The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > General Movies > Misc. Films

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-10-2011, 11:59 PM   #76
8wid
Banned User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,166
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider-Who? View Post
...Nothing vague about that.
Quote:
I am going to bring flood waters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.
"The earth" simply can refer to the land, the ground, the yard etc. The heavens" refers to the sky or all that can be seen above. There is not enough to point out it is specifically talking about the entire planet. I move all of the plants of the earth too when I pull weeds in my front yard, but I don't kill every plant on the planet when that happens. It's simply referring to farm animals and enough of them for him to restart his trade in order to survive after and during the flood.

Also taking every kind of food that is to be eaten would mean every thing that a human could eat possible on the planet and that for all the animals on the planet to eat stored on the boat with them. If there already millions of animals aboard, imagine all of that different food too. Nothing could fit. That's what happens when it is taken in that context of a global wide flood. It would already be hard enough for only about eight people to take care of that load already, especially during the Bronze Age.

It's really saying that Noah should bring enough animals to survive on the land with after the flood and enough food for his family, himself and the animals as the event came.

8wid is offline  
Old 06-11-2011, 10:59 AM   #77
Tron Bonne
Revolution in Ink
 
Tron Bonne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The Year 70XX
Posts: 27,001
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Honestly, I think you're trying a little too hard to find vagueness in that when, as Spider-Who? pointed out, it's really not being that vague. Not to mention, didn't the Ark travel for something like 40 days because land resurfaced? I'm pretty sure that points to quite a lot more than just a simple regional flood.

__________________
"When you see a John Woo film, it's comforting to know how shallow the world really is. The full force of the manly coolness factor with a peice of nose hair sticking out from the tiny crack between manly and cool, exposes the thinness of the male hormone factor. It takes an idiot to do cool things. That's why it's cool."

Quote:
I was a North American Fall Webworm in my past life. Those were the good old days.
Tron Bonne is offline  
Old 06-11-2011, 03:07 PM   #78
That person
Bull Moose
 
That person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 427
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider-Who? View Post
Okay, I loled hard on your second paragraph. Speaking on your first paragraph, read my post again. Scientists speculate that if the story were true, there would be around 50,000 animals on board, even less depending on how generous you are in estimating the amount of species on earth. 50,000 is a hell of a lot less than 300,000. Secondly, the point of my post was addressing the mere mathematical component, the ability to fit animals on a boat. Dealing with the "deposits" of so many animals is something different, but with even 3/4 of the ship full (the math suggests the animals would take up less) that leaves room for some type of food supply and waste management (and for the sake of arguement, the floors could have been perforated, with chutes leading out to portholes, so the waste falls through and out the ship...I dunno, just tossing an idea out there). Point is, it's not an impossible feat. Hard, grueling, disgusting, sure, but not impossible. Fitting animals on the ark is the least improbable aspect of the story.
But if you only have 50,000 animals to repopulate the earth in the Biblical timeframe, you need to depend on evolution to work at ludicrous speed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paroxysm View Post
This sounds like an awesome idea. I personally don't believe in god but I've always loved the stories in the Bible. Noah's Ark and Samson were my favorites.

I can't wait to see who they cast as Noah, what the Ark will look like and how they're going to tell this story because I always thought it was pretty epic.
I hope we see a Tobit movie after this. Modern cinema is lacking in protagonists who get bird**** in their eyes.

__________________
"Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., nicknamed "Teddy" or "TR", was born October 27, 1858 in New York City. As a young child, he was often sick and was stricken with asthma. Viewing this as a challenge, he proceeded to beat his asthma to death."- Cracked
That person is offline  
Old 06-11-2011, 03:17 PM   #79
Knight Rise
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: A world without rules
Posts: 2,063
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

focus more on the story and less on the effects. otherwise, you're gonna piss me and a whole bunch of other people off

Knight Rise is offline  
Old 06-11-2011, 08:50 PM   #80
Spider-Who?
ERMERGERD!
 
