Darren Aronofsky's: Noah

[jmc]

They did a good enough job in Huston's The Bible.

But nowadays every Bible film is abut "teh conflict and drama".

As I said before,I'm not really going to judge the film before seeing it,but there's really no excuse for making Noah off his rocker,wanting to destroy humanity.

Taken to it's logical conclusion,one would have to wonder why God chose such an unstable individual to repopulate the world.

Can you not see the irony in taking a film to task for being an adaptation that changes things when said source material is already an adaptation of another ancient work? Just something to think about.

 

[weezerspider]

You consider it unstable for a human being to have a moment of weakness after witnessing the depravity sinners and them trying to storm the arc and then watching as all of humanity (men women and children) all but his family is wiped out and everything he ever knew is gone? Most people would call that normal. A nonreaction would be abnormal. This is what people dont stop and think about. Noah is still human and subject to human emotions and weaknesses. What Noah goes through and witnesses will have an effect on the emotional state.

The fact he broke down doesnt make him weak or ubstable. It makes him human. The important key thing is he doesnt go through with killing himself and his family. He turns away from that thought. After witnessing the nearly complete annhilation of his species and a mental breakdown he picked himself up and conpleted God's will. Like God knew he would. Thats why God chose him. He could take it and get past that breakdown. He was strong enough to do what God needed him to do.

This is called complexity. Its not a bad thing. This makes Noah look stronger imo than some dude who never reacts or fluctuates. By including this complexity they gave Noah an emotional arc. A good one imo.

Yes. As a Christian, I believe the more these films portray these people as real people, the better. Noah isn't God. Moses isn't God. The Bible discusses all of these people's weaknesses, yet, too often we refer to these people as Holy themselves. They are sinful human beings. It makes for good storytelling and, IMO, a better spiritual message.

 

[kvz5]

https://***********/NikkiFinke/status/442011505089716224

Nikki Finke
‏@NikkiFinke

Russell Crowe reps reaching out to Vatican if possible for Pope to screen 'Noah' after actor began Twitter lobbying campaign.

 

[Marvolo]

https://***********/NikkiFinke/status/442011505089716224

I would really like to hear the pope's thoughts on the film.

 

[jmc]

Given this Pope doesn't seem to be as tight arsed as his predecessors he could very well be the best source of publicity for the movie.

 

[Human Torch]

Can you not see the irony in taking a film to task for being an adaptation that changes things when said source material is already an adaptation of another ancient work? Just something to think about.

That's all conjecture.

 

[Human Torch]

You consider it unstable for a human being to have a moment of weakness after witnessing the depravity sinners and them trying to storm the arc and then watching as all of humanity (men women and children) all but his family is wiped out and everything he ever knew is gone? Most people would call that normal. A nonreaction would be abnormal. This is what people dont stop and think about. Noah is still human and subject to human emotions and weaknesses. What Noah goes through and witnesses will have an effect on the emotional state.

The fact he broke down doesnt make him weak or ubstable. It makes him human. The important key thing is he doesnt go through with killing himself and his family. He turns away from that thought. After witnessing the nearly complete annhilation of his species and a mental breakdown he picked himself up and conpleted God's will. Like God knew he would. Thats why God chose him. He could take it and get past that breakdown. He was strong enough to do what God needed him to do.

This is called complexity. Its not a bad thing. This makes Noah look stronger imo than some dude who never reacts or fluctuates. By including this complexity they gave Noah an emotional arc. A good one imo.

I get what you're saying,and I agree to an extent.Noah was only human.I'm not saying he should be walking around with a constant halo over his head.

But to some degree,modern films tend to over-dramatize Bible accounts.I mean IMO,reading Noah's story,I feel the guy was probably very grateful that he and his family were the only humans chosen to survive.(I know I would be!) And thankful at the prospect of God giving humanity a chance to begin again.Being "conflicted" or whatever never really came into the equation from my personal reading of it.

 

[jmc]

That's all conjecture.

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.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I get what you're saying,and I agree to an extent.Noah was only human.I'm not saying he should be walking around with a constant halo over his head.

But to some degree,modern films tend to over-dramatize Bible accounts.I mean IMO,reading Noah's story,I feel the guy was probably very grateful that he and his family were the only humans chosen to survive.(I know I would be!) And thankful at the prospect of God giving humanity a chance to begin again.Being "conflicted" or whatever never really came into the equation from my personal reading of it.

