I don't think I'm being harsh. I disagree. Did you happen to check out Catcup's thread? (Stand Up And Hold Her Accountable) She asks some very direct questions, for those still in; perhaps you and others still in may consider those questions.
No, you're not being harsh, you're being ignorant, since you don't know why people would stay in, nor do you know the specific circumstances of the "innie" posters.
Stick with subjects that you have some knowledge of.
That's great, WTH, but perhaps we detected a little cynicism in the "Gee that's great..." which is not necessarily unreasonable. It is a figure of speech to call something "great" when you're really saying the opposite.
I think it's fair to ask for a clarification on that, because I don't think it's reasonable to think that they felt Mel Gibson's movie was great. It sounded like they were dismissing it. But in this case, I don't know what was actually said.
Insurgent,
is there any way of being more specific about what was said, without compromising your identity? Did they literally say, "Gee that was great?"
It might be a good idea not to speak for others, but only speak for yourself.>>
Actually, you accurately point out that I have no direct knowledge of MG's motivations - OTOH, do you expect me to believe that he funded this picture to spread the "Word"?
No, I tend to think that he believed, contrary to his studio/corporate naysayers, that this venture would be a commercial success, that the venture promised profits.
I am a businessman, so, I don't sneer at profits or M Gibson.
I am an innie, too, and, ascribe to his success nothing more than a business instinct that bears fruit for which, in our capitalistic society, he is due just rewards.
I am unimpressed with his focus on the torture to which Christ was exposed (no one can verify the accuracy of degree in this area) at the expense of the message concerning what Christ's sacrifice delivered to our world.
I admit my prejudice that, whenever money is involved, the motive (if ever there was one, other than money) is compromised.
So, I submit to those posters anxious to see how profits derived from this venture are distrubuted, let us wisely monitor and evaluate said distribution.
As a businessperson and a US citizen, I support Gibson's use of the proceeds as he sees fit.
He concieved the project, fronted the operational capital, and is entitled to the proceeds, to be used as he sees fit.
His motives, however, will be most accurately assessed when we see what he chooses to do with his profits.
From a worldly perspective, he is quite justified in using those proceeds to fund his [theoritical] purchase of some ski resort, or whatever.
In my view, for him to bank on profit from the notion that he is promoting greater knowledge of Christ's life is without merit in absence of some utilization of boxoffice proceeds to promote that knowledge.
To date, I have seen no evidence of described utilization.
Mel is no better, and certainly no worse than any capipitalist in maximizing his ROI, but I share no enthusiasm in elevating his motives until I see evidence that supports his enthusiasm for promoting that larger view of Christ and his sacrifice.
To date, I find that evidence lacking, so, I'll just chalk his efforts up to one more mortal successfully manipulating the system for personal gain.
He deserves our congratulations for his business acumen, his producing skills, etc.
I'm not ready (as are so many of my innie acquaintances) to deify his efforts.
This film is the work of mortals. I could be wrong, and stand open to criticsm and comment.
quote:I admit my prejudice that, whenever money is involved, the motive (if ever there was one, other than money) is compromised.
Job 1 tells us that Job feared God and escheweed evil, had children he loved, camels, asses, sheep and oxen in such number that "...this man was the greatest of all the men of the east."
The Lord said of Abraham, the father of all them that believe, (Genesis 15) "...a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee."
God loves His people to be successful.
It appears to me that twi philosophy of denigrating people who are successful in the world is only an ideological excuse for
1. milking them of their money for more "spiritual" purposes.
2. getting more blind devotion to the twi "cause" of spiritual isolation.
3. supporting the mindset that someone other than Mel Gibson has a right to determine how he spends his money.
[This message was edited by Kit Sober on March 21, 2004 at 8:44.]
"OTOH, do you expect me to believe that he funded this picture to spread the "Word"?"
No more than I expect you to believe that TWI CHARGES 50 dollars per head for a bible "class" out of the goodness of their heart and "to spread the Word".
"No, I tend to think that he believed, contrary to his studio/corporate naysayers, that this venture would be a commercial success, that the venture promised profits."
As I've said before, Mel Gibson was already a millionaire many times over, and still a hollywood "hot property" capable of pulling down many millions more by starring in any number of future films---all without risking a sizable fortune on something that very well could have proved disasterous to his career and reputation. There were MANY powerful entities that did everything in their power to try to deep-six this film before it was ever completed, then failing that, to keep it from ever being seen by an audience. I dare speculate that monetary gain was NOT the primary motive for Mr Gibson. Being a business man yourself, would you be willing to risk loosing VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING on a venture that could just as well ruin you? REALLY? Even when there are many surer and safer ways to makes that kind of money? Mel Gibson could have bankrolled and starred in yet another high explosion/highspeed-chase/shoot 'em up that has always stood him in good stead. By all accounts (that of both, his friends and his enemies), he is a deeply religious man. Do you concede that it is AT LEAST POSSIBLE that his motives were rooted in Christian conviction? I know TWI likes to promote the idea to its followers that no one "truly has a heart for God" outside of "The Household", but you've always claimed to be an independent thinker. Personally speaking, I'm still waiting to see evidence of that...
"I am unimpressed with his focus on the torture to which Christ was exposed (no one can verify the accuracy of degree in this area) at the expense of the message concerning what Christ's sacrifice delivered to our world."
LOL---you slay me! I guess focusing on "the torture" that Christ endured is only a good idea if you happen to be TWI! There was a time when they spent no small amount of time
insisting on how little Christendom knows about the torture which Christ suffered prior to, and upon his crucifixion. They've invested no small number of teachings on just this subject, laying out in detail the savage indignities they believed He was forced to endure. I remember being taught how The Roman Catholic church, in particular, had minimized the brutality of Christ's passion by depicting him on the cross "as if he'd merely had a hard day at the office", while in reality, He was so horribly and brutally beaten---for hours on end, they said---that in the end, "he no longer was recognizable as a man". He was even SODOMIZED, they said---(wonder "how they were able to verify the accuracy of such claims"... -->) All because of his unfathomable love for us, they said, to pay the ultimate price once and for all of mankind. How is the message depicted in The Passion different from the one TWI preached for years? Oh yeah...SOMEONE OTHER THAN TWI had the nerve to show it more effectively...silly me...
