|
I thought it was explained fine. That's when we got Methuselah with the flaming sword.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
MinionOfCthulhu posted:So were the townspeople eating women or trading them for meat? Or both? Pretty sure it was both. I think the rating kept it a little vague but I think it was as clear as it possibly could have been without explicitly showing them butchering people. They trade in fresh meat and get a payment of part of past trades in return. I'm sure there's some metaphor in there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Having not seen the movie but having quickly read the tie-in comic, the ruins (which totally look like a Heavy Metal lost-future-civilization thing) are a result of the crashed angels giving humans science and magic, and humans blowing it (iirc by turning on the angels when they wouldn't pony over more secrets or something). So it sorta is post-apocalyptic but not the future. Sorry but this isn't part of my canon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Just saw it. I got a lot of Prometheus vibes from it along with Immortals(2011).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Just saw it. I got a lot of Prometheus vibes from it along with Immortals(2011). Definitely got Prometheus vibes from it as well. I hadn't seen it, but this post has convinced me to watch Immortals.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:Definitely got Prometheus vibes from it as well. I hadn't seen it, but this post has convinced me to watch Immortals. Truly don't bother, unless you're well lit up. Immortals is a stunning series Of tableaus (Tarsem inspired by Caravaggio), but it's a terrible movie.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
The Modern Leper posted:Truly don't bother, unless you're well lit up. Immortals is a stunning series Its worth watching for the visuals. Otherwise it didn't bother me that much.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:Definitely got Prometheus vibes from it as well. I hadn't seen it, but this post has convinced me to watch Immortals. I'm not the greatest CD writer but seriously it reminded me of Prometheus almost too much. -theme of sacrifice to start new life -theme of life and creation -adam and eve were loving engineers -weird organic poo poo -the shooting location seems to be the same -man is both wicked and good -a barren woman who conceives (OK the bible did this first, wait wut???)
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 14:19
|
|
The Modern Leper posted:Truly don't bother, unless you're well lit up. Immortals is a stunning series Immortals owns actually  It's not a smart movie but god drat if it isn't a fun one.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
The gods vs titans fight in Immortals is absolutely stunning cinema
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Immortals rules.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:Immortals owns actually Dat rebar: 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
The argument about that was so goddamn hilarious.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Were there any practical effects used for the Watchers? Some of it at least looked like puppets or stopmotion. I Googled but all that comes up is people complaining they're not Biblical/saying it doesn't matter they're not Biblical.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
The Time Dissolver posted:Were there any practical effects used for the Watchers? Some of it at least looked like puppets or stopmotion. I Googled but all that comes up is people complaining they're not Biblical/saying it doesn't matter they're not Biblical. I was wondering the same thing. Either way it was a great effect.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The argument about that was so goddamn hilarious.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
The Time Dissolver posted:Were there any practical effects used for the Watchers? Some of it at least looked like puppets or stopmotion. I Googled but all that comes up is people complaining they're not Biblical/saying it doesn't matter they're not Biblical. I can't say for sure but the puppet/stopmotion effect can be done in CG. Anything can be done in CG really.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Anything can be done in CG really. Could God make a CGI burrito so realistic that even he'd want to eat it?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The argument about that was so goddamn hilarious. I know I'm going to regret this but...what was the argument regarding the titan dudes being held together with rebar?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I know I'm going to regret this but...what was the argument regarding the titan dudes being held together with rebar? Pierson posted:What the hell did goons find to argue about in a piece of mythological rebar? If I recall right, it was that Singh was a careless director because rebar/reinforced concrete wouldn't have been invented for centuries, as if a son of an engineer and installation art enthusiast director wouldn't know anything about building materials.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:24
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:If I recall right, it was that Singh was a careless director because rebar/reinforced concrete wouldn't have been invented for centuries, as if a son of an engineer and installation art enthusiast director wouldn't know anything about building materials. That's such a stupid thing to get mad about, though. It's obvious from the rest of the movie that Tarsem values aesthetics over realism, holding him to realism on that makes no sense.
