The Passion's Box Office #'s

KennySe

Habemus Papam!
Aug 6, 2003
5,450
253
59
Visit site
✟14,554.00
Faith
Catholic
Jacey said:
Being that the original is the greatest horror movie of all time, did great business throughout the world, and was just rereleased on DVD, I pretty much doubt this.

The original "Dawn of the Dead" was an ok film, but certainly NOT one of the greatest horror movies of all time.
Don't misunderstand me, I enjoyed how they landed their helicopter on the roof of that mall, and cleaned the zombied out of the interior so that the quartet had the mall all to themselves until the biker gang came and broke in the doors... but not a classic.

The original "Night of the Living Dead" IS certainly one of the greatest. Low budget, black and white, and a microcosm of society having to work together to survive, or if not, they would fail.
The remake was not as good, with its feminist message which overshadowed the horror aspect of the tale.
 
Upvote 0

clinzey

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2004
791
15
44
California
✟8,544.00
Faith
Protestant
KennySe said:
1) What is the #1 grossing independent film of all time?

2) What is the #1 grossing R-rated film of all time?

Answers:

1) The Passion of The Christ

2) The Passion of The Christ[/size]

Why do some people seem to think that highest grossing = faith affirmation? If the movie sucked and failed at the box office would your faith drop?
 
Upvote 0

Jacey

WinJace
Jan 12, 2004
3,894
337
46
Atlanta
Visit site
✟5,805.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
clinzey said:
Sure, it's easy to beat a movie at the box office if it's already been out for a while. It wouldn't be hard for any Hollywood movie to top The Passion of the Christ for a weekend. But compare the totals of Dawn of the Dead at opening week, or two weeks, or three weeks (I know, this may take patience on your part) with The Passion's totals for opening, two weeks or three weeks. The only way you can have valid comparison is to evaluate the grosses at the same point of the movie's life cycle.

I was being quite fascetious.

The original "Dawn of the Dead" was an ok film, but certainly NOT one of the greatest horror movies of all time.
Don't misunderstand me, I enjoyed how they landed their helicopter on the roof of that mall, and cleaned the zombied out of the interior so that the quartet had the mall all to themselves until the biker gang came and broke in the doors... but not a classic.

The original "Night of the Living Dead" IS certainly one of the greatest. Low budget, black and white, and a microcosm of society having to work together to survive, or if not, they would fail.
The remake was not as good, with its feminist message which overshadowed the horror aspect of the tale.

I totally disagree, Dawn wasn't just a horror movie, had a lot of social messages. Read Roger Ebert's review.

The original Night is great but suffers from incredibly bad acting at times, although it had some groundbreaking stuff. A movie, starring a black man as the hero, made in 1968, and his race is of no issue whatsoever.

The remake of Night sucked for many reasons. I'm not sure where the feminist message comes in there.
 
Upvote 0

clinzey

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2004
791
15
44
California
✟8,544.00
Faith
Protestant
Joel_goober_head said:
WHO BEAT CHRIST?

NOT THE ROMANS!

NOT THE JEWS!

ZOMBIES BEAT CHRIST!

apparently i can't link to the yahoo site so blah.

dawn of the dead beat out passion for weekend gross.

hell hath won!

Sure, it's easy to beat a movie at the box office if it's already been out for a while. It wouldn't be hard for any Hollywood movie to top The Passion of the Christ for a weekend. But compare the totals of Dawn of the Dead at opening week, or two weeks, or three weeks (I know, this may take patience on your part) with The Passion's totals for opening, two weeks or three weeks. The only way you can have valid comparison is to evaluate the grosses at the same point of the movie's life cycle.
 
Upvote 0

SavedByGrace3

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)
Supporter
Jun 6, 2002
19,640
3,658
Midlands
Visit site
✟551,529.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
clinzey said:
Why do some people seem to think that highest grossing = faith affirmation? If the movie sucked and failed at the box office would your faith drop?
My question is why are some folks so threatened by it?

Give it some credit!
 
Upvote 0

SavedByGrace3

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)
Supporter
Jun 6, 2002
19,640
3,658
Midlands
Visit site
✟551,529.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Here is a good comparison for you.
"Last Temptation of Christ" had a total all time gross of 8 million bucks.
"The Passion of the Christ" had a first day total of over 26 million.

Figure there were two showings on a Wednesday for The Passion, that means the very first showing alone grossed over 13 million... 5 million more than the all time gross for the Last Temptation. ^_^ :D :p :D ^_^
 
Upvote 0

clinzey

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2004
791
15
44
California
✟8,544.00
Faith
Protestant
didaskalos said:
My question is why are some folks so threatened by it?

