Paramount Officially Acquires Darren Aronofsky’s ‘Noah’

Published 4 years ago by , Updated February 15th, 2014 at 8:47 pm,

We’ve known for months now that Darren Aronofsky was hoping to make the expensive Biblical retelling Noah his next directorial effort – since he passed on helming The Wolverine, earlier this year – and it looks like the project is finally (officially) ready to continue moving forward.

Paramount and New Regency have finalized a deal that will see them co-finance Aronofsky’s Noah: a cinematic version of the Noah’s Ark story that (according to earlier estimates) is being budgeted as a $130 million venture.

Deadline confirmed the deal, which has been expected to (eventually) go through since late June 2011. Longtime Aronofsky collaborator Scott Franklin – who even produced the filmmaker’s ultra low-budget directorial debut, Pi – will co-produce Noah with the Black Swan helmer.

Multiple Oscar-nominated scriber John Logan (Gladiator, The Last Samurai) has been hired on to rework the previous draft of the Noah script penned by Aronofsky and Ari Handel (The Fountain). The latter writing duo’s screenplay was presumably the basis for the upcoming Noah comic book, which Aronofsky worked on with illustrator Nico Henrichon.

Darren Aronofsky planning Noahs Ark movie Paramount Officially Acquires Darren Aronofskys Noah

Artwork from the 'Noah' graphic novel

Aronofsky has previously described Noah as being a more loyal adaptation of the original Biblical story – which, as the filmmaker has rightly pointed out, is often graphic in nature and contains a good deal of adults-only material that has not been included in many a previous re-interpretation. However, the filmmaker is reportedly designing the Noah movie as more of a true “epic” – and not an intimate character drama that seeks to explore the depths of a man commanded by God to preserve the Earth’s non-human animals during an apocalyptic flood.

Here is what Aronofsky told IFC about Noah, this past summer:

“I don’t think [the tale of Noah is] a very religious story. I think it’s a great fable that’s part of so many different religions and spiritual practices. I just think it’s a great story that’s never been on film… I want to make a big [Roland Emmerich-style] event film, and I think [‘Noah’] can be that.”

Those who cringe at the mere mention of Emmerich’s name ought to bear in mind that Aronofsky was simply likening the scale of Noah to one of the 2012 filmmaker’s projects. The amount of attention paid to decent storytelling and character development in Aronofsky’s Biblical adaptation – that’s another matter…

Christian Bale in The New World Paramount Officially Acquires Darren Aronofskys Noah

Will Christian Bale become Aronofsky's 'Noah'?

While it’s known that Christian Bale has been eying Noah (among other projects) as the potential followup to The Dark Knight Rises, his involvement is far from a given. Paramount and New Regency are hoping to start production on Noah by Spring 2012, possibly with a Summer 2013 release date in mind – assuming the project really is being fashioned as more an effects-heavy “event” film. So there’s still plenty of time for Bale (or another respectable actor) to sign on for the flick.

We will continue to keep you posted on the status of Noah, in the meantime.

Source: Deadline

TAGS: Noah
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. That description is VERY different from the previous ones. In previous summaries of the movie it was very ANTI-religious and appeared to spit in the face of Christians.

    • I don’t understand how it could “spit in the face of Christians”?
      The story of Noah is an Old Testament story. Technically, not a Christian story at all.

  2. I always thought this would be a great story for a big movie. I’ll be keeping my eyes open for news on this one.

  3. Aronofsky working with a budget like this should be something to see. Also the subject matter is sure to earn this film a lot of attention so the pressure will be on to deliver.

      • Seriously? You’re actually promoting a Creationist website here? Yikes.

        • No, I simply put it as a reference to the ark’s actual size. In no way am I pushing creationism or the validity of the ark. Just its size and capability of what it was meant to do. I am a Christian, yes, but I simply wanted to show that its not as small as everybody thinks and that it would have been fully capable of holding all of the land animal species of the time.