|
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Realism in a movie featuring pool boy Zeus.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
A creationist preacher named Ken Ham rebuked this movie for depicting Noah as a psychopath. http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2014/03/28/the-noah-movie-is-disgusting-and-evil-paganism/ quote:I am disgusted. I am going to come right out and say it: this movie is disgusting and evil—paganism! Do you really want your family to see a pagan movie that portrays Noah as a psychopath who says that if his daughter-in-law’s baby is a girl then he will kill her as soon as she’s born? And when two girls are born, bloodstained Noah (the man the Bible calls “righteous” in Genesis 7:1) brings a knife down to the head of one of the babies to kill her—and at the last minute doesn’t do it. And then a bit later, Noah says he failed because he didn’t kill the babies. How can we recommend this movie and then speak against abortion? Psychopathic Noah sees humans as a blight on the planet and wants to rid the world of people. Although the events on the movie did not match the Bible version, I did not think it was inconsistent with the spirit of the Old Testament. God kills plenty of people, both directly and through his mortal servants. With the Flood, he kills 99% of humanity. So naturally Noah wonders if He wants his family to die off as well. On top of that, the girl they adopted was a descendant of Cain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I know I'm going to regret this but...what was the argument regarding the titan dudes being held together with rebar? HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:If I recall right, it was that Singh was a careless director because rebar/reinforced concrete wouldn't have been invented for centuries, as if a son of an engineer and installation art enthusiast director wouldn't know anything about building materials. SALT CURES HAM posted:That's such a stupid thing to get mad about, though. It's obvious from the rest of the movie that Tarsem values aesthetics over realism, holding him to realism on that makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:A creationist preacher named Ken Ham rebuked this movie for depicting Noah as a psychopath. Isn't he the guy that debated Bill Nye?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Kraps posted:This is another thing from the Midrash, where Noah's lack of action is contrasted with Abraham's repeated pleas for Sodom and Gomorrah. That's one interesting feature of some Jewish traditions, that some of the early people in the Bible would accurately be judged as wicked by later times, but for their time they were the best people so they were who God helped. An alternate version where Noah convinces some people and there's a fleet of smaller arks would be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
I thought this was great. For the longest time I've wanted to see interpretations of biblical stories that weren't flat-out sugar coated or pandering to religious people. The Fountain is one of my favorite movies ever and I definitely got quite a few Fountain-y vibes while watching this. Mansell's score was terrific too and Winstone is so captivating when he's given a good scenery-chewing role. Also the seed Methuselah gives to Noah looked a lot like the seed of the Tree of Life from The Fountain. One thing that I kept thinking about while watching this was how much this felt like a super post-apocalyptic movie instead of something explicitly set in the past, it was kind of timeless in that sense that it could be set 6000 years from now instead 6000 years in the "past". Aside from the super continent, I guess. The whole evolution montage was gorgeous and the silhouettes of cavemen to roman soldiers to riot cops was really cool too. Shaocaholica posted:Isn't he the guy that debated Bill Nye?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 09:29
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:
This article belongs in the PYF Schadenfreude thread. It really, really does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Just seen this on blu ray, and what a beautiful, beautiful film it was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
The scene when Noah is sitting alone in the darkness of the ark listening to the wailing, and then the camera switches to a mountaintop assaulted by massive howling waves and rain with the last of the caininites clinging to it as the ark floats in the background was an incredible image.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
It was nice that the imagery around wiping everyone off the planet was appropriately hosed-up. Old testament God is not to be hosed with. Curious how Moses movie will stack up visually, considering that story is nothing if not full of death/apocalyptic scenes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Myrddin_Emrys posted:Just seen this on blu ray, and what a beautiful, beautiful film it was. I loved the sky in the beginning - my eyes were wide open.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Stare-Out posted:Yes. Ken Ham is a dummy. Wait just a drat minute, the guy's name is Ham? HAHAHA, well guess that explains what the character in the movie left the group at the end to do. "It has now been foretold, that I must train my descendants, and they must train theirs, for our inevitable battle with Bill "Serpent" Nye." Like the Belmonts are to Dracula, the Hams are to Little Billy Nye.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