Give it some credit!

Not threatened by it - realize it's just a movie. The success or failure of this movie should have no bearing on us as Christians. Some people have this strange zealous pride attached to it, and seem to feel that anyone who dislikes the movie must dislike Christians.
 
Upvote 0

Yahweh Nissi

"The LORD Is My Banner"
Mar 26, 2003
902
34
41
Birkenhead, on the Wirral.
✟1,240.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
clinzey said:
I maintain my point - nothing has intrinsic value, but is only valued when one places worth upon it. Like gold, baseball cards, comic books, etc. While the crucifixion is important, as stated by some of the verses you posted in 97 and 98, the resurrection is the thing that places the full value on the crucifixion. The expert in this case? God. While men crucified Jesus, God placed the value on it by resurrecting him. Acts 4:10 "It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed...." (underlines mine, of course ;) )

Trying to pick holes in analogies does nothing to alter the main point - but it does not work here anyway. My point was that the validation that it is really gold and not fool's gold does nothing to alter the gold's actual substance or value - that was already there, the validation just confirmed that this was the case. Now, gold may only have value because we give it value, but this is outside of the validation and does not affect the analogy.

And I am afraid that the verse you post here does not really address the point. The crucifiction was as much God's will and plan as the resurrection ("But it was the LORD's good plan to crush him and fill him with grief" - Isaiah 53:10a), He just used men to carry out the former, whilst he carried out the latter Himself - of course, because whilst men can crucify someone, resurrection is a miracle which can only be achieved by God. (And don't say "what about Elijah, etc," - they just prayed to God and He raised the people). Who actually carried it out has not affect on the value. I agree that the resurrection placed the full value on the crucifiction, the gospel was not complete without it, but not that it gave it all its value and certainly not that, as you stated earlier in #71 "the mainstay of Christian faith - is found not the crucifixion but the resurrection? The movie pays a 15 second tribute to the big one and spends hours focusing on the small issue that took him there....".

If it is not the mainstay, or even worse if it is just a "small issue" (I find it worrying that you could call it that, even if you were just using hyperbol) why did Paul say "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.", "May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world."? Why was the whole OT system of religion geared around sacrifices, which mirrored the crucifiction and not the resurection? Why is a cross the universally accepted symbol of Christianity across all denominations since ancient times, and not some symbol representing the resurrection?

God bless,
YN.
 
Upvote 0

clinzey

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2004
791
15
44
California
✟8,544.00
Faith
Protestant
Yahweh Nissi said:
My point was that the validation that it is really gold and not fool's gold does nothing to alter the gold's actual substance or value - that was already there, the validation just confirmed that this was the case.

Substance and value are 2 different things. The substance is gold - value is not intrinsic but placed on something by someone else.

And I am afraid that the verse you post here does not really address the point. The crucifiction was as much God's will and plan as the resurrection

The verse I posted does address the point. While the crucifixion is part of the plan, it is not complete until the resurrection. It's a two-part deal.

I agree that the resurrection placed the full value on the crucifiction, the gospel was not complete without it, but not that it gave it all its value and certainly not that, as you stated earlier in #71 "the mainstay of Christian faith - is found not the crucifixion but the resurrection?

Without the resurrection the crucifixion doesn't have the same value - Jesus remains just another martyred good teacher.

Why is a cross the universally accepted symbol of Christianity across all denominations since ancient times, and not some symbol representing the resurrection?

Because it's kinda hard to wear "empty-tomb" pendants around your neck. :D
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Yahweh Nissi

"The LORD Is My Banner"
Mar 26, 2003
902
34
41
Birkenhead, on the Wirral.
✟1,240.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Unfortunately, rather than answering my post you have cut and pasted so as to leave out the most challenging points all together and trim crucial justifications, qualifications, support, etc from the other points, leaving you with a straw man of an argument that was easy to knock down. I appologise for sounding terse, but it is a tad frustrating after I have taken time to build a careful argument about something I feel strongly about.

clinzey said:
Yahweh Nissi said:
My point was that the validation that it is really gold and not fool's gold does nothing to alter the gold's actual substance or value - that was already there, the validation just confirmed that this was the case.

Substance and value are 2 different things. The substance is gold - value is not intrinsic but placed on something by someone else.

I know - I acknowledged this; "Now, gold may only have value because we give it value", but then pointed out why this had no effect on the point I was making; "but this is outside of the validation and does not affect the analogy". That is, I realise we place the value on gold but that occurs outside of the analogy - inside the analogy gold is assumed to have value and the validation does not change it.

clinzey said:
Yahweh Nissi said:
And I am afraid that the verse you post here does not really address the point. The crucifiction was as much God's will and plan as the resurrection

The verse I posted does address the point. While the crucifixion is part of the plan, it is not complete until the resurrection. It's a two-part deal.

