Creationists take their fight to the really big screen.

IMAX theaters in the Southern States, including those in Science Museums, are coming under attack for using the E-word (evolution).

quote:

---

Carol Murray, marketing director of the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History in Texas, said audience members who had watched Volcanoes had commented, "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact", or "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence."

​

As a result, the science museum had decided not to screen the film.

​

"If it is not going to draw a crowd and it is going to create controversy, from a marketing point of view, I cannot make a recommendation," Murray told The New York Times on Saturday.

​

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/...

---

Gives a completely new meaning to the phrase, Popular Science.Apart from the other implications of this topic, and apart from private IMAX theaters, how could one apply pressure against a ‘Science Museum’ presenting selective science?{Note from Adminnemooseus: The full title of the cited film is Volcanoes of the Deep Sea.}{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal. Also added note. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-23-2005 07:29 PM

I believe that capitulation to demands as a mean to reduce controversy is prone to backfiring and resulting in continued political pressure.

quote:

---

Imax stoic on 'Volcanoes' spurn

​

TORONTO -- Imax Corp. on Wednesday distanced itself from giant-screen theaters in several southern U.S. states that have chosen not to show "Imax: Volcanoes of the Deep Sea" to avoid offending religious fundamentalists with references to the theory of evolution. In a statement, Imax said the theaters in Texas, Georgia and the Carolinas that dropped the "Volcanoes" picture were independently owned and operated and made "their own independent programming choices." Executives at Toronto-based Imax were not available for direct comment. The Imax theater flap follows PBS' decision in February to pull an episode of Canadian animated series "Postcards From Buster," produced by Montreal's Cookie Jar Entertainment, which included the portrayal of a lesbian couple. (Etan Vlessing)

​

Full story requires paid subscription:
Page not found – The Hollywood Reporter

---

quote:

---

On another note, I don't think that there is enough in the article to conclude that the offended people were from the Christian right. That seems more like a generalization to me.

---

I suppose there might be groups other then creationists opposed to a film referring to the ToE. Since you claim, it is an economic issue, it would have to a significantly large group to be an issue. What precisely is the large group of individuals in the south that is non-creationist and also has a bone to pick with the ToE?I can think of several groups that would meet one of the conditions, but I can’t think of a group outside of the Creationists that represents what we have been told in the article.We also have the article with says it is speaking about Creationinsts.

quote:

---

The movie is rejected due to economic reasons, not because of the "Creationist conspiracy."

---

If there is not a threatened boycott, or black-balling of the film, why would there be any financial impact? If there was no organized opposition, why wouldn’t those people who would go to the film go anyway?Lastly, if the sole issue is economics and conveying science is no big deal, then they should be showing Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, leading into Star Wars.edit. Another broken quote.This message has been edited by Trae, 03-24-2005 03:43 PM

I found the following:

quote:

---

Carol Murray, director of marketing for the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, said the museum decided not to offer the movie after showing it to a sample audience, a practice often followed by managers of Imax theaters. Ms. Murray said 137 people participated in the survey, and while some thought it was well done, "some people said it was blasphemous."
In their written comments, she explained, they made statements like "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact," or "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence."
On other criteria, like narration and music, the film did not score as well as other films, Ms. Murray said, and over all, it did not receive high marks, so she recommended that the museum pass.
"If it's not going to draw a crowd and it is going to create controversy," she said, "from a marketing standpoint I cannot make a recommendation" to show it.

---

So this seems more based on a sample audience than actual unsolicited complaints. This was a question I wondered about.

quote:

---

I'm unaware of any successful cases where protests and boycotts for one film, have somehow spread to attendance of other films, and so hurt a movie theater.

---

I’m not sure films are the best examples here. I’m not aware of controversal films being tied to museums before. I think controversial exhibits affecting museums would make a better example. The thread is more about Science Museums not showing these films than other IMAX theaters.

quote:

---

as I understand it, the movie's not really about volcanoes so much as about the deep rift hot vents and the islands of life around them. these vents are volcanic in origin, but I wouldn't go thinking I'd see violent explosions and flows of magma engulfing the countryside.
This also is a valid {environment} to discuss early life beginnings (abiogenesis) and the subsequent evolution of species, leading (eventually) to man.

---

My impression was that the life forming in these areas was a significant theme of the film. I don’t know if it deals with abiogenesis, but if a film is about how the life is different in one environment than other environments then the constraint to stay away from ‘evolution’ seems rather ridiculous to me.

Excellent points. It’ll be great when someone here sees, or someone on the web actually posts what the film says.

Agreed Holmes,While controversy in art museums have likely created policy precedence, I suspect the problem is significantly worse with Evolution being attacked in science. For instance, a museum might cave into pressure and still minimize the impact. There’s a huge difference between a museum saying this exhibit isn’t appropriate and no controversial religious material is appropriate.While the museum here hasn’t gone that far, by not clarifying the position they’re setting themselves up for future conflict. It is now a reasonable expectation for the people in that area to believe that evolution shouldn’t be presented matter-of-factly. This would seem to leave as the two main options. Not mentioning Evolution at all or going into more depth about evolution. As if those people are saying, Oh don’t just mention Evolution. Please explain what a theory is, explain the theory to us, then go though all the misconceptions, then prove to us that the distracters are wrong.Obviously, the problem really isn’t how it is being presented, but that it is being presented as accepted.

Cool. Thanks.While there is a link to 'trailers' it only reveals a Coming Soon note. Shame.So it seems that there are two films on this topic.

Science entertainment is one of my trigger buttons. I constantly find myself tuning to the Discovery or History channel, finding assumptions in the presentation, then tuning to a rerun of something like the X-Files.