Mel Gibson Is Working on a Sequel to 'The Passion of the Christ'

Tools    







The Passion of the Christ was only the beginning.

In an exclusive interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Braveheart screenwriter Randall Wallace revealed that he is working on a sequel to the 2004 blockbuster with Mel Gibson.

"The evangelical community considers The Passion the biggest movie ever out of Hollywood, and they kept telling us that they think a sequel will be even bigger," Wallace told THR.

Gibson co-wrote and directed the original film, which went on to be the most successful independent film of all time.

Wallace, who studied religion at Duke University, previously partnered with Gibson for the 1995 Best Picture Oscar winner, Braveheart. Wallace was also individually recognized with a nomination for Best Original Screenplay at the Oscars that year.

While Wallace told THR it was too early to discuss financial backing for the film, he revealed that he and Gibson started seriously contemplating the sequel while making the upcoming World War II drama, Hacksaw Ridge, which opens in November. The Passion sequel will reportedly focus on Christ's resurrection.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news...0GP?li=BBnbfcL



I dont even know what to make of this. How can there be a sequel?! Is he gonna tell the story of Paul, or Jesus's life before Passion. If its a "prequel" then that could be exceptional. I hope its not gonna be a sick torturous snuff film like the first. That was veeeeeery uncomfortable to watch. (No disrespect to Jesus)



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
It says in the post it's about the resurrection. That could mean the three days after the crucifixion and/or the 40 days after the resurrection. Of course, no word from Gibson.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I didnt know if they would do heavy flashbacks on his life throughout. More to produce content, but yeah I guess he could make it the 3 days after. Passion took place in two days.



I rather see him do a Lethal Weapon 5 and Braveheart 2 then do a sequel to that atrocious film. The Passion of Christ is one of the worst films ever made.



Please be "Passion of the Christ 2: Crucify This"


Cover art;
Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	b9821_ORIG-epic_jesus.jpg
Views:	86
Size:	12.4 KB
ID:	25932  
__________________
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force. ~Ayn Rand

Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis!!! Si vis pacem, para bellum!!!



Teller of stories that no one listens to
Yiiiikes. To be honest I don't know how I feel about this. I saw the film and was deeply disturbed (in a good Christian way I suppose) by the end of the viewing. I just didn't feel they talked enough about the good Christ did instead focused on the beating which got a little too hardcore. I got it, it was suppose to show how bad it was but really?

As far as a sequel it could be good and it could not. The three days after could be amazing, but Gibson has damaged his rep so badly that I don't know if he'll get the backing nor the talent to really be a part of it. Then again, controversy is still news right, and any news is good news for Hollywood.

Side not, has anyone ever heard how Kevin Smith said he would have done The Passion? He said he would have changed it since Hollywood changes everything and when Christ is on the cross two ninjas jump out kill the guards and rescue Christ saying, "Not on my watch" or something and escape and then the ninjas pull off thier masks and it would be Jay and Silent Bob. I might have seen that.



Welcome to the human race...
I'd rather that Nick Cave's treatment for Gladiator 2 managed to become a film instead.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Why do you feel it was atrocious?
I can't speak for chrich but I would say it's atrocious because it wasn't well constructed at all, it had no structure. It was just a gore fest. I would say at best it serves as an exemplary exploitation flick.



It's weird how many criticisms of The Passion of the Christ are basically just an objection to the very idea of making it.

I think it's fair to criticize a movie for failing to be what it's trying to be, but saying you just wish it were an entirely different type of movie strikes me as pretty odd. It's like going to a drama and saying you didn't like it because it wasn't funny enough.

Yeah, it's a brutal movie. It's supposed to be. It's depicting a brutal act. The question is: is it depicting that brutality with skill and with purpose? And I don't see how anyone could seriously claim that it isn't. It's a very well made film, technically, and its violence is in keeping with a larger purpose. And far from being unnecessary, I find it a welcome change of pace from the blonde, happy-go-lucky teddy bear Messiah we've seen depicted so many other times.



all I got from this is I would like to see Hacksaw ridge.. not the other one, which this thread is about