# Exodus : Gods and Kings



## Grimmjowsensei (Jul 11, 2014)

[YOUTUBE]1tuaPQdIGdQ[/YOUTUBE]


Ridley thinks Gladiator 2 can save his career. What do you guys think ?


----------



## Stunna (Jul 11, 2014)

Way too many white people.


----------



## tari101190 (Jul 11, 2014)

Wow I can't wait to see the white English saviour with an American accent chosen by god to save the African country that is the Arab Republic of Egypt.


----------



## Stunna (Jul 11, 2014)

As I've said, while I expect this to be the best Biblical film of the year, I also see it being the worst adaptation of the Book of Exodus.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Jul 11, 2014)

i'm glad; wouldn't watch it if too many darkies /maximumdelface


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 11, 2014)

I didn't realize Ridley Scott's carreer needed saving


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jul 11, 2014)

Banhammer said:


> I didn't realize Ridley Scott's carreer needed saving



Sadly it does. Didn't have a really good film since Gladiator. And that was back in 2000. You may count Black Hawk Down, and while it was a good movie, it wasn't awesome.

Ridley is too damn old. Needs to go out with a bang. I'd hate the new generation to remember him for his last 10 mediocre films.


----------



## TetraVaal (Jul 11, 2014)

His career doesn't need 'saving.'

You make it sound like he's M. Night Shymalan or Zack Snyder.

'The Counselor' was underrated as fuck. 

Exodus does look weird though. I'm digging the imagery, but the obvious whitewashing is downright offensive.


----------



## Swarmy (Jul 11, 2014)

That's supposed to be Moses


----------



## Stunna (Jul 11, 2014)

Moses being played by Bale, I've a feeling we won't be getting a faithful portrayal (and that's disregarding the ethnic incongruity).


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jul 11, 2014)

TetraVaal said:


> His career doesn't need 'saving.'
> 
> You make it sound like he's M. Night Shymalan or Zack Snyder.
> 
> ...



Well of course, he doesn't need saving as bad as M. Night, but like I said, he hasn't done anything notworthy for the last 14 years. 

TBH counselor is the reason why I think his career needs a bit of saving. I mean, that movie was garbage. Ridley tried to copy Inaruttu but failed miserably. Why would such an established 70 year old director attempt @ something like that is beyond me.


----------



## Superrazien (Jul 12, 2014)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> Well of course, he doesn't need saving as bad as M. Night, but like I said, he hasn't done anything notworthy for the last 14 years.
> 
> TBH counselor is the reason why I think his career needs a bit of saving. I mean, that movie was garbage. Ridley tried to copy Inaruttu but failed miserably. Why would such an established 70 year old director attempt @ something like that is beyond me.



Prometheus was pretty good, and fairly successful. I don't think he is in a bad position. His name probably has less relevance than Micheal Bay or someone, but he still turns out decent films. Also say what you will about the man but he does epic stuff very well. 

As far as Exodus I think it looks pretty awesome. Yeah the whitewashing sucks, but that literally happens in every Bible based movie not to mention most movies in general. At this point it is expected, and as someone who does not believe in the Bible I just view this all as fiction anyways.


----------



## Stunna (Jul 12, 2014)

Not 'The Prince of Egypt'.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 12, 2014)

Ridley Scott does not need to have his career saved and saying so is merely personal bias. Admittedly he isn't as good as he used to be, but nearly EVERY director suffers from burnout as they get older.

He hasn't had a critical disaster in the past 10 years...unless I'm forgetting something, the reviews to his works being mixed or positive. He's had a mix of financially successful movies and flops, but that's nothing new. Even when he has a critical ("The Counselor") or financial ("Body of Lies") disappointment, he's one of the few people who can pretty much make any movie that he wants to make. 

So his career is fine on an objective level, if you simply don't like his works then it has nothing to do with what kind of project he's making. 

As for "Exodus", I dunno...I was surprised that Ridley Scott was the director because this looked kinda bland. Whereas "Robin Hood" at least had the 'grounded in reality' gimmick going for it, "Exodus" looks painfully Hollywood. I'm sure it will be fine, but the marketing hasn't done anything for me.



> Prometheus was pretty good, and fairly successful. I don't think he is in a bad position. His name probably has less relevance than Micheal Bay or someone, but he still turns out decent films. Also say what you will about the man but he does epic stuff very well.



I'm personally convinced that Michael Bay's name isn't relevant at all, considering his only good movie he's done ("Pain and Gain") since leaching off of the Transformers franchise underperformed. I think the Transformers name draws more crowds than Bay's involvement does, and I don't even hate the guy.


----------



## Wonder Mike (Jul 12, 2014)

Despite being biblical, it seems it's gonna be epic. Not sure if I'm gonna watch it though.


----------



## Stunna (Jul 12, 2014)

A Biblical basis has never stopped a film from being epic before. Matter of fact, a Biblical basis was the catalyst for the cinematic epic as we know it today (Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments).


