I remember reading an article about pre-screenings and people getting up and walking out of the theater. Apparently the films makes some big breaks from the traditional story and obviously the assumed target audience wasn't pleased.
Can't say I saw any of that in the trailer though. I do find Russel Crowe as Noah a little weird XD. Will we be getting a speech about freedom and idealism before the big battle
Not sold on the cast, seems to be a lot of big names for no good reason.
I had the same problem after seeing the trailer. The movie just looks too Hollywood-ish with Crowe and Watson running around. I think I would have preferred unknown actors in order to further suspend my disbelief.
How the hell does one guy get two of every land based animal aboard a wooden box when tidal waves of such size and strength would level it in like 2 or so mins.
Wait, how do they feed the animals?
Wait, how do they dispose of the waste?
Wouldn't they just eat each other?
See, if this was a move about Noah's ark in a realistic style, where only the carnivores are left in a desperate battle for survival inside a rapidly sinking wooden box, then I'd be interested.
See, if this was a move about Noah's ark in a realistic style, where only the carnivores are left in a desperate battle for survival inside a rapidly sinking wooden box, then I'd be interested.
See, if this was a move about Noah's ark in a realistic style, where only the carnivores are left in a desperate battle for survival inside a rapidly sinking wooden box, then I'd be interested.
Imposter101 wrote:How the hell does one guy get two of every land based animal aboard a wooden box when tidal waves of such size and strength would level it in like 2 or so mins.
I imagine they made it to be sturdy more than anything, and they get the animals in it before the waves of that size come around, not after.
Imposter101 wrote:Wait, how do they feed the animals?
Wait, how do they dispose of the waste?
I suppose one would have to see the movie to see how they answer those questions. It is just a trailer and not a documentary after all.
Imposter101 wrote:Wouldn't they just eat each other?
I imagine whatever drives them to the ark peacefully (hint: it's god) as shown in the trailer would also be able to control the animals beyond just asking them to walk there.
Imposter101 wrote:See, if this was a move about Noah's ark in a realistic style, where only the carnivores are left in a desperate battle for survival inside a rapidly sinking wooden box, then I'd be interested.
That actually sounds wholly uninteresting. Darren Aronofsky doesn't have a track record of hacky movies, and when Crowe wants to be he can be incredibly good.
How the hell does one guy get two of every land based animal aboard a wooden box when tidal waves of such size and strength would level it in like 2 or so mins.
Estimated Divine Beer math and lots of ropes....lots of ropes and sinew. Wondering who the poor SoB was to clean out the stalls.....or man the bilge pumps..well bucket brigade at the tie...
Seaward wrote: I have my doubts about that craft's seaworthiness.
Yeah, just look at 2.14. Not only does the water line seems awfully high, but that ship is so long, it spans the lenght of 3 pretty mean-looking waves. I'm thinking a boat that size, in those materials, would break pretty easily from going over one of those monsters.
Edit: Also, what is the name of those pyramid waves you get a lot around Cape Horn? It's been bugging me for a while now...
Not sold on the cast, seems to be a lot of big names for no good reason.
I had the same problem after seeing the trailer. The movie just looks too Hollywood-ish with Crowe and Watson running around. I think I would have preferred unknown actors in order to further suspend my disbelief.
It's just a result of recent low(er) budget biblical based movies doing quite well in theaters due to the Christian crowd wanting to see wholesome Bible or Christian value based movies.
Now Hollywood is just trying to cash in on this by making these kind of movies themselves and throwing big names into the mix.
Of course it is easier to make profit on a biblical movie when it's low budget and handled by a small studio/director that can keep control of the subject. I have my reservations about big studios getting their hands into the mix and changing things around.
This is a movie about an all-powerful being destroying all (non-aquatic) life on the entire planet. It is the original, and ultimate disaster movie. The only thing that surprises me is that it took so long for someone to make a big budget version of it.
Not sure why it needs all this seemingly extra stuff with kings and battles though. Two hours of the world being destroyed by the fiery hand of God with occasional cuts to Russel Crowe looking grim and stalwart would make it better than Deep Impact, 2012, The Day After Tomorrow, and Armageddon combined.
I think the trailer looked pretty interesting.. and I wonder if it is not the subject matter that is what creates all the animosity for it.
