A fact from The Greatest Story Ever Told appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 6 November 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,430 times (disclaimer)(check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I just put forth a rewrite of this article, with a more thorough production history and proper references. I hope other editors can contribute further to this article. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The article says it discouraged biblical productions for years, yet the following year came The Bible: In the Beginning which was actually the highest grossing film of the year. This article IMO somewhat downplays the negativity this film got from critics. Most reviewers today consider it boring and the portrayal of Jesus as wooden.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
You got me curious! I researched the matter, and this mentions that for The Bible, "impressive audience figures were swallowed up by monumental costs", while this calls The Bible one of the "big-budget box-office failures" along with this film and The Fall of the Roman Empire. Seems like these assessments warrant a more in-depth investigation. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but this article implies that it was the last of the biblical epics for many years. The Bible was a big picture production the following year so I think it's misleading. 1966 in film though states The Bible was the highest grosser marginally in 1966 at $34 million on a budget of £18 million (in the article).♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Right, that's why these sources' claims are odd. I was wondering if they can be traced back to a specific (and possibly false) report about how the film performed. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Worth checking out I think!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)