There’s this new movie coming out, Noah, by Darren Aronofsky and with a top-notch cast…and it looks like crap.
I can get into a good fantasy story, but not one that takes itself so seriously and purports to be based on a true story. And you know this one is going to be peddled to the public as a good old Bible story, so of course it must be wholesome and good and true. So I’m unimpressed and uninterested.
So is Ken Ham, but for different reasons. He hates it because it is so unbiblical. He’s got a list of deviations from the One True Bible story, and apparently his followers saw it and are leaving youtube comments threatening to boycott the movie because it’s too worldly and godless. Who knew youtube comments could get even stupider?
- In the film, Noah was robbed of his birthright by Tubal-Cain. The serpent’s body (i.e., Satan), which was shed in Eden, was their “birthright reminder.” It also doubled with magical power that they would wrap around their arm. So weird!
- Noah’s family only consists of his wife, three sons, and one daughter-in-law, contrary to the Bible.
- It appears as if every species was crammed in the Ark instead of just the kinds of animals, thus mocking the Ark account the same way secularists do today.
- “Rocks” (that seem to be fallen angels) build the Ark with Noah!
- Methuselah (Noah’s grandfather) is a type of witch-doctor, whose mental health is questionable.
- Tubal-Cain defeats the Rocks who were protecting the finished Ark.
- A wounded Tubal-Cain axes his way inside the Ark in only about ten minutes and then hides inside. Tubal-Cain then convinces the middle son to lure Noah to the bottom of the Ark in order to murder him (because he was not allowed a wife in the Ark). Tubal-Cain stays alive by eating hibernating lizards. The middle son of Noah has a change of heart and helps kill Tubal-Cain instead.
- Noah becomes almost crazy as he believes the only purpose to his family’s existence was to help build the Ark for the “innocent” animals (this is a worship of creation).
- Noah repeatedly tells his family that they were the last generation and were never to procreate. So when his daughter-in-law becomes pregnant, he vows to murder his own grandchild. But he finally has a change of heart.
- Noah does not have a relationship with God but rather with circumstances and has deadly visions of the Flood.
- The Ark lands on a cliff next to a beach.
- After the Flood Noah becomes so distant from his family that he lives in a cave, getting drunk by the beach.
There were many other bizarre, unbiblical aspects in the preview cut. Though it’s possible that some of these elements may not make the final cut (though we suspect most will), compare the above list to the trailer that has just been released! The comparison should be very revealing for you. You wouldn’t get much of a hint of most of the biblical problems in the list above based on watching on this cleverly-put-together trailer. A real con job, to be frank!
Yeah, the guy who’s trying to build a Noah’s Ark theme park with junk bonds is claiming that the movie is a con job.
The movie sounds nutty from all the weird nonsense in that plot description, but then, the raw story straight from the bible is also absurd. And why is he complaining about #12? The lizard-eating stowaway isn’t in the Bible, but that part certainly is, in Genesis 9:20-25:
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Perhaps that’s because after the first four artists died laughing after drawing the ducktile as a ‘kind’, they stopped attempting it.
That has got to be without a doubt the stupidest looking movie I’ve ever seen. Welcome to Cimino-ville, Darren Aronofsky. You’ve just made your Heaven’s Gate.
Noah: when they come, they will be many, and they will be desperate.
God: Fuck ’em!
I like Jack Aubrey a lot better than Noah. Is Russell Crowe going to play Ahab next, d’you think?
The movie needs more orcs.
Dafuq is “Tubal-Cain”?
I wonder if it will show Teh Flood super-eroding out the Grand Canyon, killing the dinosaurs, and burying dinosaur fossils below everything else of comparable age. And then immediately cuts to concurrent civilizations, peacefully continuing to exist during this worldwide cataclysm.
Juliana – Funny! Or maybe Thor Heyerdahl, or Jason of Argonaut fame.
I had to look that up. A smith who is an idiotically named son of Cain. And since Cain was a monster according to some interpretations (go Biblical interpretation!), I suspect that this movie depicts Tubal-Cain as a monster as well. Because why not.
anteprepro
That makes about as much sense as any other Biblical interpretation.
@sabazinus, #5
For the historical verisimilitude, of course.
