Talk:Noah (2014 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Test screenings

Useful info here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Noah's Wife

I'm pretty sure Noah's wife is not named Joan. According to IMDB, Noah's wife in the film is named "Naameh". I suspect the editor who wrote that is referencing a less-than-authoritative source.

108.54.157.241 (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been taken care of. —Flax5 17:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a joke from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure - Who was Joan of Arc? - Noah's wife? Saxophonemn (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Japheth

Isn't mentioned at all in the cast. Does that mean he's not appearing or that he hasn't been cast yet?

Mark76 (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like he's being replaced by Emma Watson, I guess the Hebrew School "dropouts" who made the movie forgot that there were 8 people on the ark. At least with the Ten Commandments they had a team full of Rabbis. It looks like Emma Watson't character is a replacement for Japheth. The film is already in post production. Saxophonemn (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Correspondence to accounts in the Bible/Qu'ran

I made several changes just now, including the addition of a section with a title similar to this one. As it's not as straightforward as comparing, for example, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy novel to the most recent movie adaptation, I'm wondering what people think the best strategy would be. The reason it's more complicated is that Noah is part of the Bible and the Qu'ran, corresponds to a number of other flood myth characters, and has somewhat different characteristics based on Jewish, Muslim, or Christian interpretation. Obviously we don't want to replicate other articles here, but perhaps if someone has more sources quoting the filmmakers of their intentions it would help to guide the direction of this section (for example, if it's specifically adapted from the Genesis flood narrative there's not much need to address what the Qu'ran says. --Rhododendrites (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed the blog post as blogs are not considered reliable and I cannot see how that one guy's opinion is of such great importance. I also think the title of the subsection needs to be shortened. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Slate highlighted that post as seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's use the Slate article, then, because it provides context. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Issues with Christian reaction

The following section, added by 69.118.66.202, is almost entirely ripped from the source material.

The edit: "Noah" has been the subject of controversy with some religious groups claiming the story has been inaccurately portrayed. The director, Darren Aronofsky, a self-professed atheist, made waves by touting his rendition of “Noah” as the “least biblical biblical film ever made.” The movie was reported by one early reviewer to have no mention of God. The director’s description of Noah as the “first environmentalist” also didn’t sit well with Jerry Johnson, president of the National Religious Broadcasters, who called the film’s “insertion of the extremist environmental agenda” a major concern. The push back from some religious groups has prompted Paramount Pictures in March 2014 to add a disclaimer to marketing materials, saying:

The source quote: The director, Darren Aronofsky, a self-professed atheist, made waves by touting his rendition of “Noah” as the “least biblical biblical film ever made.” The movie, which opens Friday, was reported by one early reviewer to have no mention of God, according to the Telegraph. Mr. Aronofsky’s description of Noah as the “first environmentalist” also didn’t sit well with Jerry Johnson, president of the National Religious Broadcasters, who called the film’s “insertion of the extremist environmental agenda” a major concern, the Telegraph reported.

There is also the issue that Darren Aronofsky, despite one reference in the Telegraph, is not explicitly an atheist. There should probably be a discussion about that on his own talk page, as just today someone used that Telegraph mention to cite him as an atheist, despite his having made comments that were possibly pantheistic. 65.182.60.103 (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

God...! What foolish reactions by the religious 'establishment'. Get one thing straight: it's a HEBREW bible, or Jewish one, NOT a Christian one though Christians adopt it, at least as literature (rejecting the 10 Commandments and many early Jewish teachings is part of being Christian, I suppose). It is correct, "god" is not mentioned once. "The Creator" is, however and after all, there is no question about whom The Creator is in this film. In fact, old Hebrew tradition doesn't mention "god" either, it is however often written thusly "g-d" so as to give offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.107.161 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the content. It can be replaced by an appropriate paraphrase. Scolaire (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have paraphrased the above material. I re-added the point that some religious folks didn't like the fact that "God" was not used in the movie because it is a true statement. However, I added that the word "Creator" was mentioned a few times because it makes the commentary balanced. I removed the disputed atheist reference - although there are other references to that fact. For example, the director is quoted as saying, "I'm Godless. And so I've had to make my God, and my God is narrative filmmaking, which is – ultimately what my God becomes." http://aronofksy.tripod.com/interview20.html User:69.118.66.202 - 05:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding sources

Not sure what the point of this edit is. The rest of the section describes specific issues and gives sources for those so there doesn't seem to be a need to source "Noah has also been the subject of controversy with Christians who take issue with how the story has been portrayed"... unless the sources gave a good overview of the controversy, summarising what different people have been saying... which they don't. Yaris678 (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

---

As there is a Noah (1998 film) this version should be renamed to Noah (2014 film). JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Noah (film) → Noah (2014 film) – per requester above, proper disambiguation Elizium23 (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support / Speedy move uncontroversial WP:NCF In ictu oculi (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCF. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support uncontroversial per WP:NCFLM2000 (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Why hasn't it happened yet? HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

We're waiting for a FLOOD of support. Chortle. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

We need an administrator to smite the redirect, which is in our way. Elizium23 (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NCF and WP:PRECISE. Betty Logan (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCF -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCF since topics secondary from the primary one ought to be disambiguated from each other. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per everyone else, but an additional comment: is the 1998 film really notable? The page is unreferenced, appears to be largely unknown, and only has IMDb as a link. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support the move. Is the 1998 flick notable? Bro, how could it not be, it stars Tony Danza, the Russell Crowe of eighties television!! DeistCosmos (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  Having a notable star does not make a film notable. As it stands, the film article definitely doesn't meet WP:NFILMS. It has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," it doesn't source anything, and it has no notable reviews on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. Corvoe (speak to me) 11:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  It looks like the film is mentioned a few times in Google Books results. Aside from these results, I doubt this film going to be covered retrospectively. In addition, considering that it aired on TV, I do not think we will find "classic" reviews. If there is any coverage, it may be from that year (1998) and probably behind paywalled news databases. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  This perhaps is a matter of standards. For, certainly, this movie (the '98 one) was made and had a cast and was aired on television and seen by however many millions watch something like that. There will have been some reviews somewhere, if only in tv-magazines. I glanced at its Amazon page, and it has a handful of comments, so it's not some unknown never seen thing. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  I'm going to be bold and mark it as an AfD. Here is the discussion page. I personally suggest putting the move on hold for now, until the AfD is closed. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - An article exists for the other film, so it's presumed notable. If it's not notable, AfD it. Regardless, while that one exists -- and, I would argue, regardless of whether or not it exists since the film itself exists -- this one should be moved per WP:NCF. Not like this needs another support !vote though :) I think the only reason it hasn't been done yet is because the process is usually allowed to stay open 7 days. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. --►Cekli829 19:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Let the false name be washed away in a diluvian wave of support. ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mention of god

The text seems to support the erroneous claim made by some Christian commentators that the word "god" is never uttered in the film. That's not true, and can be attributable to the film itself. Pikolas (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That's only true if uncontroversial. And it is controversial. Because the word "god" isn't in the film. Tons of sources on this, but... Hollywood Reporter: "Noah will rile some for the complete omission of the name “God” from the dialogue"; 'Noah' scriptwriter explains why he left God out; and this Huffington Post review has the best explanation:

The very word translated "God" in Genesis is not a name, but a generic reference that might be translated as "The Powers" (Elohim). One can only imagine the uproar had Aronofsky chosen to call the Creator "The Powers" -- which would have been quite biblical. In the Noah film, this nameless One is constantly referred to as "the Creator," but used in a very personal way by all the characters in the film -- good and bad. According to Exodus 6:3, God did not make Himself known by His personal name Yahweh (YHVH) or "the LORD" until the time of Moses. The references to God as "the LORD" in Genesis 6-9 in the flood story are accordingly anachronistic -- so it turns out, ironically, that Aronofsky's designation of God as "the Creator," is more biblical than his critics objections imagine.

--— Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

At one point in the film, Noah's son says it. It's attributable to the film. This claim, although widely reported, has been debunked. Pikolas (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Typo?

In the section Noah_(2014_film)#Test_screenings there is a sentence "It was be test-screened until post production is finished, as per Aronofsky's wishes." This is not proper English and not a direct quote from the reference. I tried correcting it a few days ago but was reverted. What is it trying to say? -Arb. (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolved. Thank you Drrickgriffith. -Arb. (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Mythical

