http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/06/r ... ccuracies/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/06/russell-crowe-film-noah-edited-appease-christians-upset-by-historical-inaccuracies/)
QuoteRussell Crowe film 'Noah' edited to appease Christians upset by 'historical inaccuracies'
According to The Wrap, Paramount Pictures has edited Darren Aronofsky's Noah — which stars Russell Crowe in the titular role — in order to avoid offending Christian viewers.
Aronofsky allegedly told an associate that he was "not happy" when he learned that Paramount had appended a disclaimer to both the film and promotional materials for it.
At the request of the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), Paramount added a disclaimer which reads, in part, that "[t]he film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values, and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis."
NRB board member Phil Cooke told The Wrap that the disclaimer was necessary because the film is "historically inaccurate." It is, Cooke said, "more of an inspired movie than an exact retelling."
Cooke is not the only Christian to have concerns about the film.
Writing on his blog last year, Answers In Genesis president Ken Ham noted that the film's script "is not at all faithful to the biblical account in Genesis." Ham believes the trailer for the film is "a Hollywood con" designed to lure unsuspecting Jews and Christians to witness "an unbiblical production."
He lists the many ways in which the film does not accurately reflect his interpretation of what happened in Genesis 6. He notes that "Noah's family only consists of his wife, three sons, and one daughter-in-law, contrary to the Bible." Moreover, "t 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."
Most problematic for Ham, however, is that "Noah does not have a relationship with God but rather with circumstances and has deadly visions of the Flood," and that "[t]he Ark lands on a cliff next to a beach."
Brian Godawa, a screenwriter whose Christian films have repeatedly failed to be profitable at the box office, wrote that Noah's script "is deeply anti-Biblical in its moral vision."
"Noah is a kind of rural shaman and vegan hippie-like gatherer of herbs. Noah explains that his family tries to study and heal the world whenever possible, like a kind of environmentalist scientist," Godawa writes.
"Noah maintains an animal hospital to take care of wounded creatures or those who survive the evil 'poachers,' of the land. Just whose animal rights laws they are violating, I am not sure, since there are only fiefdoms of warlords and tribes. Be that as it may, Noah is the Mother Teresa of animals."
The environmental message, however, is not Godawa's central complaint — he is mostly considered with the "postmodernist fancy" that Aronofsky brings to the script. He initially acknowledges that anything not explicitly written in Genesis 6 is fair-game for creative license. "Saying 'That didn't happen on the ark,'" he writes, "is sheer ignorance because nobody knows what happened on the ark, because it wasn't written down!"
However, "postmodernists fancy playing God and changing the meaning of texts to suit their agenda because they believe language creates reality. Therefore, it's okay to 'make the Bible say what we want it to say.' This is manipulative narcissistic nonsense[.]"
Another problem with Noah is that it fails to acknowledge that while, from a Christian perspective, "[k]illing all humans but eight in order to start over (as the Bible portrays) may seem harsh to our thoroughly Modern Millie minds...it reaffirms that Image of God in Man that gives man value despite the evil."
Godawa is also concerned that this "uninteresting and unBiblical waste of a $150 million" will make it difficult for Christian screenwriters like him to find employment. He fears that it "will ruin for decades the possibility of making a really great and entertaining movie of this Bible hero beloved by billions of religious believers, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim."
Historical inaccuracies, eh? Words fail me..... :rollin:
Boy howdy. Last thing we want is a historically inaccurate account about Noah. [-X
Quote from: "Youssuf Ramadan"Historical inaccuracies, eh? Words fail me..... :rollin:
Now that the movie is edited, how are we supposed to know what the inaccuracies were? I'd really want to know. The fact that Noah is a work of fiction is entirely a secondary issue. I would like to find a site that lists these inaccuracies and explains why they are inaccurate. This is going to bug the Hell out of me. If someone could provide such a list, I would even promise to watch two full hours of Pat Robertson. Cross my heart.
Edit: My bad, I didn't read the link before I wrote this. Now I'm not sure how to deal with the Pat Robertson part. Oh my!