Bible stories are dramatic. What many modern filmmakers do is take two different approaches to the material. Adding humanity, while exploring it with a modern perspective or complete theater. The former is no different then Joe Wright's take on "Pride and Prejudice". Except people here are using religion as a reason to complain, which just looks bad.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/...-christians-upset-by-historical-inaccuracies/

NRB board member Phil Cooke told The Wrap that the disclaimer was necessary because the film is “historically inaccurate.” It is, Cooke said, “more of an inspired movie than an exact retelling.”

Yeah, hard to take such arguments seriously.

 

[Marvolo]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/...-christians-upset-by-historical-inaccuracies/



Yeah, hard to take such arguments seriously.

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.

 

[DA_Champion]

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.

Yes, but the flood myth is not a myth in the same sense. The majority of Americans think that it really happened, exactly as described in the bible. There's nothing surprising about the reaction, and it cannot be dismissed in a single sentence or two.

They don't think that the " 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," they think that the ancient biblical stories are historical accounts, and that if there are similarities in Gilgamesh, etc, it's because other cultures wrote down less accurate accounts of the same events.

All of this may be foreign and exotic to you and beyond your ability to understand if you don't know many religious people, and I don't mean anything negative and personal by that. I was told in school (by Canadian Jews, not American Christians, but same difference) that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that God put fossils in the Earth to test our faith, by adults who believed this in whole. I know adults who have become lawyers and doctors who believe this. If you don't know of such people, and you have not experienced them, then your "WTF????" is a justified response, but you're still wrong about those people being hypocritical. They're not hypocritical -- they're delusional.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

What someone chooses to believe does not change history or masses of historical evidence that is to the contrary of dogmatic Judeo-Christian belief. The Bible, if you want to use it or believe it as history... Well is not particularly historical, mostly due to the FACT that so much was written down many, sometimes decades, sometimes hundreds of years after the events these biblical accounts claim to represent. If film makers had to kow-tow to any group's belief system that had little evidence to back it up with, this would be a different cinematic world. But then again, the same sort of people try to boycott HARRY POTTER films because they fear the power of something that is NON-EXISTANT, which is to say, witchcraft. So if that is the system of reasoning film makers are dealing with....

 

[DA_Champion]

What someone chooses to believe does not change history or masses of historical evidence that is to the contrary of dogmatic Judeo-Christian belief. The Bible, if you want to use it or believe it as history... Well is not particularly historical, mostly due to the FACT that so much was written down many, sometimes decades, sometimes hundreds of years after the events these biblical accounts claim to represent. If film makers had to kow-tow to any group's belief system that had little evidence to back it up with, this would be a different cinematic world. But then again, the same sort of people try to boycott HARRY POTTER films because they fear the power of something that is NON-EXISTANT, which is to say, witchcraft. So if that is the system of reasoning film makers are dealing with....

These facts are not entirely relevant... in the world of art, perception is reality.

Plus, would anybody care about a Noah film if not for the west's religious heritage? If not, then religion has to play a role in evaluating the film. It's a religious story.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

These facts are not entirely relevant... in the world of art, perception is reality.

Plus, would anybody care about a Noah film if not for the west's religious heritage? If not, then religion has to play a role in evaluating the film. It's a religious story.

Their perceptions should have no affect on a film maker, or his film. Unless you'd just like to repeal that pesky 1st Amendment in the American Constitution.

Artists should not have to kow-tow, especially when that kow-towing has as much basis in historical facts, or facts of any kind, as his own dramatization of a tale that has more than enough evidence to more than suggest it itself is a reworking of another long ago epic tale.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

These facts are not entirely relevant... in the world of art, perception is reality.

Plus, would anybody care about a Noah film if not for the west's religious heritage? If not, then religion has to play a role in evaluating the film. It's a religious story.

People care because it is a story. Just like how people care about Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. The source is irrelevant really.

 

[DA_Champion]

People care because it is a story. Just like how people care about Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. The source is irrelevant really.

There's less religious devotion to LoTR and to SW. Noah isn't a story to the majority of North Americans -- it's a historical account.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

There's less religious devotion to LoTR and to SW. Noah isn't a story to the majority of North Americans -- it's a historical account.

Less religious devotion, yes. Less devotion? Not so sure. Look at our Batboards or box office numbers.

