New film on Noah and the Ark offends both Christians and Muslims

March 8, 2014 • 11:35 am

The movie “Noah” is coming out soon, and I have no idea whose crazy idea it was to do this movie (the director is Daren Aronofsky, director of the overrated and execrable “Black Swan,”), nor how they got all that talent to star in it (e.g., Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, Nick Nolte, and Emma Watson). And it’s ironic that Jennifer Connelly, who apparently plays Noah’s wife Naameh, also played Darwin’s wife Emma in the movie “Creation.”

Here’s the official trailer:

Judging by the part of the clip beginning at 1:15, there are more than just a few “kinds” loading onto the Ark. Look at all those snakes—surely more than one snake “kind”! I wonder if they consulted a baraminology expert for this? According to Wikipedia, though, no real animals were herded in the making of this film:

Regarding the film’s extensive use of visual effects, Aronofsky said he and his crew “had to create an entire animal kingdom”, using no real animals in the production but instead “slightly tweaked” versions of real creatures. Industrial Light and Magic said their work on the film represented “the most complicated rendering in the company’s history”

You’d think that good Christians would be chuffed that a major film (put out by Parmount) was being made about the Noah, portraying this ludicrous story as something real.  But no. According to The Raw Story, the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) made Parmount add this disclaimer to the film (this is only part of it):

 “[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.”

Well, it’s bad enough that the film is supposed to cater to those who believe in a a bogus story that somehow serves as a “cornerstone of  their faith” (and if its value is solely as a metaphor, what, exactly, is the story supposed to mean?).  What’s worse is the reason the NRB pressed for the disclaimer:

NRB board member Phil Cooke told The Wrapthat the disclaimer was necessary because the film is “historically inaccurate.” It is, Cooke said, “more of an inspired movie than an exact retelling.”

WHAT? Historically inaccurate? What would historically accurate mean? How many animals would there be, and how would they be taken care of? How would the “penguin kind” make its way to Antarctica, or the giant tortoises to Aldabra? Nobody can answer these questions, and so the question of “historical accuracy” is moot.

But other Christians have objected as well. Their beefs, given below as quotes from the Raw Story piece, are hilarious:

  • Writing on his blog last year, Answers In Genesis president Ken Ham noted that the film’s script “is not at all faithful to the biblical account in Genesis.” Ham believes the trailer for the film is “a Hollywood con” designed to lure unsuspecting Jews and Christians to witness “an unbiblical production.”He lists the many ways in which the film does not accurately reflect his interpretation of what happened in Genesis 6. He notes that “Noah’s family only consists of his wife, three sons, and one daughter-in-law, contrary to the Bible.” Moreover, “[i]t appears as if every species was crammed in the Ark instead of just the kinds of animals, thus mocking the Ark account the same way secularists do today.” [JAC: if there’s every species in the Ark, and of course “kinds” could well be biological species, then there must be at least 7 million of them!]  Most problematic for Ham, however, is that “Noah does not have a relationship with God but rather with circumstances and has deadly visions of the Flood,” and that “[t]he Ark lands on a cliff next to a beach.”

And Noah is too much of a hippie, too! There’s too much environmentalism!

  • 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.”“Noah is a kind of rural shaman and vegan hippie-like gatherer of herbs. Noah explains that his family tries to study and heal the world whenever possible, like a kind of environmentalist scientist,” Godawa writes.“Noah maintains an animal hospital to take care of wounded creatures or those who survive the evil ‘poachers,’ of the land. Just whose animal rights laws they are violating, I am not sure, since there are only fiefdoms of warlords and tribes. Be that as it may, Noah is the Mother Teresa of animals.” The environmental message, however, is not Godawa’s central complaint — he is mostly considered with the “postmodernist fancy” that Aronofsky brings to the script. He initially acknowledges that anything not explicitly written in Genesis 6 is fair-game for creative license. “Saying ‘That didn’t happen on the ark,’” he writes, “is sheer ignorance because nobody knows what happened on the ark, because it wasn’t written down!” [JAC: so much for “historical accuracy”!]However, “postmodernists fancy playing God and changing the meaning of texts to suit their agenda because they believe language creates reality. Therefore, it’s okay to ‘make the Bible say what we want it to say.’ This is manipulative narcissistic nonsense[.]”

I guess Biblical literalists have the final say in how the Bible is portrayed. No metaphors allowed! I wonder how “The Ten Commandments” would have fared under the watchful eye of Ken Ham.