I'll probably rent it when it comes out on Blu-Ray (As I can't get to the theatre with the kid and all). Looks to be a better telling then John Voight's outing in the TV version.
If they keep these up, I'd be interested to see David and Goliath, or even a Moses re-make.
Even if you don't believe in the stories within the Bible, I think they could make some solid films. Thanks for posting it up Ahtman... been waiting to see the trailer for this.
See, if this was a move about Noah's ark in a realistic style, where only the carnivores are left in a desperate battle for survival inside a rapidly sinking wooden box, then I'd be interested.
Yeah, I saw the movie (thanks for the link by the way! Looks interesting!), I meant if you ignore the fact that it's so open to interpretation and look at it more as someone trying to survive on a boat with a tiger, it's kind of like that.
About the movie though, yeah, I have a bad feeling about this one too but then again, if it really is bad, it would be fun to laugh about it right?
Well I'm thinking if you're building something on orders of the guy who made planet, you're going to get cut a little slack in the engineering department. Yes that rickety boat is gong to hold together Dorothy, now quit your yappin and have over the shoes!
See, if this was a move about Noah's ark in a realistic style, where only the carnivores are left in a desperate battle for survival inside a rapidly sinking wooden box, then I'd be interested.
Life of Pi was all Fluff and no substance. It was just BLEGH. It had a stupid premise, with a stupider ending. "You can believe this obviously fake story, or the more realistic one, Whichever makes you feel good"
See, if this was a move about Noah's ark in a realistic style, where only the carnivores are left in a desperate battle for survival inside a rapidly sinking wooden box, then I'd be interested.
Life of Pi was all Fluff and no substance. It was just BLEGH. It had a stupid premise, with a stupider ending. "You can believe this obviously fake story, or the more realistic one, Whichever makes you feel good"
How about no? Did you even read the link I posted?
I understand what it was about, that fiction is better then reality. But the way they do it, with is heavy handed approach and lame boring and sometimes hate able main character made the message seem week and just plain stupid.
Looks pretty megacrap tbh. I've got a bit of a track record of saying every trailer looks gash on this forum so i will not buck the trend. Also personally i never felt like i got a look at the Ark itself in the trailer, despite it being in most of the shots, this ain't a monster movie, show us the gosh darn boat!
Gotta love another sweaty Ray Winstone performance, 'Jonesey! Give us the gold.... I mean Ark...'
I think Man of Steel is the only trailer that's got me excited, the movie didn't wholly deliver unfortunately. Although unlike the rest of the internet i still thought it was good.
Isn't Darren Aronofsky an atheist? This could make for a pretty interesting movie, depending on the directions he could take it in. For all we know, the trailer might have just been the studio attempting to appeal to the bible crowd.
Fafnir wrote: Isn't Darren Aronofsky an atheist? This could make for a pretty interesting movie, depending on the directions he could take it in. For all we know, the trailer might have just been the studio attempting to appeal to the bible crowd.
Yeah i was a bit shocked at this being an Aronofsky joint. When i was initially watching the trailer i was like ' Gee wiz, which Hack is directing this?'. I was more than a little shocked to see his name.
Fafnir wrote: Isn't Darren Aronofsky an atheist? This could make for a pretty interesting movie, depending on the directions he could take it in. For all we know, the trailer might have just been the studio attempting to appeal to the bible crowd.
He may be, but he'd still know the value in story-telling. Even if you don't believe in Jehovah, he's a pretty important driving part of telling that particular story.
Otherwise it's just a story about a delusional man who's absolutely correct through the most unlikely coincidence known to man.
Fafnir wrote: Isn't Darren Aronofsky an atheist? This could make for a pretty interesting movie, depending on the directions he could take it in. For all we know, the trailer might have just been the studio attempting to appeal to the bible crowd.
Yeah i was a bit shocked at this being an Aronofsky joint. When i was initially watching the trailer i was like ' Gee wiz, which Hack is directing this?'. I was more than a little shocked to see his name.
It shouldn't be that much of a shock, since he has been pretty vocal about doing this project for quite some time, long before it got greenlit. He was a Social Anthropology major at Harvard and flood stories are anthropologists bread and butter. Well, maybe not, but they are fairly universal, and you don't have to be Jewish or Christian to appreciate the Noah story.
