What a nice birthday present! »« Charles Pierce and David Silverman at #CPAC2014

I’m gonna boycott unless they rename it “Utnapishtim”

The Christians are upset by ‘historical inaccuracies’ in this new Aronofsky movie, “Noah”. Wouldn’t you know it would inspire bickering among them?

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.”

How can a myth be historically inaccurate? None of it happened; there was no global flood, there was no rescue of all the animals on earth with a floating zoo, humans never went through a population bottleneck of 8 people, the whole thing never occurred. I just want to tell them to calm down and recognize that a major film studio has just spent $130 million making a propaganda film for your cult, so you’ve got nothing to complain about.

But OK, here’s a test. Which of these images is “historically inaccurate”, and have you also sent off letters of complaint to them?

ARK_PACKAGE

background-construction-wide_sm1

Noah Ark_dreamstime

noah-ark2

Noahs-Ark-

noahs-ark-600

noahs-beaver-problem

Whining about inaccuracies is just silly. Here’s another silly complaint:

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.”

Oooh, mean dig at the guy for making unprofitable garbage, but he does have me wondering what “moral vision” he’s talking about? Slaughtering every person on the planet for their purported moral failings?

Yes, actually, that’s the moral vision he wants promoted.

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.”

It may seem harsh…right. This is the logic that says it is OK to kill people who do not properly affirm their idiosyncratic image of a god. I will say unabashedly that such a perspective is humanly evil, and the excuses of the faithful for their bloodthirsty demon-god do not reassure me that they have the slightest understanding of moral behavior.

Did I say it was a mean dig to point out Godawa’s failure as a screenwriter? It wasn’t. He also makes a point of the importance of money.

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.”

Gosh, thank you for giving me the bright side of this movie. Hey, if the Christians all boycott it, and the Muslims (who are also unhappy with the movie) skip it, and the atheists, who aren’t at all interested in yet another bible movie don’t show up, then Noah will tank at the box office and no one will ever make another bible movie, and Godawa will live in penury, never able to make a movie promoting his murderous, callous vision, and we’ll all be better off.

Well, except Godawa. But screw that jerk.

Comments

  1. Scott Ruplin says

    I’m holding out for the Minnesota verion, “Uff Da Pishtim”, in which boatman farmer Ole slips on old lutefisk.

  2. peterh says

    Along with Utnapishtim you need to give credit to Deucalion. The Abraham bunch (or was it simply Abram at the “time” in question?) have no monopoly or patent on such a myth.

  3. stevebowen says

    All the receipts for this movie will come from atheists, me included. Let’s face it we all like fantasy fiction and a good laugh at the expense of superstitious nonsense. Front row seat and Harry Potter glasses please…

  4. gussnarp says

    The whole Noah thing is like, a page. You can’t tell that story in two hours without taking a lot of creative liberties (or making a really boring movie. We don’t know jack about the life of this character outside of he built an ark, got his family and some animals on board, got drunk and passed out naked.

  5. Menyambal --- making sambal a food group. says

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/10/29/sucker-punch-squad-noah-script

    That is the Godawa article. Comments as you might expect.

    I dunno what he meant by referencing Thoroughly Modern Millie in a snarklike way, but it is a movie with a subplot about avoiding sexual slavery.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoroughly_Modern_Millie

    But, yeah, the movie should at least get the number of animals right. Two of each, or maybe seven, following the rules about clean and unclean, or not, and in rigid accordance with Ken Ham’s definition of kinds.

    And please do show Noah getting shitfaced afterward, and clear up whatever his son did in the nakedness bit.

  6. Nemo says

    The cutesy “Ark” images are the most disturbing — since they embody the idea that this monstrous tale is appropriate for children. Although it does require a childlike level of mental development to believe in it.

  7. sigurd jorsalfar says

    Gotta love the bow wake and lack of sails on the last kids’ version. So the mystery is solved – Noah’s surname was ‘Evinrude’.

  8. fernando says

    Ziusudra was the true savior.
    Also, Enki was a god quite nicer than old, vegenful, genocidal Yaweh…

  9. Sastra says

    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.”

    Well now, this cheers me up. Judging from the few clips I’d seen it looked like the all people who were going to be left behind were going to be portrayed as having the moral depth and sensitivity of Orcs (cuz God had to dwown all da Bad Guys!), but perhaps the film will try to be a little more nuanced with the characters and fate of the damned. It’s a grisly story.

    Menyambal #6 wrote:

    I dunno what he meant by referencing Thoroughly Modern Millie in a snarklike way, but it is a movie with a subplot about avoiding sexual slavery.

    No, I think that reference to “our thoroughly Modern Millie minds” simply indicates how old and out of it the quoted Christian scriptwriter is. He wanted a “hip” way to say “modern” and this is the phrase which popped into his head, a recent movie he thought made a great cultural reference we’d all get. Yes, indeed — I remember the catchy ad campaign for that one, back in ’67 it was. I was maybe nine years old. Betcha Godawa was older.

  10. Rey Fox says

    The cutesy “Ark” images are the most disturbing — since they embody the idea that this monstrous tale is appropriate for children. Although it does require a childlike level of mental development to believe in it.

    No fucking kidding. “Genocide” doesn’t even cover it: “Biospherecide” is closer, though clunky.

    I never did see Evan Almighty (not a lot of people did, IIRC), but I doubt they actually went through with the whole of the flood. Still, the waters were rising in the trailer, and I thought, “Gee, nothing says family fun like mass extinction.”

    Hopefully, the more publicity this gets, the more people will start to wake up to just what a bunch of ridiculous bollocks the entire thing is. I’m surprised at how long it took me to.

  11. says

    OK, obviously Biblical accuracy != historical accuracy.

    But a Noah film could be shot realistically. Make it from the point of view of one of Noah’s neighbours. It’d start off with Noah being a normal, decent chap but a little quiet. After a little while, he starts being a bit withdrawn, even reclusive; you don’t see his family much any more either. When you do see him he’s furtive and glances at you sideways; he’s always hurrying somewhere, always ushering his wife or family members back inside. People start talking – is he drinking? Does he hit his wife? Then the noises start. Animals. Sawing. Nailing. Is it a house extension? Eventually something takes shape. It’s big. A barn? You go over to ask Noah what he’s doing. He’s up a ladder and shouts something unintelligible; he seems angry. You leave it for the moment.

    Months later, Noah’s construction is still growing – still just the framework. Noone knows what it is but noone bothers to ask anymore. It appears he’s spending all his time and money on building whatever it is. It’s too big for a barn. A marketplace? A new temple? Maybe, but of wood? Surely stone or even mud bricks would be more appropriate. You ask the local elders and merchants and priests but none have any idea what’s going on. The whole family seem to be involved now; always up ladders, fetching tools, timber, following instructions barked by an increasingly preoccupied (and dishevelled) Noah.

    The thing – now called “Noah’s Folly” by the people in town – is taking shape and there’s cladding on it now. It’s shaped a bit like a boat but there’s no rudder, no masts, barely even windows. It’s also far too big to be practical as a boat. You’re not even convinced it’ll float. The smell of pitch fills the air; Noah’s sealing it, so at least he’s convinced of its seaworthiness.

    Eventually curiosity, and hatred of the smell of pitch, gets the better of you. Over you go to ask what Noah’s up to; this time you’ll not leave without an answer. Noah arcs up, enraged but perhaps a little terrified. He rages on and on about how all are doomed, including you; only Noah and his family are righteous and deserving; all will be judged by God and washed from the Earth. You glance at his wife; she just looks haunted and avoids your gaze. Noah’s children don’t even look up from their tasks. Something very curious – very wrong – is happening at Noah’s house.

