|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists take their fight to the really big screen. | |||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4306 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6353 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
RAZD writes: They just want to know enough science to reinforce their beliefs. They are not necessarily wrong.
does it matter whether they are from the christian right if they are from the ignorant 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I'm not "assuming". It's a conclusion based upon 150 years and billions of individual tests of the theory.
quote: 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: 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: What article? I didn't see any citation.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4306 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
I found the following:
quote: So this seems more based on a sample audience than actual unsolicited complaints. This was a question I wondered about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4306 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4306 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4306 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Excellent points. It’ll be great when someone here sees, or someone on the web actually posts what the film says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4306 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024