News about Netflix exclusive films and content

[Jaymann]

Nice to see Megan Fox has found a role within her acting range.

She is a robot in Subservience.

[TheMix]

Nice to see Megan Fox has found a role within her acting range.

She is a robot in Subservience.

Thanks. I'm not familiar with Subservience. So I was a bit lost.

[hepcat]

Thanks. I'm not familiar with Subservience.

Ha, that’s not what your wife says!

[TheMix]

Thanks. I'm not familiar with Subservience.

Ha, that’s not what your wife says!

She can speak for herself, sir! Well... once I remove the ball gag...

[Jaymann]

It was prominently featured by my algorithm. YMMV>

[hepcat]

You watched the first two Transformers movies 24 times in a row. What did you think Netflix was going to make of that?

[Rumpy]

The latest casualty of Netflix movie suckage is Mary, a movie that is supposedly the story of Jesus through the eyes of his mother. It is bad and is nowhere near being authentic. The first hint of course is right within the opening of the movie when Mary says: 'You think you know my story. You don't', which is code for, we made up a lot of stuff, and this movie goes off the rails quite a fair bit when it comes to historical accuracy. Lots of blood, gore and violence. Not even the casting of Anthony Hopkins as King Herrod is enough to save it. It's very typical Netflix fare though. Hire a very recognizable actor in the hopes of luring viewers in to a a terrible movie. Save yourselves at all costs! Don't waste your time on this.

[Max Peck]

Using Anthony Hopkins as bait makes this sound like it might be a geezer teaser.

[Rumpy]

Heh. well you wouldn't be wrong. But from what I've seen, he's in it quite a bit. I notice Netflix uses this kind of tactic not just for older stars but large-profile Hollywood stars overall. And they almost always end up not being worth the time.

[Max Peck]

I can't speak to the quality of the film (going by Metacritic, it's pretty bad), but I do find it hilarious that some people reportedly have a problem with the fact that they cast a Jewish actress in the title role.

[Rumpy]

Yeah, kind of surprising given that the role going to a Jewish actress is kind of what you'd want, and given who Jesus turns out to be. But then, people will complain just to complain.

[Victoria Raverna]

Isn't story about Mary and Jesus fictional? How can you make it historical? Make it so there is no virgin birth and Jesus is just a normal human?

[Max Peck]

Isn't story about Mary and Jesus fictional? How can you make it historical? Make it so there is no virgin birth and Jesus is just a normal human?

Dude, even if you believe it's fiction there's still 2000 years of canon and you know how upset hardcore fans get if you break canon.

Which is apparently another issue people have with the movie, but I wasn't interested enough to dive into the rabbit hole in order to find out what changes they made to the biblical story. But I do know that in the book Mary is totally Jewish so it's a little weird for people to get upset about that casting choice.

[Jaymann]

I'm putting my comments in R&P.

[Rumpy]

Isn't story about Mary and Jesus fictional? How can you make it historical? Make it so there is no virgin birth and Jesus is just a normal human?

Seriously, you want to go there??

[Victoria Raverna]

I just find it strange to insist on historical accuracy when it is more of a legend than a history.

[Rumpy]

And even if it were just a story, wouldn't you want it to be accurate to the period and its events? Wouldn't it bother you that they're distorting it so wildly? Even if you don't believe in the story, there are tons of things about the period itself that should be historically accurate, and the movie gets even those wrong. And that's not even getting into the religious characters. There's nothing even inherently religious or spiritual about this movie.

[Zarathud]

Which is apparently another issue people have with the movie, but I wasn't interested enough to dive into the rabbi hole in order to find out what changes they made to the biblical story.

Fixed that for you.

[Jaymann]

Which is apparently another issue people have with the movie, but I wasn't interested enough to dive into the rabbi hole in order to find out what changes they made to the biblical story.

Fixed that for you.

[stessier]

Which is apparently another issue people have with the movie, but I wasn't interested enough to dive into the rabbi hole in order to find out what changes they made to the biblical story.

Fixed that for you.

yeah, that was well played.

[Kraken]

Which is apparently another issue people have with the movie, but I wasn't interested enough to dive into the rabbi hole in order to find out what changes they made to the biblical story.

