|
|
|
|
|
Menu Options ▼
Re: Worse than "Harry Potter"? Posted by: AhN Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2014, at 7:58 p.m.
IP Address: 37.dhcp.apogeenet.net
In Response to:
Worse than "Harry Potter"? (Hiltse)
> "Noah" is trash meant to defame His son, our Savior Jesus
> Christ. It is just another case of the liberal Hollywood agenda being
> totally ignorant of what the Bible actually says and it will use things
> like Noah to line its pockets. The movie is a total fabrication of what
> actually happened and the reason why. In fact, it is so far from that it
> is most probably the exact opposite as it strays from what the Bible
> actually says about Noah and the reason for the flood. I haven't seen the
> movie and don't plan to. Hollywood has enough money from the masses. I
> will not give it any more of mine for movies like this.
> If you think God was mad in this movie just wait till He comes back with a
> vengeance to those who do not believe in the saving grace of His son. You
> will all drown in your sins ... as you deserve!
1. Guys, I know I'm a rookie here, but I got this.
2. Let's start with the subject. Your subject mentions Harry Potter, then never refers to it in the comment. This is misleading and possibly a method of pandering for views.
3. If you're referring to the music in your subject, as I would assume, seeing as you are commenting on a film music website, then you need to be more specific. Harry Potter is a sprawling, 8 film franchise that has had 4 different composers, each with a unique style. Is Mansell's work here worse than John Williams' music for Harry Potter? Of course. Is it worse than Doyle's? Perhaps. Personally, I'd place it about even with Desplat's music for 7 and 8 and a little ahead of Hooper's contributions.
4. Again, you don't really specify which composer's work you think is better than Mansell's, and you don't back it up at all because you don't say a thing about music in this post, which is, again, misleading and deceptive and rude towards your fellow forum posters.
5. Shifting gears into what you do say, you mention that the film is "a total fabrication of what actually happened and the reason why," but then you also say that you "haven't seen the movie and don't plan to," which begs the question: How do you know what the movie fabricates and what it doesn't if you haven't seen the movie? You can't dismiss a movie as lies and blasphemy if you haven't even seen it for yourself. If you're basing whether you go see it off of the opinions of your friends and people you respect, that's fine, but don't try to pass their views of the movie off as your own.
6. Heck, even if the movie completely botches the story in Genesis, that doesn't immediately invalidate the quality of the movie. "Argo" had a lot of the story made up, especially the ending, but it was still a great movie. A lack of adherence to the source material does not mean the adaptation will be bad.
7. This movie is about Noah and the ark he builds, based off of what is written in Genesis. Jesus does not appear in Genesis; in fact, he doesn't even appear in the Old Testament. So how is Jesus defamed?
8. Going off of that last point, Aronofsky is Jewish, so he's probably read the Old Testament, but I doubt he made this film with the intent of defaming Jesus.
9. In fact, Aronofsky is one of the rare Hollywood directors who seems to have artistic integrity and doesn't bend to the whims of Hollywood bigwigs who want money. I genuinely believe this film was Aronofsky's interpretation on the tale of Noah and the flood based on what he read in Genesis.
10. Pray tell, what kind of movies would you like to go see? Bible epics with clear morals and heroism that reaffirm faith? Charlton Heston kinda cornered the market on those a while ago. I don't think a remake of "Ben-Hur" or "The Robe" is coming anytime soon.
11. Actually, a remake of Ben-Hur would be pretty sweet, provided they don't rely too much on CGI for the sea battle and the chariot race.
12. Was God mad in this movie? I don't know, since I haven't seen it, but how do you know? You haven't seen it either.
13. You mention "vengeance to those who do not believe in the saving grace of His son." Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Revelation mention saving only 144,000 people? So it doesn't really matter whether most people have faith or not?
14. You claim we will all drown in our sins, but I thought God promised He wouldn't flood the Earth again. Or is this a metaphorical drowning? Does the Bible have metaphors?
15. I have respect for your opinion, and your right to express it. But is a film score review website the place to express this opinion? Maybe on a movie website, or a religious forum, or maybe Darren Aronofsky's front lawn, but probably not on a website people go to for opinions on good music.
16. With all that said, I enjoyed the music for this movie, and I would recommend you give it a listen.
Comments in this Thread:
Expand >>
- Worse than "Harry Potter"? (3774 views)
Hiltse - Monday, April 28, 2014, at 5:02 p.m.
- Re: Worse than 'Harry Potter'? [EDITED] (1631 views)
Nicolai P. Zwar - Friday, December 30, 2016, at 3:05 a.m.
- Re: Worse than "Harry Potter"? (3524 views)
Ethan R. Smith - Saturday, June 28, 2014, at 1:48 a.m.
- Re: Worse than "Harry Potter"? (3578 views)
Rob - Wednesday, April 30, 2014, at 3:07 a.m.
-
Re: Worse than "Harry Potter"? (3765 views)
AhN - Tuesday, April 29, 2014, at 7:58 p.m.
|
|
|
|