>that being said, i didn't exactly expect Mel to follow the
>bible 100%
>thats why i said *his* interpretation of the events
>as far as him focusing on the end of jesus life instead of
>some of the other parts
>that was to make it a better story i suppose
>people might have fallen asleep if the movie was 3 hours of
>jesus walking up and down the Galilaean coast telling people
>parables

But see, I think that in order for us to understand from a storytelling perspective why the death of Jesus is important, we need to see MORE of him spreading his message. It's exactly why I liked the last third of the movie, because we get to see through flashback Jesus preaching to the people. It helped the storytelling (albeit too late into the movie in my opinion) because it helped us understand both what this man was about and why people wanted to kill him. The movie for the most part was simply resolution without conflict. Mel thought the conflict was him getting beaten, when the FAR more interesting conflict is the spreading of his message vs. the THREAT of getting beaten.

There doesn't need to be 3 hours of parables, just flashbacks more evenly interspersed throughout the film. If the flashbacks started earlier, I might have really enjoyed the film.

>sadly sensationalism is what sells in religion(and society),
>not the true meat and potatoes or principles the religion
>could teach
>thats not Mel Gibson fault tho, like i said thats just the
>modern state of Christianity

But Mel is a HUGELY influential Christian, you don't think that perhaps he could get away with altering the conventions a tad?

>it's the same reason the avg. church meeting consists of a
>preacher *preaching* and screaming at the audience
>and there is no room for question or discussion and ppl are
>rarely encouraged to actually open up a bible and READ what
>they are being taught

^^^ sounds a LOT like PTP, lol.