Darren Aronofsky's: Noah - Part 1

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]271529[/split]

 

[WorthyStevens]

Aronofsky's several drafts into a a script about the biblical character Noah, which he supposedly conceived of before PI. When he was 13, a poem he wrote about "the end of the world through Noah's eyes" won a competition, and since then he's had a deep interest in the character. Even the sentence 'the end of the world through Noah's eyes' manages to take a story that I've always percieved as being somewhat of a children's tale, and turn it into something dark and apocalyptic that Aronofsky could probably direct the hell out of.

http://joblo.com/darrens-ark

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. You act as if a studio is obliged to release the cut that makes sense. I have seen plenty of incomprehensible butchered studio cuts make it to the theatre before. Where do you get this idea that Paramount had no choice? Of course they do. Unfortunately we don't live in a world where the Aronofsky's of the world will make what they want with no resistance. I for one am happy this time we got it, and I don't honestly see the point in persisting in being angry at the studio when they are releasing what we all want.

They don't have to, but their testing said no one was going to watch that film.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Alright, but so did Aronofsky's cut? This is going in circles. The point is, they picked Aronofsky's, not the group that they are supposedly pandering so hard to.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Alright, but so did Aronofsky's cut? This is going in circles. The point is, they picked Aronofsky's, not the group that they are supposedly pandering so hard to.

No the point is they are attempting to make the film look that way. The marketing and disclaimer show this. And they didn't pick Aronofsky, they had no choice. He gave them none. It is like you are ignoring they did that.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Ignoring that they had no choice? Where is this proof that they had no choice? All I have heard is that the altered cut tested worse. In what way does that leave them no choice? And why would you be mad that they picked the better movie? Would you rather they be stubborn and pick the crappy one? All this bitterness over the fact that Paramount picked Aronofsky's cut seems rather petty and sort of backwards. The fact is, most big studios recut s**t all the time, and will continue to do so, because they are the ones putting down hundreds of millions of dollars into the mix. Now that doesn't excuse bad cuts, but they always want to have plenty of options if things go badly. So why, with all that could've happened, are we angry that they relented in giving Aronofsky his way?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Just stop. You keep trying to change the subject and point, and I am done with it. No one is mad that Aronofsky's cut will be seen. I am mad about how they are marketing this film in a way that is crap and leaves a high possibility that it will be DOA. How Paramount went about trying to remove very specific material to appease certain groups shows their intent, as does the marketing.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I have been arguing the same point since the beginning, and have been debating you respectfully, so I don't appreciate you accusing me of trolling. Nevertheless I can see that you are done here, so I won't continue to debate this either.

 

[dark_b]

when they do those test screening sometimes they try to manipulate the results. they pick a specific group of people where they know what kind of results they will get.

the 4 cuts that they made had to be a disaster. a studio who secretly makes 4 new cuts and secretly has test screenings doesnt just go back to the directors cut.


i think the problem with the marketing is obvious. they are trying to get more religious people in the theater with the disclaimer. but the disclaimer will push the religious people away.

its like urinating against the wind. wtf are you doing?

 

[Pink Ranger]

The studio doesn't understand the religious market, for one thing. They are stereotyping all Christians as being the same extremist fundamentalist wing that are pissing their pants over this movie.

I don't recall Jesus Christ: Superstar having to have this disclaimer. So great, Andrew Lloyd Webber now has more artistic integrity than this film, way to go.

 

[Marvolo]

The studio doesn't understand the religious market, for one thing. They are stereotyping all Christians as being the same extremist fundamentalist wing that are pissing their pants over this movie.

I don't recall Jesus Christ: Superstar having to have this disclaimer. So great, Andrew Lloyd Webber now has more artistic integrity than this film, way to go.

Did Last Temptation fo Christ have a disclaimer?

Ridley Scott's Exodus wont have a disclaimer and we all know it will be far from historically accurate and change things and add stuff. That's just how Scott is. Look at Gladiator. Its a hodgpodge of tech and architecture and battle strategies and armies and laws and whatnot from various Roman periods all rolled into a single film. Kingdom of Heaven is pretty accurate with the major stuff, but he took major liberties with Guy and the Queen's characters. Scott prefers to try to make a good , engaging, and dynamic film instead of adhering to total historical accuracy.

But no one in hollywood has the balls to make Scott or Scorsese put a disclaimer on their films.

 

[Pink Ranger]

The pieta has become one of the most iconic artistic representations of Christianity, but it was purely an invention of the imagination of the first artist to depict it. I don't see every depiction of a pieta in the world with a little disclaimer sign hanging on it. Shameful, really.

 

[jmc]

Disclaimers are nothing more than a studio basically saying 'please don't hate us, we put a lot of money in this movie'.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Disclaimers are nothing more than a studio basically saying 'please don't hate us, we put a lot of money in this movie'.

Then John Carter should have come with a disclaimer the size of a phonebook.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Warning: the following movie contains a baffling juxtaposition of cheese and blandness and a supremely underwhelming lead. Please give us your money so we can move on and make another avengers movie.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Pretty much any movie Disney produces should say "This movie grosses 500 mill or we don't make Avengers 2."

 

[Hurm...]

Did Last Temptation fo Christ have a disclaimer?

