Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 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 31 of 53 (194208)
03-24-2005 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by commike37
03-24-2005 1:33 AM


Our new lineup of family science movies!
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

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

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 32 of 53 (194251)
03-24-2005 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Silent H
03-24-2005 4:37 PM


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 is only an opinion but I suspect the real issue isn't that people might not come to see this particular film - it is the fear of a larger boycott or picketing/protest impacting other films or even other activities of the companies that operate the IMAXs.

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Silent H, posted 03-24-2005 4:37 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Silent H, posted 03-25-2005 5:14 AM MangyTiger has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 33 of 53 (194369)
03-25-2005 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by MangyTiger
03-24-2005 9:56 PM


it is the fear of a larger boycott or picketing/protest impacting other films or even other activities of the companies that operate the IMAXs.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by MangyTiger, posted 03-24-2005 9:56 PM MangyTiger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Trae, posted 03-26-2005 2:45 AM Silent H has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 34 of 53 (194373)
03-25-2005 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
03-23-2005 9:49 PM


Razzing R.A.Z.D. up a bit!
RAZD writes:
does it matter whether they are from the christian right if they are from the ignorant wrong?
They just want to know enough science to reinforce their beliefs. They are not necessarily wrong.
false beliefs should not affect what is shown in science museums, or we better take the "science" off and put "dumbed down PC entertainment" in it's place
Hold it. Simplistic beliefs maybe. False? Unprovable as of yet.
Just my opinion, also. (Just messin with ya!)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our propensity to believe
ResearchUAlternative.ZeitguistUDemographics
{{{Buddha has a beer with Jesus}}}< !--UE-->
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-25-2005 05:01 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2005 9:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2005 7:36 AM Phat has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 53 (194377)
03-25-2005 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Phat
03-25-2005 6:53 AM


Re: Razzing R.A.Z.D. up a bit!
LOL
my point was that they didn't have to be fundamentalists to have wrong ideas about evolution, all they had to have were ignorant ideas.
this does not mean stupid, but uninformed.
perhaps I should have said false opinions rather than beliefs, as again beliefs involve more than religious ones. racial bigotry is a false belief and not {necessarily} religious.
nice signature!

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 03-25-2005 6:53 AM Phat has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 36 of 53 (194389)
03-25-2005 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by commike37
03-24-2005 4:03 PM


quote:
You see, you're assuming on an evolution vs creation that evolution is a "be-all."
I'm not "assuming".
It's a conclusion based upon 150 years and billions of individual tests of the theory.
quote:
That's a problem. And you also use an extreme analogy with the heliocrentric solar system.
See, it's NOT an extreme analogy at all.
Nobody has ever observed the entire solar system at once, so how is it that we are able to be positive that the sun is at the center of it?
The notion that the Earth was at the center of the entire universe, let alone our solar system, was common for quite some time. Copernicus came up with heliocentrism less than 300 years before Darwin published Origin.
the ToE has just as much, if not more in many cases, emperical support as any other theory in science, including the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System.
If it was presented accurately, then boo hoo to the people who didn't like it.
quote:
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).
So?
Was the information presented accurately?
BTW, do you now understand the difference between "theory" and "fact" as they are used in science?
If so, the boo hoo to the people who didn't like it.
I don't really think there's a difference [between an empirical and explanatory theory], mike.
quote:
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.
What article? I didn't see any citation.
quote:
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.
Nobody is saying that they aren't allowed to object.
What I am saying is, "If Evolution was presented accurately, boo hoo to the people who didn't like it."
It's too damn bad that some people are threatened by scientific findings. It's too bad that science contradicts their religious views.
Boo Hoo.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-25-2005 08:58 AM

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

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 37 of 53 (194392)
03-25-2005 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Silent H
03-24-2005 4:37 PM


quote:
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.
I had never heard of this IMAX movie before this controvosy brought it here, where it was brought to my attention.
Now I am considering going to see it if it is showing around here, just to see the mention of evolution for myself.
I wouldn't ordinarily go see a volcano movie, but now I'm considering it.
Indeed, when I was living in Philadelphia and Andres Serrano had pisschrist in an exhibition, I just had to go to see what all the fuss was about.
See, mike? MORE people hear about something, and consider going to see it, when there's controversy.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-25-2005 09:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Silent H, posted 03-24-2005 4:37 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2005 9:35 PM nator has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 38 of 53 (194547)
03-25-2005 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by nator
03-25-2005 9:05 AM


just venting ...
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.
Using the word "volcanoes" is playing to sensationalism imho
I agree, I have more interest in seeing this movie now as well. Hard not to, seeing as I hadn't heard about it before, so any interest is an increase eh?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 03-25-2005 9:05 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Trae, posted 03-26-2005 2:55 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 39 of 53 (194551)
03-25-2005 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trae
03-23-2005 6:38 PM


Update!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trae, posted 03-23-2005 6:38 PM Trae has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 40 of 53 (194581)
03-26-2005 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Silent H
03-25-2005 5:14 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Silent H, posted 03-25-2005 5:14 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 03-26-2005 4:29 AM Trae has replied

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


Message 41 of 53 (194583)
03-26-2005 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by RAZD
03-25-2005 9:35 PM


Re: just venting ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2005 9:35 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2005 10:30 AM Trae has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 42 of 53 (194608)
03-26-2005 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Trae
03-26-2005 2:45 AM


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.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Trae, posted 03-26-2005 2:45 AM Trae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Trae, posted 03-26-2005 12:37 PM Silent H has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 43 of 53 (194649)
03-26-2005 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Trae
03-26-2005 2:55 AM


Re: just venting ...
seeing as most of these life forms use a sulfide base for energy transport rather than oxygen, and that early life was anaerobic (no oxygen), and that most of the articles dealing with these life forms make mention of these facts, and then discuss it as possible clues to early life beginnings, I would find it hard to imagine discussing them without discussing this topic.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Trae, posted 03-26-2005 2:55 AM Trae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Trae, posted 03-26-2005 11:54 AM RAZD has not replied

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


Message 44 of 53 (194666)
03-26-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
03-26-2005 10:30 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2005 10:30 AM RAZD has not replied

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


Message 45 of 53 (194673)
03-26-2005 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Silent H
03-26-2005 4:29 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 03-26-2005 4:29 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2005 4:13 PM Trae has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024