Ok, so apparently, this is including stuff left out from the sanitized western bible. Including but not limited tooo
Sex with angels, the offspring of sex with angel. The biblical representaion of angels, and alot of really disturbing stuff
Considering that most people don't actually know that angels are definitely not like anything seen in the classical paintings, that's likely going to be the case.
I wouldn't be surprised if most Christians didn't know that their angels looked closer to eldritch horrors than actual people.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, so apparently, this is including stuff left out from the sanitized western bible. Including but not limited tooo Sex with angels, the offspring of sex with angel. The biblical representaion of angels, and alot of really disturbing stuff
Genesis 6:4: The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
You know, if you are going to say that stuff isn't in the what you call "sanitized western bible" you should probably spend the 10 minutes reading the couple of chapters that deal with the time leading up to Noah to make sure you know what you are talking about
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, so apparently, this is including stuff left out from the sanitized western bible. Including but not limited tooo Sex with angels, the offspring of sex with angel. The biblical representaion of angels, and alot of really disturbing stuff
Genesis 6:4: The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
You know, if you are going to say that stuff isn't in the what you call "sanitized western bible" you should probably spend the 10 minutes reading the couple of chapters that deal with the time leading up to Noah to make sure you know what you are talking about
He's likely referencing the material from the Book of Enoch. Though saying it was 'sanitized' from the Western Bible is pretty incorrect. A lot of old Jewish texts were largely unknown to the early Christian Chruch (and too most Jews for that matter).
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, so apparently, this is including stuff left out from the sanitized western bible. Including but not limited tooo Sex with angels, the offspring of sex with angel. The biblical representaion of angels, and alot of really disturbing stuff
Genesis 6:4: The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
You know, if you are going to say that stuff isn't in the what you call "sanitized western bible" you should probably spend the 10 minutes reading the couple of chapters that deal with the time leading up to Noah to make sure you know what you are talking about
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, so apparently, this is including stuff left out from the sanitized western bible. Including but not limited tooo Sex with angels, the offspring of sex with angel. The biblical representaion of angels, and alot of really disturbing stuff
Genesis 6:4: The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
You know, if you are going to say that stuff isn't in the what you call "sanitized western bible" you should probably spend the 10 minutes reading the couple of chapters that deal with the time leading up to Noah to make sure you know what you are talking about
He's likely referencing the material from the Book of Enoch. Though saying it was 'sanitized' from the Western Bible is pretty incorrect. A lot of old Jewish texts were largely unknown to the early Christian Chruch (and too most Jews for that matter).
So, the Gladiator and Hermoine build a boat for a PETA rescue, then the Wrestler shows up and tries to take it. Then Thor's dad shows up drunk and starts throwing lightning bolts around, breaking a nearby damn and flooding the town.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: As a good christian, I will wait to see if Sarah Palin and Fox News endorse or damn this before deciding if I allow my children to see it.
It is good to see Emma Watson trying to shake off the satanic energies she gathered about her making the Potter movies.
Dinosaurs wrongly sided with Ray Winstone in the books, which is why they were destroyed in the Battle for The Ark.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, so apparently, this is including stuff left out from the sanitized western bible. Including but not limited tooo
Sex with angels, the offspring of sex with angel. The biblical representaion of angels, and alot of really disturbing stuff
Sanitized? Read Genesis 34 sometime. Rape, self mutilation, and Genicide, and that's in just one chapter.
Fafnir wrote: Isn't Darren Aronofsky an atheist? This could make for a pretty interesting movie, depending on the directions he could take it in. For all we know, the trailer might have just been the studio attempting to appeal to the bible crowd.
Yeah i was a bit shocked at this being an Aronofsky joint. When i was initially watching the trailer i was like ' Gee wiz, which Hack is directing this?'. I was more than a little shocked to see his name.
It shouldn't be that much of a shock, since he has been pretty vocal about doing this project for quite some time, long before it got greenlit. He was a Social Anthropology major at Harvard and flood stories are anthropologists bread and butter. Well, maybe not, but they are fairly universal, and you don't have to be Jewish or Christian to appreciate the Noah story.
Gee, sorry...... Darren Aronofsky. I'll pay more attention to your blog posts in future. (or maybe read the 'Darren Aronofsky' wikipedia page, amirite? )
Sorry duder you're kinda jumping the gun here, i saw that Requiem film and i saw the Fountain, once apiece, they were relatively neato. I went into this trailer blind, it looked like the sequel to 10,000bc. 'Nuff said.