Spider-Who?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Giggling in your air duct.
Posts: 9,741
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8wid View Post
"The earth" simply can refer to the land, the ground, the yard etc. The heavens" refers to the sky or all that can be seen above. There is not enough to point out it is specifically talking about the entire planet. I move all of the plants of the earth too when I pull weeds in my front yard, but I don't kill every plant on the planet when that happens. It's simply referring to farm animals and enough of them for him to restart his trade in order to survive after and during the flood.

Also taking every kind of food that is to be eaten would mean every thing that a human could eat possible on the planet and that for all the animals on the planet to eat stored on the boat with them. If there already millions of animals aboard, imagine all of that different food too. Nothing could fit. That's what happens when it is taken in that context of a global wide flood. It would already be hard enough for only about eight people to take care of that load already, especially during the Bronze Age.

It's really saying that Noah should bring enough animals to survive on the land with after the flood and enough food for his family, himself and the animals as the event came.
First off, there weren't "million of animals" on the boat. Read my post on the previous page. The number, as determined by scientists, based on biologists' estimation of species, is less than 50,000. Sure, that's a lot of animals, but no where near the sensationalized numbers youre stating. And if the animals are young, less food is needed, and there are plenty of animals that eat infrequently, often just a few times a couple weeks. There's also the theory that the flood happened during many animals hibernation cycle, though there is no evidence to suggest this one way or another. As for as your submission of vagueness, that's your refusal to see it for what it is. Regardless of ones belief in the topic, The bible is exponentially more clear on this topic then you will ever admit to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by That person View Post
But if you only have 50,000 animals to repopulate the earth in the Biblical timeframe, you need to depend on evolution to work at ludicrous speeds.
Whose saying anything about evolution here? The numbers I mentioned are based on scientific estimates of all organisms (with the assumption that the bible refers to classification similar to genus when it says "kinds") on the planet. Much of the species that we know of today come from organisms of the same family or genus mating with each other, than those offspring mating, etc (look at all the dog breeds for what I mean). The creation of new species based on inter-genus breeding is not the same thing as evolution.

__________________
My SHH Fan Art thread: http://forums.superherohype.com/show...9#post24993839
Check out my deviant art page for some fan art and misc fantasy art: http://fuzzydrawings.deviantart.com/

Last edited by Spider-Who?; 06-11-2011 at 08:56 PM.
Spider-Who? is offline  
Old 06-11-2011, 08:57 PM   #81
Spider-Who?
ERMERGERD!
 
Spider-Who?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Giggling in your air duct.
Posts: 9,741
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Rise View Post
focus more on the story and less on the effects. otherwise, you're gonna piss me and a whole bunch of other people off
Agreed. This doesn't need to be 2012: 5,000 years early.

__________________
My SHH Fan Art thread: http://forums.superherohype.com/show...9#post24993839
Check out my deviant art page for some fan art and misc fantasy art: http://fuzzydrawings.deviantart.com/
Spider-Who? is offline  
Old 06-12-2011, 03:37 AM   #82
8wid
Banned User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,166
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider-Who? View Post
First off, there weren't "million of animals" on the boat. Read my post on the previous page. The number, as determined by scientists, based on biologists' estimation of species, is less than 50,000. Sure, that's a lot of animals, but no where near the sensationalized numbers youre stating. And if the animals are young, less food is needed, and there are plenty of animals that eat infrequently, often just a few times a couple weeks. There's also the theory that the flood happened during many animals hibernation cycle, though there is no evidence to suggest this one way or another. As for as your submission of vagueness, that's your refusal to see it for what it is.Regardless of ones belief in the topic, The bible is exponentially more clear on this topic then you will ever admit to.
There are more than 40,000 species of spider on planet Earth, surely to get all things that crawl along the earth, at least one of each kind, depending on if the species is asexual or not, would need to be included in the numbers to say that all animals of the world were included. If the entire planet if filled with water on every continent, which is what this kind of interpretation of the text is saying, how would they survive? They couldn't during all that chaos. There are millions more species of animals to be included, not a simple 50,000.

