I'm a Christian and i can tell you as well as knowing God personally i know the bible as well and this movie does not line up with the bible. If you want the truth do not watch this movie, go straight to the bible, accept Jesus into your heart as well and form a friendship with him like you would your best friend because just knowing the bible isn't going to help without knowing the Creator who strongly inspired it (2 Timothy 3:16)
Peace Out ✌
Yes, the movie's deviations were quite offensive.
________________________________________________________________________
"I thought you were class,like a high note you hit once in a lifetime."- Young Man With a Horn(1950)
It's a movie dipsh!t. Beware any man who claims to know truth for certain.
shareThis movie drew heavily upon apocryphal or deutero-canonical books, which are considered Biblical or semi-Biblical in some older religious traditions in the more ancient parts of the world.
But if you are only familiar with the American protestant tradition, then you probably were not aware of this, and had a similar knee-jerk reaction to the movie like the OP.
It's more so Gnostic leaning.
shareExactly.
shareya but bro his version of christianity is the right one and all the others are wrong cause... umm. faith..
shareIt's a movie, people.
shareI knew this movie was garbage the moment I heard about the more bizarre stuff in the previews.
My poor grandma went to see this, assuming it was gonna be like an updated version of that 60s movie, and she didn't even ask anyone about it! She had to leave the theater less than 10 minutes after the start.
If you want a good movie about Noah's Ark, the best one is that old 60s movie, "The Bible." It's a shorter story within a bigger one, but it's a good look at the story in the actual Bible.
If you want something light-hearted, "Evan Almighty" is also a cute interpretation of the Noah's Ark story :D.
This movie draws heavily from apocryphal and deutero-canonical books such as the Book of Enoch, which older forms of Christianity count as part of the Bible. But American audiences are generally only familiar with the Protestant tradition and so have no idea what any of that stuff is. Therefore, the concept that Bibles in more ancient parts of the world might include some different books is outside of their frame of reference and absolutely beyond their comprehension. So they see this movie and get an angry knee-jerk reaction because they automatically assume that huge parts of the film were pulled out of nowhere, when that's simply not the case.
shareYou do realize those books you mentioned are books based on false teachings. We call them "apochryphal" for a reason, because they were written by people following gnostic break-offs from Christianity, rather than following the actual doctrine. It should also be noted that an atheist was in charge of making this movie; probably the worst person to be in charge of making a Biblical film, because honestly, this entire mess is just him saying "I hate Christianity and want to poop on it any way I can!"
What about all the modern stuff they stuck in? Like everyone wearing modern, post-apocalyptic clothing, or Caine having a pseudo-rifle he used to shoot people? Or the flood seeming to be a product of global warming? And why are they having white people play these parts? As far as anyone knows, Noah looked nothing at all like Russel Crowe! And what the hell is with the stone giants? That sounds more like a LOTR rip-off than something the gnostic Bibles would talk about!
The Book of Enoch predates Christianity and Gnosticism by one to three centuries, and was considered canonical by many early "Church Fathers." For hundreds of years it has been considered inspired scripture penned by Enoch himself in Ethiopian Orthodox belief, one of the most ancient forms of Christianity that exists (and the Eritrean Orthodox Church which branched off from it). The stone giants in the movie are a stylized depiction of the Watchers described in that book. Now, I don't believe that this particular book belongs in the canon of the Bible, but nearly 40 million people do. A passage in the "Enoch" text actually matches the Epistle of Jude's quotation from Enoch, but I believe it's more likely they both drew from another older source. But I digress... In any case, I don't think discussion of a popular film is the appropriate setting to make proselytizing statements about somebody else's beliefs being false teachings. In study and discourse on cinema, a more impartial, academic perspective is called for.