Gee, sorry...... Darren Aronofsky. I'll pay more attention to your blog posts in future. (or maybe read the 'Darren Aronofsky' wikipedia page, amirite? )
So on a forum where people debate endlessly about Dan Abnett and Matt Ward it is suddenly strange for someone to keep up on interesting figures in one's field of interest? One doesn't have to obsess over a persons work to come across information and retain it.
I have a feeling that the movie is either going to be incredibly engaging take on the subject or a train wreck of epic proportions, either way it will be worth seeing.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well, I mean the stuff people ten to ignore. Like this little gem
Actually, the amorphous flurry of wings look a lot more interesting. Weird. But interesting. Why did nobody teach me this in church?!
Hmmmm, i think some people need to think more carefully about what's Bible canon and what's not.
This post above is a prime example, what you've posted is a piece of traditional Icon painting, of likely Balkan origin, (the Balkans weren't big in Abrahamics when the old testament was written ). Icon painting is identifiable by it's cultural and indeed pagan influences, also this was most likely painted less than a millennium ago, making it rather younger than the old testament. Pagan and Culturally influenced Paintings, painted long after the bible was written aren't the bible. EDIT: I cheated and wiki'd it, those are Saints in that picture dude, not old testament angels .
Very little of the cool christian imagery that we think of is described in the bible (especially the old testament, which is what we're talking about here).
For example. At one point early on there's a pretty gnarly looking talking snake that tempts Eve. Later on some other bible dude, i think Job, meets 'one who tests' or 'a tempter', these entities are never directly said to be the same thing nor described in any real detail whatsoever, the snake's just a snake and the Tempter is male and presumably not remarkable enough to be worth describing. Yet from these things and a couple more detailed dialogues in the new testament, Again no physical descriptions and IIRC no direct links: We get Satan, we get a red (he was originally blue) dude with horns and Goat legs. The devil is a hodgepodge of who-knows-what (well i mostly do know) and none of that Hodgepodge was in the bible.
EDITED for dignity It turns out the same logic and facts do not apply to Angels, the Apocryphal ridiculousness of the book of Revelations, the crazy descriptions of Angels in the Koran and the multiple translations of the bible DO NOT mean they aren't based on the Hebrew Old testament like i thought. Whoops. That's The last time i try to defend the Old testament
Angels are pretty crazy looking in the Bible. If I remember correctly, the Cherubim are described as having cow feet, four faces (human, lion, eagle, and ox) four wings, and an arm under each wing. Seraphim are described as flaming serpents that hide their bodies with their wings. The Thrones are giant rings of eyes. Angels are pretty gnarly.
Frankly, what angels look like is irrelevant to any Christian. It doesn't really matter which is why their descriptions don't get much attention.
LordofHats wrote: Angels are pretty crazy looking in the Bible. If I remember correctly, the Cherubim are described as having cow feet, four faces (human, lion, eagle, and ox) four wings, and an arm under each wing. Seraphim are described as flaming serpents that hide their bodies with their wings. The Thrones are giant rings of eyes. Angels are pretty gnarly.
Frankly, what angels look like is irrelevant to any Christian. It doesn't really matter which is why their descriptions don't get much attention.
Alot of those attributes are those of Islamic 'Angels', the 'Giant ring of eyes' is definitely from the Koran, i guarantee it (I actually think that's the specific one that talks to the Koran's interpretation of Mary coincidentally). The Koran is way cooler when it comes to describing stuff. A couple of those are from the book of revelations as well, i think, which is wholly Apocryphal.
LordofHats wrote: Angels are pretty crazy looking in the Bible. If I remember correctly, the Cherubim are described as having cow feet, four faces (human, lion, eagle, and ox) four wings, and an arm under each wing. Seraphim are described as flaming serpents that hide their bodies with their wings. The Thrones are giant rings of eyes. Angels are pretty gnarly.
Frankly, what angels look like is irrelevant to any Christian. It doesn't really matter which is why their descriptions don't get much attention.
