Noah

snubs · Post by **snubs** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:36 pm

Jelly wrote:It's never, ever safe to judge a film from its trailer, especially in this case.

That's why I said I would still like to see it. It looks interesting.

Petrichor · Post by **Petrichor** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:29 pm

I wasn't really interested in this movie one way or the other until I saw a hyper-conservative Facebook mom post Ken Ham's official warning against the movie. Now I'm intrigued.

jelly · Post by **jelly** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:01 pm

Ken Ham doesn't know the first thing about what makes a good story.

He also has a troubling and problematic way of interpreting the Bible.

...COINCIDENCE?

Petrichor · Post by **Petrichor** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:15 pm

Believe me, I know. My respect for Ken Ham and the person who posted the article is pretty low. I just meant that his article made made me actually want to see the movie, instead of just being indifferent about it. The fact that he hates it so much without even seeing it makes me think it might just be good.

jelly · Post by **jelly** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:30 pm

It's what happens when Christians form a culture defined by what offends them, abstaining from the more difficult (but more rewarding) task of putting faith in a God who loves, inspires and shows extravagant grace to those who earnestly seek after him. It's a pseudo-Christianity. A political extremism rather than a faith-based lifestyle.

Petrichor wrote:The fact that he hates it so much without even seeing it makes me think it might just be good.

It's like when one of those Christian 'reviews' carelessly condemns a film for superficial reasons - I find that often to be a stamp of approval. $\:D/$

IrishTiger · Post by **IrishTiger** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:17 am

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-new ... 23987.html

While I do wish they had stuck closer to the real story, I'm still going to see it because Russell Crowe is the main actor.

Termite · Post by **Termite** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:28 pm

"Artistic license" doesn't even begin to cover the monstrosity that is this film.

It's the only movie I had ever walked out on to go use the restroom. I even stayed out for a while just to kill time before the rainbow (which was a firework/ripple effect

) and used the lovely internet to fill in the 20 minute gap I missed.

No one is going to ever be able to excuse it. I wanted to enjoy it; I really did, especially going in. One of the ladies mentioned before we left if we needed to walk out we could and I was like "No way! I'm going against the Christianese mold here!" Meh. Unfortunately, it fell waaaaay below anything I dared anticipate. The music was dull, the animals were so freakishly CGI, and the outfits were... historically inaccurate. (more on that down in spoiler. Go all the way to the bottom and read the last line. It's so pathetic I dare not post it for the public eye to see.)

My biggest complaint is actually something I read in a PluggedIn review and agreed with: people try to be so faithful to convert books and other stories to film in the best way possible (Hobbit and Ella Enchanted excluded), so why was the same not done for this? Especially considering so many people know the story, even if they aren't saved. It was way too far gone for me to appreciate whatsoever.

If you want a play by play... here:
(because I have nothing better to do. Spoilers, of course.)

Whitty Whit · Post by **Whitty Whit** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 11:07 am

I want to see the movie simply because of the alleged turmoil that it's causing. I was talking with a friend today who saw it and he said basically what Termite said. If I do go see it, I'm going to be going into it with the mindset of just another CGI movie like Ender's Game (which was an okay movie. nothing spectacular).

jelly · Post by **jelly** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 2:32 pm

Termite wrote:No one is going to ever be able to excuse it.

I guess that's it guys. I was going to defend the movie and everything, but I guess if I enjoyed it I must have been delusional. Just ignore everything I say from now on.

EvangelineWalker · Post by **EvangelineWalker** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 6:05 pm

I am going to see it right now and see who is right.

snubs · Post by **snubs** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 8:51 pm

Here is an interesting article about the movie: I'm a Christian and I Think 'Noah' Deserves A Four Star Review

I will not pay money to go see it. But I will probably see it at some point when I can do so free.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 8:56 pm

There are literally only two words, that-when combined-get me interested in this movie at all.

Emma and Watson.

jelly · Post by **jelly** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 9:51 pm

If I was a moderator I'd straight-up delete the Matt Walsh link. >_> That guy is a self-righteous culture warrior who feeds off clicks and controversy, and he's mostly wrong.