Smart move bringing along Hermione Granger. (Arkus flotatus!)
Sorry, but there’s no way this is going to be a Haven’s Gate level megabomb. It’s tracking huge, and we’re looking at an easy $100 million domestic, possibly around $400 million when international box office is tallied up.
Funny, I’d think the fact that the Ken Hams of the world are pissed off about it would be a point in its favor. Darren Aronofsky has written a more clever version of a bestselling fantasy novel than the original authors.
I think it looks damn fun. It’s fucking Russell Crowe chewing it up on a big ark. Plus Emma Watson. Opening night for me.
Speaking of that, when searching for info, there was this little bit at the tail end of the wikipedia entry:
All of this over one minor Biblical character, during the book and time period of the Bible that is most transparently, most obviously, most RIDICULOUSLY fictional. A character that exists in only ONE fucking verse. And they are talking about how he might have been a master arms dealer, or a miner, or the world’s first chemist, and talking about just what kind of metals he may have discovered. Fucking absurd. Just think of all the brain power and energy wasted by people blinded by the Bible.
Why do these Ken Hammites agonize over Old Testament stories? It’s called Christianity not Bibleistology! Laboring over the stories an unsophisticated population of people made up to answer their existential questions is just foolhardy.
I’m an atheist, so far be it for me to tell Christians what to fixate on, but Christ’s basic teachings were and are leaps and bounds more important than the creation story or the flood story or any other absurdity they think their god demands they quibble over for millenia.
Looks like Hermione is really testing the limits of that Time-Turner thing.
Really? The main thing that seems to me to be missing from that trailer is any sense of ‘fun’ at all (with the possible exception of the snakes-are-coming-too thing).
Nooooo, Aronofsky, Watson and Hopkins! Hope they are paid well.
Crowe, on the other hand, is fit to ham it up. Can’t think of anyone more fitting for the role now that Shatner is getting too old for main roles.
This is a stupid question. Biblical fundamentalists are if anything more self-consistent than the cafetria types. If you can;t believe all of it, then there’s no good reason to believe any of it.
Noah was 600 years old at the time of the Flood.
And you forgot about Costner.
Makes me think of someone I was chatting with about gaming, who mentioned that he’d just been to see Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, and immediately launched into a litany of complaints about how badly it deviated from the bible and such.
Cue Celine Dion as Noah stands on the prow of the ship screaming “I’m king of the world!”
Reminds me of this Onion talk.
I don’t know. This thing is based on Aronofsky’s own graphic novel which is apparently batshit with 10 foot angels. Marketing is going to mean basically zero for this film for anyone other than the faithful. That will get them in the seats. The quality of the movie for the rest of us will be unknown til release. I’m willing to stay hopeful considering the source though.
So was it Noah or one of his sons that preserved all of Tubal-Cain’s technical know-how by eating his brain? Why do people even care what happened before the flood, if everything bottlenecks down to Noah and the boys?
That’s always puzzled me as well…
Tubal-Cain is in this movie? Where’s Ollie?
Does this mean that Russell Crowe has officially retired as a serious actor, should we expect the commercial circuit next?
@4 Juliana Ewing,
On Jack Aubrey’s ark, if two members of genus Curculio showed up in time for launch, he would only have chosen the lesser of the two weevils.
So what role does Bill Cosby play?
Herminone, whyyyyyyyyyy?
Anthony Hopkins.
Is Loki the one telling Noah to build a boat?
He is mad that Aronofsky didn’t consult with the preeminent ark-scholars of America and give them piles of money to present the story exactly as Ham has imagined it.
FYI, this would make a better movie…
I though Ken Ham would be upset that it didn’t have dinosaurs. Which if he were consistent he ought to be upset about. Although, I’d like to think if it had dinosaurs it’d be laughed out of the theaters. Although my current fear would be that it wouldn’t be.
This thing is based on Aronofsky’s own graphic novel which is apparently batshit with 10 foot angels.
Oh, well, now it makes sense….
Loathe as I to give bible literalists sympathy, I have to admit the deviation from the source seemed a little weird and worthy of complaint. Like a version of Anna Karinina where Anna fakes her death and moves to New York. But if it’s based on a graphic novel with a non-conventional interpretation rather than the biblical story, that’s different. But… well, one of my frustrations when people can’t only not tell prove from fiction, but can’t tell one source from another. Robin Hood isn’t history and a comic book isn’t the bible. And Ken Ham’s museum isn’t the bible either and … oh, what’s the use.