----------



## Wonder Mike (Jul 13, 2014)

I know that. Guess I didn't express myself properly. I used the word 'epic' as in 'overwhelmingly outstanding,' not in the stricto sensu of the word. I got tired of Biblical/Christian things in general. Didn't give two flying fucks for Noah, for example.


----------



## ghstwrld (Jul 13, 2014)




----------



## dream (Jul 13, 2014)

It's going to be the movie of the year.


----------



## ghstwrld (Jul 13, 2014)

help


----------



## Arya Stark (Jul 14, 2014)

casting of this movie is incredibly stupid.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jul 14, 2014)

MartialHorror said:


> Ridley Scott does not need to have his career saved and saying so is merely personal bias. Admittedly he isn't as good as he used to be, but nearly EVERY director suffers from burnout as they get older.
> 
> He hasn't had a critical disaster in the past 10 years...unless I'm forgetting something, the reviews to his works being mixed or positive. He's had a mix of financially successful movies and flops, but that's nothing new. Even when he has a critical ("The Counselor") or financial ("Body of Lies") disappointment, he's one of the few people who can pretty much make any movie that he wants to make.
> 
> ...






Superrazien said:


> Prometheus was pretty good, and fairly successful. I don't think he is in a bad position. His name probably has less relevance than Micheal Bay or someone, but he still turns out decent films. Also say what you will about the man but he does epic stuff very well.
> 
> As far as Exodus I think it looks pretty awesome. Yeah the whitewashing sucks, but that literally happens in every Bible based movie not to mention most movies in general. At this point it is expected, and as someone who does not believe in the Bible I just view this all as fiction anyways.



I agree that Prometheus was good. Wasn't amazing, but good. I personally loved it alot because I am really into the alien franchise and I am interested in alien life forms since I was a little kid.

I also was exeggerating when I mentioned "career saving." I am just pointing out that he hasn't done a "Ridley tier" movie in more than a decate thats all.

But then, Hollywood hasn't been producing good movies lately so...


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 15, 2014)

Moses as a hardcore soldier?This could be so bad it's good or atleast give some decent fight scenes.


----------



## Ae (Jul 15, 2014)

This is my kind of movie, didn't see one black guy.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Jul 15, 2014)

i'm sure we'll see a few bald, muscled and well oiled man servants and laborers for historical accuracy. After all Nubia was...somewhere...around Egypt I guess.


----------



## Stunna (Jul 15, 2014)

Masterpiece said:


> This is my kind of movie, didn't see one black guy.


The guards were black.


----------



## Bluebeard (Jul 15, 2014)

Looks visually pretty good.

I'm a big Edgerton fan so I'll probably check it out.


----------



## Ae (Jul 15, 2014)

Stunna said:


> The guards were black.



Serving the great whites? I'll take it!


----------



## Nuuskis (Jul 16, 2014)

I'm not usually into biblical movies, but I do like Gladiator, Robin Hood and, Kingdom of Heaven (director's cut) so I am definitely going to see this.

I want more medieval time movies from Riddley Scott, they look so nice.


----------



## ghstwrld (Jul 16, 2014)

Masterpiece said:


> Serving the great whites? I'll take it!



The time period in question is around 1000+ years before Greek-rule is even a thing in Egypt, mind.


----------



## Jake CENA (Jul 16, 2014)

Moses gonna Batman when shit hits the fan 


And im not sure about people here saying that Prometheus was good. I think theyre trolling. Prometheus is among the worst movies of all time.  too many PIS and inconsistencies.


----------



## ShisuiFlickers (Jul 17, 2014)

I was hoping that this movie would pay homage to the grandaddy of biblical epics that was the 10 commandments but with modern cultural sensibilities but alas after seeing the trailer I've realised that it's just lazy Hollywood crap.


----------



## Stunna (Jul 17, 2014)

TerminaTHOR said:


> Moses gonna Batman when shit hits the fan


That's what I'm afraid of.



> And im not sure about people here saying that Prometheus was good. I think theyre trolling.


Agreed.


----------



## ghstwrld (Jul 27, 2014)




----------



## Stunna (Jul 27, 2014)

this _is_ 2014, right


----------



## Detective (Jul 27, 2014)

Don't worry Stunna, I'm sure they will include some form of ancient Egyptian redneck(or oliveneck) to balance things out.


----------



## Violent by Design (Jul 28, 2014)

MartialHorror said:


> Ridley Scott does not need to have his career saved and saying so is merely personal bias. Admittedly he isn't as good as he used to be, but nearly EVERY director suffers from burnout as they get older.
> 
> He hasn't had a critical disaster in the past 10 years...unless I'm forgetting something, the reviews to his works being mixed or positive. He's had a mix of financially successful movies and flops, but that's nothing new. Even when he has a critical ("The Counselor") or financial ("Body of Lies") disappointment, he's one of the few people who can pretty much make any movie that he wants to make.
> 
> ...




What the hell is "personal bias" mean in that context and Robin Hood was slammed pretty hard critically (as are a lot of his movies, but I figure you mean what typical newspaper articles say).

