"Noah"

[The Ü™]

So Darren Aronofsky is moving on to larger scale projects, and the trailer for Noah will be released tomorrow, but in the meantime, here's the poster:

One problem I have with it is why is he standing on land? Shouldn't he be on the ark?

The other problem is that Russell Crowe is in it, but I doubt he's gonna sing in this movie. Of course, he didn't sing in his last historical epic Les Miserables, so why did I get the crazy idea that he might sing in this?

And last of all, I became very interested in this movie and how Aronofsky is going to approach. I've never been that big of a fan of his work, and I especially hated Black Swan and Requiem for a Dream was funny for all the wrong reasons, but Noah might be an exception.

I remember reading articles about how the animals are going to be "slightly tweaked" versions of the real animal. Ah, here's one of them right now! So maybe there will be some actual hints of evolution in this biblical story. Sounds exciting.

But then again, this is Darren Aronofsky we're talking about, so the whole story could just as likely be about Noah going insane and hallucinating the whole thing.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, last time I read about this (a month ago?) there had been a shitfit because of course Aronofsky has far less interest in accommodating the religious audience (he's not that kind of director, he follows his own vision... often to uncomfortable and stark places), yet I'm sure the studio was focused on marketing to that very demographic. So when they ran it past the religiously affiliated, the audience had major issues with it.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/darren-aronofsky-paramount-spar-noah-648777

In recent weeks, the studio has held test screenings for key groups that might take a strong interest in the subject matter: in New York (for a largely Jewish audience), in Arizona (Christians) and in Orange County, Calif. (general public). All are said to have generated troubling reactions. But sources say Aronofsky has been resistant to Paramount's suggested changes. "Darren is not made for studio films," says a talent rep with ties to the project. "He's very dismissive. He doesn't care about [Paramount's] opinion."

Take a look at these comments:

...Some in the faith community already have expressed skepticism about the result, especially after writer Brian Godawa in October 2012 obtained a version of the Noah script and posted his summary online under the heading, "Darren Aronofsky's Noah: Environmentalist Wacko." (Aronofsky has in the past described Noah as "the first environmentalist.") Among his conclusions is that Noah will be "an uninteresting and unbiblical waste of a hundred and fifty million dollars that will ruin for decades the possibility of making a really great and entertaining movie of this Bible hero." On the other hand, Ted Baehr, whose Movieguide.org publishes reviews from a Christian perspective, holds out hope that the film will pass muster.

...Mark Joseph, who has consulted on the marketing of films including Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe and Ray, says he hasn't been to a screening of Noah but fears it is "an example of a director not listening to those voices that would have been warning of the dangers of veering too far away from the biblical text. The director is there to serve the studio and the audience, not veer off into directions that go against the core audience's beliefs -- at least if the goal is to get them to come to the theater."

I'm glad he added the last bit. Aronofsky is more an artist who happens to be a director looking for studio sponsorship, he's not a craftsman for hire to pump out marketing group product... and it should have been clear to anyone who is even faintly aware of his past movies.

Another article is here:
http://news.moviefone.com/2013/10/16/paramount-darren-aronofsky-noah/


So this isn't like "The Passion of the Christ" by Gibson or Dreamworks' "Prince of Egypt" which was pretty much written and reviewed in tandem with reps from various relevant religious faiths throughout the project (and who took a palatable audience take to the subject material), this is a guy who has his own vision for this character and general events and is putting together his own movie about it, and it might or might not toe the cultural line.

 

[The Ü™]

I would think that the more controversial a movie is, the more money it'll make, sort of analogous to trolling on an internet forum.

 

[Totenkindly]

I would think that the more controversial a movie is, the more money it'll make, sort of analogous to trolling on an internet forum.

Well, it depends. That works for moderate audiences, but the conservative religious community won't play ball, especially if their representatives screen the movie for them and say, "Don't bother, it will just piss you off and the movie is dishonoring to God." These are people who habitually dismiss and lock out products of many sorts that don't fit their religious mindset and lifestyle.

As one example, The Last Temptation of Christ is considered a decent movie to the secular/moderate crowd, but the conservative religious crowd finds little of value in it and even sees it as heretical (although they'll buy into the latest Kirk Cameron pabulum). That doesn't make them watch it, it makes them tell OTHER Christians not to watch it because "it's bad for their faith and unprofitable."

So what could have been a sell-out market (because the religious community will buy, sell, and internally market movies to their churches that they consider "good and uplifting" to an insane degree) will instead become completely locked out. At that point, Aronofsky better make a really intriguing dramatic spin on the character and story, so that the moderates and artsy crowd will buy into it.

 

[Poindexter Arachnid]

What's with the biblical epics springing up all of a sudden? This is like the superhero renaissance, only much bloodier.

Ridley Scott is doing a Moses picture starring Christian Bale, too.

Werner Herzog for Jonah and the Whale.
It isn't being made, I'm just saying it should be.

And Tarantino for Cain & Abel while I am at it.

Bible's the new craze.
Old testament, ftw.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

So this isn't like "The Passion of the Christ" by Gibson or Dreamworks' "Prince of Egypt" which was pretty much written and reviewed in tandem with reps from various relevant religious faiths throughout the project (and who took a palatable audience take to the subject material), this is a guy who has his own vision for this character and general events and is putting together his own movie about it, and it might or might not toe the cultural line.

It baffles me that the execs even considered that this wouldn't be the case. I mean, I suppose I can see how a crucifixion would fit into one of his movies, but other than that....

 

[Totenkindly]

Bible's the new craze.
Old testament, ftw.

Well, if that's the case, let's start making some requests.

you know, like Samson killing 2000 philistines with a donkey's jawbone.
Or david killing 200 philistines for their foreskins.

