Looks like Aronofsky's Noah movie is still moving forward.
Time to give it a thread of its own.
Edited by Overstreet, 26 July 2013 - 09:03 PM.
Jump to content
Posted 11 December 2008 - 07:57 PM
Posted 05 February 2011 - 03:35 PM
Posted 05 February 2011 - 04:07 PM
Posted 17 February 2011 - 05:05 PM
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.
Posted 08 June 2011 - 01:54 AM
Posted 14 June 2011 - 10:48 AM
Posted 14 June 2011 - 11:10 AM
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.
Posted 14 June 2011 - 06:59 PM
Edited by Peter T Chattaway, 14 June 2011 - 07:00 PM.
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.
Posted 15 June 2011 - 12:38 AM
Posted 15 June 2011 - 07:34 AM
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.
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.
Posted 27 June 2011 - 06:43 PM
Posted 28 June 2011 - 01:07 PM
Posted 28 June 2011 - 06:34 PM