MovieChat Forums > The Prince of Egypt (1998) Discussion > Reasons why The Prince of Egypt is BS

Reasons why The Prince of Egypt is BS

posted 10 years ago by helderuto
32 replies | jump to latest

a) Moses always knew his origin
He was raised by his biological mother (Exodus 2:1-10)

b) Moses was never a prince
"By the faith Moses, when grew up, denied to be called son of the Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather being mistreated with the people of God than having the temporary usufruct of sin" (Hebrews 11:24, 25)

c) Moses was 80 years when he returned to the Egypt to free the people of God (Acts of the Apostles 7:23-30)

d) Pharaoh died in the Red Sea
Pharaoh surviving is BS made up by Cecil B. De Mille in The Ten Commandments (Psalms 136:13-15)

[–] Supersaurus 10 years ago

Frodo had the ring in his possession for around 17 years before leaving The Shire, unlike in the film where he leaves almost immediately.

Harry Potter and his mother both have green eyes, unlike in the film.

There were at least two tyrannosaurs in Jurassic Park, unlike in the film.

You are complaining about yet more book to film differences. I don't believe there are many, if any at all, 100% faithful film adaptations of books out there... so your reasons are hardly good reasons at all.
In the opening sequence, this film specifically states "artistic and historical license has been taken"

[–] helderuto 10 years ago

All these books together didn't have 1% of the readers the Holy Scriptures have until today.

[–] Supersaurus 10 years ago

Not really seeing how that is relevant

[–] helderuto 10 years ago

Exodus isn't just a story, it's HISTORY.
Pharaoh surviving is like Hitler faking his death.
Moses only finding otu he was hebrew in the adulthood is like Alexander the Great living his whole life as a peasant and only finding out he was the sucessor of the Greek Empire one day before his crowning.

[–] mtman318 10 years ago

Exodus isn't just a story, it's HISTORY.

When did it happen? What was the name of the Pharaoh it happened to? What exact route did they take? How many contemporaneous accounts exist which discuss it?

The Bible was never meant to be a history book. If it were so, it would be a lot more detailed than it is. It only has enough history in it to provide context for the stories, morals, messages, revelations, etc, within it--since context is necessary for understanding anything completely.

I bring this up because it is hypocritical/inconsistent to apply such a standard of judgment for an adaptation, without applying that same standard for the original.

[–] mwagner71592 10 years ago

The story of the Exodus is just as detailed as other historical documents from the time. I don't take any issue with treating it as a historical document. However, I think it's silly to therefore demand the film makers to adhere solely to the source material. Take Lawrence of Arabia, for instance. It's one of the greatest historical dramas ever made and it bares little resemblance to the actual life of T.E. Lawrence. It's fine for film makers to extrapolate and take license with films like this. In the case of the Prince of Egypt, the story elements the changed led to an even more emotionally compelling journey that what Cecil B. DeMille delivered with his epic, the Ten Commandments. The goal shouldn't be to remain 100% accurate but rather to make a good film. This is a very good film.

[–] mtman318 10 years ago

The goal shouldn't be to remain 100% accurate but rather to make a good film.

That should be put on a plaque! Though I'm afraid too many people would overlook the word "good."

[–] marcos_ho 9 years ago

Exodus isn't just a story, it's HISTORY.

I pity you and your ignorance.

[–] Someguy029 9 years ago

Wow. I'm still surprised that people still think this. Exodus isn't history, it's fiction. You realize Exodus is the reason historical scholars stopped taking the Bible seriously, right?

[–] Duragizer 10 years ago

Missing the forest for the trees, just like all Biblical literalists.

I'm Heather Langenkamp's husband in another universe.

[–] helderuto 10 years ago

Missing the forest for the trees

You must have loved the Titanic cartoon where NO ONE dies then.

[–] mtman318 10 years ago

If the last plague just gave the Egyptians a tummy ache, and if the Red Sea crashing down on them just made them wet and upset, then your "argument" might actually mean something. As it is, all it does is make it seem like you have no idea what "missing the forest for the trees" means.

[–] helderuto 10 years ago

If the last plague just gave the Egyptians a tummy ache, and if the Red Sea crashing down on them just made them wet and upset, then your "argument" might actually mean something. As it is, all it does is make it seem like you have no idea what "missing the forest for the trees" means.

Nice attempt of reductio ad absurdum, kiddo. YOU completely missed the point. Exodus is about how Yahweh used a pawn not only to free His chosen people, but to glorify His Name before the egyptians.

Pharaoh was totally stubborn. He refused to free the hebrews after 9 plagues. He still pursued the hebrews after the tenth plague. Do you really think he would stop if God had spared his life? He would thank the egyptian gods for saving his life or worse, he would claim Yahweh had no power against him because Pharaoh himself was a god (the egyptians believed it) and would send all his army to destroy the hebrews.

No, pharaoh HAD to die to send a message to the egyptians: the God of Abraham is the One True God.

[–] Cyclo Rider 10 years ago

No, pharaoh HAD to die to send a message to the egyptians: the God of Abraham is the One True God.

Funny how the Egyptians never got the message.

[–] Duragizer 10 years ago

You must have loved the Titanic cartoon where NO ONE dies then.

Changing the minutiae of a quasi-historical story doesn't change the overall message of that story, while presenting the crew of the Titanic as surviving the sinking of the ship does.

I'm Heather Langenkamp's husband in another universe.

[–] helderuto 10 years ago

You obviously have a double standard

[–] mtman318 10 years ago

If you're expecting films based on the Bible (or even "history" in general) to be 100% in line with the source material, you will always be disappointed. It's never going to happen. Even films made outside of secular (for-profit) studios will never be completely true to source. Why? Because some things simply don't translate well onto film; not necessarily for only visual reasons either, but for cultural differences and content rating issues. (If the Bible was made into a movie with all the details the same, it would be R-rated at least.)

But here's the important part: None of those things actually matter.
Does it matter whether or not Pharaoh survived? Does it matter how old Moses was when he returned to Egypt? If the purpose and point of the story remain intact, then the details don't matter. So the question is, what is the point of the Moses story? If The Prince of Egypt manages to keep the purpose of the story true to the original, then it is not "BS."

But if you insist on pushing impossible standards onto biblically/historically based films, then maybe you should just stick with the original materials, and leave the films to people who can appreciate and critique them fairly.

[–] mtman318 10 years ago

Even films made outside of secular (for-profit) studios will never be completely true to source.

Actually, I might be wrong on that part. There's this movie which I found on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTb4UIbnOHE), which is the Gospel of Luke (KJV) read aloud--with actors acting out and speaking (in Aramaic, I think) in the background. It looks like there may be other productions--now posted on YouTube--that made similar undertakings as well.

The only inaccuracies in such cases as this would be in visuals, that is, if what they show isn't exactly how it would have looked. But since a lot of that can't be proven anyway, the point is moot.

Keep in mind that films like the ones I posted still have the source material read word for word while playing, so it's not really different from just reading straight from the Bible anyway.

I still stand by everything else I wrote, though.

[–] OriginalCrowlord 10 years ago

4 Reasons why you are a crazy zealot that doesn't understand the transition from book to screen...

See OP.

----------------
Watching the IMDB and BFI top 50's for my blog www.reviewedatrandom.com

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] helderuto 10 years ago

Coward

[–] OriginalCrowlord 10 years ago

Ohhhh Kayyyyyy
----------------
Watching the IMDB and BFI top 50's for my blog www.reviewedatrandom.com

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] OriginalCrowlord 10 years ago

No I am afraid the only reason I could be a stupid son of a whore is if I were the male offspring of a whore and suffered from a low IQ. As my dear departed mother was not a whore I am afraid you are mistaken in that belief. I may be stupid however the Biology Degree and my level of verbosity, that you incidentally appear to lack, would indicate to the contrary. My parents also conceived me within their marriage so alas I am also no bastard.

You understand whores and genealogy only marginally more than you grasp cinematography.
----------------
Watching the IMDB and BFI top 50's for my blog

[–] denisegroce77 9 years ago

Your comment is the best one on this thread! Well said!

[–] imthebaddest11 9 years ago

Its only a movie and nobody really knows everything that took place so long ago

"Art to me is a question mark. I don't think it should ever be an answer." Marilyn Manson

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aliholly9389 9 years ago

I'm trying to understand your view. You believe the Bible is a history book and yet your bashing a secular world attempt to bring it to the screen. Films like this don't need to be totally accurate for them to fill the viewer with a sense of wonder and make them want to check out the source material themselves. I am a Christian, and yes, there are some inaccuracies, but the main points of the story, the fact that Moses had faith in God, and the God will conquer all, is there, and that's what matters

[–] aliholly-62819 8 years ago

The very beginning of the film says it's not a completely accurate depiction.