When news surfaced last week that director Darren Aronofsky was shopping Noah, a project Deadline described as "an edgy re-telling of the Noah's Ark story" as his Black Swan follow-up, we hoped it would it just fizzle out like his plans to make Batman: Year One and The Wolverine. It hasn't, and that concerns us, since we enjoy Aronofsky's movies and would not like him to see him preside over a filmmaking disaster of, well, biblical proportions. We think Noah has the potential to turn into such a project. Consider the forces already lining up against it:

The ark

Steve Carrell's ark-centric comedy Evan Almighty grossed $100 million against a reported budget of $210 million back in 2007, en route to being one of the year's biggest flops. Now Aronofsky's going to see if that applies to serious retellings of the Noah story.

The budget

Deadline reports Aronofsky is seeking a $130 million budget for the film. On the water, that's usually just a starting point--Evan Almighty was originally budgeted at $140 million and Titanic was only supposed to cost $120 million. Both wound up costing over $200 million, largely due to...

The water

"The worst place in the world to shoot a movie," according to director Phillip Noyce, is on the water. (He would know--he made Dead Calm.) It's worth noting that the movie most synonymous with budget overruns--Waterworld--has water right there in the title.

The lead

Vulture reports Aronofsky is targeting Christian Bale to play Noah. Bale is a terrific actor and strong leading man, but we can't think of anyone we'd less like to be stuck with on an overbudget shoot in the middle of a tank. Remember his outburst on the set of Terminator: Salvation? And that was on dry land.

The director

Aronofsky's struggled to get projects moving before. Along with Batman: Year One and The Wolverine, he dropped out of The Fighter and had the budget on The Fountain cut from $75 million to $35 million and lost his two leads.