Finally, and curiously, the screenwriters are chastised for not accepting God as the tyrannical, genocidal brute that he is in the Old Testament (again from Brian Godawa):

  • 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.”

That makes absolutely no sense. Man has value because God kills off all of humanity because they were evil. Were all of them evil, even the babes in arms? And why couldn’t God just prevent those people from becoming evil? Apparently, as it says in Genesis 5, God had made a big mistake—showing that he’s not omniscient, and certainly not benevolent:

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

The directors and producers can’t catch a break, for Muslims are objecting, too. As The Hollywood Reporter notes, their objections are apparently not on supposed historical inaccuracy, but on the fact that Noah is simply depicted in a movie as a living person:

On Thursday, censorship boards in Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates informed Paramount they will not allow the release of the film. Similar rulings are expected in Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait, according to Paramount insiders.

In Egypt, the leading Sunni Muslim institute Al-Azhar issued a statement on Thursday condemning the Paramount movie, saying it should be banned in that country.

“Al-Azhar renews its rejection to the screening of any production that characterizes Allah’s prophets and messengers and the companions of the Prophet [Muhammad],” the statement read. “Therefore, Al-Azhar announces the prohibition of the upcoming film about the Allah’s messenger Noah — peace be upon him.”

Al-Azhar said any such film is “contrary to faith and to the fundamentals of the Islamic Sharia [law],” adding that such movies antagonize the “feelings of the faithful.”

God forbid that Muslim feelings be offended once again.

I wonder when the Jews will weigh in.

157 thoughts on “New film on Noah and the Ark offends both Christians and Muslims”

  3. I would grant historical accuracy could be questioned in so far as the approximate time of Noah, the socio-political landscape, tools available, dress could be accurate even if the biblical story is purely fiction.

    I won’t bother with Noah, just like I didn’t bother with any of the Ancient Greek shows: 300, the upcoming one with Xerxes, Troy.

    1. “…even if the biblical story is purely fiction.”

      Don’t you mean even though?;-)

      1. No, I secretly believe the bible is the literal truth. You found out because of my grammar slip.*

        *the above sentence is fiction

        😀

      2. Didn’t you read the intro to Genesis, “Based on previously published myths”?

        1. No, I did not see the disclaimer. Looks like plagiarism to me! Now, who sues and who gets sued?

    2. I think “historically inaccurate” was a transcription error. I think it was supposed to be “hysterically inaccurate”.

    3. You’re not the target audience Diana, Christians are. The producers could care less in fact, would probably not want people of your opinion to patronize this film. My guess is that to make a killing, the producers are hoping to pack those theaters to bursting with Christians. Muslim countries are already banning the film and that news helps bolster the Christian attendance numbers. Bad pre-review through Christian press can conspire to make this the next “Heaven’s Gate” and consequently, a
      20 megaton bomb…

      Just my opinion..

  4. As an ex film business (sort of) executive, I can answer your question about how you get big time actors to star in a lousy huge movie: You pay ’em lousy huge bucks.

  5. Ooo, I hope they also treat the early parts of Genesis to cinematic rendition. It would be a twofer: one movie for the first account of creation, and one for the second!

  6. Xtians: Waah, Hollywood doesn’t make moves for us.

    Hollywood: Here’s a move for you.

    Xtians: Waah, it’s not what we want!

    2. If Yahweh were to preserve only eight good humans today, I don’t think Russell Crowe would be on the short list.

      1. Now you have me wondering. I assume Mel Gibson wouldn’t make it either, but then he might come back from the dead to haunt us with bloody moans.

  8. So I kind of want to ask Mr. Godawa what the difference is between a True Christian and a postmodernist is, but I have a feeling the snark would be completely lost.

    1. What about the Hindus? Will no one seek out the official Hindu response?

  11. I actually quite liked Black Swan, although it hardly even compares to Aronofsky’s opus, Requiem for a Dream.

    1. I liked Black Swan as well. I particularly liked the teasing tension where the camera follows the actress (very much like in a horror film) and you expect the worst but the tension is relieved when the worst doesn’t occur. It really lets you imagine what is there and what you imagine is far worse.

  12. OMFG. It is as if they’d made the Flintstones into a serious drama: starring George Clooney as Fred Flintstone, Kristina Hendricks as Wilma Flintstone, Matthew McConaughey as Barney Rubble, and Jennifer Lawrence as Betty Rubble. Danny DeVito does a surprising turn as Mr. Slate.

          4. Yeah any of the animal appliances. I think you found the best one though. 🙂

    2. Did you know that the people in Dubai don’t like the Flintstones?

      But the people in Abu Dhabi doo.

        1. Afraid it’s actually a chestnut; no idea where or when I heard it. First time I’ve ever had a chance to use it, though. 😀

    1. Exactly WHY are two of the sons unmarried? Have they not yet met the right girl, or are they “confirmed bachelors” (wink, wink).

      2. And how are they going to meet the right girl after the rest of humanity is wiped out?

  16. I still don’t plan on seeing the movie, but it does cheer me to hear that the religious are upset. That increases the thin, vague possibility that some of the serious moral issues might be addressed — such as God violently punishing the violent or the ludicrous description of millions of ordinary people with “every intent of the thoughts of (their) heart(s) was only evil continually.”

    Right. Because reality is like a cartoon.

      1. Well, the pregnant women are obviously sluts, and the children probably teased some prophet about being bald or something.
        (/sarcasm, in case it’s not obvious)

    2. Good points. Also, to answer Dr. Coyne’s rhetorical question: and if its value is solely as a metaphor, what, exactly, is the story supposed to mean? I’d say that its not-very-well-hidden message is that god is a genocidal bastard, which at least makes his supposed instructions to his people a bit more comprehensible.

      1. It’s also hard not to wonder why God didn’t just start with Noah and his family and saved all the drama and horror? Didn’t He see the “wickedness” coming?

          1. God IS divinely stupid. That isn’t to say god didn’t see the wickedness coming, though.

            God spares no creative imagination and goes to no end of effort to create wickedness because god needs wickedness — and an endless stream of it — for plot points.

            Because god is all about the drama. Drama is why god created itself ex nihilo. God exists* to enjoy all the drama it can stir up, from mild to horrific.

            *god is not real; like the content of the film, my post is fiction

          2. Your post is also basically the argument sophistimacated theologians like John “Hot Beverages” Haught make.

            Why did god create the diversity of life using evolution, red teeth and claws and all? Drama.

            Why tsunamis? Drama.

            Why childhood cancer? You guessed it. Drama.

            They suppose they can whitewash any tragedy by calling it “drama.”

          3. You make a good point. A big flood is far more dramatic than, say, plague or synchronized worldwide heart attacks. He must have foreseen the green screen and CGI, what with being omniscient and all.

    3. Perhaps one ought to go, and laugh at inopportune and “inappropriate” times (at least in the view of the pious surrounding one.)

  17. As for the muslim objections, I think an easy and relatively inexpensive way to mollify them would be to add a few scenes in which he beats his wife, and maybe one in which it is explained why her testimony in court is only worth half of his.

    1. I’m not sure that would work. They oppose “the screening of any production that characterizes Allah’s prophets” so merely having some portray Noah would be a problem, no matter how abuse and subjugation of women is also included. I presume they also strenuously object to all films depicting Jesus, though I’ve not heard too much about that.

      1. Does this mean that they’ll be issuing a fatwa against Darren Aronofsky?

        1. I’d expect it, but since Aronofsky is born from jews he’s probably already subject to a blanket fatwah on everything jewish.

    2. In that case it would be “beating his 4 wives”…plus an unspecified number of bondwomen…

  18. <blockquote… changing the meaning of texts to suit their agenda because they believe language creates reality. Therefore, it’s okay to ‘make the Bible say what we want it to say.’ This is manipulative narcissistic nonsense

    Also known as “Christians”.

    1. I remember a pastor emphasising that the way Creation happened was that God ‘spoke it into existance’, so language creating reality is a familiar concept to them.

      1. I bet he got that from the genesis “in the beginning there was the word”. I’d like to slap the lazy monk who translated λογος as “the word”. Try harder monk.

        1. Yes, that was it exactly. I took it to mean it was something like a wizard’s incantation where where for example, pronunciation and emphasis are critical to making the end product.

          The Logos entry in Wikipedia shows that it was more than just one lazy translator. Greek philosophers, early Christians, Gnostics and theologists like Frank Stagg have all tried to make something out of the concept for themselves.

          It doesn’t translate well it seems, making it a point where schisms can happen.