OK, so I go to read the link, and I get distracted by a sidebar photo of Rosanna Arquette in some promotion for an old flick called Amazon Women on the Moon. By the way, no one has ever criticized Amazon Women on the Moon for historical inaccuracies, but then that wasn't the point of the sidebar. But the article doesn't even talk about Rosanna Arquette. It's about John Landis, so now I've just wasted a Hell of a lot of time, and I still have to watch Pat Robertson.
Amazon Women on the Moon is without question one fine work of genius. Noah, not so much.
Quote from: "SGOS"OK, so I go to read the link, and I get distracted by a sidebar photo of Rosanna Arquette in some promotion for an old flick called Amazon Women on the Moon. By the way, no one has ever criticized Amazon Women on the Moon for historical inaccuracies, but then that wasn't the point of the sidebar. But the article doesn't even talk about Rosanna Arquette. It's about John Landis, so now I've just wasted a Hell of a lot of time, and I still have to watch Pat Robertson.
I'll give you the readers digest version of Patty boy..all 40 years..HONEST!
Blah, blah, blah..beat your wife...blah, blah.
There..saved you two hours. :)
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"There..saved you two hours. :)
Good enough. I'm declaring that fulfills my two hour commitment.
QuoteNow that the movie is edited, how are we supposed to know what the inaccuracies were?
What ever is left is inaccurate.
Quote from: "Minimalist"QuoteNow that the movie is edited, how are we supposed to know what the inaccuracies were?
What ever is left is inaccurate.
That simplifies the matter nicely. Now I'm not sure why I had to made such a fuss.
Makes you wonder if Cecil B. DeMille had to put up with the same shit.
Back then no one got their nose out of joint when Anne Baxter and Yvonne De Carlo showed up in Biblical spectaculars sporting bouffant hairdos that were done on Hollywood Boulevard and makeup worn by women of the 1950s. Now you can't swing a dead cat with hitting an offended Christian.
A film is art/entertainment. People who want "historical accuracy" should read a book or go to a lecture.
I am too lazy to fucking care....when someone figures it out, give me the 20 second bs.....no..make it 10 second. that is all.
Quote from: "Minimalist"QuoteNow that the movie is edited, how are we supposed to know what the inaccuracies were?
What ever is left is inaccurate.
somewhere in there is a Sherlock Holmes quote..
er.. it's simple. If a film is supposed to highlight Samuel Clemens' life but then says he owned slaves in the year 1890, is that accurate and does it take a US history expert to know that's bollocks?
When I read the title of this thread, I immediately thought "they didn't cancel the movie.... :lol: "
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Minimalist"QuoteNow that the movie is edited, how are we supposed to know what the inaccuracies were?
What ever is left is inaccurate.
somewhere in there is a Sherlock Holmes quote..
:rollin:
So lets see.... 450 foot boat made entirely out of wood built by 8 people that can hold thousands of animals, tons of food, be completely water tight and withstand heavy seas, and water that suddenly expands tens of thousand of times in volume for 40 days and then disappears, and said boat drifting thousands of miles and winding up on a mountain 10,000 feet in the air. Boy, let's not mess with that.
The disclaimer should have read: Yeah, we know this is 99.99999% bullshit, but for accuracy there was water, boats and animals back then.
Please, please, please let them have left in the part where koalas were launched back to Oz via local volcanoes.
Next they're going to tell me that Batman cartoons contain 'historical inaccuracies'.
Quote from: "Johan"Next they're going to tell me that Batman cartoons contain 'historical inaccuracies'.
Hey, I don't care about Noah, but DON'T MESS WITH BATMAN.
Quote from: "stromboli"Quote from: "Johan"Next they're going to tell me that Batman cartoons contain 'historical inaccuracies'.
Hey, I don't care about Noah, but DON'T MESS WITH BATMAN.
Too whiney.
An "historically accurate Story of Noah" is an oxymoron right from the very start; like an historically accurate first toy delivery run by Santa Claus and his flying reindeers. Would it be just a impossible to round up all those animals of the face of the Earth as it would be for Santa Claus to descend down every chimney on Earth in his toy delivery run?
Of course I never thought that, Noah had a companion called "Santa Claus" and employed his magic powers of making reindeers fly to make elephants and pigs and two of every species of animal on the face of the Earth to fly as well, thus making Noah's job a lot easier.
