Close Menu
    Unterhaltung

    Mel Gibson sieht sich nach der „blasphemischen“ Neufassung der Fortsetzung von „Passion of the Christ“ mit Gegenreaktionen konfrontiert

    Share.
    View 46 Comments

    46 Kommentare

    1. FirefighterJust9117 on

      Did he re-cast Dionysus, Osiris or one of the dozen other gods that pre-date christianity that also has risen from the dead?

    2. jr_randolph on

      Well without clicking I highly doubt he re-casted Jesus to be Danny Glover – although that would be an interesting choice.

    4. Tokie-Dokie on

      >Recasting Jesus is blasphemous…

      Do these looners not know that Caviezel isn’t really Jesus?

    7. auntieup on

      Today I learned that Jesus of Nazareth, the world-changing prophet from the Levant, was actually Finnish

    8. jstop633 on

      Who’s gonna finance this? He’s alienated himself from all the big studios with his antisemitism.

    9. QuantumQueso9 on

      Lol, seriously? Mel is at it again, huh? Tbh, didn’t see that one comin. SMH 🙄 pple never learn. But ig, gotta feed the controversy machine for those $$$, right? Still, blasphemy or not, gotta admit his films r kinda dope cinematic-wise. controversial af tho, let’s be real.

    11. 0ttoChriek on

      Why is this a surprise to anyone? Caviezel can’t return, I’m pretty sure his character died in the first movie.

    13. Emz423 on

      The question is – why is he making a sequel of this movie? How many times does Jesus have to die?? lol.

    15. eggflip1020 on

      **Passion of the Christ II: Let He Who is Without Sin, Kick the First Ass.**

    17. itjustgotcold on

      Of all the 20 year old reboots/remakes we’ve got, this is the one that feels more like a satire of American capitalism. Milking a gore porn christian cash cow about Jesus that ends with his crucifixion. This is straight out of Rick and Morty. Also, at this point, I assume anyone willing to work with this creep is a far right lunatic.

    18. chelicerate-claws on

      Isn’t this movie set days after the first one? How the fuck do these people want to explain Jesus suddenly aging 20 years?

    19. majorjoe23 on

      „At the time Gibson had confirmed that Caviezel, 57, would reprise the role, explaining how CGI and special effects would be utilised to make him appear the same age as he was when the original was filmed two decades ago.

      „However, this week it was announced that he’s now been cut from the film entirely – with a younger actor set to take over.“

      Jim Caviezel is going to be calling up Tom Hanks, begging to get some Adrenochrome.

    22. DJBreadwinner on

      Well, considering he looked different when he came back in the book, recasting Jesus makes sense.

    24. FirstManufacturer648 on

      Struck by lightning during the last scene but thinks he wants god to keep going with this shit?

    26. Dockland on

      “A source told the publication that given the fact the events of the sequel take place three days after Christ was crucified on Good Friday it ‘made sense to recast the whole film’.
      ‘They would have had to do all this CGI stuff, all this digital stuff — de-aging and all that — that would have been very costly,’ they added”

    27. withomps44 on

      A white dude playing their messiah is just so hilariously on brand for these people.

    29. Strict_Berry7446 on

      Monica Bellucci played Mary Magdalena? Lol, was Redman supposed to direct this? (Seed of Chucky reference)

    31. Sleepercurve on

      ‚Recasting Jesus is blasphemous work,’ Edward declared on X.

      This article is a joke and these people who wrote these post are fools

    32. end2endburnt on

      CGI de-aging is trash. They should be glad they aren’t saddling themselves with the costs of it just to bring back the old cast.

    35. quigongingerbreadman on

      Even their God is a commodity to be bought and sold and measured by box office success. Lol, I fucking hate his timeline.

    36. Doc-11th on

      Dont care much, didnt watch the first

      but seems like a major downgrade in terms of caliber of actor

    37. Acceptable-Bat-9577 on

      Oh no, Jim Caviezel lost a role. What a tragedy. Not that I intend to watch any Mel Gibson movies, regardless of their cast.

    38. FaithlessnessNo2068 on

      Yes, *this* is the singular reason we need to call out Mel Gibson

    39. phunkyunkle on

      From „Absolutely Fabulous“

      „What are you guys filming out here?“

      „Life of Jesus Christ: 2.“

      „Who is Jesus these days?“

      „Charles Dance.“

    40. Eroom2013 on

      This is pathetic and I feel dumber for having read the article. Some guy on twitter called the recast blasphemous.

    42. Abe2sapien on

      They’ve got Finnish, Cuban, polish and Italian actors all
      portraying people from the Middle East.

    44. MaxProwes on

      I mean it looks like a waste of time without original cast, both Caviezel and Belucci aged well, it would’ve worked better than pretending it’s a sequel (now it’s not)

    45. CrabAncient8853 on

      What, did he cast a less-than-hot Jesus?
      A Black Jesus—wait, this is Mel we’re talking about. Neeevermind!

    46. Equivalent-Client443 on

      How are they going to make a sequel? The main character died at the end of the first one.  

    Leave A Reply