Darren Aronofsky's: Noah

[jmc]

Rule of thumb is generally a film has to make 2.5 x Production costs just to break even.

 

[hammerhedd11]

No it can't, especially if it's not what some are hoping for. Passion pretty much was all religious people wanted.

Are...are you serious? You have to be joking, man.
Do you know how controversial that film was? Do you know how divided religious groups were over that film and how angry people got at that film? This isn't even debatable.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Because me and you arent the same type of christians that demamded the disclaimer nor are you demanding literal adaptation. I think youve missed some of the arguments that went on here and some of the arguments that went on throughout this films production between the studio and Orthodox groups that DO consider this film very unfaithful. These are the religious people they are pandering to. Not me and you.

Those groups will whine if the film recites the biblical text word for word. I think we overestimate this audience as a movie going audience in the first place as well.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Marketing costs have increased since Passion and you have to factor in foriegn distributors. Depending on the contracts, the foreign distributor could take a large portion of over sea profits. Not many people pay attention to these details.

They think because a film goes over its stated budget that its profitiable. Doesnt work that way. And when you factor in the larger budget, economy, and god knows what other minute details theres every chamce this film could barely break even.

My post did not say Noah will make Passion levels of money, but simply that The Passion of the Christ was not isolated to a small but profitable run, but made INSANE money, and that it is the opposite of worthless for Noah to try to appeal to that same audience.

 

[Marvolo]

Those groups will whine if the film recites the biblical text word for word. I think we overestimate this audience as a movie going audience in the first place as well.

We arent overestimating (I include you here.) We know how small this group is. Which is why for the life of me, and this is what weve been discussing, I cant figure out why Paramount is not showing the more fantastical stuff in the trailer. This group that want the film to be word for word is so small that Paramount should not be giving into them and putting up disclaimers or any of that nonsense. Just in case you dont know, the disclaimer was added because a group of fundamentals felt the the film was unfaithful and Im quoting "Not an accurate retelling of history."

No fantasy film is an accurate retelling of history.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Who do we think made up the Passion's audience? Nothing but Christians?

 

[jmc]

Are...are you serious? You have to be joking, man.
Do you know how controversial that film was? Do you know how divided religious groups were over that film and how angry people got at that film? This isn't even debatable.

Towards the violence yes, but I never heard anyone from the religious fraternity say it wasn't a faithful adaptation. In fact I remember there being strong support from within the fraternity.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Who do we think made up the Passion's audience? Nothing but Christians?

Well its marketing effort surely didn't try to appeal to much else.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Towards the violence yes, but I never heard anyone from the religious fraternity say it wasn't a faithful adaptation. In fact I remember there being strong support from within the fraternity.

I recall much more than just the violence as a point of contention. Do you not recall the controversy over the depiction of the Jews? The film was far from accepted universally like you recall.

 

[jmc]

I recall much more than just the violence as a point of contention. Do you not recall the controversy over the depiction of the Jews? The film was far from accepted universally like you recall.

Yeah, from historians not religious people.

 

[hammerhedd11]

We arent overestimating (I include you here.) We know how small this group is. Which is why for the life of me, and this is what weve been discussing, I cant figure out why Paramount is not showing the more fantastical stuff in the trailer. This group that want the film to be word for word is so small that Paramount should not be giving into them and putting up disclaimers or any of that nonsense. Just in case you dont know, the disclaimer was added because a group of fundamentals felt the the film was unfaithful and Im quoting "Not an accurate retelling of history."

No fantasy film is an accurate retelling of history.

Their biggest concession to this group thus far has been a disclaimer way at the end of the trailer. Otherwise, neither the scenes shown nor tone depicted has been altered from what they've shown from the very first trailer. If that's their biggest concession, then it isn't much evidence of a complete and utter "pandering" effort.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Yeah, from historians not religious people.

Firsthand, I can tell you that's blatantly false. I remember it even dividing members of the clergy within my own small town. Doing two seconds of searching online will show you that this sparked worldwide theological debate.