In this case, his "review" of Noah is not only very, very wrong, but he's trying WAY too hard to be antagonistic. Like I said: he literally leaches off attention.

snubs · Post by **snubs** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 11:01 pm

o_. Okayyy, didn't really get that..even after reading some of his other posts. And I just said it was interesting. No one has to agree.

Aeva · Post by **Aeva** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:16 am

Well then, defend yourself, Jelly. $\:D/$ (I promise to listen very attentively to your argument before judging you, even though I haven't seen the film for myself.

)

jelly · Post by **jelly** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:34 am

I don't want to defend myself.

I've seen the film twice and I think it's one of the most beautiful things I've seen in years... but in all honesty, I was really hoping that I wouldn't like it all that much, because I knew if I did I would start to feel defensive and personal about it. I know I shouldn't, but I do.

I won't be defending myself. Though I do hope to write an essay that describes why I think the film is beautiful, integral and theologically important, and just leave it at that. If some article or rumor has informed you that the film is "biblically inaccurate" or somehow "not a good film because it was made by a humanist instead of a Christian," well, you might just miss out on an incredible opportunity to be moved, challenged and inspired by this amazing rendering of faith and love.

Whitty Whit · Post by **Whitty Whit** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:40 am

I am not thinking that it's not a good film because a humanist made it. I'm thinking that it's not a good film because it pointlessly and incredibly inaccurate to who Noah truly was from what I've seen in the Bible.

EvangelineWalker · Post by **EvangelineWalker** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:49 am

Okay, there were parts I liked about it, and parts I didn't like. I was fully prepared for it to take 'artistic license'; it was directed by an atheist, after all; inspired-by, not word-for-word account. Parts of it were Biblical, and parts of it weren't. Some stuff just seemed weird, and not an artistic choice I would make if I were making the movie. For instance,

The rock people. Now, there were giants on the earth, but I didn't envision them as giant rocks. But it ended up making sense in some ways (they helped build the ark). Also, it was very moving when they went to heaven (after asking forgiveness).

And when the trees sprouted out of the ground--that was weird. Like there couldn't have been any trees anywhere in the world they could have made the ark out of.

But overall, there was a lot of beauty to it, and I liked the 'gritty realism' (for lack of a better term). Despite the fact that the animals were 'obviously CG', I loved watching the animals slither, crawl, etc into the ark, and I cried a little at this point. And it made sense that they'd be asleep on the ark (whether or not this happened this way).

Another odd choice is when they didn't bring their wives on the ark. Now the Bible says that Noah's daughters-in-law DID go on the ark--and I guess technically they did, if it means that Ham and Japheth's wives would eventually be Ila's daughters. Some of this twisting things around seemed unnecessary.

But, to me, the core of the story was there. They showed that mankind on the earth was evil, and they were being punished for that, the slate swept clean. I liked the scene/vision where Noah was in the enemy's camp and saw himself as one of them. Evil is in all of us; Noah's faith was counted as righteousness, but he was sinful, as a son of Adam. And it made sense that Noah would feel the weight of guilt about what was happening, and his part in it. He might have been a little messed up mentally....at the same time, I didn't like how this was handled. Sure, Noah wasn't perfect, but kill his unborn granddaughters? Wouldn't his love for his family overpower anything else he felt? I didn't get why they needed to make Noah think that God wanted to eradicate human beings including his family. Although I can see he might want to if it meant eradicating sin...but it's not Biblical, and it went too far in my opinion. But it did end up in a rather powerful scene at the end, where love triumphs over pure 'justice'.

oh, and Noah getting drunk is Biblical; it didn't say that's why it happened, but it did make sense. The guy stowing away on the ark was weird, but it seemed like he was a representation of the sin that needed to be destroyed. And people were vegetarian until after the Flood'; it was taking license to say some ate meat beforehand, but it helped to illustrate the evil and decadence of man.

Overall, I cautiously liked the movie; some parts were annoying, some parts were beautiful. We just have to take it as it is; a movie. We can't expect an atheist to make something purely Biblical; we can't expect a filmmaker to stick purely to the source material. I think it's better to applaud an atheist director for what he got right, rather than vilify him for what he got wrong. But in the end, we have to be discerning about what we view and at the same time respect others' opinions. It's usually best to take a balanced approach. There is good and bad in this world; if it was all bad, no chance for redemption, God wouldn't have bothered to give us a second chance.