Most animals also hibernate more than a mere 40 days, and how could they sleep with the rocking of the boat so much during such rough patch of water? Young animals eat a few times a week, how can they with the stress of rocking back and forth so much? Let alone all of the diseases that much infect the whole lot from this bunched up lot.

The physicality of this event is scientifically impossible based on the lack of evidence, the amount of water that can be sustained as vapor in the atmosphere, the explanation for where all that water came from and then went in the second place, and how a Bronze Age man was able to make something so large and sturdy in such stormy conditions of water. Besides water flooding the entire planet would actually make the air unbreathable on the planet. thus the only rational way to interpret it is simply as a myth with hyperbole, a morality play, or a vague account from a flood near the Fertile Cresent that was passed down from generation to generation and between peoples and cultures with different meanings. Thousands of versions of a similar story exist in most societies. The Epic of Gilgamesh has a story that may have inspired the Hebrew account of the story when many of the men were taken to Babylon as slaves during one of their many wars.


Last edited by 8wid; 06-12-2011 at 03:45 AM.
8wid is offline  
Old 06-12-2011, 08:34 AM   #83
Bruce Malone
Side-Kick
 
Bruce Malone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Stay out of my territory
Posts: 5,923
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

I can't believe people are trying to argue scientifically how noah's ark could be plausible. Reminds me of the flat earth society.

Which leads me again to this film, will they go for the fantasy epic vibe?

Bruce Malone is offline  
Old 06-12-2011, 11:58 AM   #84
Spider-Who?
ERMERGERD!
 
Spider-Who?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Giggling in your air duct.
Posts: 9,741
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8wid View Post
There are more than 40,000 species of spider on planet Earth, surely to get all things that crawl along the earth, at least one of each kind, depending on if the species is asexual or not, would need to be included in the numbers to say that all animals of the world were included. If the entire planet if filled with water on every continent, which is what this kind of interpretation of the text is saying, how would they survive? They couldn't during all that chaos. There are millions more species of animals to be included, not a simple 50,000.
You're including every living organism including plants, insects, and aquatic fauna in your count. If the bible is to be believed, god instructed Noah to only carry vertebrate land animals. The idea being that plants and insects would survive through whatever seeds, etc floated. Is that logic shoddy? yeah, but in terms of numbers, my original post remains sound.

This is not some ridiculous notion. Scientists and researchers the world over have written countless books on the topic. And while their belief in the story may be mixed, the notion of the amount of animals and their ability to fit on the ark is the same. I'll believe bipartisan biologists' count and mathematicians numbers before Joe six pack on the web (and please feel free to continue to disagree, so long as you make a concerted effort to research and think outside ones mental box). Acknowledging the numbers of the ark story won't pop your balloon.

__________________
My SHH Fan Art thread: http://forums.superherohype.com/show...9#post24993839
Check out my deviant art page for some fan art and misc fantasy art: http://fuzzydrawings.deviantart.com/
Spider-Who? is offline  
Old 06-12-2011, 12:07 PM   #85
Spider-Who?
ERMERGERD!
 
Spider-Who?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Giggling in your air duct.
Posts: 9,741
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Malone View Post
I can't believe people are trying to argue scientifically how noah's ark could be plausible. Reminds me of the flat earth society.

Which leads me again to this film, will they go for the fantasy epic vibe?
Trust me, I'm no flat earth person. And I'm merely posting simple logic to suggest that certain elements of the story could be possible. That's not the same as saying "oh my gosh! It's all one hundred percent fact!!!!!11"

But your post reminds me of the people who staunchly refuse to acknowledge, or even remotely contemplate anything of a religious nature because doing so would mean you have betrayed your world view. IMO, that's a pretty terrible mindset to have about anything.