    After a while, things go quiet. Construction appears to have stopped. No more hammering, no more smell of pitch. You think maybe it’s over and Noah’s giant boat – which surely must have bankrupted him – will sit their as testament to what you now assume is his madness (or perhaps love of drink) until it rots.

    But then the noise starts again – it’s different this time. Livestock. Goats, geese, camels, sheep. Maybe it’s a barn after all! It will be the rainy season soon – maybe he’s starting a new career as a breeder and wants to protect his investments. But it doesn’t end with livestock. Noah’s even bringing creatures in from the wilderness: wolves, ostriches, even a pair of lions. All restrained (barely) with ropes. Maybe it’s a menagerie like the ones you’ve heard princes and kings keep! They keep coming, brought in by his family. You marvel at how eight people could do all this (then you notice how tired, hungry and defeated they all look – all except Noah, who seems consumed, obsessed – perhaps possessed). Noah ushers or just drags all the creatures into the boat. At night you can hear them complain – has he any water or food for them? You hope the ropes on the lions are strong, lest they roam the decks in search of prey. How do they even breathe with that single window? This isn’t a barn – even in this winter weather, it must be like an oven during the day.

    Noah stops bringing the animals, after a while. Then all he does is stand atop his boat and watch the sky. All day. Waiting for something. After a week, the rains come – just like they always do. The river floods, just like it always does. It’s a little bigger than last year (though smaller than some you can remember from your youth) and you thank God you built your house halfway up the hillside instead of living on the valley floor, like Noah.

    The river widens and deepens as the rains continue. Eventually the water laps at the sides of Noah’s boat. He hurries his family on board, carrying what seems to be a bare minimum of supplies. The water keeps coming (it’s definitely a big one this year!) and consumes Noah’s yards, enters his house. He seems unconcerned, just watching the sky. Some of his other neighbours wade through his submerged yard to confront him; to plead with him to get to higher ground. They’re very concerned about the safety of this boat or floating barn or whatever it is. Noah curses them and spits at them. They retreat back up the hill and watch the water rise.

    The water’s a few feet up the side of Noah’s boat now; you’re wondering if it’s even watertight, let alone whether it’ll float. You’re not the only one; the hillsides are packed with people curious (perhaps morbidly so) about the fate of Noah’s boat. After a few hours of steady rain, the boat shifts a little. You hear a gasp from the assembled spectators. More rain. More water. Just before dusk, the giant craft creaks, groans, protests and is finally shifted from its cradle of gopher logs. No sound from the crowd – everyone’s just staring, breaths held. Noah’s boat is now floating. Maybe it’s seaworthy after all! Maybe Noah’s some kind of strange genius (though that wouldn’t explain the animals).

    As the boat is taken downstream, you hear Noah bellow something over the sound of the rushing water and falling rain – you can’t make it out but it sounds triumphant. Then you hear a sound that chills you to the bone. A creaking, groaning sound. It graduates to a cracking, splintering sound. The vessel is visibly twisting as it’s turned by the current – as if a giant is wringing it out like a large wet cloth. Cladding bursts free from the side of the vessel visible to you. Water rushes in, animals fall out. You see a lion, an ostrich, a goat, all fall in to the river. Then a man – one of Noah’s sons? Frantically they paddle and kick but more cladding and beams fall on top of them. You and the crowd are now running down the hill to the riverbank. Perhaps you’ll be able to help save one of the crew. The stricken craft, now waterlogged, runs aground on a sandbar downstream, but it doesn’t stop dead. It starts to tip over, one side dug into the sand. The weight of its own timbers and waterlogged lower decks makes it collapse in on itself. Above the roar of snapping timbers you can hear screams, of animals and people alike.

