Producer Barrie Osborne cast Keanu Reeves as the messiah in The Matrix and helped defeat the dark lord Sauron in his record-breaking Lord of the Rings trilogy. Now the Oscar-winning American film-maker is set to embark on his most perilous quest to date: making a big-screen biopic of the prophet Muhammad.
Budgeted at around $150m (£91.5m), the film will chart Muhammad's life and examine his teachings. Osborne told Reuters that he envisages it as "an international epic production aimed at bridging cultures. The film will educate people about the true meaning of Islam".
Osborne's production will reportedly feature English-speaking Muslim actors. It is backed by the Qatar-based production company Alnoor Holdings, who have installed the Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi to oversee all aspects of the shoot. In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen.
"The film will shed light on the Prophet's life since before his birth to his death," Ahmed Abdullah Al-Mustafa, Alnoor's chairman, told al-Jazeera. "It will highlight the humanity of Prophet Muhammad."
The as-yet-untitled picture is due to go before the cameras in 2011. It remains to be seen, however, whether it will be beaten to cinemas by another Muhammad-themed drama. Late last year, producer Oscar Zoghbi announced plans to remake The Message, his controversial 1976 drama that sparked a fatal siege by protesters in Washington DC. The new version, entitled The Messenger of Peace, is currently still in development.
He's so awesome that no living human being can play his role.Then they should use CG!
$150mil? This will bomb hardYeah, no way it'll show a prophet.
I say different actors should play him throughout, with different avatars!
$150mil? This will bomb hardYeah, no way it'll show a prophet.
$150mil? This will bomb hardYeah, no way it'll show a prophet.
$150mil? This will bomb hardYeah, no way it'll show a prophet.
muslims don't show religious figures in pictures or sculptures because it is believed that it leads to idolatry.
huh?muslims don't show religious figures in pictures or sculptures because it is believed that it leads to idolatry.
Man, that's really worked for them.
Regardless of whether or not the concept was meant to insulate the religion from idolatry, it has directly led to that result. Idolatry can be defined as worship of image or idea, and the fact that people attempted to murder other people over the Jyllands-Posten controversy indicates that religious followers have taken that decree past simple religious dogma.
The insistence that Muhammad cannot be depicted by any visual medium, going as far to strong arm that belief on other cultures through acts of violence, is sort of a form of idolatry in of itself.
The end result is that Muhammad is seen less by outside cultures as a prophet (similar to Moses), but more of a divine being on par with Jesus.
The people themselves don't care about how other cultures view them, especially in how they choose to practice their religion. So as long as they abide by what they've been told (i.e. don't depict Mohammad) they're in the clear.
All prophets, angels, and God himself cannot be depicted by any visual medium in the Islamic faith. If it was up to them they'd strong are that rule over Christians and Jewish people too, but obviously they, so they're left with Mohammad who's only relevant to Muslims.
All prophets, angels, and God himself cannot be depicted by any visual medium in the Islamic faith. If it was up to them they'd strong are that rule over Christians and Jewish people too, but obviously they, so they're left with Mohammad who's only relevant to Muslims.
There are clear passages in the Quran that states "Christians and Jews will try to veer you off the right road", so insisting that Muslims should tolerate the depiction is widely considered one of those instances. Basically, when you're asking them something that would directly contradict, it's obvious how they would react.
Because Jesus and Moses are religiously significant and relevant to other faiths, they can't cause the same amount of uproar, but when it comes to Mohammad who's exclusive to Muslims, it's another story and is viewed as a hostile move against the faith.
Willco, each religion says that they're the only truth, combined with some other teachings this leads to enforcing their own irrational shit on nonbelievers and intolerance of criticism and ridicule. It's inherent to thinking you're right on no evidence what so ever except for a dusty book.There are clear passages in the Quran that states "Christians and Jews will try to veer you off the right road", so insisting that Muslims should tolerate the depiction is widely considered one of those instances. Basically, when you're asking them something that would directly contradict, it's obvious how they would react.
There's so many things wrong with that statement, I don't really know where to begin, Jinfash. I'm not going to argue the validity of religious dogma, but no religion can dictate outside of its followers how folks should view it. Bottom line.Quote from: JinfashBecause Jesus and Moses are religiously significant and relevant to other faiths, they can't cause the same amount of uproar, but when it comes to Mohammad who's exclusive to Muslims, it's another story and is viewed as a hostile move against the faith.
See, this is just hypocritical. The hard line stance, by your own admission, is pretty much ignored when it comes to historical figures of other faiths - despite the fact that the same dogma exists for them too - but upheld when Muslims believe it is an affront against Islam.
... Do you see how that doesn't work out? And regardless of whether or not Islam denounces the depiction of Muhammad as a way to curb idolatry, the irrational, hypocritical and defensive nature of the religion has pretty much put him on a pedestal.
You're basically saying Muhammad is more important than Jesus or Moses. And if that's not idolatry, then I don't know what is.
So could you like make a Muhammad film that was in first-person perspective?
:lol$150mil? This will bomb hardYeah, no way it'll show a prophet.
A Daniel Davies post (http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2006/02/anglo-saxon-death-cult-assuming-that.html) comparing the Muslim taboo towards depicting Mohammed with the western taboo against disrespecting corpses.
