iTunes (U.S.)
eBay (U.S.)
Glisten Effect
Editorial Reviews
Scoreboard Forum
Viewer Ratings
     1. Captain Marvel
    2. HTTYD: The Hidden World
   3. The Lego Movie 2
  4. Aquaman
 5. Spider-Man: Into Spider-Verse
6. Bumblebee
         1. Batman
        2. Star Wars: The Last Jedi
       3. Apollo 13
      4. Edward Scissorhands
     5. How to Train Your Dragon
    6. Jurassic World: Kingdom
   7. First Man
  8. Solo: A Star Wars Story
 9. Justice League
10. Ready Player One
Home Page
Menu Options ▼
Comments about the soundtrack for Noah (Clint Mansell)

Edit | Delete
Re: Worse than "Harry Potter"?
Profile Image
• Posted by: Ethan R. Smith
• Date: Saturday, June 28, 2014, at 1:47 a.m.
• IP Address:
• In Response to: Re: Worse than "Harry Potter"? (AhN)

Alright, since I just friended you on Facebook, I'll see what I can do here.

> 1. Guys, I know I'm a rookie here, but I got this.
Yes, you handled that pretty well. Usually the drill is just not to respond to these guys.

> 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.
You need to re-evaluate Desplat's scores! They are really something special.

> 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.

According to lots of reviews, they do go out of there way to tamper with the story and add random Hollywoodisms. Although they had to in order to make the movie interesting, I think. I haven't seen it either.

> 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.

Yes. I completely agree with this.

> 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?

I suppose the argument would be that "If God is defamed, so is Jesus" because of their connectedness.

> 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.

Actually, Harry Potter falls much more into the Christian worldview than Star Wars does. Harry Potter has very clearly defined good guys and bad guys, and preaches ideas about how love conquers all. Star Wars, on the other hand, invents all powerful mystical forces that people form cults around. (Haha. Seriously, though, when you look at it like that. I don't understand the Harry Potter hate..)

> 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.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude. But they'll probably have Lorne Balf score it. And then all the Zimmer fanboys will be like "IT'S A REBOOT. ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO SOUND LIKE THE ORIGINAL."

> 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?

This is what made me want to comment on your post, actually. There's a bit of a misconception here. While Revelation does mention the number 144,000 on two occasions, it is commonly interpreted as a symbolic number (12 is already complete, square it and multiply it by 1000 and you have a very perfect looking number. Or Something like that.) The verse can either be seen completely figuratively (ie, a large number of "people" are being sealed into heaven) or "144,000 ISRAELITES are going to Heaven." Only the Jehovah's witnesses take this to mean that ONLY 144,000 people will go to heaven at all. They also do some other stuff with numerology in the Bible like multiplying it all together to guess dates and stuff. Just giving you some context.

> 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?
He's being metaphorical. No more floods.

> 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.

This. I don't understand why there's so many Christian trolls around here.

Comments in this Thread:     Expand >>