BMS posted:Wait just a drat minute, the guy's name is Ham? HAHAHA, well guess that explains what the character in the movie left the group at the end to do. All the names were biblically correct, as was much of the story, including Noah being the first to ferment grapes into wine and becoming a drunk through survivors guilt. Also the curse of Ham seeing his fathers nakedness. I also loved the dove with an olive branch, as well as signifying peace it also signifies a new beginning. The rainbow at the end was a great touch to the ending of the tale of Noah.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Pretty sure it was both. I think the rating kept it a little vague but I think it was as clear as it possibly could have been without explicitly showing them butchering people. They trade in fresh meat and get a payment of part of past trades in return. I'm sure there's some metaphor in there. I thought it was him seeing the idea of "finding wives" taken to its logical conclusion: with the women as literal currency.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
Myrddin_Emrys posted:All the names were biblically correct. Oh I know! I was talking about the Preacher fellow that debated Bill Nye. Hadn't known his name until I read it here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
And my love for everything Aronofsky does continues. What a beautiful, beautiful movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
Cross-posting from GC: I literally just got done watching Noah and, yeah, the movie's pretty sick. I could have done away with Ila's little sit-down with Noah at the end, but after doing a bunch of complaining about The Prince of Egypt in the animation thread, it was nice to watch a film inspired by Biblical literature that doesn't sugarcoat God being a ruthless prick. I really wasn't expecting Noah's arc to become as dark as it did, and it's a credit to Aronofsky and Handel that they pulled it off as well as they did. I was particularly intrigued by the Tubal-cain character (Ray Winstone). There's an interesting dynamic that results between himself and Noah after the flood has already happened and he's sneaks aboard the ship. On the one hand, he's clearly a demagogue and corrupting influence, but as Noah is driven more and more mad by his drive to see man blighted from the Earth, it's actually Tubal-cain who comes to reveal himself as knowing something about the nature of God which Noah doesn't possess, which is that "Of course God won't kill all men, he's too proud to destroy something he made in his image. The movie managed to do something really complicated in that it took a really modern conception of God as this kind of inscrutable, distant figure (whereas in Genesis he talks to Noah directly), but not compromise its depiction of history essentially flowing from his command. The most challenging thing the film suggests to modern viewers is that God is fundamentally responsible for both good and evil, but this should not terrify us because we are mere reflections of that unifying essence of divinity. God becomes a metaphor for what we don't understand about human nature. I think it's telling that Aronofsky chose to not use much apocrypha or pseudapocrypha from what I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
One thing that kept bugging me was Noah's, well, logical inconsistency, I guess? I mean, he sees God do all this fuckin' poo poo. Magical poo poo. Like a seed growing a whole forest, and billions of tons of water erupting from the Earth itself. And oh yeah, angels. Right. So, Noah then doesn't even once stop to consider that God wouldn't have let Tubal-Cain live and sneak onto the ship at all if it weren't part of the plan - or that God wouldn't have let someone get pregnant unless that was part of the plan too. Or that maybe the plan was supposed to include Ham's girlfriend and Noah hosed it up by not rescuing her. It just made him seem kind of like a dumb rear end in a top hat in the last act, which was maybe the point, but drat. Other than that, probably the best movie DA has done since Requiem, for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
precision posted:One thing that kept bugging me was Noah's, well, logical inconsistency, I guess? This is kind of part-and-parcel with Aronofsky being one of the first adapters of Biblical literature in a long time to respect the basic fallibility of Biblical figures. Basically, Ila's advice to him at the end is no less a misdirection than Tubal-cain's manic ravings or Noah's assurance that he knows God's will: Even if God selects you because you're the 'most moral,' that doesn't mean that you are devoid of immorality or ignorance. In this context, even our ignorant and immoral actions are essentially a part of God's plan. In the example of Noah abandoning the girl - we know that this isn't purely a coincidence of Noah's ignoring God because in the very beginning of the movie we see him being the one who picks up Ila. Later, he tells her he thought she was going to be a burden, indicating that he only did it because he thought that's what God wanted. The point is that Noah never knows God, not completely. But God knows Noah.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 23:19
|
|