Also, I'd point out that at least a couple native American tribes have very similar rules about depictions and photographs, and take much less shit for their beliefs.
What went wrong with muslims? I'm really starting to wonder.
Is it because once their civilization was on par with the west but it fell behind so much? Is it because they failed to have a secular society?
That's a pretty poor comparison.
Except when Christians find something depicting Jesus in poor taste, they just boycott the whole thing - at worst they protest. But that's it. And people are entitled to do that.
Why is it a poor comparison, other than an ingrained belief that of course the cultural significance of a corpse should be different from the cultural significance of a picture?
Neither has any physical impact on a real, living person. What's the substantive difference?
First, when you say "Christians" I assume you mean the ones in the US and western Europe, rather than the ones fighting civil wars in the Sudan.
Even in that case, it's not totally true. We've got a long history of blue laws and restrictions on obscenity, as well as current attempts to regulate symbolic behavior.
When people live in stable, wealthy, democratic societies in which they have access to an open legal-political system, they'll take advantage of that system. When they don't, they are much more likely to use the threat of violence to get what they want, or to be riled up into pointless, chaotic behavior.
What went wrong with muslims? I'm really starting to wonder.
Is it because once their civilization was on par with the west but it fell behind so much? Is it because they failed to have a secular society?
He's just typing passionately. :-*
So willco, you don't think the actual rule against sculptures/pictures was a bad idea back when it was made 1,400 years ago was a bad idea, right?
You just think that the way it is enforced is unbalanced and too extreme today?
Wel you have to consider that the funding for this movie is coming from a Qatar media company that is probably muslim owned. If you believe that they are "forcing their values on you" in this specific case, then wouldn't you also be offended if you see a halo around religious figures painted on a cathedral's stained glass?
He's like a shark; he just has to keep making analogies.
I mean, ever hear of Body Worlds? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_Worlds)
I mean, ever hear of Body Worlds? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_Worlds)
What, the Body Worlds that was referenced in the piece I initially linked to which you apparently didn't read?
Yes, I do believe I have!
He's like a shark; he just has to keep making analogies.:lol
What is this, the thread of bad analogies?they're each rules catering to each religion's stance on divinity and it affects the way holy figures can be represented in artwork. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic.
What, the Body Worlds that was referenced in the piece I initially linked to which you apparently didn't read?
What is this, the thread of bad analogies?they're each rules catering to each religion's stance on divinity and it affects the way holy figures can be represented in artwork. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic.
well what does that have to do with this movie?What is this, the thread of bad analogies?they're each rules catering to each religion's stance on divinity and it affects the way holy figures can be represented in artwork. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic.
But it's a bad analogy with respect to forcing one's beliefs on non-believers, which is one of the biggest points here
What, the Body Worlds that was referenced in the piece I initially linked to which you apparently didn't read?
Hey, I skimmed it. It's not my fault that the guy took forever to make a point, one that's not even really comparable.
However, we do have other taboos that 1) are based on the public display of objects, and 2) evoke viscerally emotional reactions when they're transgressed.
He's just typing passionately. :-*
my nmotto ew.
How can any muslim be mad about this movie?It's pretty clear by now that they're not showing hsi actual face.
He's just typing passionately. :-*
my nmotto ew.
Please tell me this is an on purpose typo. :lol
(http://chud.com/nextraimages/HomeImprovement1.jpg)
This is how they should get around depicting him.
So Roland Emmerich’s new movie is called “2012,” but it should be titled “Dude, Where’s my Balls.”
In the flick, the director enlists every CGI trick in the book to destroy various religious icons– including the Sistine Chapel, St. Peter’s Basilica and the Christ the Redeemer statue. And for those of you who worship at the altar of Obama, the White House gets nailed as well.
But there was one thing missing among the carnage: an Islamic target.
According to Sci Fi Wire, by way of Cinematical.com, this was no accident. In an interview, the director said he hoped to destroy the Kaaba, an Islamic holy site, but his fellow screenwriter Harald Kloser persuaded him not to.
Here’s what the hack had to say about crushing the Kaaba:
“Well, I wanted to do that… but my co-writer Harald said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right. … We have to all … in the Western world … think about this. You can actually … let … Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have … a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it’s just something which I kind of didn’t [think] was [an] important element anyway in the film, so I kind of left it out.”
And so, he echoes what I said nearly two years ago on this show: Hollywood screws with Christians because Christians don’t behead people. But tweak Islam, and you could end up like director Theo van Gogh – dead on a street with a flag impaled on your chest. Roland picks the safe target because he’d rather live, and by “live,” I mean “beat our brains to death with yet more effects-laden dreck.” As my guinea pig, Captain Whiskers might say, “All hail the dependable cowardice of our film industry!”
He might say that, if he could talk.
Anyway, the difference between good and evil is pretty clear. Good people might annoy you about having prayer in schools; evil people throw acid in girls’ faces if they wish to go to school. Trashing the former, while ignoring the latter – proves that Roland has the gonads of a shrimp.
(Note: I haven’t actually seen gonads on a shrimp, but I imagine they’re really small.)
And if you disagree with me, then you’re probably a racist.
I think the Muslims have the right idea there. Maybe if we all put a fatwa on Roland Emmerich's head, he'll stop making shitty movies.