"So, I submit to those posters anxious to see how profits derived from this venture are distrubuted, let us wisely monitor and evaluate said distribution"
Too bad you're not even HALF as concerned about what TWI does with the millions in annual ABS dollars they horde in their coffers! Talk about hypocritical thinking...! What, pray tell, does TWI DO WITH ALL THAT MONEY? Do they help out Way believers in need? Do they even so much as fund a small scholarship for their college bound followers? Do they GIVE away ANYTHING to the less fortunate?
Nope. They maintain a stately property in Ohio, which none of their followers (whose hard earn dollars serve to keep it in such immaculate condition) can even step foot upon unless they've received prior written authorization. They maintain another high dollar property in Colorado, which serves virtually NO PURPOSE for the average follower(again, being maintained through your hard earned ABS dollars and the hard work of lots of overworked, underpaid peons) YOU have to pay extra for EVERYTHING! YOU have to pay for phone hookups. YOU have to pay for each new class that comes down the pike. YOU have to pay to sacrifice Thanksgiving with your family in order to sit through yet another "Advance Class Special". You have to pay for those Sunday Service tapes, even when you've already paid to hear the same teaching before via a phone hookup. You even have to pay for that pitifully thin Way Magazine.
However, you regularly attend fellowships in SOME OTHER FOLLOWER'S HOME (putting wear and tear on HIS furniture, drinking HIS COFFEE, using HIS utilities, which is NOT, by the way, renumerated by ABS). Nope. All that money is funneled directly to Headquarters, where it is use to do...WHAT...??? How exactly are the "profits derived from this venture distrubuted"? Inquirering minds want to know...
quote:Actually, you accurately point out that I have no direct knowledge of MG's motivations - OTOH, do you expect me to believe that he funded this picture to spread the "Word"?
No, I tend to think that he believed, contrary to his studio/corporate naysayers, that this venture would be a commercial success, that the venture promised profits.
***
I am unimpressed with his focus on the torture to which Christ was exposed (no one can verify the accuracy of degree in this area) at the expense of the message concerning what Christ's sacrifice delivered to our world.
I get the impression that Mel's motive for doing this was both for profit (which isn't a sin) and for expounding the gospels. Hey, that's fantastic...how can anyone complain about that?
LLP, regarding the primary focus on the torture, isn't it a good thing because that's exactly what the gospels say, albeit with few words, explaining all about how Christ gave his life and what horror he had to go through. This film is a coup for biblical fans.
One would think that TWI folks would be happy about a film that is more accurate than others on this topic. Just look at all the watered-down crucifixion accounts we've been exposed to all these years and tell me Mel's film isn't head and shoulders above them biblically.
Well, I guess llp shows the twi(t) opinion of Mel's movie better than I could ever explain. They don't deny that it is a good movie that has reached lots of people (how could they?), they just make sure it's a backwards compliment and make sure that they point out the inaccuracies and the things that llp has so clearly demonstrated.
And CherishedChild - AMEN! You said exactly what I was thinking.
quote:Being a business man yourself, would you be willing to risk loosing VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING on a venture that could just as well ruin you?
I would say you could probably find these types of businessmen just about everywere. Las Vegas likes to call them gamblers. The reality is there are smart gamblers just as plentiful as there are stupid ones.
What you seem to be suggesting is Mel G. was a "stupid gambler" who didn't know what he was getting into, and basing that assumption on the fact the risks for making his movie were very high. I disagree. I am fairly confident Mr. Gibson weighed the odds very, very, carefully long before he "threw the dice" on his Passion movie.
Biblically accurate, religious movies don't sell, but sensationalism certainly does. The Passion of the Christ is another epic spectical just as "The Ten Commandments" was for Cecil B. Demille. I agree neither film is a lesson in biblical accuracy, but I am fairly confident Mr. Gibson took many clue's from Cecil B. Demille - especially in regard to creating another epic spectacle.
there is some comparison in the two movies, yes, wth. Care to favor us with the contrasts, which, with a little critical thought, might appear to be far greater??? Hardly what I would call a balanced review, wth.....
"What you seem to be suggesting is Mel G. was a "stupid gambler" who didn't know what he was getting into, and basing that assumption on the fact the risks for making his movie were very high. I disagree. I am fairly confident Mr. Gibson weighed the odds very, very, carefully long before he "threw the dice" on his Passion movie"
No, I'm not suggesting that Mel Gibson went into this movie without having done as much of his homework as possible. In fact, it's said that he'd being researching the feasability of making this movie for more than a decade. What I'm saying is that this endevour was frought with more perils than C. B. Demille could have ever imagined. I think it's pretty short sighted to suggest that there's much of a parrallel between Demille's time and the present. 50 years ago, America (and indeed, the world) was a MUCH different place. The Ten Commandments were a common fixture in public school classrooms, as were "morning devotionals", which unabashedly included "school prayer". The average American would have said that America was a "Christian Nation" most definitely "under God" back then. People didn't protest in the streets, demanding the end to school prayer as a means of maintaining the "separation between church and state". There wasn't any state legislation banning the celebration of Christian holidays in state funded schools or during town meetings. "The Ten Commandments" was not considered a controversial film, but rather, a technical masterpiece, hailed and welcomed the world over. There was very little "gamble" involved. Comparatively speaking, the payoff was virtually assured, given the climate of the times.
Surely you aren't suggesting that the same climate prevails today. Virtually all things "Christian" are met with barely restrained hostility, in both entertainment and politics. You can bash Christian ideals and principles till the cows come home in today's America. But you had just better not say anything polictically incorrect about Islamic ones. And it's never been such a good time to be Pagan, Wiccan or otherwise sexually oriented. I dare say, that there's a rather overt climate of hostility surrounding Christianity the world over, but nowhere is that more true than in the entertainment industry. The resistence Mel Gibson met over the making of this movie was not made up to "promote the movie". It more than threatened to deep-six the film on many occassions. All I'm saying is that it's extremely cynical to believe that money had to be the sole motivator in the making of this movie. However, if (because you could not be differently motivated under the same circumstances), you cannot fathom Mel Gibson making The Passion out of a passion for it's message, go ahead and believe what you want.
quote: Surely you aren't suggesting that the same climate prevails today. Virtually all things "Christian" are met with barely restrained hostility, in both entertainment and politics.
