Check Out The Most Talked-About Scene From Noah

[El Comandante]

Hah, scientifically accurate? At 1:38 when the Fish jumps out of the water, one can see pterosaurians in the sky. That is not how evolution happend, when I last checked it. Also every germanic pagen knows men where made out of dead wood washed ashore ;-) .

 

[Baresark]

It was a very well done scene from a movie that I hear was well done. It's creationism as a metaphor for biology and cosmology. I think it was only controversial at the beginning. Once there was mention of cosmology and biology (part of which was visually represented in this scene), the Atheists had nothing to whine about. And as soon as it was scene to be a fantastical version of a biblical story that was clearly not directly lifted from the old or new testament, the Christian's had nothing to whine about. Sounds like Aronofsky did a great job to me, especially as it was intentionally shot and written in such a way that it's timeless and not from any particular depiction of past or future.

 

[Vareoth]

One would think that everyone can understand that if God is real and truly omnipotent then a single day as we know it is nothing but the blink of an eye to him. It would sound a bit more believable then to think the entire planet was created in 168 hours. To say God would be constrained by time goes completely against his supposed omnipotence.

It's a very nice scene nonetheless. Perhaps I should give the movie a try.

How does it follow that God was constrained by time?

I was talking about creationism and in general and not about the movie scene. Some people take the seven days business far too literal instead of trying to find ways to incorporate said stories within the constraints of reality (as far as that is possible).

I just think that's foolish, is all.

 

[Rellik San]

As for glowing Adam and Eve, what do you think ageless immortal god children look like? Failing that what a better way to show a fall from grace, than with the "holy" glow fading and becoming human.

Gotta agree with Shinji. It looked almost comical in the midst of all this other beautiful, wonderful imagery. It'd be like showing the Xenomorph Queen in the middle of Citizen Kane. Maybe the rest of the movie has other fantastic sequences as people are saying, but within the context of this scene? Uggggh. Or, more appropriately, uggggly.

Well, aesthetics are aesthetics and not everyone is going to like them, I can get why people would think it was goofy I'm more trying to defend it from a conceptual point of how in a traditional sense would you have represented them as ageless god children with divinity pouring from them?

I think a valid interpretation of this film is that it's set in the future after a human made apocalypse.

Emma Watson said:

I think what Darren?s [Aronofsky] going for is a sense that it could be set in any time. It could be set sort of like a thousand years in the future or a thousand years in the past. [...] You shouldn?t be able to place it too much.

I think that would work better if Noah wasn't specifically talking about the ten generations since Adam.
[/quote]

Maybe it's a far future version of Bioshock and "the ten generations since Adam" is reference to Rapture, ok that's far fetched but it's a fun thought exercise, with the Cainites being descendants of Andrew Ryans philosophies.

Speaking of such things, did any else with the rainbow at the end think: Sonic Rainboom?
If so does that now mean that MLP is actually part of scripture?

Also speaking of the controversy around it, I noticed in UK theatres it didn't have the pre-movie warning that this is loosely based on. I'd say that's showing respect for your audience, but generally the UK is kinda ambivalent about religion so I guess it's less of an issue.

 

[Something Amyss]

I was talking about creationism and in general and not about the movie scene. Some people take the seven days business far too literal instead of trying to find ways to incorporate said stories within the constraints of reality (as far as that is possible).

I just think that's foolish, is all.

Yes, but that doesn't explain how it follows that God was constrained by time were He to actually have done it in seven days.

An omniscient, omnipotent being could do it in any timeframe it chose, from seven days to seven seconds to seven gazillion years. It could theoretically choose to create an entire new frame of reference.

Keep in mind, I'm not a theist. I think that the accountS in Genesis are allegories created by people with a very limited knowledge of the Universe, rather than actually being narrated by God. But a bad argument is a bad argument, and without any further details as to how God doing what God wants in the timeframe God chooses is being constrained by anything, it resembles a bad argument.

Well, aesthetics are aesthetics and not everyone is going to like them, I can get why people would think it was goofy I'm more trying to defend it from a conceptual point of how in a traditional sense would you have represented them as ageless god children with divinity pouring from them?

Why would I in the first place? Nothing else being shown onscreen actually fits with the creation narration. Why would that one bit, which actually isn't a part of the Genesis accounts need to be done in the first place?

If I don't like being kicked in the groin, you wouldn't ask me what better way there was to kick me in the groin.

Maybe it's a far future version of Bioshock and "the ten generations since Adam" is reference to Rapture, ok that's far fetched but it's a fun thought exercise, with the Cainites being descendants of Andrew Ryans philosophies.

Well, I'm pretty sure Cain was the first libertarian. "fuck you, I'ma kill people because personal freedom!"

If so does that now mean that MLP is actually part of scripture?

Pinkie Pie died for your sins. I would thank you not to mock my personal beliefs!

Also speaking of the controversy around it, I noticed in UK theatres it didn't have the pre-movie warning that this is loosely based on. I'd say that's showing respect for your audience, but generally the UK is kinda ambivalent about religion so I guess it's less of an issue.

