Russell Crowe's Raggedy New Look For NOAH; Plus Logan Lerman & Douglas Booth In Costume

Russell Crowe was spotted on the set of Darren Aronofsky's biblical epic, "Noah," with an even scruffier and older look. While Logan Lerman and Douglas Booth, who play Noah's sons Ham and Shem, were spotted for the first time in costume. Check it out!

Follow nailbiter111:
By nailbiter111 - 10/24/2012


Images Courtesy of DailyMail
Going Biblical: Crowe stars as Noah in the latest screen adaptation of the famed story

Big budget: The Biblical blockbuster is scheduled for release next year

Love interest: Douglas Booth stars as Noah's son Shem, who Emma's character Ila is in love withTough guys: Ray Winston stars in the film, as does Logan Lerman


NOAH is a close adaptation of the Biblical story of Noah’s Ark. In a world ravaged by human sin, Noah is given a divine mission: to build an Ark to save creation from the coming flood. The screenplay was written by Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel and revised by Academy Award®-nominated screenwriter John Logan (GLADIATOR, HUGO). Scott Franklin and Aronofsky of Protozoa Pictures, along with Mary Parent of Disruption Entertainment, will produce the film. The film will be executive produced by Ari Handel (BLACK SWAN), Arnon Milchan of New Regency and Chris Brigham (INCEPTION, ARGO).



Noah is being directed by Darren Aronofsky ("The Wrestler"), and stars Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Emma Watson, Ray Winstone, Logan Lerman, Douglas Booth and Sir Anthony Hopkins. The film is set to hit theaters March 28th, 2014.

Source: dailymail
DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and "safe harbor" provisions. CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. You may also learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE.
1
LIKE!
26 Comments
Supes17 - 10/24/2012, 4:42 PM
They had pants back then?
Tony93 - 10/24/2012, 4:55 PM
Probly not but oh well.. ^
TheJokerMask - 10/24/2012, 4:55 PM
Forget the pants! He has a cellphone!!!
soberchimera - 10/24/2012, 5:01 PM
@Supes They've been around since 6th century BCE.
venkman9993592 - 10/24/2012, 5:13 PM
noah was well before 6bc
Reasonnnn - 10/24/2012, 5:14 PM
I'm loving the refugee motif.
DrDoom - 10/24/2012, 5:15 PM
lolreligion.
patriautism - 10/24/2012, 5:21 PM
@supes17
titansupes - 10/24/2012, 5:22 PM
I don't know anything about this movie, so I could be wrong, but based on these photos (the clothes and hair), I'm betting it's a fake-out and it actually takes place in a dystopian future rather than biblical times.
Tao1 - 10/24/2012, 5:24 PM
this will be interesting
soberchimera - 10/24/2012, 5:35 PM
@venkman9993592 Depends on which version you go by.

via wikiAnswers
"The biblical story of Noah's Ark actually has two, slightly different stories woven together to appear to be one complex and slightly confusing story. The first of these was written by the Yahwist source, who lived around 800-900 BCE, while the second story was written by the Priestly source, who probably lived during the sixth century BCE."
Ghostt - 10/24/2012, 6:14 PM
This is clearly a post apocalyptic take on noah and then ark. Agreed?
Tony93 - 10/24/2012, 6:51 PM
@titansupes that would be amazing
TheAmazingSpiderMan47 - 10/24/2012, 7:32 PM
@Supes17 you ruined this movie for me lol :P
Bigred20 - 10/24/2012, 7:45 PM
I don't know if I'm up for a religious action movie
Or whatever genre it is
Haven't been paying attention
Maximillion - 10/24/2012, 7:47 PM
There are many Noah versions around the world, indicative of exactly what would happen if a world wide apocalyptic event happened today and a few people survived and passed on the story orally. You can learn a little more about the movie here: New Images and Translated Pages from Darren Aronofsky's Noe
Ranger14 - 10/24/2012, 8:43 PM
For those who questioned...Yes, they wore pants with tunics over them in biblical times, but not the women. It was not appropriate for women to dress like the men.
DioFoRio - 10/24/2012, 8:46 PM
So he's supposed to be 900 years old there right? looking Spry...looking spry
DioFoRio - 10/24/2012, 8:47 PM
Amen Ranger14
TheSoulEater - 10/24/2012, 9:24 PM
Logan's pulling a Leo strut!

Hulk2008 - 10/24/2012, 10:07 PM


AmazingFantasy - 10/24/2012, 10:46 PM
I can tell this will be stunning.
Lem1 - 10/25/2012, 2:09 PM
@soberchimera61
It's ironic, 'cause I was just discussing that 2 days ago. You refer to this so-called 'Documentary Hypothesis' that supposes different authors are responsibe for writing different parts of the Torah, or even verses in the Torah, and it's based basically on the notion that the use of several designations for God ie. Jehovah, 'Elohim, 'Adonai, etc. must needs-be suggest different authors are at work and the text we have is derived from several versions. There's not a single shred of evidence for the claim. In fact they've discovered evidence to the contrary. It nevertheless remains a popular theory among the increasingly sceptic scholarly community, despide its unscholarly foundations. ...And I'm just SURE you find all this INCREDIBLY facinating (heh heh)....hope I didn't bore ya to much, dude. But on the other hand, what we DO know is the story is SET 4380 years ago by Bible chronology in ancient Turkey/Mesopotamia, and they sure didn't have pants back then and I'm bettin' they looked nothing like all these fine actors...and for this, the purist in me is a tad terribly disappointed. Aw, well.
Lem1 - 10/25/2012, 2:10 PM
*'Despide'? Despite.
JorL5150 - 10/25/2012, 4:11 PM
@ Lem1

- as a former minister of biblical literalism, and now a non-interventionist diest, i COMPLETELY believe the "documentary hypothesis".

you say "there's no evidence" for it- but the evidence is tight in FRONT OF YOU!

WHY would "moses" write TWO versions of the story with conflicting details and referring to the diety as YAHWEH in one version, and EL/elohim in another?
WHY would "moses" even bother to write it twice?
and why is the later version - with it's designation of "clean and unclean" animals indicative of a dietary ("kosher") law that was not given to noah, but rather (supposedly) given to moses at a considerably later date?

for that matter- why did g/God(s) make an animal "unclean" in the first place?

the noah "doublet" is one of MANY. there are MANY stories in the bible that are duplicated with modified details that reflect a culture MUCH later than the events described.

and we really don't have any idea if the people of that time had trousers. likely they wore animal skins draped over their privates or coats when it was cold. but we really don't know.

they almost certainly didn't have as good of teeth or were as pretty as jennifer connelly, but hey- pick your battles.
mcwilson40 - 10/30/2012, 11:43 PM
I always find it amusing when Hollywood takes on these Biblical epics without really understanding just what it was that was going on. The Antediluvian world as outlined in the Bible is far more involved and complex than what has so far been put on the screen. Hollywood producers would do themselves a favor by actually seeking out writers who know a little about the subject matter.

That having been said, my book series on this topic is closer to the actual truth of what happened during this mysterious period in history. Whether you believe it to be a real event or not, it is far more thought provoking than anything you'll see in this film. See for yourself.

http://thegodprinciplebook.com/

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.