__________________
My SHH Fan Art thread: http://forums.superherohype.com/show...9#post24993839
Check out my deviant art page for some fan art and misc fantasy art: http://fuzzydrawings.deviantart.com/
Spider-Who? is offline  
Old 06-12-2011, 02:20 PM   #86
That person
Bull Moose
 
That person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 427
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider-Who? View Post
Whose saying anything about evolution here? The numbers I mentioned are based on scientific estimates of all organisms (with the assumption that the bible refers to classification similar to genus when it says "kinds") on the planet. Much of the species that we know of today come from organisms of the same family or genus mating with each other, than those offspring mating, etc (look at all the dog breeds for what I mean). The creation of new species based on inter-genus breeding is not the same thing as evolution.
If you define "kinds" like that, then you're going to need a long time to develop the level of variety we see today. The Bible simply doesn't give enough time. And if you have a new species emerging, I'd say that's a pretty clear example of evolution. Dog breeds represent evolution within a species.

__________________
"Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., nicknamed "Teddy" or "TR", was born October 27, 1858 in New York City. As a young child, he was often sick and was stricken with asthma. Viewing this as a challenge, he proceeded to beat his asthma to death."- Cracked
That person is offline  
Old 06-12-2011, 04:48 PM   #87
Spider-Who?
ERMERGERD!
 
Spider-Who?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Giggling in your air duct.
Posts: 9,741
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

There's a difference between evolution and the result of generations worth of cross breeding. Never mind the fact that your ignoring the numbers that I've stated from scientists. You ever hear of Ernst Mayr? He was one of the 20th centuries leading biologists and taxonomists. Heres an article of his, while dealing mostly with bird species, scroll down to the bottom to get his estimates. Since the bible describes only land mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians needing to go on the ark, the top three numbers of the table are what's important.

http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/...g/MAYR1946.htm

__________________
My SHH Fan Art thread: http://forums.superherohype.com/show...9#post24993839
Check out my deviant art page for some fan art and misc fantasy art: http://fuzzydrawings.deviantart.com/
Spider-Who? is offline  
Old 06-12-2011, 06:02 PM   #88
corby
?
 
corby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 526
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

This isn't Nolan's Noah. Who cares if it's not realistic to have that many animals on a boat or if a world-wide flood isn't possible? The grand, epic version is a much more interesting story and the movie should tell that one.

__________________
I've got a bad feeling about this.

Last edited by corby; 06-12-2011 at 10:14 PM.
corby is offline  
Old 06-12-2011, 06:33 PM   #89
Bruce Malone
Side-Kick
 
Bruce Malone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Stay out of my territory
Posts: 5,923
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider-Who? View Post
Trust me, I'm no flat earth person. And I'm merely posting simple logic to suggest that certain elements of the story could be possible. That's not the same as saying "oh my gosh! It's all one hundred percent fact!!!!!11"

But your post reminds me of the people who staunchly refuse to acknowledge, or even remotely contemplate anything of a religious nature because doing so would mean you have betrayed your world view. IMO, that's a pretty terrible mindset to have about anything.
No, i'm someone who believe there's relgion and there's science. Funny how science never tries to crow bar religion into it's facts yet somehow sometimes religion feels it needs to add science.

Religion is belief science is fact. If people truly believe in their beliefs they should not feel like they need science to give them back up. You can never rationally argue pure belief. No one goes to the bible for scientific answers.

I don't try to use religion to prove my science people need to stop using science to prove their religion.

Reminds me of that simpsons episode where the judge ruled science and religion must kept 100 meters apart at all times.

Bruce Malone is offline  
Old 06-12-2011, 06:50 PM   #90
Spider-Who?
ERMERGERD!
 
Spider-Who?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Giggling in your air duct.
Posts: 9,741
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Malone View Post
No, i'm someone who believe there's relgion and there's science. Funny how science never tries to crow bar religion into it's facts yet somehow sometimes religion feels it needs to add science.

Religion is belief science is fact. If people truly believe in their beliefs they should not feel like they need science to give them back up. You can never rationally argue pure belief. No one goes to the bible for scientific answers.

I don't try to use religion to prove my science people need to stop using science to prove their religion.

Reminds me of that simpsons episode where the judge ruled science and religion must kept 100 meters apart at all times.
What? Science, or atheist leaning people, try to use science to disprove religion all the time.