Yes, I would imagine the lack of massive tantrums in other parts of the Western world would remove the need for a disclaimer. And given the clips I've seen from the media, I don't think "tantrums" is even hyperbole. People screaming, literally screaming about the way the movie portrays the Bible, God, or Moses. I mean, I dislike Ray Comfort, but at least he wasn't screaming.

 

[Something Amyss]

Hah, scientifically accurate? At 1:38 when the Fish jumps out of the water, one can see pterosaurians in the sky. That is not how evolution happend, when I last checked it. Also every germanic pagen knows men where made out of dead wood washed ashore ;-) .

Well, he did say "mostly." Perhaps he was referring to the fact that they don't show us forming out of wood.

 

[Moloch Sacrifice]

What.

This film contains:

Spoiler

extreme vegan interpretations of morality, wholesale massacre of humans, animal cruelty, implied rape and themes of infanticide

and yet one interpretation of the creation myth is what stirs up controversy?
I swear I no longer understand anyone.

 

[Vareoth]

I was talking about creationism and in general and not about the movie scene. Some people take the seven days business far too literal instead of trying to find ways to incorporate said stories within the constraints of reality (as far as that is possible).

I just think that's foolish, is all.

Yes, but that doesn't explain how it follows that God was constrained by time were He to actually have done it in seven days.

An omniscient, omnipotent being could do it in any timeframe it chose, from seven days to seven seconds to seven gazillion years. It could theoretically choose to create an entire new frame of reference.

Keep in mind, I'm not a theist. I think that the accountS in Genesis are allegories created by people with a very limited knowledge of the Universe, rather than actually being narrated by God. But a bad argument is a bad argument, and without any further details as to how God doing what God wants in the timeframe God chooses is being constrained by anything, it resembles a bad argument.

You just described exactly my original intended argument. And I absolutely agree with your last paragraph. But it does make for interesting reading material if one can hold a suspension of disbelief.

In any case, I think I either misunderstood you or used the wrong words because I completely agree with you.

 

[RandV80]

I was talking about creationism and in general and not about the movie scene. Some people take the seven days business far too literal instead of trying to find ways to incorporate said stories within the constraints of reality (as far as that is possible).

I just think that's foolish, is all.

Yes, but that doesn't explain how it follows that God was constrained by time were He to actually have done it in seven days.

An omniscient, omnipotent being could do it in any timeframe it chose, from seven days to seven seconds to seven gazillion years. It could theoretically choose to create an entire new frame of reference.

Keep in mind, I'm not a theist. I think that the accountS in Genesis are allegories created by people with a very limited knowledge of the Universe, rather than actually being narrated by God. But a bad argument is a bad argument, and without any further details as to how God doing what God wants in the timeframe God chooses is being constrained by anything, it resembles a bad argument.

You just described exactly my original intended argument. And I absolutely agree with your last paragraph. But it does make for interesting reading material if one can hold a suspension of disbelief.

In any case, I think I either misunderstood you or used the wrong words because I completely agree with you.

That was smoething I picked up on years ago, then I found out it actually has a fairly simple answer. I don't know all the details off the top of my head but from the original Hebrew the word that got translated as 'day' more accurately means something like 'an indeterminable period of time'. So the time frame young Earth Creationists apply is not just a literal interpretation of the bible but a literal interpretation of the English translation of ancient Hebrew texts.

 

[Zulnam]

What.

This film contains:



and yet one interpretation of the creation myth is what stirs up controversy?
I swear I no longer understand anyone.

Humanity is a funny thing.

So is the movie worth it? Haven't seen it yet so i'm wondering if it's cinema material or a "DVD rental".

 

[Moloch Sacrifice]

What.

This film contains:



and yet one interpretation of the creation myth is what stirs up controversy?
I swear I no longer understand anyone.

Humanity is a funny thing.

So is the movie worth it? Haven't seen it yet so i'm wondering if it's cinema material or a "DVD rental".

Eh, I enjoyed it, I felt it recaptured some of the feeling of the old Hollywood biblical epics, albeit in a much darker packaging.

 

[Rellik San]

If so does that now mean that MLP is actually part of scripture?

Pinkie Pie died for your sins. I would thank you not to mock my personal beliefs!

No offence intended there my friend, just a joke about the films presentation of the traditional rainbow symbolising the end of the turmoil.

 

[pearcinator]

My favourite scene of the movie.

People will be angry at both ends of the 'religion' spectrum (the devout religious and the completely atheist)

Really? I've heard mostly praise for the movie from atheists. I mean, not saying that suddenly they believe in the Ark story, but scoffing at the source material doesn't equal anger. I mean, what would you expect in a Biblical movie but a retelling of Bible stories?

Moviebob explains it pretty well.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/8908-Waterworks-Darren-Aronofskys-Noah

In fact, when I saw the movie I put a comment on this very scene of the movie and got a response like this;

"Leads me to believe this film is far closer to being "Christian/Christian-sympathetic" propaganda rather than a mere visual retelling of the Genesis narrative."

