|
I like the idea of someone being like "How blasphemous! How DARE they depict Noah as considering murdering a child! When like one the earliest and notable Old Testament stories is God demanding a dude kill his child to see if he acts righteously.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
Blast Fantasto posted:I like the idea of someone being like "How blasphemous! How DARE they depict Noah as considering murdering a child! Plus there was the whole, y'know, great flood that probably killed innumerable kids ~it's all god's plan~
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:Which shot? I'm pretty sure everything with the mountain was just shot on location in Iceland, and according to Matthew Libatique they didn't use green/blue screens on this production. (Not saying there weren't several shots, mostly of creatures, that felt clearly fake. Which is surprising given how jaw-dropping things like the creation sequence are. It was the scene where they were all standing looking at the mountain, which was off screen. It looked really wonky and fake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Hmm, I can't recall it. I can't understand why a shot like that would involve any compositing what-so-ever though? (Aside from the subtle stars and nebulas they added to the daylight skies, which I loved).
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Has anyone seen the David Twohy film Below which Aronofsky co-wrote and co-produced? Does it bear any noticeable marks of Aronofsky-ness/is it worth watch at all? I think he's a better director than writer, and I don't particularly like Twohy (The Chronicles of Riddick is an absolute mess) but I'm still somewhat curious about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
I don't want to dig through the heaping pile of poo poo that was the conservative forum I was reading earlier today to find it, but I literally saw someone, apparently seriously, complain that the movie was inaccurate to the Biblical account because Noah did not try to rescue as many people as possible with the ark, as a loving Christian would.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:Has anyone seen the David Twohy film Below which Aronofsky co-wrote and co-produced? Does it bear any noticeable marks of Aronofsky-ness/is it worth watch at all? I think he's a better director than writer, and I don't particularly like Twohy (The Chronicles of Riddick is an absolute mess) but I'm still somewhat curious about it. It's ok. Better than the trailers would suggest, but felt like a bog-standard film that got pushed through the "improve" filter. I didn't think it was a waste of time but you could die without seeing it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:I don't want to dig through the heaping pile of poo poo that was the conservative forum I was reading earlier today to find it, but I literally saw someone, apparently seriously, complain that the movie was inaccurate to the Biblical account because Noah did not try to rescue as many people as possible with the ark, as a loving Christian would. It's always this, but with the Bible instead Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
I got back from Noah the other night, and had a work shift that basically allowed me to mull over the movie. I had originally come out of the movie with some admiration, but I've sort of come to love it purely on the basis that Aronofsky basically made an environmentalist movie out of the Bible where the central message ends up being "If you aren't an environmentalist, God hates you".
Apples McGrind fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:It's late here (UK) so I'll do a quick summary and answer any questions tomorrow but basically; Is this a joke? This has to be a joke right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:I don't want to dig through the heaping pile of poo poo that was the conservative forum I was reading earlier today to find it, but I literally saw someone, apparently seriously, complain that the movie was inaccurate to the Biblical account because Noah did not try to rescue as many people as possible with the ark, as a loving Christian would. This is another thing from the Midrash, where Noah's lack of action is contrasted with Abraham's repeated pleas for Sodom and Gomorrah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:I don't want to dig through the heaping pile of poo poo that was the conservative forum I was reading earlier today to find it, but I literally saw someone, apparently seriously, complain that the movie was inaccurate to the Biblical account because Noah did not try to rescue as many people as possible with the ark, as a loving Christian would. When I was a kid we were always told that as just a standard part of the story. Like, Noah went around and warned everyone multiple times but they just laughed at him. I remember actually reading it once, like "wait a minute...".