Fixed that for you.

yeah, that was well played.

Jaymann wins the thread. Mods, please lock.

[Jaymann]

Which is apparently another issue people have with the movie, but I wasn't interested enough to dive into the rabbi hole in order to find out what changes they made to the biblical story.

Fixed that for you.

yeah, that was well played.

Jaymann wins the thread. Mods, please lock.

That's pretty sweet when you can win the thread for liking someone else's post.

[Blackhawk]

I just find it strange to insist on historical accuracy when it is more of a legend than a history.

Look at Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. It's fiction, and it's become legend. If you were making a film of it, wouldn't there be value in making the elements around that central story historically accurate?

[Kraken]

Which is apparently another issue people have with the movie, but I wasn't interested enough to dive into the rabbi hole in order to find out what changes they made to the biblical story.

Fixed that for you.

yeah, that was well played.

Jaymann wins the thread. Mods, please lock.

That's pretty sweet when you can win the thread for liking someone else's post.

I get lost sometimes.

[Rumpy]

I just find it strange to insist on historical accuracy when it is more of a legend than a history.

Look at Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. It's fiction, and it's become legend. If you were making a film of it, wouldn't there be value in making the elements around that central story historically accurate?

Exactly. And let's say that this Julius Caesar movie decides to eschew some of the basic fundamental facts surrounding him and its history to instead make up stuff, ie that he was not a killer, that Rome under him was a peaceful loving nation, that they were not expansionists. And if someone were to call it out as preposterous and historically inaccurate, then they'd be right, because they're not representing the history truthfully.

In the case of Mary, they've distorted the historical details so much as to become unrecognizable, changing some major fundamentals about the story, such as making Joseph a Mason, not a carpenter.

[Max Peck]

I watched the first episode of the Netflix documentary series "Churchill at War" this afternoon. It's a mix of cleaned up/colourized archive footage, with reenactment and talking heads. One of the unusual aspects is that along with the usual historians and authors, they have some contemporary political figures, such as Boris Johnson, George W. Bush and one of Barack Obama's speechwriters (I didn't recognize and don't remember her name) providing a little of the commentary. I have no idea whether Johnson or Bush are known for their interest in or deep understanding of World War II history, or if they're just being used to guide the audience into seeing parallels with certain current events.

At any rate, it is better than I expected when I started watching, so I plan to view the remaining three episodes to see how it all turns out.

[Max Peck]

they've distorted the historical details so much as to become unrecognizable, changing some major fundamentals about the story, such as making Joseph a Mason, not a carpenter.

Well, that's just ridiculously ahistorical. The Masons weren't founded until the late 14th century!

/s

[McNutt]

I hate it when shows retcon established canon and soon I am looking like an idiot because I'm spouting old canon. Soon I'm going to hear that Jesus was powerful because of his midichlorian count.

[Rumpy]

they've distorted the historical details so much as to become unrecognizable, changing some major fundamentals about the story, such as making Joseph a Mason, not a carpenter.

Well, that's just ridiculously ahistorical. The Masons weren't founded until the late 14th century!

/s

Yep, see that's just another point proving just how distorted the whole thing is. And I'm sure that's far from the only example in this production. The complete opposite of having attention to detail. It's kind of disgusting.

[Max Peck]

they've distorted the historical details so much as to become unrecognizable, changing some major fundamentals about the story, such as making Joseph a Mason, not a carpenter.

Well, that's just ridiculously ahistorical. The Masons weren't founded until the late 14th century!

/s

Yep, see that's just another point proving just how distorted the whole thing is. And I'm sure that's far from the only example in this production. The complete opposite of having attention to detail. It's kind of disgusting.

Wait, do you mean they actually showed him as a Freemason? I thought I was just joking about a stray capital M.

[Victoria Raverna]

I just find it strange to insist on historical accuracy when it is more of a legend than a history.

Look at Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. It's fiction, and it's become legend. If you were making a film of it, wouldn't there be value in making the elements around that central story historically accurate?

Why? If we can have a movie about Abraham Lincoln hunting vampires and have no problem with it, why Julius Caesar's story has to be "historically accurate" by following Shakespeare's version?