====
Meanwhile what’s this “Son of God” movie that no-one is talking about. Sigh, remember the movies and TV of the 70 and 80s when religious movies catered disingenuously to the rationalism to lend credence (the red sea parting *hinted*, just slightly, at tidal phenomena; Jesus in the Last Temptation has epileptic fits, and so on) rather than secular movies catering to the religiosity. I miss those days.
Kenny, old chap, you should be seeing the release of this flick as an opportunity to capitalise, not a cause for scriptural trainspotting! Look, mate, every film adaptation does some kind of injustice to the source material – you only have to look at discussions about every single comic-hero film ever made to know that – but people still flock to them anyway. Why? Because most people know – or care – jack shit about adhering absolutely to source material (much like the authors of the New Testament, you must admit) and just want to see a nicely-made film with well-known heroes and villains in it doing what’s expected of them.
Also: seriously, how many films are even made about the Old Testament anyway? That’s obviously the book that gives you a raging God-on; you should be very pleased that an A-lister like Rusty Crowe will be lamp-posting about the deck of the Ark and bringing the word of God to millions of people in glorious Hollywood-produced HD. Who knows – this flick might get more people to read the OT, just like the Harry Potter films made sales of the books skyrocket (and just like the TV series of Game of Thrones – no, wait, I’m kidding. No-one reads those fucking doorstops when they can just torrent the gory boob-fest and binge-watch a whole season).
Seriously Hamster, the timing here couldn’t be better – you’re trying to get people into OT death-God via your “museum” thingy and a Noah theme park and you’ve just been globally embarrassed by a guy in a bow tie. A bit of associative Noah-themed PR on your & AiG’s part could lift your profile back up a bit, get a few more rubes into your Vegan Dinosaur Science Revival Show and may even sell some more junk bonds for your Ark folly. Carping about how Russell’s Ark doesn’t match the original is pointless anorakking and might even turn out to be counterproductive!
Actually, if they had the guts to *not* market this as a “true story” or a “wholesome bible story” but actually as a post-modern “urban fantasy” this could be kind of fun. But they won’t have the guts to not market it as a bible story, will they?
Scott Franklin (film producer): “Noah is a very short section of the Bible with a lot of gaps, so we definitely had to take some creative expression in it. But I think we stayed very true to the story and didn’t really deviate from the Bible, despite the six-armed angels“.
Do you think he’s just fucking with us? I kind of wish *once* a movie producer would say “so I thought if I could interpret Noah as a really dark character with serious survivors guilt, that’d make a really interesting interpretation so I thought I’d just run with it and make a really mind-blowing sci-fi fiction based on the Noah story. Sorry about folks hoping for a bible story but I was more interested in a psychological re-imagining. You can still, you know, read the original if you want. It’s still there, you know.” But that’ll never happen, will it?
woozy — “Do you think he’s just fucking with us?” Hollywood? Never! These are artists and always true to their craft.
how many films are even made about the Old Testament anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_the_Bible
I see some actors that I like, and some acting that I dislike.
I would have liked to see
One question: Why didn’t Ken and the Hamlets already produce their own totally-accurate Noah film?
Damn touchscreen.
I would have liked to see a really rousing fantasy film based on Utnapishtim and his boat. Making clear the inspiration for Noah and the Bible, please.
anteprepro — re Tubal-Cain and Wikipedia
In my opinion, one of the more poorly written areas of Wikipedia is almost anything to do with the Bible, particularly if it’s directly about the Bible. However, this problem also includes interpretations of some of the few artifacts that have been found that may have any bearing on the stories. Whoever the editors are, they are very main stream. The articles are basically paraphrases of the Bible and present whatever the Bible says as fact. They rarely express any skepticism about the stories and only occasionally is there any mention of some of the issues and questions about them. Such as these are, they are often glossed over by reference to the mysterious authority of “most scholars.” Apparently in the world of Biblical studies, truth is often subject to such a vote.
robro
Anyone can sign-up to edit on Wikipedia.