This article's source for calling it a "biblical epic film" - Peter Sciretta on slashfilm.com - was mistaken to term it as biblical, as Darren Aronofsky made clear from the start he would not confine his storyline to the biblical angle (in any case, I read that he called the story of Noah and the worldwide deluge a fable, in and of itself). Better to call this 'Noah' film version a mythical epic film instead, considering the degree to which certain reported details of Aronofsky's script are completely contrary to specific details given in Genesis, so that it has only a thin veneer of the Genesis account. Therefore, we'll be waiting for a biblical epic blockbuster of Noah and the Flood from some other director, following the Aronofsky release. However, for its environmental theme relevant to the present time (this part of the biblical God's mandate to us is well-addressed), and entertaining mythical elements, plus the spectacular special effects, a star cast and intuitive composer, this upcoming version should at least prove a superbly-crafted movie designed to please an audience of various beliefs/worldviews. Lillinoe (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"Biblical epic" only means that the film is based on Bible stories – it doesn't imply that it's in any way faithful to them. For example, take Constantine (film). It shows complete disregard for the source material (in this case the Hellblazer comics), using only a few names and loose character impressions while essentially crafting an original story... but none of this changes the fact that it's regarded as a comic-book film. Unless the filmmakers come right out and say "this is not a biblical film", I think the current wording will do fine. —Flax5 13:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Flax5. In fact, I could not have put it better myself. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Not only are plot elements not within the "canon" or "Bible" of the Christian religion. But elements are from "The Book of Enoch" (yes, the "watchers" are mentioned within the Old Testament, but not by name). AND the entire plot is only half ripped from myths (Old Testament is , from a neutral point of view, only "mythic" or "sacred literature", but the movie's plot is a work of dramatic literature aka fiction). --63.139.128.82 10:54, 16 October 2013. (Note: IP added this to Lillinoe's first paragraph several months after the original. Assuming it's someone different, so moved it. @Lillinoe: - apologies for the confusion if it was you. --Rhododendrites (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

The old Testament (and thus the plot of Noah) is NOT the Christian bible but the Jewish one. It is of course a "Biblical story" and interpreted by the screen writers. Thus, a "Biblical story". What's the problem???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.107.161 (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! If it helps any, I saw the movie yesterday. At the beginning, it doesn't mention anything about being based on a true story, or inspired by true events, or being inspired by any book. Meanwhile, at the end of the end credits, there is the usual disclaimer about the movie being a work of fiction, and that any resemblance to real people, et cetera, et al. LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the movie is a God-inspired accurate retelling of events set forth to correct errors of the Bible. You can't prove it isn't, so such must at least be presumed an equal possibility. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This movie is actually based on Kaballah, not the bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.134.23 (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Christian and Jewish appraisal section

I don't see this as very balanced. We have the first 2 paragraphs, nearly 300 words and 8 sources telling us how the religious community is ok with it. It also name drops a number of notable people and quotes. Then we get a paragraph of under 50 words, mentioning 2 notables in passing (no quotes) of "criticism". That's followed by another 100 words by the film producer telling us why their version is ok. This isn't balanced by any standard. The question is, do we cut it down or do we expand the critics part? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree it isn't balanced. Furthermore, it isn't even fully accurate (I went to the Focus on the Family website, and it appears that their "support" of the film, as the article describes it, is qualified to say the least). I think that either approach, cutting the part showing support, or adding more to the criticism part, makes sense; the former approach would be more thorough and accurate, although it also risks putting too much weight within the larger article on that aspect of the film's reception. I'll watch it for a couple of days, and may jump in to edit after giving it a little more thought and seeing how it develops.DoctorEric (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion on this subject for over three months, I am removing the tag from the section. faithless (^speak) 00:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Loosely based

It seems that adding "loosely" to the lead is controversial. It's been reverted twice so am parking the reference here for posterity. Discuss. -Arb. (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Noah is a 2014 American epic biblically-inspired film directed by Darren Aronofsky, written by Aronofsky and Ari Handel, and loosely based on the story of Noah's Ark.

References

I don't think we should say "loosely" as an upfront label. Many works are based on source material to varying degrees, and "loosely" has a loaded meaning here. We should instead have 2-3 sentences talking about how it was adapted and the reaction to it. The lead section should summarize the article body, and I think the controversy can be recapped a bit better in the section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Off topic chat