Most people who actually care about movies thinks all of Ridley Scott's recent shit sucks. I don't think I've seen a good Ridley Scott movie since the Cold War.

 Even if we go by your criteria that he hasn't made a "bad movie" (which I disagree), the fact that he's made a bunch of mediocre movies, would imply that his career needs saving, unless you think his career should be defined as the guy who made mediocre movies when people look back at his filmography.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jul 28, 2014)

Will they CGI the leads to make them appear more black / middle eastern?

I guess the casting call makes as much sense as Ben Affleck being Batman now.


----------



## ghstwrld (Jul 30, 2014)




----------



## RAGING BONER (Jul 30, 2014)

ghstwrld said:


>



this is priceless

lol "Egyptian Thief"

"Assassin"

"lower class"


----------



## ghstwrld (Sep 11, 2014)

_Relevant.

*Q: You said you cast Exodus very ?carefully.? Could you expand on that?*

A: I guess being a director, in some ways, is like being the captain of a sports team, like a soccer team, and you have to make sure that you have every position covered really well because that will help you to win the game. So I always look on making a film as a partnership and that?s what casting is all about, whether it?s the star or the guy with one line. And by doing that you enable them to feel confident to try things out and feel free to suggest things. And over the years I?ve got the best results from actors who really are my partners in the process and it makes it all the more enjoyable. In this instance I?d met Christian four or five years ago when we had a cup of tea together and a rich tea biscuit in LA and he said ?what are we going to do together?? And I said ?well, I?ll come up with something..? and it wasn?t until five years later when* I was thinking about the idea of Exodus and Moses being this kind of larger than life character who, at the same time, has to be played definitively as a very real person, that I thought of Christian and I knew he was the right actor for the role. It?s not a fantasy. Ramses certainly wasn?t a fantasy and somewhere Moses is very much written down and indicated and believed. So it?s a real thing.*

*Q: What was in your mind when you set about creating this international cast?*
*
Egypt was ? as it is now ? a confluence of cultures, as a result of being a crossroads geographically between Africa, the Middle East and Europe. We cast major actors from different ethnicities to reflect this diversity of culture, from Iranians to Spaniards to Arabs. There are many different theories about the ethnicity of the Egyptian people, and we had a lot of discussions about how to best represent the culture.*_


----------



## dream (Sep 11, 2014)

ghstwrld said:


> _Relevant.
> 
> *Q: You said you cast Exodus very ?carefully.? Could you expand on that?*
> 
> ...


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Sep 12, 2014)

Yep white people playing egyptians is diverse. I don't care about skin color normally and all white people are not the same ethinicity but he's avoiding casting people more native to Egypt. I don't mind Iranians and arabs but how important will they be potrayed as?


----------



## Stunna (Sep 12, 2014)

still boycotting


----------



## Nuuskis (Sep 13, 2014)

I think people are making too big of a fuss about the people's skin colour in this movie. Movies about stories from bible shouldn't be taken too seriously anyway. Do you remember the rock monsters from Noah?

But since this is Ridley Scott's film I am expecting a fine action movie. At least all of his movies look very believable, especially the ones that are set in medieval or ancient times.


----------



## Stunna (Sep 13, 2014)

Sauron said:


> I think people are making too big of a fuss about the people's skin colour in this movie. Movies about stories from bible shouldn't be taken too seriously anyway. Do you remember the rock monsters from Noah?


Just because one movie takes "ridiculous" liberties with the source material doesn't mean that it alone sets the precedent for how seriously we should take every other adaptation.

And I put quotes around ridiculous because there was at least some kind of basis (arguably non-canon, obscure Jewish texts) for their being stone angels in the Noah film.



> But since this is Ridley Scott's film I am expecting a fine action movie. At least all of his movies look very believable, especially the ones that are set in medieval or ancient times.


Because that's what the events of the Book of Exodus were about--action. 

and hard for the movie to look believable with a bunch of white leads


----------



## tari101190 (Sep 13, 2014)

Ancient Egyptians were black Africans.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Sep 13, 2014)

Sauron said:


> I think people are making too big of a fuss about the people's skin colour in this movie. Movies about stories from bible shouldn't be taken too seriously anyway. Do you remember the rock monsters from Noah?
> 
> But since this is Ridley Scott's film I am expecting a fine action movie. At least all of his movies look very believable, especially the ones that are set in medieval or ancient times.



Normally skin colour is'nt a factor but Scott seems to want to use white actors who are American or British/Australian rather than give actors more suited to the parts a chance to shine. He does have some diversity in his cast including Indian, Israeli-Palestinian, Iranian and one Turkish but why is Christian Bale playing Moses?Why is Sigourney Weaver playing an Egyptian queen?Why is an Australian playing Ramses the Egyptian king?

