Posted on 01/17/2004 11:24:09 PM PST by dennisw
I presume Ebert and Roeper will also give it two balls down.
What exactly is the ADL's job? The last 6 months they seem to be self-appointed film critics with the authority to say what films are correct and what ones are not.
If the ADL is not in the business of "historic accuracy to films" as they mentioned in every press release during the Passion film controversy, why would they not take on this film that seems to reek of implausibility? Or, do we have a double-standard and selective outrage at work here?
I'm not as worried about them (they already believe this and promote these ideas without the film) as I am about the younger generation and history-ignorant who accept these movies which rewrite history (Kevin Costner movie "JFK" is a good example) and get their history lessons from these works of fiction. You can see it here on FR with the conspiracy theorists.
Also little known is the fact that the Mongols occupied Jerusalem around 1300 for a short time.
I see you did a search to of my last post saying Muslims attacked us because we support Israel. I believe this is true. Muslims attacked us because we support Israel--and we are RIGHT to support Israel.
It was not stupid--I don't apologize for it, because it is true. There are other reasons Muslims hate America, but support for Israel ranks up there. Muslims hatred for Israel is pure envy and pure evil---but that is another story.
Hey--thanks for all the Conservative support against Abe Foxman and the ADL. Sorry I missed it. He is still at it by the way, and is about to ratched up his venom against Mel Gibson's movie in another 3 months--so I can give it a rest, but he won't. I guarentee it. In fact, let's you and I post to each other about the time the movie comes out and see. OK?
That nothing but revisionist nonsense. There were plenty of good Crusaders, King Baldwin IV for example.
I can, very easily. The script contained a damning indictment of Clinton and his SoD William Perry, and Scott left it on the cutting room floor. Shame!
Mmmm, I will make sure I order the largest popcorn for that last part.
Being a crusader history buff I once started writing a script for a movie about Baldwin IV entitled "The Leper King," however I assumed it would never go anywhere. For one I have only a limited experience writing scripts and no one in Hollywood would ever pick up a script from some nobuddy like me, not before I've had a good book published anyway. Second no one would ever make a movie about the crusades that portrays the christians as anything but monsters. Now I feel like there is a real need for it though :(
As was perfectly normal for the time. It was done all over Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. It was a unwritten rule of siege warfare, "if you resist you WILL BE SACKED!" The Muslims butchered Christians and jews after they took cities as well. Saladin himself, that model of Muslim chivalry, wanted to march into Europe and kill every member of the Frankish race. And, just look at the history of the Crusades in Spain (And yes they were Crusades the Popes at the time considered them such). Many of the Crusaders were familiar with the war in the Iberian peninsula, some of them had even fought in it. So they knew the Muslims you might say.
Anyway, I am so grateful for any movie about the Crusader period that I am willing to give it a try. Perhaps a sequel with Richard Coeur de Lion will be in order if the movie is a success
Well I hate to burst your bubble but they can't make a sequel with Richard I in it since this movie takes place long after the Third Crusade. Although, knowing Hollywood's understanding of historical accuracy they might put him on a boat with Don John of Austria
The Moo world only has electricity for about 17 minutes per day. How in the hell are they even going to get the pork-byproduct weiners hot at the concession stand, much less show a whole movie?
The guy's got a way with words.
I can fully understand why you might have interpreted my criticsm of the ADL and its (in)application to this scenario as bashing--and if that was how it came across---that was my fault and not yours.
I have never been to Israel, but I spent a lot of time in UAE, Bahrain, Saudi, Oman, Egypt, and the rest. The blind hatred of these people towards Israel and the Jewish people is nothing like I could have ever imagined. The "persecution complex" that arises is not entirely unjustified, and I think we would clearly agree.
I am a firm believer in history, and in preserving the intregrity of history. I just read Ian Kershaw's excellent book on the rise of the cracked Austrian (titled: "Hitler 1889-1936 - Hubris"). The book closes with the horrific events of 1935--and the inhuman "Nuremberg Laws." The twisting and mocking of every fact of life and common decency, and the breaches of scientific, social, legal, and economic law that produced these monsterous "laws" came about after years of demogogary, agitiation, and lies.
When I see the craven re-writing of history and events by Hollywood and these orcs with a clear agenda, I wince. The angle of Foxman's participation is somewhat different, but misguided. He interjected himself and basically argued that a movie about the life of Christ could not be written according to the Gospels because his interpretation or understanding of them were not to his liking. That is wrong, and dangerous.
Ping me anytime about this upcoming movie and examples of how it is following a similar course--glad to discuss it.
Many thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.