Noah reviews

ddt said:
Count me under the kitten murderers then. I was surprised, when reading it, that AiG had missed this verse, Genesis 6:23:
One day, when Noah was working the fields, an angel came up to him and said: Noah, you have to save the animals. And lo and behold, Noah signed up for a lifetime membership of PETA.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

:D

Perhaps we should form a kitten murderers' club.
Meh.
Too much work.
Anyway, we know who we are.
 
Much, much worse, Fellow Traveler.
It's about wide-eyed fluffy little kittens mercilessly snuffed out of existence with a simple mouse-click.
So much less work than roasting babies, n'est–ce pas?
 
It's actually pretty good, as a mythical story. It clearly doesn't follow the Bible to any strict degree. But, it is surprisingly intense and suspenseful, for a story you think you know!

And, yes, they do include a scene, towards the end, where Noah gets drunk and naked. Most other versions of the story tend to cut that part out.

My favorite bit was the Creation Myth that seemed to weave scientific accuracy and biblical myths in a rather creative manner. Creation is a somewhat accurate Big-Bang -like process, and the divergence of animals is implemented as a manner of evolution. Heh.
 
Wowbagger said:
It's actually pretty good, as a mythical story. It clearly doesn't follow the Bible to any strict degree. But, it is surprisingly intense and suspenseful, for a story you think you know!

....
Click to expand...

I assume you saw it in a theater. Any guffaws? Boos? How full was the theater? I personally would never go see it in a theater, but I'm curious what reactions an east coast audience may have had.
 
Wowbagger said:
It's actually pretty good, as a mythical story. It clearly doesn't follow the Bible to any strict degree. But, it is surprisingly intense and suspenseful, for a story you think you know!

And, yes, they do include a scene, towards the end, where Noah gets drunk and naked. Most other versions of the story tend to cut that part out.

My favorite bit was the Creation Myth that seemed to weave scientific accuracy and biblical myths in a rather creative manner. Creation is a somewhat accurate Big-Bang -like process, and the divergence of animals is implemented as a manner of evolution. Heh.
Click to expand...

I think of it as the second creation of mankind if you believe the Noah story.
Speaking of Creation Myths etc. I often imagine each new day as a creation as in the song "Morning has broken" by Cat Stevens. For each person born into the world, the world is new and all things leading to that birth are merely props. :) . Very selfish way to look at it; that your parents are just physical processes leading to you. Is that a version of Existentialism?
 
Has anyone else mentioned that, before the Flood, you could see stars in the daytime sky? This is what the movie showed. I suspect this was a nod to those who say that the Earth's atmosphere changed (in particular, became more water-laden) after the Flood.
 
Brown said:
Has anyone else mentioned that, before the Flood, you could see stars in the daytime sky? This is what the movie showed. I suspect this was a nod to those who say that the Earth's atmosphere changed (in particular, became more water-laden) after the Flood.
Click to expand...

I took a course on weather last year. The professor was a PhD climatologist from a major university who knew his subject very well. He gave me the impression that he was an expert on climate change phenomena and had an enviable ability for clarity of explanation of complicated subjects.

Along about 6 weeks into an 8 week course, he explained how rainbows work. His explanation was astonishingly clear and intuitive for someone who knows basic optics and understands refraction of light.

At the end of the relatively lengthy presentation, complete with computer projection onto a large screen before about 25 people, he added words to the effect, "We're not sure why there were no rainbows before the flood. I guess some things we will never know."

The class erupted in nervous giggles, until, "Well, that's what the Bible tells us, that the first rainbow was after the flood," and a hush fell over the group as we all realized in unison that he was not joking.
 
Similar experience when I took a Personal Trainer course. American College of Sports Medicine, so quite a detailed and lengthy course.

Instructor was very good and knowledgable. But every once in a while, he'd be discussing the circulatory system or the Krebs Cycle or whatever, and launch into an aside about how that could never happen by chance.

I'd just literally put down my pen and wait for him to finish his tangent.

Not much else you can do, really.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
I kind of like how Bill Maher put it: something to the effect of “They’re mad because this made up story doesn’t stay true to their made up story.”

And then there's this - apparently, "God" isn't mentioned even once in the entire movie :D
Atheist director of 'Noah' calls it the 'least biblical film ever made'

Funny thing is that the Christian fundamentalists who are now howling in outrage about the movie will find themselves on the same side as the Islamic fundamentalists who were poo-pooing the movie weeks ago.
Click to expand...

ok, but is the entire Earth flooded like in the original fantasy story? If so, where the damn water comes from?

and how do they deal with all the animals coming from Australia and Americas?

is it more or less realistic than CLASH OF THE TITANS?
 
Brown said:
Has anyone else mentioned that, before the Flood, you could see stars in the daytime sky? This is what the movie showed. I suspect this was a nod to those who say that the Earth's atmosphere changed (in particular, became more water-laden) after the Flood.
Click to expand...

and why would we be able to see stars if the atmosphere was less water laden? We can´t see stars in daylight because the atmosphere is brightened by the sun so everywhere we look in the sky, there is tremendous brightness, and the stars are VERY faint.

even in the moon, if you look at the illuminated soil and the black sky at the same time, you won´t see stars. Your pupils will close to reduce the amount of light reaching your corneas, and by doing so, the faint stars will be invisible.

the only difference is that, since there is no atmosphere to reflect light, on the moon, looking at a black patch of sky (without the very bright Earth, or the sun of course) for a few minutes, your pupils will open again and the stars will shiiiiine.
 
Olowkow said:
I took a course on weather last year. The professor was a PhD climatologist from a major university who knew his subject very well. He gave me the impression that he was an expert on climate change phenomena and had an enviable ability for clarity of explanation of complicated subjects.

Along about 6 weeks into an 8 week course, he explained how rainbows work. His explanation was astonishingly clear and intuitive for someone who knows basic optics and understands refraction of light.

At the end of the relatively lengthy presentation, complete with computer projection onto a large screen before about 25 people, he added words to the effect, "We're not sure why there were no rainbows before the flood. I guess some things we will never know."

The class erupted in nervous giggles, until, "Well, that's what the Bible tells us, that the first rainbow was after the flood," and a hush fell over the group as we all realized in unison that he was not joking.
Click to expand...

This is one of many times a person will have to grin and bear it in order to get through certain courses.
 
AcesHigh said:
and why would we be able to see stars if the atmosphere was less water laden?
Click to expand...
Perhaps your post could be summed up as: "That's just idiotic!" And it is. But remember that fundamentalists, when dealing with scripture, put their brains into idle. Some of them have argued, without a shred of evidence, that before the Flood there were no rainbows and you could see stars in daytime; but after the Flood, that all changed because atmospheric composition changed.
 
Fellow Traveler said:
This is one of many times a person will have to grin and bear it in order to get through certain courses.
Click to expand...

A professor teaching about Winds and Pressure belts to a class I was in; started laughing and could not stop until I was concerned for her. It wasn't anything people would likely laugh about today but she happened to mention Sir Walter Raleigh having a liking for ladies ankles when they were flashed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom