It’s called Gods And Kings and it’s not your grandfather’s Ten Commandments. According to “insiders” this is envisioned as a “Braveheart-ish vrsion of the Moses story.” Less gloss than DeMille and more grit.

Color me skeptical, but then I underestimated Spielberg’s horsey war movie too and it was a lovely surprise. I don’t need to hear the Moses story again, but maybe if it’s really Braveheart-ish there will at least be some quality disembowelings!

via: Deadline



9 Responses to “WB close to getting Spielberg for their Moses pic”

  1. Daniel Day Lewis would be great Moses!

  2. Hell, Daniel Day Lewis would be great as Margaret Thatcher

  3. When this project was first announced in September, with Warner Bros. clearly courting Spielberg for it, I had the thought that it would only be worth Spielberg’s time if he made a gritty version of the tale rather than in the style of the glossy 1956 classic of DeMille’s. Looks like that is what is being hinted at, with many sources suggesting that it could be a Saving Private Ryan-like take on your Biblical epic of yesteryear.

  4. Graig, i was laughing for 4 minutes straight with your comment!!
    Alexander, i agree 100%. If he made Ten Commandments : The sequel it would be a waste of time but it looks like he will approach the story the right way.

  5. Spielberg’s admiration for DeMille’s version (the “Close Encounters” scene) means this makes sense. The fact that he already backed a perfectly good animated version of this story with “Prince of Egypt” means it makes less sense. Anyway, in the grand scheme of things it’s just another remake. Also, I despise “Braveheart” with every fiber of my being (well, nearly every fiber– it has Patrick McGoohan in it), so the comparison doesn’t fill me with confidence.

  6. It’s not necessarily a remake at all unless you assume that all that makes a movie are the basic facts of the story. That’s a little like saying Saving Private Ryan was just a remake of The Longest Day.

    For what it’s worth though, I don’t get a good vibe off of Braveheart either, though I think their meaning is that it’s going to be more action-oriented than previous versions of the story.

  7. It’s a story from the Bible. From the Old Testament, even. That gives it about the same historical veracity as something from Greek Mythology. Yeah, believers can believe what they wish, but it’s not comparable to D-Day.

    Maybe you’re just talking about “the facts of the story” as the basic details of the narrative, and not in a historical sense (I expect that’s the case, but you never know), but even so, it can be as revisionist as it wants, but it’s still a remake on one level or another, just as that dreadful Clive Owen “King Arthur” was to “Excalibur”, or any other take on the Round Table mythos. It’s another example of unoriginality in Hollywood, just with a longer reach.

  8. yes, “facts of the story” are exactly what I’m talking about, which is why I used those words.

    Your definition of remake is so broad as to be essentially meaningless, but it’s still true that Hollywood is in love with repeating itself.

  9. And it always has been. Just ask DeMille.

Leave a Reply

Tiny Subscribe to Comments

  • LiC on Twitter

  • Archives

All material copyright 2007-2012 by Craig Kennedy unless otherwise stated