Is Noah an FU to evangelical conservatives? SPOILERS!

To be fair I'm personally an atheist. However after watching Noah a few days ago, IMHO it was a total shot at evangelical conservatives. I mean they hit almost all of the issues we are presently debating in society, while taking the side of the liberals!

Now, I find this hilarious honestly, but I can't deny what it is. It's pretty much an open shot at evangelicals.

Here's the issues I thought it covered all landing on the liberal side..


God destroyed the world because we ate meat? : Noah kills 3 hungry men, who haven't eaten in days, for the crime of killing an animal and attempting to eat it. The movie really implied our main crime was eating animals. Vegetarianism=liberal.. Usually lol


Evolution: they actually show the Big Bang theory while a voice over tells the 7 day creation while mixing it around to make it work with science. They swapped day 2 for 4 in the seven day creation. Showing the evolution from single celled organism to ape, then they cut screen to a man in the same exact position as the ape was....not real subtle.

Abortion: Noah was going to choose weather his granddaughter got to live. Some might say I'm reaching, but I thought it was an obvious analogy for abortion.

The religious are fanatics: Noah was a nut job and the only true believer.

Homosexuality: this wasn't mentioned at all as contributing to the flood. Something very focused on in southern baptist churches.... I'm from the south.


What do y'all think? Especially any evangelical conservatives.

He didn’t kill them for eating meat – he killed them because they were hybrids between man and angel. These beings were blood thirsty and ate beast and man alike. See Genesis Chapter 6.

Nowhere in the bible, even here in the south where I was raised Baptist, has it ever been taught to me that homosexuality was the cause for the flood….. So I’m not sure what church you went to, as I’ve been to a lot of them.

reply to post by MentorsRiddle


My preachers growing up always said it was because of canibalism and homosexuality. I'm not debating the how close it was to the biblical account. I'm asking if coservative evangelicals thought it was an FU. Lol


I didn't catch any reference to the men being hybrids... Maybe I missed it, but as far as I could tell only the watchers were supernatural.

reply to post by ArtemisE


I think director Aronofsky is a liberal atheist, and I think he knew it should be a sacred movie, something that feels sacred. In his attempt to impart that sacred feel, he wound up using themes that feel sacred to him which wind up being liberal themes at the end of the day, not Biblical ones. So the end result is a liberal-themed Gaia movie with a Noah's Ark skin.

I don't know whether or not he actually was intentionally trying to tick off Christians, and I don't really care.

I think it was a way to show how absolutely absurd the entire story is. It's so absurd that it's now made into a special effects/Hollywood movie.

Sort of a, "If it really happened, it would have looked like this....can you ever see something like this happening outside of Hollywood?"

MystikMushroom
I think it was a way to show how absolutely absurd the entire story is. It's so absurd that it's now made into a special effects/Hollywood movie.

Sort of a, "If it really happened, it would have looked like this....can you ever see something like this happening outside of Hollywood?"

Why does everyone think that wanting to see what is in a book portrayed on screen mean someone must think it's real? I mean when they filmed Gone With the Wind, they gave it a respectful scinematic treatment that was true to the book. Because they didn't make Scarlett a sorceress and Rhett a wizard and they didn't use absurd robotic special effects for the Union forces while making the Rebel forces into ghoulish trolls, did that mean they intended for everyone to think that Rhett and Scarlett were real and it all actually happened?

There are ways to treat the source material respectfully without saying you think it actually happened without making an open sham of it.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


While I agree completely. You have to admit its propaganda. I Wouldn't be a liberal if I didn't see and admit both sides.... I'd be a conservative. Hehe jk

reply to post by ketsuko


They also didn't yank out Margaret Mitchell's themes and insert a series of themes that someone like Spike Lee might feel are more appropriate to the story.

reply to post by ArtemisE


The films maker/director is Darren Aronofsky an he is an atheist.
He promised the film would be very different from other hollywood
Bible epics.

And I agree that those Noah, killed were of an unrighteous
and corrupt bloodline. The same reason God took everyone else
out.

reply to post by randyvs


Does it say that or is it ur interpretation? Not being a smart @$$, asking only saw it once.

reply to post by ArtemisE


He was quoted as saying that it would be the most unBibical Bible film or something like that very early on. It was just before the studio went on a full-court press with the religious community trying to promote and assuage fears about what was being done with it.

(Proof he said it since the actual article is paywalled before the money-quote in question. Slate says he did.)

I saw the movie Thursday
Its fluff.

Here was an opportunity to warn the next generation of its greatest challenge and it failed dismally.

The watchers were fallen angels who assumed human form who so corrupted the human genome with their progeny and creation itself with their science and experimentation that God had to hit the flush button.

In the next 30 years genetics,robotics,artificial intelligence,synthetic biology and human enhancement-chimeras etc once again will threaten Gods creation,we are on our way to the same demented zoo the ancients created.

If you are interested Tom and Nita Horn have two books Forbidden Gates and Pandemoniums engine that put this in perspective,for more on the days of Noah there is the book Fallen Angels by Elizabeth Clare Prophet.

reply to post by khnum


You also have the book of Enoch, that describes and details who, why and where of pre and post flood periods. Centors, dragons, dinosaurs and many more are possibly exploits of gene manipulation which is now possible today (again?). Perhaps this was known in the days of Noah and he his family was without blemish and were chosen by God to escape. God offed those who were unclean of body, mind and spirit, who had corrupted their DNA or their ways.

Matthew 24:37-39
King James Version (KJV)
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Trans humanism is the next fad that is being pushed. Many who control big movie clubs push these ideas via science fiction and now is main stream. Is history repeating itself? Again?

reply to post by bitsforbytes

Yes we are being conditioned for a future freak show,X Men,music videos etc etc,agencies such as DARPA are pursuing through these technologies the next Nimrod super soldier yet they forget the soldiers raised in spirit by God,Samson who killed a 1000 with the jawbone of an ass,Abishai 300 with a spear,Gideons army of 300,Davids Gibborim.

I personally once had an angel step into me to help me defend myself,shake rattle and roll is all Ill say,there is nothing wrong with the original model we are all operating on diesel at the moment but true warriors of God run on nitrous oxide.

I think there will be a war between freaks and the human remnant in the future-
and I think God will step in.

ketsuko

MystikMushroom
I think it was a way to show how absolutely absurd the entire story is. It's so absurd that it's now made into a special effects/Hollywood movie.

Sort of a, "If it really happened, it would have looked like this....can you ever see something like this happening outside of Hollywood?"

Why does everyone think that wanting to see what is in a book portrayed on screen mean someone must think it's real? I mean when they filmed Gone With the Wind, they gave it a respectful scinematic treatment that was true to the book. Because they didn't make Scarlett a sorceress and Rhett a wizard and they didn't use absurd robotic special effects for the Union forces while making the Rebel forces into ghoulish trolls, did that mean they intended for everyone to think that Rhett and Scarlett were real and it all actually happened?

There are ways to treat the source material respectfully without saying you think it actually happened without making an open sham of it.

edit on 4-4-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

Ketsuko

Nail.......you hit it.

I can't tell you how many times I have to address people about films NOT being real, they are the product of the writer's IMAGINATION. Geesh, don't people get that by now.

SCREENWRITER posting here...FILMMAKER posting here...WarminIndy is the screenwriter.

Gone With The Wind was close to Mitchell's book,there was so much more in the book, but it had to be condensed. If Aronofsky is atheist, then yes, he's going to insert his worldview into it. That's what happened with The Last Temptation of Christ and people believed it was true and now so many conspiracy theories have bounced out of that one, because people can't tell the difference in film and real life.

Do you know how many morons out there have actually told me that Days Of Our Lives is real?

Listen people, films are not real, the characters are not real, the milieu is not real. All of it, not real. And just because it is based on a Biblical character does not mean the story is real. No, there are no hobbits in Middle Earth, that was a made up story by JRR Tolkein. There is no Twilight. There was no Munchkinland. There was no Looking Glass that Alice fell through, it was all made up. And guess what, there's no Chthulhu either, made up. There was no Christine, no Michael Myers, no Freddy Krueger, and there is no Stargate, it's made up as well. There are no Imperial Forces or Jedi, made up.

Sure, Aronofsky might have been a little sacrilegious, but what else do people expect him to do? Be true to a book he doesn't believe in?

reply to post by WarminIndy


What you just wrote, about people thinking it's real, scares me more than a little. I didn't think there were any sane people who actually believed any of it was. I thought most people knew it was fiction and what that word means.

Im a Christian, and I saw the movie knowing it wasnt true to the Genesis story, but I figured that it might at least follow the Sumerian myth, or other versions of the flood. Needless to say, I was disappointed. That movie was crap...pure Captain Planet BS.

Im getting tired of this anti-humanity, environmentalist propaganda, its just lame. Its worse than lame, its boring and stupid.

reply to post by khnum


Please to hear I will not be alone.

Let us not forget that this has already happened in the past.

nm

reply to post by WarminIndy

SCREENWRITER posting here...FILMMAKER posting here...WarminIndy is the screenwriter. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You are the Screenwriter and Filmmaker for Gone With the Wind? I'm honored to have made your cyber-acquaintance.

Awesome (and I'm not being facetious - I'm just off-topic).