          • Fair enough as to the reason for linking to a site…It is the choice of the particular site that struck me as odd. I clicked on the link you provided and read a number of the pieces on the site; I simply do not find the arguments viable or credible.

            That was just MY perception…

        • An issue was brought up and he replied with a link. Since when is that a bad thing?

    • Wrong artcle, dieta…

  4. Logistically they would not bring fully grown animals on the ark. They would have been cute little baby animals. None of the carnivores would be at the age that they would need meat. Just lots of milk. Art work always showed fully grown animals but that would have been just for looks. It will be interesting to see how this movie will depict “The Flood”.

    • Interesting theory. Makes more sense and you could fit a lot more in. The animals wandering to the ark would have to be changed to Noah and his kids going on a baby animal hunt.

  5. The story in the bible is one of extreme violence and heavenly conflict. According to Genesis, “children of God found the women of men fair, and took them as wives. Then came the Nephilim, the giants, who were the offspring of the children of God and women of men”; that description makes me think it could be epic, if Aronosky follows this, because the “children of God” could be angels. Many believe these Nephilim to be the reason for the Greek, Egyptian and Roman myths. I can see this being epic, but I can also see it being a slap in the face of Christians and Jews.

  6. Ok, why is my post being moderated? If it ever shows up, I’m curious what in it required moderation.

  7. Good news, can’t wait for this.

  8. Noah’s Ark housed various petri dishes of DNA. I don’t care how much supsension of belief or faith one would have, animals are animals and it would have been realistically impossible for Noah and his family ONLY, to care for literally 1000’s of live animals(whether full grown or babies) ESPECIALLY in a “mobile zoo” floating on water. Imagine the smell, feces, food, sickness, and all kinds of of other stuff they’d have to deal with, especially INSIDE a vessel. Imagine breathing that stench! If the story of Noah’s Ark is to believed, THE DNA of the animals were kept, this way, they were left intact and no need for much maintance, then they could be cloned later. God/the gods(angels)/(extraterrestrials) would have shown a way for Noah to do it.

    • technically 40,000 (the approximate amount of animals on the ark) animal species, all at about the size of a sheep (which is the average size of all animals) would only take up 30% of all the space on the ark. leaving plenty of space for noah and his family and anybody who would have wished to joind them (God left the ark open for a week but everybody was skeptical and didnt come. and that even leaves enough room for dinosaurs which would take up about another 13% of space or less

      • Wow Blastaar I didn’t realize Noah and his family was also Atlantiens. There is no way anybody from that long ago could have kept the DNA of animals cause there was mo technology. Plus God told him how big to make te boat so it could fit all of the animals.

        • Probably the whole deal he made with Adam about man ruling over animals and all. Yes God didn’t have to let Noah make a boat to save the animals but he did do it.

        • @Epsilon_IV, Ancient technology did exist 1000’s of years ago. Many things that would surprise you were either being worked on or already existed. READ “THE ENUMA ELISH”, “ATRA HASIS”, THE GILGAMESH EPICS” or any books written by Zacharia Sitchen pertaining to the “Elohim”(God/Gods) were known as the ANUNAKI(those who came down from Anu(God) to Ki(earth)and the “ancient men of reknown” or giants of the earth were known as Nephilem(fallen ones). The Ancient Sumerian Tablets predate the bible and “it’s stories by 1000’s of years and they already talked about the great flood and other parralel stories. In fact the story of the flood was inspired from Ancient Sumerian Tablets speaking of the flood. “NIMROD” of the bible was from Ancient Babylon and even “ABRAM/ABRAHAM” the father of all major 3 religions, WAS CHALDEAN which is in Ancient Mesopotamia(Babylon,Sumeria,Ur,etc.) Most of bible is just a collection of regurgetated stories, borrowed from other older stories from vaious other cultures places and times and re-written.

