or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Just saw Aronofsky's Noah...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Just saw Aronofsky's Noah...

post #1 of 406
Thread Starter 

...ask me about it if you'd like.

post #2 of 406

Was it good? 

post #3 of 406

Is the "dinosaurs on the ark" question addressed?

post #4 of 406
Thread Starter 

It was ok. It was a work print so a lot of the visual effects weren't finished, and who knows what they'll change once it makes it to theaters.

 

SPOILERS: Aronofsky tries to fill in the gaps of the biblical narrative by adding in a Abraham/Isaac subplot that just seemed really unnecessary. I think it was an attempt to make Noah a morally ambiguous character. Other additions were a bit silly (the nephilim are represented by friendly rock giants straight out of Return to Oz. They reminded me of the tree dudes in Lord of the Rings, but seemed out of place in such a dour film).

post #5 of 406

How did you stumble upon the opportunity to see the workprint?  Are test screenings already taking place?

post #6 of 406

How was my girl EmWatts?

post #7 of 406
Thread Starter 

Yep. It was a test screening.

post #8 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

How was my girl EmWatts?

She was fine. Did a lot of crying. In terms of acting, it's pretty solid. Crowe, Hopkins and Winstone don't break any new ground but they're good in their roles.

post #9 of 406
We're people let in two by two?
post #10 of 406

Oh noes!  Who made her cry?!  TELL ME!

 

...

 

What does this thing feel like if you had to compare it?  You said dour, is it The Fountain?  Or something darker like Return To Oz or a Lord Of The Rings type feel? 

post #11 of 406
Thread Starter 

Oh yeah, Jennifer Connelly puts in good work as Noah's wife. And Logan Lerman is pretty good as Ham. I didn't like the guy who they got to play Shem. He was prettier than the women to the point of distraction.

post #12 of 406

Do they address Moses living to the ripe old age of 950? Furthermore, according to the Bible, the maximum human lifespan pre-deluge is about 1,000 years but it diminishes sharply thereafter to the 120 years of Moses.
 

Interesting they leave that kind of stuff out. Guess they didn't want to make it any less believable than it already is.

post #13 of 406
Supposedly, the Flood was a response to human depravity. Are there tits in this picture or what? Besides Russell Crowe's.
post #14 of 406

The Flood was a response to stop any Highlander-esque stuff that would have been happening by now.

post #15 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headless Fett View Post

Do they address Moses living to the ripe old age of 950? Furthermore, according to the Bible, the maximum human lifespan pre-deluge is about 1,000 years but it diminishes sharply thereafter to the 120 years of Moses.
 

Interesting they leave that kind of stuff out. Guess they didn't want to make it any less believable than it already is.

All of that's thrown out. Everything indicates that they have regular life spans. 

post #16 of 406

Ohhhhhhh!!!  Is this a reimagining of Highlander?!

 

HOLY SHIT PUT IT IN ME NOW!

post #17 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

We're people let in two by two?

I'd hate to spoil such an important plot point.smile.gif

 

 

The scenes of the animals going into the ark were pretty amazing even in their rough stages. The specification to bring 7 of every clean animal for sacrifice was left out. Since the film has a "save the animals" message to it, I guess they thought animal sacrifice would seem hypocritical.

post #18 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

Oh noes!  Who made her cry?!  TELL ME!

 

...

 

What does this thing feel like if you had to compare it?  You said dour, is it The Fountain?  Or something darker like Return To Oz or a Lord Of The Rings type feel? 

Noah, mostly.

post #19 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

Supposedly, the Flood was a response to human depravity. Are there tits in this picture or what? Besides Russell Crowe's.

No titties. This is strictly PG-13 fair. Very little of people drowning too. In fact, Aronofsky seems to purposefully avoid a lot of classic Ark/biblical imagery. The costumes are like a mix of Lord of the Rings and a post-apocalyptic film, although not as interesting as that sounds, really. No sandals and robes here. 

post #20 of 406
The hell is the point of making a movie like this and not evoking the classic imagery?
post #21 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

Is the "dinosaurs on the ark" question addressed?

