Creation - movie release this month.

[the tree]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0974014/

 

I wasn't aware of this until I saw a trailer this morning. It's looks visually pretty impressive - what do you guys think?

[Shadow]

Definitely gonna go see this one

 

uIwiPsgRrOs&NR

 

I though this was pretty fitting

Edited September 13, 2009 by Shadow

[iNow]

I think it's sad that no distributors will be offering it in the US, that evolution is only accepted by 39% of our population, and it's not likely to make money since it doesn't have a bunch of crap blowing up.

 

With that said, I'd like to see it, but I do have some concerns that the storyline may be a bit "beyond realistic" and could substitute in peoples minds what actually happened.

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html

US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

 

Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.

 

The film has sparked fierce debate on US Christian websites, with a typical comment dismissing evolution as "a silly theory with a serious lack of evidence to support it despite over a century of trying".

[JillSwift]

Aww poo.

 

No one picked it up for the US at all?

 

What I know of Darwin's relationship with is wife is pure wonderful love story. I was really looking forward to seeing this movie in a theater, and seeing something of Darwin on a level other than his science.

 

Though you have a point, iNow, if they took the old artistic license too far again. It'd be another case of "U-571".

[A Tripolation]

Paul Bettany? Wow, he usually plays some bad*** guy running around killing people or angels. This is pretty cool. Looks like a great movie.

[dr.syntax]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0974014/

 

I wasn't aware of this until I saw a trailer this morning. It's looks visually pretty impressive - what do you guys think?

 

The title: Creation , made me think it was some religious nonsense. From the vids presented it appears to be about the life of Darwin. And well done from what little was available to view. A better title would be: " DARWIN ". How the producers could make such a marketing blunder I do not know. Seems like a worthwhile movie wich is saying alot nowdays compared to what else is out there. ...Dr.Syntax

[JillSwift]

Paul Bettany? Wow, he usually plays some bad*** guy running around killing people or angels. This is pretty cool. Looks like a great movie.

One of the amusing things a bout Bettany playing Darwin is that he played the ship's surgeon and naturalist in "Master and Commander", where he so desperately wanted to stop and explore the Galapagos.

[dr.syntax]

I think it's sad that no distributors will be offering it in the US, that evolution is only accepted by 39% of our population, and it's not likely to make money since it doesn't have a bunch of crap blowing up.

 

With that said, I'd like to see it, but I do have some concerns that the storyline may be a bit "beyond realistic" and could substitute in peoples minds what actually happened.

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html

US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

 

Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.

 

The film has sparked fierce debate on US Christian websites, with a typical comment dismissing evolution as "a silly theory with a serious lack of evidence to support it despite over a century of trying".

 

very depressing. I had no idea that statistic was that bad. So I guess a substantial majority of my fellow Americans embrace unbelievable nonsense in favor of reality. I always felt most of the adults and children I met growing up were irrational and not to be trusted. I still do. ...Dr.Syntax

[the tree]

I'd hope that US types at least get to see it when it comes out on DVD - is this just corporations wanting to shy away from controversy? Even though there shouldn't be any, it's about a guys life.

[iNow]

I think it's more of a smart business decision. My guess is that it will quite simply cost them more to distribute it than they could possibly earn by performing said distribution.

 

The idea is that, since so few Americans accept evolution, very few people would care much to go spend money on a movie about Darwin.

[StringJunky]

It would appear that the UK statistics for people accepting Evolution iis not much better than the US...just under half. Only half the people in that half believe it's 'definitely' true...the rest of that half say it's 'probably' true.....pathetic! The irony of it all is that the UK does not have a sizable active religious congregation like in the US, I think we are a largely agnostic nation.

 

I put it down to ignorance resulting from the poor take up and promotion of science in education. A comment to this survey I found amusing and to the point about this subject:

 

" It says more about the quality of British education than about evolution. Evolution is a fact, just like gravity. If you don't understand that then either you have had a lousy education or are very thick. No other options exist. So in that sense the survey makes sense: the headline can then read:

 

Half of Britons are thick or have had a lousy education."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism

[The Bear's Key]

The irony of it all is that the UK does not have a sizable active religious congregation like in the US, I think we are a largely agnostic nation.

Better check again. I got slapped by reality being unaware of the extent of religious political influence here (in the U.S.)

 

Learn from our errors mate

 

 

In your linked article, its very title says...

