Talk:Jesus Christ Superstar (film)

	Film portal This 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Christian films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Irizarry, Larissa A. (2020). "Queer Intimacy: Vocality in Jesus Christ Superstar". Women and Music: A Journal of Gender and Culture. 24: 162–177. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
Pomeroy, David W. (April 1, 1974). "1973—Year of the Religious Film". Theology Today. 31 (1): 47–49. Retrieved November 17, 2021.
Yang, Jayhoon (Fall 2017). "Norman Jewison and Melvyn Bragg's Jesus in 1973 and Mark's Gospel". The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture. 17 (1). doi:10.3138/jrpc.17.1.003. Retrieved November 17, 2021.

untitled

There is a film section in the article on the 1970 film. Please, see Jesus Christ Superstar (film)#Film. Hoverfish 21:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Hoverfish, there is not. I wish there were. DWalker59 (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are working on the suggested split, the title should not include (Film) with capital F. Right now Jesus Christ Superstar (film) is a disambuguation page that should be emptied, so that this page can move there. Hoverfish 21:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, when creating new film articles see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines. Hoverfish 08:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion and merge

The article seems rather sparse. Good pic, however. :) E. Sn0 =31337= 00:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the content pertaining to the film from the article about the musical, and left a link and a summary im its place. I've also proposed that the article about the soundtrack be merged into the film article - as it consists only of an image and a track list, I don't think that a seperate article is warranted, though it would be a valuable addition here (with the image size reduced somewhat). I trust that this will suffice for now.... I have removed the expand tag. TheMadBaron 16:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with soundtrack

I am for it if the music department has no problem. One thing: please use columns for soundtrack, or the article will scroll down to the floor. Hoverfish 21:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what do you mean by "columns"? Geevee (talk|contribs) 09:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columns for folding a long list in 2 or 3, as in this example (edit page to see code):

Item 1
Item 2
etc

Item 21
Item 22
etc

It's just my opinion, by the way. Feel free to try it or ignore it. Hoverfish 11:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot and character sections needed

We don't have to rewrite the New Testament, but some idea of the course the film takes is needed. Also, in another section, it is worth to note how the film interprets each main character and in what respects these roles differ from the biblical ones. On what issues did "religious groups" react? Christian churches have made many protests around the world. Why? Such things could help give a fuller description of the film. Hoverfish 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2000 film remake?

This article doesn't include the 2000 version starring Glenn Carter and Jerome Pradon. I've added a mention of this recording to the main Jesus Christ Superstar article, but don't know where to go next. Should this article cover both films, or would it be better to have a new page? In which case, we would need to change this page title to 'Jesus Christ Superstar (1973 film)' and create a new page, 'Jesus Christ Superstar (2000 film)'. Would that be how it's done? Or would we have 2 new pages with the above titles, and leave this page as a disambiguation page? New to this, so not too sure... ShaunPenton 11:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite upset with this but it seems that nobody is interested in the 2000 version :( PS: I liked it more too. --Ellohir (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about ths 1970 film? That one seems to have disappeared. DWalker59 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

film 197.221.253.187 (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a little more detail on the 2000 version, as it doesn't look like it's getting it's own article any time soon :'-( A fan, 23 May, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.136.241 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense. There should be two articles, with the years in their titles. A bare mention of the 2000 film here is a real disservice to anyone looking it up. One thing it wasn't is an "adaptation" of this film. Huw Powell (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the section a little. I have also added a redirect from Jesus Christ Superstar (2000 film). Thadh (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up Production History

Hard to come up with a good title for this one. The sentence "The actor who played Peter, Philip Toubus, would go on to be a prolific actor and director in the porn industry." does not fit in with the paragraph it is included in and I am removing it. The paragraph never mentions what any of the other cast members did after the film was made, only why some were choosen. ~~I'm also rewriting the last sentence to make it flow a little better into the next paragraph.~~ Scratch that, I'm removing the part about the theater being bombed to improve flow and until a reference can be found for this event. Birdman1011395 (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:JCSdvd.jpg

Image:JCSdvd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

soundtrack release

I've corrected the release date of the soundtrack: 1973 > 1970, according to the article Jesus_Christ_Superstar_(album). The film was a later adaptation of the musical. --Paperissue2011 (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Day Elements Not Mentioned

Nowhere in the article is there a description of the modern elements such as the hippy era garb, hair and beards, the hard hat wearing romans, military tanks, machine guns and jets. No mention of the line in the title song "Jesus Christ Superstar" where Judas sings

"If you'd come today you would have reached a whole nation Israel in 4 B C had no mass communication."

Many descriptions and promotions of the movie described it as a "modern dress" retelling of the passion play. Lacking descriptions of these element the article fails to illustrate a key artistic thrust of the movie and the anti war sentiments of the era in which the movie was released that were alluded to in the movie. 98.164.125.58 (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely valid argument! Why not add references, or even a separate section, concerning this element to the article? 213.225.14.237 (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the more interesting elements of the film. As you mention it was a prime selling point in promotion of the film. Of course it isn't mentioned in the article. It might make the film appear more interesting, and cause more people to see it. Repelling people away from productions such as this is what many well funded anti counter culture trolls who attack Wikipedia articles are doing. I'm sure there has been a wiki war over it. You might find the war in the history link. But they have ways to conceal that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.71.229 (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Jesus Christ Superstar (film)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Jesus Christ Superstar (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Ebert":

From The Gospel According to St. Matthew (film): Roger Ebert (14 March 2004). "The Gospel According to St. Matthew". Rogerebert.suntimes.com. Retrieved 3 January 2015.
From In Country: Ebert, Roger (September 29, 1989). "In Country". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2020-09-04.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Large chunks from Quillette

Quillette is listed on WP:RSP as Generally Unreliable and not safely usable for factual claims ("generally unreliable for facts"). But quite a lot of the present text claims to be drawn from it. I say "claims", because the article is premium and not casually checkable for just where it gets its factual claims from.

Can any of this stuff be replaced with sources that are actually RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]