do you think he would believe one word of what he was reading? Of course not! It'd be like believing all those Weekly World News reports you see in the checkout line. People BELIEVE religion because they've had it slammed into their head from the moment they were born. Or they are "born again" as adults because they were weak, booze drinking morons. Logical, sensible adults don't believe in these fairy tales. Religion is holding the human race back from evolving. Think how many fewer wars and conflicts we would have if everyone just subscribed to scientific, logical thinking.

Feb 13 - 10:15 PM

scottybarkbark

jonathan watterman

TEELL ME ELESSAR WHERE IS THE PROOF EVOLUTION HAPPENED? HMMM? I HAVE ONLY SEEN THEORIES ON HOW EVOLUTION MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED? OH AND ITS FAIRLY SAD WHEN YOU CANNOT TAKE SOMETHING ON FAITH.

Feb 14 - 07:50 AM

What's Hot On RT

Cosplay Gallery
Cosplay Gallery

See all the Comic-Con Costumes!

Weekly Binge
Weekly Binge

Check out Boardwalk Empire

Historical TV Shows
Historical TV Shows

40 TV depictions of past eras

Fifty Shades of Grey
Fifty Shades of Grey

A masochistic trailer

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile