Wave of Biblical Epics

There's a convincing argument that Noah was a stealth film about Gnosticism. So "the Creator" was actually Yaldabaoth aka the Demiurge—not God as the Jews or Christians would describe him.

Ah, but from the perspective of a Jew like Noah (or Proto-Jew, can't remember if he was pre-Abraham), it would be God.

Dunno if it's been posted, but a Christian writer reviewed it and was analysing it since the script. I didn't watch the movie, but from what he's saying it's pretty damn subversive.

It's a lot, but to summarise: Noah is portrayed as being more righteous than God, God is portrayed as silent whose presence in the story is ambiguous, and there's some kind of magical snakeskin that came from the Serpent that's treated positively.

This is why I have my doubts whenever a non-Christian takes on a biblical epic. Obviously not saying that they can't, but the problem is that audiences, me included, may be quite ready to accept it as long as it's a biblical story, but it's obvious that their worldview will affect it somehow.

We're getting quantity now, but I'm apprehensive on saying "quality."

edited 28th May '14 8:21:27 AM by Nadir

Noah himself is trying to make sense of a message that the Creator did not fully convey, but left for Noah to figure out for himself. I saw it as a test of whether or not Noah and his family were Good. As for the snakeskin, I saw it more as a reminder of the dangers of temptation. And this was pre-Abrahamic traditions. Also, Noah isn't fully "Christian". The story is referenced in thew Jewish and Islamic faiths as well. And for using "Creator" vs "God", this is long before any sort of religious schisms would have been created and other gods and goddesses begun being worshiped, as such there is no "God" vs "gods", there is only THE Creator.

edited 28th May '14 9:16:04 AM by GethKnight

Is that really your main issue with the film?

No, from the position of a Jew, it'd be YHWH. Or El.

Only Christians, and specifically English speaking christians use the word God

Still, at least it was a name, or as close you could get to one. Creator is too much of a distant title, and at least using YHVH or El had the benefit of being a foreign language, so even if it wasn't technically God's name, the layman audience isn't going to nitpick it.

For a Being with no name that should be pronounced, just why is Creator bad? It's a title given to the one that Created everything. If it feels "distant", so is He.

Well, you can't just use pronouns the whole movie. And given that this being is written to converse and have personal ties to His subjects, it does affect it somewhat.

Theres a giant boat being constructed by a guy named Noah. Theres animals going into said boat. I wager very few people in a position to see this movie have no idea which god creator refers to.

Getting bent out of shape that they didnt specifically use it just strikes me as christians throwing out a fit because a director decided to make the movie less geared 100% towards pleasing them over pleasing a multicultural audience.

It wasnt written to be 'accurate" whatever that means. It was written to take a well known story and make it entertaining enough that non-christians might dare set foot in the theatre, because usually, what kills biblical films at the box office is that nobody except christian groups goes to see them.

edited 28th May '14 6:15:51 PM by midgetsnowman

Pleasing a multicultural audience? Anyone who goes in there knows they're watching a film about Noah' ark. I think they'd be all too prepared for the film using God as default designation, Christian sentiment or not.

It doesn't seem like a huge deal to get worked up about. I think the questions the film raises about faith and what it can do are interesting regardless of what the deity is called.

Speaking as a Christian, I found nothing wrong with them referring to God as Creator. Depending on who was talking it sounded very respectful, like Noah paying his respect to His majesty, or even Tubal-Cain at the end, acknowledging His power even if he rails against Him constantly. Or it was very intimate, like with those rock angel things asking for forgiveness at the end.

And this is coming from someone who didn't even like the movie.

I think the bigger bitchfit was over the race thing. Ignoring that every culture puts their own people as the representative religious figure. Hell, doesn't even have to be a biblical person. I've seen a Japanese print of Mary giving the secret of Fatima to those three sisters where the four women were Japanese.

eh, it depends on the group. Historians and the like botched about the racelift. vocal Christian groups raged about it not being 100% biblically accurate.

*ahem...it's two girls, one boy, with the boy and one of the girls being brothers and the other being their cousin (the one who lived far longer than them).

Sooooo....

i want an exodus movie - historically accurate version

There's plenty of ambiguity about where (did the Israelites cross the Red Sea at the left "finger" or the "right", is Sinai in the Sinai Penisula or in Midian), who (which Pharoah was the Pharoah of oppression), and when the Exodus takes place in, so there's going to be considerable room for historical debate regardless.

edited 8th Nov '14 6:06:55 PM by Tuckerscreator

Here's a Cracked article on the whole bible movie thingy.

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-reasons-christian-movies-bomb-in-mostly-christian-america/

(Hasn't read the Cracked article yet.) I'd guess it's because the conservative Christians, the not-conservative Christians, and everybody else all want different things from the movies they watch. Hollywood tries to make their Bible movies appeal to all those groups, and winds up with half-hearted things that don't make anyone happy.

Now, to read the article.

Since I'm staying away from Cracked for reasons that are not allowed to be discussed, I'm going to need someone else to fill me in on the specifics on what that article is talking about before I make any kind of response to it.

edited 8th Nov '14 10:46:22 PM by TheSpaceJawa

The reasons given are:

1. 4: The more specific the theology, the less mass appealing it becomes. (So broadly accepted tellings like The Passion or Chronicles of Narnia become popular, while pre-millennial-predestination-rapture Left Behind does not.)

2. 3: Hollywood likes big good vs. evil, God vs. Satan epics (Noah, all the Exodus movies) while smaller Jesus-acting-in-everyday-life stuff passes by (Christian Mingle, The Identical, The Song),

3. 2: The best Christian movies have been made by non-believers (Cecil B. DeMille, Darren Aronofsky, Jeffrey Katzenberg, etc) since they're more committed to a good story than accurate theology. (They list Mel Gibson too, but he's said he's Catholic.)

4. 1: "Jesus movies" are already made all the time (The Matrix, Harry Potter, Terminator 2, Superman, Captain America, etc.)

edited 8th Nov '14 11:07:00 PM by Tuckerscreator

I would add one more reason: People prefer biblical epics over Christian movies set in the modern day because they don't want to be preached at. If it's a distant time period and setting, it's easier to just accept the story and watch it for entertainment, while a modern day story hits too close to home and tries to make itself applicable, often in a clumsy way.

The part about "Jesus films" already getting made was interesting to me, though some are more successful than others. "Jesus movie" where he wrecks a ton of city, puts hundreds in danger, can't be hurt at all, and causes victory through killing? Not all that inspiring. "Jesus movie" where he inspires his loyal among the enemy, gives up his life for the cause ''twice'', and even peacefully reasons with someone it seemed has no humanity left? Now there's an ideal to strive towards.

edited 8th Nov '14 11:20:58 PM by Tuckerscreator

I'm curious about how they define a 'bomb', because while Christian movies may not make hundreds of millions of dollars, it's important to remember that a lot of them - especially the 'smaller Jesus-acting-in-everyday-life stuff' - is made at a low cost, too.

If Wikipedia is anything to go by, the Left Behind movie that came out this year was made for a mere $16 million and has made back its budget, and it's not exactly the kind of movie that has a huge marketing budget to make up, either. Hardly the kind of movie I'd proclaim to be a 'bomb', even if it hasn't done all that well, either. If I'm not mistaken, two other major recent Christian movies - God's Not Dead and Heaven is For Real - both were made with extremely low budgets and both made back their budgets several times over. Heaven even managed to break the $100mil mark.

Really, it's the same philosophy that lets horror movies like The Purge and Saw keep getting sequels, but last I checked nobody calls those movies bombs when they don't consistently make hundreds of millions of dollars.

And The Identical is, based on what I know, a movie where I wonder just how much a Christian movie it is.

Finally...the #1 reason? Calling all those movies "Jesus Movies" seems like a stretch.

edited 8th Nov '14 11:41:17 PM by TheSpaceJawa

You could call them Messianic Archetype movies, since mostly they aren't exact copies of Jesus' story.