Jump to content


Photo

Noah (2014)

Darren Aronofsky Noah Noahs Ark

  • Please log in to reply
576 replies to this topic

#1 Overstreet

Overstreet

    Sometimes, there's a man.

  • Member
  • 17,068 posts

Posted 11 December 2008 - 06:47 PM

Looks like Aronofsky's Noah movie is still moving forward.

Time to give it a thread of its own.


Edited by Overstreet, 12 March 2014 - 08:52 AM.


#2 Tony Watkins

Tony Watkins

    Simpleton

  • Member
  • 782 posts

Posted 11 December 2008 - 07:57 PM

QUOTE (Overstreet @ Dec 11 2008, 11:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Looks like Aronofsky's Noah movie is still moving forward.

QUOTE
"Eventually we'll set it up, but we're just figuring it out. It's a very difficult film to get made and we're slowly working on it to get it put together." And how's this for a tease? "There is an actor attached, but I'm not going to say who, but he's a big movie star."

If he'd got on with this sooner he could have reused the ark from that Evan Almighty which would have kept his costs down. Wonder who the big movie star is. It would be fun to have Morgan Freeman!

#3 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,336 posts

Posted 05 February 2011 - 03:35 PM

SCOOP: Darren Aranofsky’s Next Project – Noah, The Comic, With Nico Henrichon
Last month, Bleeding Cool reported that Aranofsky was creating a new comic book, with an eye to making that into a film as well and we speculated as to what it might be. Turns out we were bang on.
Bleeding Cool can now tell you that the comic is called Noah, it is drawn by Canadian Nico Henrichon, the stunning artist on Pride Of Baghdad, and will be released next year. . . .
Bleeding Cool, February 5

- - -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYm8boMxry0

#4 Ryan H.

Ryan H.

    Riding the crest of a wave breaking just west of Hollywood

  • Member
  • 5,384 posts

Posted 05 February 2011 - 04:07 PM

The graphic novel version of THE FOUNTAIN was less than compelling, so I don't have sky-high hopes for this, but I'll probably pick it up.

#5 Overstreet

Overstreet

    Sometimes, there's a man.

  • Member
  • 17,068 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 03:23 PM

Noah... uncensored.

Edited by Overstreet, 17 February 2011 - 03:23 PM.


#6 Tyler

Tyler

    I right the outlaw wrongs on Mars.

  • Member
  • 6,083 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 03:30 PM

The Wolverine


Why do we need another Wolverine movie?

#7 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,336 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 05:05 PM

"Sci-fi adaptation"? I think my interest in this film just ... wavered ... for lack of a better word.

Very happy to hear that Aronofsky is a fan of In Search of Noah's Ark (1976), though. I grew up with that one, too.

Oh, and FWIW: link to our thread on Aronofsky's Wolverine.

#8 Ryan H.

Ryan H.

    Riding the crest of a wave breaking just west of Hollywood

  • Member
  • 5,384 posts

Posted 18 February 2011 - 06:48 AM

"Sci-fi adaptation"? I think my interest in this film just ... wavered ... for lack of a better word.

Huh.

Well, the sci-fi bits of THE FOUNTAIN were gorgeous, so this will still likely be worthwhile. But I was hoping for a mostly true-to-the-text, grand rendition of the Biblical tale.

#9 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,336 posts

Posted 08 June 2011 - 01:54 AM

Darren Aronofsky Shops Noah's Ark Epic
EXCLUSIVE: I'm told that town is tantalized by a package circulating with Darren Aronofsky directing Noah, an edgy re-telling of the Noah's Ark story. Aronofsky wrote a script that is getting a rewrite by John Logan. I've heard he wants $130 million to make it and that New Regency is eyeing a co-financing role. Suitors considering stepping up for the other half include Paramount and Fox, as well as Summit, I've heard. It was described to me as a big fantasy epic, and an opportunity for Aronofsky to create a world. He's very passionate about it and wants to make it next film, after dropping out of The Wolverine. . . .
Mike Fleming, Deadline.com, June 7

#10 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,336 posts

Posted 14 June 2011 - 10:48 AM

Darren Aronofsky Wants Christian Bale for His $130 Million Noah and the Ark Film
Vulture hears that Aronofsky is in talks with Christian Bale about possibly starring in his take on Noah's Ark, to help secure studio backing for it. Presumably, Aronofsky wants Bale for the lead, even though Noah was 600 years old when the Great Flood hit, and Bale is only 37.
Vulture, New York, June 14

- - -

Just wondering, to what degree is Christian Bale a proven box-office star? Apart from the Batman and Terminator franchises, which would almost certainly be big hits without him (and which, if anything, might have suffered for his presence, especially in the latter case), he has made only three live-action films that grossed over $55 million in North America: Shaft (2000, $70.3 million), in which he had a small role as one of a few bad guys; Public Enemies (2009, $97.1 million), which pointedly emphasized Johnny Depp and NOT Christian Bale in its advertising, and if memory serves was considered a box-office disappointment anyway (considering the money that was spent on it); and The Fighter (2010, $93.6 million), which was certainly a big hit *for an independent film* and earned him an Oscar and all that, but wouldn't have been considered all that successful if it had cost as much as Noah is expected to cost.

#11 Overstreet

Overstreet

    Sometimes, there's a man.

  • Member
  • 17,068 posts

Posted 14 June 2011 - 11:10 AM

I feel bad for all of the 600 year-old actors out there who have been waiting for an opportunity like this, and are again passed over for a young up-and-comer.

#12 Tim K

Tim K

    Member

  • Member
  • 47 posts

Posted 14 June 2011 - 06:47 PM

Darren Aronofsky Wants Christian Bale for His $130 Million Noah and the Ark Film
Vulture hears that Aronofsky is in talks with Christian Bale about possibly starring in his take on Noah's Ark, to help secure studio backing for it. Presumably, Aronofsky wants Bale for the lead, even though Noah was 600 years old when the Great Flood hit, and Bale is only 37.
Vulture, New York, June 14

- - -

Just wondering, to what degree is Christian Bale a proven box-office star? Apart from the Batman and Terminator franchises, which would almost certainly be big hits without him (and which, if anything, might have suffered for his presence, especially in the latter case), he has made only three live-action films that grossed over $55 million in North America: Shaft (2000, $70.3 million), in which he had a small role as one of a few bad guys; Public Enemies (2009, $97.1 million), which pointedly emphasized Johnny Depp and NOT Christian Bale in its advertising, and if memory serves was considered a box-office disappointment anyway (considering the money that was spent on it); and The Fighter (2010, $93.6 million), which was certainly a big hit *for an independent film* and earned him an Oscar and all that, but wouldn't have been considered all that successful if it had cost as much as Noah is expected to cost.


3:10 to Yuma and The Prestige both came pretty close at 53 million each. I'd be interested to know how many other male stars are doing much better.

Personally, I like Christian Bale. I don't know how much range he actually has as a real character actor, but as far as leading roles in action/adventure films are concerned -- I think he's great.

#13 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,336 posts

Posted 14 June 2011 - 06:59 PM

Tim K wrote:
: 3:10 to Yuma and The Prestige both came pretty close at 53 million each.

Well, yeah, that's why I rounded things off and set the bar at $55 million. $55 million is not a whole lot, ESPECIALLY for a film that is trying to secure a $130 million production budget (with who knows how much spent on advertising).

: Personally, I like Christian Bale. I don't know how much range he actually has as a real character actor, but as far as leading roles in action/adventure films are concerned -- I think he's great.

What has he done in that vein apart from Batman? The Terminator movie, perhaps? But the "leading role" in that film is arguably Sam Worthington's, not Christian Bale's -- and most people agree that that was quite possibly the worst of the four films produced so far, and that some of its biggest weaknesses (such as the confusion over who, exactly, the "leading" character is!) came from the creative input that Bale demanded as a condition of being cast in the film.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway, 14 June 2011 - 07:00 PM.


#14 Tim K

Tim K

    Member

  • Member
  • 47 posts

Posted 14 June 2011 - 08:43 PM

Tim K wrote:
: 3:10 to Yuma and The Prestige both came pretty close at 53 million each.

Well, yeah, that's why I rounded things off and set the bar at $55 million. $55 million is not a whole lot, ESPECIALLY for a film that is trying to secure a $130 million production budget (with who knows how much spent on advertising).

: Personally, I like Christian Bale. I don't know how much range he actually has as a real character actor, but as far as leading roles in action/adventure films are concerned -- I think he's great.

What has he done in that vein apart from Batman? The Terminator movie, perhaps? But the "leading role" in that film is arguably Sam Worthington's, not Christian Bale's -- and most people agree that that was quite possibly the worst of the four films produced so far, and that some of its biggest weaknesses (such as the confusion over who, exactly, the "leading" character is!) came from the creative input that Bale demanded as a condition of being cast in the film.


While he's not the leading role in either The Prestige(I think the leading-role seems to be equally shared between him and Jackman) or 3:10 to Yuma(maybe more Russel Crowe, here), he's certainly one of them -- I think both of those could be considered adventure films. If you want go further back into his career, you could go with Equilibrium or Reign of Fire. I've never seen Equilibirum in its entirety, but from what I've seen he's the leading role in it. In Rescue Dawn he's also definitely the leading role. None of these being particularly successful in the box-office, but again -- who could he be compared to who's more successful? Tom Cruise? Keanu Reeves? Russel Crowe? Or even Matt Damon? Also, I'm not sure I am entirely convinced that Batman Begins would have been as good as it was without Bale. While the The Dark Knight didn't need to have Bale as Batman to make it work, I think Batman Begins definitely benefited from having him.

I really didn't like the new Terminator movie, but I don't see why it being so bad had anything to do with him. I reckon that if the script and Director had been any good, he could have made a great John Connor. I don't know a lot about how much or what kind of creative input Bale demands in his movies - I could see how that type of thing could be bad for the production crew and film itself. I've actually read some stuff that Ed Norton is really bad about that type of stuff.

#15 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,336 posts

Posted 15 June 2011 - 12:38 AM

Tim K wrote:
: . . . The Prestige . . . or 3:10 to Yuma . . . I think both of those could be considered adventure films.

Wow! That's stretching the definition a tad, I think. You could almost sort of possibly justify it in the case of 3:10 to Yuma, which is a Western and thus features lots of gunplay. But are all Westerns necessarily "adventure" films? I wouldn't say so.

: If you want go further back into his career, you could go with Equilibrium or Reign of Fire.

Neither of which exactly made him a box-office draw. I don't think Equilibrium even had a theatrical release, beyond perhaps a few theatres here and there. (The bigger star in Reign of Fire was Matthew McConaughey, though he wasn't the main character.)

: In Rescue Dawn he's also definitely the leading role.

That one might qualify as "adventure", sure.

: . . . who could he be compared to who's more successful? Tom Cruise? Keanu Reeves? Russel Crowe? Or even Matt Damon?

Tom Cruise is certainly in a class all by himself; depending on whether you count documentaries and/or cartoons, he's up there with Tom Hanks and Will Smith for the most consecutive $100-million grossers in North America. As for the others... Crowe has only four $100-million grossers in North America (and, once we count Master & Commander, only five that made more than $65 million), Reeves has only three non-Matrix $100-million grossers (two of which, Parenthood and Something's Gotta Give, were ensemble films in which he had a smaller, definitely non-lead role), and Damon... actually, he's the most successful of the bunch, with TEN $100-million grossers in North America, although three of them are Bourne films and most of the rest are ensemble films in which he played second or third or fourth banana (the Ocean's trilogy, Saving Private Ryan, The Departed, True Grit); Good Will Hunting is the only non-Bourne film of the bunch in which he clearly had the lead role.

So, anyway, Bale might be closest to Reeves of that bunch: he got cast in an action movie that proved to be such a hit that they made two highly-anticipated sequels to it, and he's had one other fairly successful action hit in addition to that (for Bale, Terminator Salvation; for Reeves, Speed), and he has played a non-leading role in at least two other reasonably popular films, but apart from that, his box-office track record is not one that screams "guaranteed hit".

Admittedly, I haven't taken the foreign market into account, yet. Haven't had the time.

: I think Batman Begins definitely benefited from having him.

Ah, but in box-office terms, I would say it was Bale who benefited from Batman Begins, not vice versa. He got to be in better movies because of Batman Begins, but I think the film could have been just as successful with any other semi-well-known actor in the lead.

: I really didn't like the new Terminator movie, but I don't see why it being so bad had anything to do with him. I reckon that if the script and Director had been any good, he could have made a great John Connor.

Bale was approached about playing the main character, and he wanted to play John Connor instead, so they started beefing up the part of John Connor even in scenes where his presence was utterly gratuitous.

#16 Ryan H.

Ryan H.

    Riding the crest of a wave breaking just west of Hollywood

  • Member
  • 5,384 posts

Posted 15 June 2011 - 07:34 AM

Bale was approached about playing the main character, and he wanted to play John Connor instead, so they started beefing up the part of John Connor even in scenes where his presence was utterly gratuitous.

Yep. Before Bale came on board, the script had Connor being a barely-there character, mostly represented by the sound of his voice on the airwaves.

#17 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,336 posts

Posted 27 June 2011 - 06:43 PM

And the studio that ponies up the money for this project ... might be Paramount.

Heh. If memory serves, their version of King David (1985), starring Richard Gere, was the last Bible epic produced by a major studio until ... until ...

Well, hmmm. The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) was produced by Universal, but was a decidedly low-budget, even B-movie-ish affair. The Passion of the Christ (2004) was a decidedly independent, self-financed affair, of course. The Nativity Story (2006) was certainly made by a secular company ... but the company in question was New Line, which has since been absorbed into Warner Brothers but still retained an element of independence at the time. (And then of course there have been a bunch of TV movies in the interim ... but those were TV movies, not movie-movies.)

Am I forgetting something?

#18 MattPage

MattPage

    Bible Films Geek.

  • Member
  • 4,189 posts

Posted 28 June 2011 - 12:17 PM

Year One?

#19 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,336 posts

Posted 28 June 2011 - 01:07 PM

MattPage wrote:
: Year One?

Oh, good call. That was Sony/Columbia, wasn't it? And they're definitely a "big" studio in a way that New Line arguably wasn't.

Can't believe I forgot that one. It's only been staring at me from the video discount racks at the supermarket checkout line for the past, like, YEAR.

#20 MattPage

MattPage

    Bible Films Geek.

  • Member
  • 4,189 posts

Posted 28 June 2011 - 06:34 PM

I got it early, haven't watched it or any of the extras yet and have been kicking myself as the price gradually goes down and down. These days I'm better at buying Bible films than I am watching them or reviewing them.

:(

Matt





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Darren Aronofsky, Noah, Noahs Ark