Alot of those attributes are those of Islamic 'Angels', the 'Giant ring of eyes' is definitely from the Koran, i guarantee it (I actually think that's the specific one that talks to the Koran's interpretation of Mary coincidentally). The Koran is way cooler when it comes to describing stuff. A couple of those are from the book of revelations as well, i think, which is wholly Apocryphal.
The Cherubim are described in Ezekiel 10:6-10;
When the Lord commanded the man in linen, “Take fire from among the wheels, from among the cherubim,” the man went in and stood beside a wheel. 7 Then one of the cherubim reached out his hand to the fire that was among them. He took up some of it and put it into the hands of the man in linen, who took it and went out. 8 (Under the wings of the cherubim could be seen what looked like human hands.)
9 I looked, and I saw beside the cherubim four wheels, one beside each of the cherubim; the wheels sparkled like topaz. 10 As for their appearance, the four of them looked alike; each was like a wheel intersecting a wheel.
And 11-14;
11 As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the cherubim faced; the wheels did not turn about[b] as the cherubim went. The cherubim went in whatever direction the head faced, without turning as they went. 12 Their entire bodies, including their backs, their hands and their wings, were completely full of eyes, as were their four wheels. 13 I heard the wheels being called “the whirling wheels.” 14 Each of the cherubim had four faces: One face was that of a cherub, the second the face of a human being, the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.
Seraphim are described in Isaiah 6:3-4;
Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another:
The Koran took a lot of their stuff from Kabbalistic literature in terms of their version of Genesis and the Angels, so its not really theirs. I apparently confused the Thrones with the Oraphim, who are mostly described in Enoch which isn't cannon (though early Chruch Fathers were aware of Kabbalistic literature somewhat so that these descriptions entered into their artwork shouldn't be too shocking). And of course the Jews took a lot of this stuff from surrounding cultures themselves. Seraphim are very similar in description to the guardian spirits, the Ahuras.
Well turns out angels are pretty zany, my recollection of the wheels certainly wasn't quite so bizarre. This is why i've never even touched the old testament.
Certain zaniness did creep it's way in when the Romans got their hands on the Bible, but alas for me this was mostly devil nonsense about Lucifer. The angel stuff's probably original.
I guess i always get into a futz when people talk about the devil, who's not really in the bible at all.
Perkustin wrote: Well turns out angels are pretty zany, my recollection of the wheels certainly wasn't quite so bizarre. This is why i've never even touched the old testament.
Certain zaniness did creep it's way in when the Romans got their hands on the Bible, but alas for me this was mostly devil nonsense about Lucifer. The angel stuff's probably original.
I guess i always get into a futz when people talk about the devil, who's not really in the bible at all.
Most of our modern conceptions of the devil were transfered into western Christendom from the Muslims during the Crusading era (with a healthy does of John Milton and Dante) so you're right on that part
The trailer exists to showcase two of those I personally care for neither.
Reviews come later (granted I'll probably go see the movie cause articles about it I've read have me interested but mostly I'm interested in why a target demographic got up and left the theater in a pre-screening).
Meh, I can't even remember the last time I've gotten excited by a trailer with the exception of The World's End which if I remember right was actually a movie with a bad trailer but finding out it was the same guys behind Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz made me excited (it was great film too). I
think the reason I don't care much for trailers is they obviously can't give you enough screen time and info (or sometimes too much info) to become emotionally invested in the movie.
World's End was alright, it was more interesting from the point of view that the roles had been reversed and Nick Frost is the saner one. I thought Paul was a lot better.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well, I mean the stuff people ten to ignore. Like this little gem
You mean the picture that is based on a description in Ezekiel, one of the books that is present and completely non-sanitized in the western Bible?
Ezekiel 1 wrote:5 Within it there were figures resembling four living beings. And this was their appearance: they had human form. 6 Each of them had four faces and four wings. 7 Their legs were straight and their feet were like a calf’s hoof, and they gleamed like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides were human hands. As for the faces and wings of the four of them, 9 their wings touched one another; their faces did not turn when they moved, each went straight forward. 10 As for the form of their faces, each had the face of a man; all four had the face of a lion on the right and the face of a bull on the left, and all four had the face of an eagle. 11 Such were their faces.
If you can find me a sanitized western Bible that cuts out Ezekiel I will concede your point I guess, but so far you have just given examples of "stuff that isn't in the sanitized western Bible" and provided us with stuff that is actually in the western Bible.