Even you.
I’m disappointed that Aronofsky as gone and done this. He has had such intelligent and well thought movies like Pi and Requiem for a Dream. But this seems like an action film with a grab at Christian audiences to bring more people. Even if it is based on a graphic novel the entire Noah story is so uninteresting and overrated. I would have rather seen a more intellectual or psychological movie from him. Makes me sad…
It’s the Biff-from Back to the Future syndrome.
I’m kind of intrigued by his half-brother Jubal who was “the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes”. Or Jubal’s full-brother, Jabal, who is the father of “those who live in tents and raise livestock”.
Of course this what purpose does it do to tell us this? Apparently all these intriguing people playing pipes and stringed instruments and living in tents while raising livestock all died off in the flood anyway.
But the movie is based on a true story, right?
Gonna have to agree with Martin Wagner.
I’m not sure if this movie looks fun in a ridiculous way, or ridiculous in a fun way.
However, it includes Anthony Hopkins. I used to think he was such a great actor, but then I realized I first saw him in a really good film (Silence of the Lambs), and every subsequent film I saw him in was crap.
Ugh, I have really enjoyed Aronofsky’s films in the past but this trailer really did nothing for me. It is difficult to judge a film from a trailer but it seemed to be missing many of the qualities that have made me enjoy his previous films and it looks like a generic big budget action flick, overrun with CG. Maybe there is more there, I will have to see it eventually, but this does not sell it to me.
I said this the last time this film came up, but I think I would have enjoyed seeing him work on Not Wanted on the Voyage, a Noah story I actually enjoy.
Seems to me, Ham’s problem is, somebody ELSE is bilking people out of their $$$ rather than him.
Actually, the more I read the more intriguing it sounds. It seems like he intended to take the insipid faithful Noah of the “promise for mankind” story we all know and replace him with a dark “survivor’s guilt” Noah who was ready to see all mankind including himself and his sons die and end forever to make a radically different story wormed into a the trappings of an insipid cover that we thought we knew but was utterly divergent. Basically it seems it was originally intended as an anti-bible Noah story.
The story points the Ken Ham is disappointed in do seem like a radically different re-interpretation. Kind of what Wicked was for the Wizard of Oz.
It seems the fault is that the producers simply can not dare produce a non-bible version of a bible story so it’s soft coated back to the insipid Noah we all know. It’ll end up disappointing everyone.
Obviously if you’re going to make a feature-length movie from a story as short as this one, you’re going to have to throw in some stuff that wasn’t in the book, unless you want to show a guy sawing wood and hammering nails for an hour and a half. But it would be interesting if they showed what life was like in the world just before the Flood. The Bible depicts a society where everyone was evil except one guy. How did such a society function before God stepped in? How did Noah survive for 600 years?
Hank, I’ve actually read more Song of Ice and Fire than I’ve seen Game of Thrones. I actually do prefer the books, and I have plenty of friends who do as well.
That said, I think it would be greatly improved with less murder, more Tyrion whit.
It may or may not be horrible but a story is a story. If it’s got sex and violence and good CG, it will at least be worth watching stoned.
Did I spot plate armour?
Cool!
I’m always a bit torn about these bible-based movies.
OTOH they try to appeal to a christian audience, OTOH, they’re showing people clearly what we’re saying all the time: This is a story. This is fiction and you can turn it into a Hollywood movie the same way you do with Beowulf or the Ring der Niebelungen.
Darren Aronofsky? History suggests it will probably be brilliant. And very dark.
Even The Fountain, his worst film, is a work of merit, and hardly presents a cuddly view of religion.
Or religion.
The xians have marched through wikipedia like the Mongol hordes, white washing their religion, and dynamiting reality and accuracy. You can tell when everything is sweetness, light, unicorns, and nongay rainbows.
No surprise, lying is one their three main sacraments. Hitchens: Religion poisons everything including wikipedia.
In general wikipedia has a good reputation for accuracy but the least accurate is anything to do with religion.
Sure. If you want to fight hordes of wild eyed religious fanatics on holy crusades, heavily armed and backed by their god who doesn’t do anything without human help. They wear you down by numbers and persistence. They are fighting for their god, who seems to be either very sick or dead.