No dinosaurs, unfortunately. They wouldn't have seemed out of place with a lot of the other fantastical things in the film though.

post #22 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

The hell is the point of making a movie like this and not evoking the classic imagery?

I'm not sure, really. Aronofsky has said he was fascinated by the character of Noah and his "survivor's guilt" but really his guilt at the end comes from what he does in, I believe, a completely unnecessary sub-plot. I can go into detail if anyone would like.

 

As for not evoking the classic imagery...Maybe the final cut will be different, but there's very little of the flood in the film. In fact, civilization outside of Noah and his family feels like 250 people localized to one forest. 

post #23 of 406

What about the animal poop situation?  You get that many animals together, I'm thinking it's gonna be a problem.

 

To quote Dr. Ian Malcolm,  "That is one big pile of shit."

 

: )

post #24 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

What about the animal poop situation?  You get that many animals together, I'm thinking it's gonna be a problem.

 

To quote Dr. Ian Malcolm,  "That is one big pile of shit."

 

: )

The animals are all put into hibernation on the ark.

post #25 of 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamoanBob View Post

The animals are all put into hibernation on the ark.


shut

the

fuck

up

 

....really?  <facepalm>

 

Does anyone know Aronofsky's motivation in making this film?

Did he just open a bible, fan the pages and blindly stick his finger in..."I'm going to make whatever my finger falls on"

 

I like him as a filmmaker but this movie just sounds really fucking stupid.

post #26 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post


shut

the

fuck

up

 

....really?  <facepalm>

 

Does anyone know Aronofsky's motivation in making this film?

Did he just open a bible, fan the pages and blindly stick his finger in..."I'm going to make whatever my finger falls on"

 

I like him as a filmmaker but this movie just sounds really fucking stupid.

They burn some kind of herbs that make the animals fall asleep. At least they did it to a bird at one point. Later in the film all of the animals seem to be sleeping. I may have missed something but I assume they were all exposed to the smoke, somehow.

 

It's a very fantastical movie. POSSIBLE SPOILER A single seed from the garden of Eden makes a whole forest rise out of the ground so Noah can have wood to build the Ark. Then the rock giants help build and protect the Ark. Later there's a big battle scene of rock giants fighting people trying to get on the Ark. END SPOILER

 

I can't say I'm the world's biggest Aronofsky fan, but I thought his Noah movie would be a little more Jodorowsky and a little less Lord of the Rings. There are some Jodorowsky style touches, but they never feel surreal because things are so fantastical. 

post #27 of 406
Wow, this sounds like the first boring Aronofsky film.
post #28 of 406
I mean, I'm totally down for a somewhat fantastical take on a story out of Genesis (which, TBH, has a lot of mythological/fantastical feel to it as it is,) but I just don't understand why you would set out to adapt what is really a pretty movie-worthy story and then drop so many of the things that make it so suitable for the big screen. I mean, the whole of humanity being a wretched hive of scum and villainy save for the heroes? A flood that covers the whole earth, and the wholesale destruction of human civilization? That shit's an Irwin Allen wet dream. That's got "bombastic Cecil B. DeMille epic" written all over it. Why would you not go that direction?

Eh. I guess I'll just try reading Many Waters again instead.
post #29 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

Wow, this sounds like the first boring Aronofsky film.

To the film's credit, I wasn't bored. But people looking for some Fountain-style weirdness are going to be disappointed, I think. 

post #30 of 406

Wait, this is a PG-13 movie? I thought the whole point was to have brutal one-armed giants slaughtering people.

ARE THE ONE ARMED GIANTS STILL IN THIS SHIT?!

post #31 of 406
Better or worse than "Evan Almighty?"
post #32 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

I mean, I'm totally down for a somewhat fantastical take on a story out of Genesis (which, TBH, has a lot of mythological/fantastical feel to it as it is,) but I just don't understand why you would set out to adapt what is really a pretty movie-worthy story and then drop so many of the things that make it so suitable for the big screen. I mean, the whole of humanity being a wretched hive of scum and villainy save for the heroes? A flood that covers the whole earth, and the wholesale destruction of human civilization? That shit's an Irwin Allen wet dream. That's got "bombastic Cecil B. DeMille epic" written all over it. Why would you not go that direction?

