Metanet Forums

So I am making a movie about the Parable of the Lost Son (A.K.A. "The Prodigal Son") and I am going to make it like a modern rendition of the story...and I'm a little stuck in the writing process because I cant think of how to translate the rest of the story into modern societies understanding...and in case you don't know the Parable of the Lost Son its found in
Luke 15:11-31

Instead of getting his inheritance early, have him steal his dads credit card.

I'm going to assume you're making satire, because the Prodigal Son is fucking bullshit.

Represent the family as a corporation whose CEO and board of directors genuinely have the best interests of his consumers at heart, and represent the two sons as the COO and the CFO of that same company. The "younger son", the CFO, gets wind of some revolutionary new product that he knows the company would never take full advantage of, and knows of a rival which is morally flexible enough to rake in obscene amounts of money with it, so he steals the idea and brings it to the rival company, who then hires him on for more pay. Legal issues explode in the rival company's face, leaving it in ruin and the CFO at the center of a fraud investigation which is hopeless to contest. In court, the CFO says he's really, really, super-duper sorry, and that moves the judge to acquit him of all charges and the CEO and board to hire him again at the same rank and pay he had when he left. The company finishes development of their revolutionary product, which turns out to be a rainbow that rains steak dinners, and world hunger is eliminated overnight. Everyone lives happily ever after.

The sequel:
The COO's name is Cain, and he's furious that the CFO, Abel, is receiving partial treatment. In secret, he leads a character assassination campaign against the CFO, who is forced to resign and flee the country. When it comes to light that the COO is responsible, he is fired, but he goes off to start his own company in a third-world country. His business is something like a blood bank, except that we learn early on that the donors are not exactly volunteers. His plan for settling lawsuits before they start is to offer those victims of his with a certain amount of business acumen to head their own branch of his blood-collection business, which turns out to be a pyramid scheme as the only way they can succeed in their business is to delegate their work further. A complicated, underground political structure emerges, which must set aside internal conflicts when a new threat emerges -- another corporation that morphs into a wolf-man every full moon. They do battle and it is awesome, but love triumphs over all, or something like that.

@ T̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư: .....

Maligus wrote:@ T̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư: .....

You're welcome.

@ T̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư: uh no thats not what i need i do not think its crap and the entire story is about something deeper

this film will be only about 10 min long

@ Maligus: well then maybe you should uh tell us a little more about what you actually want

oh and tell us about the love of jesus christ while you're at it

Maligus wrote: the entire story is about something deeper

Uh oh. Give us an outline of your plot, then.

@ Nostromo: Thats the problem the only thing I have thus far is a little bit of an idea for the intro but no clue how I should approach the rest of it

INTRO BASICS:

The father is on a walk home (scene has a typical "Dust in the Wind" type feel) [doing this gives time for the title and opening credits to roll] upon arriving home he finds his two sons bickering, soon a fight breaks out and then the youngest son gets upset to the point where he asks for his inheritance planning never to return home again.

thats as far as i got :/

So, so far you have exactly the story of the prodigal son.

hairscapades wrote:So, so far you have exactly the story of the prodigal son.

T_T sarcastic much?

Maligus wrote:

hairscapades wrote:So, so far you have exactly the story of the prodigal son.

T_T sarcastic much?

That's not sarcasm. Sarcasm would be if I noted in a chipper tone how much thought you've put into this and how happy I would be to help you polish up some of the final details.

In defense of Tanner and Tsukatu, you just can't make a new version of The Prodigal Son without modernizing it. If you make it take place in the 50s or earlier, you lose viewer interest. Why do you think Westerns are a dying movie genre? Because nobody wants to watch the past.