That isn’t mainstream.
Mainstream knows most of the bible is fiction and mythology. Their big disputes are over how much is real, if any. Things like whether jesus ever even existed.
The fundie so called bible scholars are all literalists. Of course it is all 100% true for Presuppositionalists.
This is obviously a matter of taste, but I found Below, supposedly a horror film, mostly boring. The Fountain wasn’t quite that bad.
This story would actually improve if you throw in Conan the Cimmerian.
-In regard to accuracy, the film should include the Mesopotamian gods of the original flood story. Conan battling Tammuz and dating Ishtar?
That’s probably what Hambone’s afraid of.
I saw the trailer in the cinema recently. I wasn’t the only person laughing at it, which was nice.
This movie doesn’t engage in apologism, merely presenting the story as written! Mockery!!
Guys, seriously, “god did it” is such a common phrase out of you lot, so why is it suddenly mockery when we’re expected to believe that every species got in there? God did it! Surely it’s easier to say god did it than to claim that, while evolution totally doesn’t exist, it’s possible for a handful of “kinds” to reproduce and change their allele frequencies over time (or… “ee-vole-vuh”) at an inconceivable rate in the space of a couple of thousand years? I just…. no.
WOT I HAS LERNED TODAY:
In the OP and Anteprepro’s #9 and #14 I have learned that Tubal-Cain is a bit of a Satan-y lizard and the first chemist.
Speaking as a chemist (soon to be lapsed and reborn as a biologist, well I say soon, the degree will take me another 4 years) I think Satan-y Lizard Beings describes us quite well. After all we cause CHEMTRAILS and pour DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE everywhere. Some of us even work for BIG FARMER (EVIL).
Fuck it, that makes at least as much sense as anything Ham has to say, and more than this film. I’m comfortable with it.
Louis
How does this even… if the Ark didn’t contain every species that is alive today, then how do they explain those species being around now? Surely not evolution through natural selection? :P
His #2 about there only being one daughter in law would be a pretty shrewd commentary on the lack of female roles in film if he stopped to think about it for a minute.
Who the hell is paying for this farago? I mean those are big name actors and they don’t work for peanuts. I doubt that they’ll do it for love, either, since as far as I know none of them are fundamentalist Christians. Maybe they see it as another apocalyptic movie? That might be a bit more fun…
Christoph, #63:
When it suits ’em, they’ll pretend they acknowledge “microevolution” (which can breed, say, different species of big cat from a single breeding pair aboard the Ark) but not “macroevolution” (which can turn a duck into a crocodile!) Then when that goes bad for them, they’ll claim they never said any such thing.
I think that the story of Moses would make a good movie, but this time the movie should be based on historical accuracy. Moses will then be portrayed as a messianic megalomaniac, commanding an army of mass-murderers.
marcoli #67
Umm. If it were based on historical accuracy it would be blank. Accurate to the Biblical version, however, and yeah… you’re spot on.
I had a bad case of Tubal-Cain once, but some nice strong antibiotics cleared that up in no time.
Like when you tell them that if that’s true, then evolution not only has to happen, but at a rate many orders of magnitude faster than any observed evolution going on today.
Awh, there are major plot spoiler’s in Ham’s rant. Not worth seeing the film now :-)
That’s a mighty white lookin’ Noah.
‘Course, that’s a mighty white lookin’ cast in general.
If it upsets Mr Lie, I hope the movie is a roaring success.
In short: everyone who hasn’t been living under a stone for the past decade.
Would a Biblically correct Flood film be based on the “E source”* of the Old testament or the “J source? I forgot if the “P source” segment mentions the flood.
*The various authors of the Old Testament, whose different and contradicting narratives were later cut and pasted into a single, unwieldy narrative.
I think this looks like a great action movie in the themes of Troy and 300. Based on mythological material seen through the lens of a graphic author, none of which even tries to be anything more than an action movie with a light sprinkling of dystopia. His making Bible type apologies is sort of weird, though. I still am interested in seeing Noah as having survivor guilt. You’d think being chosen as the only good person to be saved, along with your family, would really fuck you up emotionally. That is, if you are actually a good person.