And then there was Ehud, the "Jason Bourne" secret agent guy of OT times... like his secret mission to kill Eglon when the fat enemy king was sitting on the crapper. He stabbed him so deeply, the rolls of fat covered up the sword and Ehud lost it. Then he scrambled out the back window and down to the ground while Eglon's servants were scared to go into the bathroom area because they thought their master didn't want to be disturbed.

And it doesn't stop there, the fun keeps on coming!

 

[Magic Poriferan]

The director, the story, the apparent style, and the lead actor, all combine to leave me terribly confused.

 

[The Ü™]

I'm curious about the fluid simulations and how they will look, as we're several years ahead of Evan Almighty, obviously, and those fluid simulations were pretty damn rockin' at the time. And I'm especially curious about the fur simulations.

 

[Poindexter Arachnid]

^Same here. Wtf?
Aronofsky should be making Wolverine movies.

Nobody wants to pay 15 bucks to watch a boat float.
And how will this story work in a germane, modern context?

If people want an entertaining disaster movie, they'll see Godzilla.

 

[The Ü™]

What's with the biblical epics springing up all of a sudden? This is like the superhero renaissance, only much bloodier.

Ridley Scott is doing a Moses picture starring Christian Bale, too.

Werner Herzog for Jonah and the Whale.
It isn't being made, I'm just saying it should be.

And Tarantino for Cain & Abel while I am at it.

Bible's the new craze.
Old testament, ftw.

Oh, a Tarantino Cain & Abel would be great. It should star John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson.

I really wish they'd make a movie out of the Book of Revelation that isn't a Left Behind movie (although Nicolas Cage is going to be in the next incarnation). I think it'd be cool if they set it in medieval times and have the anti-Christ be a woman, a femme fatale, but not Angelina Jolie, please. How about Mila Kunis instead?

 

[Poindexter Arachnid]

Oh, a Tarantino Cain & Abel would be great. It should star John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson.

I really wish they'd make a movie out of the Book of Revelation that isn't a Left Behind movie (although Nicolas Cage is going to be in the next incarnation). I think it'd be cool if they set it in medieval times and have the anti-Christ be a woman, a femme fatale, but not Angelina Jolie, please. How about Mila Kunis instead?

Can you imagine the dialogue with God after Jackson slaughters Travolta?

Ha, ha!

And Cage was the bomb in Knowing.

And why does a woman gotta be the anti-christ?
Misogyny! Mods, hurry up and ban this motherfucker!

Speaking of Anti-Christ: Ya gotta get some Lars Von Trier action up in this bitch. Not very familiar with the bible (I'm more of a magazine guy), but I can guarantee, he would knock one of those stories out of the park.

No more clit mutilation, though. That was gross.

 

[The Ü™]

It's not misogyny, it's feminism! It's giving women a shot at playing a bad-ass villain, something that's normally reserved for men!

 

[Fidelia]

I thought that the mod staff was trying to reduce hostility in the forum. Making blanket statements about a whole group of people characterizing anyone who places the Bible as a cornerstone of their faith as "Bible humpers" rather than simply objecting to their ideology is stereotyping and is hostile behavior. While mods may disagree with members' chosen belief system, it is reasonable to expect mods on this forum to treat members of the forum whose ideology differs with theirs in a fair and polite manner.

 

[Totenkindly]

I like the one about Jepthah coming home after "promising to the Lord the first thing he saw" in exchange for victory during the prior battle... and of course the first thing he sees is his daughter running across the yard to meet him.

Some suggest it just means she had to go into a convent and serve God all her days, without bearing any children. Others consider it literal [which usually means "offering by fire"] but don't seem to really consider what that means.

Disturbing movie concept:

It's rife for an "Occurrence at Owl Creek" kind of thing (or maybe "Jacob's Ladder"), where she lives her life in this temple but something keeps eating at her, her sleep is rife with terrible dreams of fire and weeping... and eventually when she expires an old woman after having achieved so much in the name of the Lord, it cuts back to when she was young and there she is, promised by her father as a burnt offering.... and she has just imagined this whole other life in the space of time it takes for the flames to reach her feet.

Okay, I feel ill now just writing that much. It just seems like a vast inconsistency to me between values and practice, and how beliefs market themselves.

 

[Poindexter Arachnid]

I thought that the mod staff was trying to reduce hostility in the forum. Making blanket statements about a whole group of people characterizing anyone who places the Bible as a cornerstone of their faith as "Bible humpers" rather than simply objecting to their ideology is stereotyping and is hostile behavior. While mods may disagree with members' chosen belief system, it is reasonable to expect mods on this forum to treat members of the forum whose ideology differs with theirs in a fair and polite manner.

Uh, oh! Now we got ourselves a conversation!
Lolz!

 

[Ivy]

Sorry [MENTION=7111]fidelia[/MENTION]. I deleted my post. I'm a Christian myself and while I don't consider the Bible inerrant I have an enormous respect for the role it has played in forming our culture and find many parts of it inspiring and beautiful. It has some horrifying stuff in it, though, and I just wonder what the folks who are protesting this movie would really think about an actual literal biblical interpretation, especially when each of those groups has their own unacknowledged assumptions and agendas superimposed over what's literally there. I grew up in a "the Bible is the literal inerrant word of God" church where the existence and subjugation of black people was explained and justified by the passage where Noah's son sees him naked. This is still a common belief in many churches. I can't lie, I don't have a lot of respect for that point of view.

 

[Rasofy]

 

[Poindexter Arachnid]

...wtf?

 

[The Ü™]

Damn, you beat me to it.

I'll critique the trailer when I'm not watching it on my phone.