You guys know there were NO historical inaccuracies in Bugs Bunny coloring books. Bugs bunny was in a book so there's concrete proof of his existence.
QuoteGodawa is also concerned that this "uninteresting and unBiblical waste of a $150 million" will make it difficult for Christian screenwriters like him to find employment.
Oh reee-eee-eeealy?
OK I will correct the inaccuracies, the Tigris and Euphrates breaks their banks and floods most of Mesopotamia; and old tribesman goat herder, fisherman, hunter gatherer called "Gilgamesh and his crew" sails out on a rather large fishing boat and rescues the odd stranded goat, donkey, dog, and chicken. Stuff anything bigger than a donkey, they are too fucking big. As for elephants, man eating lions, and giraffes! "no fucking way" he said. "God! are you nuts" he said - and it came to pass.......
Still working on the script :rollin: :rollin:
hhmmm...So King Arthur was historically inaccurate too, right?
Now how to correct those historical inaccuracies of that Noah film
(http://www.clker.com/cliparts/9/8/A/V/S/A/delete-all-a-button-blue-hi.png)
If you cut out all the inaccuracies, what you get is a blank screen.
Anyone for pizza and beer?
Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 28, 2014, 09:26:06 AM
If you cut out all the inaccuracies, what you get is a blank screen.
Anyone for pizza and beer?
The flood was caused by Chuck Norris sneezing. This is the real life version of the events.
Hey, people are weird. There are people who are so into the "Harry Potter" universe that they criticized J.K. Rowling for not hooking up Hermione with Harry, and so on.
I used to know a guy that worshiped Thor the thunder god. Got all miffed because they wouldn't let him bring his sledge hammer to work. I think it had more to do with the fact he was like six four and weighed 300 pounds and was prone to violent outbursts.
I also knew a guy who called himself Fat Fred, the Friendly Faggot From Philly, but that's another story. :biggrin:
I think we should encourage Christians to be ever on guard with maintaining that Biblical accounts be portrayed as historically accurate as possible in all present and future movies. With any luck, they'll fall into squabbling, leaving the next generation to roll their eyes and walk away. Nothing like giving the spotlight to the ignorant, inane, and downright stupid to make it perfectly clear that the common religion of the land is lacking in substance and wreaking of bullshit.
Quote from: stromboli on March 28, 2014, 11:53:58 AM
Hey, people are weird. There are people who are so into the "Harry Potter" universe that they criticized J.K. Rowling for not hooking up Hermione with Harry, and so on.
As I understand it, she originally meant for that to happen. The two most powerful wizards of their generation combined as a team would be a tough act to follow.
Quote from: Aletheia on March 28, 2014, 12:13:41 PM
I think we should encourage Christians to be ever on guard with maintaining that Biblical accounts be portrayed as historically accurate as possible in all present and future movies. With any luck, they'll fall into squabbling, leaving the next generation to roll their eyes and walk away. Nothing like giving the spotlight to the ignorant, inane, and downright stupid to make it perfectly clear that the common religion of the land is lacking in substance and wreaking of bullshit.
^this.
I once did a fun thing. I told a guy in conversation about a book that had a magic garden with a talking snake, a dude that lives inside a whale, another dude that built a giant boat that held millions of animals, talking donkeys, flying chariots, giants, a dragon, a dude that could walk on water and died for 3 days and then came back to life. He just about said "wow, that's stupid" and then realized I was talking about the Bible. Got all red and walked off.
Quote from: stromboli on March 28, 2014, 12:24:35 PM
^this.
I once did a fun thing. I told a guy in conversation about a book that had a magic garden with a talking snake, a dude that lives inside a whale, another dude that built a giant boat that held millions of animals, talking donkeys, flying chariots, giants, a dragon, a dude that could walk on water and died for 3 days and then came back to life. He just about said "wow, that's stupid" and then realized I was talking about the Bible. Got all red and walked off.
He'd probably never read it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 28, 2014, 12:28:15 PM
He'd probably never read it.
That is actually true. I am probably unique in that I have read the bible through twice- once as a challenge in Mormon seminary, the 2nd time as a Christian. What I noticed is that you will gloss over different parts that are pointless- about 2/3rds of the book- and tend to focus on the doctrines you have been taught that are correct. So it had different meaning the 2nd time from the first. That was a big lesson. That is why any preacher can preach anything they want, because there is so much to cherry pick from.