Thanks for clarifying your point, CC. I agree the climate toward "all things Christian" is met with a lot of hostility today, but that antagonism is not limited to the entertainment industry or to politics. I've even run into a few people here who apparently have a lot of trouble with Christian ideals and principles. :(-->
My comparison of the Passion movie to The Ten Commandments was merely a remark of Mr. Gibsons careful undertaking of the technical excellence in film making, it was not intended to be taken as my personal comments on the geo-political flavors of our present day and time. :)-->
First of all, please excuse the slight name change – ‘puter lost my stored password, and I can’t remember it. Now, to the topic:
Chewster, you write:
“How do you know this?
Are you Mel Gibson's spokesperson?
Do you have direct contact to his mind?
Or do you just believe the worst about everyone?
It might be a good idea not to speak for others, but only speak for yourself.
Question 1: Being a businessperson myself, I assume (and I believe correctly), that no one embarks on a venture of this scale without firm belief in the project and ones own skill to bring it off profitably. Mel didn’t stumble into the working capital to be able to pull this off. As E.F. Hutton so aptly (if misleadingly inaccurately in their case) put it, he made that money the old fashioned way, he earned it.
Question 2: Spare me rhetorical questions to which you already know the answer.
Question 3: See my reply to question 2.
Question 4: Reread my post. It discredits the sea wave of sentiment elevating and extolling Mel’s motives. You won’t (if you actually read my post objectively, not from the perspective of an outie to an innie) discern anything there that paints a negative view of a businessperson’s motive to make profit – profitability is the businessperson’s mantra. In a way, Mel, in this instance, at least, is not unlike the “colonel” of KFC fame. He (Mel) had a vision (the making of this movie) and belief that he could pull it off, creatively and financially, and would not be put off by any nay Sayers (the old colonel also wasn’t put off by a string of prior bankruptcies).
I admire Mel for his strength in pursuing this vision, overcoming the obstacles, and, yes, making a profit – profit is the defining measure of success for any business venture.
I’m not opposed to the movie, the money, the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the message, and I don’t eat or keep grapes, sour or otherwise.
The fellowships in my area are generally supportive of this movie, so I chuckle when I see all these “jump-on” undocumented messages amplifying the ministry’s obviously “obtuse and envious” response this show (“[‘cause they didn’t come up with it first]”).
I’m probably among the minority who haven’t bothered to see it, yet. When I do, I probably will be busy watching for many things (technical, etc) in addition to the “show.” I doubt I’ll be absorbed to the point of tears (I usually am not), but one never knows in advance.
I maintain (as I am free to maintain) my position that money (and the associated collateral considerations that go along with a successful career) was Mel’s motivation. There is nothing unclean about that motivation – I made no statement condemning that motivation – you (and others) did.
I remember in the waning days of Waydale, I took (and expressed) the opinion that the founder’s main motivation (in establishing the website/pursuing the trial) was to extract money from the ministry.
While the byproducts of that motivation netted an informative, helpful, and entertaining website (make that website(s), as GS was an offshoot), I still hold the opinion that the founder was basically out to gain compensation in monetary form. Waydale was a tool used to accomplish that end. Given his experience/perspective, there was nothing inherently wrong with that motivation, nor was there anything inherently wrong with his collecting accolades and gratitude from those who benefited from the “byproducts”.
Having achieved his objectives, he closed the site (albeit sensitive enough to encourage an alternative site for those who had developed (for lack of a better word) an affinity for the byproducts referred to above.
You, of course, are free to conclude what you want – about Mel’s motives, about PA’s motives, about mine.
I will continue to exercise my privilege to express my opinion, as well.
Wordwolf:
bother making this movie.>>
. . . and how many fine movies might qualify for the same comment – better, how many truly epic films would not.
Kevlar
>
. . . and for the courage he demonstrated to take that risk, he is entitled to our respect, congratulations, and box-office dollars.
>
Thus is the stuff for which BBS’s retain our interest . . . you have and share your opinion (belief), I have and share mine. Mel’s instinct that the film would be successful was accurate (and his/his organization’s excellent execution facilitated the validation of that accuracy).
Call me a skeptic if you like, but, I don’t believe he was more committed to his religious vision – artistic vision probably was right up there with money, however.
Mark Sanguinetti:
As one who normally reads with an open, objective mind, I can give you the benefit of the doubt – perhaps you were tired when you read my post, or had dirt in your eye or something. Go back and review, then, tell me if the sour grapes you discern are from my post or from presumptive responses to it.
I am not at all sour that the movie has met with acclaim and box office success. I don’t bemoan Mel’s financial reward. I’m a died-in-the-wool capitalist, so I don’t begrudge his successful business adventure.
. . . and you, of all people here, should know that I’m not some line toeing denominational type. I’m still thinking/speaking for myself.
Others on this board, not me, painted the notion of profit-making/taking in some sort of negative hue.
Read it again, Mark. Be objective. Then, tell me what your second take might be.
>
Thanks, Tex.
Cherished:
>
You have no grasp of my logic, and absolutely no knowledge of the length of my involvement in The Way – none whatsoever.
“sheer lack of logic” – sounds like some of those meaningless, wordy phrases that so many on this board seem to eschew. Exactly what logic (or lack of logic) would you point to, given the words in my initial post?
>
You are focusing a general bias of yours upon me with absolutely no personal knowledge of me – you don’t know me to be smug or otherwise, self-righteous or otherwise. I’m an innie, but, unless you’ve read my posts (or spoken to me personally), you don’t even know what I believe. Set aside your presumptions and reread my posts objectively (if you can). Then, tell me what you think.
Vickles:
Nothing and nowhere. Although you don’t address your post to me, specifically, your response would appear to be in the series elicited by my post, so, I ask you to reread my post, and show me where I say that getting profit from the movie is wrong? Respondents have extrapolated that position from my post because posters on this thread tend to suffer from the same sort of groupthink they accuse TWI of promoting.
Oldiesman:
Good that someone here finally raised this question. The only comments I’ve heard have been generally supportive. All are encouraged to see the movie and the generally accepted consensus is that, regardless of whether it is “complexly accurate” or not, at has, at least, focused mass attention during this special time of year on Christ – and is proof that the general public will come out for a movie centered on some topic other than sex, terrorism, comedy.
I have seen or heard no comment portraying this film in a negative light. The notion that TWI is green with envy is one that has evolved on this board, right here in this thread, not from within TWI.
That the film focuses on the torture and not the resurrection may be true (I haven’t succumbed to viewing the film, yet), but that could be a matter of interpretation. I can imagine how the resurrection, though not occupying much footage, could be viewed as the climax and main point of the film. The only comments of that nature I’ve heard from TWI were always followed with “buts” explaining that, at least, the film gets the issue of Christ out there in front of the masses – accurate or no, not a bad thing – and not commented on as bad from any TWI leadership sources of mine.
>
Rafael:
Why must the act of pointing out that financial gain was Mel’s motive be defined as mean-spirited? Henry Ford didn’t invent the car so that the masses could make it on time to church. His motive (well, one of them, at least) was to make money. Billy Gates didn’t devote his life to computers/software because of some deep-seated desire to open the world of knowledge to the world – he wanted to make money.
To the extent that there is nothing wrong with wanting to make money, why should pointing out the making of money as a motive be “mean-spirited”?
He took a business risk to which no one else was willing to risk the exposure. In business, the higher the risk, the higher the loss (in failure) or reward (with success). Right/wrong/mean-spirited need not enter into it.
Oh, and watch who you’re calling stupid, there, fella!!
>
Good point, Wyteduv58
From Wayfernot quoting Insergent’s initial post:
>
Wayfer’s statement has been amplified as though it is some official TWI leadership edict or a standard comment amongst those of us attending fellowships.
From experience, I can assert that no such thing is true. Perhaps (after all these posts and presumptions), Wayfer could enlighten us as to the source of this statement.
From Cherished:
>
Sure, Cherished, it is at least possible. Let’s see what happens now that his venture is a success. Then, we won’t need to make concessions – we’ll know.
>
Actually, Cherished, I can’t speak for your experience, but I have heard just the opposite expressed by leadership – that TWI is not the only place where God is present – that we should be ever mindful and humble to that fact.
Good questions to which I have no immediate reply. I’ll get back to you.
> No, I do not.
> I do not.
> I do not.
> I do not.
> Good questions.
>
Insurgent, why don’t you clear up the question that has been raised several time on this thread? This comment of yours, about the exclusion or lack of focus on the resurrection, was that your interpolation of what you expect TWI’s take on the movie to be, or did someone (or several persons . . . perhaps leadership) actually make an official statement regarding this movie? Why don’t you clear that up for us, Insurgent? Most of the strong comments on this thread derived from your statement. Clear it up for us, won’t you?
quote:As E.F. Hutton so aptly (if misleadingly inaccurately in their case) put it, he made that money the old fashioned way, he earned it.
That was Smith Barney - not E.F. Hutton.
LLP, I happen to agree with some of what you say about Gibson's profit motive for Passion. However I do also think that Gibson's passion for this movie was at least paritally based in his faith. One does not necessarily preclude the other. Live isn't all black and white.
You are fairly bright person, but you sure have a pompous way of expressing yourself which I think may be partly why some folks jump on your posts so much.
BTW, I did a post in the Open Forum on how to use GS's quote feature. You may consider looking at that.
Thanks for your response. It's good to hear that TWI folks are generally supportive of the film, which I think makes a great deal of sense. Try and see it soon, I think you'll be blessed.
llp, it's been proven that you live in a la la land of twi that not one person can verify or validate. In this la la land where your fellowship is things are said and leadership behaves differently than it does anywhere else in twi.
I have mentioned many times in many places that I can not and will not reveal anymore about myself and my location or leadership than absollutely necessary. The twi(ts) have tried to break into my e-mail and log on and want very much to know who I am and I will not provide that information yet.
These comments I reported have come from leadership, wc and regular kool aide drinkers who parrot what they hear from leadership. twi is not and never will give credit to non-twi people or organizations. They even spend a great deal of time teaching their wc wannabees how to "research" their own collaterals and twi published material instead of "re-inventing the wheel" and having to go to oustide, unreliable sources for information and research.
twi has not changed and these statements are consistent with the arrogant attitude expressed by so many die-hard wayfers.
insurgent--well spoken...I have never believed that llp is involved with the twi we all know. He is obviously hooked up with the one in the commercial for Terry Bradshaw.... :D--> ;)-->
This reminds me of the whole athletes of the spirit fiasco....
LCM came to the advanced class ...he was so excited about having seen the *staying alive* movie with John Travolta....there was a scene where in the production John Travolta was doing involving a battle with devil spirits....Lcm was all hepped up about how twi could do it better ....more accuratly more skillfully more dramatically...yada yada ...and thus the conception of aos was born...simply because HE, lcm wanted to show the wolrd how twi could do it bigger and better than Holly wood ever could......
You know........even vpw couldn`t dissuade him from it....
That ws the way it always was when I was in twi....if they hadn`t done it first....it wasn`t worth doing...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
7
9
15
Popular Days
Mar 24
33
Mar 13
19
Mar 19
18
Mar 12
14
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 13 posts
Cherished Child 7 posts
Steve! 9 posts
LowlyLollyPoppy 15 posts
Popular Days
Mar 24 2004
33 posts
Mar 13 2004
19 posts
Mar 19 2004
18 posts
Mar 12 2004
14 posts
A la prochaine
OM,
What made you become so harsh?
Was it TWI?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
A La Prochaine,
I don't think I'm being harsh. I disagree. Did you happen to check out Catcup's thread? (Stand Up And Hold Her Accountable) She asks some very direct questions, for those still in; perhaps you and others still in may consider those questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
No, you're not being harsh, you're being ignorant, since you don't know why people would stay in, nor do you know the specific circumstances of the "innie" posters.
Stick with subjects that you have some knowledge of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
So what you are really claiming is: TWI is admitting that the Mel Gibson "Passion" movie is a great movie!
The only problem I think you seem to be having here is with that "but" - forgetting it sets in contrast that which was said before.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That's great, WTH, but perhaps we detected a little cynicism in the "Gee that's great..." which is not necessarily unreasonable. It is a figure of speech to call something "great" when you're really saying the opposite.