It does not address the point, that verse said nothing about value, just about who did what - and I pointed out that who did what has no affect upon the value of the actions; "The crucifiction was as much God's will and plan as the resurrection ('But it was the LORD's good plan to crush him and fill him with grief' - Isaiah 53:10a), He just used men to carry out the former, whilst he carried out the latter Himself - of course, because whilst men can crucify someone, resurrection is a miracle which can only be achieved by God. (And don't say 'what about Elijah, etc,' - they just prayed to God and He raised the people). Who actually carried it out has not affect on the value." God used men to crucify Jesus because that is something men could do, He raised Him from the dead because that is something only God could do. I agree it is a "two-part deal" and that God's plan was not complete until the resurrection - as I said "the gospel was not complete without it". But it was the crucifiction and that alone which provided atonement for our sins and that therefore has great instrinsic value of its own. The resurrection then completed the gospel and provided its full value - showing that we will be resurrected to enjoy eternity with God with our sins cleansed, but whilst the crucifiction with no resurrection would not be so bad - our existence would just end and we would not exist to care, the resurrection without the crucifiction would be hideous - eternity with our sins still staining us and outcast from God's presence, without all the good things He provides.

clinzey said:
Yahweh Nissi said:
I agree that the resurrection placed the full value on the crucifiction, the gospel was not complete without it, but not that it gave it all its value and certainly not that, as you stated earlier in #71 "the mainstay of Christian faith - is found not the crucifixion but the resurrection?

Without the resurrection the crucifixion doesn't have the same value - Jesus remains just another martyred good teacher.

What!? Jesus was always the Son of God incarnate - "before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58)[NIV]. The resurrection proved this and showed that death had been defeated. Of course, had Jesus not have been resurrected, then it would have shown he had been lying about being God and it would have shown he was just a martyred teacher (not good though, blasphemy is quite serious you know!) - but as He was resurrected, that prooves what He had always been, the resurrection did not magically change His status, it mearly validated that what He had been saying was true.

clinzey said:
Yahweh Nissi said:
Why is a cross the universally accepted symbol of Christianity across all denominations since ancient times, and not some symbol representing the resurrection?

Because it's kinda hard to wear "empty-tomb" pendants around your neck. :D

I said "or some symbol representing the resurection" - you could have had a budding vine or tree, a bird in flight, or even a little figure of the risen Christ would be no more awkward then a cross - some of which have Jesus on them anyway. And whilst avoiding a little awkwardness might be factor for modern day, comfortable, western Christians do you think it would be for ascetic monks, for priests/ministers/pastors, for churches under persecution - like the whole early church for over 300 years? Would that matter to them more then choosing the most appropriate symbol for the faith? And it is not just pendants - a little sculpture of an open tomb could stand on an alter just as easily as a cross, why don't they?

And you have still said nothing about why Paul said "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.", "May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.", nor about "Why was the whole OT system of religion geared around sacrifices, which mirrored the crucifiction and not the resurection?". Do you really believe that the crucifiction is just a "small issue".

God bless,
YN.
 
Upvote 0

clinzey

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2004
791
15
44
California
✟8,544.00
Faith
Protestant
Yahweh Nissi said:
It does not address the point, that verse said nothing about value, just about who did what - and I pointed out that who did what has no affect upon the value of the actions; "The crucifiction was as much God's will and plan as the resurrection ('But it was the LORD's good plan to crush him and fill him with grief' - Isaiah 53:10a), He just used men to carry out the former, whilst he carried out the latter Himself - of course, because whilst men can crucify someone, resurrection is a miracle which can only be achieved by God. (And don't say 'what about Elijah, etc,' - they just prayed to God and He raised the people). Who actually carried it out has not affect on the value." God used men to crucify Jesus because that is something men could do, He raised Him from the dead because that is something only God could do.

I did not use that verse to insert God as the authenticator. I used it to show that the resurrections completes the work of the cross. God is the authenticator regardless.

I agree it is a "two-part deal" and that God's plan was not complete until the resurrection - as I said "the gospel was not complete without it". But it was the crucifiction and that alone which provided atonement for our sins and that therefore has great instrinsic value of its own. The resurrection then completed the gospel and provided its full value

And without its fullness the crucifixion is not all it could be. If the crucifixion needs the resurrection for fullness then it is the resurrection that places the validating mark on the whole package.

but whilst the crucifiction with no resurrection would not be so bad - our existence would just end and we would not exist to care, the resurrection without the crucifiction would be hideous - eternity with our sins still staining us and outcast from God's presence, without all the good things He provides.