 

More than one-fifth prefer creationism or intelligent design, while many others are confused about Darwin's theory

 

 

Its opening paragraph...

 

Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% preferring the theories of creationism or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey.

 

 

 

And more from the UK...

 

http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/Politicians_Talk_God_Because_Faith_Works.aspx?ArticleID=2478&PageID=96&RefPageID=96

Politicians Talk God Because Faith Works

.....

New research published by Theos reveals a growing use of religious rhetoric by party leaders in their conference speeches.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3631819/Believers-are-away-with-the-fairies.html

Believers are away with the fairies

........

But all the major religions have become more assertive, more vocal, more demanding and therefore more salient in the public domain.

[dr.syntax]

I'd hope that US types at least get to see it when it comes out on DVD - is this just corporations wanting to shy away from controversy? Even though there shouldn't be any, it's about a guys life.

 

This one is one I really look forward to seeing. Thank you for bringing this movie to my attention. I want to tell you that I am very disturbed that this movie is in effect being censured here in the USA. I am very concerned that censorship is once again upon us. The influence of the religeous right is much more than I had realized. The entire World seems to be moving backwards in a way intellectualy speaking. Look at all the wars being fought now in the name of religion. And the shear numbers of people embracing these old dogmas. I find it very disturbing and frightening. ...Dr.Syntax

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

read the telegraph link. We atheist,agnostics,etc.,had better start standing up to this maddness spreading across our World. ...Dr.Syntax

[StringJunky]

Better check again. I got slapped by reality being unaware of the extent of religious political influence here (in the U.S.)

 

Learn from our errors mate

 

 

 

........

But all the major religions have become more assertive, more vocal, more demanding and therefore more salient in the public domain.[/i][/indent]

 

My perception of the situation here is that the Islamic religion is trying to get more influence here like having Sharia courts to deal with problems within the Muslim communities eg marriage breakdowns...which is allowed but is purely voluntary on the part of the participants and cannot supersede English Law.

 

The way I see it here is that religious influence (like the bishops in the Lords) tempers things like controversial issues in scientific research and causes the secular elements to pause and reflect on the human consequences...the end result being that we end with more robust and considerate Laws and Procedures because they are minding the 'moral' side of any debate... without any ranting attitude. They may slow progress down a bit but this is not necessarily a bad thing. The Church of England guys in Parliament are a mellow bunch compared to their American counterparts.

 

But now you mention it,; I shall look again!

[Severian]

It would appear that the UK statistics for people accepting Evolution iis not much better than the US...just under half. Only half the people in that half believe it's 'definitely' true...the rest of that half say it's 'probably' true.....pathetic!

 

Excuse me? Are you being serious? By 'accepting Evolution' in this context, I assume you mean 'accepting evolution by natural selection as the mechanism for the origin of species?'

 

If so, then it is perfectly reasonable for most people to say it is 'probably' true, and not in any way a sign of ignorance. Indeed, one could more legitimately say that people saying it is 'definitely' true are displaying more ignorance, because they are merely parroting what they are told to say without practising any critical thought.

 

I myself would only say that evolution is 'probably' true (in this sense), and I regard myself as fairly well educated. While the evidence for evolution is rather good, it is not 100% conclusive, and there could well be other factors that also contribute to the origin of species, such as genetic drift.

 

I think it is unfortunate that while the improvement of information flow via innovations such as the internet has undoubtedly improved the dissemination of scientific knowledge to the general public, it has clearly done nothing to promote critical thought.

[StringJunky]

Since you put it like that Severian, yes, my interpretation of the statistic was ill-considered.

 

Would this 'genetic drift' be a strong factor at all in the higher organisms (above bacteria, fungi, plants where reproductive success is a random, precarious event)? I can see this idea being applicable to this order of organisms but less so in the higher organisms where there is an element of reproductive bias ie have more control over who, where and how they reproduce to varying degrees. I've ony read a Wiki on this idea of genetic drift and responded to you, but will look into it further.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Since you put it like that Severian, yes, my interpretation of the statistic was ill-considered.

 

Would this 'genetic drift' be a strong factor at all in the higher organisms (above bacteria, fungi, plants where reproductive success is a random, precarious event)? I can see this idea being applicable to this order of organisms but less so in the higher organisms where there is an element of reproductive bias ie have more control over who, where and how they reproduce to varying degrees. I've ony read a Wiki on this idea of genetic drift and responded to you, but will look into it further.

