Darren Aronofsky's: Noah

[Marvolo]

'Noah' Movie Banned In The Middle East For Portrayal Of A Prophet

Darren Aronofsky's Biblical epic "Noah" hasn't even opened in theaters yet, but it's already been banned by multiple countries in the Middle East.

In the Islamic tradition, the portrayal of prophets is forbidden, and Russell Crowe's performance as the prophet Noah has raised the ire of censorship boards in Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE, who have informed Paramount that they will not allow the film to be released, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Paramount insiders expect similar rulings in Kuwait, Jordan, and Egypt.

http://huff.to/1hTWkIR

 

[Marvolo]

Aronofsky's graphic novel Noah will be available March 18th.

http://www.amazon.com/Noah-Niko-Henrichon/dp/1607068532/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394306479&sr=1-1&keywords=noah

If the movie is anything like this it is going to be all kinds of awesome!

 

[Whiskey Tango]

That looks more like John Carter than the John Carter movie did.

 

[Human Torch]

No it's not actually, the flood myth is as old as time itself and the similarities between the Noah story and that in the Epic of Gilgamesh are too similar to say there isn't a relationship. You can either choose to ignore that fact or go ahead and cover your ears screaming 'not listening'. It's hypocritical to blast a film for taking a source material and changing it for it's purpose when that's exactly what many of those ancient biblical stories themselves did.

You're going by the assumption that "Gilgamesh" inspired the Biblical account,when in reality the reverse is the case.

People have tried to discredit the Bible by shaky comparisons to other myths for ages.In virtually every case,the Bible came first.

 

[Human Torch]

Well of course it's historically inaccurate. It's not history. It's fantasy.

Ya know I've read a few books on the early church and the early church fathers that lived during the Roman Empire. Those men faced real persecution and war on their religion. Christians in America today are frankly weak pansies in comparison. A filmmaker tells the story the way he wants and it's a travesty. A store greeter says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas and it's a War on Christianity. A country doesn't force everyone to adhere to a book and it's a War on Christianity. Everything today is an "attack" or an "affront" on Christians and their beliefs. I swear I hear another Christian fuss and whine about the attacks on their beliefs and I may just smack the **** out of them. Open up a book and read about what happened to Ignatius and Justin Martyr and the people Nero dipped in oil and burned alive. Those people faced real persecution. I'm not saying Christians today can't be upset. Only that they need to keep things in perspective. I would never advocate taking away their beliefs or legitimately attacking them. But this stuff today is not an attack nor is it an insult to Christianity. It's just individuals expressing their own ideas and beliefs just like Christians are free in this country to do the same. Aronofsky did this. He told the story how he saw fit. That's his right. It's not a mean spirited insult directed at Christians. It isn't personal.

As for this disclaimer it isn't necessary. It's simply pandering to a small whiney minority, and pandering to them needs to stop. They don't need this disclaimer. They will survive. It's just a film.

You'd have to be very naive if you don't think Christianity is under assault from militant atheism these days.

 

[Marvolo]

You'd have to be very naive if you don't think Christianity is under assault from militant atheism these days.

Really? Assault? When's the last time you were barred from going to church? When was the last time you were beaten or shot for bowing your head? When was the last time you were not allowed to celebrate your holidays and beliefs on your property or in a church? When was the last time one of your churches was burned down? When was the last time a Christian was imprisoned for their beliefs? There are a million of these questions and they all have the same answer. Never in your lifetime nor your parents nor your grandparents lifetime in this country. Your religion is not under any kind of attack.

You can't teach mysticism and magic in science class. Your religious holidays are not the only important ones in December and praying and worship does not take place while the teacher is trying to instruct a classroom. These are not attacks. They are common sense ideas. Class is for learning the curriculum. Science class is for science. Your religion is not the only one in this country and it doesn't take precedence for everyone. If someone says Happy Holidays you will survive. Christians do not own the entire month. You own one day. December 25. Now I have absolutely zero problem with the ten commandments or the sermon on the mount or any of that stuff being in public places as long as the five pillars of Islam and the tenants of Hinduism and Buddhism or any other recognized religion can also be displayed in public. *Public displays that don't include profane stuff. Lookin at Satanists. If there are Satanists here it's nothin personal.


If you want to know about real persecution in this country read about what was done to Catholics by the Puritans in this country during the 1600s. Ears and limbs cut off. Execution. Excommunication from the community. Christians in this country today don't even know the meaning of persecution and attack.

*Kids in school are bullied by other students for their beliefs. I do absolutely recognize that fact and the problem that it is.

You're going by the assumption that "Gilgamesh" inspired the Biblical account,when in reality the reverse is the case.

People have tried to discredit the Bible by shaky comparisons to other myths for ages.In virtually every case,the Bible came first.

In reality, the real world based on verifiable fact based on accumulated evidence, the story of Gilgamesh predates the OT by 2,000 years. This is fact. The king Gilgamesh fifth king of Uruk reigned around 2500BC. That is 1500 years before Biblical Hebrew even existed. Sumeria, it's language, and it's written form all predate Isreal and the Bible. Even the fundamentalists who taught at my school didn't try to argue against that.

 

[Marvolo]

Human Torch, man (girl?) I don't want you to think I come at you because you are a Christian. I swear that isn't it. I just can't stand hyperbole, I'm sick of this idea that a War is going on, and I can't stand obtuse willful ignorance. That is why I butt heads with you. I personally have nothing against you as a person. It's just when you post stuff saying Gilgamesh is younger than the Bible it grates my gears. This is claims that are easily refuted by examining just a few quick facts.