The story of Moses is'nt about action. It seems like Ridley just wants Gladiator 2 in which case he should have stuck to something involving Greeco-Roman history/myth.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Sep 13, 2014)

And just for record I don't care if white people play people of color or vice versa anymore than men or women playing opposite genders. That is what acting is, it's pretending to be someone else but I can't help but feel it's Hollywood whitewashing. Was finding actors who better suited the parts for some of these castings too much?Maybe some of them could be very talented and end up with futures in Hollywood.

From a financial stand point having big names to sell a movie I understand but won't excuse this seemingly obvious attempt at Scott to not care much for casting people better suited. He could have found actors for those roles but wanted Americans or British-Australian actors to play major roles as ancient Egyptians.

EDIT


There are some horrible implications on Scott's casting.


----------



## Nuuskis (Sep 13, 2014)

Stunna said:


> Because that's what the events of the Book of Exodus were about--action.



That was a poor choise of word, I meant more like an epic spectacle like Gladiator or Kingdom of heaven.



Stunna said:


> and hard for the movie to look believable with a bunch of white leads



The sets, costumes and other props could look nice. At least my movie experience isn't ruined if every Egyptian in this movie isn't black. And I'll save the judging of this movie after I have seen it.


----------



## Violent by Design (Sep 14, 2014)

tari101190 said:


> Ancient Egyptians were black Africans.



No, they were not....


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Sep 14, 2014)

Egyptians have mixed heritage and at varying points of history would give different answers.


----------



## wibisana (Sep 14, 2014)

moses is not white?
I mean Jesus, Santa is white (fox says so)
Adam
Noah also has to be white


----------



## Fruit Monger (Oct 1, 2014)

[YOUTUBE]t-8YsulfxVI[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## tari101190 (Oct 1, 2014)

If I ever get the money, I'm producing a film set in ancient egypt with only black & middle eastern actors.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Oct 1, 2014)

^ if China ever becomes dominant in movie making the actors you'll see playing these roles will have slanted eyes...


it's just the way these things go.


----------



## ghstwrld (Oct 1, 2014)

but we're not in China, sis


----------



## Suigetsu (Oct 1, 2014)

I want to see prometheus 2 and Blade Runner 2. When I want exodus, I watch the prince of egypt.

This movie looks like fair eye candy, I am very interested in ancient egypt, however I wont be watching this until someone else does and tells me how it is.

Because yes.


----------



## dream (Oct 3, 2014)

Fruit Monger said:


> [YOUTUBE]t-8YsulfxVI[/YOUTUBE]



Going to be a 5/5 movie.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 6, 2014)

> Like most high-profile religious pictures since Martin Scorsese?s 1988 ?The Last Temptation of Christ,? ?Exodus? became the subject of intense media scrutiny before Scott had ever exposed a frame of (digital) film on stages at London?s Pinewood Studios and on location in Spain. Much of the outcry online stemmed from his decision to cast white American, European and Australian actors in most of the key roles, no matter that the same could be said of ?The Passion of the Christ,? ?Noah,? ?The Ten Commandments? and virtually any other big-budget Bible movies. *?I can?t mount a film of this budget, where I have to rely on tax rebates in Spain, and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such,? Scott says. ?I?m just not going to get it financed. So the question doesn?t even come up.?*


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 6, 2014)

Anyone seen the movie ? I am planning on seeing it next weekend.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 6, 2014)

Unfortunately, I'm seeing it with my dad. On the bright side, it won't violate my boycott since he agreed to buy my ticket.


----------



## Rukia (Dec 6, 2014)

It does violate your boycott.  I see now what your word is worth.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 6, 2014)

No it doesn't.  I said I would't give the movie my money, and I'm not.


----------



## Vault (Dec 7, 2014)

Man it was only yesterday I got tempted to change our chat name to 

"Stunna with that OD autism like Caillou about to watch Exodus after boycotting" 

But I refrain because I thought you wouldn't do it  but damn...


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 7, 2014)

Oh my god you actually watched that steaming piece of shit movie didn't you? You poor man.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 7, 2014)

Vault said:


> Man it was only yesterday I got tempted to change our chat name to
> 
> "Stunna with that OD autism like Caillou about to watch Exodus after boycotting"
> 
> But I refrain because I thought you wouldn't do it  but damn...


My dad wants to see it and he agreed to pay my way--it isn't compromising my boycott.

and even if it were, making my dad happy with my company means more to me than my one-man boycott.


----------



## Vault (Dec 7, 2014)

So when are you going to see it?


----------



## Stunna (Dec 7, 2014)

Probably next Monday.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Dec 7, 2014)

Stunner confirmed race traitor...?

I mean, I'll watch it pirate it 'cuz even though I'm hispanic I'm still white...but modern darkies are expected to take offense. It's the PC thing to do breh...


----------



## Stunna (Dec 7, 2014)

Don't get it twisted; I'm OD offended, man.


----------



## Jake CENA (Dec 7, 2014)

The only thing that i liked in this movie was when Moses confessed to his wife.

It was like

Moses: "I havent been completely honest with you...."

and i was fucking waiting for him to say "I AM THE BATMAN!"