I think it's fair to ask for a clarification on that, because I don't think it's reasonable to think that they felt Mel Gibson's movie was great. It sounded like they were dismissing it. But in this case, I don't know what was actually said.
Insurgent,
is there any way of being more specific about what was said, without compromising your identity? Did they literally say, "Gee that was great?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
What I got from it was
"Well, that's all well and good, but...."
In other words, "It sounds nice, but is not good ENOUGH."
In twi's eyes, it might be more of the "not precise agreement with our
doctrine" stuff.....but I think it's envy. They just CAN'T bring themselves
to admit a DIFFERENT type of Christian did anything good. At best, they can
call it marginally acceptable. Of course, if THEY had done it, it would have
been better....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lowlylollypoppy99
<<How do you know this?
Are you Mel Gibson's spokesperson?
Do you have direct contact to his mind?
Or do you just believe the worst about everyone?
It might be a good idea not to speak for others, but only speak for yourself.>>
Actually, you accurately point out that I have no direct knowledge of MG's motivations - OTOH, do you expect me to believe that he funded this picture to spread the "Word"?
No, I tend to think that he believed, contrary to his studio/corporate naysayers, that this venture would be a commercial success, that the venture promised profits.
I am a businessman, so, I don't sneer at profits or M Gibson.
I am an innie, too, and, ascribe to his success nothing more than a business instinct that bears fruit for which, in our capitalistic society, he is due just rewards.
I am unimpressed with his focus on the torture to which Christ was exposed (no one can verify the accuracy of degree in this area) at the expense of the message concerning what Christ's sacrifice delivered to our world.
I admit my prejudice that, whenever money is involved, the motive (if ever there was one, other than money) is compromised.
So, I submit to those posters anxious to see how profits derived from this venture are distrubuted, let us wisely monitor and evaluate said distribution.
As a businessperson and a US citizen, I support Gibson's use of the proceeds as he sees fit.
He concieved the project, fronted the operational capital, and is entitled to the proceeds, to be used as he sees fit.
His motives, however, will be most accurately assessed when we see what he chooses to do with his profits.
From a worldly perspective, he is quite justified in using those proceeds to fund his [theoritical] purchase of some ski resort, or whatever.
In my view, for him to bank on profit from the notion that he is promoting greater knowledge of Christ's life is without merit in absence of some utilization of boxoffice proceeds to promote that knowledge.
To date, I have seen no evidence of described utilization.
Mel is no better, and certainly no worse than any capipitalist in maximizing his ROI, but I share no enthusiasm in elevating his motives until I see evidence that supports his enthusiasm for promoting that larger view of Christ and his sacrifice.
To date, I find that evidence lacking, so, I'll just chalk his efforts up to one more mortal successfully manipulating the system for personal gain.
He deserves our congratulations for his business acumen, his producing skills, etc.
I'm not ready (as are so many of my innie acquaintances) to deify his efforts.
This film is the work of mortals. I could be wrong, and stand open to criticsm and comment.
LLP
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
lowlylollypoppy99 says, above,
Job 1 tells us that Job feared God and escheweed evil, had children he loved, camels, asses, sheep and oxen in such number that "...this man was the greatest of all the men of the east."The Lord said of Abraham, the father of all them that believe, (Genesis 15) "...a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee."
God loves His people to be successful.
It appears to me that twi philosophy of denigrating people who are successful in the world is only an ideological excuse for
1. milking them of their money for more "spiritual" purposes.
2. getting more blind devotion to the twi "cause" of spiritual isolation.
3. supporting the mindset that someone other than Mel Gibson has a right to determine how he spends his money.
[This message was edited by Kit Sober on March 21, 2004 at 8:44.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
Kit,
You are an awesome woman.
:)-->
Radar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
I really don't see any problem with Mel making money from his movie.
Even if he DIDN'T finance it himself.
And what he does with the money afterwards is HIS OWN BUSINESS.
If you like the movie, great. If you don't like the movie, great.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
LLP,
you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
According to the rules at the GSC, you are also entitled
to POST that opinion.
I'm entitled to the same, so I can note that I've just
had a good long laugh offline with someone else who
noted all the opposition he faced in FILMING the movie,
finding no investors, accusations of anti-Semitism and
smear reviews from many people who DID NOT SEE THE MOVIE,
accusations which mysteriously seem unable to CITE WHAT
SCENE this mysterious anti-Semitism is hiding in,
(I couldn't find it, and I was also looking for it),
the interviews of his 90-some odd father (as if this bore
any relevance to the movie except to air his father's
POV), and the attempts to stop it from reaching theaters.
This, of course, was followed soonafter by people who
found it to be a reverent, respectful movie
(contrary to the anti-Semitic claims) and one that drew-
and draws-crowds (contrary to the "it won't sell" claims).
We both noted how NOW the critics all love this financial
success and find it respectful. (Ebert & Roeper were the
only originals who liked it from the start.)
Except for a few critics who still push the anti-Semitic
claims, but nobody's listening to them.
If you spent some time away from twi and the GSC, you
might discover there are actually OTHER CHRISTIANS online!
They've/we've been discussing the movie. They would each
prefer little details have been different, but agree the
overall resulting movie was very reverent, very powerful,
and possibly LIFE-CHANGING.
So, you are entitled to your opinion.
You are also entitled to just accept and repeat back AS
that opinion whatever twi says your opinion should be.
I'm entitled to disagree and make my case.
I also hope Mel Gibson makes an arm and a leg from this
movie, and eclipses movies like "Titanic". He took all the
risks, financially, he gets all the rewards, financially.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cherished Child
"OTOH, do you expect me to believe that he funded this picture to spread the "Word"?"
No more than I expect you to believe that TWI CHARGES 50 dollars per head for a bible "class" out of the goodness of their heart and "to spread the Word".
"No, I tend to think that he believed, contrary to his studio/corporate naysayers, that this venture would be a commercial success, that the venture promised profits."