    When you draw level with the sandbar, you see among the cracked, twisted ribs of the boat some of the dead: sheep, an ox, some people face down. From your vantage point on the riverbank you see Noah on a small patch of sand. As he was on the top deck he was thrown clear by the impact. He’s still moving. The wreck of the boat is forming a dam, diverting the still-rising water around him. You and some neighbours start talking about a rescue plan – how can we get across the river to the sandbar? Will the wreck hold long enough for us to bring him back? Another grisly cracking sound answers your question as the rest of the hull beings to give way. You and your neighbours rush back up the hillside and turn just in time to see the hapless Noah engulfed by the river and the remnants of his creation. You and the other villagers sit in silence as the wreckage flows down the river. Some of it remains where it fell, stuck in the sand or snagged on the riverbank. As the rain eases and the river subsides, the full extent of the carnage is revealed. Gopherwood beams and planks and logs and the carcasses of animals and people litter the riverbank from the sandbar onward. Noah’s body is never found.

    After the funerals are held for Noah’s family, the dead animals disposed of and the remnants of Noah’s vessel cleared away (and reused – it was good timber!), people start retelling the tale of Noah and his “ark”, as people are now calling it. Each time you hear the story, whether in the marketplace, the tavern or passing by some strangers, it appears to grow in magnitude. Some giraffes here, two hippopotami there. By the time you hear a version where Noah’s floating menagerie is an astonishing three hundred cubits (!) long, contains a breeding pair of every animal on the Earth, endures forty whole days of rain and spends a year afloat without any creatures starving to death, you give up trying to correct people. Yes, you were actually there, knew Noah personally and saw the whole thing unfold, but noone wants to hear that. Nobody wants to hear the truth when it’s so much more fun to tell a good story.

  12. cubist says

    sez rey fox:

    “Genocide” doesn’t even cover it: “Biospherecide” is closer, though clunky.

    Perhaps “omnicide” is the word you’re looking for?

  13. Rob Grigjanis says

    gussnarp @5:

    The whole Noah thing is like, a page.

    It’s more than a page if you include Rabbinic literature, which I’m guessing most practicing Jews (and Christian fundamentalists?) would.

  14. specialffrog says

    Apparently Ray Comfort has his own Noah movie coming out. I haven’t seen any word on whether or not Kirk Cameron is in it.

  15. stevem says

    re 14:

    I’d go see that!11!!1!!1!1 Producers, read this synopsis of the movie he is proposing! Kickstarter, anyone???
    Fits right in with all the “gritty” trope demanded to be added to all fairy-tales.

  16. Menyambal --- making sambal a food group. says

    The genocide was worse than you think. According to Kent Hovind, there were about a billion people on earth as the flood began.

    He showed a population growth chart with a very steep curve up from creation, but didn’t explain it. He did say, though, that petroleum is made from the bodies of the dead. He says he likes to mock the dead as he fills his gas tank. They should have listened to Noah.

  17. Rob Grigjanis says

    cubist @15:

    Perhaps “omnicide” is the word you’re looking for?

    That’s just terrestrial chauvinism. Noah wasn’t building a multi-storey carp ark.

  18. jnorris says

    Why are True Christians ™ complaining about a movie messing up a Jewish story? Jews wrote this story, not Christians, if anyone should complain its the Sumerian and then the Jews.

  19. sigurd jorsalfar says

    Apparently Ray Comfort has his own Noah movie coming out. I haven’t seen any word on whether or not Kirk Cameron is in it.

    Kirk was supposed to be in it, but the orangutan had a better audition.

  20. busterggi says

    “is deeply anti-Biblical in its moral vision.”

    translation – “I’m not getting a piece of the action.”

  21. says

    @ 19 stevem:

    re [me @] 14:

    I’d go see that!11!!1!!1!1 Producers, read this synopsis of the movie he is proposing! Kickstarter, anyone???
    Fits right in with all the “gritty” trope demanded to be added to all fairy-tales.

    Gritty as sand in your pants, yessir. Glad you liked it.

    I was thinking, far apart from the modern style of Frank Milleresque grittiness (although the uber-cloudy skies from “300” would be very appropriate in the third act), this would be more like an “American Beauty”-style story of two normal-seeming rural next-door families and the eventual destruction of one of them by its insane patriarch.