You can't hypothetically divorce them like that. Crucifixion without resurrection was not a possibility. It wouldn't be so bad? Do you think there is no afterlife without the resurrection?

Of course, had Jesus not have been resurrected, then it would have shown he had been lying about being God and it would have shown he was just a martyred teacher (not good though, blasphemy is quite serious you know!) - but as He was resurrected, that prooves what He had always been, the resurrection did not magically change His status, it mearly validated that what He had been saying was true.

Exactly my point - the resurrection validated what he had been saying. Without the resurrection Jesus is simply another martyred teacher.

And you have still said nothing about why Paul said "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.", "May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.", nor about "Why was the whole OT system of religion geared around sacrifices, which mirrored the crucifiction and not the resurection?". Do you really believe that the crucifiction is just a "small issue".

You act as though I spit on the crucifixion. It is a small issue in comparison to the resurrection. It is not complete without the resurrection. The crucifixion is important, but the resurrection is moreso.
 
Upvote 0

JPPT1974

April Showers and Easter 2024!
Mar 18, 2004
288,806
11,532
49
Small Town, USA
✟569,139.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Number #1 will either be that Tom Hanks movie(hasn't had a box office bomb since Bonfire of the Vanities back in 1990 a long time!!)
The movie that was #1 last week, that where the little girl in the previews I saw turned into like one of the "Stepford Children"
 
Upvote 0

Mr Tom

Active Member
Mar 25, 2004
322
20
36
Maidstone, Kent, UK
✟8,089.00
Faith
Protestant
The Passion is an amazingly thought provoking and moving film. It shows you the true things that Christ went through for us. I get so wound up by people that say that the film is inaccurate and anti-sematic etc when they havnt seen it! There are some amazing write-ups, but at the same time there are some really crappy write-ups from people who dont have open minds and just want to deny films and Christianity - of course a CRITIC would have a bad view of the film if they are not Christian - that is their job. I am jsut forced to look at all of the people that are going to see the film and being turned to Christ, such as my friend who I saw the film with - ok he isnt Christian yet but it has made him think. Is there anyone out there who has seen the film and hasnt liked it out of curiousity? Overall I think the film is great, and should be respected as a great interpretation. I am sure that if all of you had the money or ability to make a film about Christ, then you would do it - so I think Mel deserves repect not criticism. What do other people think?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RabidYeti

Socially Inept
Jan 30, 2004
145
15
38
South London
Visit site
✟350.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
This film shows one thing...

The sacrifice the lord made... and his utter unwavering love for us. It make you think... He knew that was going to happen to him... and he said "OK"... And he did it for me? Why am I so deserved to earn something like that.

I love you Jesus
 
Upvote 0

clinzey

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2004
791
15
44
California
✟8,544.00
Faith
Protestant
Mr Tom said:
The Passion is an amazingly thought provoking and moving film. It shows you the true things that Christ went through for us. I get so wound up by people that say that the film is inaccurate and anti-sematic etc when they havnt seen it! There are some amazing write-ups, but at the same time there are some really crappy write-ups from people who dont have open minds and just want to deny films and Christianity - of course a CRITIC would have a bad view of the film if they are not Christian - that is their job.

I have seen non-Christian critics who liked the movie. The word critic isn't a negative word, so top using it as such.

I am jsut forced to look at all of the people that are going to see the film and being turned to Christ, such as my friend who I saw the film with - ok he isnt Christian yet but it has made him think. Is there anyone out there who has seen the film and hasnt liked it out of curiousity?

I have seen the film, I am a Christian, and I didn't like it that much. It was an okay film, but that's about it.

Overall I think the film is great, and should be respected as a great interpretation. I am sure that if all of you had the money or ability to make a film about Christ, then you would do it - so I think Mel deserves repect not criticism. What do other people think?

The church should have a critical eye to all art - whether it was done by secular or Christian artists. It's not wrong to look critically at the movie, or Christian books ('cause some of them reaaly suck) or Christian music. The whole Christian world has gotten on this "what a friend we have in Mel" kick. Get over it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mr Tom

Active Member
Mar 25, 2004
322
20
36
Maidstone, Kent, UK
✟8,089.00
Faith
Protestant
webboffin said:
I have no ambition to see the film as I have to ask myself for what reason am I going to see it? I don't need the worldly film industry to make a buck off my emotions when it comes to Christ's sacrifice.
So you are saying that you wont buy it on DVD or Video when it comes out?
 
Upvote 0