Talk:Dramatic portrayals of Jesus

It is, I think, controversial to label some of these 'Fictional Portrayals'. I guessing that at least Gibson would consider his move a 'factual portrayal'. Same is probably true of 'Jesus of Nazareth'. Maybe they should be removed, maybe a separate section. DJ Clayworth 15:28, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

All of them are fictionalized to some extent or another. We can't even be sure what Jesus looked like, so any portrayal of Him is going to be a shot in the dark. There are, to be sure, different degrees of fidelity to the Gospel accounts, but even those accounts might be considered fictional by nonbelievers. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:44, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

These are good points, but it seems to me that there should be some distinction between "The Passion of Christ" which sets out to retell the Gospel stories, and "Last Temptation" which even the author would admit is a story based round the character Jesus. DJ Clayworth 18:21, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This gets into some iffy judgment calls, but I've tried to winnow them as best as I can. (What to do with Jesus Christ Superstar?) -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:16, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Jesus of Montreal did not depict Christ. It depicted a present-day Quebecois named Daniel, an actor who portrays Christ in a passion play and ends up metaphorically acting out a number of scenes from Jesus' life in his own. - Montréalais

agree it probably belongs in List of movies based on the Bible. Copysan 23:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll suggest someone re-title the article 'Dramatic Portrayals of Jesus Christ'; I think this would convey the meaning suitably while not making any judgments about accuracy. I'll revise the text on one of the linked pages, leaving the link intact. MisfitToys 03:15, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Jesus

In order to try to work out the relationship between all the various pages and hopefully get some consensus, I have opened a WikiProject to centralize discussion and debate. We've got several "conflicted" pages at the moment, and without centralizing discussion, it's going to get very confusing. Please join the project, if you're interested in the topic, and start discussions on the talk page. (We need to create a to-do list, but I think the current state is too conflicted to decide even that.) Mpolo 10:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've created an outline that might help. PS: Is Wikiproject Jesus still open? archola 04:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

Should be renamed fictional and dramatic portrayals of Jesus. Novels aren't dramatic. Movies and plays are. Mandel July 7, 2005 00:16 (UTC)

Jesus of Montreal

A recent editor added "Jesus of Montreal (1989)"; does this really belong here? Although there are strong similarities between the life-arcs of the film's protaganist and Jesus, the actual Jesus doesn't make an appearance in this film.

Atlant 13:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

agree it probably belongs in List of movies based on the Bible. Copysan 23:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the merger with Jesus in Pop culture

I'm against the merge, mostly because I created the Jesus in Pop culture article in order to clarify secular examples of Jesus, and how he's used in cartoons, songs, et cetera. This article seems to be about people who reenacted Jesus in films and plays. They are two different topics.--ikiroid | (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am for the merge. Films, plays, and books, as well as cartoons, songs, etc, can be pop culture as well. By that definition, they belong together. --Copysan 10:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you'd still have to make them two seperate sections, and put it under some article name like "Jesus in Media" or something.--ikiroid | (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, maybe the article "Jesus in Pop culture needs to be narrowed down to "Satyrical examples of Jesus in Pop Culture" and this article needs to be "Serious examples of Jesus in Pop culture".--ikiroid | (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That works as well, but since the two articles are so short, why not just merge them since they are about similar toppics? Copysan 23:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus merging them would take care of this issue brought up by Mandel. He said: Should be renamed fictional and dramatic portrayals of Jesus. Novels aren't dramatic. Movies and plays are. Copysan 01:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting renaming this article per Mandel's suggestion, then merging and redirecting the other two articles here. Thatcher131 20:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could certainly subdivide it into sections for serious, secular, etc Thatcher131 02:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the merge and I find Mandels' renaming to be reasonable. Shall we vote?

Agree

It was my idea ;) Arch O. La 20:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The topics are similar and the marge takes into account Mandel's concerns. Copysan 21:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Don't forget Yeshua as fictional character (its really only about 2 books) Thatcher131 02:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised it wasn't done from the start; they're basically the same. Loggerisms
Agreed. - Rudykog 12:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the name of the article is changed from "Dramatic Portrayals of Jesus", since most of the examples in the Pop culture article aren't dramatic, they're more campy.--ikiroid | (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

No way. We're going to have The Brothers Karamazov, perhaps the greatest work of prose ever, listed as an item in a "pop culture" article? JDG 03:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, No, No! Dramatic portrayals of Jesus are not always popular, as popular portrayals are not always dramatic. It would be like merging the page reptile with the page echidna, or even merging the page echidna with the page bird. For some extra controversy, why not merge the page bird with the page reptile and delete the page about echidnas all together. The two subjects are too different to warrant a merge (and by the way, I'm not likening Jesus to an echidna, so let's not start any flame wars please). MichaelBillington 07:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, as per the two above. --Ori Livneh (talk..contribs) 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Superstar

Smerdis of Tlön asks:

(What to do with Jesus Christ Superstar?)

I'd argue it belongs here. It's obviously dramatised, but its main plot points hew fairly closely to the Biblical story.

Atlant 00:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. (Good musical btw). Copysan 01:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Arch O. La 20:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just a list

The titlemade me think this was more that a list.Either some more discussion needs to be added, or the title should be changed to add "List of"

Cultural depictions of Jesus?

I see that Jesus already has three cultural pages and that a merger is under discussion. I'd like to suggest a model for resolving this: Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is a featured list that covers various aspects of high culture and popular culture in organized sections. It's an approach I'm suggesting for other biographies included in Wikipedia's Core Biographies project and might be a good model for editors here. Respectfully, Durova 18:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Poll

Since Jesus in popular culture has been moved to Cultural depictions of Jesus - it may be time for a new vote. This poll will stay up for one week to see if there's a consensus. YankeeDoodle14 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

YankeeDoodle14 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC) - I am in favor of having them both under the same roof.[reply]
Chopper Dave 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC) - The seperation between the articles has broken down.[reply]

Disagree

Discussion

As there have been no objections, I will merge the articles. YankeeDoodle14 06:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]