MovieChat Forums > Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) Discussion > How I would like to see a Jesus Christ S...

How I would like to see a Jesus Christ Superstar remake.


1. I would like for it to be biblically correct. It's suppose to be a remake, so why not make it an actual remake where it all takes place in the middle east, although in order to make the film it's own picture, and not just a copy of the one from 1973, I suggest removing any modern items, and have the story take place during the times when some people believe Christ lived.

2. I'd need for the color on the screen to look like a Frank Miller picture. Think "Jesus Christ Superstar" meets "The Passion of the Christ" meets "300'. i.e. You have the music and singing from "Jesus Christ Superstar", but the color on the screen is like how it was in "300", and the setting, and the actors look like how it was in "The Passion of the Christ".

3. I need the film to be how the original was in regards of the men's toughness. i.e. I need the characters to be portrayed as very strong and brave men. Not weak sissies who cry a lot. I've seen and heard film and theater versions of "Jesus Christ Superstar" where characters like Judas, Jesus, and Pilate are all major wusses, and give the story and theater a bad name. I wouldn't like for people in the audience laughing at the story, and by having too many of the men crying all the time, and having them sing the songs in whiny voices, it makes it almost a comedy, and while "Jesus Christ Superstar" does have some funny moments, I wouldn't like for it to go overboard.

In this one, I'd like for the men to be very strong who DO break down in due time, but when they do, it's all the more powerful, and they do it alone. For example, I'd only like to see Judas break down and cry when he's alone, and about to kill himself. Other then that, I'd need him to be a Billy Bad-Ass full of anger and rage. He'd come close to breaking down when he first goes to the Jews to betray Christ, and right after he kisses Jesus, but he'd hold in it.

Peter of course would break down after his denial of Christ.

Jesus himself would also be a strong fighter, and would not cry until in the garden right before being arrested. Only he'd cry a little. Other then that, he'd keep his cool during the whole thing, and be a very brave character, just like how Ted Neeley made him out to be.

Pilate - He'd be very strong. A man's man. A John Wayne/Yul Brynner/Charles Bronson/Charlton Heston/Clint Eastwood/Robert Shaw/Lee Marvin kind of old-school man, and just barely break down until after Christ had been whipped 39 times, but Pilate would quickly recover.

4. All the Jewish characters should have American accents, and all the Roman characters should have English accents.

5. I was watching "300" last night, and despite what many of the theater elitists think, I still believe Gerald Butler would be great as Pilate. Clearly he couldn't look exactly like his character in "300" or some people would get confused. Maybe he could be clean shaven, and have less muscle. I also think the idea of Pilate being played by a well known actor who is surrounded by unknown actors would give the character of Pilate that extra edge, because then we the audience would see things more clearly from the characters point of view. i.e. Pilate was seen as famous by the people in his community, so they looked at him with more "Awe" then they would anyone else. In this remake of "Jesus Christ Superstar", I think with the exception of the role of Pilate, the cast should have nothing but unknown actors, so that if someone like Butler were to play the part of Pilate, when Pilate is on the screen, the audience, like the characters, would be in a more star-struck type of mode. I also realize Butler probably won't do anymore movies that would involve him singing since actors usually only do one music related movie, but it's still a nice thought, and I still think a big named actor should play the role.

reply

[deleted]

Dear WildIan220, I really enjoyed your comment. How very eloquently put. And so true. I'm happy I read it as it expressed everything I felt the original post made me want to shout out but my current sleep-deprived state suppressed.

Cheers. Namaste. Päikest. Kendine iyi bak.

reply

I like it just the way it is, a time capsule from the late 60s early 70s. It is a great movie. Everything else seems to have been remade. This has not... Speaks for itself.

reply

Those that attempt to remake perfection will inevitably fail.

reply

In they ever do remake this film, my litmus test would be to show the original post to anyone involved. At the first sign of agreement to anything written, said person would be taken outside and shot.

"Falling feels like flying... until you hit the ground."-Tom McRae

reply

About the only thing I agree with is that the men should be tougher and stronger. Not in some sort of comic-book hollywood manner, but as real men of the times- the fishermen who daily hauled in full nets of fish after rowing their boats out and back in the water. Jesus hauled around support beams, 4x4x12's that were cut, shaved and sanded by hand. These were not physically wimpy people.
And though they may have been a bit conflicted, uncertain and lacking confidence at times, they were of strong character.

No, I'm not talking about Steve McQueen tough guys with pecs that look like Dolly Parton's chest pressed against a window pane. But certainly men who carry themselves as tough enough to be in defiance of Pilate, Herod and the Roman army


I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .

reply

I know I'm bringing up an old post, but I'm just one of those people.

1. No. You're destroying the purpose of the MUSICAL. This isn't supposed to be another accurate Jesus story. It's one to be related to modern times. For the time, it was modern. The TV version made in 2000 was modern. And guess what? The stage version is ALWAYS, in SOME aspect, modern. That is the purpose of the musical. It's not Nativity Story, it's not Passion of the Christ. It's Jesus Christ Superstar. Get it right or shut up.

2. It would seem too much like a comic book, like Miller's films. The thing is, I have nothing against his films (contrarywise I LOVE them), but this musical has too much emotion in it for it to be hidden behind cartoon-land.

3. Again, this is a story of the human side of Jesus. Not his amazing deity side, the side of him that felt STRONG emotion and doubt and maybe even denial. He was broken down. His best friend betrayed him, REALLY betrayed him, and his best friend felt that he didn't have a choice because he was trying to help him. It's an emotional story. They show emotion. They ARE men. They feel emotion. And it makes them look more human in comparison to the soldiers, to Pilate, to Herod, etc. You seem to not have a good comprehension of this story. Not the BIBLE story, but how THIS story is presented.

