Are Christians REALLY Keeping the Charles Darwin Movie Out of U.S. Theaters?

From NY Magazine. This sounds like the really dull truth.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/09/are_christians_really_keeping.html?mid=agenda--20090916

_SNIPPED_

You've no doubt been subjected to a million tweets from outraged friends and invited to join Facebook groups defending Creation against the mobs of pitchfork-wielding creationists massing against it. But maybe the movie's just not that good? And a money loser to boot?

For instance! Hardly anyone liked Creation when it screened last week in Toronto. (Sample quote: "Flat, dull, and painful to sit through.") And it stars two actors who, despite being former Brooklynites and adorable and married, are not exactly stars with box-office clout.

Let's see: Period biopic about a writer most people don't feel that strongly about? Marginal lead actor who's liked but not loved? British pedigree and bad reviews? This sounds exactly like the kind of movie that some distributor would have snapped up three years ago in an attempt to put together an Oscar campaign and then would have lost a big fat wad of cash on. It's like the 2009 version of Miss Potter, but with Paul Bettany in the Renée Zellweger role.

More to the point, the article in the Daily Mail (motto: "Okay, George Clooney didn't actually write that") doesn't cite any actual instances of actual distributors shying away from the movie because of fears of Christian protest. It just quotes a guy with a vested interest in raising a little controversy around his movie. (We asked the film's publicists if the producers could provide any evidence to back up the claim and were told, "They remain optimistic that they will get U.S. distribution and are working hard to make that happen.")

_SNIPPED_

They might call themselves "Christian", but right wing fanatics are not followers of the teachings of Christ.

controversy to sell the film.

Man - your egos are intergalactic!

:rofl:

Speaking of which - something has bothered me for a long time. If you set a phaser on stun, would a light saber be able to deflect it?

is it really just an energy beam? if it is...shouldn't the energy move at or close to the speed of light? then if so, how the fuck do they get out of the way when someone shoots at them? i mean, by the time you see the beam...shouldn't already have punched its way through your body???

sP

When they are on the planet looking for the Barillium (sp?) sphere -

Gwen: "Does the rolling help?"

Jason: "Uh huh. It helps."

Gwen: "Where's your gun?"

Jason: "Oh, SHIT!"

i mean, to get back on topic!

sP

The first half hour or so makes it seem too dumb for words, and that turned a lot of people off. My dad turned it off after 20 minutes and never finished it. The irony is that the impression of stupidity is intentional. It sets it up for the well crafted and intense development leading up to the ending.

Few movies have as much hidden humor - by which I mean the things you only catch after multiple viewings. It is subtle shit like when the crew chases after Jason to "go to the ship". They pass Guy with some girl off to the right and you hear "but you live with your mother." After the meal scene with the tape of the "former commander", the crew is arguing with Jason. Tech Sgt. Chen wanders through the middle and mumbles "wow, the floors are so clean."

Then there are the obvious things - "Oh, THAT's not right!"

It is really about what SHOULD have happened to the crew from the Enterprise.

then it must really be bad. As far as I'm concerned, the vast majority of films in recent years have sucked. Maybe it's a matter of taste, but, with some exceptions, they just aren't cranking out movies I want to see anymore. But the life of Charles Darwin sounds interesting to me.

Really? I've read just the opposite.

I dunno which is true regarding Toronto, but I'm just putting it out there.

Secondly, from what I understand, some religious groups' opposition runs deeper than just the old "evolution thing". Apparently, many religious groups have spent years in not just opposing evolution, but also demonizing Darwin himself. Thus any movie that shows Darwin in any remotely favorable light, such as a devout family man, is unacceptable to them. This is similar to the RW's real reason for opposing Obama's speech to school kids recently. The RW has been demonizing Obama, and do not want their kids exposed to the real Obama... who is, and comes across as quite reasonable, regardless of your political stripe.

We have Darwins BIO on the BIO channel, on the history channel.. On the public broadcasting network..

Shows about evolution on the science channels, shows about the scopes money trial (not including the ancient movie) and nobody bats an eye about it.

It's a publicity stunt.

For a movie no distributor thought they could make money on..

Well until they drum up a fake controversy, get it splashed across cable news etc.

No publicity is bad publicity they always say... Or any publicity is good publicity.. or whatever...

I thought they were just reveling in their hard won victory. Turns out they really just don't care.