In non direct Biblical application that picture is also a widely used depiction of the 4 writers of the Gospel. They are often depicted as these four creatures and also often combined to singify the written Gospel as a whole. It's a picture that you can often find somewhere in western Churches, especially the non-evangelical ones.
I can tell that you are trying really hard to establish some sort of "OMG, Christians don't even know stuff!" cred here, but maybe you should leave it to people that are actually good at it
We know the dinosaurs didn't fit, so that's why they are all extinct at the same time...
Actually my wife was given quite a large pamphlet of information that described things exactly that way, in all seriousness. It was a funny as it was creepy!
I can tell that you are trying really hard to establish some sort of "OMG, Christians don't even know stuff!" cred here, but maybe you should leave it to people that are actually good at it
No I am not. I am christian myself. What I am saying is that this movie will vary wildly wildly from most people interpretation of Noahs story. And that many people who go see it will not like its depictions of many of the events, prescreenings seemed to show that
hotsauceman1 wrote: No I am not. I am christian myself. What I am saying is that this movie will vary wildly wildly from most people interpretation of Noahs story. And that many people who go see it will not like its depictions of many of the events, prescreenings seemed to show that
Which has nothing to do with your initial statement of "the sanitized western bible doesn't have angels having sex with humans".
"It isn't in the Bible" and "people don't interpret things that way" are two completely different arguments.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Sigh, I was giving that image as the point that many people do not think of the image when they think of angels
Your initial argument was "stuff is not in the bible". But it is. So your argument that there is such a thing as a "sanitized western bible" was invalid.
Then you posted a picture of a very specific being, the tetramorph, saying "people ten to ignore" it. I gave examples of how it is very prominent in the book of Ezekiel and that the Tetramorph is actually a very common symbol still being used in Christianity to symbolize the 4 Evangelists and is still a common theme in Christian art.
Now you are saying that people don't think of a tetramorph when they think of Angels. Now you can argue if a tetramorph is a typical representation of an average angel or if it is a symbolic representation of something else specifically, but that is neither here nor there. But it is the third distinct argument that you have made.
We have gone from "stuff isn't in the bible" to "people ignore the tetramorph" to "people don't think of the tetramorph when they think of angels". Not a very coherent or valid chain of arguments you are presenting here.
Im not going to be drawn into another argument with people who refuse to understand what im saying. Also To those saying that they think the movie looks like crap just from the trailers......Quite a bit of people thought The Green Lantern was good from the trailers. Wait for reviews IMO
Or you could try to improve your communication skills so you wouldn't have to spend so much time trying to get people to understand what you're saying.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: Or you could try to improve your communication skills so you wouldn't have to spend so much time trying to get people to understand what you're saying.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: Or you could try to improve your communication skills so you wouldn't have to spend so much time trying to get people to understand what you're saying.
~Tim?
He's dyslexic, how dare you say that.
I don't think dyslexia has an impact on your ability to make a coherent argument...
Someone pointed out that there have been a few successful Bible based films out lately. I got to say that the ones I saw like the history channel one called "The Bible". I really didn't think it was really that good.(I'm speaking purely from a quality/technical aspect).
My opinion, the gold standard that any "Bible" based movie should be compared to is John Huston's "The Bible".
Also one of the major aspects about the Noah story that I didn't see anyone mention here, is that Noah is regarded as one of the "heroes" of faith as described by Paul in the book of Hebrews.
The point being that despite it never rained before, (according to the Bible it didn't rain until the flood) a man heard from God and built a vessel purely on Faith. I think this movie will deal with the challenges faced by someone going through a situation where no one believes him, yet he presses on anyway.
Ahtman, thanks for sharing I had no idea this film was being made. I look forward to it.
By the way...you can fit a lot more animals on a ship, when they are in eggs, or are newborns. Also you don't have to bring every species, for examples for dog's...you just bring a couple of wolf pups.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: Or you could try to improve your communication skills so you wouldn't have to spend so much time trying to get people to understand what you're saying.
~Tim?
He's dyslexic, how dare you say that.
I don't think dyslexia has an impact on your ability to make a coherent argument...
Well, it does in the sense that having bad grammar and spelling (which it seems a lot of dyslexics have trouble with) can effect the coherency of an argument, but that's beside the point I was just being insincerely self-righteous and I too at at times find hotsauceman's hard to read.
