I have always preferred Tim Burton's Batman over Chris Nolan's Batman. Nolan just gets too serious and "realistic" and likes to pretend its not a really a comic book at its core. I still like the Nolan trilogy, but they just aren't nearly as fun to watch as Burton's Batman.


Now? They have always been entertaining. Popcorn flicks are entertaining when you just want to sit back and relax. Not everything has to be the Godfather. Movies would be boring as hell if all we had was serious stuff like that.

I wasn't talking about disaster flicks in general. I grew up in the golden age of them in the 70's and still love Towering Inferno, Posideon, etc. The Day The Earth Caught Fire has (by my own criteria) some logistical absurdities, but still one of my favorite films of all time.
I was talking about shitty disaster flicks like ID, and Armageddon. DI wasn't that great either, but it was miles ahead of the other two. Obviously, this is subjective and just my opinion- but if this is the standard that a lot of people going to hold Noah up to, then I can at least understand where my disconnect is coming from.

Invoke The Road Warrior at your peril, I think it's the gold standard of post-apocalyptic action films and one of my all-time faves. But yeah, I thought the film was fun. Nothing groundbreaking, but the Hughes brothers and Burgess gave it nice visuals, the acting was solid, and the action scenes were fun. A perfectly functional sci-fi shoot'em up. I think whatever religious beliefs you have or don't, the plot is pretty much nonsense, but that's alright. It's fun anyway, and very visually stylish.

Everyone always thinks they grew up in "the golden age."

Then they became old men and think the new generation sucks.

Get off my lawn, you young whippersnappers! You don't know how good you have it today! When I was a kid I had to walk in five feet of snow uphill both ways! Blah blah blah!

You could make a pretty convincing case for the 1970s as the golden age of that particular style of disaster flicks. Irwin Allen was at his peak.

(shrugs) yeah, that's true...but in this instance at least, it really was. There were quality disaster movies in every decade since the silents. But starting with Airport , the bigger budget "A" quality, all-star cast disaster movie became a consistently supplied genre unto itself. Besides the Irwin Allen movies which were produced nearly yearly, you had 3 sequels to airport as well as a ton of made for TV product. In the 70's, the disaster movie was as ubiquitous as superhero movies are today. It was probably some kind of cathartic outgrowth of all the social/political turblance coming out of the late 60's. But the nexus of quantity and quality absolutey did make it the 'golden age'.

BTW, even though i still hold the original Donner Superman in higher esteem than any superhero movie in the last 15 years, i have no problem saying this, not the late 70's, is the golden age for these kinds of films. It will be awhile to be able to see it because they look at this point like they'll never stop coming...but at some point they will slow to a trickle..or just become so similar that they'll be white noise rather than event type movies. I'm sure a lot of people already see that starting.

Paul you're being a bit of a buzzkill. The craftsmanship on this film will be top notch, and certainly there should be some resonant themes to keep you intellectually stimulated... not sure what more you could want from a film. It may get stronger reactions from people of faith (both positive and negative), but certainly film fans should find reasons to enjoy a film like this (if it indeed turns out as expected). I think it's much more than a disaster movie...

So for you "golden age" really means more quantity than it does quality.

Why then would this not be the golden age for disaster movies, or really just about any genre for that matter, simply because far more movies are made today than in the 70s?

Sorry. Unlike other properties where I actually have an interest in the way the material is going to be handled, I don't have any investment here-so after tonight I'll bow out from the discussion.

I just found it interesting that this week two trailers were released for high profile fantasy films and my reaction to each seems to be radically different from what is the popular sentiment.
I realize a lot of the positive buzz for this is due to Aronofsky, but still...this looks quite silly to me. Maybe he has an conceptual ace up his sleeve that will tie this all together in a way that would make someone like me say "ok...I get it now. I see what the appeal was in this specific material for him."
Otherwise it feels to me like "I want to do a fantasy CGI spectacle...what classical public domain properties are available that haven't been done yet?"

Until the reviews come in, I'll maintain a respectful, discrete distance so people can enjoy their buzz
It's both. The early part of the 70's had a lot of quality popcorn disaster films. Good scripts, good casts, high production values. Like anything the longer they went on, the drier the well got until you ended up with things like When Time Ran Out, Meteor, Avalanche, Hurricane, Airport '79...

The term Golden Age generally denotes when some new trend (that continues on well past that point) starts, or the first point at which a certain newer aspect is consistently well done.
I think it also implies a respite at some point where the trend becomes moribund, only to be resuscitated again much later.
It's probably premature to call this the golden age of Superhero films, but I'm suspecting they probably peaked in popularity and appeal with the Avengers. No matter how good or epic the sequels will be, the novelty of that whole paradigm (shared universe with individual entries) is now gone. That novelty allowed latitude for quality. Now, these kinds of films will have to work extra hard, and be smarter, just to maintain a baseline of goodwill. The honeymoon is over. If these things are going to be a constant presence, they need to keep the toilet seat down and toss their dirty spanks in the hamper.

If you want to make a case that this is the Golden Age for "Olde World" CGI aided spectacles, I probably wouldn't argue. It seemed like post Gladiator, a lot of ancient spectacle/ action-adventure material was put into production- from Kingdom of Heaven and Rome to Clash of The Titans and Game Of Thrones, etc. I see Noah belonging to that genre more than a disaster one...

So did DA get final cut? I know he was at loggerheads with the studio over this.

So let me get this straight. The premise of this movie is that a supernatural being controls the elements, makes torential rain come down nonstop as well as make underground resevoirs of water burst like geysers to the surface (so glad that Aronofsky, an atheist, included that detail from the Bible that most every Christian ignores), and makes all the animals chosen for survival to go to the Ark of their own accord. And people think that such a being couldn't also keep the animals from killing each other or eating their human caretakers on the giant floating crate?

I don't see why you need any more logic (whether you take it as fact or fiction) than "God did that" if you're already going to accept the premise of a world wide flood and giant wooden box of salvation.

Remember when "The end of the world is just the beginning" was actually a cool tagline?

Was it ever cool?

When I was young and first heard it when seeing Akira and anime in general was a novelty, yeah, I used to think it was pretty cool. Now it's used for post-apocalyptic stuff all the time.

That's the point.
Sure, once the flood starts Noah can walk his entourage through the ark and be amazed that ALL the animals are hibernating (which would solve the food/poop problem). But ultimately how much drama can you elicit out of this material when we all go in knowing the generalities and anything else, anything new that has any element of suspense can always be waved away with the catchall deus ex machina- "the wizard did it".

I see opportunity for a TON of CGI spectacle here- and plenty of epic brooding hero posing shots set to a swelling score- but much less opportunity for involving drama (as opposed to something like Samson & Delilah where you would have strong opportunities for both). And if the net result is just another vehicle for engaging in spectacle, I'd rather spend that time re-watching Game of Thrones.

It's obvious that the main story here is going to be Noah and his belief in his divine premonition vs everyone else who thinks he's nuts, and the actual disaster is just the resolution to that conflict (more than playing out as an adventure in and of itself where the resolution of logistical details become more of an issue). It that sense, I can't help but think of Titanic. Everybody will go in anticipating the money shots, and then have to see a bunch of other, more standard issue conflicts play out just to get to that point.

But you see there actually is plenty of opportunity to expand the story. The obvious one is from the trailer. Why would anyone not notice that Noah was building this thing for 50 years or so? And, upon seeing that there was a flood coming, wouldn't people try to take it?

Then you also have the bit of why would Noah believe God was "talking" to him? And why would his family not simply think Noah insane? The Bible ignores all that and this movie seems to be working with those plausibilities.

Something tells me that the Ray Winstone scenes from the trailer and the actual flood will be minor elements in the movie. Oh sure they'll be part of a climactic set piece but I doubt they'll be the focal point of the movie. Rather the buildup to those moments will be what the movie is about.

Aronofsky could have gone back to the historical/scientific record rather than the biblical record, but it just wouldn't have had the same name recognition as "Noah."


http://www.amazon.com/Cataclysm-Comp...ords=cataclysm


http://www.amazon.com/Watermark-Disa...ords=watermark

Yeah. There seems to be a lot stuff like that which garners my attention. It would make sense that people would want to take the ark. People get scared and angry when shit hits the fan. Has always happened.

I think that it's sort of like how the warp core that can power a starship the size of a city can be fixed by moving a piece the size of a cardboard box. You kind of just have to go with it.

Ark is built. Noah goes inside. Door is shut(I believe Bible says a angel shut the door which would mean it won't be opened by a mob). Starts to rain. No big deal it's rain . Rain becomes heavy and too late to rush ark.
Noah and his family were the only righteous on earth at the time which is why he was picked. So the family believed in God. Why would they think he's insane.

I would ask if you ever went to Sunday school, but that's about all you would get out of it at that age anyway.

It's interesting, because one could argue that the flood was technically the first "disaster" story ever told. While I don't know how it will turn out, the fact that this is being done by someone like Aronofsky and not Roland Emmerich gives me hope.

Rough Seas on 'Noah': Darren Aronofsky Opens Up on the Biblical Battle to Woo Christians (and Everyone Else): http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...onofsky-679315

Glad they decided to go with Aronofsky's cut, so we didn't have to hear the call to boycott in these parts.

I find it comical that some Christians might reject the film over accuracy issues.