The King of Kings [1961]

Bryan Rogers87 said:I don't think that was the issue, especially since they risked alienating a huge chunk of the audience with that kind of presentation (the rating). It ended up with an R-rating, but they could have easily landed an NC-17, which certainly isn't a great way to make money...

Given that 99% of their target audience falls outside that specific rating, they had nothing to lose.

But the real subject here is To be the King of Kings.

Austin Rodriguez5 said:Since basically 99% of the audience falls outside that demographic, they didn't really have anything to lose.

But we’re talking about To be the King of Kings here.

Yeah, it's a topic, but let's actually look at them side-by-side when it comes to the actual risks involved. Honestly, To be the King of Kings was a safe bet. There was zero risk there—it's just your standard, straight-up Hollywood blockbuster. You've got Jesus looking like a total model, all wrapped up in those over-the-top, melodramatic dialogues and a massive budget... It's a polished movie, sure, a good one, but it isn't exactly "brave." It just plays right to its target audience and gives them exactly what they're looking for...

Compared to that, Passion could have easily drawn heat from all sides—you'd have the Jews breathing down their necks on one hand, and then even the Christians on the other, because nobody was quite sure how the Christian community would handle that level of ultra-violence in a movie. It is what it is, though. It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback after the dust has already settled...

Bryan Rogers87 said:It’s a valid topic, but let’s look at them side-by-side regarding the actual risks involved. Honestly, King of Kings was a safe bet with nothing to lose; it’s just your standard Hollywood blockbuster featuring Jesus looking like a model, wrapped in over-the-top dialogue and high production values. It’s a polished film—good, certainly—but it isn't particularly brave. It plays it safe by catering exactly to its target audience and giving them precisely what they expect to see...

Compared to that, Passion could have easily faced backlash from both sides—from the Jews and from Christians themselves—because it wasn't clear how the Christian community would react to such extreme violence. It’s easy to play general after the battle is over...

Yes, I completely agree. 👍
Ultimately, it comes down to personal taste. When I said the movie wasn't good, I meant it wasn't good to ME, which doesn't mean it's objectively bad. 😁

Given when it was made, King couldn't have been any different.

stormyridge2 said:Hands down, it’s the best movie about Jesus ever made. Personally, I think it’s the finest biblical epic out there. Let's be honest: people watch The Passion primarily for Monica Bellucci, not for the religious themes.

People tune into The Beatles because of Jeffrey Hunter, not because of Jesus.🙂

All told, it's just a glossy Hollywood fairytale. When you look at it objectively, it isn't a bad film, but it is a textbook product of its era—very formulaic and stuck in its own mold. I actually attempted to sit through it for a third time recently, but I just couldn't do it! It felt far too cliché and naive; even Jeffrey Hunter couldn't save it for me.😁