As I've said before, Mel Gibson was already a millionaire many times over, and still a hollywood "hot property" capable of pulling down many millions more by starring in any number of future films---all without risking a sizable fortune on something that very well could have proved disasterous to his career and reputation. There were MANY powerful entities that did everything in their power to try to deep-six this film before it was ever completed, then failing that, to keep it from ever being seen by an audience. I dare speculate that monetary gain was NOT the primary motive for Mr Gibson. Being a business man yourself, would you be willing to risk loosing VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING on a venture that could just as well ruin you? REALLY? Even when there are many surer and safer ways to makes that kind of money? Mel Gibson could have bankrolled and starred in yet another high explosion/highspeed-chase/shoot 'em up that has always stood him in good stead. By all accounts (that of both, his friends and his enemies), he is a deeply religious man. Do you concede that it is AT LEAST POSSIBLE that his motives were rooted in Christian conviction? I know TWI likes to promote the idea to its followers that no one "truly has a heart for God" outside of "The Household", but you've always claimed to be an independent thinker. Personally speaking, I'm still waiting to see evidence of that...
"I am unimpressed with his focus on the torture to which Christ was exposed (no one can verify the accuracy of degree in this area) at the expense of the message concerning what Christ's sacrifice delivered to our world."
LOL---you slay me! I guess focusing on "the torture" that Christ endured is only a good idea if you happen to be TWI! There was a time when they spent no small amount of time
insisting on how little Christendom knows about the torture which Christ suffered prior to, and upon his crucifixion. They've invested no small number of teachings on just this subject, laying out in detail the savage indignities they believed He was forced to endure. I remember being taught how The Roman Catholic church, in particular, had minimized the brutality of Christ's passion by depicting him on the cross "as if he'd merely had a hard day at the office", while in reality, He was so horribly and brutally beaten---for hours on end, they said---that in the end, "he no longer was recognizable as a man". He was even SODOMIZED, they said---(wonder "how they were able to verify the accuracy of such claims"...
-->) All because of his unfathomable love for us, they said, to pay the ultimate price once and for all of mankind. How is the message depicted in The Passion different from the one TWI preached for years? Oh yeah...SOMEONE OTHER THAN TWI had the nerve to show it more effectively...silly me...
"So, I submit to those posters anxious to see how profits derived from this venture are distrubuted, let us wisely monitor and evaluate said distribution"
Too bad you're not even HALF as concerned about what TWI does with the millions in annual ABS dollars they horde in their coffers! Talk about hypocritical thinking...! What, pray tell, does TWI DO WITH ALL THAT MONEY? Do they help out Way believers in need? Do they even so much as fund a small scholarship for their college bound followers? Do they GIVE away ANYTHING to the less fortunate?
Nope. They maintain a stately property in Ohio, which none of their followers (whose hard earn dollars serve to keep it in such immaculate condition) can even step foot upon unless they've received prior written authorization. They maintain another high dollar property in Colorado, which serves virtually NO PURPOSE for the average follower(again, being maintained through your hard earned ABS dollars and the hard work of lots of overworked, underpaid peons) YOU have to pay extra for EVERYTHING! YOU have to pay for phone hookups. YOU have to pay for each new class that comes down the pike. YOU have to pay to sacrifice Thanksgiving with your family in order to sit through yet another "Advance Class Special". You have to pay for those Sunday Service tapes, even when you've already paid to hear the same teaching before via a phone hookup. You even have to pay for that pitifully thin Way Magazine.
However, you regularly attend fellowships in SOME OTHER FOLLOWER'S HOME (putting wear and tear on HIS furniture, drinking HIS COFFEE, using HIS utilities, which is NOT, by the way, renumerated by ABS). Nope. All that money is funneled directly to Headquarters, where it is use to do...WHAT...??? How exactly are the "profits derived from this venture distrubuted"? Inquirering minds want to know...
Oh yeah, they are used to settle lawsuits!
:D-->
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I get the impression that Mel's motive for doing this was both for profit (which isn't a sin) and for expounding the gospels. Hey, that's fantastic...how can anyone complain about that?
LLP, regarding the primary focus on the torture, isn't it a good thing because that's exactly what the gospels say, albeit with few words, explaining all about how Christ gave his life and what horror he had to go through. This film is a coup for biblical fans.
One would think that TWI folks would be happy about a film that is more accurate than others on this topic. Just look at all the watered-down crucifixion accounts we've been exposed to all these years and tell me Mel's film isn't head and shoulders above them biblically.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
insurgent
Well, I guess llp shows the twi(t) opinion of Mel's movie better than I could ever explain. They don't deny that it is a good movie that has reached lots of people (how could they?), they just make sure it's a backwards compliment and make sure that they point out the inaccuracies and the things that llp has so clearly demonstrated.
And CherishedChild - AMEN! You said exactly what I was thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
I would say you could probably find these types of businessmen just about everywere. Las Vegas likes to call them gamblers. The reality is there are smart gamblers just as plentiful as there are stupid ones.
What you seem to be suggesting is Mel G. was a "stupid gambler" who didn't know what he was getting into, and basing that assumption on the fact the risks for making his movie were very high. I disagree. I am fairly confident Mr. Gibson weighed the odds very, very, carefully long before he "threw the dice" on his Passion movie.
Biblically accurate, religious movies don't sell, but sensationalism certainly does. The Passion of the Christ is another epic spectical just as "The Ten Commandments" was for Cecil B. Demille. I agree neither film is a lesson in biblical accuracy, but I am fairly confident Mr. Gibson took many clue's from Cecil B. Demille - especially in regard to creating another epic spectacle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
there is some comparison in the two movies, yes, wth. Care to favor us with the contrasts, which, with a little critical thought, might appear to be far greater??? Hardly what I would call a balanced review, wth.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cherished Child
"What you seem to be suggesting is Mel G. was a "stupid gambler" who didn't know what he was getting into, and basing that assumption on the fact the risks for making his movie were very high. I disagree. I am fairly confident Mr. Gibson weighed the odds very, very, carefully long before he "threw the dice" on his Passion movie"
No, I'm not suggesting that Mel Gibson went into this movie without having done as much of his homework as possible. In fact, it's said that he'd being researching the feasability of making this movie for more than a decade. What I'm saying is that this endevour was frought with more perils than C. B. Demille could have ever imagined. I think it's pretty short sighted to suggest that there's much of a parrallel between Demille's time and the present. 50 years ago, America (and indeed, the world) was a MUCH different place. The Ten Commandments were a common fixture in public school classrooms, as were "morning devotionals", which unabashedly included "school prayer". The average American would have said that America was a "Christian Nation" most definitely "under God" back then. People didn't protest in the streets, demanding the end to school prayer as a means of maintaining the "separation between church and state". There wasn't any state legislation banning the celebration of Christian holidays in state funded schools or during town meetings. "The Ten Commandments" was not considered a controversial film, but rather, a technical masterpiece, hailed and welcomed the world over. There was very little "gamble" involved. Comparatively speaking, the payoff was virtually assured, given the climate of the times.
