Check Out The Most Talked-About Scene From Noah

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

pearcinator:

Moviebob explains it pretty well.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/8908-Waterworks-Darren-Aronofskys-Noah

Bob doesn't say anything about atheists being angry, though. All he does is say that some intellectual elite might snub it based on the content. While that's snobbish, it neither equates to angry, upset, incensed, etc.

"Leads me to believe this film is far closer to being "Christian/Christian-sympathetic" propaganda rather than a mere visual retelling of the Genesis narrative."

So this guy thought the movie was 'Christian-sympathetic' and that bothered him for some reason.

Your (parahprased) quote doesn't demonstrate that he's bothered at all, so I don't know that or know that you know it.

In fact, many of the comments on Moviebob's Noah review are sort of opposed to it (because let's face it, most people here on The Escapist are atheist and opposed to anything religious). Maybe it's more of an American thing, religion is far more ingrained over there than it is here in Australia.[/quote]

I only got down one page of the thread, but what I saw was: a couple of atheists who wanted to see it, a couple of people (no clue their beliefs) calling it crap, a couple longer discussions on various points, and one person addressing the dangers of letting the Bible become pop culture again. None of this sounds like a response from angry atheists towards the movie. If there are later examples, feel free to quote them, as I'm not saying there are no examples ever or whatever. I see snobbery, I see some criticism of Christianity, yes. I see some people who didn't like the movie, which could come from Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims or anyone else.

I mean, I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I'm not seeing it. Though I suppose I could probably go to YouTube and see if the Amazing Atheist has said something, because I'm sure he'd be angry about it for some reason. But that would require actually watching him, and....Ew.

But in general, the only people I've seen pissed off from the religious end are theists.

A very well put together sequence, if let down by the Adam and Eve scene which just felt misplaced. However, it does encapsulate my big issue with the Genesis story, which has never been the creationism v science aspect or anything like that, but rather, that the Genesis story is profoundly anti-human. The whole "humans have screwed up paradise" concept is just so ridiculous. Don't misunderstand me, I think the world could be a much better place than it is, and things like pollution are on us, but I just can't accept the notion that prior to human beings the world was some kind of disney-esk enchanted forest where all the animals live in harmony and everything is right with the world.

A world without human beings, while it might have more trees, would be just as harsh and cruel place as the world today. When people depict this fanciful "natural paradise" you never see a scene of a zebra screaming as a lioness drags it down by it's throat, or of a male chimpanzee killing the young of a rival group. There is now, and always has been pain and suffering in this world with and without human beings.

Now as a foot note I do just want to make it clear that just because there is pain and suffering in nature, that does not mean I think it is OK for humans to cause pain and suffering, we should strive to be better than that. I just object to the propagation of the fallacy that humans are somehow the root cause.

I thought it was a cool visual shorthand for explaining the setting.

Mind you the fact that most people are already familiar with Old Testament canon is a big help (and allows the Director to add his own unique touches in) helped quite a bit but I'll take that over droning plot-heavy exposition any day.

Zachary Amaranth:

*snip*

Snubbing the film based on its content is just the elitist way of being opposed to it. There are many different ways one can express anger so if you're only taking into account the rage and yelling form of anger then yes they aren't 'angry' at it.

However, I see boycotting as another form of anger at the material (why else would you boycott/snub something) it's a more silent 'you're wrong but its not worth arguing with you' kind of anger but whatever, if you don't see it as that then I don't care.

Casual Shinji:

Rellik San:
Don't get me wrong, I see you're point I'm just curious how else you would show divinity and damnation in a secular manner. Which is what was attempted here.

I haven't seen this movie, so maybe it makes sense latter on or in hindsight, but it might've been better had Noah told them as two separate tales; One a realitic depiction of the course of the universe, and the other a more surreal one about Adam and Eve that's more allegorical.

You really can't ask for that, I think it's a decent compromise and with all the rock monsters it isn't a stretch plus the first "human's" would look alien to us so they just took it to it's most logical extreme given the source material and context.