----------



## Goldgroger (Dec 8, 2014)

Its a good movie....A very good movie....worth betting every penny you have for being a blockbuster on its releasing weekend.


----------



## tari101190 (Dec 8, 2014)




----------



## tari101190 (Dec 10, 2014)




----------



## dream (Dec 12, 2014)

Just saw it.

Nothing stellar but it isn't terrible either.  Kept me reasonably interested.

3/5


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 12, 2014)

6.6 user score
52 metascore

Rotten Tomatoes : 


This is even worse.

Oh well...


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 12, 2014)

I saw it. Twas okay. Some great moments and the acting was really good, although the pacing was bad.

It's obvious that the director has an agenda, portraying God as a violent, arrogant, spoiled child. You know this, because God is represented in the film by a child...who is violent, arrogant and spoiled. Subtle? Also, the Pharaoh declares himself to be God and states how he plans on killing all the Hebrew Children. Then God outright does the same, so there is certainly a parallel there. It was a very bold move and it's not anti-Jewish or anti-Christian propaganda. You might not even notice it. There is also the possibility that Moses is seeing things thanks to a head wound and that the plagues are natural causes. So props to Mr. Scott for trying something new.

Edit: The white washing is pretty severe. I honestly don't mind hiring white actors to play the main characters, as I think that's more based on fame than race. However, I found it odd that the Hebrews all seemed to be white while the Egyptians were played by dark skinned folk OR white people made up to look more ethnic...


----------



## Stunna (Dec 12, 2014)

The problem with your theory that God had nothing to do with the plagues is the final plague where the firstborns died--that had to have been supernatural.


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 12, 2014)

That's part of the problem with the movie. It can't make up its mind. 

A better way would've been to say that a plague hit and characters within the film came to the conclusion that all 1st borns were taken, or maybe just the children were wiped out because they had weaker immune systems.


----------



## ghstwrld (Dec 13, 2014)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> 6.6 user score
> 52 metascore
> 
> Rotten Tomatoes :
> ...




oh @ these lashings

_

The casting of ?Exodus,? with mostly American, British and Australian actors in Middle Eastern and African roles, has raised some eyebrows, and while these choices represent a failure of imagination and sensitivity, they are also consistent with that old, stale tradition. So is the curious decision to encourage the performers to speak in strange, geographically and historically preposterous accents.

The Egyptian oppressors, with their heavy eyeliner and clingy linen robes, *festoon their highfalutin pseudo-Oxbridge speech patterns with lisps and sighs. (The script is credited to a squad of competent dramaturges, none of them, alas, named Oscar Wilde.)* John Turturro as the relatively nice pharaoh is out-camped only by Ben Mendelsohn as a corrupt, mincing viceroy. Even the manly and muscular Joel Edgerton as the bad pharaoh, Ramses, tries to play along, caressing snakes, fluttering his lashes and gorging on crab legs. *Such women as there are in the movie ? if you doze off you might miss Sigourney Weaver, Hiam Abbass and Tara Fitzgerald ? mostly stand around holding trays and pitchers while the men thunder and hiss.*

Strangest of all is Christian Bale as Moses, raised in the Egyptian royal court as a brother to Ramses and blind to his true heritage. Eventually, of course, Moses discovers his Jewish roots, which means that *he stops shaving, starts herding goats and, unless my ears deceive me, takes to peppering his speech with stagy old-man Yiddish inflections, as though preparing to lead his people from the fleshpots of Egypt into a borscht belt Canaan.* You think this desert is dry? You should try my wife?s brisket.

Alas, Mr. Scott is not Mel Brooks. *?Exodus? is ludicrous only by accident, which isn?t much fun and is the surest sign of what we might call a New Testament sensibility at work.* But the movie isn?t successfully serious, either. Not for the first time, *Mr. Scott confuses excessive scale with authentic grandeur,* and while some of the battle scenes have a rousing, kinetic sweep, there are far too many slow aerial surveys of Memphis, the Egyptian capital, a city bristling with columns and other priapic monuments._


_

Scott has received flak from religious groups for taking liberties with the source material, but he also has raised the hackles of laymen. Some questioned why the director cast white men in all the major roles in a movie about ancient Egypt, and *he responded that big names are necessary in order to finance a movie. He also said he believed that the actors selected were the best people for the parts.

But they aren?t,* and that?s true not just because of racial veracity. Regardless of his heavy eyeliner and gold finery, *Turturro is not believable as a pharaoh even for a second. But no one looks more out of place than Aaron Paul (of ?Breaking Bad?) as a rebellious slave. Even under long hair and a big beard, he still looks like a dude from Idaho.* And Edgerton, who has done some impressive acting work, has two volumes for delivering lines: either an incomprehensible growl originating in the back of his throat or an over-the-top yell.

It?s understandable that people were angry about the whitewashing of Egypt. But *no aspiring actor of color should think of this as an opportunity missed so much as a bullet dodged.* _


----------



## The Weeknd (Dec 13, 2014)

It was alright.