I really don't know what to make of this. The trailer didn't look great, with Crowe and Hopkins saying all the normal kinds of things people say in cliche big budget movies, but on the other hand the visuals looked good and Aronofsky has a really solid track record, including a couple of films that tackle religion and meta-physics in some really interesting ways.
Also, has Crowe been good in anything since he got middle aged and a little pudgy? His intense, brooding acting worked when he was a fit muscular guy, but now that he seems... more comfortable... it doesn't seem to work well at all.
Fafnir wrote: Isn't Darren Aronofsky an atheist? This could make for a pretty interesting movie, depending on the directions he could take it in. For all we know, the trailer might have just been the studio attempting to appeal to the bible crowd.
Is he an atheist? That's pretty interesting, as he's made two films with really interesting religion themes, Pi and The Fountain. Not traditional religious themes by any means, but stuff it'd be pretty strange for a person to tackle if they had no religious belief at all.
sebster wrote: I really don't know what to make of this. The trailer didn't look great, with Crowe and Hopkins saying all the normal kinds of things people say in cliche big budget movies, but on the other hand the visuals looked good and Aronofsky has a really solid track record, including a couple of films that tackle religion and meta-physics in some really interesting ways.
Also, has Crowe been good in anything since he got middle aged and a little pudgy? His intense, brooding acting worked when he was a fit muscular guy, but now that he seems... more comfortable... it doesn't seem to work well at all.
Fafnir wrote: Isn't Darren Aronofsky an atheist? This could make for a pretty interesting movie, depending on the directions he could take it in. For all we know, the trailer might have just been the studio attempting to appeal to the bible crowd.
Is he an atheist? That's pretty interesting, as he's made two films with really interesting religion themes, Pi and The Fountain. Not traditional religious themes by any means, but stuff it'd be pretty strange for a person to tackle if they had no religious belief at all.
I love the fountain. And it's soundtrack.
Also, Heston in the Ten Commandments is pretty decent as well.
And despite what it is, Passion isn't a bad movie. I don't know if it's great, but it isn't bad.
And I'm also a sucker for Prince of Egypt, but then again I love the animation in it.
Relapse wrote: Where do you get that he was an alcoholic? That he had a blowout after everything that happened?
And Noah the husbandman began, and planted a vineyard.
And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him.
And he said: Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
We'll probably have to wait for the director's cut to see Russel Crowe naked, passed out drunk in a tent.
Fafnir wrote: Isn't Darren Aronofsky an atheist? This could make for a pretty interesting movie, depending on the directions he could take it in. For all we know, the trailer might have just been the studio attempting to appeal to the bible crowd.
Is he an atheist? That's pretty interesting, as he's made two films with really interesting religion themes, Pi and The Fountain. Not traditional religious themes by any means, but stuff it'd be pretty strange for a person to tackle if they had no religious belief at all.
Pretty much everything I've seen and heard regarding the subject states that he's an atheist.
Keep in mind that atheism only means a lack of belief in a deity. There are people who can be religious or spiritual atheists. Also note that you don't have to believe a religious story just to find it interesting and imaginative.
The Fountain is one of my absolute favourite movies, and none of his other works have failed to disappoint yet either, so I'll keep faith in this project for now.
It took me a second viewing to really love The Fountain. First time around it was just a little too out there, second time around I just . And yeah, the soundtrack brings a lot to that movie, but most Aranofsky do. Gotta love some Sigur Ros.
And despite what it is, Passion isn't a bad movie. I don't know if it's great, but it isn't bad.
It wasn't an easy film for me to sit through, as his world view and mine are just miles apart. I found Gibson's misanthropy really distancing. But that doesn't make his film bad.... in fact far from it. I thought the film was a pretty terrific explanation of the way he saw the world and his faith, and in that sense I'd say it's a pretty good piece of art.
It took me a second viewing to really love The Fountain. First time around it was just a little too out there, second time around I just . And yeah, the soundtrack brings a lot to that movie, but most Aranofsky do. Gotta love some Sigur Ros.
Similar case here, as well. First time around, I didn't really get into it. A few years later, I watched it just because I remembered the soundtrack (which was by Clint Mansel, who's also worked on a lot of Aranofsky's other films, not Sigur Ros). It turned out being one of my absolute favourite films, and I've seen it many times after that.
