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)