Originally posted by Ushgarak
The Legions may not but the Praetorians and the Cohorts (plus whatever extea bodyguards were around at the time, as often happened) were huge- more than enough to act as an army.Yes, I am really questioning their ability. Because the Romans always, ALWAYS knew they could not rule by force alone, they constantly ruled in co-operation with the local authorities and the possiblity of Jewish revolt taking away the entire east was very VERY real indeed. Jewish authorites were given great power and reference.
I AM using my head, that's the point. Your idea that it could not have happened as Romans would have massacred the population is you not using yours- that's a complete fantasy. If that was all Rome had to offer, they would never have held the Empire.
Gibson's Jewish hate aside, you put forward the idea that the Barabbas thing cannot possibly true. Well, sorry- it;s entirely plausible, and I rather feel your commentary on it above was plucked out of thin air with no reference to the political reaslity at the times. Therefore Gibson should not be so criticised for filming a possiblity that is not absurd.
Oh my... yes the Romans keep control by appeasing and not constantly crushing those they conquered, they let them have certain freedoms, as in keeping their local religions, customs and what have you, as long as they obeyed Roman law.
Regardless, they initially conquered with the sword and the way of the sword was always in the back of the minds of the people they conquered.
If you actually read above, I said the Jews could have revolted and taken Jerusalem, but it would have been a short lived victory, as the Romans would have returned with greater forces, this was in the very low BC's, when Rome was powerful, not rome in the late 400's.
Liek I said, I gave reasons why it is in all likelyhood didn't happen that way. Roman's freeing foreigners who murdered Roman soldiers just wasn't common practice.
Originally posted by Robtard
If you actually read above, I said the Jews could have revolted and taken Jerusalem, but it would have been a short lived victory, as the Romans would have returned with greater forces, this was in the very low BC's, when Rome was powerful, not rome in the late 400's.
you made a mistake there vin
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Actually I found a good story from the BBC which states the historical side of things, includinga.) That there was such a thing as a Passover Amnesty once a year.
b.) Pilot had 6,000 troops in a city that had 2.5 million jews (he did have 30,000 more on standby in Syria)
c.) He was called to Rome to answer for the events of the crucifixion, but the Roman emporer Tiberius died before he got there. Pilot ends up committing suicide not long after the crucifixion.
Here's the link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/whokilledjesus_2.shtml
So it appears that The Passion (and the Bible) version of events is possible (and probable, as the article mentions how he tried to use the Barabbas trick to avoid a riot) and that there is no direct evidence against it.
Gibson's film is off the hook for what Schecter (and Rob?) said it was doing and any claims otherwise are just angry viewers trying to create anti-semitism where none exists.
Nobody responded to this, must've gotten missed.
Originally posted by Robtard
Oh my... yes the Romans keep control by appeasing and not constantly crushing those they conquered, they let them have certain freedoms, as in keeping their local religions, customs and what have you, as long as they obeyed Roman law.Regardless, they initially conquered with the sword and the way of the sword was always in the back of the minds of the people they conquered.
If you actually read above, I said the Jews could have revolted and taken Jerusalem, but it would have been a short lived victory, as the Romans would have returned with greater forces, this was in the very low BC's, when Rome was powerful, not rome in the late 400's.
I did read what you said, and what I said was in response to your idea that it could not have happened because the Romans would have come back and massacred all.
Nope, they'd never think like that, let alone provoke. And if Pilate had provoked such an uprising he would have been fish food in days after his return to Rome- it would have been a staggering cock up. Rome was constatly in great fear of such uprisings, and even if they could deal with them- which was never certain- it left them weak and distracted and in a very poor position indeed.
So once more. They ruled in constant co-operation with the local authorities, and whether Barabbas killed Romans or not, if there was an amnesty offered and he was the one picked, Pilate would have let him go. That is absolutely and totally feasible. It's just basic politics. They let far worse people go over time.
There are not actually any compelling reasons why it couldn't have happened. You can believe many things are made up, for sure, but that's not a reason to criticise a possible historical event being dramatised.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I did read what you said, and what I said was in response to your idea that it could not have happened because the Romans would have come back and massacred all.Nope, they'd never think like that, let alone provoke. And if Pilate had provoked such an uprising he would have been fish food in days after his return to Rome- it would have been a staggering cock up. Rome was constatly in great fear of such uprisings, and even if they could deal with them- which was never certain- it left them weak and distracted and in a very poor position indeed.
So once more. They ruled in constant co-operation with the local authorities, and whether Barabbas killed Romans or not, if there was an amnesty offered and he was the one picked, Pilate would have let him go. That is absolutely and totally feasible. It's just basic politics. They let far worse people go over time.
There are not actually any compelling reasons why it couldn't have happened. You can believe many things are made up, for sure, but that's not a reason to criticise a possible historical event being dramatised.
The idea that the Jews would have uprising to the extent that they took back Jerusalem because of Jesus and not done it before because of years of Roman rule sounds plausible? That's like not getting upset at someone burning down your house, but deciding to kill him because he crashed your car. If anything, they would have had a double crucifixion that day, why not just take out Jesus the "king of the Jews" and Barrabus together? Barrabus is said to have also committed atrocites against Jews, so why would the Jews spared him, they could have also asked for a double execution.
Who are these "far worse" people they let go?
Originally posted by chithappens
Because this is how black people are to be portrayed by those with enough influence to make things happen.On a mass scale, those in power seem uncomfortable with discussing stuff that takes a different route than the status quo. As I mentioned before, it is not just a black thing, it's way bigger than that, but I'm trying to give context rather than just rant.