          The JWs, not being Trinitarians, take Logos to be a god. Or something.

          1. We learned logos also means, “order” and that the logos bit in Genesis is a way to say, “hey, we agree about that Plato stuff you relate to”.

  19. The trailer makes it look like this film was inspired more by the success of LOTR than by biblical mythology.

    1. I do like the part where the remaining mob storms the Ark, desperate for a seat on the ship. A classic disaster movie scene!

  20. It probably is a good idea that this Christian movie isn’t shown in the Islamic world. More then likely it would have resulted in a bomb at the box office… literally

    1. what do you think? Is it likely that in drowning everyone except Noah’s family, that a pregnant woman was not in the numbers of those drowned?

  22. …why the hell are people so easily offended these days??? How about us??? How come were not offended by their bull shit stories??

    1. I am offended that you would suggest we are not offended. We have merely managed to callous over our offendity by eating Christian babies and drinking Johnny Walker Black.

  23. I can’t figure out who is going to go see this movie.

    If Christians won’t go, Muslims won’t go, and I doubt if Atheists would waste their time, it looks like a no show, and no profit.

    1. Film fans. Aronofsky, Jerry’s (irrelevant) dislike notwithstanding, is a highly regarded director with many interesting films under his belt. This atheist won’t hesitate to see it.

      I’m not sure I understand the tenor of some of the conversation here – why is it particularly notable to present a film based on mythology? The surrounding religious nonsense is an issue separate from the project itself.

      1. I’m on the same page as you and feel like an alien language is being spoken here. This is fucking Aranofsky! He’s spoken in the past about how this film is based of his graphic novel (which has fantasy elements) and how this is an “eco” story. Parallels to global warming will be obvious. Plus he’s not a Christian… We’ll see how the film turns out but a ton of the religious pandering is pure marketing.

      2. why is it particularly notable to present a film based on mythology?

        1) A large segment of the population disagrees that it is merely mythology.

        2) The disclaimer which fails to take a stand on whether it is mythology or history adds to the humour.

        1. A myth is different from a story in that a myth is actually believed. By some people, anyways.

          1. I’ve managed to get a few people to believe some of my stories, implausible as they always are.

          5. I’m not sure that definition of “myth” holds up. There are plenty of myths that nobody believes. (Who thinks Sisyphus is pushing that rock up the hill every day?)

            Perhaps it is enough if the story was once believed as true by some bunch of folk.

          6. Sometimes I think I’m Sisyphus and I like to describe tasks as “sisyphean” rather than “herculean”. I don’t think anyone gets what my message is though. 🙂

          7. For at least one of those persons, at some future moment while engaged in some ordinary task — perhaps washing the dishes or driving to work — recognition of the error arrives, suddenly and unbidden, into consciousness. Doh! Temporarily, they are decimated. 🙂

          10. Diana:
            “This is why I don’t make my bed.”

            Odd you should mention beds. My description of my organisation’s business processes is “Procrustean” – whatever the nature of a problem or a project, it will be made to fit the endlessly proliferating procedures that our brain-dead management thinks constitutes, err, managing. 😉

            It usually goes over their heads though.

          12. From my own experience:

            laying carpet – herculean

            cleaning carpet – sisyphean

            giving birth – herculean

            raising kid – sisyphean

    1. From the article, “….some American stamp enthusiasts say….” so about 5 guys then. 🙂

      1. “Harry Potter Stamps Apparently Not American Enough”

        Ironically**, I agree with that. This is an American stamp series being released for the US internal market, surely they should find an American-themed movie to publicise. English schoolchildren just look – weird, in the context.

        (**Coming from someone who normally regards patriotism with deep suspicion and distaste)

      2. Looks like the USPS is doing everything it can to create new young stamp collectors.

      4. Remembering Robbie Coltrane’s early days as a minor Scottish stand-up comedian, it’s hard to believe that, back then, he could ever have imagined himself portrayed on a US postage stamp.

        1. Yep, and ordinarily you have to be dead for ten yrs before you can appear on a stamp. I guess if you’re playing a fictional character, it’s different. Coming soon, Russell Crowe et al as Noah et al stamps?

  25. I’m torn. I’m kind of curious to see it, for the effects and just to see how it’s presented. I did not and would not go see Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ, however.

  27. Does the film explain how Noah got the male and female viruses onto the Ark, or does Aronofski “conveniently” gloss over this cornerstone of the story?

