Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists take their fight to the really big screen.
Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 16 of 53 (193873)
03-24-2005 1:25 AM


Imax stoic on 'Volcanoes' spurn
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 1:41 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 53 (193879)
03-24-2005 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Trae
03-24-2005 1:13 AM


You miss the beauty of my argument, though. The movie is rejected due to economic reasons, not because of the "Creationist conspiracy." Controversy, whether it comes from Christians or scientists, is a cost that discourages the showing of the meaning. You see, unlike humans, this economic outlook does not discriminate. Furthermore, you have not shown me a link between Creationists and both the benefits and opportunity costs of this dilemna, meaning that two of the three factors involved in this situation have no relevance to the Creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Trae, posted 03-24-2005 1:13 AM Trae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by CK, posted 03-24-2005 4:32 AM commike37 has not replied
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 03-24-2005 11:11 AM commike37 has replied
 Message 31 by Trae, posted 03-24-2005 6:42 PM commike37 has not replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 53 (193885)
03-24-2005 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Trae
03-24-2005 1:25 AM


Benefits: Greater friendliness to religious people -> A larger market
Costs: None, really. The movies not being shown in the South is a sunk cost. It's already happened, so this sunk cost doesn't weight into the decision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Trae, posted 03-24-2005 1:25 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 19 of 53 (193923)
03-24-2005 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by commike37
03-24-2005 1:33 AM


Please stop using the word Economic - what you are doing is too simplistic in nature to be called an economic analysis. There is not enought information in that article to perform an economic analysis.
If you can supply the figures that is a different story.
Just call it a Cost-benfit analysis and we can pretend you are doing the bastard business studies version.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 24-Mar-2005 04:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 1:33 AM commike37 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by contracycle, posted 03-24-2005 5:00 AM CK has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 53 (193930)
03-24-2005 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by CK
03-24-2005 4:32 AM


Under capitalism, value is determined by the quantity of effective demand. If the demand is for religious fictions about our past, that demand will be met. Capitalism will always rather tell a comforting lie than a hard truth; it is a regressive, rather than progressive, force.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by CK, posted 03-24-2005 4:32 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by CK, posted 03-24-2005 5:31 AM contracycle has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 21 of 53 (193938)
03-24-2005 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by contracycle
03-24-2005 5:00 AM


Yes but if we are going to call our lies economics - I want to see the numbers! :-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by contracycle, posted 03-24-2005 5:00 AM contracycle has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 22 of 53 (194000)
03-24-2005 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by commike37
03-24-2005 12:38 AM


quote:
But evolution is not the end-all, be-all.
Well, actually, regarding the study of life on Earth, it really is the "be-all and end-all", so to speak.
Well, it isn't really the "end-all", because it might be shown to be wrong at a later date.
But that's as likely to happen as the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar Syastem will be shown to be wrong at a later date.
quote:
You're making it out to be a "holy grail,"
Nah, we know that evolution really happens, and nobody has ever seen the Grail.
quote:
and some people don't like evolution as a "holy grail." You largely ignore about my point about how it is presented.
If it was presented accurately, then boo hoo to the people who didn't like it.
quote:
There are two types of theories, empirical and explanatory.
Huh, this is new to me. I am under the impression that all scientific theories need to be both empirical and explanatory.
quote:
The problems do not lie with empirical evolution, it lies with explanatory evolution (namely, how empirical evolution is interpreted and presented). Although they didn't realize it, these people were complaining about the explanatory theory of evolution.
I don't really think there's a difference, mike.
quote:
If evolution is fact, though, does that encourage exploration of the origins of life,
Theories and discussion regarding the origin of life are largely separate from those involving the Theory of Evolution, because the ToE deals with life once it got here, not how it got here.
quote:
criticisms to evolution, and alternative theories?
You are confusing "fact" and "theory".
Yes, it is a fact that evolution happens. We observe the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. This is the fact of evolution.
The Theory of Evolution is the theoretical framework which explains all of the facts as we find them, organizing them into a coherent picture of what the facts tell us is going on. It is a "big picture" kind of idea.
While the fact of evolution is not at all in dispute, the Theory is certainly the topic of much testing, debate and criticism from within the scientific community. That's what scientists do; test theories to see if they break.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-24-2005 09:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 12:38 AM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 4:03 PM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 23 of 53 (194025)
03-24-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by commike37
03-24-2005 1:33 AM


You miss the beauty of my argument, though.
I see it, it's a way to make something really ugly look like it might be something decent. But it's obvious... because beauty is skin deep, and ugliness goes to the bone.
The movie is rejected due to economic reasons, not because of the "Creationist conspiracy."
Its neither. Controversies make money so its not economics. Bigots and morons don't need to get together and create a conspiracy in order to make ugly things happen.
Perhaps there are some cowards down there as well. I dunno. But in the world of film and entertainment there is no such thing as bad publicity. I mean let's get real, the IMAX theater? How many people were they generating regularly... and this notice wouldn't put more people in the seats?
Furthermore, you have not shown me a link between Creationists and both the benefits and opportunity costs of this dilemna, meaning that two of the three factors involved in this situation have no relevance to the Creationists.
Are you serious? Can you please explain what noncreationist would be so upset by the idea that they mention evolution, or HOW they mention evolution, in an IMAX production called Volcanoes of the Deep, that they'd skip seeing it?
Really, where do you see anyone outside of a creo stance getting upset and boycotting this movie?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 1:33 AM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 3:52 PM Silent H has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 53 (194062)
03-24-2005 2:22 PM


Thank God for New Orleans - and the Entergy Corp.
Here is the current list of films and showtimes at Imax New Orleans. The theatre is owned by the Entergy Corporation.
At least there is one oasis of sanity in the Deep South.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 53 (194100)
03-24-2005 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Silent H
03-24-2005 11:11 AM


I see it, it's a way to make something really ugly look like it might be something decent. But it's obvious... because beauty is skin deep, and ugliness goes to the bone.
An economic analysis is very neutral. Here's a quote from my economics textbook. "Economists are trained to put their emotions aside and ask: What are the costs of the policy, and what are the benefits?" I've been doing this with my analysis, but you obviously haven't put your emotions aside.
Its neither. Controversies make money so its not economics. Bigots and morons don't need to get together and create a conspiracy in order to make ugly things happen.
First off, I object to your portrayal of them as bigots and morons. Just because they disagree with you doesn't classify them as that.
Second, controversies don't necessarily lead to money. I already explained this in more detail in a previous post, but the controversy can also generate negative effects (ie: people choosing not to watch the movie). In the south, these negative effects will certainly outweigh any free advertising, and the IMAX filmmakers can't make profits without the South.
Are you serious? Can you please explain what noncreationist would be so upset by the idea that they mention evolution, or HOW they mention evolution, in an IMAX production called Volcanoes of the Deep, that they'd skip seeing it?
This controversy created by the Creationists specifically has to with the costs of showing the movie. You still haven't accounted for benefits and opportunity costs, as I have asked you to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 03-24-2005 11:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by CK, posted 03-24-2005 4:11 PM commike37 has not replied
 Message 29 by Silent H, posted 03-24-2005 4:37 PM commike37 has not replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 53 (194104)
03-24-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nator
03-24-2005 9:26 AM


Well, actually, regarding the study of life on Earth, it really is the "be-all and end-all", so to speak.
Well, it isn't really the "end-all", because it might be shown to be wrong at a later date.
But that's as likely to happen as the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar Syastem will be shown to be wrong at a later date.
You see, you're assuming on an evolution vs creation that evolution is a "be-all." That's a problem. And you also use an extreme analogy with the heliocrentric solar system.
Nah, we know that evolution really happens, and nobody has ever seen the Grail.
If it was presented accurately, then boo hoo to the people who didn't like it.
You may be correct in some empirical aspects, but to prevent a view that the entire world and the human race has resulted solely from the process of evolution really undercuts the evolution/creation controversy (which is what this board is all about).
I don't really think there's a difference [between an empirical and explanatory theory], mike.
Well, its good to see that you can undermine an article I have quoted with a simple "I don't think" statement, and that you have the credibility to do this without any sources.
Yes, it is a fact that evolution happens. We observe the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. This is the fact of evolution.
The Theory of Evolution is the theoretical framework which explains all of the facts as we find them, organizing them into a coherent picture of what the facts tell us is going on. It is a "big picture" kind of idea.
This film probably made a reference to the theory of evolution, because one of the complaints was about its outlook on human life. I've seen this again and again in movies in documentaries, where it says, "[something] resulted from the evolutionary process that started with simple protocells billions of years ago." If people want to object to that sort of presentation of evolution, then allow them to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 03-24-2005 9:26 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by CK, posted 03-24-2005 4:14 PM commike37 has not replied
 Message 36 by nator, posted 03-25-2005 8:54 AM commike37 has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 27 of 53 (194107)
03-24-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by commike37
03-24-2005 3:52 PM


quote:
You still haven't accounted for benefits and opportunity costs, as I have asked you to do.
Oh please... it looks like you know about three terms that you are going to repeat over and over again....
Don't berate people for something you haven't managed to do yourself.
So how have you performed this "cost-benefit" analysis?
Can you provide us the equations you have used in your model?
What is the methodology you have applied?
What are the figures you have plugged into this model?
What the implict economic assumptions that you have made?
What is your model specification?
What are the relationships between your variables (what ratios have you used)?
What time frame is of interest?
What assumptions have you made about the short-term future and it's affects on your variables?
IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY FIGURES YOU HAVE NOT PERFORMED AN ECONOMIC* COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS.
We don't let people call any old rubbish physics on this board so why the hell are we going to for economics?
* money-based as opposed to energy-based.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 24-Mar-2005 04:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 3:52 PM commike37 has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 28 of 53 (194108)
03-24-2005 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by commike37
03-24-2005 4:03 PM


quote:
An economic analysis is very neutral. Here's a quote from my economics textbook. "Economists are trained to put their emotions aside and ask: What are the costs of the policy, and what are the benefits?" I've been doing this with my analysis, but you obviously haven't put your emotions aside.
If you've studies economics - what are trying to pass that pisspoor rubbish off as an Cost-benefit analysis?
Go and read your textbook a bit more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 4:03 PM commike37 has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 29 of 53 (194123)
03-24-2005 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by commike37
03-24-2005 3:52 PM


An economic analysis is very neutral.
I'm sorry, I did not see an economic analysis of the situation. You have marketing demographics for the region as well as market surveys of the specific theater audiences as well as their likelihood to boycott based on "evolution"?
I can easily put my emotions aside for any analysis. Frankly I like analytical work. What I don't need to put my emotions aside for (though perhaps I should) is my responses.
Being a fan of Al Jaffe's Smart Answers to Stupid Questions, this tactic seemed pretty appropriate.
I object to your portrayal of them as bigots and morons. Just because they disagree with you doesn't classify them as that.
An adult who cannot watch a movie on volcanoes, specifically designed for the visual elements (that is all the IMAX is about), because of a few references to evolution is most certainly a bigot, or a moron. A bigot because their hatred is so consuming they cannot act reasonably, or a moron because they cannot separate what they watch from what they can be entertained by.
If they just happen to disagree with me, they'd simply go to the movie or not based on their interest of viewing humongous action images of volcanoes. If they went to see it, they'd say afterward "I'm not sure why they had to talk about evolution since it wasn't needed and/or accurate."
See that's what reasonable adults do.
controversies don't necessarily lead to money. I already explained this in more detail in a previous post, but the controversy can also generate negative effects
I used to live in a rube area, complete hickville. Every movie like "Last Temptation" and "Henry and June" would get picketed and this same mantra you just said would be carted out. Without question the publicity and controversy drew more crowds than the movies ever would have gotten otherwise.
Maybe you don't understand this about real world economics. Controversy can sell. Yes a crappy movie will end up falling on its own lack of merits, but controversy can bring it more initial viewers then it ever would have gotten. That's why crafty execs usually stir the pot for movies that are likely to fail by generating controversy.
Perhaps you could learn more by reading PT Barnum, than whatever economy textbook you have. Showmanship!
What I really love is the cul-de-sac reasoning. You: We cannot show the movie because people won't want to see it. Me: Yeah, but the controversy may draw in more people than it might usually attract. You: Yeah but the controversy might also have the negative effect of people not wanting to see it.
The people who wouldn't want to see it, will likely not come and the controversy is not likely to influence them in any way, except perhaps to have them come and picket. For those who would not care one way or the other, they are more likely to be drawn by the controversy (that is an added element of intrigue) than turned off. Heck, some may come just for the principle of supporting disliked art.
This controversy created by the Creationists specifically has to with the costs of showing the movie. You still haven't accounted for benefits and opportunity costs, as I have asked you to do.
Nice dodge.
One of your statemenst was that disinterst was not creationist driven and appeared to imply noncreos may have problems about the film as well. Whether the end factor to schedule the film is market driven or not, the PROBLEM OF PEOPLE NOT WANTING TO SEE THE MOVIE BECAUSE OF "EVOLUTION" BEING IN IT would still be CREATIONISTS!
It's great to see an enterprising young person (or old person, I dunno) whip out a text book and try to explain something away. Somewhere there is a spin room waiting.
Sorry for being overly sarcastic. However this is a pretty light topic in general, and I think the lengths being gone to in order to spin this issue, deserve a little extra needling.
In any case, I can't wait to see the regional and theater demographic analyses.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 3:52 PM commike37 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by MangyTiger, posted 03-24-2005 9:56 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 37 by nator, posted 03-25-2005 9:05 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 30 of 53 (194193)
03-24-2005 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by commike37
03-23-2005 9:41 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by commike37, posted 03-23-2005 9:41 PM commike37 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024