Isn't the original Biblical story even more anti-human? Humans are horrible so almost all of them get killed off, right?

Glen Beck is a galaxy-spanning, massive black hole of stupidity.

"I don't think it's an environmental thing as much as it's just so pro-animal and anti-human, and I mean strongly anti-human."

It's a story about God nearly killing every human on the planet because we were so terrible, ffs.

"Pay the religious nuts to oppose this film" line in their budgets.

They should. Somehow, I think the old canard that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" will win out on this one.

The RWNJ reactions are always an incentive to go see this kind of film for me.

but the furor with which the RW gives free pub to certain movies is always rather amusing.

I actually love telling religious folks that their outrage is that kind of incentive for me. I'm bad that way.

IIRC, so is the original story!

Yes, it is definitely a PRO-ANIMAL film!

... revealing a computer monitor and a naked guy who looks a lot like Santa Claus twitching a game controller.

and we will do as we please with him. Right now he is lunching with Santa because the Easter Bunny is busy right now.

This is not something I would have gone to see, but now I am.

The Wrestler are all fine films and it will be very interesting to see what he does with this.

After about 45 minutes in when the rain starts to pour, and the flood starts, the rest of it is just Noah sitting on the deck of the Ark drinking Schlitz and fishing.

TlalocW

Oh, the anti-humanity!

and we did see that the re-adapted Son of God did fairly well in the theater overall (not Last Temptation of Christ box office, but good considering it aired on TV mostly previously) and Paramount works with a number of organizations to get this film right - even making last minute edits - and they all still freak out.

Well, not "they" the faceless masses.

"They" the hucksters and shills that are out to enrich themselves and sway opinion.

The people at my church think that movie Son of God or what ever it is called is just the best movie, so beautiful ... Of course I opened my mouth and added my two cents, to say it wasn't received well, would be an understatement. I told them that movie looked like a cheesy B movie from the 1950's. Why would I waste 10$ on something that looks like it was produced by the Hallmark channel?

Then I went on to say Noah looks a lot better. The fundies have already done a great job trashing this movie. I say that because all the bad things I have read and heard those people say about this movie was repeated to me as the reasons why Noah was bad and cheesy B 50's movie was better.

I went on to say that from only viewing the previews of both films, Noah looks more real. I also said that if you are doing a Biblical historic type movie I want the film to be more authentic and Jesus would look more like bin Laden then a white male model. This movie looks no better then The Greatest Story Ever Told.

I concluded by saying that I'm tired of being milked for money. Just because this movie is about something in the Bible doesn't mean I have to like it or buy into it. The Son of God movie is the movie industry making a killing on gullible people.

And what Jesus did to them?

Don't fuck with the JZ...

http://vimeo.com/24052541

Here are 4 reasons not to see it:

1: it stars Russell Crowe, who is usually a bit of a ham in his movies
2: it's a silly plot about an impossible flood; this allows the script writer to do anything they want, without worrying if it makes sense
3: it's been massively hyped, but I haven't noticed anyone saying "it's a good movie"
4: it'll cost you money.

of Noah and the flood is based on flood myths from many cultures around the world, Noah just being one version of many. I don't have any argument with the rest of your reasons, but rejecting a story in any format because it's based on ancient myth means that most stories wouldn't ever have been told.

I wouldn't see it if I thought it was trying to promote the bible as history, or christianity, or the judeo/christian tradition as the "one true faith," or trying to send any religious message at all; that would be my #1 reason. In the context of myth, though, I might take a look.

which (should) raise further questions, such as "if God can magic up enough water to drown the Earth, why does he need a man to build a boat to save the animals? Why couldn't he have just drowned the evil humans individually, thus saving the blameless animals?" Or allows the script writer to do anything he wants.

people trying to explain the world and events around them, based on what they know, and ancient peoples had not yet figured out conservation of mass. At the core of what has driven human evolution is that drive, that need, to discover and explain. Our first learning and teaching came in the form of storytelling. I wouldn't call the oral tradition "silly" because it included metaphor or parable to teach, or because it included things that weren't literally possible. The first rule for interpreting literature is to look beyond the literal for meaning.

you're far more optimistic than I am. What I'm saying is that it's a silly basis for what appears to have been written as an action film.

Not that it can't ever work - I think "The Incredibles" did very well at being fun, an action film, and with 'a message' all at the same time, from a basis that allowed all kinds of dei ex machina. But I think that's rare.

I think that modern stories are more about entertainment than teaching, which is why students run into a brick wall of frustration when they hit secondary education, and stories are about more than that. Any story, in print or film, that can be entertaining AND offer avenues for thought and growth about what it means to be human is worthwhile.