[hepcat]

Did...did you walk into Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter expecting it to be non fiction?

Ooooh boy, I feel like I should probably not mention FDR: American Badass.

[Victoria Raverna]

Ok. So the problem is because people walk into a movie about Jesus or Caesar related story and expect it to be non fiction and have problem because it is not like the "non fiction" story in bible or Shakespeare's play?

[hepcat]

I had that problem with "Caligula's Christmas Special".

[Rumpy]

they've distorted the historical details so much as to become unrecognizable, changing some major fundamentals about the story, such as making Joseph a Mason, not a carpenter.

Well, that's just ridiculously ahistorical. The Masons weren't founded until the late 14th century!

/s

Yep, see that's just another point proving just how distorted the whole thing is. And I'm sure that's far from the only example in this production. The complete opposite of having attention to detail. It's kind of disgusting.

Wait, do you mean they actually showed him as a Freemason? I thought I was just joking about a stray capital M.

Yes, they do. They've given him the job of mason rather than carpenter in the movie. I wish I was kidding. A change for the sake of a change which happens a lot in this movie.


Edit: Oh wait, I see what you were doing. No, just a regular mason. Not Freemason Still not very accurate.

Ok. So the problem is because people walk into a movie about Jesus or Caesar related story and expect it to be non fiction and have problem because it is not like the "non fiction" story in bible or Shakespeare's play?

You've managed to thoroughly confuse me. Congrats.

[Victoria Raverna]

Is there a historical evidence that Joseph is a carpenter and not a mason? Seriously asking here. Did the creator of that show miss that evidence?

[Max Peck]

Yes, they do. They've given him the job of mason rather than carpenter in the movie. I wish I was kidding. A change for the sake of a change.

Just to be clear, are you saying that they made him a stoneworker rather than a woodworker (i.e. a mason, but at least an occupation that existed at the time) or did they make him a member of a Freemason fraternal organization (i.e. a Mason, a member of an organization that wouldn't exist for more than another millenium)? One of those is a much larger and more bizarre change to the traditional story than the other.

[Rumpy]

Yes, they do. They've given him the job of mason rather than carpenter in the movie. I wish I was kidding. A change for the sake of a change.

Just to be clear, are you saying that they made him a stoneworker rather than a woodworker (i.e. a mason, but at least an occupation that existed at the time) or did they make him a member of a Freemason fraternal organization (i.e. a Mason, a member of an organization that wouldn't exist for more than another millenium)? One of those is a much larger and more bizarre change to the traditional story than the other.

Heh, you know, I went back and looked at the comment, and I realized what you meant about the stray M. Good catch! Yes they made him a regular stone worker, although the word mason was thrown about in professions such as these. It still doesn't make it very accurate.

Is there a historical evidence that Joseph is a carpenter and not a mason? Seriously asking here. Did the creator of that show miss that evidence?

Yes! It's a concrete fact at this point. To miss that as evidence would be akin to missing the fact that Al Capone was caught on tax evasion.

[Max Peck]

Is there a historical evidence that Joseph is a carpenter and not a mason? Seriously asking here. Did the creator of that show miss that evidence?

Define historical evidence in the context of the Bible. Show your work.

Anyway, there is one single reference to Joseph's occupation in the Bible, where the author has this to say about Jesus:

Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Whether that one reference is somehow fundamental to all of Christendom, I have no idea, but it's what the screenwriter had to work with in the source material.

[Max Peck]

Yes, they do. They've given him the job of mason rather than carpenter in the movie. I wish I was kidding. A change for the sake of a change.

Just to be clear, are you saying that they made him a stoneworker rather than a woodworker (i.e. a mason, but at least an occupation that existed at the time) or did they make him a member of a Freemason fraternal organization (i.e. a Mason, a member of an organization that wouldn't exist for more than another millenium)? One of those is a much larger and more bizarre change to the traditional story than the other.

Heh, you know, I went back and looked at the comment, and I realized what you meant about the stray M. Good catch! Yes they made him a regular stone worker, although the word mason was thrown about in professions such as these. It still doesn't make it very accurate.

Not so much a catch as a result of how my sense of humor is wired.