I've never seen the need to refute facts to be a Christian. I'm probably a heretic in your eyes, but I believe in some higher power and I cherish my Bible and my Christian upbringing is deeply engrained in me. That will never change. But as facts come to light I don't fight knowledge. Knowledge and revelations that Noah didn't exist or that the flood story isn't the original doesn't frighten me or weaken any faith I have. The Lord can teach lessons and bring enlightenment through stories and people. They all do not need to be factual history. It doesn't change the power and "truths" and lessons in the Bible.

I know we don't agree where the Bible is concerned and come at it from different viewpoints. I just want you to know that when I don't agree with you or argue with you or come across like an ass it isn't because you are a Christian.

 

[BestGirl]

Did you read your link? First, they say the answer is 46%. That is less then half, and thus not a majority. That makes my point correct.

Furthermore, the first poll, conducted in 2004, indicated that 61% of Americans believed in creationism. The second, conducted in 2012, showed that only 46% of Americans did. That is a big shift over a mere eight year period.

 

[jmc]

You're going by the assumption that "Gilgamesh" inspired the Biblical account,when in reality the reverse is the case.

People have tried to discredit the Bible by shaky comparisons to other myths for ages.In virtually every case,the Bible came first.

You are exactly the type of person who gives religions people a bad name. It's not that you aren't aware of where many of the stories in the bible come from, it's that you're choosing to ignore it. You tell any biblical scholar in the world what you said in your last post and they will laugh in your face. Here's some facts - Christianity did not come first, the Christian god did not come first and the bible certainly did not come first. Believe in what ever higher power you like, but man the hell up and accept that the bible is filled with stories adapted from other cultures.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Pops in to discuss movie and sees religious bickering, leaves thread

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Get yo ass back in here and talk some Jesus

 

[Marvolo]

Are there going to be early reviews or is an embargo in place until it's released to the public?

 

[DA_Champion]

Pops in to discuss movie and sees religious bickering, leaves thread

This is a religious movie.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

This is a religious movie.

Doesn't mean people ought to be fighting all the time. People come to the thread to discuss the film, not to go at each other over religious debates.

 

[DA_Champion]

Doesn't mean people ought to be fighting all the time. People come to the thread to discuss the film, not to go at each other over religious debates.

You're not really discussing the film if you're not discussing the religious content.

JMC is comparing the story to Gilgamesh, but there's a reason that Hollywood gives 130 million to finance a Noah movie, but that conversely we probably will not see a Gilgamesh blockbuster in our lifetimes.

 

[jacobed]

Pops in to discuss movie and sees religious bickering, leaves thread

Agreed. Its sickening. If you don't believe in God or the Bible, good for you now shut up about it. Same if you do.

I'm jacked for this movie, worried about the cg though. Can't wait for the comic book

 

[jmc]

The issue I was having is the people blasting this movie over taking liberties when the source material itself was influenced by stories told by other cultures. If you want to blast the film for being bad that's fine granted you've seen it, but the thing is many people denouncing it ahead of time haven't seen it.

 

[Marvolo]

Agreed. Its sickening. If you don't believe in God or the Bible, good for you now shut up about it. Same if you do.

I'm jacked for this movie, worried about the cg though. Can't wait for the comic book

Let's not be hyperbolic. Sickening is a bit of an exaggeration. This being an adaption the source warrants discussion and this being a religious film it's source will draw intense discussion. Remember Passion of the Christ?

There is very little to say about this film on its own atm. The hot topic is the adaption of the source. The trailers keep recycling the same visuals, and all the fantastical elements like the Watchers and Saraphims are being kept under wraps. Once the graphic novel comes out and the early reviews (if we get some) hit the web then we will have something new to discuss.

Who's doing the score for this? Clint Mansel?

 

[Whiskey Tango]

You're not really discussing the film if you're not discussing the religious content.

That's wonderful but I didn't say anything about the religious content of the movie. I'm talking about the constant sniping between people of various faiths or lack thereof. That's what DaRkVeNgeanCe meant by 'religious bickering' and they're right. It doesn't belong here.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

When the film is released, how much do we think will be discussion about the merits of the film? You think we are going to get a discussion on the merits of the film when we have people coming in here saying they couldn't get through 2 mins of "The Last Temptation of Christ" because they got too angry watching it?

I would personally be in favor of an embargo of such talk upon the film's release. It has gotten out of hand, made worse by the stupid disclaimer the studio has placed on the film.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I expect to talk about how much I liked the movie. My interest in everyone else dragging their ****ing baggage in here, or telling me about their own life history is set at exactly Zero %.

 

[DA_Champion]

I expect to talk about how much I liked the movie. My interest in everyone else dragging their ****ing baggage in here, or telling me about their own life history is set at exactly Zero %.

A legitimate view for most movies, but given the religious topic of this one, don't expect others to agree.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

A legitimate view for most movies, but given the religious topic of this one, don't expect others to agree.

I expect others to agree by the rules of this forum, which say specifically to take religious debates to community/politics. Ignore it at your leisure.

 

[DA_Champion]

I expect others to agree by the rules of this forum, which say specifically to take religious debates to community/politics. Ignore it at your leisure.

This is a movie specifically about religion.

Did you expect people to not discuss Vietnam/Nixon after watching Watchmen?
Did you expect people to not discuss torture/surveillance after watching The Dark Knight?
Did you expect people not to discuss George Bush after Oliver Stone's W came out? What about Zero Dark Thirty?
Did you expect people not to discuss religion when Passion of the Christ came out?
Did you expect people not to discuss Aparatheid in the District 9 thread?

Seriously man ...

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Seriously man ...

This is not the forum for people to argue their beliefs. If you disagree, tough noogies. Move on.

Seriously.