  22. georgemartin says

    I wonder if the movie will include the ending part of the story where Noah gets drunk on wine he made from hte grape he planted and passes out in the nude? (Hmm, did the bible story make any mention of the plants brought on board?)

    George

  23. george gonzalez says

    Just thinking… I’m assuming that Noah wasn’t the first guy to ever build a boat. How come nobody else had the idea to jump in a boat with some food and supplies?

    Also Even if it rained 2 inches an hour, that’s only 48 inches a day. I think all of us can walk uphill 4 feet each and every day to stay ahead of the rising waters. And after 40 days that’s only 160 feet. The denizens of Florida would get damp feet but about 92% of land mass would stay above water.

  24. says

    @28 Sastra: thanks! :)

    Want to invest? I’m thinking D-Day Lewis for Noah, Tilda Swinton for Mrs Noah and Christopher Walken & Helen Mirren for his concerned neighbours. Directed by Alfonso Cuaron.

  25. Menyambal --- making sambal a food group. says

    There were fountains of the great deep opened up, not just rain coming down. The trailer shows geysers bursting up. Ken Ham makes a big deal about the world being flatter, back then.

    And Ham claims that the society had boat building skills. He doesn’t address why nobody else had a boat.

  26. says

    !Menyambal

    Interesting as some born again theology states that there was no rain before then (only a persistant mist) and thus no boats.

  27. ChasCPeterson says

    ? What does no rain have to do with no boats? There were seas, full of fish and great creatures.
    Now, I’d buy that there would have been no umbrellas…

  28. woozy says

    Look. It’s not a fucking biblical movie. Just because it’s based an a story from the bible doesn’t mean it’s a biblical movie. Yes, it is “deeply anti-Biblical in its moral vision.” That’s the *fucking* point. Get over it.

    (I’m kind of thinking I want to see it. We need more anti-biblical movies.)

  29. Hercules Grytpype-Thynne says

    @Sastra #11:

    I’d be inclined to cut him some slack in the “old and out-of-it” department. Maybe he just has high-school age kids. The drama club at my niece’s school mounted a production of Thoroughly Modern Millie three or four years ago. Her school can’t be the only one.

  30. robster says

    I know, I know! In that nasty old book, the ark has only one window, there are images showing lots of windows and lots of wild animals wandering the decks, probably eyeing each other off for dinner.

  31. Anathema says

    @ georgemarton # 26,

    The movie is going to include the part where Noah gets drunk. Fundamentalist Christians, including Ken Ham, have been complaining about the movie including this scene. Yet, in the very same breath, they also complain about the movie not being faithful to the Biblical account. The fundies don’t seem to have figured out that these two complaints are contradictory.

  32. woozy says

    Um, wasn’t the 2002 revival of Thoroughly Modern Millie with Sutton Foster a big deal? Sure, seemed like NPR talked about it *all* the time. Or so it seemed. Or maybe it toured for two weeks in san francisco and the local news went nuts.

  33. anuran says

    Rob Grigjanis

    The whole Noah thing is like, a page.
    It’s more than a page if you include Rabbinic literature, which I’m guessing most practicing Jews (and Christian fundamentalists?) would.

    Christians don’t even accept the Oral Torah. Why would we expect them to accept the works of Chazal, the Rishonim, Tanaim, so on and so forth.

    Farking cafeteria-scripturing carpetbaggers…

  34. chigau (違う) says

    Marcus Ranum #40
    *standing ovation*
    Those are sooo nuanced.
    (please pronounce that nuance-ed)
    (with an accént)
    (your choice of language)

  35. chigau (違う) says

    Marcus Ranum
    What is up with the eyes?
    Would you be willing to explain some of the more subtle iconography?

  36. Crudely Wrott says

    Marcus Ranum, with reference to your above linked JayPegs, I can not only say that your inspired and repetitious use of googly eyes as a metaphor for fortune, foresight, four-eyed jacks and four on the floor modernity was, well, inspired and repetitious.

