The most contentious differences between Darren Aronofsky's film treatment of "Noah" and the biblical story of the ark.

12 Biblical Inaccuracies in Darren Aronofsky’s “Noah”

April 08, 2014 / by / 27 Comments

While many critics have praised Darren Aronofsky’s biblical fantasy film Noah for its unique take on spirituality and faith, some religious scholars have expressed misgivings about several creative licenses the film version takes with the scriptural account of the story of Noah. Here are the 12 most contentious biblical inaccuracies in Aronofsky’s Noah:

12. 500-year-old Hebrew patriarch and titular character Noah replaced by 49-year-old New Zealander and co-star of Winter’s Tale.

11. The film depicts evolutionary creationism and the formation of the universe in a manner that co-exists with widely-accepted scientific theory and research.

10. In the initial Book of Genesis, the ending of the parable didn’t drag on unnecessarily for like five goddamn hours.

9. Film wisely sidesteps that nasty little “Curse of Ham” business.

8. No Hebrew, Christian, or Islamic interpretation of the story of Noah includes Noah’s son Japheth performing a rendition of The Lonely Islands’ “I’m On A Boat” with an ensemble of scantily-clad antediluvian backup dancers.

7. In biblical cosmology, the great deluge wasn’t quite as similar to a Michael Bay film.

6. Book version didn’t pass the Bechdel Test.

5. No fallen angels were harmed in the writing of the flood narrative.

4. The Holy Bible never makes any reference to Noah essentially getting high with his grandfather.

3. Aronofsky’s treatment of the flood somehow makes the story’s auxiliary characters even more one-dimensional.

2. Book of Genesis makes no mention of Noah’s wife Naameh asking her husband for a few more specifics about “this whole repopulate the Earth thing.”

1. Emma Watson’s character wasn’t as hot in the book version.