Where are all the Black people? They do not exist! LOL I see no mention of the criticism of lack of people of other ethnic groups in this article. It would be hard to believe it did not come up. I mean you have the progenitor to ALL PEOPLE being played by a bunch of Anglo Saxon Europeans, not even Spanish or Italian or Arab looking people. And no one thinks that is an issue? Here is one article to get you started. African people where not born yet--LMAO--Inayity (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Excuse me, they are not all "Anglo Saxons". Jennifer Connelly's mother was Jewish and Logan Lerman is 100% Jewish. Troimbeo (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC) People, are you crazy? What black people in the Noah story? The Bible clearly says that it was Noah's family only! Hebrews were not black! No other people! Does not matter black or white! The history must not be rewritten, even if some ethnic and/or racial groups want some lies to be displayed. If there was no involvement of black guys there, it should not be mentioned there! We can't insert black people just wherever only to make them happy. I want my children to see REAL history, not adopted to today's world BS. We should respect different races, but we should respect the truth first! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.213.245 (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC) This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing "real" history. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Vegetarianism Theme

An important idea in this film was the immorality of eating meat. The forbidden fruit is pictured as pulsing flesh. In the film, Cain and his descendants are meat eaters, while Noah is vegetarian. This is much discussed in criticism of the film and much debated by religious folks, some who whom agree and some claim the story is twisted (i.e., it was Cain who sacrificed vegetables to god, and Abel who sacrificed a lamb). Why no mention of this theme and controversy in the article? DonPMitchell (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for this? I'm aware of attempts to discredit Noah's animal sacrifices in the Genesis story, but I haven't heard anything I would call a "controversy" for this film. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

In my mind, sacrificing an animal and eating it are two rather distinct things... -- 145.228.61.5 (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking for a source for this article for the supposed controversy and the claim that there is a theme in the film saying eating meat is immoral. Whether blood sacrifices are moral or not is a tangent. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

{{lead too short}}

I've removed {{lead too short}} from the top of the article; it's one of Wikipedia's more pointless tags. If you feel strongly that the header does not adequately summarise the article you are free to expand it. -Arb. (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had a go at adding to the lead, given that this template has been re-added to the article. — Hugh 02:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Noah (2014 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120725200112/http://www.flicksandbits.com/2012/07/20/darren-aronofskys-noah-begins-filming-starring-russell-crowe-ray-winstone-emma-watson/28748/ to http://www.flicksandbits.com/2012/07/20/darren-aronofskys-noah-begins-filming-starring-russell-crowe-ray-winstone-emma-watson/28748/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407085307/http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/noah-2014 to http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/noah-2014
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407071517/http://www.adn.com/2014/04/01/3404178/crowe-meets-anglican-leader-after.html?sp=%2F99%2F369%2F3764%2F&ihp=0 to http://www.adn.com/2014/04/01/3404178/crowe-meets-anglican-leader-after.html?sp=%2F99%2F369%2F3764%2F&ihp=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Political controversies related to Noah?

I noticed a portion of the lead contains the claim that Noah generated controversy upon release for its "perceived left-leaning political messages." I'm sure some audiences felt the film was too political—these things are subjective, after all—but I haven't seen any sources to back up this claim. I gave this line a Citation Needed tag but I'm sure there are other issues with the claim: Is this original research? Which criticisms of the film meet WP:RS and which don't? Do discussions of partisan politics distract from the academic discussion surrounding the film? etc.

For now, I think we should leave the claim and wait for the original author to source it. If anyone disagrees or has potential sources for review, be sure to let me know. ⁂ (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Story edit

In my thinking,writers of Noah should also had searched the details about Noah.Details from another holy book , QURAN could had taken.There are some more details relating with BIBLE .This would make the story interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiningamongdark (talk • contribs) 00:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really, they did sort of an Oliver Stone version of the Biblical story, thus a generation of kids will be confused. All you really need is the Torah, and Midrashic sources to tell the story. The Koran is a contrarian (Ishmael being sacrificed in lieu of Isaac, etc.) book of stories against the Torah and Bible, so I'm not sure that would be a good idea.Saxophonemn (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

And the Eridu Genesis, Epic of Gilgamesh, Atra-Hasis, Enuma Elish... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Binding of Isaac as described in the Koran - whatever be said about other matters - is quite true to the Bible. It is only the Arabian folklore that almost forgot that Isaac existed, and consequently inserted Ismael; the Koran itself has "the son of Abraham", which obviously (as we know the general story) refers to Isaac.--138.245.1.1 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Plot bloat

If anyone feels that edits such as these, which are expanding the plot summary beyond the 700 word recommended maximum discussed at WP:FILMPLOT, are an improvement to the article, please discuss here. DonIago (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

As IPs are continuing to make the same WP:FILMPLOT-violating edits without discussion, I've requested that this article be protected again. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)