Make the video about a self-made millionaire (Mr. Smith perhaps) of some electronics corporation which is dominating the market. His two sons (who I wouldn't name if I were you) are told that they are to split his inheritance. The older one knows that it is his job to take over the business, but the younger one thinks that he has no purpose. So one night he sneaks out with a briefcase of full of money (not all his inheritance, but some of it) because he has gotten caught up in the whole "just have fun in life" mindset (which MTV might be behind). He drives his nice car to Vegas or maybe just a casino and gets obsessed with slot machines. (You could add a girl to the mix who rips him off, but that's up to you.) Eventually his starts pawning off his things to feed his addiction. Once he's significantly in debt he runs away from the casino and finds an old mission. The sisters there give him a nice meal and arrange a ride for him back to his home. On his way home he's thinking about how he can ask his father to give him a job so he can pay him back. But as soon as his father sees him, he runs up to him, gives him the robe he's wearing, and says to his butler, "Prepare a feast, for the son I thought was dead is alive again." When his older brother gets back from work, he sees the feast for his brother and calls out "Dad! Why haven't you prepared a feast for me, the son who has not foolishly squandered away his money?"

You probably know how it ends.

i'm looking for input is all something to get my brain turning again

Aidiera wrote:Because nobody wants to watch the past.

I disagree with this.

Uropterygius wrote:

Aidiera wrote:Because nobody wants to watch the past.

I disagree with this.

i agree with this disagreement

Aidiera wrote:In defense of Tanner and Tsukatu, you just can't make a new version of The Prodigal Son without modernizing it. If you make it take place in the 50s or earlier, you lose viewer interest. Why do you think Westerns are a dying movie genre? Because nobody wants to watch the past.

...

Don't tell me what I want to watch.

Considering some of the other posts in this thread, I think the major obstacle here is a budget. The only advice I have here is that you should try to do something simple. I doubt you have the resources to reproduce a Vegas casino or an old Mission.

Edit: If you have any creative control over the story, you should kill off the dad before the prodigal son returns home. The son returns during the funeral, at which point the brother sees what a shit-hole the prodigal son put himself into, and they reunite in the face of their fathers death. And then the part about rainbows and steak dinners.

capt_weasle wrote: I doubt you have the resources to reproduce a Vegas casino or an old Mission.

PPPFFFFF. I made an old mission in 5th grade.

Uropterygius wrote:

capt_weasle wrote: I doubt you have the resources to reproduce a Vegas casino or an old Mission.

PPPFFFFF. I made an old mission in 5th grade.

Yeah, it's more fun if the audience can suspend their disbelief.

Aidiera wrote:Yeah, it's more fun if the audience can suspend their disbelief.

If you've got good actors working with a good script, you can go entirely without a set and have it still be entirely enthralling for the audience. It's more important to be aware of your limitations and to work with and within them than to be wading in money.

hairscapades wrote:

Aidiera wrote:Yeah, it's more fun if the audience can suspend their disbelief.

If you've got good actors working with a good script, you can go entirely without a set and have it still be entirely enthralling for the audience. It's more important to be aware of your limitations and to work with and within them than to be wading in money.

good example is Star Wars: A New Hope

You mean Star Wars never had any sets? Wow, that movie must have had damn good acting for me to have just hallucinated that they were on the Death Star.

A better example would be Christopher Nolan's Following. On a budget of $6,000, he worked with people he met in school, used friends and families homes for sets, and worked around the actor's work schedules, mostly filming on weekends. It took a full year of shooting to make a 70 minute film.

capt_weasle wrote:You mean Star Wars never had any sets? Wow, that movie must have had damn good acting for me to have just hallucinated that they were on the Death Star.

A better example would be Christopher Nolan's Following. On a budget of $6,000, he worked with people he met in school, used friends and families homes for sets, and worked around the actor's work schedules, mostly filming on weekends. It took a full year of shooting to make a 70 minute film.

i was talking about the fact that George Lucas made an amazing and world renowned movie on what is actually considered very little money in the movie world T_T

Maligus wrote:

capt_weasle wrote:You mean Star Wars never had any sets? Wow, that movie must have had damn good acting for me to have just hallucinated that they were on the Death Star.

A better example would be Christopher Nolan's Following. On a budget of $6,000, he worked with people he met in school, used friends and families homes for sets, and worked around the actor's work schedules, mostly filming on weekends. It took a full year of shooting to make a 70 minute film.

i was talking about the fact that George Lucas made an amazing and world renowned movie on what is actually considered very little money in the movie world T_T

Dude, we're trying to help you but you're not exactly reciprocating.