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
One thing that sort of gets me about this film, and maybe it's just proof that I'm old or something, but does Emma Watson just look way too drat young? I mean like it was uncomfortable for me to see her potentially getting into sex scenes. I know she's in her twenties by now and everyone who grew up with Harry Potter spends at least an hour a week jerking off to her, but it just came off as creepy even seeing her pregnant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
You know what's creepy: bringing up your jerk-off habits in a thread about Darren Aronofsky's Noah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Maybe I'm just old enough to have never given a poo poo about Harry Potter so I have no clue what anyone sees in Emma Watson as an actress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Maybe I'm just old enough to have never given a poo poo about Harry Potter so I have no clue what anyone sees in Emma Watson as an actress. Judging solely from this film, she's awful. She does a lot of "eyebrow acting" which always reminds me of this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uxSGRNLA6o
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
In the Harry Potter movies the directors all specifically made her tone down her eyebrow acting; apparently Aronofsky didn't get the memo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Eyebrow tremulo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Maybe I'm just old enough to have never given a poo poo about Harry Potter so I have no clue what anyone sees in Emma Watson as an actress. When the first movie came out - 13 years ago? - some people thought she was the best of the main trio and her reputation grew from there. She was never that great, but she's pretty so people give her more credit than she deserves. She was much better in some scenes in this movie (and Bling Ring) than I was used to, a fact that I only noticed because there were other scenes when she resorted to doing the same tired furrowed brow of disbelief. Regardless of how old you are Harry Potter has a great story, especially the books.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
All three Potter "kids" are generally cool people.  So far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Favorite part is the flashback scene with Methuseleh managing to solo like one billion soldiers who were murderkilling all the stone angels with that badass sword that burns everything around it  . Huh, might have been useful when they were bumrushing the Ark...
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Most of the symbolism isn't from the Bible, it is from the Zohar/Kabbalah (Adam and Eve as shiny beings / the snake skin as enlightenment / angels being trapped in earthen bodies) It's isn't Bible Noah, it's Gnostic Gnoah. It's crazy how much they packed in there, and the director fooled everyone, basically. (assuming the studio would have said no to that version)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Favorite part is the flashback scene with Methuseleh managing to solo like one billion soldiers who were murderkilling all the stone angels with that badass sword that burns everything around it I was actually sort of wondering what the hell was going on with that sword. Seems like there'd be a hell of a back story to some guy just happening to have a sword that can scorch the Earth for miles around him. Especially for it to just be forgotten about completely from there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
Liar posted:I was actually sort of wondering what the hell was going on with that sword. Seems like there'd be a hell of a back story to some guy just happening to have a sword that can scorch the Earth for miles around him. Especially for it to just be forgotten about completely from there. Probably the sword of the Cherub: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_sword_(mythology)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
ZenMaster posted:the snake skin as enlightenment Aha! I didn't know that was a thing in the Kaballah. So this might sound silly, but bereft of explanation in the film, the explanation I thought was that the skin represented the knowledge of original sin, which helped guide the person away from sin. And since Noah's dad didn't get the finish the glowy finger touching thing, Noah was still a pure dude but pretty obviously totally willing to kill and do that extremist stuff Plus Winstone carries it around and is basically the personification of sin
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
ZenMaster posted:Most of the symbolism isn't from the Bible, it is from the Zohar/Kabbalah (Adam and Eve as shiny beings / the snake skin as enlightenment / angels being trapped in earthen bodies) I was a bit curious about this, so here's the article that details that whole mess. All I have to say is: wow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
And here's just one of several rebuttals to Brian Mattson's whole off-the-mark Gnostic (G)Noah thing: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2014/04/no-noah-is-not-gnostic-say-that-ten-times-fast.htmlMattson posted:The scandal is this: of all the Christian leaders who went to great lengths to endorse this movie (for whatever reasons: “it’s a conversation starter,” “at least Hollywood is doing something on the Bible,” etc.), and all of the Christian leaders who panned it for “not following the Bible”…
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