So this guy thought the movie was 'Christian-sympathetic' and that bothered him for some reason.

In fact, many of the comments on Moviebob's Noah review are sort of opposed to it (because let's face it, most people here on The Escapist are atheist and opposed to anything religious). Maybe it's more of an American thing, religion is far more ingrained over there than it is here in Australia.

 

[Remus]

Hah, scientifically accurate? At 1:38 when the Fish jumps out of the water, one can see pterosaurians in the sky. That is not how evolution happend, when I last checked it. Also every germanic pagen knows men where made out of dead wood washed ashore ;-) .

This was my problem with the story as well. As far as I know, there were no birds before dinosaurs, just very large insects, a result of an oxygen-rich atmosphere due to plants having evolved faster than animals. But it was nice to see our lemur-like longtailed predecessor in the sequence.

 

[Piorn]

That was a beautiful story.
Kind of sad we only get to see one single snapshot of it and have to deduce the rest.

 

[Something Amyss]

Moviebob explains it pretty well.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/8908-Waterworks-Darren-Aronofskys-Noah

Bob doesn't say anything about atheists being angry, though. All he does is say that some intellectual elite might snub it based on the content. While that's snobbish, it neither equates to angry, upset, incensed, etc.

"Leads me to believe this film is far closer to being "Christian/Christian-sympathetic" propaganda rather than a mere visual retelling of the Genesis narrative."

So this guy thought the movie was 'Christian-sympathetic' and that bothered him for some reason.

Your (parahprased) quote doesn't demonstrate that he's bothered at all, so I don't know that or know that you know it.

In fact, many of the comments on Moviebob's Noah review are sort of opposed to it (because let's face it, most people here on The Escapist are atheist and opposed to anything religious). Maybe it's more of an American thing, religion is far more ingrained over there than it is here in Australia.[/quote]

I only got down one page of the thread, but what I saw was: a couple of atheists who wanted to see it, a couple of people (no clue their beliefs) calling it crap, a couple longer discussions on various points, and one person addressing the dangers of letting the Bible become pop culture again. None of this sounds like a response from angry atheists towards the movie. If there are later examples, feel free to quote them, as I'm not saying there are no examples ever or whatever. I see snobbery, I see some criticism of Christianity, yes. I see some people who didn't like the movie, which could come from Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims or anyone else.

I mean, I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I'm not seeing it. Though I suppose I could probably go to YouTube and see if the Amazing Atheist has said something, because I'm sure he'd be angry about it for some reason. But that would require actually watching him, and....Ew.

But in general, the only people I've seen pissed off from the religious end are theists.

 

[TallanKhan]

A very well put together sequence, if let down by the Adam and Eve scene which just felt misplaced. However, it does encapsulate my big issue with the Genesis story, which has never been the creationism v science aspect or anything like that, but rather, that the Genesis story is profoundly anti-human. The whole "humans have screwed up paradise" concept is just so ridiculous. Don't misunderstand me, I think the world could be a much better place than it is, and things like pollution are on us, but I just can't accept the notion that prior to human beings the world was some kind of disney-esk enchanted forest where all the animals live in harmony and everything is right with the world.

A world without human beings, while it might have more trees, would be just as harsh and cruel place as the world today. When people depict this fanciful "natural paradise" you never see a scene of a zebra screaming as a lioness drags it down by it's throat, or of a male chimpanzee killing the young of a rival group. There is now, and always has been pain and suffering in this world with and without human beings.

Now as a foot note I do just want to make it clear that just because there is pain and suffering in nature, that does not mean I think it is OK for humans to cause pain and suffering, we should strive to be better than that. I just object to the propagation of the fallacy that humans are somehow the root cause.

 

[josh4president]

I thought it was a cool visual shorthand for explaining the setting.

Mind you the fact that most people are already familiar with Old Testament canon is a big help (and allows the Director to add his own unique touches in) helped quite a bit but I'll take that over droning plot-heavy exposition any day.

 

[pearcinator]

*snip*

Snubbing the film based on its content is just the elitist way of being opposed to it. There are many different ways one can express anger so if you're only taking into account the rage and yelling form of anger then yes they aren't 'angry' at it.

However, I see boycotting as another form of anger at the material (why else would you boycott/snub something) it's a more silent 'you're wrong but its not worth arguing with you' kind of anger but whatever, if you don't see it as that then I don't care.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Don't get me wrong, I see you're point I'm just curious how else you would show divinity and damnation in a secular manner. Which is what was attempted here.

I haven't seen this movie, so maybe it makes sense latter on or in hindsight, but it might've been better had Noah told them as two separate tales; One a realitic depiction of the course of the universe, and the other a more surreal one about Adam and Eve that's more allegorical.

You really can't ask for that, I think it's a decent compromise and with all the rock monsters it isn't a stretch plus the first "human's" would look alien to us so they just took it to it's most logical extreme given the source material and context.

Besides, otherwise they'd just have to cast more dark skinned people, and hollywood can't have that