Posted on 03/31/2014 6:54:51 AM PDT by Star Traveler
AMAZING. Hollywood just killed God, and almost no critic noticed how it quietly slipped a green human-hater in his place.
I never thought you could make a two-hour film about Noah and his ark without mentioning “God” even once, but director Darren Aronofsky has managed it in his $142 million epic, which opened last week.
His Noah, played by a muttering Russell Crowe, prays to a different deity, a much nastier one called “the creator” who seems to brood on global warming.
Hey, what a coincidence! So does Aronofsky, who last year declared, “climate change as an enemy of the people”. So does Crowe, tweeting in most unbiblical language: “F--- denial of climate change.”
And in their film, Noah, they give us their creator, a vegetarian who really does want to “f--- denial of climate change” and put filthy humans in their place so, as Crowe’s Noah rasps, “creation will be left alone — safe. Beautiful”.
As an agnostic, I should barely care which invisible being Crowe talks to, but this switcheroo is freaky.
(Excerpt) Read more at heraldsun.com.au ...
Now why do you keep “championing” this movie, on every thread you can?
This atheist, liberal, leftist, ‘green’ global warming and enviro-whacko director is PROMOTING these things in this PROPAGANDA PIECE of a movie. This propaganda piece of a movie goes against the very things that we support here.
And you can leave out the beneficient “fallen angels” covered in lava that actually built the ark for Noah.
Uh... aren’t “fallen angels” called “demons”?
Or are they just “misunderstood”?
Good question ... :-) ...
The Movie Noah is like Obamacare. In order to get people interested in it, they had to lie about it. Then they plunk down $50 for seats and popcorn for their family to view this thing, and they discover too late that they have been had.
You got that one nailed! ... :-) ...
Now ... could you explain to me why we have Freepers both promoting this film and championing this film and saying - even today - that they are going to support this leftist liberal agenda with their money at the box office?
If the kind of “promotion” you mean is Naps, then there is little to fear. Naps is a warning. Green environmental nuttery is something that goes over here less well than a lead balloon. “Noah” is a blasphemy on the proverbial celluloid.
Post #58, #68 ...
58 could be taken as a fan rave (for Crowe, who himself has been quoted as supporting the green nuttery).
68? Facts are facts, if it sells it sells.
If I have a favorite actor that acts in a Propaganda piece like this, I’m gonna call him an idiot and refuse to give my money to the propaganda piece.
If I like Crowe, it’s going to go like this ... “Russell Crowe is one of my favorite actors, but he’s an idiot for taking part in this propaganda piece and he certainly is not going to get my money in order to promote this propaganda. I’ll catch him the next time around, when he gets smarter!”
AND THEN ... as for the facts of the money being spent ... I’m going to tell people WHY that happened and not give the implication that since it’s making money, obviously a lot of people want to see it, so it must not be so bad after all. No, not at all.
I’m going to explain that the producers did everything they could to hide what type of movie this was, put out a big advertising campaign, geared for the initial sales to FOOL people into believing it was something different and in line with their values - and I’m going to point out that those who were actually SNOOKERED INTO IT by the lies from the studio say that they HATED IT!
There’s the difference.
I can of course see “eating Crowe.”
What I can’t see is lying for the cause. If it has gulled the world, it has. Pretending not to see it isn’t glorifying God.
” I’m going to tell people WHY that happened and not give the implication that since it’s making money, obviously a lot of people want to see it, so it must not be so bad after all.”
Did anyone make that argument? Smells kind of strawy to me.
Yeah ... I saw it on one of the Noah threads ... it was something like “I wasn’t going to see it, but since it’s making so much money and so many people are seeing it, I might have to go.”
And that was from one of these posters who posted here on this thread.
Hardly some vast conspiracy.
And anyhow, to go means what. Maybe catch a matinee, at a cheaper rate. Some folks have said that it makes sense to understand the hubbub so they can speak to it from an eyewitness perspective. And there’s no genuine way to get those creds except by going. At least until critics begin to agree with one another that it is a dog, and about what kind of dog it is.
I never used that phrase or indicated that. You just did.
Here’s what I said here on this thread ...
Now ... could you explain to me why we have Freepers both promoting this film and championing this film and saying - even today - that they are going to support this leftist liberal agenda with their money at the box office?
And then on another post, I indicated to you that I had come across four Freepers like that - but now it’s increased to five.
NOW ... that ... Is what I said.
We already know what it’s about and so there’s no need to give money to continue promoting that leftist, liberal, ‘green’, global warming and enviro-whacko PROPAGANDA.
If anyone - today - doesn’t know what it’s about, they haven’t been reading the Freeper threads on it.
Oh wow four (or if you are counting me, five) out of what.
Sense of proportion matters. The vast majority of the buzz here seems to be that it is a dog.
I personally agree with the David who will “set no vain thing before [his] eyes.” Don’t pay the devil eyeballs.
But how about asking those folks a few weeks later how the movie was. I bet they all agree it was a dog.
Well it seems likely to be a green rant.
But the God of truth won’t be trumped. If someone still wants to see it fine. I’d suggest it be a matinee. Do it on the cheap if you must do it at all.
And now we will have people who, if the reports are correct, can certainly vouch that it is a dog.
Here’s some comments, quoting from some threads ...
The movie is a very faithful adaptation. Of course the movie takes ‘artistic license’ with the story of Noah, but you have to realize the biblical story of Noah is so short that if you stuck to it 100% you’d have maybe 15 minutes of movie, with massive plotholes. Aronofsky creates a beautiful Biblical adaptation and absolutely stays true to the spirit of the story. I hope more people realize this and form their own opinions, rather than parroting opinions from hateful people who haven’t even seen the movie. Also, God, i.e, “The Creator”, is mentioned all the time, so I have no idea where that criticism came from. Go see it. You’ll like it.
Great movie. Saw it this morning. Be sure to read what most evangelicals ignore “This movie was INSPIRED by the biblical account of Noah”. Absolutely great special effects and Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly should be nominated for academy awards.
I have not seen Divergent or Noah….I want to see Divergent eventually. I never wanted to see Noah at all, but feel I must be missing out as everyone is flocking to see it so I might have to break down and see it. It looked boring to me but the constant marketing from Free Republic and other conservatives are making it too enticing to pass up so we will see.
[My comments again ...]
AND ... I could get some more comments that go on like this and Freepers recommending it, even though they’ve clearly been shown it’s a PROPAGANDA PIECE. These were the easiest to grab.
The truth of God has to be either seen or heard first - for it not to be trumped. Showing a psycho-maniac in a boat, who is trying to kill his granddaughters and kills men for killing animals, and makes the problem to be “environmental issues” — contains NOTHING of God’s Word to be “upheld” ... LOL ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.