I think that stories are part of our history, our humanity, and that we ought to celebrate them for what they are. I think that the story of Noah is fascinating, because it's one of so many flood myths throughout history. What I wish I could do would be to study (with my students) all of those different flood myths, put them on a timeline and in geographical context, look for commonalities and differences, and see what might have passed from one place to another through migration, and if those separated by great distances in time and space have any common source. I'd like to see flood myths understood in historical context. Since many myths evolve around some actual event, I'd like to look for possible localized flooding that could have given rise to an angry god destroying the world; ancients didn't really have a grounded concept of the world outside their own range.

I'd like to do all of that, but I can't, because the story of Noah is in the bible, and I'd be crucified by christians if I tried to put it in context, and by the rest if I tried to use a bible story as literature for "bringing religion into the classroom," and my middle school students would be understandably confused and conflicted if I presented what they've been taught as "truth" as myth.

I can't, but I can listen to my students talk about the movie; some will see it, some won't be allowed to, but will hear about it from peers. A bible story presented as mythological entertainment instead of historical "fact" is a move in the right direction, imo, and the time is ripe. Believe it or not, Rick Riordan, with his not-so-deep and meaningful "Percy Jackson" books and movies, has sparked a resurgence in passion for mythology among young people, setting them up for seeing myths through different lenses. I DO talk about archetypes in mythology and make connections to more modern stories with them, and their passion for mythology means that their brains come along for the ride in those discussions. I'm thinking they can make their own connections to biblical myth without me pointing it out. Being modern young people who love movies, adding a major film about Noah from a non-religious perspective will help them do that.

As you can see, my pov is not that of science, but of literature and history, but that's to be expected from a teacher of both.

I enjoyed reading this. Your students are lucky to have you as their teacher. Stretch those minds! They'll thank you someday.

Most comedies as well. In fact, all fiction...it isn't real!

Just watch documentaries, and only if they're narrated by someone with the last name "Attenborough."

... can he make a rock so big that he himself cannot lift it?" I really miss George Carlin!

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We had that album growing up.

Elbow to finger tips.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit

Both.

His routines were a delight! My favorite was The Chickenheart. Used to meanly terrify my friend's little sister with that one.

I couldn't believe it when I found out that the chicken heart story was a real episode of the Lights Out series!

seems a legitimate response.

Look up! #22

I think I'll still wait for it to hit Netflix though...if they're still around when it's released for general distribution that is.

Why would I pay to see that made into a film?

He hasn't had a 'hit' movie in a while...

but with so many nut cases whining about it I would really like to help its box office. Maybe I can get the ticket and then just wander into another theater by mistake.

Do they think it is a documentary or that people will worry that it is going to happen? How many people did Noah knock out in fist fights?

Anthony Hopkins is in it as Methuselah for bad ass sword swinging angels of vengence sake!

He's like a thousand ask him anything!

I mean the holy shit I'm going to kick all your asses kind of angels!

and knew it was one I wasn't going to be watching.

"Black Swan" was a truly bad movie. I can't quite decide if it was unintentionally so bad or deliberately so. Either way, it was basically a movie about the nature of reality: How can we tell what's real and what is not? That was the real theme of that movie. It was based in a bizarre fantasy that was sort of based in ballet. It was actually about a disfunctional relationship with reality.

This movie about Noah looks to be only loosely based on the Biblical account of a great flood -- as if the Bible is some sort of reality-based narrative.

It also does not look to be a very good movie at all.

Those of you who go, I sincerely hope you like it.

It's hard to believe there are nations with governments that rule with this kind of nonsense. It seem they try to keep their citizenry ignorant and hateful. Rule by fear and education by ancient tomes will do that I guess.

I keep hearing they "went out on a limb" in making a movie based on a religious fable, which as it turns out has angered the religious zealots. Ok, good for them for being risk takers, I guess. I still don't like the story. Never have, never will.

I'm not going to pay to watch a glamorized version of an overly hyped story, which I had to "study" (read: not question) repeatedly in Sunday school as a child. I've had my fill of this particular story years ago.

Maybe if they'd added some volcanic explosions Noah had to strategically navigate the ark through. Oh, or how about dragons, or anything to make it interesting. But, they didn't and it's basically the same lame story at its core.

Moreso than in the Bible. They were one of the better parts of the movie with a nice arc, and their design was just so bizarre. Even the way they moved, almost like Harryhausen stop-motion, was weird in a good way.

It never ceases to amaze me when people who insist upon religious fidelity apparently don't know what they are trying to be faithful to. The reason God isn't uttered in the Bible is because his name wasn't used back then. He called himself I am not God. For crying out loud, if you are going to live by a book you call unerrant, then read the thing.

if those guys decide to revive it.

Black Swan was such a hilariously bad movie that I think I'm going to be better off avoiding all future films by Aronofsky. Except that Black Swan wasn't actually hilariously bad. It was simply bad. Dumb. Unbelievable. Those who know the ballet world were truly outraged.

Oh wait, someone did that. Called it "2012" and put Woody Harrelson in it.