Surely you aren't suggesting that the same climate prevails today. Virtually all things "Christian" are met with barely restrained hostility, in both entertainment and politics. You can bash Christian ideals and principles till the cows come home in today's America. But you had just better not say anything polictically incorrect about Islamic ones. And it's never been such a good time to be Pagan, Wiccan or otherwise sexually oriented. I dare say, that there's a rather overt climate of hostility surrounding Christianity the world over, but nowhere is that more true than in the entertainment industry. The resistence Mel Gibson met over the making of this movie was not made up to "promote the movie". It more than threatened to deep-six the film on many occassions. All I'm saying is that it's extremely cynical to believe that money had to be the sole motivator in the making of this movie. However, if (because you could not be differently motivated under the same circumstances), you cannot fathom Mel Gibson making The Passion out of a passion for it's message, go ahead and believe what you want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
Thanks for clarifying your point, CC. I agree the climate toward "all things Christian" is met with a lot of hostility today, but that antagonism is not limited to the entertainment industry or to politics. I've even run into a few people here who apparently have a lot of trouble with Christian ideals and principles.
:(-->
My comparison of the Passion movie to The Ten Commandments was merely a remark of Mr. Gibsons careful undertaking of the technical excellence in film making, it was not intended to be taken as my personal comments on the geo-political flavors of our present day and time.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
First of all, please excuse the slight name change – ‘puter lost my stored password, and I can’t remember it. Now, to the topic:
Chewster, you write:
“How do you know this?
Are you Mel Gibson's spokesperson?
Do you have direct contact to his mind?
Or do you just believe the worst about everyone?
It might be a good idea not to speak for others, but only speak for yourself.
Question 1: Being a businessperson myself, I assume (and I believe correctly), that no one embarks on a venture of this scale without firm belief in the project and ones own skill to bring it off profitably. Mel didn’t stumble into the working capital to be able to pull this off. As E.F. Hutton so aptly (if misleadingly inaccurately in their case) put it, he made that money the old fashioned way, he earned it.
Question 2: Spare me rhetorical questions to which you already know the answer.
Question 3: See my reply to question 2.
Question 4: Reread my post. It discredits the sea wave of sentiment elevating and extolling Mel’s motives. You won’t (if you actually read my post objectively, not from the perspective of an outie to an innie) discern anything there that paints a negative view of a businessperson’s motive to make profit – profitability is the businessperson’s mantra. In a way, Mel, in this instance, at least, is not unlike the “colonel” of KFC fame. He (Mel) had a vision (the making of this movie) and belief that he could pull it off, creatively and financially, and would not be put off by any nay Sayers (the old colonel also wasn’t put off by a string of prior bankruptcies).
I admire Mel for his strength in pursuing this vision, overcoming the obstacles, and, yes, making a profit – profit is the defining measure of success for any business venture.
I’m not opposed to the movie, the money, the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the message, and I don’t eat or keep grapes, sour or otherwise.
The fellowships in my area are generally supportive of this movie, so I chuckle when I see all these “jump-on” undocumented messages amplifying the ministry’s obviously “obtuse and envious” response this show (“[‘cause they didn’t come up with it first]”).
I’m probably among the minority who haven’t bothered to see it, yet. When I do, I probably will be busy watching for many things (technical, etc) in addition to the “show.” I doubt I’ll be absorbed to the point of tears (I usually am not), but one never knows in advance.
I maintain (as I am free to maintain) my position that money (and the associated collateral considerations that go along with a successful career) was Mel’s motivation. There is nothing unclean about that motivation – I made no statement condemning that motivation – you (and others) did.
I remember in the waning days of Waydale, I took (and expressed) the opinion that the founder’s main motivation (in establishing the website/pursuing the trial) was to extract money from the ministry.
While the byproducts of that motivation netted an informative, helpful, and entertaining website (make that website(s), as GS was an offshoot), I still hold the opinion that the founder was basically out to gain compensation in monetary form. Waydale was a tool used to accomplish that end. Given his experience/perspective, there was nothing inherently wrong with that motivation, nor was there anything inherently wrong with his collecting accolades and gratitude from those who benefited from the “byproducts”.
Having achieved his objectives, he closed the site (albeit sensitive enough to encourage an alternative site for those who had developed (for lack of a better word) an affinity for the byproducts referred to above.
You, of course, are free to conclude what you want – about Mel’s motives, about PA’s motives, about mine.
I will continue to exercise my privilege to express my opinion, as well.
Wordwolf:
bother making this movie.>>
. . . and how many fine movies might qualify for the same comment – better, how many truly epic films would not.
Kevlar
>
. . . and for the courage he demonstrated to take that risk, he is entitled to our respect, congratulations, and box-office dollars.
>
Thus is the stuff for which BBS’s retain our interest . . . you have and share your opinion (belief), I have and share mine. Mel’s instinct that the film would be successful was accurate (and his/his organization’s excellent execution facilitated the validation of that accuracy).
Call me a skeptic if you like, but, I don’t believe he was more committed to his religious vision – artistic vision probably was right up there with money, however.
Mark Sanguinetti:
As one who normally reads with an open, objective mind, I can give you the benefit of the doubt – perhaps you were tired when you read my post, or had dirt in your eye or something. Go back and review, then, tell me if the sour grapes you discern are from my post or from presumptive responses to it.
I am not at all sour that the movie has met with acclaim and box office success. I don’t bemoan Mel’s financial reward. I’m a died-in-the-wool capitalist, so I don’t begrudge his successful business adventure.
. . . and you, of all people here, should know that I’m not some line toeing denominational type. I’m still thinking/speaking for myself.
Others on this board, not me, painted the notion of profit-making/taking in some sort of negative hue.
Read it again, Mark. Be objective. Then, tell me what your second take might be.