 

[Marvolo]

Their biggest concession to this group thus far has been a disclaimer way at the end of the trailer. Otherwise, neither the scenes shown nor tone depicted has been altered from what they've shown from the very first trailer. If that's their biggest concession, then it isn't much evidence of a complete and utter "pandering" effort.

They did try to alter the film. They made over 4 cuts of their own. None of them worked and tested worse than Aranofsky's cut because Aranofsky shot it so the studio couldnt cut anything. Anytime they teied to cut something the plot broke down. The studio had to put the stuff they cut back in. If Aranofsky didnt run such a tight ship and hadnt shot his film that way the studio would have altered the film for these groups. Aranofsky has said this and even the studio admitted they tried some of their own cuts to appease the religious groups upset by the film.

This plus the disclaimer plus the safe trailers is plenty of evidence of pandering imo.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

They did try to alter the film. They made over 4 cuts of their own. None of them worked and tested worse than Aranofsky's cut because Aranofsky shot it so the studio couldnt cut anything. Anytime they teied to cut something the plot broke down. The studio had to put the stuff they cut back in. If Aranofsky didnt run such a tight ship and hadnt shot his film that way the studio would have altered the film for these groups. Aranofsky has said this and even the studio admitted they tried some of their own cuts to appease the religious groups upset by the film.

This plus the disclaimer plus the safe trailers is plenty of evidence of pandering imo.

Lets ignore this verified fact that has been repeated more then a few times here.

 

[hammerhedd11]

So we're upset about the cuts that didn't happen?
I don't need evidence that studio heads are idiots, but I'm concerned with results. The only discernible actions that resulted in any specific concessions are a measly disclaimer. We got Aronofsky's cut. If anything, isn't that evidence that pleasing this audience was overridden by greater concerns?

 

[hammerhedd11]

Lets ignore this verified fact that has been repeated more then a few times here.

The verified fact that the studio ended up not choosing the cut that would please the fundamentalist audience?

 

[Marvolo]

So we're upset about the cuts that didn't happen?
I don't need evidence that studio heads are idiots, but I'm concerned with results. The only discernible actions that resulted in any specific concessions are a measly disclaimer. We got Aronofsky's cut. If anything, isn't that evidence that pleasing this audience was overridden by greater concerns?

Are you reading posts in their entirety or skimming?

They actively pandered and tried to alter the film. That is the topic at hand. The fact they were unable to make their cuts work doesnt change the fact they ACTIVELY TRIED to alter the film. Actively trying to alter the film to please this crowd is by its very nature pandering to that crowd. If they had been able to make their cuts work we would hve gotten the studio cut. The only thing that saved us from that is that Aranofsky is a crafty SOB who thought ahead and made sure the studio couldnt do this.

To sum up the studio didnt want to release Aranofsky's cut and tried to make their own cut that would appease certain fanatical religious groups, but they couldnt make their cut work so they conceded and gave up trying. They pandered, and still are. If you cant see this or are ignoring parts of my posts and evidemce tjat has been repeated in this thread ad nauseam I cant help you.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Are you readin posts in their entirety or skimming?

They actively pandered and tried to alter the film. That is the topic at hand. The fact they were unable to make their cuts work doesnt change the fact they ACTIVELY TRIED to alter the film. Actively trying to alter the film to please this crpwd is by its very nature pandering. If they had been able to make their cuts work we would hve gotten the studio cut. The only thing that saved us from that is that Aranofsky is a crafty SOB who thought ahead and made sure the studio couldnt do this.

How am I not addressing your post? Your evidence of pandering is that they attempted to change the film and then reneged when it didn't work. If they were truly concerned about the harm of angering this audience above everything else, they would altered the cut regardless. Ultimately, this audience was not their greatest concern is my point. I'm not debating that they did this or attempted to please them at one point. But that it wasn't enough for them to alter the film at all, in the final cut, to me is proof that 'pandering' to this audience wasn't their greatest concern in the end.
I feel that this is weak proof of pandering when ultimately, it didn't result in any actual changes.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The verified fact that the studio ended up not choosing the cut that would please the fundamentalist audience?

You are missing the point. They tried and tried hard, but it didn't work. That they tried showed their intent, just like the marketing.