I want to watch the creation sequence over and over again until the end of time.BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:Has anyone seen the David Twohy film Below which Aronofsky co-wrote and co-produced? Does it bear any noticeable marks of Aronofsky-ness/is it worth watch at all? I think he's a better director than writer, and I don't particularly like Twohy (The Chronicles of Riddick is an absolute mess) but I'm still somewhat curious about it. I enjoyed it more than your average horror movie, and had no idea that Arnofsky co-wrote it. The movie feels a bit cheap and anachronistic, but it is well-written and has some good, unique scares (especially a certain mirror scene). Thinking back, actually, I can see how he co-opted some of the same stuff for the more cerebral Black Swan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/22/noah-film-evangelicals_n_5009259.htmlquote:...Leaders from organizations like American Bible Society, National Catholic Register, The King's College, Q Ideas, Hollywood Prayer Network, and Focus on the Family offer their opinions in the video -- and, for the most part, they are glowing.... One of these is not like the others.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
I think the remarkable thing about the movie is that everyone from Catholic priests to atheists can watch it and come away with affirmation of their beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Simplex posted:I think the remarkable thing about the movie is that everyone from Catholic priests to atheists can watch it and come away with affirmation of their beliefs. This is a big part of what I enjoyed so much about the film. My wife is a staunch atheist, while I'm a believer (though not exactly Judeo/Christian to a T) and we both loved the movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Scissorfighter posted:Theatrical spoilers: It sounds like the only thing I'd miss is Noah leaving Ham's innocent girlfriend to be trampled by the mob. It was the first moment that we're shown God's morality and man's cannot coincide. No, it's not. That moment came much earlier for me, as soon as we meet people arbitrarily doomed to die because they're descendants of Cain. Even the Old Testament is against that kind of thing - Ezekiel 18:20: The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. Apples McGrind posted:I got back from Noah the other night, and had a work shift that basically allowed me to mull over the movie. I had originally come out of the movie with some admiration, but I've sort of come to love it purely on the basis that Aronofsky basically made an environmentalist movie out of the Bible where the central message ends up being "If you aren't an environmentalist, God hates you". I'm an atheist and environmentalist, and how did the movie have an environmental message? I came out of it thinking Noah should have saved more people and killed and ate some deer if he was worried about running out of food. They had plenty of redundant ungulates.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:I'm an atheist and environmentalist, and how did the movie have an environmental message? I came out of it thinking Noah should have saved more people and killed and ate some deer if he was worried about running out of food. They had plenty of redundant ungulates. Eating meat is bad is the first obvious one. It would actually be a huge positive for the environment to get the majority of people to stop consuming meat. The other is that the decedents of Cain are wicked specifically because they strip the Earth of resources without giving a thought to sustainability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:I'm an atheist and environmentalist, and how did the movie have an environmental message? I came out of it thinking Noah should have saved more people and killed and ate some deer if he was worried about running out of food. They had plenty of redundant ungulates. The movie celebrates the beauty of animals and nature and intentionally presents meat eating as disgusting and almost like cannibalism. The Ray Winstone character is a villain who believes Man should use and destroy the Earth as he wishes as a sign of humanity's prowess. The beginning of the movie also possibly suggests that this isn't set in the past at all, but in a post-apocalyptic future after an environmental crisis devastates the planet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
Yeah, fair points. I wish there had been more exploration of Tubal-Cain trying to convince Ham to eat meat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:The movie celebrates the beauty of animals and nature and intentionally presents meat eating as disgusting and almost like cannibalism. The Ray Winstone character is a villain who believes Man should use and destroy the Earth as he wishes as a sign of humanity's prowess. There was also the oil stand in of the "Zohar" mineral. Its implied that the Cain civilization used it to power their cities but it was all running out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
So were the townspeople eating women or trading them for meat? Or both?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:The beginning of the movie also possibly suggests that this isn't set in the past at all, but in a post-apocalyptic future after an environmental crisis devastates the planet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
There's kind of a thing like that in the movie, at one point early on they show the angels working with the Cain civilization but then they're enemies and its not really explained all too well when/how they had a falling out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 04:44
|
|