People use science to try and disprove religion all the time, then turn around and say that religion can't use science to give validity to it's stories. It is ludicrous. Theres absolutely no logic to that mentality (if you discount the idea that those who say this do so out of fear that truth might be found it all those goofy fairy tales). It's people that don't understand one or the other (often times both) who claim both can't coexist or even supplement one another at times. Yes, religion is a matter of faith, but for any logic minded person, that faith must be borne from something concrete and it is human nature to ponder things we don't understand, and to discover answers and truth. Just because religion has a faith based structure does not negate a persons desire to use science to further understand it.

__________________
My SHH Fan Art thread: http://forums.superherohype.com/show...9#post24993839
Check out my deviant art page for some fan art and misc fantasy art: http://fuzzydrawings.deviantart.com/
Spider-Who? is offline  
Old 06-12-2011, 11:50 PM   #91
8wid
Banned User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,166
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider-Who? View Post
What? Science, or atheist leaning people, try to use science to disprove religion all the time.

People use science to try and disprove religion all the time, then turn around and say that religion can't use science to give validity to it's stories. It is ludicrous. Theres absolutely no logic to that mentality (if you discount the idea that those who say this do so out of fear that truth might be found it all those goofy fairy tales). It's people that don't understand one or the other (often times both) who claim both can't coexist or even supplement one another at times. Yes, religion is a matter of faith, but for any logic minded person, that faith must be borne from something concrete and it is human nature to ponder things we don't understand, and to discover answers and truth. Just because religion has a faith based structure does not negate a persons desire to use science to further understand it.
No faith does not come from something concrete, it is innate and hereditary like all other human motives and emotions. And theists may not negate a desire to use science, but it does leave many people to denying much of science. After all a church or temple can have computers and electric lights, but not believe in evolution or the Big Bang.

8wid is offline  
Old 06-13-2011, 06:54 AM   #92
xwolverine2
Arkham Assassin
 
xwolverine2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: miami, FLA
Posts: 36,467
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

lol at people thinking this movie would make sense... it would be another epic Fountain

dont tell me he left wolverine hanging to do some bible movie... of a story thats been done to death.

__________________
DEATHSTROKE: ARKHAM ASSASSIN
(click to see FULL short film...Rated R)
xwolverine2 is offline  
Old 06-13-2011, 11:56 AM   #93
Spider-Who?
ERMERGERD!
 
Spider-Who?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Giggling in your air duct.
Posts: 9,741
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8wid View Post
No faith does not come from something concrete, it is innate and hereditary like all other human motives and emotions.
This is not true at all. The desire to understand the world around us and to find comfort and/or personal truths is innate, and typically the religion people choose is hereditary, but that does not equate to the act of faith itself being innate and hereditary. There has to be reasons for a person to conclude that faith of any god, religion, philosophy is worth their time and devotion. Sure, if you grow up in a religious home, you most likely are conditioned to follow that religion (note: following a religion is not the same has having faith it in – plenty of people call themselves *insert religion here* but do not practice or truly believe in it), but that does not dilute one’s desire to ask questions, search for truth, etc once they are mature enough to do so. Ask 100 truly religious people if scientific discoveries and/or archeological finds/understanding help solidify their beliefs, and the vast majority of them will say yes.

Quote:
And theists may not negate a desire to use science, but it does leave many people to denying much of science.
Yes, this is true, sadly; but the fact is those people are in the minority and are unfortunately the most vocal.

Quote:
After all a church or temple can have computers and electric lights, but not believe in evolution or the Big Bang.
Using computers and electricity has nothing to do with this topic of religious using science to further their knowledge and understanding of whatever religion they practice. I don't really get your point in bringing it up.

__________________
My SHH Fan Art thread: http://forums.superherohype.com/show...9#post24993839
Check out my deviant art page for some fan art and misc fantasy art: http://fuzzydrawings.deviantart.com/
Spider-Who? is offline  
Old 06-13-2011, 11:57 AM   #94
Spider-Who?
ERMERGERD!
 
