https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qmj5mhDwJQ
A big budget movie of a popular story from long ago.
A big budget movie of a popular story from long ago.
Noah 2014
- Thread starter Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC
- Start date
I'm really looking forward to this one. Looks cool.
An alternate title was Lord of the Ark: Peter Jackson's Bible
I'm pretty good at suspending disbelief, and this movie looks pretty silly to me (not in a good way). Also, I don't remember all those things being in the bible.
But hey, it's directed by Aronofsky, and he's one talented and creative chap, so for that reason alone, I'll have to check it out. Plus, I know a dude who worked on it, so I'm hoping/rooting for this film to be a good one.
But hey, it's directed by Aronofsky, and he's one talented and creative chap, so for that reason alone, I'll have to check it out. Plus, I know a dude who worked on it, so I'm hoping/rooting for this film to be a good one.
I didn't know Peter Jackson was involved...
Just saw the trailer for this last night in a theater - the audience reaction was pretty incredulous, and frankly it came off as pretty ridiculous. I have a feeling it will be a disaster. It's clearly not going to please audiences who are primarily interested in the religious themes as it's so far removed from biblical source - but at the same time it'll probably turn off audiences who aren't interested in the religious content. The only thing that leads me to give it a second thought is the fact that Aronofsky directed it, but even that's not enough to get me into the theater for it.
Sometimes directors that veer into different genres and styles of filmmaking do great, but Aronofsky seems like a strange pick.
Moses got rewritten. Does he still get his screen credit?
I'm a big Russell Crowe fan...I'd pay to see it.
Can't wait to see Aranofsky's depiction of how we're all descendants of a handful of white Anglo-Saxons!
Yes, because the people of Mesopotamia had blonde hair and blue eyes. Duhhh!
Duhhh!
No cherry-pickin the Bible allowed.
This ain't no a la carté menu, bruh.
Lock, stock, and barrel.
Moses & posse + 4,300yrs =
Bam!
Duhhh!
was I the only one half expecting him to shout 'this is Sparta!' somewhere in there?
I don't know. I just re-watched Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World after a long time.
I don't think I thought much of it way back then. But now, what an outstanding movie. And, I wasn't always, but I've become a big Russell Crowe fan over the years...I think ever since he mellowed out personally, maybe that occurred after that unfortunate hotel incident?, and has been in a long string of good films.
Anyway, really enjoyed Master and Commander this time around and it totally has me in the mood for another epic film starring Russell Crowe!
Actually, for me, the less religulous it is, the less "respectful" to the source material it is, the more chance there is I'll be able to like it...I'm guessing. On the other hand, if it's all pious and precious about it, I'll probably recoil from it. But with Aronofsky at the helm, who knows, could be quite interesting.
Yeahhh, yeahhhhh.
I think people need to just get over that.
When the Buddha "left" India and "went" to China, guess what? The Chinese portrayed the Buddha as a Chinese person.
Will you protest, 'Hey, wait a minute...but the historical Buddha was not Chinese! He was Indian!'? I'm gonna guess that is not on your minds or your tongues.
When the Buddha "left" China and "went" to Japan, guess what? The Japanese portrayed the Buddha as a Japanese person.
Will you protest, 'Hey, wait a minute...but the historical Buddha was not Japanese! He was Indian!'? I'm gonna guess that is not on your minds or your tongues.
The point is, it's a perfectly natural thing to do...and widely done.
It's not just something mean ol' white European types do. There's nothing inherently sinister or dumb about it.
Yeah, if Hollywood made such films more historically accurate, that certainly might be interesting. On the other hand, movies do not make for good historiography, generally. Movies, particularly Hollywood movies, are much more about myth-making, fantasy, and fiction. Probably, Aronofsky has little to zero interest in presenting his audience with a history lesson. Good for him.
For the most part, my opinion is that movie makers and movie consumers should give up this idea (usually fantasy, really) that Hollywood films make for good history.
If you want good history, I always suggest, watch a good documentary instead, preferably one produced for PBS or (probably) the BBC, read a good history book by an accredited historian, take a history course with a good, accredited teacher and school, etc.
But do not despair! That is how it should be! After all, most films should be allowed to put story first, and concerns about being historical somewhere further down the list.
And, we should probably also add that the typical Hollywood film should also be allowed to put its audience first. This film's primary target audience is not Mesopotamian. =P
But then, that doesn't stop it from really sucking when Hollywood plays toooo fast and loose with history, either.
Anyway, if we decide to complain that Emma Watson is racially incorrect to play Ila because that would not be historical or accurate, then why stop there? Why not complain that the movie portrays God covering the world with a great flood to kill the pinnacle of his own creation, humankind? Is that historical? Is that accurate? I'm not saying one way or the other. But at the very least it's debatable. At least, if your talking amongst a crowd with heterogeneous beliefs and ideas regarding such things, then the credibility of those story elements are also going to be just as disputable...and for some, just as laughable.
Just in case it isn't clear, I do not mean any of that in a contentious or a reproving way. We're just talkin about the movie, right?
=)
I don't think I thought much of it way back then. But now, what an outstanding movie. And, I wasn't always, but I've become a big Russell Crowe fan over the years...I think ever since he mellowed out personally, maybe that occurred after that unfortunate hotel incident?, and has been in a long string of good films.