[Ophiolite]

By 'accepting Evolution' in this context, I assume you mean 'accepting evolution by natural selection as the mechanism for the origin of species?'

With this opening proviso I can agree with the rest of yourpost. However I think your opening proviso is flawed. When we speak of evolution today we fully recognise the roles of genetic drift, sexual selection and the importance of processes involved in inidivdual development. (e.g. hox genes). In that regard I would say evolution is as proven as anything in our scientific lexicon. 100%?? Well, I'm not even 100% certain that I exist, so no, not 100% sure, but that's pedantic semantics, so in practical terms, yes, I am 100% certain that evolution (as defined above and as will be clarified by future research) occurs.

[Severian]

When we speak of evolution today we fully recognise the roles of genetic drift, sexual selection and the importance of processes involved in inidivdual development.

 

Fair enough, but that was not how the poll (which is what we are commenting on) was phrased. They asked (according to the Guardian, which is a pile of shite newspaper so may be talking rubbish) if they thought Darwin's theory was correct. I think the answer I gave above would have been interpreted as 'probably'.

 

In that regard I would say evolution is as proven as anything in our scientific lexicon.

 

I have said this before on these fora, and I will say it again: evolution is no-where near as well tested as most physics theories. The Standard Model of particle physics has the best tested prediction ever made, but I would certainly never say that I was 100% certain that it is correct. Part of the problem of 'evolution' is that it is not very predictive (though to be fair, that is a problem with biology generally).

[SH3RL0CK]

I think it's more of a smart business decision. My guess is that it will quite simply cost them more to distribute it than they could possibly earn by performing said distribution.

 

The idea is that, since so few Americans accept evolution, very few people would care much to go spend money on a movie about Darwin.

 

I agree completely. Regardless of whether or not Americans accept evolution, in the end the distribution is a business decision.

 

I don't think they are really afraid of controversy (there have been many controversial movies that were readily distributed). Sometimes the controversy helps them as people go to see the movie to know what all the fuss is about. Perhaps the movie title "Creation" instead of "Darwin" is an apparently futile attempt to stir up controversy and therefore generate publicity for the movie?

 

I think the distributors are afraid of a movie that no one will go to see because then they lose money.

[Severian]

I think the distributors are afraid of a movie that no one will go to see because then they lose money.

 

What proportion of the expense is release compared to production? I would have thought that once it is made, it would make sense to release even a rather unsuccessful movie as widely as possible. (I have no idea though.)

[SH3RL0CK]

What proportion of the expense is release compared to production? I would have thought that once it is made, it would make sense to release even a rather unsuccessful movie as widely as possible. (I have no idea though.)

 

But its not just the distribution costs to consider, which I agree are relatively minimal. There is an immense opportunity cost as there is a limited number of screens and timeslots available. Instead of filling a theater with 5 people (= $50) per showing, they could be filling a theater with 50 people (= $500) per showing.

[dr.syntax]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0974014/

 

I wasn't aware of this until I saw a trailer this morning. It's looks visually pretty impressive - what do you guys think?

 

Fighting whatever powers that be for the right to view this movie " Creation" on the life of Charles Darwin is a cause all who believe in the right to" not believe" here in America, can use as a great rallying issue for a group of people who have rarely stood up for themselves. Let us unite on this one issue and see if we have any courage and whatfor as a group. There are websites throughout this thread to learn all about it. Lets make this our cause and show some political muscle on this one. Suggestions welcomed. ...Dr.Syntax

[John Cuthber]

The film has been made and I guess that the cost of showing it isn't great. But if the cinema manager has 2 choices- "Creation" (which will get a few punters in) and "some crap action movie" which will get lots of punters in then he'd be a fool to screen "Creation".

[dr.syntax]

Hi John, One of the thoughts that croossed my mind was that all the hoopla created by the religious right types and the media attention they have grown so skilled at generating would have the overall effect of creatng a lot of interest in seeing this movie. There is that old adage: There is no such thing as bad publicity. Micheal Moore`s movies always seem to do well for example. ...Dr.Syntax

[iNow]

FYI, everyone:

 

 

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118009136.html?categoryId=13&cs=1

Newmarket Films has acquired U.S. rights to director Jon Amiel's "Creation," starring Jennifer Connelly and Paul Bettany, and plans a December release.