Oh crap...here we go :-P

[docm]

BBC link.....

Epic Muhammad movie in pipeline

An epic movie about Islam's Prophet Muhammad is in the pipeline, backed by a producer of the Lord of the Rings.

American Barrie Osborne, who also produced The Matrix, told Reuters the film would be an "international epic" aimed at "bridging cultures".

In accordance with Islamic rules, the Prophet cannot be depicted on screen. Images of the Prophet are considered blasphemous by Muslims.

The $150m (£91m) English language film should go into production in 2011.
>

[neuvik]

OH MY SCIENCE! ..... So who is Muhammad going to be played by?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNtDrUhcKyQ

[Fomalhautian]

It'll be interesting to see how they get around actually showing the prophet. They won't even be able to do the tricks they used for The Crow after Brandon Lee died. Maybe the entire movie will be shot from Muhammads P.O.V.???

[jcdenton]

BBC link.....American Barrie Osborne, who also produced The Matrix, told Reuters the film would be an "international epic" aimed at "bridging cultures".

LOL! Typical Hollywood thinking. As if movies achieve anything more than a box office listing.

This is basically just a remake of The Message.

Depiction of the prophet or not, this movie isn't going to go well with Muslim extremists who believe there shouldn't be a movie about him at all. I hope the producer knows what he's getting himself in to.

[CalliArcale]

Heh; could be worse. Rule 34

That one'll really get the extremists going.

[PiotrSatan]

It is not cool. I mean it is nice that they are attempting to picturalize historical moment that changed the world but really, how would a christian or anybody else feel if someone depicted their prophet as Chuck Norris or someone like this, including hollywood effects? I would be pretty pissed if I was them. It should be abandoned project unless it would be approved by muslim theologists and it should be co-filmed with them so hollywood doesn't scr*w it up like most of movies.

[dragon04]

Um..... In a world of free speech and free expression, we don't get "permission" from Muslim Clerics to do something. We just do it as is our right. Epic movies have been made about Christ and Moses. I see no way that Mohammed is more "special" or why he should not be depicted in a movie.

[doom_shepherd]

really, how would a christian or anybody else feel if someone depicted their prophet as Chuck Norris or someone like this, including hollywood effects?

Hey, Moses was played by the guy who went to the Planet of the Apes.

Jesus was portrayed by the first Captain of the Enterprise, AND later by the Green Goblin.

(And later, there was that whole Mel Gibson thing.)

So the Muslims will just have to suck it up and be MEN about it.

Hey, if Mapplethorpe can make "Piss Christ" and not get blown up about it, they should be able to take a frickin' film.

[mark_d_s]

As long as it's got guns and explosions in it, and is suitably shallow, I'm up for it

They should use the theme tune from the 'A-Team'.

[CalliArcale]

I mean it is nice that they are attempting to picturalize historical moment that changed the world but really, how would a christian or anybody else feel if someone depicted their prophet as Chuck Norris or someone like this, including hollywood effects?

I gotta second doom_shepard on this one. It's been done. Moses played by Charlton Heston in "The Ten Commandments". Max Von Sydow as Jesus in "The Greatest Story Ever Told". (Heston was also in that, as John the Baptist, and apart from the Swede, the cast was pretty much a whos-who of Hollywood. Even John Wayne was in it.)

Of course, who can forget Godspell? Or, for that matter, the deliberately provocative "Life of Brian"? Just to tie back to the topic of a Mohammed movie offending Muslims, it's worth mentioning that "Life of Brian" offended Muslims before it ever offended Christians. This is because the (largely female) Tunisian extras appearing in a certain crowd scene were not warned ahead of time that Graham Chapman would be appearing in his birthday suit. Oops. Major social taboo. Ladies fainted, apparently. If you've seen the movie, you know which scene I'm referring to.

[ZenGalacticore]

Let's be clear here folks. It's not that Muhammed can't be depicted on screen or an image of him made, it's than MUSLIMS are not allowed to do it.

As Dragon said and I agree 100%, we don't need "permission" from mullahs, imams, Muslims, or ANYBODY to portray Muhammed or ANYBODY else!

I wonder what they thought about George Burns as God in "Oh God!"?

IMO, Robert Powell in "Jesus of Nazareth" was the best potrayal of Jesus Christ that I have ever seen. He really brought the Gospels to life man.

And I'm sorry if it offends Muslims, but I thought that Danish cartoon with the "turban bomb" was knee-slapping gut-busting funny. No one has a right to NOT be offended, in my rebellious American point of view!

[Jobiwan]

Life of Brian - excellent movie.

I think maybe Michael Moore as Mohammed! Oh yeh.

Everybody's too overly sensitive these days. Strap some on!!!

[a_lost_packet_]

...Everybody's too overly sensitive these days. Strap some on!!!

I think that's what people are worried about...

[Jobiwan]

Lol...well done but not what I was talking about as I think you already know

[ZenGalacticore]

That's funny as hell Alp! The young girl seems to be getting a kick out of it as well. Great pic!

Docm, that's the funniest thread title I think I've ever seen from you. "Oh crap... here we go.."

