Thoughts on the upcoming film: Noah

[NeedsMercy]

One other reason I won’t go is that I think that the only way for us to get film makers to put out really good films with well portrayed Christians and true to the Bible story lines is to refuse to give them money for doing otherwise.

As long as we reward those in the mainstream media financially for the type of films they are making now, they have no incentive to change.

Nope. Godawa has it absolutely spot on. If the movie follows the script as outlined by Godawa, then his critique is warranted and very much consistent with Biblical truths, Judaism mainstream Christianity and Catholicism.

Could you explain what it is about his review that you find “wacko?” You might be confusing his depiction of the script with his critique of it. Otherwise, I have no idea what you find so off about his critique.

Ok. “True to the Bible story lines”? So a worldwide flood wherein all life save Noah, his family and paired animals did happen in actuality as spelled out in Scripture?

I did not use the word “wacko”; he did in his phrase “wacko environmentalist”. To me, anyone that thinks environmentalism is “wacko” is “wacko” themselves.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I did not use the word “wacko”; he did in his phrase “wacko environmentalist”. To me, anyone that thinks environmentalism is “wacko” is “wacko” themselves.

Wait a minute. You just changed environmentalist to environmentalism, I assume with full knowledge that Godawa was not referring to “wacko environmentalism.” He even makes a point of showing environmentalism to be an important aspect of our responsibility as stewards of the Earth.

What he is decrying is when environmentalists become so extreme that the environment is seen to be more valuable than human life. Did you read his quotations from people like Peter Singer and others? Do you agree with them that human life should be extinguished in order to let nature flourish? How is that in any way Biblical?

Godawa’s main issue with the film is that God’s motive for the deluge was to destroy human life in order to save the environment. Do you view that as consistent with the Bible? Yet, it is the central theme of the film.

The extent of the flood is a very minor issue.

Again, I think you are very off base with your critique of Godawa. He makes critically important points, too subtle perhaps for some.

 

[colliric]

Godawa’s main issue with the film is that God’s motive for the deluge was to destroy human life in order to save the environment. Do you view that as consistent with the Bible? Yet, it is the central theme of the film.

You do realize that could have been his perception from the scene descriptions, and not how the director will actually interpret and film the screenplay, right?

Scene descriptions take up more space in a screenplay than dialog scenes and character actions. Because it’s not meant to represent the final film, it is meant as an industry “roadmap”. So scene descriptions can get undue weight when read by “an outsider”.

So that means there could be 3 paragraphs describing the destruction of the “environment” and only one line where Russell Crowe “puts it in context”, and the emotions are not described on page. On screen, the director will rely on the Acting performance to bring out the actual intended intensity.

A line like “God is destroying the world because of our sins”, can read pretty blandly… But when an Actor like Crowe performs the line onscreen, with his character welling up in tears… It’s suddenly very different.

 

[Razanir]

But when an Actor like Crowe performs the line onscreen, with his character welling up in tears… It’s suddenly very different.

Russell Crowe with emotion? You see, Les Mis is one of the main reasons I don’t trust this movie. (That and the fact he might be drawing from Enoch)

 

[colliric]

Russell Crowe with emotion? You see, Les Mis is one of the main reasons I don’t trust this movie. (That and the fact he might be drawing from Enoch)

Yeah his performance in that sucked… But Gladiator and The Insider on the other hand, didn’t.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You do realize that could have been his perception from the scene descriptions, and not how the director will actually interpret and film the screenplay, right?

Scene descriptions take up more space in a screenplay than dialog scenes and character actions. Because it’s not meant to represent the final film, it is meant as an industry “roadmap”. So scene descriptions can get undue weight when read by “an outsider”.

So that means there could be 3 paragraphs describing the destruction of the “environment” and only one line where Russell Crowe “puts it in context”, and the emotions are not described on page. On screen, the director will rely on the Acting performance to bring out the actual intended intensity.

A line like “God is destroying the world because of our sins”, can read pretty blandly… But when an Actor like Crowe performs the line onscreen, with his character welling up in tears… It’s suddenly very different.

Perhaps, but it appears from the breadth of his past works on Noah and the flood that he is intimately aware of the issues. He has worked on screenplays before and is aware, also, of how the final cut evolves. If the screenplay is sufficient to make such a clear impression on him, I would venture that the final form will take on what he anticipates it will.

We’ll all have to wait and see on that.