Besides, otherwise they'd just have to cast more dark skinned people, and hollywood can't have that ;)

TallanKhan:
A very well put together sequence, if let down by the Adam and Eve scene which just felt misplaced. However, it does encapsulate my big issue with the Genesis story, which has never been the creationism v science aspect or anything like that, but rather, that the Genesis story is profoundly anti-human. The whole "humans have screwed up paradise" concept is just so ridiculous. Don't misunderstand me, I think the world could be a much better place than it is, and things like pollution are on us, but I just can't accept the notion that prior to human beings the world was some kind of disney-esk enchanted forest where all the animals live in harmony and everything is right with the world.

A world without human beings, while it might have more trees, would be just as harsh and cruel place as the world today. When people depict this fanciful "natural paradise" you never see a scene of a zebra screaming as a lioness drags it down by it's throat, or of a male chimpanzee killing the young of a rival group. There is now, and always has been pain and suffering in this world with and without human beings.

Now as a foot note I do just want to make it clear that just because there is pain and suffering in nature, that does not mean I think it is OK for humans to cause pain and suffering, we should strive to be better than that. I just object to the propagation of the fallacy that humans are somehow the root cause.

While Adam and Eve are mostly portrayed as fallible sinners, they did not cause the demise of the Garden of Eden. Rather, they were forbidden from living in it and enjoying the pleasures god created for them. Keep in mind the paradise was created with humans the highest animal, and that a certain serpent was also responsible (and punished) for their disobedience. I wouldn't look for an opinion on humanity as a whole from the narrative.

Do they get to the part where Noah drunkenly knocked up his daughters?

Casual Shinji:
If Noah is telling a story of old, why do we see dudes in riot gear among those silhouettes (or dudes in Spanish armor for that matter)? I know it's supposed to show how we'll aways be at war with one another (duh), but it doesn't make any sense in the context of the story he's telling his family. What, can he look into the future?

Anyway, not bad, apart from the silly glowing Adam and Eve and the cartoony looking snake. The Tree of Life sequence still blows it out of the water though.

This was way better and more concise than the Tree of Life scene. Don't want to use ad populum too much, but most people I've seen on the internet hold this scene in better regard than the meandering Tree of Life sequence because of its lackadaisical editing and pacing. The galaxy stuff in that Tree of Life sequence is the coolest because of the chemical photography, but it just goes on and on way past "ooh pretty" phase.

It sounds like you haven't watched the movie because he's not telling his family beat-by-beat what's happening in this sequence. It's a prophecy, that's more conveyed to the audience watching the movie.

Moeez:
This was way better and more concise than the Tree of Life scene. Don't want to use ad populum too much, but most people I've seen on the internet hold this scene in better regard than the meandering Tree of Life sequence because of its lackadaisical editing and pacing. The galaxy stuff in that Tree of Life sequence is the coolest because of the chemical photography, but it just goes on and on way past "ooh pretty" phase.

I like seeing the universe displayed in a non concise manner.

The Tree of Life sequence made you feel the breath and the inconceiveablity of the universe. And a chemical photographed universe beats a CGI universe everytime.

TallanKhan:
A very well put together sequence, if let down by the Adam and Eve scene which just felt misplaced. However, it does encapsulate my big issue with the Genesis story, which has never been the creationism v science aspect or anything like that, but rather, that the Genesis story is profoundly anti-human. The whole "humans have screwed up paradise" concept is just so ridiculous. Don't misunderstand me, I think the world could be a much better place than it is, and things like pollution are on us, but I just can't accept the notion that prior to human beings the world was some kind of disney-esk enchanted forest where all the animals live in harmony and everything is right with the world.

There's a different side to the story though that a lot of people miss. In a nutshell it's about taking the bad with the good. It's not called 'the fruit of knowledge' for nothing. Before Eve and Adam took a bite from it, they didn't know pain or sadness, but they also didn't know joy or pleasure. And you can't have one without the other. You can't know joy without the knowledge of pain.

The paradise is synonymous for ignorance, and ignorance is bliss. And that's ultimately what got ruined by them eating the apple.

Casual Shinji:

Moeez:
This was way better and more concise than the Tree of Life scene. Don't want to use ad populum too much, but most people I've seen on the internet hold this scene in better regard than the meandering Tree of Life sequence because of its lackadaisical editing and pacing. The galaxy stuff in that Tree of Life sequence is the coolest because of the chemical photography, but it just goes on and on way past "ooh pretty" phase.

I like seeing the universe displayed in a non concise manner.

