Creationists take their fight to the really big screen.

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. 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? 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)

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. 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. 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. 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)

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.In any case, it would definitely take a bunch of creos some planning together to create largescale boycotts and pickets. Commik can't have it both ways on that issue.

---

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

That's a good point, though I guess the next best analogy would be art museums, and schraf's example of the piss-christ (and I myself have known others) is that controversy still draws crowds.Some will come to see the hype, some will come just to see what people are talking about, and some will come just to piss any protesters off. That's three more reasons than people originally had for going.Frankly if we are discussing whether science museums should be showing the movie, then my question is what on earth is the problem? When did science become a whim of public opinion? Are they seriously going to take down mentioning the earth is round if flatearthers fill out enough cards saying they don't like that idea? How about heliocentric theory?As soon as a SCIENCE museum gives in to public hysteria and so downplays current scientific models, it is time to stop calling it a science museum.

---

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