Jump to content

Talk:The Nativity Story: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
KissFist (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 15: Line 15:


The reference to the Star of Bethlehem is imprecise at best, misleading at worst. It is generally recognised that the Star as described in the bible would NOT have been an alignment of planets, because a) it would move in time and b) the wise men would not bother with something as predictable. This must be changed, could be done simply by a reference to the corresponding wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_Bethlehem
The reference to the Star of Bethlehem is imprecise at best, misleading at worst. It is generally recognised that the Star as described in the bible would NOT have been an alignment of planets, because a) it would move in time and b) the wise men would not bother with something as predictable. This must be changed, could be done simply by a reference to the corresponding wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_Bethlehem


- I'm curious as to the original budget for the movie. The reason I ask is that I see that the movie made $44 million dollars. I'm wondering how much it cost to make, so you can get a sense of whether or not movies like this are worth the money.

Revision as of 15:01, 7 March 2007

WikiProject iconFilm Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Why would the film "draw heavily from the four gospels" when only Matthew and Luke contain a Nativity story? 209.178.210.100

What is "this seems to have been brought into jeopardy with the recent pregnancy of Keisha Castle-Hughes" supposed to mean?

Have there been news reports disputing the appropriateness of the film or the actress due to her pregnancy. As far as I am aware she was in a long term (3 years) relationship with the father, and at 16 was of legal age. --Tobey 16:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the target audience were Christians who believe everything the words of the child inside this actress's character's womb including when He said that people aren't even supposed to look at one another lustfully outside of marriage. In any situation no matter how good the movie is the number of box-office purchasings depends heavily on the actors whether the viewers want to support them or vise versa. -Teofil Bartlomiej 23:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But I don't see what that has to with the film. Get some more information that article needs such as critical reception, first. Then if there is a big brew-ha-ha you should consider adding it. --211.26.126.86 09:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i heard this was the first film to be premared at the Vatican, is this right, i have no sources. User:cj105 12:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to the Star of Bethlehem is imprecise at best, misleading at worst. It is generally recognised that the Star as described in the bible would NOT have been an alignment of planets, because a) it would move in time and b) the wise men would not bother with something as predictable. This must be changed, could be done simply by a reference to the corresponding wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_Bethlehem


- I'm curious as to the original budget for the movie. The reason I ask is that I see that the movie made $44 million dollars. I'm wondering how much it cost to make, so you can get a sense of whether or not movies like this are worth the money.