Quote from: stromboli on March 28, 2014, 12:32:33 PM
That is actually true. I am probably unique in that I have read the bible through twice- once as a challenge in Mormon seminary, the 2nd time as a Christian. What I noticed is that you will gloss over different parts that are pointless- about 2/3rds of the book- and tend to focus on the doctrines you have been taught that are correct. So it had different meaning the 2nd time from the first. That was a big lesson. That is why any preacher can preach anything they want, because there is so much to cherry pick from.
Jews have told me that the OT isn't for anybody but Jews anyway. The NT is pretty much a pissing contest between differing ideas of what should be considered "Christian". Together they produce a book most people wouldn't read if it wasn't necessary. Like
Ivanhoe.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 28, 2014, 12:36:12 PM
Jews have told me that the OT isn't for anybody but Jews anyway. The NT is pretty much a pissing contest between differing ideas of what should be considered "Christian". Together they produce a book most people wouldn't read if it wasn't necessary. Like Ivanhoe.
Hey,watch it. I got a degree in English Lit. Ivanhoe is cool!
Quote from: stromboli on March 28, 2014, 12:38:27 PM
Hey,watch it. I got a degree in English Lit. Ivanhoe is cool!
No Russians, no farming, dafuq?
I confess that my first introduction of Ivanhoe was an illustrated classic comic book. I was in puberty. You've got Rowena and Rebecca, blonde and brunette, constantly in peril of death/rape/mayhem, a disenfranchised and perpetually horny knight seeking some love, virgin knights, persecuted Jews and imminent threats of death, along with Robin Hood and storming castles and shit. To this day I still want to storm a castle. And I attribute my attraction to exotic Brunette women to Rebecca.
Quote from: stromboli on March 28, 2014, 11:53:58 AM
Hey, people are weird. There are people who are so into the "Harry Potter" universe that they criticized J.K. Rowling for not hooking up Hermione with Harry, and so on.
I shipped Harry with Luna cause I'm into weird chicks.
Quote from: Savior2006 on March 28, 2014, 01:31:47 PM
I shipped Harry with Luna cause I'm into weird chicks.
Luna was awesome.
Quote from: stromboli on March 28, 2014, 12:50:09 PM
I confess that my first introduction of Ivanhoe was an illustrated classic comic book. I was in puberty. You've got Rowena and Rebecca, blonde and brunette, constantly in peril of death/rape/mayhem, a disenfranchised and perpetually horny knight seeking some love, virgin knights, persecuted Jews and imminent threats of death, along with Robin Hood and storming castles and shit. To this day I still want to storm a castle. And I attribute my attraction to exotic Brunette women to Rebecca.
I've never read it. It was coming up in my high school lit class, but I wrote a seven page review (two pages required) of
Stranger In A Strange Land and the teacher assigned that for reading instead.
Yeah. Stranger in a Strange Land still ranks as one of my favorites.
** Still waiting for historically accurate account of rib being ripped out and "miraculously" growing into full grown woman.
Quote from: stromboli on March 28, 2014, 05:48:19 PM
Yeah. Stranger in a Strange Land still ranks as one of my favorites.
She got "not retained" because of that, sadly. I think she moved on to a larger school. The sex was too much for the local bluenoses. The murders, not so much.
Edit out the historical inaccuracies and would of course be a very short film, and then it could be entered for the Trofest short film competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropfest) and only if they make their signature item, "bullshit" some time in the future. Believe me that ark would be filled with plenty of bullshit - literally.
Historically accurate or Biblically accurate, it doesn't make much difference. Hollywood seldom films the movie exactly as the book is written, or in the case of history, exactly how it is recorded. It's called artistic license. If religion is automatically granted a bullshit license, Hollywood should be granted an artistic license. In the end, getting one's nose out of joint over the issue is really kind of weird.
Quote from: SGOS on March 29, 2014, 07:46:12 AMHollywood seldom films the movie exactly as the book is written, or in the case of history, exactly how it is recorded.
If they do try, the cry of "regurgitation" arises. If they don't, then "profaning the original" is the cry. Critics get paid to whinge.
