I said in June that there was no time like the present for Aronofsky to make his Noah film– the large-scale passion project that he’s been talking about as long as he has made movies (and likely tumbled around in his brain long before that). Well, it’s now confirmed that the major studio negotiations that were revealed in June and sparked those thoughts have now closed: Paramount and New Regency will be behind the genius director’s $130m biblical epic.
The iron remains hot, and it’s been struck. The plan is to get the film geared up by the spring, with John Logan rewriting Aronofsky and Ari Handel’s script. Aronofsky will obviously still direct as well as produce.
I can’t wait for cameras to roll on this. As I said last time, I truly believe Aronofsky belongs making small, intense films, but he should be empowered to make films of any scale. But regardless of the success of this project, as long as Aronofsky gets to make it his way then it will all be worth it. One day we will have the film, it will be ours, and even if Aronofsky has to return to the lowest of budgets, we can simply expect to keep getting films as brilliant as The Wrestler and Black Swan. There would be little tragedy in that.
For now let’s raise a toast that one of the massive studio blockbusters that will be covered incessantly gets to be a project as interesting as this. It’s weird that Logan is rewriting the script, but he’s not an untalented guy and this will ultimately all feed back into and out through Aronofsky, so what’s to worry about?
Twitter
Comment below
Message Boards
Source | Deadline
9 comments
I like Aronofsky, but not enough to get me excited for a movie about Noah’s fucking ark. Also, these director long-gestating passion projects always turn out bad.
Couldn’t The Fountain be considered a “long-gestating passion project” as well?
Yep, it sure could!
I don’t want to get into an argument about The Fountain. I don’t like it. I’ve tried very hard to like it. I’ve watched it three times. But I just don’t think it works. I think it reaches for greatness of Kubrick and Malick and fails.
I realize that around these parts, my opinion is the minority though, and I’m OK with that. I feel that I have given the film a fair shake, and I “get it”. I just don’t like it.
I loved the Fountain, but in the vein of long-gestating passion projects you also have A.I…. King Kong… Farrelly Stooges film… Michael Jackson’s Edgar Allen Poe movie… Flora Plum… Chinese Democracy… sorry, losing track.
You had me at King Kong (though I could counter with LOTR). Either way this movie sounds silly but I just can’t not trust Aronofsky at this point.
You’re completely right about Lord of the Rings. Although they were at least moderately budgeted (initially – who knows how much money got thrown into the pot after Fellowship hit). I guess the lesson we can both agree with is that Passion Project + Virtually Unlimited Resources = Recipe for Disaster.
For $130 million, he’ll be lucky if he can get one of every animal in the damn thing, much less two.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind gestated for a long time before Spielberg made it. Turned out pretty good.
As much as I love Aronofsky, Noah’s Ark is too silly a concept to be literalized in film. How the hell do you literally show two of every animal on Earth being herded into a boat without it looking silly?
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.