Eh. I guess I'll just try reading Many Waters again instead.

Yeah, I felt that they could have established humanity's depravity a lot better. SPOILER Noah's dad Lamech is killed at the beginning, and then we don't see much of humanity outside of a group of dead bodies. Later, Ray Winstone appears as Tubal Cain (the man who killed Noah's father*) with a clan of warriors and decides he wants to steal the ark. We later see them stealing women in their tent city, but not much else. END SPOILER

 

Nobody cares, but if I did a Noah film I would fill in the gaps with the Book of Enoch. Enoch details the fallen angels who decide to sex up human women and create strange demon/human hybrids known as the Nephilim who are giants (and to a primitive Jew that could mean anywhere from 6 to 13 feet). These guys teach humans about the universe and also teach them how to make fire and narcotics. It's because of their influence that society goes so wrong, in addition to the genetic corruption they bring to humanity by sexing them up. In the Bible it says that Noah was "blameless in his generations", the Book of Enoch takes this to mean that he hasn't been corrupted with Nephilim blood. As for the logistic problems of only Noah and his sons building the Ark? He should just hire people to work on it for him. They might think Noah is a crackpot but they'll still take his money (or goats, or whatever). You could even have them be his friends who are worried that he's nuts (think Take Shelter with Michael Shannon). There's a lot of interesting conflict you could mine from that, AND a lot of drama from his friends being drowned (they might not have been violent murderers but merely passive observers of all of the violence and depravity). It also has all of the moral ambiguity you could need without making Noah a *SPOILER* guy who insists ALL of humanity must die and that his family are only care-takers of the innocent animals. This means when he finds out that Emma Watson is pregnant, he vows to kill the child if it's a girl because he doesn't want Ham or Japheth marrying the daughter and continuing humanity. How he plans to keep Shem from sexing Emma Watson and creating more children is not explained (she was barren, originally, but Methuselah magically opened her womb) END SPOILER

 

Biblically, Tubal Cain should be long dead by the time the Ark is created. By coincidence, both Noah and Tubal Cain have dads named Lamech.


Edited by SamoanBob - 8/30/13 at 6:31pm
post #33 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

Better or worse than "Evan Almighty?"

Haven't seen it. My favorite cinematic portrayal of Noah's Ark is in Green Pastures, but that's a pretty comedic take on the events.

post #34 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post

Wait, this is a PG-13 movie? I thought the whole point was to have brutal one-armed giants slaughtering people.

ARE THE ONE ARMED GIANTS STILL IN THIS SHIT?!

SPOILER

The giants are multiple-armed rock creatures that help Noah build the Ark. They had a nice stop motion look to them, but are really silly. In the film, the fallen angels are "Watchers" and are very much like shooting stars. They crash into the Earth, and somehow the rocks and dirt get stuck to them. They're like a mix of that rock guy in Return to Oz and the tree guys in Lord of the Rings. There's an entertaining battle scene where they fight men trying to get on the Ark.

 

There is some violence in the film but it's very quick. I can't see this film getting an R rating.

post #35 of 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamoanBob View Post

...but if I did a Noah film I would fill in the gaps with the Book of Enoch. Enoch details the fallen angels who decide to sex up human women and create strange demon/human hybrids known as the Nephilim who are giants (and to a primitive Jew that could mean anywhere from 6 to 13 feet). These guys teach humans about the universe and also teach them how to make fire and narcotics. It's because of their influence that society goes so wrong, in addition to the genetic corruption they bring to humanity by sexing them up.

 

NOW that's a movie I want to see.

Would someone get Cronenberg, Von Trier, Lynch, or Fincher on the phone.....what the hell, give Woody Allen a call too. 

post #36 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

 

NOW that's a movie I want to see.

Would someone get Cronenberg, Von Trier, Lynch, or Fincher on the phone.....what the hell, give Woody Allen a call too. 


I thought for sure that was the route Aronofsky was going to take. When I saw that they made the Nephilim into rock giants that help Noah build the Ark, my heart sank a little.

post #37 of 406

So it's kind of bronze-age 2012.