4. It would seem too much like 300. GET 300 out of your head, for the love of god, it's a different movie.



I'll join you when hell freezes over.
Dumbledore's Army!

reply



I could see this working in a realistic, gritty "300" style setting, if you reworked the musical numbers to be darker and more foreboding. The remake would then really change the mood of the film, perhaps a comparison would be the 1969 vs. 2010 version of True Grit. Of course this remake would provide an even greater contrast, as much as Batman 1966 vs. Batman 1989. In other words, it would still be campy but the mood and look would be completely different. A musical with violent and serious subject matter is a workable premise; examples include Rent and Sweeney Todd.

Here's a good matchup that I think captures your premise... crucifixion scenes from the movie "The Passion of the Christ", re-scored with a metal version of the song "Superstar" originally used for the crucifixion in the '73 movie. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD-Ywbr2gGM

reply

"Biblically correct?" That's the irony of the day.


--

"Who's scruffy lookin'?"

reply

Is this it?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1262410/

reply

I'd like to see one of two kinds of remakes for this.

Like the OP said, COMPLETELY accurate to the times with no machine guns or anything modern. Basically the Passion with people singing.

OR...

Completely modern day, with no stuff from the past at all. The Romans dressed as US Marines or policemen, Pilate as a muscular sheriff with a jarhead haircut, Jesus and his apostles as modern-day urban hood dwellers or small town country boys, and the High Priests as basically something along the lines of either pimps, mafiosi, or really effete-looking intellectual elites. Simon Zealotes would have to look like a serious thug. Herod is pretty accurate, in both this and the 2000 version, I imagine him as like a flaming gay mob boss, if that's even possible.

reply


Completely modern day, with no stuff from the past at all. The Romans dressed as US Marines or policemen, Pilate as a muscular sheriff with a jarhead haircut, Jesus and his apostles as modern-day urban hood dwellers or small town country boys, and the High Priests as basically something along the lines of either pimps, mafiosi, or really effete-looking intellectual elites. Simon Zealotes would have to look like a serious thug.


There's actually a video version of Superstar that's not terribly far from this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0275434/?ref_=fn_al_tt_9

It's filming of the late '90s stage revival and thus is essentially a piece of theatre on video. If you haven't already, do check it out. Not everyone likes it but I think it's really interesting and powerful.


"Sometimes it's right to feel a fool"- Cleggy

reply

I thought you saw the Passion of the Christ?

Since so many denominations (including the USCCB) disliked the original, it's highly unlikely.

Oh, you mean with the music and everything? It's been almost 40 years, so yeah, it's time for a remake.

reply

i thought ted neely jesus was pretty manly... he's small and thin but he was pretty badass
judas too
pilate was effeminate but amaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazing
but damn everyone seemed very strong to me... they weren't buff but that doesn't equal strength always

http://www.youtube.com/chaztr0n

reply

Hello a few years later! I am still a big JCS fan, and would welcome a remake.

Even though I am very late in posting this, I just would still like to post I have no issues with men who cry. However, too many in society do, & I just prefer to avoid topics like that and just have people pay attention to the story instead of laughing/debating the topic of men crying. I also only desire to be realistic. I *also* assume (based on my love for history) a long time ago, men didn't have time to cry, and that crying was what women and children did. And if you did cry, and you were a man, you did it alone, and you better have a DAMN good reason if you're crying in front of others.

reply

It shouldn't just be about crying but I do like the idea of portraying men (and people in general for that matter) as having weakness. It's more realistic and gives us a clearer, fairer view of ourselves as we examine our human nature through art. Around 2000, The Really Useful Crew created a movie of Superstar that was essentially the late '90s stage revival put to video. The characterizations go in some new directions. PIlate is deep, operatic baritone. He dresses in impressive armor and military insignia and generally acts the part of a tough guy. There are even fascistic overtones. But he proves, at least as i see it, to be a much weaker man putting on a veneer of strength. That, to me, is interesting. Ultimately, I just don't feel we should make male characters more "manly" just to avoid the society's hangups or to pander to those who cannot deal with shows of emotion or truly multi-facted and layered characterizations as opposed to fitting everyone into suffocating stereotypical moulds.





"Sometimes it's right to feel a fool"- Cleggy

reply

Way late but in other words you want it to be a shallow Hollywood movie instead of an intellectual film with many layers. You didn't really understand any facet of the film or the production.

It is SUPPOSED to have modern influences, that is how it is written. Ultimately it's not supposed to be religious, or be just about the story of Christ. It is supposed to marry biblical times with modern political overtones. It equates what happened 2000 years ago with what is happening currently. Yes I do like how they dress similar to the actual people they are portraying but it needs the modern influence.

Manly men? No, the greatest thing about the film is that they are normal men who have fear and insecurities like normal men. In the 2000 version they were beyond whiny, but in the 1973 version they were excellent and showed the very real humanity they may have experienced.

The color, or if you knew about cinema you would call it by what it really is- cinematography, definitely doesn't need any special tricks. Using primarily natural lighting in the original worked fantastically. It gave a very real feeling rather than some massive Hollywood set.

And again terrible choice for Pilate. The actors should be chosen by their acting ability AND their voice not because they are famous and manly men. The actors shouldn't be put in roles because of their accent or anything besides their talent in acting and singing their respective roles. Your reasoning is based on extremely shallow characteristics of the actors and that doesn't make a good film, it makes a terrible movie that even if it did make a lot of money would be forgotten 10 minutes after people left the theatre.

Might as well just remove the songs completely if they were to go with those suggestions.

reply