  29. “may seem harsh to our thoroughly Modern Millie minds”
    – so he’s stuck in the 1920, then? 😉

    (or else he started writing ‘thoroughly modern’ and couldn’t stop in time, his train of thought captured by a meme)

  30. Brian Godawa: “Noah is the Mother Teresa of animals.” What, lets them slowly die in terrible conditions while he travels first class? (Quite possibly, on an overcrowded Ark. I’d like to know where the captain’s quarters were). I don’t think his metaphor means what he thinks it means, certainly not to us cynics.

  31. (again from Brian Godawa): 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.”

    And it undercuts a moral argument used by theists.

    1. In America, never. We loudly complain if actor is too dark. Comic book fans are up in arms because Michael B. Jordan will play a black version of The Human Torch in the upcoming Fantastic Four movie.

  33. Does this Noah saga include Noah’s post-Ark ride, stress-reducing, decompressing quaffing of the nectar of Allah in his tent where (according to sacred scripture I read as an impressionable child under the watch care of the Southern Baptist Church) his pudenda are swaying metronomically in the gentle balmy breezes, greeting any and all who enter unawares?

    1. According to a comment over at PZ Myers blog,
      yes the ending of the Noah story is included. And guess what? Ken Ham, after complaining about what was left out, complained about this being included in the movie.

      George

  34. Well, they might show how Noah cursed Ham and turned him black so he would become a slave to his brothers.

    As for the Jewish perspective, it could certainly add something.

    “The Talmud deduces two possible explanations, one attributed to Rab and one to Rabbi Samuel, for what Ham did to Noah to warrant the curse.[6] According to Rab, Ham castrated Noah on the basis that, since Noah cursed Ham by his fourth son Canaan, Ham must have injured Noah with respect to a fourth son. Emasculating him thus deprived Noah of the possibility of a fourth son. According to Samuel, Ham sodomized Noah, a judgment that he based on analogy with another biblical incident in which the phrase “and he saw” is used….. The Talmud concludes that, in fact, “both indignities were perpetrated.”

    Although the story can be taken literally, in more recent times, some scholars have suggested that Ham may have had intercourse with his father’s wife.[8] Under this interpretation, Canaan is cursed as the “product of Ham’s illicit union.”[9]”

    Wiki.

  35. HAA! I didn’t get past the title of the post before I chuckled 🙂 OF COURSE they’re offended. Isn’t that the only thing they have left?

    This whole po6 thing, with him wiping out humanity because he screwed up. That really doesn’t sound like much of a supernatural Bean. I mean being. I take that back, bean works.

  36. I interested to see what the general public’s ratings will look like for this film. If it’s well-made with nice effects, I might go see it. From what I’ve read, this isn’t like Passion or like Roma Downey’s new Passion remake, Son of God.

  37. I don’t care if its a christian myth story, or that the christians are pissed off with it, or that the muslims are complaining again, or that there’s a christian centric disclaimer, I’m going to see it because J.C. is in it.

    …um…that’s Jennifer Connolly.

    Oh…and Russell Crowe (hey “R.C.” Roman Catholic…I’m starting to see a trend here).

  38. I find it hard to believe that Ham and Co. were given copies of the script while it was still in production, so is this just another rush to criticise a film as anti-God by people who have not yet seen it?

    Is this simply an opportunity to stir some heat and stoke their own fires of shameless self-promotion?

  39. I just want to add that I hope it upsets EVERY religious group and makes a mockery of the whole subject .. as it actually is.

  40. Is there any reason to think the film is portraying Noah’s story as historical fact, rather than a myth? I see nothing wrong with a film about Noah’s Ark per se, assuming the purpose of the film is not proselytization or pandering.

    Aronofsky is (or at least, was) an openly admitted atheist, by the way. Check out this interview, where he refers to himself as “godless” and says “my god is narrative filmmaking.”

  41. Gotta see that! After all, a movie that offends both christians and muslims has to be good.

  42. I’d like to see a Monty Python adaptation. Who could be offended by that?

  43. I am sure Jews are perfectly fine with the film. Mostly just only amused by such a tizzy the fundamentalist Christians and Muslims get into.

    By the way, no way in hell Ken Ham speaks for all christians – apparently even pat robertson thinks he’s a whacko.

  45. I wonder what all of the christians who don’t like this film think about the Epic of Gilgamesh that was thousands of years before the story of Noah, and almost virtually identical..

