Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ed Driscoll

When Religions Collide

February 12th, 2014 - 3:05 pm

Will there be a leftwing sucker punch aimed at unsuspecting conservative audiences who attend Paramount’s upcoming big screen tale of Noah and his ark? It’s Hollywood — of course there will be one.

“Report: ‘Noah’ Fixated on ‘Overpopulation and Environmental Degradation,’” Christian Toto today writes at Big Hollywood:

The Hollywood Reporter’s new feature on the film, set for a March 28 release, details the behind-the-scenes wrangling between the film’s director and the studio, all with an eye on the people of faith curious to see the story on the big screen. Test screenings haven’t softened worries that spiritual audiences may not embrace what they see.

Further, THR spoke with several people who saw an early test screening in Southern California’s Orange County and who identified themselves as religious. One viewer, who declined to give his name because Paramount required him to sign a nondisclosure agreement, echoed the sentiments of others by criticizing the depiction of Noah as a “crazy, irrational, religious nut” who is fixated on modern-day problems like overpopulation and environmental degradation.

Charles Krauthammer once quipped that radical environmentalism posits itself as the successor religion to Christianity. And as the late Michael Crichton observed in 2003, “I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form.”

Is Paramount rooting for the flood? If so, it’s yet another example of what Fred Siegel described in 2010 as “Progressives against Progress.” No word yet if John Holdren, Mr. Obama’s “Science” “Czar” has signed off on the overpopulation theme of Paramount’s new film. Hopefully though, the upcoming film will at least have better special effects than the last time Paramount broached that particular eternal hobbyhorse of the far left.

They can’t be any worse, of course.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (5)
All Comments   (5)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I'm a catastrophist - I believe catastrophe is guaranteed, it is just unknowable (save for one). The exception is our personal end-of-the-world (perhaps end-of-this-world for those of faith) - our death. Given this what policies are proven best? Who historically survives catastrophe? Those of wealth. Those with significant energy (power) under their personal, their families, or their neighborhoods direct control (aka getting out of the way, or defending themselves). In the presence of natural or man-made disaster, the poor, those that only have their feet or public transportation, and especially those that wait for their government to help (or protect) them have much worse outcomes than those that don't. Often they just die.

I'm going to be really pissed if the current command-and-control, regulatory State slows down progress (and the necessary deaths that come from taking risks) to the point that I die within a few years of innovation that would otherwise have saved my life had progress been less inhibited, less controlled, less regulated. (an anathema to the so-called progressives)
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Before there were progressives against progress there was anti-science (and anti-technology) “science fiction,” which, collectively, warned about the menaces of computers, longevity, youth treatments, nuclear power… usually set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland (=Hiroshima).

Here we see fiction imitating real life, where all science and technology lead to disaster. Well, maybe not, perhaps it was a projection of silly fears, especially when anti-science SF masqueraded as science (e.g., “Silent Spring”).

There is some real SF, but most visual SF is anti-SF.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
At least Paramount still has "The Ten Commandments" to roll out for times when they're not looking to ridicule their target audiences beliefs.

And it's also appropriate that that shyster Cyrano Jones wrote "The Mark of Gideon" ( http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Stanley_Adams ), given the bogus message it was pushing. The only thing better would have been if he had co-written it with Roger C. Carmel.

31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
What are the environmental consequences of covering the entire planet in salt water for 40 days?
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hollywood Then: Agog that Soylent Green is people.

Hollywood Now: convinced that people SHOULD end up as Soylent Green.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All