Anyway, really enjoyed Master and Commander this time around and it totally has me in the mood for another epic film starring Russell Crowe!
Actually, for me, the less religulous it is, the less "respectful" to the source material it is, the more chance there is I'll be able to like it...I'm guessing. On the other hand, if it's all pious and precious about it, I'll probably recoil from it. But with Aronofsky at the helm, who knows, could be quite interesting.
Can't wait to see Aranofsky's depiction of how we're all descendants of a handful of white Anglo-Saxons!
Yeahhh, yeahhhhh.
I think people need to just get over that.
When the Buddha "left" India and "went" to China, guess what? The Chinese portrayed the Buddha as a Chinese person.
Will you protest, 'Hey, wait a minute...but the historical Buddha was not Chinese! He was Indian!'? I'm gonna guess that is not on your minds or your tongues.
When the Buddha "left" China and "went" to Japan, guess what? The Japanese portrayed the Buddha as a Japanese person.
Will you protest, 'Hey, wait a minute...but the historical Buddha was not Japanese! He was Indian!'? I'm gonna guess that is not on your minds or your tongues.
The point is, it's a perfectly natural thing to do...and widely done.
It's not just something mean ol' white European types do. There's nothing inherently sinister or dumb about it.
Yeah, if Hollywood made such films more historically accurate, that certainly might be interesting. On the other hand, movies do not make for good historiography, generally. Movies, particularly Hollywood movies, are much more about myth-making, fantasy, and fiction. Probably, Aronofsky has little to zero interest in presenting his audience with a history lesson. Good for him.
For the most part, my opinion is that movie makers and movie consumers should give up this idea (usually fantasy, really) that Hollywood films make for good history.
If you want good history, I always suggest, watch a good documentary instead, preferably one produced for PBS
or (probably) the BBC, read a good history book by an accredited historian, take a history course with a good, accredited teacher and school, etc.But do not despair! That is how it should be! After all, most films should be allowed to put story first, and concerns about being historical somewhere further down the list.
And, we should probably also add that the typical Hollywood film should also be allowed to put its audience first. This film's primary target audience is not Mesopotamian. =P
But then, that doesn't stop it from really sucking when Hollywood plays toooo fast and loose with history, either.
Anyway, if we decide to complain that Emma Watson is racially incorrect to play Ila because that would not be historical or accurate, then why stop there? Why not complain that the movie portrays God covering the world with a great flood to kill the pinnacle of his own creation, humankind? Is that historical? Is that accurate? I'm not saying one way or the other. But at the very least it's debatable. At least, if your talking amongst a crowd with heterogeneous beliefs and ideas regarding such things, then the credibility of those story elements are also going to be just as disputable...and for some, just as laughable.
Just in case it isn't clear, I do not mean any of that in a contentious or a reproving way. We're just talkin about the movie, right?
=)
Last edited:
Right.
We're all sensible and good.
If the much beloved 'Star Wars' can have audibles and fiery explosions in space I think we can cut a little slack on casting and accuracy in 'Noah' and just enjoy the story as a show.
'Argo' is a horrible, terrible historical document but a delightfully entertaining film.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(2012_film)#Historical_inaccuracies
Yeahhh, yeahhhhh.
I think people need to just get over that.
You make some good points. I think you're right to point out that it's perfectly natural for a culture to envision their religious prophet in a likeness similar to their own. So, just as it's not weird for there to be a Korean Jesus, it's also not weird for there to be a European Jesus (or a Chinese Bhudda, for that matter).
I think that's a separate matter, however, from how these icons are portrayed in Hollywood. Of course I realize that filmmaking is a business, but I still think there are ethical concerns worth considering. Is it really good for the betterment of society if our cinematic heroes are almost always white males? Especially for an historic drama (or in this case religious drama), I'd hope that the filmmakers would be a little more daring and trust that their audience is capable of rooting for a hero that is a little more historically accurate.
Furthermore, I think you can also make an argument for historical accuracy, coming strictly from a business perspective. Yeah, whites make up the bulk of moviegoers, but times they are a changing. The number of non-whites in America are increasing rapidly, and those people also watch movies. Besides, I'd like to think that most Americans are sophisticated enough that they can root for a hero of any ethnicity.
America is a multi-ethnic society, and I think it's about time that our movies start reflecting that, and I honestly believe that this isn't just an ethical issue, but it would also make sense financially.
I think it's more about the actor's fame than his race. If you're going for a gladiato-esque blockbuster epic, then Russel Crowe is a pretty smart choice. Not that actors of other ethnicities couldn't pull off the same role and maybe do a better job, it's just who's face on the poster is going to sell more tickets.
No. No you weren't.
They did. But despite that I thought it was a pretty entertaining film too. =)
Bloomberg TV: Charlie Rose, Jan. 10: Ken Taylor, former Canadian ambassador to Iran, whose story is the basis for the film "Argo."
Good points! =)
Sort of like Star Trek has been doing for decades.
I think the changes you're looking for will come of their own accord, though. Like you say about financial sense, I'm guessing that it will happen "organically." I hate to use the expression, but The Market will make it so, soon enough. Hollywood will follow the money, and the money will take them there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vv9kxdZljk