  46. If Godawa is upset about Noah being a hippy, wait until he finds out that jesus was a Jewish liberal!

  49. Oh for Gods sake!!! As an atheist, these daft religious numpty’s make me want to go watch this!!! Russell is a fantastic, believable actor. And as for religious movies offending people, ummm, I never heard a complaint about ‘Thor’ ? Or do they forget that he is also a Norse God!

  50. So Christians and Muslims are offended by the upcoming NOAH movie?

    If major filmmaker had the courage to make an NC-17 movie about Sodom and Gomorrah, for whom would this movie offend? Would it offend Christians, Jews, and Muslims? Or would it offend the Gay community?

    There are many other sections of the Bible that could also be made into a pornographic NC-17 movie. what if Quentin Tarantino, Oliver Stone, Steven Spielberg, or an another major filmmaker, made an NC-17, or X-rated, movie based on a section of the Bible? I would how the Christians, Muslims, and Jews would react to it, after seeing screenings of such a movie.

    I would especially be interested seeing how the Bible-belt, red states, and the American religious right, would react to such an explicit movie based on the Bible!

      1. That link brings to mind another famously incestuous dynasty, the Pharaohs. I just came across, on Youtube, the old 80’s BBC series ‘the Cleopatras’, a fascinating story full of drama, intrigue, politics, doublecross and naked dancing girls (which was all I noticed the first time around). When one gets past the latter, though, it seems the Ptolemies spent all their time marrying, deposing or assassinating their sisters, brothers, half-sisters, cousins, aunts, mothers, wives (some of whom were also their sisters / mothers) in a sustained display of intergenerational familial relations and dirty dealing that makes the characters in the Bible look like amateurs.

        1. The Ptolemies adopted the Egyptian brothers marrying sisters thing and ran with it. I suspect though that some of the things handed down about them were Augustus’s propaganda to make sure Rome saw them as immoral. A lot of what we know about Cleopatra comes from the Romans.

  51. You wonder how they got all that talent to star in the movie? Hmmm, let me count the ways. Evolution is about increasing fitness, economics maximizes utility. Making money maximizes a persons utility.

  52. You wonder how they got these stars would make the movie? Hmmm, let me count the ways. In evolution fitness is maximized, in economics it’s utility. They are only following economic natural law.

  53. This has to be one of the oldest disaster stories.
    I love animals and I love disaster movies; so I look forward to this one.
    Stories about this great flood predate Jewish, Christian and Muslim belief; so they don’t own this story; some idiots just like to be offended.

    1. Noah was of the Jewish faith and Islam didn’t even EXIST! Christian faith didn’t happen until after Jesus Christ became the Messiah to them.

  54. I just saw Noah and as a movie it was actually awesome! As a non religious person I was skeptical, but it was a very interesting tale that was a lot more brutal than I expected. Along with that I wouldn’t say that Christians are entirely the target audience. For one the write is an athiest who just respects the story. And along with that there are inconsistencys that a lot of Christians would probably hate haha. But seriously if you look at it as just a movie and nothing more then it’s actually really well made and a good movie!

  55. Oh and along with all that, when telling the tale of creation the movie shows both the Big Bang and evolution occurring over a time lapse!

  56. A story with the central theme of saving the animals? Yes, I saw Noah, too. But scenes with animals were a lousy FOUR MINUTES! (If you saw the trailer, you saw the animals.)

    And it was a sloppy mix. They had:
    • Rock-transformer creatures (They were good, stars of the movie, but they don’t count as animals.)
    • One made-up creature, a dog/something with scales. (Nicely done.)
    • One woodpecker, to show how Noah puts them to sleep for the trip, by waving it over a smoky potion. Then, shot from above:
    • All the birds of the world enter the ark!
    • All the snakes of the world enter the ark!

    They don’t even show them leaving the ark. Instead there was a two-second video montage with a Noah voice over, explaining how they just all went out and multiplied. Representing all the animals, were:
    • a bluebird, feeding it’s baby
    • a few capuchin monkeys;
    • a brown bear and cub.

    And they looked like cheap stock videos. For a movie about saving the animals of the world, I expected so much more.

  58. Are Muslims for “real”? Noah – one of THEIR prophets? There wasn’t any Islam & didn’t even EXIST back then! Boy, these Muslims like to lie a lot!

Comments are closed.