Jump to content

Eric Lasagna

I Still Believe l March 13, 2020 l Lionsgate l Slambros already camping out in front of his local theater

Recommended Posts

 

Quote

After teaming for the biggest indie hit of 2018, the filmmakers behind I Can Only Imagine will bring a follow-up to the big screen with Lionsgate titled I Still Believe.

 

Jon Erwin, Andrew Erwin and producing partner Kevin Downes are back for the faith-based film, which marks the brothers’ first project coming out of their first-look film and TV deal with Lionsgate.

 

I Still Believe is set to start shooting in the spring and is slated to bow March 20, 2020, as a wide release. The Erwin Brothers will direct from a script by Jon Erwin and Jon Gunn.

 

Dubbed an uplifting and inspiring true-life story of Christian music mega-star Jeremy Camp, the sequel will follow the next phase of the protagonist’s journey of love and loss.

 

Kevin Downes and the Erwin Brothers will produce the film under their Kingdom banner.

@Slambros

  • Haha 1
  • Astonished 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen it to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.


The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."


"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Astonished 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



11 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen it to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.


The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."


"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

 

That's an excerpt from Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy! Good book.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites







9 hours ago, MovieGuyKyle17 said:

So their making a unnecessary sequel to a sub par film (Granted it's good for a religious film), even the religious people are greedy.  

Greed is one of the defining traits of organized religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kraken said:

Greed is one of the defining traits of organized religion.

 

objection.gif

 

 

There many people that do take advantage of organized religion, yes. Many people over the millenias have misused their faith for the sake of their own selfish desires. The Renaissance-era Catholic church are an example, as they were convincing people of a 'purgatory' and asking people to 'buy their way out of hell'.

 

But there's a reason Martin Luther decided to stand against that. It's becase that's not the way it's supposed to be. An example of how it's supposed to be can be found in the the book of Acts, where it shows the first formation of what we know today as the Christian church. The foundation was pure; man is responsible for their own greed.

 

Besides that, I disagree that I'd call these filmmakers out for their "greed". Yes, it is a sequel. But it's also a great idea for a sequel. It's less of saying that "this is the Godfather trilogy of faith-based cinema" like Pure Flix tried to do with God's Not Dead. This is capitalizing on a base idea--examining the origin of a contemporary Christian music artist--by examining another musician's origin, one that's certainly much different than the last. It's the Black Mirror of faith-based melodrama. This is a brilliant idea, not just for the money, but for the story potential.

 

And sequels get made all the time, by many different studios. But I'm not going around with picket signs, saying Pixar is greedy, or Marvel is greedy, or this or that person is greedy, because I acknowledge that there's a reason that American cinema is infested with sequels to begin with, a reason that requires rigurous study and debate.

 

Sorry about the rant; I just think I'm much more excited and hopeful about this project than I've ever been about any of the recent Pure Flix films. I definitely aacknowledge that you have the right to your beliefs, as I do to mine. Do let me know if you think the "Objection" sign was a little overboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



22 minutes ago, Slambros said:

 

objection.gif

 

 

There many people that do take advantage of organized religion, yes. Many people over the millenias have misused their faith for the sake of their own selfish desires. The Renaissance-era Catholic church are an example, as they were convincing people of a 'purgatory' and asking people to 'buy their way out of hell'.

 

But there's a reason Martin Luther decided to stand against that. It's becase that's not the way it's supposed to be. An example of how it's supposed to be can be found in the the book of Acts, where it shows the first formation of what we know today as the Christian church. The foundation was pure; man is responsible for their own greed.

American Christians have thrown their support to a thrice-divorced man that pays porno actresses for sex and has a video saying he grabs women by the pussy just because it gives them access to power. And don't get me started on how megachurches take advantage of people's (morons) faith to swindle them.

 

So yes, we agree that man is responsible for their own greed, it just so happens that there's nothing divine in organized religion.

 

The sign was fine.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 minute ago, Kraken said:

American Christians have thrown their support to a thrice-divorced man that pays porno actresses for sex and has a video saying he grabs women by the pussy just because it gives them access to power. And don't get me started on how megachurches take advantage of people's (morons) faith to swindle them.

 

So yes, we agree that man is responsible for their own greed, it just so happens that there's nothing divine in organized religion.

 

The sign was fine.

 

Thank you; 

 

I guess that's sort of why my father once said, "if you see a 'religious' person, you run the other way." For people like me and my father, we haven't chosen the path of faith for the aspect of religion; only for the aspect of the One we believe in, who is Jesus. That's absolutely the way it should be.

 

And, yeah, Trump is absolutely less than ideal. Would've preferred Cruz or Kasich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 hour ago, Slambros said:

 

objection.gif

 

 

There many people that do take advantage of organized religion, yes. Many people over the millenias have misused their faith for the sake of their own selfish desires. The Renaissance-era Catholic church are an example, as they were convincing people of a 'purgatory' and asking people to 'buy their way out of hell'.

 

But there's a reason Martin Luther decided to stand against that. It's becase that's not the way it's supposed to be. An example of how it's supposed to be can be found in the the book of Acts, where it shows the first formation of what we know today as the Christian church. The foundation was pure; man is responsible for their own greed.

 

Besides that, I disagree that I'd call these filmmakers out for their "greed". Yes, it is a sequel. But it's also a great idea for a sequel. It's less of saying that "this is the Godfather trilogy of faith-based cinema" like Pure Flix tried to do with God's Not Dead. This is capitalizing on a base idea--examining the origin of a contemporary Christian music artist--by examining another musician's origin, one that's certainly much different than the last. It's the Black Mirror of faith-based melodrama. This is a brilliant idea, not just for the money, but for the story potential.

 

And sequels get made all the time, by many different studios. But I'm not going around with picket signs, saying Pixar is greedy, or Marvel is greedy, or this or that person is greedy, because I acknowledge that there's a reason that American cinema is infested with sequels to begin with, a reason that requires rigurous study and debate.

 

Sorry about the rant; I just think I'm much more excited and hopeful about this project than I've ever been about any of the recent Pure Flix films. I definitely aacknowledge that you have the right to your beliefs, as I do to mine. Do let me know if you think the "Objection" sign was a little overboard.

Well said. That and...christians are allowed to make money and do business as well. I'm personally skeptical about a sequel to I Can Only Imagine, but execs are doing what any other studio does: planning a sequel to an unexpected hit.

  • Like 1
Link 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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.