    But! I can also say that you have pulled off a big one, the big stare, monumentally eyeballing insight, casting a probing eye on revelation and skewering by virtue of your piercing glare, nay! your merest piercing glance, the oversight of blind acceptance and dimwittery everywhere you look.

    You have spied us all. Spie eyed, spied in the face and spiebald I can only say, “Bravo, sir. Bravo”.

    Looking good, hombre! 8-)

  37. saganite says

    The fundies hate it? You know, that actually makes me a bit curious for that movie. I’d like to see what disturbs them so about it.

    As for the childish pictures: Yeah, I’d recommend adding a lot of “chibi” pictures of bloated, green-blue corpses and animal carcasses.

  38. azhael says

    Why didn’t god just unmake all the bad people? You know – “poof”?

    Because that would interfere with their free will (which we know is something Yahveh can´t be having with).
    This is of course as opposed to murdering them all in a flood which is exactly what they all wanted to happen that day anyway. Who woudn´t want to die with their lungs full of water?

    It is quite astonishing how these fundies are capable of ignoring such remarkable degrees of complete and utter internal incoherence, even within a single sentence. My god is good, but he had to cruelly murder all but 8 of his own creations, but he loves us all and he won´t interfere with our free will. Now if you´ll excuse me i have to pray for my auntie Susan not to die of cirrhosis.

  39. Alex the Pretty Good says

    @ Rey Fox

    I never did see Evan Almighty (not a lot of people did, IIRC), but I doubt they actually went through with the whole of the flood. Still, the waters were rising in the trailer, and I thought, “Gee, nothing says family fun like mass extinction.”

    I did watch it, expecting the worst and ended up pleasantly surprised with the direction the movie took, turning out to be an accusation of corporate corruption (and cutting corners to increase profits).

    @ Rey Fox

    I never did see Evan Almighty (not a lot of people did, IIRC), but I doubt they actually went through with the whole of the flood. Still, the waters were rising in the trailer, and I thought, “Gee, nothing says family fun like mass extinction.”

    I did watch it, expecting the worst and ended up pleasantly surprised with the direction the movie took, turning out to be an accusation of corporate corruption (and cutting corners to increase profits).

    Note, spoiler follows …
    ….
    ….

    Indeed, they stayed far away from a global flood. Though for a long time is was made to look like it would be.

  40. Dr Marcus Hill Ph.D. (arguing from his own authority) says

    I think we should all be complaining about the blatant historical inaccuracies in Peter Jackson’s movies.

  41. chrisv says

    All this after we have spent trillions “educating” the citizenry. Infrastructure, teachers, support staff, food, medical support, transportation, books, film, mental health aid, blah…blah…blah! And still so many believe in angels, arks, talking snakes…sigh.

  42. says

    Kevin Alexander @13, I’m glad I am not the only person who is terribly terribly concerned that they may have left out the very important unicorn subplot!

  43. killyosaur says

    The guy who co-wrote and directed Pi Co-wrote and directed this film. So looking forward to it.

  44. starskeptic says

    busterggi #24
    “is deeply anti-Biblical in its moral vision.”

    translation – “I’m not getting a piece of the action.”

    I know Brian Godawa well enough to say that there is no translation,
    he means exactly what he says.

  45. Georgia Sam says

    Were the Mickey Mouse who starred in “Steamboat Willie” and the Mickey Mouse who starred in “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” actually the same mouse?

  46. Trebuchet says

    I just noticed the third image, one of the cartoony ones, has only one of each species. Presumably the females were made to stay below out of sight, where they belong.

    As for historical accuracy, you can’t beat the fourth medieval-looking one, which at least seems to have accurate tools.

    Note that the “accurate scale model” comes complete with “14 dinosaurs to scale”!