Muslims aren't allowed to show an image of Muhammed. To everyone else he's fair game. If they really had faith that he is THE main prophet of God, then they wouldn't be so insecure about his "image" being portrayed. Of course, I don't believe that Islam allows images of anybody, or anything.

Poor uptight people, they can't even enjoy a Rembrandt without feeling guilty or wanting to blow it up. (And I don't mean enlarge the painting with a chromocolor print.)

[CalliArcale]

Muslims aren't allowed to show an image of Muhammed. To everyone else he's fair game. If they really had faith that he is THE main prophet of God, then they wouldn't be so insecure about his "image" being portrayed. Of course, I don't believe that Islam allows images of anybody, or anything.

Poor uptight people, they can't even enjoy a Rembrandt without feeling guilty or wanting to blow it up. (And I don't mean enlarge the painting with a chromocolor print.)

Well, different Muslims have different interpretations of the prohibition against idolatry. Most Muslims don't have a problem with Rembrandt generally, but would likely have qualms about any paintings depicting God or religious scenes. Religious images are definitely forbidden. This is not because they are insecure. It's partly because of the commandment against worship of graven images. They are forbidden from worshiping Mohamed (they're supposed to worship God, not His prophets, although they are expected to respect the prophets -- including Jesus, BTW). This is part of the reason there is friction between Sunnis and Shiites; the Shiites have several religious ceremonies pertaining to one of Mohamed's sons, which the Sunnis argue are idolatrous. (They also back the wrong horse, from the Sunni's perspective; there's an ancient issue of succession involved, so as with all the really big religious schisms, the roots are more political than theological.) Also, there is a strong emphasis on de-anthropomorphizing God. God is not a human in any way, shape, or form. (No wonder they have issues with Christian doctrine. It's hugely heretical to them.) Religious depictions involving human forms could be interpreted as suggesting that some human has some element of the divine, which would be very offensive because it goes against rules about avoiding thinking that God is in any way human.

If I understand it correctly, that is.

One major upshot of the prohibitions against human images is that it forced artists to find new ways of expressing themselves. They explored mosaics in ways that had not been adequately explored before, and the tessellations so common in Moorish art and architecture were a major source of inspiration for the Dutch illustrator M. C. Escher, among others. Avoiding all reference to the natural world presents a big challenge for an artist, after all. You're left with geometry -- but once you open that door, you get into a whole new realm of artistic expression.

[jimglenn]

He should be played by Mohammed Atta. Show him flying with a hot stewardess, hanky panky. That

should inflame the world of Islam sufficiently.

[docm]

Neh....give him the treatment Pontius Pilate got in Jesus Christ Superstar: gay as hell dancing/singing in high heels and sequins. Freddie Mercury - if he were still around - would be perfect casting and annoy all the right people

[ZenGalacticore]

Well, different Muslims have different interpretations of the prohibition against idolatry. Most Muslims don't have a problem with Rembrandt generally, but would likely have qualms about any paintings depicting God or religious scenes. Religious images are definitely forbidden. This is not because they are insecure. It's partly because of the commandment against worship of graven images. They are forbidden from worshiping Mohamed (they're supposed to worship God, not His prophets, although they are expected to respect the prophets -- including Jesus, BTW). This is part of the reason there is friction between Sunnis and Shiites; the Shiites have several religious ceremonies pertaining to one of Mohamed's sons, which the Sunnis argue are idolatrous. (They also back the wrong horse, from the Sunni's perspective; there's an ancient issue of succession involved, so as with all the really big religious schisms, the roots are more political than theological.) Also, there is a strong emphasis on de-anthropomorphizing God. God is not a human in any way, shape, or form. (No wonder they have issues with Christian doctrine. It's hugely heretical to them.) Religious depictions involving human forms could be interpreted as suggesting that some human has some element of the divine, which would be very offensive because it goes against rules about avoiding thinking that God is in any way human.

I'm aware of all of that, and I was being sarcastic about the Rembrandt. If, however, I paint a picture of my parents and hang it on my wall, it doesn't make it a "graven image" that I worship. It's simply an image. I am also aware that they revere Jesus as the Prince and Prophet of Peace. (They view the Quran and the testimony of Muhammed as the Final Testament in what they consider a testimonial trinity, Old, Middle, and Final.

Btw, I don't know any Christians that visualize God Himself as a kind, bearded old man in flowing robes or as human in any way. That's what Jesus is for, so that Man can relate to God on human terms, on a human level.

None of this changes the fact that it is Muslims, and only Muslims, who are not allowed to depict or portray the Prophet Muhammed. And while we should respect each others' religion as much as possible, we can't let Muslims or anybody else dictate how we can express ourselves, or stifle free expression at all. (We have enough fundamentalist Christians and others doing that already.)

ps- I wonder how Muslims feel about medical drawings of the human image? Are the med students "worshipping" a "graven" image? Of course not. Nor am I "worshipping" that picture of my parents or of my cat. They can just get over it.

Also, how do the more extremist Muslims feel about photography or motion pictures in general? Is it all "graven images"?

[tanstaafl76]

Muhammed v. Jesus, coming soon...




















...on UFC!