Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am...not entertained... by this trailer.

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.

 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.

Thank you for this glorious sig.

 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.

Well, I mean the stuff people ten to ignore. Like this little gem

 Ahtman wrote:

 Perkustin wrote:

 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.

 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?!

 Perkustin wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

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.

I want to know if they are going to explain how they got so many animals from all over the world into a boat.

I am also curious if they will cover noah's descent into alcoholism. (Scratch that I miss remembered.)

 carlos13th wrote:
I want to know if they are going to explain how they got so many animals from all over the world into a boat.

I am also curious if they will cover noah's descent into alcoholism.

Where do you get that he was an alcoholic? That he had a blowout after everything that happened?

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 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

Yeah I think I misremembered that actually. My mistake.

He just got drunk and naked, it wasn't an on going thing.

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.

 Perkustin wrote:

 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

I hope people aren't basing their entire opinion on a movie solely by it's trailer.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I hope people aren't basing their entire opinion on a movie solely by it's trailer.

We do it all the time. Trailers turn us off a film, get us interested. Sort of why they exist

 Cheesecat wrote:
I hope people aren't basing their entire opinion on a movie solely by it's trailer.

It certainly doesn't make me want see the film. I think it's perfectly fair to say 'this looks(like it will be) megacrap' from the trailer alone.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I hope people aren't basing their entire opinion on a movie solely by it's trailer.

We do it all the time. Trailers turn us off a film, get us interested. Sort of why they exist

You don't look at reviews, the casting, the director, etc as well?

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!

 d-usa wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:


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.

Sigh, I was giving that image as the point that many people do not think of the image when they think of angels

 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.