The Big Picture: Waterworks - Darren Aronofsky's Noah

[Bradeck]

I really hope that Emma Watson plays the wife of Ham, because if we go by the Bible, after the Ark lands, Noah gets drunk and passes out in a grape field. (Because those apparently survived the global flood) Ham and Shem find their father, who is stark naked and passed out drunk. Ham attempts to cover Noah, fearing for his pride and not wanting him to be embarrassed. God sees this, and punishes Ham. Noah wakes up, hears God's wrath, and thus Ham is Shem's slave for LIFE, and Ham's wife is then given to Noah, who proceeds to make more children with her for the rest of his life.

So basically, Ham's wife is getting a lot of sexy time and I would pay to see Hermoine getting taken to school Old Testament style.

/sarcasm

 

[Evil Smurf]

I'll get this off iTunes, I don't want to get into an argument with some sudo Christian dickhead. (Conservative, apathetic to other people and generally a ****)

Was... was that Emma Watson? *goes to IMDB* Holy crap, it was...

You know, now I have a reason to see it.

 

[Transdude1996]

I am hesitant to engage you on these thoughts as this thread might not really be the place for the type of discussion I'd like to have, but, without trying to stir a hornets nest, I do want to ask you a question if you'll indulge me a moment. If all the scientific data we've collected fails to support, or directly contradicts your hypothesis about the flood, how do you make sense of that? I am just genuinely curious about what you think.

Well, so far, there hasn't been anything that really contradicts or disproves what I believe. So, I'd take it as one of those things where I'll cross that bridge when I, if ever, come to it.

Also, there really isn't an absolutely agreed upon theory as to the origins of the Earth since the farthest back we can go in universally recorded history is Egypt (As far as I know), and for anything farther back, we're just start purely guessing as to what happened. So, you never really know. After all, we still haven't explored 100% of the Earth, so there's always something out that will make us question what is believed to have happened. So, if anything comes out contradicting or disproving what I believe, I'll do my best to keep an open mind about it.

 

[Tumedus]

1) The movie doesn't look like the grand spectacle you proclaim it as. I think if the trailers showed more nephilim and demons fighting or warlocks using magic or what have you, that the interest in this would be much higher from the non religious side of this.

Instead this looks like nothing more than an attempt to put to life the Noah myth. The color pallette, in spite of being heavily filtered, looks drab. Human conflict, especially within the family unit, seems to be the center of the narrative. Even the special effects with the animals and the flood don't look particularly inspiring. Nothing about this looks fantastical.

Now, maybe the trailers don't properly represent the movie, perhaps because the studio is trying to hide anything that might offend either side. But that is what advertising is supposed to do; get me interested.

2) Whether it turns out to be a bible movie or not, the perception right now, not the least of which because of the above point, is that it is. And regardless of whether it actually is or not, due to that perception, the success of this movie legitimizes the notion that bible movies are okay.

We live in a time where there is, and I hate to use overused language like this, a war between the ideological extremes of religion and anti-religion because of the massive influence that they (atm religion) hold over so many other aspects of our lives (at least here in the US).

The people who absolutely want to remove the influence that religion has are unwilling to give even an inch to the notion that biblical stories are even worth considering. So long as this film gives even the hint that it might not treat the tale it is based on as fiction, then I think there will be people who decline to give it a chance.

I am not saying I agree with the stance necessarily (my lack of interest has much more to do with #1), but I do understand it, and I think its perfectly reasonable and fair of them to treat it as such. And no, I don't think those people owe Aronofsky the benefit of the doubt just because he made some other intriguing movies. It isn't incumbent on the viewers to determine the directors beliefs and intent before judging the movie (although they are welcome to do that if they wish). The movie should stand on its own merits, and if it looks and feels like a bible movie, then they have every right to treat it like one.

 

[Piorn]

I can't be the only one now who's genuinely interested in the pre-flood world as a fantasy setting, can I?
I've always been fascinated by the idea of magical or advanced civilizations before ours, so that seems like a perfect fit.

Also isn't it ironic that in comedy, everyone can mock his own group while others are tabu, but in this it's reversed. Everyone can butcher some foreign mythos, but once we get to visualize our own myths, people get mad.

 

[hentropy]

I will admit to feeling the same "guh Bible movie" feelings while watching the trailer, that was before I saw Aronofsky's name. It seems unlikely that he would do creationist propaganda.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Not speaking on the movie specifically either for or against, but I find the general thrust of the video to be a positive one all things considered. I am actually heartened by the realization that standard "Christian" media is off putting to a large enough portion of the potential audience that such efforts need to be made. It's a quality kind of acceptance when you actually have to step back and try to point out that "Hey, this movie based on the bible isn't really that kind of movie so maybe you'll enjoy it too."

 

[Dascylus]

Darren Aronofsky directs a movie with a cast featuring Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson, Ray Winstone and Nick Nolte.