Expected more.


----------



## x5exotic (Dec 14, 2014)

Is this as good as Prince of Egypt?


----------



## Stunna (Dec 14, 2014)

lol           no


----------



## Vault (Dec 14, 2014)

From what the homie said this film is a travesty. Won't even entertain this garbage. Not that I was in the first place but more so now


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 15, 2014)

I can't help but wonder if there's going to be a director's cut that will be a lot better version out of the two.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 15, 2014)

Maybe...but I don't know if this one is salvageable, man.


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 16, 2014)

Stunna... I tought we would be doing boycott to this movie together.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 16, 2014)

My dad really wanted to see this with me (he's a pastor). He bought my ticket so that it technically wouldn't compromise my personal boycott.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 16, 2014)

Just rewatched "The Prince of Egypt"...there's no way this was ever gonna top that masterpiece.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 16, 2014)

Since Hollywood is making movies based on Bible stories, they need to do one about the chick from Ezekiel 23:20


----------



## bloodplzkthxlol (Dec 16, 2014)

there was lots of religious movies this year,

son of god
heaven is for real
noah
gods not dead
exodus

Im wouldnt be surprised if they're planning on making an adam and eve movie sooner or later


----------



## Stunna (Dec 16, 2014)

and not a single good one in the bunch


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 16, 2014)

Do you think this movie is worse than Kingdom of Heaven theatrical version?


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 21, 2014)

This trash has absolutely no respect for the source material.

And Bale's character is such an ass to everyone he interacts with that when the movie tries to make him look like a good guy it doesn't seem genuine. 

Same as his "spiritual epiphany". When he tells them " God is with us" you just shake your head because you know he doesn't believe that.

Give me The Prince of Egypt anyday.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 21, 2014)

Pilaf said:


> Since Hollywood is making movies based on Bible stories, they need to do one about the chick from Ezekiel 23:20



Brazzers will get right on it. Hilariously enough, their casting might be far more accurate.


----------



## BigPoppaPump (Dec 25, 2014)

I just want to thank this movie for paving the way for Idris Elba to play James Bond, Ridley Scott is the real MVP for that.


----------



## ghstwrld (Dec 26, 2014)

_?Exodus: Gods and Kings,? the $140 million Hollywood film about the biblical escape of the Jews from Egypt, will not be shown there because it asserts historical falsehoods and spreads a ?Zionist view,? the Egyptian culture minister was quoted as saying on Friday.

If confirmed, a ban in Egypt would make it the second Arab country this week to disallow the film, after a reported decision by Morocco to bar its distribution in theaters on Christmas just as ?Exodus? was about to premiere.

Egypt?s culture minister, Gaber Asfour, was quoted by Agence France-Presse as saying ?Exodus? was offensive because of what he called its false portrayal of Moses, and of the Jews as the builders of Egypt?s pyramids._


----------



## Sferr (Dec 26, 2014)

I really loved the movie. Don't care that it may have been offensive to someone (it wasn't offensive towards me, so whatever).


----------



## Stunna (Dec 26, 2014)

That's a really swell attitude.


----------



## Wonder Mike (Dec 26, 2014)

Watched and liked it. I enjoyed the fact that the events were told in a way that looked plausible according to real life.


----------



## tari101190 (Dec 27, 2014)

*Egypt bans 'inaccurate' Exodus film*



> *Egypt has banned a Hollywood film based on the Biblical book of Exodus because of what censors described as "historical inaccuracies".*
> 
> The head of the censorship board said these included the film's depiction of Jews as having built the Pyramids, and that an earthquake, not a miracle by Moses, caused the Red Sea to part.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 28, 2014)

Shame it wasn't banned everywhere else.


----------



## tari101190 (Dec 28, 2014)

I saw it.

It was boring and crappy anyway.


----------



## mali (Dec 28, 2014)

This film couldn't have come at a worst time.


----------



## wibisana (Mar 15, 2015)

well personally I enjoyed it, as much i enjoy Kingdom of heaven
as expected,
I am fan of R Scott so this is biased oppinion

btw I am confused, why movie seems wanna make the realistic version of the story (Making moses crazy/double personality)
and they try to explain the earlier plague by "science"/reasoning as the minister explain/theory

but then they, gave us god kill egypt baby/first born thing that is supernatural/magical thing, throw away my expectation that moses is crazy, and all even is just "coincident" and moses profit on it.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 15, 2015)

This was a decent remake.

.


----------



## Velocity (Mar 18, 2015)

Sanity Check said:


> This was a decent remake.
> 
> .



I'll stick with Prince of Egypt. It has singing.


----------



## tari101190 (Mar 18, 2015)

STOP REVIVING THIS!


----------



## Stunna (Mar 18, 2015)

yeah, I'm pretty sure that bumping this thread is a sin or somethin'


----------



## Nuuskis (Mar 22, 2015)

Usually I like Ridley Scott's films, especially these grand-scale historical films, but this movie just didn't do it for me for some reason. Maybe there's going to be a director's cut that will include scenes that will make this movie work better like it was for Kingdom of Heaven.

While Christian Bale did a fine job, I just can't imagine him as Moses, I think someone else would have suited better for that role. The guy who played Ramses was ok, Sigourney Weaver was a weird cast in my opinion though, she pulled me out of the movie when she appeared. And finally, The God being a little kid was stupid.

Prince of Egypt is still the better version of this story.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 22, 2015)

Clay said:


> I'll stick with Prince of Egypt. It has singing.





Nuuskis said:


> Prince of Egypt is still the better version of this story.



.

I haven't seen Prince of Egypt.

I liked Exodus Gods and Kings.

People criticize it for lacking egyptian actors.  But there aren't egyptian actors in the world who are famous enough to headline a film like this one.  At least not as famous as christian bale, etc.  So, why complain.


----------



## Stunna (Mar 22, 2015)

**


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Mar 22, 2015)

i'll bite

Why do you need A-list actors to headline a film? Especially since there have been many big name films that starred actors who were obscure to the public.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 22, 2015)

~Gesy~ said:


> i'll bite
> 
> Why do you need A-list actors to headline a film? Especially since there have been many big name films that starred actors who were obscure to the public.



.

Name a big budget film starring obscure actors as leads.

Actors are draws in the same way manny pacquiao or floyd mayweather is a draw.  People will see a movie for no reason other than "christian bale is in it".  Including big name actors that are draws, is a way to guarantee box office sales.  Sales translate to profits.  Profits translate to success.

Including actors who are small draws as leads is a risky venture and prone towards opposite trends.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Mar 22, 2015)

Sanity Check said:


> .
> 
> Name a big budget film starring obscure actors as leads.
> 
> ...



John Carter ,Chronicles of Narnia, and the Harry Potter series off top. Besides that there have been some lower budget films that came back with a huge profit like the Paranormal Activity Series and the recently released 50 Shades of Gray. Passion of the Christ,another biblical film, though low in budget made alot more than Exodus with a lesser known cast.

Not denying popular actors can draw a crowd, but it isn't requirement for success.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 22, 2015)

~Gesy~ said:


> John Carter ,Chronicles of Narnia, and the Harry Potter series off top. Besides that there have been some lower budget films that came back with a huge profit like the Paranormal Activity Series and the recently released 50 Shades of Gray. Passion of the Christ,another biblical film, though low in budget made alot more than Exodus with a lesser known cast.
> 
> Not denying popular actors can draw a crowd, but it isn't requirement for success.



.

I would say Chronicles of Narnia and Harry Potter don't count due to there being a lack of child celebrities to draw upon to fill lead roles.

John Carter cost $263 million to make, and earned $284 million at the box office.



You might say its a prime example of how using no names as leads can led to box office failure.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Mar 22, 2015)

John Carter made more than Exodus with a lesser known cast.

Lack of child actors isn't an excuse for the profit that was brought in.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 22, 2015)

Exodus is a remake, if I remember right John Carter is an original.

Originals always do better than remakes, the majority of the time.  At least in terms of biblical oriented storytelling demographics, where the standard target age of viewers falls into the Tea Party bracket.

.


----------



## Stunna (Mar 22, 2015)

John Carter is an adaptation, not an original.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 22, 2015)

Stunna said:


> John Carter is an adaptation, not an original.



.

John Carter is an original movie based on books written by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the author of the Tarzan books.

Exodus is just the latest in a long line of remakes catering to religious demographics whose majority view Ben Hur, The 10 Commandments, King of Kings and similar films as representing the high water mark for _original_ biblical adapted films.

You wouldn't compare the original John Carter film to a remake of The 10 Commandments, you would compare it to Ben Hur or another original film.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Mar 22, 2015)

Sanity Check said:


> Originals always do better than remakes, the majority of the time.
> 
> .



Hard to even take this seriously being how tickets cost more  and people are seeing movies more. but I will say I looked up a couple remakes and and all of them proved you wrong.


----------



## Stunna (Mar 22, 2015)

Sanity Check said:


> John Carter is an original movie based on books written by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the author of the Tarzan books.


It's an adaptation. Not original. The concept was not created for the sake of the film.



> Exodus is just the latest in a long line of remakes catering to religious demographics whose majority view Ben Hur, The 10 Commandments, King of Kings and similar films as representing the high water mark for _original_ biblical adapted films.


Exodus is a re-adaptation, not a remake. It shares its source material with other Exodus films like The Ten Commandments and The Prince of Egypt, but it was not written based off of either of those other films.



> You wouldn't compare the original John Carter film to a remake of The 10 Commandments, you would compare it to Ben Hur or another original film.


I would compare them in this context because they're both _adaptations _from literature. 

Also, Ben-Hur (1959) is a remake of the 1925 film, which is an adaptation of the novel. Not original either.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 22, 2015)

~Gesy~ said:


> Hard to even take this seriously being how tickets cost more  and people are seeing movies more. but I will say I looked up a couple remakes and and all of them proved you wrong.