Sounds potentially amusing actually.  Something no one's going to confuse with something that actually happened, but interesting mythology.

post #38 of 406
Quote:
When I saw that they made the Nephilim into rock giants that help Noah build the Ark

Aren't nephilim by definition...  NOT giant rock monsters...?

post #39 of 406

Maybe... this is Aronofsky's Life of Pi. Tonally and visually amazing, but ultimately a bit less weightier than his other fare?

post #40 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

Aren't nephilim by definition...  NOT giant rock monsters...?

Yeah, I guess the nephilim don't actually show up in the film as the rock giants are actually fallen angels who got covered in rocks.

post #41 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurora Vampiris View Post

Maybe... this is Aronofsky's Life of Pi. Tonally and visually amazing, but ultimately a bit less weightier than his other fare?

Well, I thought the tone was too bleak and joyless to have things like rock giants and forests that spontaneously grow from a single seed. As far as visuals, there are some great shots, but I wasn't amazed. A lot of it looked too desaturated and kind of generic. Of course, this could change as the color correction wasn't done yet. I still think the production design was less than stellar. Aronofsky tries to make things weighty but it felt like he was trying too hard and kind of in the wrong direction.

 

But everyone should keep in mind that:

 

1. I'm not a huge Aronofsky fan (haven't seen Pi or Black Swan)

 

2. I've studied a lot about the book of Genesis. I tried to go in with an open mind and just go with what Aronofsky was doing, but my opinion still might have been skewed. But even separated from the biblical text I felt that it wasn't successful as character study or spectacle. 

post #42 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzman View Post

So it's kind of bronze-age 2012.

Sounds potentially amusing actually.  Something no one's going to confuse with something that actually happened, but interesting mythology.

I haven't seen 2012 so I couldn't say. Noah kept my interest, but it wasn't very compelling. I think it would have worked better as mythology if it was more stripped down to the story's essentials. I'll bring up Jodorowsky again because I think he's one of the better biblically-themed filmmakers. El Topo balances gritty, bleak violence with striking biblical imagery and typology. It felt like the added fantasy elements in Noah didn't have meaning in the same way events and miracles in the Bible (or Jodorowsky's films) did. I think the added miracles in Last Temptation of Christ have the same problems (like Jesus pulling out his heart). The added supernatural elements seem trite and silly next to the multilayered supernatural elements of the Bible that resonate in later texts like a ripple in water.

post #43 of 406

I just like saying "Tubal Cain".

post #44 of 406

Evan Almighty is an unfairly maligned little flick.

Well, it should have been a little flick, at least. The whole budget thing getting out of control seems to clouds people ability to engage the movie on its own merits.

post #45 of 406
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Augustine View Post

I just like saying "Tubal Cain".


So does Tom Waits.

post #46 of 406
sounds like a bit of a dull mess, i wonder what exactly Aronofsky was going for. on one hand it seems like there's an attempt to ground things in a more "realistic" feel and on the other he inserts some cray-cray stuff that's pure fantasy. if it's not visually spectacular, what exactly is the point of this movie?
post #47 of 406

Does Noah get fucked in the but by one of his sons after the Flood? That's one of the biggest WTF LOLs in the Bible!

post #48 of 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

Does Noah get fucked in the but by one of his sons after the Flood? That's one of the biggest WTF LOLs in the Bible!
Uh, you must be reading the Urban Dictionary version of Genesis...? 'Cause there's no buttsex mentioned in any translation I've ever read...
post #49 of 406
Well I think he means "begat" there is a ton of begatting in the bible. Everyone is begatting and having a good time well till Yahweh ruins all the fun! What a party pooper! All because an angel questions whether humans truly loved him he purposively ruins a mans life (Job) and just because a couple angels get raped two cities get burned to the ground. God is the worst person ever!

On a semi unrelated note I'm amazed by how many Christians I talk to at work are super excited for the end of times to happen. They are so pumped for it! That disturbs me that kind of seems like the total opposite of what there theology is suppose to be about. I wonder if I should ask them if they are secretly Jewish since they seem to be more followers of the Old Testament and a little bit of Revelations. Honestly I'm starting to think these people might be a threat to humanity.
post #50 of 406

If there's butt sex in the bible I'm fire bombing every extremist church in the universe. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Just saw Aronofsky's Noah...