And no, it as time passes it is not a "historical" account to most. Jesus? Yes. Noah? No. The farfetched nature of the story has lead to this. It lacks practicality.

 

[DA_Champion]

Less religious devotion, yes. Less devotion? Not so sure. Look at our Batboards or box office numbers.

And no, it as time passes it is not a "historical" account to most. Jesus? Yes. Noah? No. The farfetched nature of the story has lead to this. It lacks practicality.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/?page=all

61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible’s book of Genesis is “literally true” rather than a story meant as a “lesson.”

Sixty percent believe in the story of Noah’s ark and a global flood, while 64 percent agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You "literally" just brought up a 10 year old survey, in a country where Gay marriage is being legalized in state after state, as the Republican Party implodes on itself. You think the teens and 20 and 30 something year olds of today take it literally. Really?

 

[DA_Champion]

You "literally" just brought up a 10 year old survey, in a country where Gay marriage is being legalized in state after state, as the Republican Party implodes on itself.

Opinions will not have changed drastically in the past ten years. The point is that the Noah movie is like the Passion of the Christ movie, expect a religious reaction from the public.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Opinions will not have changed drastically in the past ten years. The point is that the Noah movie is like the Passion of the Christ movie, expect a religious reaction from the public.

I wish we could go back in time to 2004 and tell everyone that man was going to be the President of the United States.

Foregoing survey methodology and such, a decade is an enormous amount of time. Especially when you consider the technology of the last decade, and the kids raised the last 30 years. You think you are going to go and talk to a bunch of 40 and unders, who are going to tell you that? It is only going to progress from there. 60% would be lucky to be 40% now. A major city outside of the deep red? 30% maybe.

 

[DA_Champion]

Foregoing survey methodology and such, a decade is an enormous amount of time. Especially when you consider the technology of the last decade, and the kids raised the last 30 years. You think you are going to go and talk to a bunch of 40 and unders, who are going to tell you that? It is only going to progress from there. 60% would be lucky to be 40% now. A major city outside of the deep red? 30% maybe.

The numbers from 2013, 46%, so not much change from 10 years ago:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/...lly-believe-the-earth-is-only-6000-years-old/

As you can see, this particular response to this particular question is nearly constant with time:

10 years is actually not an enormous amount of time sociologically. You point to a picture of Obama, but actually he gave a major address at the 2004 democratic party national convention and considered by a lot of insiders to be a candidate for 2008 from that point on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWynt87PaJ0
They don't give such major keynote addresses to just anybody. So back in 2004, anybody who was an insider knew that Obama was a credible candidate for an upcoming race.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, I mentioned survevy methodology. You know, leading questions and such. Well the article you posted said this...

But Josh Rosenau, with the National Center for Science Education, wrote this week that very different results emerge when slight changes are made to the questions that Gallup asks, and the actual number of “young-earth creationists” in the U.S. is probably much lower than Gallup claims.

Rosenau points out that the Gallup poll specifically asks about human origins, and does so in a religious context. But if Americans are asked if they believe whether plants and animals have evolved over millions of years (regardless of the reason why), a substantially higher number say yes — 60 percent did in a 2009 Pew poll, for example.

Removing religious context and human origins, people are much less likely to say that we’re living on a young earth. In another 2009 survey, only 18 percent agreed with the statement that “the earth is less than 10,000 years old,” for example.

But Rosenau thinks the number of truly committed young-earth creationists is even smaller than that.

Since the early 1980s, the National Science Board has asked Americans if they accept the idea that the continents have been moving for millions of years — and 80 percent agree. Ten percent say they don’t know, and only another ten percent firmly reject it.

“In short, then, the hard core of young-earth creationists represents at most one in ten Americans — maybe about 31 million people — with another quarter favoring creationism but not necessarily committed to a young earth,” Rosenau concludes. “One or two in ten seem firmly committed to evolution, and another third leans heavily toward evolution. About a third of the public in the middle are open to evolution, but feel strongly that a god or gods must have been involved somehow, and wind up in different camps depending how a given poll is worded.”

And yes, 10 years is massive in sociological terms when you considering our technology of today.

And there is a difference between "a possible candidate" and being the President of the United States. It is called change. There is reason Fox News skews so old. Why the Catholic Church is trying to appeal to younger people.

 

[Tron Bonne]

From Noah to Obama, we have gone full circle