O'Reilly and Voight go at it - The Passion

Ipecac

Graduate Poster
Ipecac
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
1,846
Two intellectual heavyweights, chock full of an accurate knowledge of history, discuss the Passion of the Christ. ;)

O'Reilly v. Voight


BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Back of the Book" segment tonight, "The Passion of the Christ" was again the number one earning movie in the country. It has grossed more than $265 million in the USA, making it one of the most successful films of all time. But the controversy continues to rage.

Joining us now from Los Angeles is Academy Award-winning actor, Jon Voight, a Catholic, who says he is troubled by the film.

Now this is just a conversation between two Catholic guys, you and me.
Click to expand...

They go on to debate the various parts of the film that are or aren't historically accurate.

O'REILLY: ... I went in, I saw the movie, and the movie, to me, was a fairly faithful adaptation of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I didn't have any problem with it. I didn't think it was anti-Semitic. I thought it was too violent, and I told everybody I can't recommend it because it was too violent. But I am -- I continue to be very distressed by the accusations against Gibson.

How do you see it?

VOIGHT: Well, let me say -- you say it's an accurate representation of the gospels, and I -- let me tell you something that isn't in the gospels, Bill.

There's a scene where the priest from the temple with the temple guards beat Jesus to within an inch of his life, cover his head with a bag, throw him over a bridge, pull him back on chains, almost break him in half, and there are devils or demonic figures lurking, smiling, jeering under the bridge. That is not in the gospels.
Click to expand...

I understand that they believe in all this stuff and it's a fair subject for debate, but man, once you've dropped your religious beliefs, as I have, this starts to sound like two small kids talking about whether Star Wars is better than Star Trek.
 
[star trek geek] "What happened to the original Klingons? I mean they are nothing like the Klingons from the original series!!!"[/star trek geek]
 
I saw that, and it's true. But to credit Voight, he was make more of a point about how Gibson added his own touches, beyond what's in the Gospels, that further demonizes the Jews and softens the responsibility of Pilate. So even within the context of discussing myth-as-history, he's making a valid point.

And to the point of the Catholic-to-Catholic thing, screw O'Reilly. Any literate person can read the Gospels and express valid opinions on these things. You don't have to be a believer to speak up.
 
hgc said:
But to credit Voight, he was make more of a point about how Gibson added his own touches, beyond what's in the Gospels, that further demonizes the Jews and softens the responsibility of Pilate. So even within the context of discussing myth-as-history, he's making a valid point.
Click to expand...

Yes. I don't disagree.
 
Denise said:
[star trek geek] "What happened to the original Klingons? I mean they are nothing like the Klingons from the original series!!!"[/star trek geek]
Click to expand...

I've had many discussions over the course of my life about whether or not the original Enterprise could beat the Battlestar Galactica. Sheesh. Of course it could!
 
Ipecac said:
I understand that they believe in all this stuff and it's a fair subject for debate, but man, once you've dropped your religious beliefs, as I have, this starts to sound like two small kids talking about whether Star Wars is better than Star Trek.
Click to expand...
Yes, you're so much more mature...and besides you think skeptically, therefore you own them. :p
 
Denise said:
[star trek geek] "What happened to the original Klingons? I mean they are nothing like the Klingons from the original series!!!"[/star trek geek]
Click to expand...
I liked the Klingons from Star Trek TNG, Picard rules!
 
Denise said:
[star trek geek] "What happened to the original Klingons? I mean they are nothing like the Klingons from the original series!!!"[/star trek geek]
Click to expand...

They asked Worf about it. He said Klingons do not like to talk about that. (DS9 episode where they traveled back in time for The Trouble with Tribbles)

Sisko was my favorite captain. He was the most human, able to pal around with his son, joke with an old friend, and get very scary when dressing someone down or dealing with an enemy.
 
Sisko as the BEST Captain. He looked out after his people, and blended diplomatic skills with military competence. Kirk is still the coolest Captain, as long as you weren't a red shirt on a landing party.
 
Rose said:
Sisko as the BEST Captain. He looked out after his people, and blended diplomatic skills with military competence. Kirk is still the coolest Captain, as long as you weren't a red shirt on a landing party.
Click to expand...
Uh huh. Best for running a "ship" that didn't ever go anywhere. :D
 
rachaella said:
But Picard really pulled off that bald thing well. He'd look funny with hair.
Click to expand...
You need to see him as Sejanus in I, Claudius. Nice head of strawberry blond curls.
 
Rose said:
Sisko as the BEST Captain. He looked out after his people, and blended diplomatic skills with military competence. Kirk is still the coolest Captain, as long as you weren't a red shirt on a landing party.
Click to expand...

Sisko wasn't even a captain. He was a commander. Captains are the head of ships.
 
rachaella said:
Sisko wasn't even a captain. He was a commander. Captains are the head of ships.
Click to expand...
Wasn't he promoted to captain in one of the later series?

And he was certainly the commanding officer of the Defiant.
 
This thread title is..umm...interesting (to say the least)...:D ;)
 
Sisko started the series as a Commander. In the third season, they added the Defiant and Sisko was her commanding officer. Some time after that, he was promoted to Captain. So there!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom