Darren Aronofsky's: Noah

[hammerhedd11]

Like any other blockbuster movie. The problem is a soon as you start pandering to a particular audience your movie is going to suffer because everyone else is going to assume it's not a movie for them.

You can't sell a movie to every single group. You focus on the one with the most potential.
And once again, this use of the word pander. What, exactly, is indulgent about selling a movie based on the Bible, to those who actively believe the things in said book? Is it that they aren't selling it to you?

 

[hammerhedd11]

Who is complaining about the story? I am confused, because I don't see it. I see people complaing about the marketing and how it has been so toothless, pandering and in general bad, that it has potentially lost both sides of the coin.

They are almost leaving the film in no man's land. They have even pissed off Aronofsky.

The story is in reference to the news story regarding the disclaimer.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I understand all of this. But what I was specifically responding to was the idea of 'pandering' to a religious audience, when the story in and of itself is completely and utterly religious. If you just want a fantasy movie that's fine, and you can view it that way, it does not negate the fact that this film and its source is entirely rooted in a religious story, and considering what Aronofsky has said and what has been said about the film itself, it has not betrayed that source material. So I find this use of the word 'pander' idiotic, as they were all supposed to close their eyes and ignore all and any religious connotation that this story is filled with.

You have lost me. It isn't about the film having religious connotations. Of course it does. It is called Noah afterall. It is about how Paramount has seemingly gone out of their way to advertise the film in a pandering manner, as to not offend those who couldn't possibly watch this film if it isn't super faithful.

The disclaimer is the perfect example of this. By giving Christians a reason to think it might not be faithful, leads to complaints of non-faithfulness. It is stupid.

You don't think making a film about one of the most iconic stories in the Bible might be a tad appealing to Christians?

That wasn't my question. My question is how the marketing and disclaimer make it appealing to Christian audiences.

 

[jmc]

You can't sell a movie to every single group. You focus on the one with the most potential.
And once again, this use of the word pander. What, exactly, is indulgent about selling a movie based on the Bible, to those who actively believe the things in said book? Is it that they aren't selling it to you?

No, but you can try and give it as wide an appeal as possible. I'm talking squarely from a money making perspective here. You cater to one type of audience you're going to get less money in return. The thing is Paramount are clearly worried about this film flopping, but ironically they are making matters for themselves worse by continuously trying to appease and apologise in advance of the movie to the people they think they have to cater to in order for it to make money.

 

[Big Green]

So are we getting the directors cut? Or the Studios cut?

 

[Marvolo]

So are we getting the directors cut? Or the Studios cut?

Director's cut. Aranofsky confirmed. He said he shot the film in such a way that nothing could be cut out. He ran a tight production. So when the studio took it and started cutting it themselves and making their own cut the film wouldnt work and it made the film worse and it tested worse. They were forced to put all the stuff back in and release Aranofksy's cut cause that was the only way the film worked. Lol Aranofsky pulled a fast one on them.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

No, but you can try and give it as wide an appeal as possible. I'm talking squarely from a money making perspective here. You cater to one type of audience you're going to get less money in return. The thing is Paramount are clearly worried about this film flopping, but ironically they are making matters for themselves worse by continuously trying to appease and apologise in advance of the movie to the people they think they have to cater to in order for it to make money.

If isn't that they are simply pandering, they are doing so in the most stupid manner. By doing what they are doing they are almost giving Christian an excuse to complain and not see the film. It is gives those that like to avoiding such stuff, a reason to avoid.

Let the film stand on its own. I am not starting to wonder how much Paramount played here.

Director's cut. Aranofsky confirmed. He said he shot the film in such a way that nothing could be cut out. He ran a tight production. So when the studio started cutring it themselves it made the film worse and it tested worse. They were forced to put all the stuff back in and release Aranofksy's cut. Lol Aranofsky pulled a fast one on them.

We will see if the Watson stuff is still in the film. I am now starting to question it.

 

[jmc]

Director's cut. Aranofsky confirmed. He said he shot the film in such a way that nothing could be cut out. He ran a tight production. So when the studio started cutring it themselves it made the film worse and it tested worse. They were forced to put all the stuff back in and release Aranofksy's cut. Lol Aranofsky pulled a fast one on them.

I actually love that he did that. lol

 

[Marvolo]

We will see if the Watson stuff is still in the film. I am now starting to question it.

Which stuff is that?

Lol how much yall want to bet that Ridley Scott's Exodus will NOT get a disclaimer?

 

[hammerhedd11]

That wasn't my question. My question is how the marketing and disclaimer make it appealing to Christian audiences.

Well, I can't speak for what is appealing and what is insulting to Christian audiences, as that is such a broad spectrum of different groups that there can't possibly be a universal reaction on that front. And I don't really see what that has to do with my argument in the first place, as I have never been debating the validity or necessity of the disclaimer in the first place and whether or not Christian audiences are interested at all.
What I am arguing against is the idea that advertising to Christian groups is pandering in any sense, and that trying to alleviate any fears of unfaithfulness is any more desperate than studios telling fanboys that their film will be faithful to the comics.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Which stuff is that?

Spoiler

Noah losing his crap after her children are born, trying to kill them.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well, I can't speak for what is appealing and what is insulting to Christian audiences, as that is such a broad spectrum of different groups that there can't possibly be a universal reaction on that front. And I don't really see what that has to do with my argument in the first place, as I have never been debating the validity or necessity of the disclaimer in the first place and whether or not Christian audiences are interested at all.
What I am arguing against is the idea that advertising to Christian groups is pandering in any sense, and that trying to alleviate any fears of unfaithfulness is any more desperate than studios telling fanboys that their film will be faithful to the comics.

It isn't advertising to Christian groups that is pandering. It is how they are doing it. The first trailer I ever saw for this film was caught off screen at a Christian convention. That was smart imo. It has been downhill since then.

 

[Marvolo]

Well, I can't speak for what is appealing and what is insulting to Christian audiences, as that is such a broad spectrum of different groups that there can't possibly be a universal reaction on that front. And I don't really see what that has to do with my argument in the first place, as I have never been debating the validity or necessity of the disclaimer in the first place and whether or not Christian audiences are interested at all.
What I am arguing against is the idea that advertising to Christian groups is pandering in any sense, and that trying to alleviate any fears of unfaithfulness is any more desperate than studios telling fanboys that their film will be faithful to the comics.

By pandering he is referring to their refusal to show any of the stuff not in the Bible cause they are afraid to piss off the uber fundamental sola scriptura crowd. This film is loaded with the stuff even Noah's motivation isnt biblical. Aronofsky has stated that he set out to make a fantasy film first and foremost and not a Biblical film and that he was targeting fantasy fans and not religious people. Fantasy fans were his audience. Paramount is avoiding that crowd and not showing how Noah actually is in this movie at all, not showing any of the angels, or the technology that these people have that is destroyed after the flood. They seem to be afraid to show it. Instead they are marketing this like a typical bible movie with a god fearing and god loving central character who believes god has his back and that this is a fundamentalist film. That aint the film that you are going to see on screen. What they are selling in the marketing isnt the actual film.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

By pandering he is referring to their refusal to show any of the stuff not in the Bible. This film is loaded with the stuff even Noah's motivation isnt biblical. Arobofsky has stated that he set out to make a fantasy film and not a Biblocal film and that he was targeting fantasy fans and not religious people. Fantasy fans were his audience. Parampunt is avoiding that crowd and not showing how Noah actually is in this movie at all, not showing any of the angels, or the technology that these people have that is destroyed after the flood. They seem to be afraid to show it.

Yep. They are in "play it safe" mode and in the process potentially losing everyone.

 

[hammerhedd11]

No, but you can try and give it as wide an appeal as possible. I'm talking squarely from a money making perspective here. You cater to one type of audience you're going to get less money in return. The thing is Paramount are clearly worried about this film flopping, but ironically they are making matters for themselves worse by continuously trying to appease and apologise in advance of the movie to the people they think they have to cater to in order for it to make money.

How exactly do you know they are making matters worse? We are talking about a very contained issue that has barely, if at all, gotten the notice of the mainstream.
As for your insistence that movies can only succeed by being as appealing as possible to all quadrants, I disagree completely. I can name plenty of movies that have been successful regardless of their wide appeal to every group, but we can pick out one that is very relevant to this topic: The Passion of the Christ. Here we have an R-rated inescapably religious film that pissed off countless Christians and faiths all over the world. And as a movie that was quite directly 'pandered' to Christian audiences, I think we can remember how it fared.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

How exactly do you know they are making matters worse? We are talking about a very contained issue that has barely, if at all, gotten the notice of the mainstream.
As for your insistence that movies can only succeed by being as appealing as possible to all quadrants, I disagree completely. I can name plenty of movies that have been successful regardless of their wide appeal to every group, but we can pick out one that is very relevant to this topic: The Passion of the Christ. Here we have an R-rated inescapably religious film that pissed off countless Christians and faiths all over the world. And as a movie that was quite directly 'pandered' to Christian audiences, I think we can remember how it fared.

I watch The Young Turks. This was brought up. Crowe's campaign to get the Pope to see it has become a thing.

And you bring up Passion of the Christ, without realizing one thing. The film didn't care. It didn't feel the need to justify itself. That is why it worked from a marketing perspective.

 

[hammerhedd11]

By pandering he is referring to their refusal to show any of the stuff not in the Bible cause they are afraid to piss off the uber fundamental sola scriptura crowd. This film is loaded with the stuff even Noah's motivation isnt biblical. Aronofsky has stated that he set out to make a fantasy film first and foremost and not a Biblical film and that he was targeting fantasy fans and not religious people. Fantasy fans were his audience. Paramount is avoiding that crowd and not showing how Noah actually is in this movie at all, not showing any of the angels, or the technology that these people have that is destroyed after the flood. They seem to be afraid to show it. Instead they are marketing this like a typical bible movie with a god fearing and god loving central character who believes god has his back and that this is a fundamentalist film. That aint the film that you are going to see on screen. What they are selling in the marketing isnt the actual film.

Well I guess we have a fundamental disagreement in what is considered unfaithful. From everything I have seen, the major themes seem intact.

 

[Marvolo]

How exactly do you know they are making matters worse? We are talking about a very contained issue that has barely, if at all, gotten the notice of the mainstream.
As for your insistence that movies can only succeed by being as appealing as possible to all quadrants, I disagree completely. I can name plenty of movies that have been successful regardless of their wide appeal to every group, but we can pick out one that is very relevant to this topic: The Passion of the Christ. Here we have an R-rated inescapably religious film that pissed off countless Christians and faiths all over the world. And as a movie that was quite directly 'pandered' to Christian audiences, I think we can remember how it fared.

This film is a whole different beast from Passion of the Christ and Son of God. This film has giant stone six armed angels, saraphim , science fiction technology, a doomsday prepper Noah not a man of god Noah, a mentally unstable Noah etc.

Have you seen any of that in the trailers? Nope. But its in the film.

Well I guess we have a fundamental disagreement in what is considered unfaithful. From everything I have seen, the major themes seem intact.

And I agree. I dont consider it unfaithful to the story. Im not fundamentalist. My point is Paramount isnt actually marketing the film that is going to be on screen because they are afraid of showing what this film actually is. See above.

 

[jmc]

How exactly do you know they are making matters worse? We are talking about a very contained issue that has barely, if at all, gotten the notice of the mainstream.
As for your insistence that movies can only succeed by being as appealing as possible to all quadrants, I disagree completely. I can name plenty of movies that have been successful regardless of their wide appeal to every group, but we can pick out one that is very relevant to this topic: The Passion of the Christ. Here we have an R-rated inescapably religious film that pissed off countless Christians and faiths all over the world. And as a movie that was quite directly 'pandered' to Christian audiences, I think we can remember how it fared.

The difference here is that Passsion wasn't fantasy movie, Noah is. On top of that the budget for Noah is $130 million dollars compared to Passion being made for pocket change and so made it's money back easily. Noah can't afford to appeal to a small demographic which is why Paramount is trying to appease the crowd. They are desperate for this film not to fail and it shows.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I watch The Young Turks. This was brought up. Crowe's campaign to get the Pope to see it has become a thing.

And you bring up Passion of the Christ, without realizing one thing. The film didn't care. It didn't feel the need to justify itself. That is why it worked from a marketing perspective.

Well, I have a different experience with The Passion. I don't find it at all different in the slightest. In fact, I feel the marketing and reach of that film was much more fervent and active.
I guess at this point I will have to agree to disagree. We are not going to change each others minds on what has come down to opinion on both our ends.

 

[hammerhedd11]

The difference here is that Passsion wasn't fantasy movie, Noah is. On top of that the budget for Noah is $130 million dollars compared to Passion being made for pocket change and so made it's money back easily. Noah can't afford to appeal to a small demographic which is why Paramount is trying to appease the crowd. They are desperate for this film not to fail and it shows.

A small demographic that carried it to over 600 mil worldwide? I think Noah can afford to appeal to that demographic easily.

 

[hammerhedd11]

This film is a whole different beast from Passion of the Christ and Son of God. This film has giant stone six armed angels, saraphim , science fiction technology, a doomsday prepper Noah not a man of god Noah, a mentally unstable Noah etc.

Have you seen any of that in the trailers? Nope. But its in the film.



And I agree. I dont consider it unfaithful to the story. Im not fundamentalist. My point is Paramount isnt actually marketing the film that is going to be on screen because they are afraid of showing what this film actually is. See above.

I understand they are not marketing the stranger parts of the picture, nor do I believe that that is solely for the Christian demographics benefit.
This is a contradictory argument. On one hand you are arguing Paramount is afraid of losing the religious audience due to all the strange "sci-fi"elements suggesting that they are afraid that the film is unfaithful. Yet we agree that the themes remain intact, rendering the film pretty faithful in the long run. So why then are they "afraid of showing what this film actually is" if it is faithful to the material?

 

[jmc]

A small demographic that carried it to over 600 mil worldwide? I think Noah can afford to appeal to that demographic easily.

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

 

[Marvolo]

A small demographic that carried it to over 600 mil worldwide? I think Noah can afford to appeal to that demographic easily.

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.

 

[Marvolo]

I understand they are not marketing the stranger parts of the picture, nor do I believe that that is solely on the Christian demographics heads.
This is a contradictory argument. On one hand you are arguing Paramount is afraid of losing the religious audience due to all the strange "sci-fi"elements suggesting that they are afraid that the film is unfaithful. Yet we agree that the themes remain intact, rendering the film pretty faithful in the long run. So why then are they "afraid of showing what this film actually is" if it is faithful to the material?

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. Stuff we are discussing in here revolve around those arguments and those groups so if you havent been here or intently following this production, your lacking a lot of the context. These are the religious people they are pandering to. Not me and you. These people thay the disclaimer was created foe were a group of fundamentals who think the the film is unfaithful and Im quoting "Not an accurate retelling of history." These people think the flood happened and the film should show it in a historical light like the bible does in their mind.