By the way, my wife and I both loved The Fountain. Requiem was good, but also went too far for my tastes. Yes, I may be a bit squeamish. His other movies seem to be a mixed bag to me.
I have some hope for this movie, truth be told. First of all, Aronofosky has earned a lot of good will from me with his previous work, so even if I’m skeptical about a project, I’ll tend to reserve judgment (and for those thinking he did this for money, actually no… doing a Noah movie has been a passion of Aronofosky’s for years, and it was he who had to sell the studios on it!) Moreover, due to the post-production budget woes, the studios forced some test screenings (over Aronofsky’s objections) and Christians have a tendency to absolutely hate it. Why? Because it portrays Noah as a drunken madman and God as genocidal and petty.
Aronofsky promised, and this appears to be, a film which takes the Noah story at face value, rather than trying to cute it up. In other words, dark as all get out. I think it could be fun…
But we shall see. I could be proved totally wrong.
After the film bombs, we can buy up the footage and insert old footage from the “Conan” films, creating a whole new fantasy film with a better storyline.
I think the new storyline shold be based on the original, Mesopotamian flood story.
The Mesopotamian gods lose their patience with the humans because they make too much noise and decide to drown the Euphrates-Tigris floodplain.
Gilgamesh (the new name of Russel Crowe’s character) sets off to save as many as possible. To distract the gods from the rescue, Conan goes off to battle Tammuz (footage of Thulsa Doom) and dates Ishtar (footage from the second Conan film, with wossname, the female character).
It might actually work. It would not be worse than many fantasy films I have seen.
At the end, Beowulf turns up and battles Gilgamesh for the elixir of immortality.
The comical sidekick is a shifty fellow (played by Rowan Atkinson) with a penchant for grifting, and at the end he sets off to write the “true” story of the Flood. (Some new, yarmulke-wearing arrivals in Babylon picks up his tab as he is selling them his vision of the new, true religion)
(jumps up) I know, I know! The Thor Heyerdahl-looking character sails off from Mesopotamia at the end, determined to find a new home for the Jews in America. Cue Mormon references.
Travis @47
I’m with you on Not Wanted on the Voyage. A brilliant condemnation of both patriarchy and religion, Lucifer (a protagonist) is one of Noah’s daughters-in-law, and there’s a cat. (Trigger Warning for anyone planning to read it though: there’s a brutal rape in it).
WMDKitty @6:
I must confess to an Alot Moment here, having assumed, on first reading, that this was a query regarding the casting of an actor of whom I had not heard as Tubal-Cain, and had created a picture in my head of said actor – he was part Brian Blessed and part some sort of generic muscled action-hero sort, as I recall – the sort of actor who is so awesome that he only ever needs to go by one name. Then I reread your comment, and now I am very sad because I will never get to see Dafuq as Tubal-Cain. Pity. He had the perfect beard for the role.
I do credit the filmmakers with one thing. They cast Jennifer Connelly as Noah’s wife, instead of some 22 year old starlet.
The Ham story is weird. “You saw me naked, you damn kid! So I’m cursing all your offspring!” Ummm, yeah, Noah, it’s your fault he saw you naked, not his. You’re the one who got pissed to the gills and decided to sleep in the buff.
ledasmom,
Ha!
___
Timgueguen,
I think there is an undercurrent to being ‘seen naked’ in the bible.
South Park did it. http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104204/the-russell-crowe-show
@28 (and 4!): I don’t know how many people here got that but you’ve certainly put a smile on my face! Having read O’Brian, I was doubtful about that movie but thoroughly enjoyed it. The plot had no resemblance at all to either of the two books referred to in its title, but considering PO’B’s plots, that was probably a good thing. The characters were great.
Ham:
This IS Russell Crowe we’re talking about, after all.
Oh, so that’s what happened to the dinosaurs.
Ken Ham claims that the movie has in it the following plot elements:
Actually the above is intriguing and certainly different. Perhaps this movie might be worth seeing.
It really does sound like “seeing someone naked” is a euphemism for something, but the other boys cover up their dad without looking, literally.
Either way, it is what always happens when God saves some allegedly good people through divine intervention. They immediately start worshipping calves, or boinking relatives, getting shitfaced or turning into salt.
So they’re replacing Daleks with this Tubal-Caine character? And my girlfriend wonders why I never really got into this new series.