The Tree of Life sequence made you feel the breath and the inconceiveablity of the universe. And a chemical photographed universe beats a CGI universe everytime.

No one is disagreeing the chemical photography for the universe was nice, but Noah isn't concerned with showing the universe so you're making a bad comparison for something that isn't there. The rest was...forgettable. The CGI dinosaurs part was memorably terrible though.

I haven't seen the movie but that was a pretty good way at combining both the Creationist view and the theory of Evolution into a single view of how life began. It's not totally accurate on the Evolution side of things but hell what movie is, they all sacrifice fact to be more visually appealing. I wasn't gonna see it but I think I might give it a shot after seeing that.

pearcinator:

Snubbing the film based on its content is just the elitist way of being opposed to it.

But doesn't mean you're angry.

I mean, there's a very easy reason people (and not just atheists) might turn up their noses at a "Christian" movie without being angry: media labeled specifically as "Christian" tends to be crap designed specifically to pander to people who have more interest in something being Jesus approved than something that's good. Bob actually covered this, so you should be aware. The amount of total crap that comes out in the name of Christianity is simply staggering. And that's not to say Christians can't make good art/entertainment, because the last couple millennia is rife with people who did just that. I listen to a ton of musicians who are Christians, but I don't tend to listen to Christian Rock (or rap, or whatever). I read books written by Christians, but avoid the "Christian" genre. Why? Because these labels tend to point out pandering crap.

There are many different ways one can express anger so if you're only taking into account the rage and yelling form of anger then yes they aren't 'angry' at it.

Except you're inferring anger. I mean, I'm a music snob. I turn up my nose at pop music 99% of the time. Are you going to honestly tell me I'm angry at pop music?

However, I see boycotting as another form of anger at the material (why else would you boycott/snub something) it's a more silent 'you're wrong but its not worth arguing with you' kind of anger but whatever, if you don't see it as that then I don't care.

Who's boycotting?[1] You've introduced this new concept, but I'm yet to see any atheist boycotts, either. And you don't have to be angry to boycott. You just have to choose not to support something for some reason. You're tacking on extra steps with no reason. There's no reason to assume elitist snobs are angry.

Are you just trying to make a false appeal to centrism?

[1] A Google search yields, as I expected, a bunch of Christian groups from either the YEC or Biblical literalist camps boycotting as well as Muslims, but I an yet to find examples of atheist boycotts

Casual Shinji:
There's a different side to the story though that a lot of people miss. In a nutshell it's about taking the bad with the good. It's not called 'the fruit of knowledge' for nothing. Before Eve and Adam took a bite from it, they didn't know pain or sadness, but they also didn't know joy or pleasure. And you can't have one without the other. You can't know joy without the knowledge of pain.

The paradise is synonymous for ignorance, and ignorance is bliss. And that's ultimately what got ruined by them eating the apple.

It's also wort noting that God lied and the serpent (Which wasn't the devil until Christian revisionism) was telling the truth. God said "you will surely die."

"You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

He comes off as kind of a dick. I mean, how are we to trust anyone who starts a relationship off with a lie?

Zachary Amaranth:
It's also wort noting that God lied and the serpent (Which wasn't the devil until Christian revisionism) was telling the truth. God said "you will surely die."

"You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

He comes off as kind of a dick. I mean, how are we to trust anyone who starts a relationship off with a lie?

There's so many versions of this story. In one God made a wife for Adam not from his rib, but also in God's own image, called Lilith. But she didn't want anything to do with Adam and fucked off to live on her own. And in another it's actually Eve who is God and she choose a serpent for her partner.

Casual Shinji:
There's so many versions of this story. In one God made a wife for Adam not from his rib, but also in God's own image, called Lilith. But she didn't want anything to do with Adam and fucked off to live on her own. And in another it's actually Eve who is God and she choose a serpent for her partner.

I assumed we were talking the Biblical version. I mean, there are multiple versions of the story that don't involved the tree being the fruit of knowledge and the punishment is for disobedience alone.

I always thought it was odd the way creationists defend their incredibly short and vague description of how the world and life began. I mean "God said let there be X" does kinda leave some room for interpretation. It's nice to see this finally being acknowledged.

pearcinator:
Snip

You might want to add some content to this post before the mods see. That means text. No, the picture doesn't count as content.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.