          Ancient technologies such as cloning, spaceships, extraterrestrials, were spoken of in many cultures for 1000’s of years pre-biblical AND biblical times. It’s just that some cultures made descriptions of things the best way they could while others were a little more frank, such as the Ancient Sumerians,Egyptians, and Ancient Asian Indians(Books like Upanishads/Vedas). Even the bible’s description of Ezekiel’s wheel is nothing but a description of a spaceship similar to other stories of the same thing, and guess what, people always get “taken up” when they see them.

          As far as Noah and his family needing to be scientists, that wouldn’t have been necessary, all he’d have to do is get a sample of skin,hair from animals and then God,Elohim, Anunaki, would just have to do the rest. THEY(Elohim) were the scientists, and they are responsible for the existence of man, this is why man was made in his image and likeness(Elohim). That is why there is a missing link in evolution, and that is why God’s personality changes from one part of the bible to next. One minute he’s angry, jealous, the next he’s happy then sad, changing his mind,then regretting he made man. An ALL, knowing being would never feel regret, be sad, or change it’s mind for any reason because it would already know the outcome of all things before hand. There would be no need to be jealous of anything or anyone unless there CAN be something of equal value. Why be jelous of something that could NEVER compare to you? These are all emotions that convey weakness which usually lead to violence and destruction(an obvious human attribute). An ALL powerful being responsible for ALL creation would not posess these emotions, they are attributes of a mortal being. That is why we have them because we are made in the likeness of a being that had them. But these beings was also created by the force of creation which is way beyond mortal emotions.

    • that sounds like Titan A.E. However i still believe in the original ark story, i have to agree, it leaves out the horrible stench of the animal waste and the stench of all the dead in the waters

    • No.

    • Umm in what ways did the Ten Commandments film stick to the source? Over 60% of the film was fabricated. It was only a good film due to the cast IMO

      • Yeah, I don’t remember Moses ever being considered to be Pharoah. And I also remember that Moses knew who he was all the time; and he wasn’t banished from Egypt, he fled because Pharoah was going to kill him (for killing an Egyptian). But like you said, the movie was great; but not totally accurate.

    • After all, everyone knows extra terrestrials are real.

      You’re entitled to your opinion, as am I, but talking to a christian as though they are an idiot for believing in something they can’t see or touch is wrong. It is called faith. Just like believing in ET’s.

      Some of your points I agree with. I feel many times christians spend too much time in symbolism over substance, but you can’t, or at least shouldn’t, downgrade the beliefs of so many as “babel”, mystery or rumor.

    • Ah, sure, okay Dave, whatever you say…rolling eyes.

  9. New Regency usually releases their productions with 20th Century FOX. Looks like this will be a new direction for them.

  10. This story has already been told. He should make a movie about the story that Noah’s Ark was based on-the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh. It’s much older, much cooler, and much more epic. Come on, Aronofsky, yu’re great, do a story that’s never been told on screen before.

  11. Aronofsky will be the first Hollywood director to bring a fabled version of Noah and the world flood to epic life onscreen (if he had stuck purely with the biblical viewpoint including as actual history, then no matter how graphically presented, Hollywood wouldn’t have backed him).

    After him, some other director will be the first to bring a biblically-oriented telling of the same to an epic-sized, equally graphic screen dramatization. I suspect some bible-believing filmmakers have wanted to do that for years, but can’t pull it together. God will let Hollywood have its turn first.

  12. As I look in now and then on developments regarding Aronofsky’s ‘Noah’ film (i.e., Fassbender possibly taking the role), I nonetheless have to remember that – in my earlier comment of “God will let Hollywood have its turn first” – one can’t presume upon God’s will in one direction or another. He can speed things along or throw a wrench in the works, for His own mysterious purposes, including with film projects having to do with events recorded in the bible.

    The personal, biblical God having been slanderously misrepresented in NBC’s ‘Noah’s Ark’ – what different rendition of God might be substituted for that in Aronofsky’s mythical ‘Noah’?