  47. starskeptic says

    Georgia Sam @58:
    That made my day! Finally a philosophical question with some weight to it – although, don’t ask me to make any major decisions today…I’m done for the day.

  48. woozy says

    Were the Mickey Mouse who starred in “Steamboat Willie” and the Mickey Mouse who starred in “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” actually the same mouse?

    Yes. But the characters they played were different roles.
    =====

    I think we should all be complaining about the blatant historical inaccuracies in Peter Jackson’s movies.

    To be honest, the literary inaccuracies in the movies sort of piss me off. I’m a knee jerk book purist. I’m trying to temper it and tone it down. Or only complain about it when it matters.

    I can understand the fundies getting upset. As a biblical interpretation of a biblical tale this movie fails miserably. The thing is it ain’t a biblical interpretation of a biblical tale any more than the Twilight vampire franchise is an anthropological tale central european oral traditions.

    We’ve got a cynical director making a post-modern revisionist reinterpretation of a old universal fable completely at odds with a disingenuous movie studio and publicity machine trying to insist that because it has biblical motifs and characters than, of course it’s a biblical story.
    ======

    Where did all the extra laborers in the arkencounter come from? Wasn’t it only 8 people?

    Hey, cut the Hammies a break! Noah, had super ultra uber-tech that was lost in the flood and the poor ark encounter folks have to make do with our crappy inferior 21st tech junk.

    Seriously, that is one of their claims. (Also Noah had 120 years to build the ark… oh, wait. That Rabbincal lore and Ham doesn’t accept that. Which is too bad cause I like the idea that the the people weren’t actually human but giants that tried to stop the fountain springs with their monstrous feet only to be scalded by geysers.)

  49. David Marjanović says

    I’d go see that!11!!1!!1!1 Producers, read this synopsis of the movie he is proposing! Kickstarter, anyone???
    Fits right in with all the “gritty” trope demanded to be added to all fairy-tales.

    QFT.

    It’s shaped a bit like a boat

    Well, “ark” as in “ark of the Covenant” just means “wooden trunk chest”. It’s just a box.

  50. Rey Fox says

    at odds with a disingenuous movie studio and publicity machine trying to insist that because it has biblical motifs and characters than, of course it’s a biblical story.

    That’s the nice thing about comics/graphic novels, generally you can say what you want to say.

  51. woozy says

    You can read a *lot* of the upcoming (March 18th) graphic novel on the Amazon Page. It looks … not terrible. Wild Mad Max fantasy, if you like that sort of thing. I don’t really but I’m a real sucker for pseudo-psycho-mythology and it’s got that.

    And it’s got *UNICORNS*! And it has bloated corpses. There’s an unnamed entity called the Creator but he’s portrayed as a right bastard.

    Anyway I like it simply and only cause it *ain’t* the bible.

    Also on amazon. Brian Godawa’s sour-grapes sand-and-sandals fantasy Noah story Noah Primeval. Actually the similarities are … notable … except Aronofsky’s seem cynical and existential and competent (maybe) and Godawa’s seem neo-theo-conservative and grouchy and gawdafful.

    But, yes, “anti-biblical” does seem to mean “not fair! *my* crappy fantasy should have been optioned”

  52. Azuma Hazuki says

    “The rainbow in the sky is my promise that I will never again destroy the world by flood. Next time it’ll be motherfucking FIRE! FIRE FOREVER! AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! …oh me damn it, I said the quiet part loud and the loud part quiet, didn’t I…?”

  53. says

    Hank_Says/#14 is excellent. But I’m still having trouble… Do I want to fund this, or a film adaptation of Not Wanted on The Voyage?

    And re gussnarp/#5, ‘like, a page’, hey, no worries. We’ll just get Peter Jackson in on this thing. There’ll be stuff in there probably even from the new testament (Jesus in a cameo; he called the meeting, and also brought Cate Blanchett), but whatever*. Money men want a trilogy? Say no more. Trilogy it is.

    (*/Also elves shooting things. Lotsa elves shooting things.)