 

[hammerhedd11]

You are missing the point. They tried and tried hard, but it didn't work. That they tried showed their intent, just like the marketing.

I'm not missing the fact that they didn't go through with it. Intent is one thing, results are another.
If anything, shouldn't we be grateful that a studio for once found merit in leaving an ambitious project alone? It's rare to see films of this scope and budget to escape any tinkering.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm not missing the fact that they didn't go through with it. Intent is one thing, results are another.

It is like saying well I tried to kill that man but I ran out of bullets because I am a crap shot. He didn't die, and that is what counts.

By the way, the disclaimer is editing the film. That is why Aronofsky is not happy. Add the marketing and well you have results.

 

[Marvolo]

I'm not missing the fact that they didn't go through with it. Intent is one thing, results are another.
If anything, shouldn't we be grateful that a studio for once found merit in leaving an ambitious project alone? It's rare to see films of this scope and budget to escape any tinkering.

There was never a cut that successfully pleased the fundamentalists. The 4 cuts the studio made were incomprehensible and the fundamentalists disliked them too because they didnt make sense. The plot didnt make sense with the stuff cut. That is why they went back to the original cut. The studio didnt make some noble choice like you seem to think. They simply couldnt make their cuts work. This is what you are not getting. They had no choice, but to release the only cut that worked and that isnt much of a choice. Their only other option if you want to call it one was to release an incomprhensible film that didnt please any of their test audiences. That isnt much of a choice. So forgive me if I dont pretend like the studio made some honerable choice by releasing the directors cut of the film. The studio tried to pander and would have succeeded in altering the film if the director wasnt crafty. To use Darth Skywalker's analogy, the studio tried to murder this film, and couldnt. They still tried to murder the film. The fact they ran failed to or couldnt make their cuts work doesnt change that fact one bit. Yes, I am happy we are getting Aranofsky's cut, but it is not thanks to Paramount. It is thanks to Aranofsky. The studio would much rather have their own cut if not for Aranofsky's craftiness.

Now I think Ive made this all pretty clear. Ive said, what I have to say. If you still dont agree. We will simply agree to disagree. Its cool. No hard feelings.

 

[hammerhedd11]

It is like saying well I tried to kill that man but I ran out of bullets because I am a crap shot. He didn't die, and that is what counts.

Add the marketing and the disclaimer that has Aronosky angry, and well you have results.

Nice try at a comparison. We're talking about the artistic process. Comparing the logic of an imagined legal matter is a lack of imagination on your part, not wit. Don't waste my time by devolving into useless hyperbole if you can't articulate a real argument.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Nice try at a comparison. We're talking about the artistic process. Comparing the logic of an imagined legal matter is a lack of imagination on your part, not wit. Don't waste my time by devolving into useless hyperbole if you can't articulate a real argument.

You started quoting so fast, my edits weren't even finished.

Basically going back to it, explain why they did edit the film and why Aronofsky is not happy about it. That is what the disclaimer is.

 

[hammerhedd11]

There was never a cut that successfully pleased the fundamentalists. The 4 cuts the studio made were incomprehensible and the fundamentalists disliked them too because they didnt make sense. The plot didnt make sense with the stuff cut. That is why they went back to the original cut. The studio didnt make some noble choice like you seem to think. They simply couldnt make their cuts work. This is what you are not getting. They had no choice, but to release the only cut that worked and that isnt much of a choice. Their only other option if you want to call it one was to release an incomprhensible film that didnt please any of their test audiences. That isnt much of a choice. So forgive me if I dont pretend like the studio made some honerable choice by releasing the directors cut of the film. The studio tried to pander and would have succeeded in altering the film if the director wasnt crafty. To use Darth Skywalker's analogy, the studio tried to murder this film, and ran out of bullets. They still tried to murder the film. The fact they ran out of bullets or couldnt make their cuts work doesnt change that fact one bit. Yes, I am happy we are getting Aranofsky's cut, but it is not thanks to Paramount. It is thanks to Aranofsky. The studio would much rather have their own cut.

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.