Spider-Who?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Giggling in your air duct.
Posts: 9,741
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by xwolverine2 View Post
lol at people thinking this movie would make sense... it would be another epic Fountain

dont tell me he left wolverine hanging to do some bible movie... of a story thats been done to death.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any big budget movies being made about this story. (Evan Almighty doesn't count). If this were another Moses film, I'd be in agreement with you.

__________________
My SHH Fan Art thread: http://forums.superherohype.com/show...9#post24993839
Check out my deviant art page for some fan art and misc fantasy art: http://fuzzydrawings.deviantart.com/
Spider-Who? is offline  
Old 06-13-2011, 12:00 PM   #95
redhawk23
Wrestlin'
 
redhawk23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New Kemet
Posts: 14,037
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

I have a feeling this will be a movie that ticks a lot of the church crowd off, as opposed to having entire congregations flocking to the theaters like Passion of the Christ.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by James View Post
On my planet, the S stands for Sears.
redhawk23 is offline  
Old 06-13-2011, 12:16 PM   #96
dark_b
Side-Kick
 
dark_b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 44,491
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider-Who? View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any big budget movies being made about this story. (Evan Almighty doesn't count). If this were another Moses film, I'd be in agreement with you.
i didnt know that every story needs a modrn big budget movie.

dark_b is offline  
Old 06-13-2011, 12:30 PM   #97
Sgt.Pepper
Nowhere Man
 
Sgt.Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,298
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk23 View Post
I have a feeling this will be a movie that ticks a lot of the church crowd off, as opposed to having entire congregations flocking to the theaters like Passion of the Christ.
I know which movie will make the religious people swarm to it like it's a free meal day at McDonald's. Fox's (uh-oh) Moses project inspired by 300.

Sgt.Pepper is offline  
Old 06-13-2011, 12:32 PM   #98
Tron Bonne
Revolution in Ink
 
Tron Bonne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The Year 70XX
Posts: 27,001
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by xwolverine2 View Post
lol at people thinking this movie would make sense... it would be another epic Fountain
How do you get that? And is that suppose to be...a bad thing.

Quote:
dont tell me he left wolverine hanging to do some bible movie... of a story thats been done to death.
Well, to be fair, this story is probably a lot more interesting than pretty much anything about Wolverine would be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider-Who? View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any big budget movies being made about this story. (Evan Almighty doesn't count). If this were another Moses film, I'd be in agreement with you.
I'm pretty sure I can't even think of any small movies that's done this story.

__________________
"When you see a John Woo film, it's comforting to know how shallow the world really is. The full force of the manly coolness factor with a peice of nose hair sticking out from the tiny crack between manly and cool, exposes the thinness of the male hormone factor. It takes an idiot to do cool things. That's why it's cool."

Quote:
I was a North American Fall Webworm in my past life. Those were the good old days.
Tron Bonne is offline  
Old 06-13-2011, 12:36 PM   #99
Spider-Who?
ERMERGERD!
 
Spider-Who?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Giggling in your air duct.
Posts: 9,741
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_b View Post
i didnt know that every story needs a modrn big budget movie.
Haha, touche. Still, I don't recall any movie, tv production, off-broadway play, or sock puppets telling this story yet.

__________________
My SHH Fan Art thread: http://forums.superherohype.com/show...9#post24993839
Check out my deviant art page for some fan art and misc fantasy art: http://fuzzydrawings.deviantart.com/
Spider-Who? is offline  
Old 06-13-2011, 12:38 PM   #100
Spider-Who?
ERMERGERD!
 
Spider-Who?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Giggling in your air duct.
Posts: 9,741
Default Re: Aronofsky to take on the biblical character Noah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk23 View Post
I have a feeling this will be a movie that ticks a lot of the church crowd off, as opposed to having entire congregations flocking to the theaters like Passion of the Christ.
While there's always going to be someone who finds something to be pissed about, in what way do you see this movie doing so? Remember, even Passion of the Christ had people ticked off.

__________________
My SHH Fan Art thread: http://forums.superherohype.com/show...9#post24993839
Check out my deviant art page for some fan art and misc fantasy art: http://fuzzydrawings.deviantart.com/
Spider-Who? is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:47 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.