And it's interesting how this thread's topic has veered into the history of Religion concerning Christ and Jews. Okay, Jews this, Jews that, Jews Jews Jews. Do you think, just to bring Jews into the actual topic, do you think Jews are the majority of the people who fear taking a different route than the status quo? Jews created the film industry. They have a lot of clout in Hollywood, and of course we already know this. Are Jews the reason that black characters in movies and television shows are stereotyped and cast so often as rappers, thugs, pimps, etc?
Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
And it's interesting how this thread's topic has veered into the history of Religion concerning Christ and Jews. Okay, Jews this, Jews that, Jews Jews Jews. Do you think, just to bring Jews into the actual topic, do you think Jews are the majority of the people who fear taking a different route than the status quo? Jews created the film industry. They have a lot of clout in Hollywood, and of course we already know this. Are Jews the reason that black characters in movies and television shows are stereotyped and cast so often as rappers, thugs, pimps, etc?
actually it was my fault since i bought up mel gibson's butchering of history. though i was referring to the patriot and braveheart, the conversation seemed to take a natural turn to the passion...because mel gibson hates kikes. the rest...well...there you have it
Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
And it's interesting how this thread's topic has veered into the history of Religion concerning Christ and Jews. Okay, Jews this, Jews that, Jews Jews Jews. Do you think, just to bring Jews into the actual topic, do you think Jews are the majority of the people who fear taking a different route than the status quo? Jews created the film industry. They have a lot of clout in Hollywood, and of course we already know this. Are Jews the reason that black characters in movies and television shows are stereotyped and cast so often as rappers, thugs, pimps, etc?
... That's a loaded question really. It is a known fact that they own a lot (and by that, I mean vast majority of Hollywood and most media outlets).
I'm among those that think it's all about making money; however, in the case of black media, this is a very odd way of making money. But I can't say this was not an issue for the Native Americans and how they were seen by white people during the cowboy phase of American culture. Native Americans were demonized the same way black citizens of the U.S. are today so there is obviously a pattern coming into play.
* My girl wants to talk so I'll have to finish later
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
And? Who goes to the movies to study history? Last I heard you go to the movies to be entertain. You want historically correctness...go to a library.On topic, this isn't the first time Spike has been critical of other directors. He also have a feud with Quentin Tarantino for his use of the N word.
Just keep making movies Spike.
Originally posted by BackFire
He also tried to sue Spike TV for using the word 'Spike'.The guy is a joke.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
And? Who goes to the movies to study history? Last I heard you go to the movies to be entertain. You want historically correctness...go to a library.
In many ways I agree with you. However, if a story from history is not entertaining enough for it to be told accurately, then perhaps it should not be told at all. Especially since I have friends who go nuts over Braveheart, and from the moment they saw it they walked out of the theater and assumed they'd just watched an accurate protrayl of the life and times of Wallace. However the counter to that point are those of my friends that used it as a jumping off point. My friend Eric is of Scottish decent and he actually started researching the true history of Wallace and Scottland and actually learned the actual history of the man and the land. So, I guess it is really up to the individual viewer. Eric bettered his understanding of his heritage as well as enjoyed the movie. But we're all familiar with the quote "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend". And far too often the facts get lost in the legend. And it can only be for the betterment of everyone when the legend becomes fact, we print the facts.
(pay no attention to the fact that I LOVE Reign: The Conqueror)
Re: Spike Lee Criticises Clint Eastwood And the Coen Brothers.
Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
Here's the link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2000781/Cannes-Film-Festival-Spike-Lee-criticises-Clint-Eastwood-over-all-white-Iwo-Jima-films.html that states:Eastwood has made two movies about the 1945 Battle of Iwo Jima, one from a US perspective and one from the point of view of Japanese troops.
"Clint Eastwood made two films about Iwo Jima that ran for more than four hours total and there was not one Negro actor on the screen," Lee said.
"I've no idea why he did that. That was his vision, not mine. But I know it was pointed out to him and that he could have changed. It's not like he didn't know. It was a conscious decision not to have any black people."
The director was speaking at the Cannes Film Festival, where he is launching Miracle at St Anna, the true story of four black US Army soldiers trapped behind enemy lines in Italy. While fighting the Nazis, they also have to contend with racial abuse from their superiors.
"Here's the paradox. These African-American men wanted to fight against fascism in the name of democracy. At the same time, they were still second class citizens," Lee said.
Eastwood is also in Cannes, promoting his latest film, The Exchange. But he declined to comment on Lee's attack when questioned about it yesterday.
The Dirty Harry star was not the only film-maker to come under fire from Lee, the always outspoken director of Do The Right Thing and Malcolm X.
He said of brothers Joel and Ethan Coen: "I always treat life and death with respect, but most people don't. Look, I love the Coen brothers, we all studied at NYU. But they treat life as a joke. It's like, 'Look how they killed that guy! Look how blood squirts out the side of his head!' I see things different than that."
Miracle at St Anna will be released in October and is likely to premiere at either the Venice or Toronto Film Festivals, Lee said.
His next project is a feature-length documentary on basketball star Michael Jordan, which is being financed by the NBA. Lee and Jordan have worked together in the past on a series of Nike adverts.
Spike Lee really needs to keep his self righteous bullshit confined to his movies. I'm surprised he didn't work in a rant about how Clint Eastwood and the Cohen brothers were behind the bombing of the levy, because they obviously hate black people too