Writer Of "The Omen" Does Mini-Series "Based Loosely" On The End Times

Scriptwriter David Seltzer has penned Revelations, a six-part series loosely based on the biblical account of the last days, for NBC television. It premiers tomorrow night. NBC has decided to jump into the “religious programming” fray with Revelations, a six-part miniseries beginning Wednesday, April 13, at 9 p.m. (ET). The series, essentially amounting to a long movie about the end times, depicts a last-days scenario centering on the final conflict between God and Satan. Writer/producer David Seltzer, who has shown a fascination for the occult before by writing The Omen and its sequels, is the creative mind behind the series. According to press releases, Revelations “revolves around the joint attempts of science and theology to determine if the end-of-the-world confrontation as foretold in the Bible is at hand and can be avoided.” Read article here.

8 Comments

Leave a Comment

  1. Yeah – we sooo love the scary and wild world of the ‘end times’. When I was lecturing on eschatology at Mars Hill, I was amazed how freaked out people were about the topic – what gives? Why is this such an area of fear for folks – is it the evil presense ala “The Omen” and “Thief in the Night” christian snuff films or the Tim LeHaye and Frank Peretti “scare them till they piss conversion”?

    What is the deal here?

  2. According to press releases, Revelations “revolves around the joint attempts of science and theology to determine if the end-of-the-world confrontation as foretold in the Bible is at hand and can be avoided.”
    Wait, wait. Do you think that they might actually show man saving the world from God? That’d be a tad bit ironic, don’t you think?

  3. According to press releases, Revelations “revolves around the joint attempts of science and theology to determine if the end-of-the-world confrontation as foretold in the Bible is at hand and can be avoided.”
    Wait, wait. Do you think that they might actually show man saving the world from God? That’d be a tad bit ironic, don’t you think?

  4. man saving the world from God… fucking EPIC!

    can we discuss eschatology without some sort of creation/original sin discussion?

    isn’t our fear of the “end times” based in our misunderstanding of God’s purpose for creation, the fall, and orignial sin… al la Kierkegaard: we were created TO fall in order to be saved…

  5. hold the phone, Jimmy boy… Are you supporting a necessary fall doctrine (aka Maria McKee’s 2nd solo album title “You Gotta Sin to Be Saved”)? Not sure how well this sits with me. Is this a fairly sadistic view of the universe and its Creator to set us up to fail in order to come to the rescue in the end?

    Could we put a more Reformed spin on this and riff on Grace a bit? Perhaps our limit nature as humans, while inevitably ending in a ‘fall’ it taken as self-sustaining (secular humanism), has the primary purpose of demonstrating our necessary connection to God as animus supreme of our lives (we dont run on pop-psyche aphorisms, but the Word made Flesh and every word that proceeds that comes from the mouth of God…)?

    Just trippin on Kierkegaard again, eh?

  6. I’m reading Žižek’s The Puppet and the Dwarf right now, and it occurs to me that he’d be an interesting dialogue partner here. Maybe for now I’ll toss out a short-ish quote and then work on a longer blog-post as a rejoinder to what promises to be the first full-fledged theological “discussion” in which sensei JFK succeeds at emb(r)oiling us…(hoping…)

    I’m not so sure that a “necessary fall” (I prefer “happy fall”) doctrine must necessarily be read as “sadistic.” Perhaps (and I’m sure this is what Žižek, in all of his Lacanian wankery would be pointing us toward) the idea here is that our desire for God, and God’s desire for us, can only exist insofar as there is a rift between us – an impossible distance. Ergo, that separation (which we might call “sin” – sorry Jimmy) is the space of desire – ours for God and God’s for us.

    Žižek: “It is the very radical separation of man from God that unites us with God, since, in the figure of Christ, God is thoroughly separated from himself–thus the point is not to “overcome” the gap that separates us from God, but to take note of how this gap is internal to God Himself.” (p. 78)

    He’s got some other interesting stuff on Judas as the hero of the Passion narrative, and Christianity as the only religion in which the “gap” between Divinity and humanity is bridged precisely by that gap being contained within God, as a feature of Godself. But I’ve still got a chapter and a half to go…

  7. sensei, you know I am not good with details or quotes, but here it goes… And, I am trying to reduce a 12 page concept into a couple of paragraphs…

    Kierkegaard:
    “The whole point of our (from human point of view) hopeless predicament is to provide us with a reason to seek healing at the hands of the Helper”

    “Sin, that is to say, is not a dogma or a doctrine for thinkers (in that case the whole thing comes to nothing), it is an existence-determinant, and precisely one which cannot be thought”

    Jimmy White Shoes:
    “Sin may find a new meaning defined as the difference between us and God, which requires God for us to become a self, and in becoming a self, finding God.”

    And, bringing it all together.. K. seems to suggest that the notion of “sin” may simply be the difference that exists between God and Man. He also stongly believes the sin was not “inherited” from a “one-perfect” Adam – that is to say, in order for us to inherit a sin nature from Adam, he must have also had a sin nature.

    So, yes, I believe man was created not TO sin, but AS sin in relationship to the creator. It is because of the sin-consciousness that we can become self (the self being dependent on not only relating itself to its own self but in relating its self to another).

    All of that to say that sin can not be the “cosmic accident” – if it is, God is not omnipotent or omniscient and we can’t trust the promises of Revelation.

    Sin (ONLY defined as the ontological difference between “man” and “God”) was the plan, to be completed in redemption.

    Yes, I border on a twisted process theology, too.

  8. one more thing… fuckkkkk,,,, zizek is twisting my head, but I like it.

    Why couldn’t God have made me an intellectual?!?!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s