I think i will stick with Perfect Storm for my "movies about a boat and big waves". I mean i lile a good fantasy story but prefer there to be at least a little plausability...
It took me a second viewing to really love The Fountain. First time around it was just a little too out there, second time around I just . And yeah, the soundtrack brings a lot to that movie, but most Aranofsky do. Gotta love some Sigur Ros.
You can't imagine how good it is hearing a fellow Dakkaite talk about Sigur Ros. Love those guys. They really are masters of their craft.
Is he an atheist? That's pretty interesting, as he's made two films with really interesting religion themes, Pi and The Fountain. Not traditional religious themes by any means, but stuff it'd be pretty strange for a person to tackle if they had no religious belief at all.
Is he an atheist? That's pretty interesting, as he's made two films with really interesting religion themes, Pi and The Fountain. Not traditional religious themes by any means, but stuff it'd be pretty strange for a person to tackle if they had no religious belief at all.
Rourke's character gives everything to Wrestling. It is his craft, his identity; he is a wrestler. He sacrifices himself in the name of that identity; hard to get more religious than that.
dogma wrote: Rourke's character gives everything to Wrestling. It is his craft, his identity; he is a wrestler. He sacrifices himself in the name of that identity; hard to get more religious than that.
I see! So fething isn't just a hobby for me. It's my religion!
dogma wrote: Rourke's character gives everything to Wrestling. It is his craft, his identity; he is a wrestler. He sacrifices himself in the name of that identity; hard to get more religious than that.
Oh, OK makes sense I guess but wouldn't that mean that any story about a character becoming so dedicated to their craft to the point of harming themselves psychologically, medically and emotionally would have religious implications based on that criteria?
dogma wrote: Rourke's character gives everything to Wrestling. It is his craft, his identity; he is a wrestler. He sacrifices himself in the name of that identity; hard to get more religious than that.
Same with Black Swan. And in a way, Requiem for a Dream too.
It's almost as if all his movies are about characters who end up sacrificing a great deal of their lives and the world around them in the pursuit of some extremely dedicated, almost religious, ideal or desire.
Although as far as tracks Clint Mansell has done for Aronofsky films, "Death is the Road to Awe" from The Fountain is his best, even if not as widespread.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: Or you could try to improve your communication skills so you wouldn't have to spend so much time trying to get people to understand what you're saying.
~Tim?
I just want to jump in here and say that I got what he was saying. At least I think he did.
By "sanitized western bible" I assume he meant the fit-for-public-consumption blonde Jesus/baby cherubs/Charleton Heston/loving God/Easter Bunny pop culture gloss that many Christians seem to pick up and often think is accurate because they never finish reading the bible.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, so apparently, this is including stuff left out from the sanitized western bible. Including but not limited tooo
Sex with angels, the offspring of sex with angel. The biblical representaion of angels, and alot of really disturbing stuff
Eating human-angel fetuses with ketchup, for breakfast ?
You can hardly get more disturbing than that. I mean, who could ever want to eat that for breakfast ?
Relapse wrote: Sanitized? Read Genesis 34 sometime. Rape, self mutilation, and Genicide, and that's in just one chapter.
Precisely. If rape, self-mutilation and genocide made it into the sanitized version, what do you expect from the full version ?
Perkustin wrote: Alot of those attributes are those of Islamic 'Angels', the 'Giant ring of eyes' is definitely from the Koran, i guarantee it
Reference please. For giggles and requoting.
[edit]Oh, sorry, necroposted. I came here following a link in a sig, and I stupidly forgot to check the time.[/edit]
Okay, this is the first I've seen the trailer for this. So, they're turning the Noah's Ark story into a fantasy epic? Why was Noah wearing armor and wielding a flaming sword in there? Where was that part in the original story?
Just once, I'd like to see someone do a big budget spectacle version of one of the Bible stories, but make it as absolutely out-there as possible. Like, I want a live action movie version of Project ARMS' rendition of Noah's Ark where it was actually a disguised alien spacecraft TARDIS-like ship where various life forms were genetically engineered and created.
Interestingly, the guy who found the Titanic is looking for evidence of a Great Flood in the Black Sea. There is evidence of such occurring there, which supports flood myths in a variety of religions in the region.
I personally care for neither.