The fact it is based on a story from the bible is far beyond secondary for anyone who has watched his movies.
And then it's a big budget fantasy movie that takes more than a few liberties with the source material showing the studio gave him at least a decent degree of creative freedom?

I'm sorry, what's to discuss here?

Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler and Black Swan... That is a pedigree that any director has wet dreams about and any further discussion stops right there.

 

[Malbourne]

Wow. The antediluvian period sounds really cool. I want to see a movie about that stuff, now. But with Noah's Ark in particular, I hope they go all out with the theatrics. Crashing waves, stormy winds, downpours. CGI has come such a long way for water effects. I don't know when the last time I saw cool water effects was (Pirates, maybe?). I really, really hope they go all out with the theatrics.

 

[Eddie the head]

many people (not all) use athiesm to create a sense of superiority!

People use stereotype's, and one of the most common uses are to give positive traits to groups that you belong in. Replace "athiesm" with any other word and it still rings true. Broneys, Christens, Pepsi drinkers ect.

Your statement is to broad to even be a stereotype.

I should do some more research on him before I give up on the idea".

I'm going to go out and say it, I think most atheists have said that. That's why they are atheists.

 

[Flunk]

The bible is pretty played out in movies, it's all been done over and over. And that's the reason I'm not interested in any of them. I don't think anything would get me to watch this or any other biblical movie right now.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Thanks for making half of this episode impossible to understand for non-native English speakers. T_T

I'm even not sure if native English speakers can understand those quick asides.

If it's any consolation, VD: I've been a native speaker for more than 30 years, and I didn't get most of the aside on the first playthrough, either. I was really hoping for subtitles at that point, so I could do the timed pauses I do during most of the "Escape to the Movies" credit sequences.

Alright, here it goes.

Note: I may miss some words due to them being unintelligible to me.

QUICK ASIDE When Hollywood Studios talk about the faith based audience they are usually speaking in code, not describing the majority of US audiences that describe themselves as some form of religious but the smaller but still economically viable audience of predominantly christian fundamentalists who tend to limit their entertainment purchases to material that has been pre-approved and/or promoted by a loosely affiliated powerbroking network of megachurches, ministries, businesses and likeminded media personalities aka how earnest but embarrassing dreck like Fireproof makes its way into movie theater's somehow.

1:07 - 1:26

QUICK ASIDE The idea that the American movie industry regardless of the shifting political allegiances of studio moguls was even in lockstep of the American Religious Right was a complete fabrication of history, this place a pit or depending on your perspective a palace of gleefuly amoral debauchery pretty much from the get go, in-fact one of the big reasons why they started to biblical movies was because the Hays code sensors would let you get away with allot more sex and violence if you could claim you were keeping true to scripture.

2:50 - 3:08

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Well Bob, between my undying Mancrush on Aronofsky and this video, I am actually interested enough to see this movie... If you give it a decent review.

It's possible that I only want to see it to prove to myself that I'm not a self-satisfied asshole who disregards everything religious.

On the other hand, how can you argue with THIS?

[img/]http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTI1NTQ0NjU3MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwOTQ0MTUyMg@@._V1_SX214_CR0,0,214,317_.jpg[/img]

I mean, just [i/]look[/i] at it...

[img/]http://i1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd509/QuickDEMOL1SHER/tumblr_lfa9gluOTv1qdxaomo1_400.jpg[/img]

 

[leviadragon99]

Huh, well if this version of the story really does get that crazy with wizards and nephalem and whatnot, I might give it a look...

 

[Olas]

Coming from almost anyone else I would expect this to be either the usual religious drudge or a gritty attempt of said drudge, but coming from the Darren Aronofsky this could actually be really awesome, or at the very least very interesting.

 

[phlip]

Thanks for making half of this episode impossible to understand for non-native English speakers. T_T

I'm even not sure if native English speakers can understand those quick asides.

For you, or anyone else who's having trouble hearing what Bob's saying in this one... have a transcript [http://pastebin.com/Yfc8M1d9], on me.

 

[josh4president]

Roman Catholic here.

This movie looks crazy in all the right ways and I'm looking forward to it.

Really hoping it doesn't bomb hard so we can get a few more interesting films in the same vein.

 

[Daaaah Whoosh]

I feel like this is exactly the kind of Christian movie we need these days. Something to get the crazier believers to say "Huh, the stories we've come to believe do seem a lot more like Lord of the Rings than we once thought," and maybe something to get the atheists to say "Holy shit, God sounds awesome, I should do some more research on him before I give up on the idea".

A supposedly omnipotent god creates a world, populates it full of people and than proceeds to drown them is a terrible argument for the existence of a god and is a pretty shitty argument to convince someone to worship said god.

That's what I was saying. If you worship God, you might think about introducing some healthy skepticism. I guess it wouldn't help atheists, they're too set on disproving God by backing him into a corner. All I'm saying is that religion is fun because you get to believe that the guy who drowned the whole world is on your side.