A High and Holy "Fuck you!" to Jesus.

Dammit, FriendofGod, put down the gun. Not THAT Jesus. Anybody who prefers wine over water gets style points in my book. It’s the network execs at good ol’ CBS that have me cheesed off this time. (Yeah, I said cheesed off. Watch it, or I’ll use “PO’d” next).

And now, for the rant:

Dear CBS executives,

Why, of WHY in God’s name (Heh heh), did you feel the need to create the monstrosity that is showing in two parts: one last night and one this Wednesday? I am talking, of course, about your recent exploit: “Jesus: the Made for TV Movie.”
Was there a NEED for this? Did a little angel come down and whisper in your ear that it was necessary to waste money on a project this fucking stupid? Did said angle then proceed to turn into a kick-line of purple and pink polka-dotted elephants, due to the side effects of the acid trip that you were on when you thought this piece of crap up?

Let’s address some of the key issues here. First of all, there is the obvious fact that you, or whatever poor schmuck you threw scraps to in order to get them to write this “movie,” as you call it, had obviously not even read the freakin’ BIBLE beforehand. I’d be suprised if they had looked at the fucking Cliff Notes, for Christ’s sake. How do I know this? Well, maybe it’s the fact that the first thing Jesus did after deciding that yes, he was the Son of God after all, was go out into the desert for 40 days and be tempted by Satan. Waaaaaaaait a second. That’s not supposed to happen until around the end of his story there, guys. Hell, you could have at least had him turn the H[sub]2[/sub]O into booze before our old pal Lucifer came waving free samples in his face.

Next up, there’s Beezlebub himself. A quick side-note: Just because Satan is a bad guy does not mean that he has to be dressed like a used car salesman. It was a bit disorienting to see a guy in a black sharkskin suit talking to a man wearing old time robes. Also, pyrotechnics are NOT a crucial aspect of Satan’s personality. I think that fact that he’s fucking EVIL is enough of a clue to the audience as to who he is; you don’t have to go the extra step and blow up some random shit.

Thirdly, there’s Jesus. Something in my gut tells me that, while we don’t know alot of makeup, we DO know that he didn’t walk around wearing painfully obvious stage-makeup. Having their savior walking around with rosy cheeks and ruby red lips isn’t going to help the Catholic Church’s anti-gay platform.

And last, but not least, don’t try to be controversial about subject matter unless you’re going to go all-out. A 5-second gratuitious scene of Mary Magdeline as a whore is not going to get you “groundbreaking” points from the critics, since you stay completely conservative the rest of the time. Also, c’mon, that’s sooooo Last Temptation of Christ. Why did you put it in?

In fact, why did you make this movie? You’re not going to get the Christian crowd to like it because it’s plot is completely FUBAR. You’re not going to get non-Christians to watch it because they’re not gonna wanna watch something that glorifies another religion’s savior. You’re not going to get a fucking CLUE, either, though, since you’re network television and do dumb shit like this all the time. I guess that by now, it should just be expected of you.

And, I’m done.

Well, on at least two cases, because they were historically accurate, or at least something many scholars think matched the four bios. we have of him.

Start with the Temptation in the Wilderness. (I won’t deal with the sharkskin suit – last couple of times I’ve seen Satan, he was wearing jeans and a T-shirt promoting a rock group;)). But immediately he gets baptized by John, he goes out to the wilderness, apparently to pray, think things over, and plan his ministry, and Satan tempts him while he’s there. (Best reference is Luke 4:1-13).

Mary Magdalene – there are oodles of theories about who she was. However, three Gospel writers tell the story about the woman who washes Jesus’s feet with ointment and dries them with her hair. One identifies her with Mary Magdalene, another with a prostitute Jesus had encountered, a third with a demoniac woman he’d exorcised. Add to this the comment about “Mary Magdalene, out of whom Jesus had cast seven demons” and you get a picture of a former possessed prostitute now following him and called Mary of Magdala. Whether or not this is an accurate equivalence or a case of dittography in stories – the same story being told of three different women – is a pays-yer-money-and-takes-yer-cherce proposition.

As for your concluding paragraph, are we to assume you to be naive enough to think that television producers have any grasp of what the American public wants, and are not just flailing blindly, slavishly copying whatever happens to take the public fancy? I compliment you on your high expectations of people, but beg to disillusion you. :slight_smile:

Surely you can’t mean Lu Siffer, Christian Rock Manager at Large? He’s my idol, man. :wink: As for the temptation thing, well, you got me. What can I say. I was sure that it was later in the New Testament, but once again, am brought low by those crazy fact thingies. Consider me adequately humbled. Guess that’s gonna bring my score down a bit, eh?

Well, here we’re in agreance, to an extent. I knew about the theories regarding Mary Magdelene being a prostitute, and that wasn’t my issue. My major beef with the movie was that they just threw in a random 30 second scene of her having sex with a guy. It had no tie in to anything in the movie, and as far as I could tell, no reason to be there except to:

a) maybe spark a bit of controversy because <gasp> They put…SEX in the Jesus movie! And
b) Lure the viewing audience of horny teenage guys who are just desperate enough to watch a movie about Jesus for a 30 second sex scene.

Sorry, but there’s no bubble there to burst. I am fully aware that network execs couldn’t give a rat’s anus about what the public wants. That doesn’t mean that I can’t bitch and moan about it all the same though, eh?:slight_smile:

Poly:

I don’t get it. Aren’t they the same? Doesn’t “slavishly copying whatever happens to take the public fancy” recapitulate a “grasp of what the American public wants”? Doesn’t the manifestation of what the public fancies indicate a grasp of the Zeitgeist?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jester *
**

I for one am kind of curious to find out of this 30-second scene of luridity (***New Word Alert. Yes, you too for $ 10.00 can use this new word. Sign up now !! Be the first on your block !! * **) was shown prominently in every single damned commercial and promo? That is usually the case, bait and switch. You think you’re getting Sodom and Gomorrah and you’re really getting Smurfs Do Jesus.

Humbly, and Happy Pesach and Happy Easter,

Cartooniverse

** Smurfs do Jesus **? Eww.

I second that emotion.

And Cartooniverse, I was actually thinking the same thing. I would not be suprised in the least if they had that scene plastered on the posters, for Christ’s sake. (Get it? Christ’s sake? Jesus? Oh, I slay me)

Smurfs Do Jesus? Now THAT would be a sex scene to remember!

[sub]oh, I’m going to hell…[/sub]