Badmovies.org Forum

Uh oh....
It seems that Ellen DeGeneres is going to play God in the upcoming remake of "Oh God!".

Here's some info I found on ABCnews.com:

"Comedian Ellen DeGeneres is getting a promotion to supreme being. DeGeneres will star as God in a remake of the 1977 comedy "Oh, God!"
The original starred George Burns as the creator and John Denver as a supermarket manager tapped as a new prophet.

"Ellen is a strong comedian and she has always done material about God and questions about God," said Jerry Weintraub, who produced the original movie and also will oversee the remake.

Weintraub said he'll hire a screenwriter and director with the aim to shoot the movie during a break in DeGeneres' schedule from her talk show next summer.

Though successful on the small screen, DeGeneres misfired in an earlier transition to film with the romantic-comedy flop "Mr. Wrong." She helped score a hit with her voice work on last year's animated tale "Finding Nemo."

What do you think?
WHo do you think they should get to play the role John Denver played?

Oh God!

-sorry, just couldn't resist. :)

Does anyone really find Ellen all that funny? When her show first came on the air, I think I watched one episode of it and didn't laugh once.

The original Oh God was pretty funny, but also respectful in tone. Handled the material very well. George Burns, as just about the oldest comedian still in the business (and known to three generations), was a natural for the part, and played it with a gentle humour.

Sticking a lesbian comedienne (and a relatively recent one) in the title role makes me suspect that this version is going to take a few fashionable pot shots at religion, and the humour is going to be anything but subtle. I'm pretty sure DeGeneres was picked less for her religious humour than for the possibility that her involvement will stir up controversy.

Besides, she's not movie material. She tried it, and bombed. She's a TV person all the way. This makes me even more suspicious of the motivation behind her casting.

I liked Oh God, as a movie that could laugh at religion without being disrespectful or anti-religious. I don't think anyone in Hollywood today is capable of doing it. The 70s were very different times.

This movie is going to suck.



Post Edited (08-24-04 09:21)

Giving it a bit more thought, DeGeneres might have been a good choice for the Denver role. Still, too much of a TV personality. There are better choices.

Also wondering who the target of the humour is going to be. Televangelists more or less peaked in the 70s and 80s. We don't have buffoons on the scale of Ernest Angely or crooks like Jim Bakker around anymore. The guys I'm seeing on TV these days are downright dull by comparison. The original Oh God had a message of faith, while mocking the exploitation of faith for profit and personal glory. Denver, the grocery clerk, was opposed by an egotistical and influential televangelist based on real people of the day. Who will be the antagonist in this version?



Post Edited (08-24-04 09:39)

Lets not forget, she was good in FINDING NEMO, because she diden't write the material.

Well put AndyC, in both posts.  I bet the antagonist will be a president who uses his faith to further his political ends as well as to discriminate against those not in the mainstream.
Sorry Ellen, this smells of politics and you are no George Burns.

Flangepart wrote:

> Lets not forget, she was good in FINDING NEMO, because she
> diden't write the material.
>


But in that movie she played a cartoon fish with short term memory loss...here we are talking about God.  A bit different, and she could not even come close to George Burns in this role.

Good point AndyC with the politics.

If you were casting this, who do you think could pull off such a feat, and would you keep it as a man, or go for the a woman to play it?

Hard to say who would be right. There really is no present-day equivalent of George Burns. Bill Cosby? It's a tough question.

As for whether God should be played by a man or a woman, I don't think it should matter. However, the female God idea has become such a feminist joke that it actually becomes hard to do without looking like you're trying to thumb your nose at somebody, even if you're not. And far from being fresh and different, the idea does come off as kind of stale. It's been done, and it looks like a poor and predictable attempt to be "with it."

That said, if there is a woman who could play it like Burns, the movie could overcome this impression. But I'd want her cast because she can pull it off, not because she'll challenge traditional ideas.

Someone like Judi Dench or Vanessa Redgrave.  I know Judi Dench can be hilarious in some, like when she played Lady Braknough (sp?) In The Importance of Being Ernest.

If we want a more comedian...there is respectable ones like Carol Burnett

Hmmmm, wow, why would they pick Ellen, when there really are some far better choices!

I agree, it should be someone who can project calm authority, dignity, and grace.  I would've said Katherine Hepburn if she was sill alive



Post Edited (08-24-04 11:16)

As much as I love Katharine Hepburn, I just don't think she would have been right if still alive today for her disease/affliction just got the best of her.  Perhaps at a time when she did Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.

But I think NOW, Judi Dench could do it or Vanessa Redgrave if you want more dignified than comedy.

I'm thinking of Hepburn in "Lion In Winter" opposite Peter O'Toole.  She could be funny and serious at the same time.

Dench and Redgrave might be too classy. Part of what made Burns so good was that, in appearance, he was very much an average old man and not terribly impressive. I like Judi Dench, but she's almost too good for the role. Burnett might be an interesting choice though.

There's quite a few actresses who could play a sweet, harmless old lady, but Oh God also really needs a big name in the part, which is what makes it so difficult.

On the men side, since Bill Cosby popped into my head, I'm thinking he'd be good. Unfortunately, making God black would invite too many comparisons to Bruce Almighty.

I wonder what Pat Morita is doing these days. That would rock.



Post Edited (08-24-04 11:31)

He probably could be quite good, although I keep imaging bad impressions of him that is not letting me take it seriously "Yoouuuuuuu, CANnot go to the (mumble mumle) NOW! What yooouuuuuu..."  

Another actor I thought of is Peter O'Toole...too disguished though maybe too.  Tim Conway...perhaps too goofy?Man this is tough! lol

Don't know if you read my previous post before I could edit it. What do you think of Pat Morita? A familiar face to anybody old enough to have watched Happy Days or the Karate Kid. Good at playing an eccentric, seemingly harmless little man, sometimes quirky, sometimes wise. Easy to underestimate.

Hmmm, an eccentric, seemingly harmless little man. I wish Burgess Meredith were still alive. He could have pulled it off for sure.

Still trying to think of a well-known elderly actress who is not too great for the part.

Pat Morita.  I can really see that now that you said it...must have passed by that in your earlier posting.  I like him better than Bill Cosby for the role.

loyal1
> But in that movie she played a cartoon fish with short term
> memory loss...here we are talking about God.  A bit different,
> and she could not even come close to George Burns in this role.


Ah, regards the gravitas of the actor...hummm, okey.

Charlton Heston....playing Mose's boss is no sweat!

Ellens dumpy, annoying and not funny. I'll pass gladly .

>Who will be the antagonist in this version?

Halliburton.

She was good on the other end of the phone from God, ripping off Bob Newhart very early in her career. I thought she was really funny right up until she came out. In retrospect, she was always funniest when pretending to want to have sex with a man, like the episode where she had the hots for her dentist, that was Lucy calliber work, IMHO.

I'd cast someone who's usually really serious, like Heston, for a Leslie Neilsen effect.

Remember Heston released a statement saying that he has been diagnosed with what is believed to be an early form of Alzheimer's. That's at least part of the reason he didn't run for another term as head of the NRA. Since he has kept a low profile lately I wonder about the state of his health.

That's the problem so many of the "iconic"greats and near-greats are gone or their health is in such a state to not be capable of a role they could have done 5 or 10 years ago. So if you picked a known actor (to play God as an old white guy like Burns) it kind of has to be an goofy ironic choice like: Tony Curtis, George Hamilton, Jerry Stiller, Bob Newhart, etc. Even James Garner doing the voice of God in the animated show "God, The Devil, and Bob" fell into this category.

I tried to post two different times an imitation of Christopher Walken playing God as my choice for the role, but both times my connection crashed. But I'll still throw the name out.

But if we have to play it with DeGeneres as the Almighty, I'd cast Bernie Mac or Billy Connelly in the Denver role.

This film will probably follow "Saved!" into the dust heap while garnering the same kinds of reviews that film got (except, mercifully, for any hypocritical screaming at Christians that this is actually a pro-Christian film and they should go see it). Bruce Almighty was a major fluff film, but demonstrated that a few people in Hollywood still know the difference between mockery and gentle kidding. (I like the part where Bruce asks God to tell him how many fingers he's holding up behind his back, and can't stop God from giving him the right answer.)

The usual Christian complaints apply to Bruce Almighty, of course: the theology is awfully vague and airy and there doesn't seem to be any real point to the story. My beef with the film, though, is "What a wasted opportunity!" We're talking about what a human might do if he were freely offered Satan's wet dream of being like the Most High. And this guy spends his omnipotence on breast augmentation?

One point all of the old stories about gods in ancient cultures made is that a god generally doesn't do what a human might think to do if he had that god's powers. A really good film on the subject might detail God's demonstrating to a human why He doesn't just solve all our problems. The basic message of the film: "You only THINK that's what you'd do if you were God. You have to experience it for yourself to understand it."

For example, if we must consider breast augmentation, why not have the temporary god fix everyone's looks? So he makes every woman in the world dazzlingly beautiful. The first problem arises: not all cultures see the same traits as beautiful.  So the temporary god adjusts women's looks to suit their cultures' standards. The second problem now arises: every man's a culture unto himself, and has slightly different desires. Now the temporary god adjusts each woman's looks to suit the tastes of the guy who's best for her (a plausible, if rather dubious, solution). The third problem now arises: people have an insatiable desire for something that's hard to get, and the men lose all interest in the women because there's nothing they've really, really wanted in a woman that isn't available to them now. Finally, the temporary god decides he'd best put things back to the complicated and messy way they were.

In the same way, putting an end to all hunger by magically giving everyone food might not prove to be as wonderful and humanitarian as it seems: when the dictators and tyrants whose fault it generally is that people are starving find that they no longer control the food supply, they might just fire up their armies and engage in a campaign of mass terror and genocide against their subjects to bring them back into line. (Lenin and Stalin, who intentionally starved Russian peasants, would certainly never have hesitated to do such a thing.) A temporary god could, of course, smite these terrible sinners, but there's a question of how many sinners he'd have to smite to bring them into line, and whether this makes him into a tyrant himself. Then, too, having everyone behave well just because they're afraid to do otherwise is not exactly the kind of goodness God wants, and a human who takes temporary godhood seriously might not find it desirable either.

If this must be a humorous story (which makes sense, given the strange logic trying to answer such difficult questions might lead a writer to adopt), a good movie to examine for pointers might be "Time Bandits," which portrayed God as a no-nonsense businessman and Satan as a powerful but exceedingly foolish tyrant who smites one of his underlings to keep from having to answer uncomfortable questions. While it's a strange movie and a total satire, it's surely better than just about anything on God that Hollywood has put out lately.

How about, "WHY GOD?"

That's what I find depressing about this board. Most of the time, we can come up with better movies than the ones that actually get made. I want to see Oh God with Pat Morita, not Ellen freaking DeGeneres.

Yeah we should write and cast our own movies!  Hey that's an idea. :)  But could we get the money for an orignal decent film? ;/

I'm trying to think of an ending for something I'm thinking of writing. I probably shouldn't start without a pretty good idea of how to end it. I was thinking of having the protagonist become omnicient in his own private universe, but it goes horrifyingly awry, kind of like the end of "Hell Is Forever" (can't remember the name of the author), but without being a rip-off of that. Any ideas?

I don't need to make movies. I'd only wish that all movie projects had to be posted on the Badmovies message board for approval, so we could correct the really boneheaded mistakes before it's too late.



Post Edited (08-26-04 10:30)

Omniscience? I'll tell you something interesting: once, when I was a youth in Sunday School, the teacher held an "auction" in which everyone was given 10,000 hypothetical dollars to bid on various self-enhancements. For example, one could bid on having a perfect body, having all the money in the world, being very famous, becoming the ruler of all the world, and knowing everything.

When the bid came up for "knowing everything," I closed the auction for that by bidding ten grand, reasoning that if I truly knew everything there is to know, I'd have a third of the power of God. (God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, so if I have one out of the three qualities, that's one third.) As I explained to my classmates, knowing everything would be enough to get me all of the other enhancements for free, since I'd automatically know what campaign promises would get me elected and ultimately make me the ruler of all mankind, how to achieve maximum leverage with the media to make me famous world-wide, which way the stock and bond markets are going tomorrow (and hence which stocks and bonds to buy for maximum profit) and which surgeries, diet, and training program would give me the perfect body.

As it happens, the teacher was rather pleased with my choice, since the topic he was teaching on that day was King Solomon's decision to ask for wisdom when God offered him enhancements like these. Of course, Solomon never ended up knowing everything, but this was in fact the best choice, since God indicated he would also have fame and fortune for choosing wisdom. I'd say he and I did a pretty good job of driving the lesson home that day.

Later, though, when I got to thinking of it, I realized that having only God's omniscience might not prove to very advantageous at all. In Dave Gibbons and Alan Moore's graphic novel "Watchmen," the character Dr. Manhattan, in addition to having super powers, is allowed to see all times at once. This makes him a slave to fate, however, because he can't change history. Hence, for just one example, he's not able to keep Kennedy from being assassinated. When his wife asks him why he didn't do anything, even though he knew what was going to happen, he explains "I can't prevent the future. To me, it's already happening."

The obvious question this might raise is, what if knowing the future doesn't give you the power to do anything about it? You might be fated to do all kinds of things you don't want to do, and knowing everything might actually be cruel torture. The story idea I got from this was a tale of a young child in a hospital bed who's granted omniscience because he's in a trance-like coma and is fated to die soon. Although I haven't gotten around to writing the story yet, I got the idea that it could be a tale told entirely from his mind's eye, dealing with the mental anguish of knowing everything.

The way the story goes is something like this: his thoughts have been constantly focused around what he knows about the socially prominent and much-beloved doctor who is nevertheless an evil man and is going to "pull the plug" on this omniscient child and leave him to die slowly of dehydration. As he turns the matter over in his mind, however, the child sees that the evil doctor is actually far more tormented than he is, and ultimately Hell-bound, whereas he, physically and mentally anguished as he is now, is in the best position to savor the good things that happen both to himself and to others, and that without this intrinsic happiness he has that the doctor does not, he would never enjoy the Heaven that's awaiting him after he dies.

Hence, the story ends with his reconciliation to God, having caught a glimpse of the "God's-eye view," and with his death. He dies alone and no one mourns him, but he's happier than anyone else on the planet could possibly be. I don't know if that would ending would suit your story idea, but you might want to try something like that.

Yaddo : yeah, i see your point about Heston.
Guess i was just wishful thinkin'.....aw, well....

I meant to say "omnipotent", but I'm glad I screwed that up now so I got to see that post.