Aronofsky and Logan drawing from that ancient source for background context is exactly what Cecile B. Demille and his crew did with The Ten Commandments (1956) by pulling all sorts of stuff from very old sources such as Josephus, Eusebius, Philo, and the Midrash, which were themselves far, far removed from the events of Exodus by well over a thousand years (though Demille made the supposition that those writers must have had access to even older sources which were since lost). If a viewer is only familiar with the account as described in Exodus itself, then that movie appears to be full of fanciful embellishments. But the depiction makes sense in the context of those other sources.
As for the depiction of pre-flood society... sure, it was rather stylized with various liberties taken, but there are many indications in the book of Genesis itself that antediluvian civilization was quite advanced, with metallurgy (which involves chemistry), architecture and city building, and cultural developments such as music and poetic composition. I rather like the idea that humankind was becoming too destructive, not just to each other but to Earth's environment.
When it comes to the race/ethnicity of the characters, "whitewashing" is an ongoing problem in Hollywood, and not really something that can be pinned on this movie. What would have been the best racial depiction here, anyway? It's easy to assume that the characters should have looked like Middle Eastern people of today, but we simply don't know. In Biblical history, all races of mankind descended from Noah's family, but we don't know which race they themselves looked like. I would have preferred it if everybody in this movie looked totally unlike any specific identifiable "racial" variety that we see among humankind today.
Tell me....are people still talking about this film all over the place, quoting parts of it, reenacting it, and saying which characters they like best? Are they making Halloween costumes from this film for kids? Are they making cartoon references to it?
No. In fact, it's mostly gone from public memory. It doesn't matter how much research the film-makers made. It doesn't matter what stylizing they made. This entire film was poorly written, acted out in an insulting manner towards Christians, depressing, and made a lot of people unhappy to watch. Even the Muslim world was upset with it (of course, that doesn't take much with western films). The few who did have forgotten about it as soon as possible. That is the sign of a bad film and an embarrassment, not a blockbuster classic. This film doesn't even have a strong cult following!
It seems the only people who enjoy this wreck of a film are people who are not Christian, people who are looking for an excuse to justify why they deny the existence of God, and ignoring the lesson the story was telling entirely, including reading alternate ancient texts that are not accepted as doctrine, and claiming they are just as legit as the main writings.
You can enjoy this film all you like, but nothing you say is gonna convince me it was a good film, nor what its intent truly was besides spitting on Christians and our beliefs.
The Muslim reaction is a rather unrelated matter to this discussion. Some Muslim countries banned the film because they believe it is forbidden to depict a prophet, such as in paintings or movies. The same thing happened with The Passion of the Christ and the animated Prince of Egypt.
Plenty of film critics praised the movie. And various Christian and Jewish leaders made positive comments as well. But I suppose you would judge them as not being true believers because their viewpoints differ from yours, just as you completely sidestep the fact that millions of people actually do accept the text under discussion as doctrine. You obviously have strong viewpoints when it comes to this matter, as well as a selective bias and a disregard for facts that you find inconvenient. So I think it's best to let this discussion go in peace. Good bye.
"Tell me....are people still talking about this film all over the place, quoting parts of it, reenacting it, and saying which characters they like best? Are they making Halloween costumes from this film for kids? Are they making cartoon references to it?
No. In fact, it's mostly gone from public memory. It doesn't matter how much research the film-makers made. It doesn't matter what stylizing they made. This entire film was poorly written, acted out in an insulting manner towards Christians, depressing, and made a lot of people unhappy to watch. Even the Muslim world was upset with it (of course, that doesn't take much with western films). The few who did have forgotten about it as soon as possible. That is the sign of a bad film and an embarrassment, not a blockbuster classic. This film doesn't even have a strong cult following!
"
that wasnt your argument. it was that the scripture they drew on was new and nonsense. he proved you completely wrong so now you changed the topic.
Wish I knew who that poster was. But now they're -deleted-
shareYou got wrekt by [deleted]. Just bumping this to remind you that you couldn't hold your own in a debate regarding your own supposed area of expertise
shareThis movie was made to entertain, not fulfill some Bible-study course requirement.
share