Because AFAIK most Christians and Jews have no problem reconciling faith with science; even Pope Francis said a couple of years ago that God wasn't a magician with a wand and may have used those processes to create everything. It's only the fundamentalists who object to all that.
shareI don't think that was the reason. I thought the integration of the Biblical story with science was beautiful. I've never thought the Bible prevented reconciliation with science.
For me, the deviations from the well-known details of this story caused the controversy. I felt Noah and his mission were degraded. The idea that he would threaten to kill babies was preposterous(isn't that the kind of evil the flood was supposed to wipe out). That he would threaten to take animals into the ark for survival of their species but not think God wants humans to survive... it didn't work.
Noah was supposed to be a faithful man through whose bloodline the revival of mankind would come, yet he didn't semm to be really plugged into God enough.
Ham was also depicted in a wicked way. The idea that he and Noah were saved on the ark by a God who wanted to cleanse the world just didn't jive.
I think it's possible to creatively restyle the story of Noah and still reserve the ethical and sacred core, but this movie tore at that very thing.
To me, the story felt like it was done by an atheist who detested the Bible and and wanted to violate its sacred stories and troll Christians. (which is probably true).
Oh, and the fantastical rock creatures didn't help. I guess fallen angels could have been like that, but....
_______________________________________________________________________
"I thought you were class,like a high note you hit once in a lifetime."- Young Man With a Horn(1950)
It was the Rock-Ents which made the film controversial. The film's creator thought he was remaking Lord of the Rings without the Hobbits.
share