>
Thanks, Tex.
Cherished:
>
You have no grasp of my logic, and absolutely no knowledge of the length of my involvement in The Way – none whatsoever.
“sheer lack of logic” – sounds like some of those meaningless, wordy phrases that so many on this board seem to eschew. Exactly what logic (or lack of logic) would you point to, given the words in my initial post?
>
You are focusing a general bias of yours upon me with absolutely no personal knowledge of me – you don’t know me to be smug or otherwise, self-righteous or otherwise. I’m an innie, but, unless you’ve read my posts (or spoken to me personally), you don’t even know what I believe. Set aside your presumptions and reread my posts objectively (if you can). Then, tell me what you think.
Vickles:
Nothing and nowhere. Although you don’t address your post to me, specifically, your response would appear to be in the series elicited by my post, so, I ask you to reread my post, and show me where I say that getting profit from the movie is wrong? Respondents have extrapolated that position from my post because posters on this thread tend to suffer from the same sort of groupthink they accuse TWI of promoting.
Oldiesman:
Good that someone here finally raised this question. The only comments I’ve heard have been generally supportive. All are encouraged to see the movie and the generally accepted consensus is that, regardless of whether it is “complexly accurate” or not, at has, at least, focused mass attention during this special time of year on Christ – and is proof that the general public will come out for a movie centered on some topic other than sex, terrorism, comedy.
I have seen or heard no comment portraying this film in a negative light. The notion that TWI is green with envy is one that has evolved on this board, right here in this thread, not from within TWI.
That the film focuses on the torture and not the resurrection may be true (I haven’t succumbed to viewing the film, yet), but that could be a matter of interpretation. I can imagine how the resurrection, though not occupying much footage, could be viewed as the climax and main point of the film. The only comments of that nature I’ve heard from TWI were always followed with “buts” explaining that, at least, the film gets the issue of Christ out there in front of the masses – accurate or no, not a bad thing – and not commented on as bad from any TWI leadership sources of mine.
>
Rafael:
Why must the act of pointing out that financial gain was Mel’s motive be defined as mean-spirited? Henry Ford didn’t invent the car so that the masses could make it on time to church. His motive (well, one of them, at least) was to make money. Billy Gates didn’t devote his life to computers/software because of some deep-seated desire to open the world of knowledge to the world – he wanted to make money.
To the extent that there is nothing wrong with wanting to make money, why should pointing out the making of money as a motive be “mean-spirited”?
He took a business risk to which no one else was willing to risk the exposure. In business, the higher the risk, the higher the loss (in failure) or reward (with success). Right/wrong/mean-spirited need not enter into it.
Oh, and watch who you’re calling stupid, there, fella!!
>
Good point, Wyteduv58
From Wayfernot quoting Insergent’s initial post:
>
Wayfer’s statement has been amplified as though it is some official TWI leadership edict or a standard comment amongst those of us attending fellowships.
From experience, I can assert that no such thing is true. Perhaps (after all these posts and presumptions), Wayfer could enlighten us as to the source of this statement.
From Cherished:
>
Sure, Cherished, it is at least possible. Let’s see what happens now that his venture is a success. Then, we won’t need to make concessions – we’ll know.
>
Actually, Cherished, I can’t speak for your experience, but I have heard just the opposite expressed by leadership – that TWI is not the only place where God is present – that we should be ever mindful and humble to that fact.
Good questions to which I have no immediate reply. I’ll get back to you.
> No, I do not.
> I do not.
> I do not.
> I do not.
> Good questions.
>
Insurgent, why don’t you clear up the question that has been raised several time on this thread? This comment of yours, about the exclusion or lack of focus on the resurrection, was that your interpolation of what you expect TWI’s take on the movie to be, or did someone (or several persons . . . perhaps leadership) actually make an official statement regarding this movie? Why don’t you clear that up for us, Insurgent? Most of the strong comments on this thread derived from your statement. Clear it up for us, won’t you?
Respectfully,
LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
LLP,
That was Smith Barney - not E.F. Hutton.
LLP, I happen to agree with some of what you say about Gibson's profit motive for Passion. However I do also think that Gibson's passion for this movie was at least paritally based in his faith. One does not necessarily preclude the other. Live isn't all black and white.
You are fairly bright person, but you sure have a pompous way of expressing yourself which I think may be partly why some folks jump on your posts so much.
BTW, I did a post in the Open Forum on how to use GS's quote feature. You may consider looking at that.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
LLP
Thanks for your response. It's good to hear that TWI folks are generally supportive of the film, which I think makes a great deal of sense. Try and see it soon, I think you'll be blessed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
insurgent
llp, it's been proven that you live in a la la land of twi that not one person can verify or validate. In this la la land where your fellowship is things are said and leadership behaves differently than it does anywhere else in twi.
I have mentioned many times in many places that I can not and will not reveal anymore about myself and my location or leadership than absollutely necessary. The twi(ts) have tried to break into my e-mail and log on and want very much to know who I am and I will not provide that information yet.
These comments I reported have come from leadership, wc and regular kool aide drinkers who parrot what they hear from leadership. twi is not and never will give credit to non-twi people or organizations. They even spend a great deal of time teaching their wc wannabees how to "research" their own collaterals and twi published material instead of "re-inventing the wheel" and having to go to oustide, unreliable sources for information and research.
twi has not changed and these statements are consistent with the arrogant attitude expressed by so many die-hard wayfers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
insurgent--well spoken...I have never believed that llp is involved with the twi we all know. He is obviously hooked up with the one in the commercial for Terry Bradshaw....
:D--> 
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
This reminds me of the whole athletes of the spirit fiasco....
LCM came to the advanced class ...he was so excited about having seen the *staying alive* movie with John Travolta....there was a scene where in the production John Travolta was doing involving a battle with devil spirits....Lcm was all hepped up about how twi could do it better ....more accuratly more skillfully more dramatically...yada yada ...and thus the conception of aos was born...simply because HE, lcm wanted to show the wolrd how twi could do it bigger and better than Holly wood ever could......
You know........even vpw couldn`t dissuade him from it....
That ws the way it always was when I was in twi....if they hadn`t done it first....it wasn`t worth doing...
Twi`s critisisms are so childish.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.