.

It depends on whether you classify Jurassik Park, Titanic and Transformers as originals or remakes.  Jurassik Park and Transformers, I would say both are originals being the first live action films of those genres.  Being adapted from animated movies or books doesn't change them being the original or first installation.

I'm still waiting on James Cameron to make a Titanic sequel, btw.



Stunna said:


> #1  It's an adaptation. Not original. The concept was not created for the sake of the film.
> 
> #2  Exodus is a re-adaptation, not a remake. It shares its source material with other Exodus films like The Ten Commandments and The Prince of Egypt, but it was not written based off of either of those other films.
> 
> ...



1.  Being the first live action film, makes it original in its respective category.  It is the first in the genre.  Jurassik Park is an original movie, even if it was adapted or inspired by books written by Michael Crichton.

2.  Exodus is a remake because it isn't the first live action film to tell the story of Moses freeing hebrew slaves from Egypt.  

3.  Being an adaptation doesn't imply something isn't original, or the first film made about something in a specific genre.  The first Transformers live action movie is an original.  Its the first live action film of a franchise in a genre.  Everything after that is a remake.  Whether its adapted or inspired by stories in a different medium does nothing to change that.

4.  That's a good point.  I forgot about that earlier 1920's original.  1920's might not count considering movies in that era were black and white and lacked audio.


----------



## Stunna (Mar 22, 2015)

Sanity Check said:


> 1. Being the first live action film, makes it original in its respective category.  It is the first in the genre.  Jurassik Park is an original movie, even if it was adapted or inspired by books written by Michael Crichton.


Neither Exodus nor Jurassic Park are original films--this is an objective fact.

Think about it: If they were nominated for screenplay awards by the Academy, would they be nominated for Best _Original_ Screenplay, or Best _Adapted_ Screenplay?



> 2. Exodus is a remake because it isn't the first live action film to tell the story of Moses freeing hebrew slaves from Egypt.


Would you call The Dark Knight a remake of Adam West's Batman film?



> 3. Being an adaptation doesn't imply something isn't original


That is exactly, objectively, what it means.



> 1920's might not count considering movies in that era were black and white and lacked audio.


Why would that make it not count? The absence of audio and color doesn't make it any less of a film.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 22, 2015)

Stunna said:


> #1  Neither Exodus nor Jurassic Park are original films--this is an objective fact.
> 
> #2  Think about it: If they were nominated for screenplay awards by the Academy, would they be nominated for Best _Original_ Screenplay, or Best _Adapted_ Screenplay?
> 
> ...



.

1.  Any live action Jurassik Park movies made after the original are sequels, remakes, spinoffs or reboots, etc.  The first movie is the original, like it or not.  Its the original even if it was adapted from something else.

2.  They have separate categories for screenplays, that doesn't mean the first live action Jurassik Park movie isn't considered the original or that original screenplays are in fact original.

3.  The Dark Knight is a reboot.  

4.  It wouldn't count because a live action movie in that era has significcant differences from a live action movie in the current era.


----------



## Stunna (Mar 22, 2015)

Sanity Check said:


> .1.  Any live action Jurassik Park movies made after the original are sequels, remakes, spinoffs or reboots, etc.  The first movie is the original, like it or not.  Its the original even if it was adapted from something else.


Nope. 



> 2.  They have separate categories for screenplays, that doesn't mean the first live action Jurassik Park movie isn't considered the original or that original screenplays are in fact original.






> 3.  The Dark Knight is a reboot.


By _your_ definition, it is a remake of Adam West's Batman. You can change your definition, but that'd be some form of a concession.



> 4.  It wouldn't count because a live action movie in that era has significcant differences from a live action movie in the current era.


Nope. 

Dangerously close to just marking this one up to #InsanityCheck

'prolly shoulda' done that by now, but


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 22, 2015)

Stunna said:


> #1  Nope.
> 
> #2  By _your_ definition, it is a remake of Adam West's Batman. You can change your definition, but that'd be some form of a concession.
> 
> ...



.

1.  "Nope" isn't really a valid response.

2.  Its not a remake cuz Adam West's Batman and Christian Bale's Batman are two separate incarnations.  You could say its a remake.  It is a remake in terms of it being another Batman live action, but it would be more accurate to call it a reboot.

3.  "Nope"?  

4.  If you're communicating using one word replies like "NOPE" maybe you should call it a day before you resort to using grunts and shaking / nodding your head.


----------



## wibisana (Mar 25, 2015)

~Gesy~ said:


> John Carter made more than Exodus with a lesser known cast.
> 
> Lack of child actors isn't an excuse for the profit that was brought in.



what?
*Exodus*
Budget	$140 million[3]
Box office	$267.3 million[4]

*John carter*
Budget	$263.7 million[3]
Box office	$284.1 million[4]

am I missing something?
it barely break even how you say it made more money?
JC have huger ad campaign yet only 14 million dollar more than exodus


----------