Ridley Scott's Exodus wont have a disclaimer and we all know it will be far from historically accurate and change things and add stuff. That's just how Scott is. Look at Gladiator. Its a hodgpodge of tech and architecture and battle strategies and armies and laws and whatnot from various Roman periods all rolled into a single film. Kingdom of Heaven is pretty accurate with the major stuff, but he took major liberties with Guy and the Queen's characters. Scott prefers to try to make a good , engaging, and dynamic film instead of adhering to total historical accuracy.

But no one in hollywood has the balls to make Scott or Scorsese put a disclaimer on their films.

Yep, it did.

 

[Marvolo]

Yep, it did.

Noah Disclaimer

"The film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values, and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis."

Temptation of Christ Disclaimer

This film is not based upon the Gospels but upon this fictional exploration of the eternal spiritual conflict.

While they are both disclaimers I think the similarities stop there. Noah's disclaimer is a defense and is practically begging people to give the film a chance. It makes the film look like it might be guilty of something, and needs to be defended in the first frame. Whereas Temptation's "disclaimer" is a simple statement as mundane and definitive as "This film is inspired by true events." Temptations says "This is how it is. Take it or leave it." Its simple and confidant. Noah's disclaimer reads like something a scolded shy child would say. "Just here me out. I mean well. I didnt mean to. Please dont be mad." Its so damn insecure, imo. I undertand why its there. Paramount is scared (unecessarily) and heding their bets, but they sound like a bunch of insecure children.

 

[dark_b]

can you imagine hollywood being in europe where studios are not afraid of the MPAA and religious people? can you imagine all the millions that would be spend on blockbusters?

ahhhhhhhhhhhh art.

 

[Anita18]

can you imagine hollywood being in europe where studios are not afraid of the MPAA and religious people? can you imagine all the millions that would be spend on blockbusters?

ahhhhhhhhhhhh art.

I had a friend from France. He complained that all the French movies (the ones subsidized by the government, so a vast majority of the ones produced) were too focused on culture and not enough on entertainment. Thus, they were tremendously boring.

Imagine just having Oscar bait....the other 10 months of the year, not just the last 2.

For him, The Artist was a breath of fresh air because it was actually entertaining and not just another boring French drama.

Chris Nolan has also gone on the record saying that his career would have stalled in the UK because they don't take chances on young innovative filmmakers there.

So yeah, it's a bit that Paramount is including all the stupid disclaimers to appease the religious crazies. But at least it looks like we're getting something artistically interesting. If it's true that it's akin to The Fountain, I'm totally on board.

 

[dark_b]

but they dont have money. so they spend it on ''oscar bait'' movies because they are cheap . IMO

 

[jmc]

Noah Disclaimer

"The film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values, and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis."

Temptation of Christ Disclaimer

This film is not based upon the Gospels but upon this fictional exploration of the eternal spiritual conflict.

While they are both disclaimers I think the similarities stop there. Noah's disclaimer is a defense and is practically begging people to give the film a chance. It makes the film look like it might be guilty of something, and needs to be defended in the first frame. Whereas Temptation's "disclaimer" is a simple statement as mundane and definitive as "This film is inspired by true events." Temptations says "This is how it is. Take it or leave it." Its simple and confidant. Noah's disclaimer reads like something a scolded shy child would say. "Just here me out. I mean well. I didnt mean to. Please dont be mad." Its so damn insecure, imo. I undertand why its there. Paramount is scared (unecessarily) and heding their bets, but they sound like a bunch of insecure children.

Thing is Paramount knew long before they green lit this project that there was the potential for there to be backlash from the Christian community given the source of the story. They should have just marketed it like any other blockbuster and ignored the people who would most likely get upset over it. In fact from what I've heard from early reviews the advertising for this film is extremely misleading, which is probably going to make matters worse. That disclaimer really just sounds pathetic and desperate, I'm surprised they didn't add a phone number at the end for people could call to get some spiritual counseling.

 

[Tron Bonne]

I honestly don't give a **** about the disclaimer

 

[dark_b]

Thing is Paramount knew long before they green lit this project that there was the potential for there to be backlash from the Christian community given the source of the story. They should have just marketed it like any other blockbuster and ignored the people who would most likely get upset over it. In fact from what I've heard from early reviews the advertising for this film is extremely misleading, which is probably going to make matters worse. That disclaimer really just sounds pathetic and desperate, I'm surprised they didn't add a phone number at the end for people could call to get some spiritual counseling.

Paramount IMO planned from the beginning to change the movie and realese the studios cut. what they didnt expect is Aronofsky going inception on them t:


-hire Aronofsky
-make a studio cut
-have test screenings with religious groups
-throw in Aronofsky's face his contract. studio wins
-market the movie as a cliche movie
-realese the movie and make Passion of Christ money

 

[Pink Ranger]

I had a friend from France. He complained that all the French movies (the ones subsidized by the government, so a vast majority of the ones produced) were too focused on culture and not enough on entertainment. Thus, they were tremendously boring.

Imagine just having Oscar bait....the other 10 months of the year, not just the last 2.

I don't know what you're talking about, I would love to see Tony Stark play chess with Death in black and white for 167 minutes.