There have been numerous studies showing that "G" and "PG" movies make much more money than the "R" and "NR" freakshows that Hollywood prefers, yet few to none are released every year. It is not profit involved here. Hollywood portrays Christians as : evil or stupid or hypocritical/wicked. No other religious group is so portrayed. Why? Academia is violently intolerant of religious belief, although only Christians -- Mohammedans are privileged on evey campus. The MSM is similarly anti-Christian on every subject except the minimum wage and open immigration (which benefits nonn-whites). These are specific venues which are hostile to Christianity. But we also have the ACLU persecuting Christians wherever they dare to raise their heads. So, who is the ACLU? Who runs Hollywood? Who dominates academia? At the end of every MSM broadcast, look at the names of those responsible. Who was Saul Alinsky? Who is George Soros? Talk about failure to connect the dots! Just as Big Chief O'bwana is trying to claim the same privilege as the Prophet Mohammed, in not allowing representations (although only negative ones) to be shown of his likeness, there are obvious restrictions on speech relative to certain, very small, ethnic groups in the US today. I was born in 1947, and I know what a white America was like. E.g., some DC matron complained to Bess Truman about POTUS Harry's references to Africans-in-America as "nigras'". Bess replied: "Good grief! It took me 50 years to get him to say 'nigras'." Orwell pointed out, about the year I was born, how language can be controlled to direct behavior and, ultimately, thought. America today is one big re-education camp. When thoughts and opinions that were ubiquitous within one man's lifetime disappear, you know a culture-war has been fought and lost. The 60s counter-culture has replaced American culture. That's a fact. But also a fact is that today's culture has no relation to Americans as a nation, and is in fact hostile to every aspect of American society and to every normal ethnic-American (read some 1800 census reports -- there was definitley an American nation). Again, 60 years ago this wasn't even a question, as WASPs still ran everything, as it always had been in America (I'm not a WASP, but I got along a hell of a lot better under the Cabots, the Lees, and the Saltonstall's, than I am under the Schumers, the Villagarosas, and the O'bwanas). (show less)

That's funny. I'm glad to hear your take. And I respect it. And I'm glad you enjoyed it. I on the other hand found it as irritating as fingernails on a chalk board -- sort of like watching Jurassic Park after reading the book.

And personally I get bored with the constant breathy rumbling voices of all the British actors they used. Especially the accent of the young Moses. "Hey, Mummy, why didn't my mums tell me who I was as she was breast feeding me for my first two years? Oh, that's right. She did. Then why did the producers write me in so that I didn't know? Hmm. I'm think developing credibility issues."

And moreover, they actually change the emotional motivations of just about every character in the vignettes they chose.

For example, the people of Sodom were not destroyed because they were violent, but because they had everything and gave nothing to those in need, and that they reveled in their ease.

And Samson was raised from birth to serve God as a nazarite, but somehow he's portrayed as a man spurred to lead a revolution because his wife was killed in a house fire due to racist prejudices, though this is not in the Bible, and is purely made up. Actually, I think the story of Samson is one of the more engaging in the Bible. So much is going on: seduction, intrigue, war, heroism, fatal failings, betrayal, and final redemption. None of this was even implied in the documentary.

John the Baptist was killed and his head literally served to Herod on a platter (hence the origin of the expression) not because of some philosophical argument about the messiah or concerns about a new Jewish king, but at the request of a dancer carrying out her mothers desire to be rid of John because he had denounced her marriage to Herod who was also her ex-husband's brother. Weird, memorable, watchable stuff. But it was there was it? (I was only half watching.)

There's a lot of other good stuff that the Bible actually contains that is integral to the story that the producers deliberately leave out or change. I don't know why they did it, but I do know there were many deliberate discrepancies built into their story that dilute it.

I would have loved to see David try on the armor he was given, and find it too heavy and untried, and chuck it all, pick up some smooth stones and whip out his sling on the run. According to the Bible, the stone sunk into Goliath's forehead, not just glance off. Goliath was dead before he hit the ground. Don't yuou think that would have been worth watching? The producers didn't -- and for reasons I can't figure.

This isn't The Bible story that they say it is; it's The Bible Lite. It's The Bible -- Based on A True Story.

Someday before I die I'd like to see produced a high-quality film of the Bible. You could make it as a trilogy like the Hobbit. But this is after-school special, she-killed-the-cheerleader -- inspired by a true story -- TV.

I'm glad you liked it but I suppose I was as disappointed as anyone who's already read the book. (show less)

(Slightly off-topic, but you did use the picture.)

The most interesting thing about all the discussion about the face of Satan in this so-called documentary, is that when liberal Chrisitans get together and make a film about the Bible and they pick the face and form of the scariest, strongest, proudest, wisest image of evil they could devise -- it just so happens to look like Barak Obama.

And then all the liberal activists rage that Obama looks like the personification of evil.

Headline: Evil President's Supporters Angred that He Looks Like Satan