Here is another interesting article: http://fromdustblog.wordpress.com/2014/ ... -it-brings

WindowWasher · Post by **WindowWasher** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:07 pm

Jelly wrote:
Termite wrote:No one is going to ever be able to excuse it.
Just ignore everything I say from now on.

Will do!

Post by **bookworm** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:51 pm

My reaction after seeing this was ‘What in the world did I just watch?’ but not in a bad way. I liked it. I didn’t like it a lot, as in thinking it was so great and I’ll watch it again and again, but that’s just because it wasn’t my type of film. That doesn’t mean I can’t acknowledge that it was a good movie. I can tell that it was. Not my personal taste, that’s fine, but I don’t have any negative thoughts about it.

This was pretty much exactly what I expected it to be, and in that respect I thought it was very good. It was good for what it was. It wasn’t a good ‘accurate’ telling of Noah, if you want to just be able to see the story on the big screen, but that’s not what it was supposed to be. No one ever claimed this was a direct Biblical representation of the Flood story.

Of the small group I went to see this with, I had the highest opinion of it by far. After me, the best reaction was ‘I wasn’t prepared for that.’ They didn’t like it, but acknowledged that it was possible it was just because it wasn’t what they were expecting and if they had been more aware of what it was going to be like they may have received it better. The rest were simply negative with no possibility of coming around, though I tried to explain why the parts they didn’t like were just because they misunderstood the purposes (which made me feel like I was Jelly, which made me kind of proud).

There are many things I could pick out to give my thoughts on, but I don’t really want to because there’s no need to go through bit by bit, and it would take too long anyway, there was so much in here.
I do need to react to one topic though, because it’s an important one. A big issue one of my people had was how “Noah was portrayed as evil.” This is completely (though understandably) misunderstanding what was going on. Noah was not evil. He said multiple times he did not want to do that, but he believed it was what God wanted and as such had no choice in the matter. He was chosen to carry out God’s plan, he honestly believed that was part of it, so of course he was resolved to do it despite how terrible it seemed. It’s no different than Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac. He’s just trying to do what God wants him to. Noah was confused, and with good reason. He didn’t know exactly what God was wanting here, but he was doing his absolute best to figure it out and fulfill it.
So yeah; dark: definitely, unexpected: probably, but a blight on his character: no. Just the opposite in fact. If understood properly, this sequence reinforced the depiction of how strong Noah’s desire to follow God’s will was.

I also want to give my take on the Watchers, since I’m typing about things. My mind got really into this, finding different interpretations (which again made me feel like Jelly), and this is what I ultimately came up with. I don’t believe the Watchers are really fallen angels as described, at least not in the actual sense. The fallen angels are demons. They are the ones that sided with Satan in the rebellion against God and were cast out of Heaven forever. This can’t be what these creatures are, for multiple reasons.
First, and most troublesome to me when I was watching the movie, they weren’t cast from Heaven for rebelling, but banished for simply, and one could say mildly, disobeying God by desiring to help mankind. That really didn’t sit well with me, it seemed unfair on God’s part, which is obviously out of character.
Second, when they were destroyed they were accepted back into Heaven. This is a major red flag, because the angels made their choice once and for all. The fallen ones are fallen, permanently. They can regret their decision, but they cannot repent from it. They cannot reenter Heaven. So here, clearly, these beings cannot be actual fallen angels. But my mind used this problem to find a solution, and it thankfully clears up the bad feelings I had from the first problem.
I don’t believe the Watchers were actually banished by God, they just thought they were because of the circumstances. In reality, God kept them on Earth for a reason. They had to be there to help build and then defend the ark. When they had done that they were welcomed back into Heaven because they were never not welcome there. Their work was done, now they could return. It was all part of God’s plan and all had a purpose.

And one final thought. I’ve never tried to predict Oscar winners before because I have no idea what goes through the minds of the Academy when they’re looking for nominees, but I am calling this one right now. This film wins the 2015 award for Best Visual Effects. It’s a lock.

The Town of Odyssey

Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah

Re: Noah