The Big Boat Event was a huge failure.
1. Noah was supposed to save al the animals. We now know that 99+% of a life that existed is extinct, including all the nonavian dinosaurs.
2. We were still the same old humans that god created and hates. A few millennia later, he launched Plan B and had himself killed as jesus. That didn’t work very well either.
3. Plan C is the Apocalypse and the destruction of earth and all 7 billion people. I suppose in one sense, that will work. No humans = No More Problem
“Noah repeatedly tells his family that they were the last generation and were never to procreate. So when his daughter-in-law becomes pregnant, he vows to murder his own grandchild.”
Noah is the Bond villain of the film!
BTW if writing was not invented by then, how did the few survivors pass down the information about Genesis et cetera?
Tubal-Cain’s Sonic Screwdriver
If the Ark sails to the island of “Lost”, this might explain why the Bible has so many unsolved paradoxes.
Also, this works for explaining the millions of species that would not have fitted into a single boat; they were all shippedon board Arks in parallel world lines, eventually these different time lines converge on the island where the animals are released.
The Smoke Monster is a nasty elohim stowaway.
Mike Carey’s Lucifer is sailing a much cooler, flying ship*
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lucifer-Mansions-M-J-Carey/dp/1840239824/ref=sr_1_14?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393345981&sr=1-14&keywords=carey+lucifer
*Naglfar, built from the nails of the dead.
I’d rather see this as a continuation of the Die Hard series.
Marcus:
Not enough material to be a movie unto itself. Maybe a story arc?
****
Useless:
Sure. In the same way Amityville Horror and Blair Witch Project both were. They were really realz.
Martin Wagner
Given it’s $130m budget, if it doesn’t do at least $250m domestically, it’ll be considered a failure.
seranvali
Well, 20-30% of the funding came from taxpayers in the filming locations, namely New York & Iceland, in the form of subsidies paid directly to the studio in California.
Wikipedia’s article about Tubal-Cain references Josephus, where some of this expansion on the character comes from. Josephus may have had access to oral tradition and writings which are now lost. That wouldn’t make Tubal-Cain any more of a real person, but possibly a more fleshed-out mythical one.
I’ll probably go see it. I’m a sucker for big effects.
…But I’ll feel dirty, like when I used to watch Jerry Springer.
Uh, so this just happened:
https://twitter.com/russellcrowe/status/438408113059024896
I want to adapt this for a weekly TV program ala Lost in Space with the Ark bumping into an endless stream of island with stranded people.
Do these people not realise their arks are all the wrong shape. The recently published book “The Ark Before Noah” by Dr Irving Finkel is all about the discovery from a cuneiform tablet that the original Ark (the one in the Mesopotamian versions) was round.
It’s a fascinating story about the decoding a newly acquired tablet, which led to his checking the known versions. It became clear that it was always round, but over time the story got messed up in copying. Also very few tablets are complete now, but apparently it’s possible to identify the original references to its roundness.
There was a TV film made about it, but I haven’t seen it. I don’t know if your side of the Atlantic will get it.
Anyway, somebody should tell Ken he’s doing it wrong!
@urbanwitch #102;
Everyone always does, but he never listens!
The movie seems like a lost chance to cast Samuel L Jackson as Tubal-Cain: “I HAVE HAD IT, WITH THESE MOTHERFUCING LIZARDS ON THIS MOTHERFUCKING ARK” …or if he could’ve been a monologging 10 foot angel.
It’s the E source that doesn’t. Genesis 6-9, in fact, is some of the best evidence for the JEDP theory, in that a redactor took two separate accounts from J and P and stitched them together into a single, semi-coherent narrative. It’s believed that J and E had already been combined and harmonized at some earlier point, so it might be that the J version there already contained some of E, or the accounts may have been similar enough that one just displaced the other, or maybe E never had it.
Aww, a love letter to the Pope. So sweet. *gag*
Though frankly, I am more offended about the twit who responded to him by whining about the evils of Environmentalism, and about how the Noah film is too green and political. *super gag*
Why didn’t they complain about this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark_(1999_film) ? That has both Mr and Mrs Noah going ga-ga during the floating about.
And Lot is a right scoundrel.