Wait, shouldn't god have changed the movie to portray ONLY historical accuracies? Oh wait..the test pattern movie.. :lol:
I wouldn't mind a movie faithfully representing the bible. You're just substituting the medium(book) for another medium(movie). The content is still fictional. But I wouldn't go see it. :biggrin2:
Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 29, 2014, 05:09:18 PM
I wouldn't mind a movie faithfully representing the bible. You're just substituting the medium(book) for another medium(movie). The content is still fictional. But I wouldn't go see it. :biggrin2:
Why ? Anthony hopkins is in the movie for Chuck Norris sake! I know any version of the Noah story is bullshit but the movie is okay.
Well then, I'll wait for the DVD to come out.
Quote from: Johan on March 08, 2014, 08:55:07 AM
Next they're going to tell me that Batman cartoons contain 'historical inaccuracies'.
Why not? They ate the Harvey Oswald and 9/11 stories too, didn't they? Talk about cartoon characters and plots!
I like how the primary complaint of "it's inaccurate" is levied by people who have made "accurate", yet unsuccessful movies. People have seen the accurate ones, and they're terrible. Of course producers are going to back a movie that's more likely to succeed.
Quote from: RobbyPants on April 02, 2014, 10:32:41 AM
I like how the primary complaint of "it's inaccurate" is levied by people who have made "accurate", yet unsuccessful movies. People have seen the accurate ones, and they're terrible. Of course producers are going to back a movie that's more likely to succeed.
I dunno -- that beautiful new drama "God Isn't Dead" starring Kevin Sorbo is rocketing to the top of the religious movie charts!
Interesting because Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 20% but the audience gave it 87%
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gods_not_dead/
Hmmm.... wonder who the audience is.......... :think:
You can make a cheesy shit movie on the right subject for cheap and the True Believers will eat it up.
Quote from: stromboli on April 02, 2014, 05:24:59 PM
Interesting because Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 20% but the audience gave it 87%
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gods_not_dead/
Hmmm.... wonder who the audience is.......... :think:
...I have my suspicions...
QuoteYou can make a cheesy shit movie on the right subject for cheap and the True Believers will eat it up.
I'm honestly surprised Hollywood didn't figure this out years ago.
There's such irony involved in terms of belief. When "The Passion of the Christ" came out, many many Christians flocked to it and endured the movie. If it had been about anyone but Jesus, it would have been seen as an overly violent snuff film and decried; instead all of these folks who can't even handle PG-13 movies sat through it, some multiple times.
If you can get a religious face on it, the audience will pay for it.
Many years ago when I was a Mormon, they made a movie called "Here's Brother Brigham!" Produced by some LDS person or other, We went to it in the big theater. We came out all trying to act uplifted and enlightened, but it was so stupefyingly bad and had such a crappy ending it was indescribable. Never got one bad review, and just showing in Provo Utah to the BYU students I'm sure it made its money back.
[k]illing all humans but eight in order to start over (as the Bible portrays) may seem harsh to our thoroughly Modern Millie minds…it reaffirms that Image of God in Man that gives man value despite the evil.â€
I'm sitting here going WHAAAAAT? how does this quote make any sense? It doesn't.
personally I want to see the movie. I don't give a crap if it takes after the bible or not, it's a movie made for entertainment not historical record. LMAO people who take life too seriously.
Even if I am an atheist I have no problem with epic bible story movies especially all spiced up.
Quote from: doorknob on April 03, 2014, 01:32:34 PM
[k]illing all humans but eight in order to start over (as the Bible portrays) may seem harsh to our thoroughly Modern Millie minds…it reaffirms that Image of God in Man that gives man value despite the evil.â€
I'm sitting here going WHAAAAAT? how does this quote make any sense? It doesn't.
I killed my entire lawn with Roundup last fall, and replanted it from scratch, because I wanted to get rid of highly invasive Bermuda grass, and I thought that might have been heavy handed. :biggrin:
Quote from: SGOS on April 04, 2014, 07:54:59 AM
I killed my entire lawn with Roundup last fall, and replanted it from scratch, because I wanted to get rid of highly invasive Bermuda grass, and I thought that might have been heavy handed. :biggrin:
But... but... Bermuda grass is only invasive because God made it that way! :wink2: