Darwin Movie not picked up in America

[Talbaz]

Not sure if this has found it way here yet but

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...s-America.html

Interesting, kinda of sad i would have like to seen it personally, thank you to all the dumb in my country, really.

Anywho what are your thoughts and as always /discuss

[Exarch]

how USA ever became a superpower with such imbeciles holding such power is a mystery to me

[Gaidin]

how USA ever became a superpower with such imbeciles holding such power is a mystery to me

What power?

This was movie companies not taking a movie they think they will lose resources to.

[Yojimbo]

how USA ever became a superpower with such imbeciles holding such power is a mystery to me

Yeah they know its wrong, it can be proved its wrong and yet they still cling to their ancient way of being controlled.

[Dr. Croccer]

What a bunch of pathetic fundies.

[TWoxy]

...With a typical comment dismissing evolution as "a silly theory with a serious lack of evidence to support it despite over a century of trying".

[Strelok]

[Poach]

Nay, good sir. The fail present in this incident transcends a double facepalm.

[Talbaz]

Nay, good sir. The fail present in this incident transcends a double facepalm.

i was thinking this personally

[motiv-8]

I'll never understand it. Maybe it's just me, but I have no problems with sitting in a church talking about evolution.

Anywho what are your thoughts and as always /discuss

My thoughts? Read a book if you want to learn about Darwin. Like On the Origin of Species.

[Tiberius Tosi]

Sorry, but in America the government does not choose what movies are shown and what are not. It clearly says no distributor would pick it up, meaning no PRIVATE enterprise thought it was worth it to distribute the movie.

[Syron]

Sorry, but in America the government does not choose what movies are shown and what are not. It clearly says no distributor would pick it up, meaning no PRIVATE enterprise thought it was worth it to distribute the movie.

Precisely, if they thought it would make money they would pick it up. I find it hard to believe they wouldn't simply because the issue is controversial in America, controversy sells........

[PointOfViewGun]

Sorry, but in America the government does not choose what movies are shown and what are not. It clearly says no distributor would pick it up, meaning no PRIVATE enterprise thought it was worth it to distribute the movie.

That's probably much worse than a government censoring it.

[Tiberius Tosi]

That's probably much worse than a government censoring it.

Private investors did not think it was worth the money, how is that worse than government censorship. This more or less proves that it was just a bad movie, as were it a good movie it would be highly controversial and get a big buzz about it which = box office tickets.

[Phier]

Private investors did not think it was worth the money, how is that worse than government censorship. This more or less proves that it was just a bad movie, as were it a good movie it would be highly controversial and get a big buzz about it which = box office tickets.

You mean like they are trying to do now?

I think the official term for what they are doing would be 'being played'.

US is the biggest single movie market out there. This movie would be a dog, most people just don't have the education to care enough to shell out what a movie theater charges, so lets claim censorship due to fundies.

Someone is now going to pick it up, at a high asking price, and off it goes.

[PointOfViewGun]

Private investors did not think it was worth the money, how is that worse than government censorship. This more or less proves that it was just a bad movie, as were it a good movie it would be highly controversial and get a big buzz about it which = box office tickets.

Because it means that the government doesn't really need to censor it itself. The public itself already accepted the dogmas and are in no way interested in understanding of different ideas and well scientific facts. Such a society is simply rotten and highly ignorant. It's much much worse.

[Phier]

Because it means that the government doesn't really need to censor it itself. The public itself already accepted the dogmas and are in no way interested in understanding of different ideas and well scientific facts. Such a society is simply rotten and highly ignorant. It's much much worse.

Hello hello, is this thing on?!

Long after his death, Charles Darwin continues to stir up fuss over his landmark theories of evolution, and the producers of TIFF Opening Night Film Creation are clearly hoping to milk said fuss for all the Stateside distribution it's worth.

The Telegraph of the UK has producer Jeremy Thomas on the record as saying, "It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about." He then cites early rave reviews, including anonymous word-of-mouth calling it "the best film they've seen all year", the Hollywood Reporter's positive reaction and the Telegraph's own 300-word review -- accessible through the sponsored page of content linked within the article.

But many critics have simply found the film to be too much of a bore to merit controversy. The A.V. Club's Noel Murray said, "for the most part Creation is Biopic 101, earnest and over-explained." Eric Kohn at Indiewire called it "a dry period piece missing crucial information," while Anne Thompson went with "flat, dull, and painful to sit through." And Ebert? Well, he's basically said that he'll hold his opinion until the film opens, a date which remains to be determined.

At least his non-review can claim to run twice as long as the Telegraph's unabashed praise.

http://www.cinematical.com/2009/09/1...ontroversy-to/

[Tiberius Tosi]

Because it means that the government doesn't really need to censor it itself. The public itself already accepted the dogmas and are in no way interested in understanding of different ideas and well scientific facts. Such a society is simply rotten and highly ignorant. It's much much worse.

As I stated in an earlier post, 60% believe in evolution in the US (30% believe God had a force or helping hand behind it, hence the creation of humans) so that is hardly the majority that don't believe in Evolution. Perhaps it is the movie itself that is not good, and so no one was willing to risk the high asking price to buy the rights to show it in the US (the US is the highest grossing country and costs a lot to get rights to show in) because they didn't think the movie was good enough to make a profit.

Controversy over the movie would only make those that would generally not care to see the movie only want to see it more. Sure you would get protests, but so did you for The Last Temptation of Christ, The Davinci Code, Passion of the Christ, and all them did great in box office sales. Perhaps the movie is seen as too dry and talky talky for American audiences, so it would not receive good sales and would not be worth the high buying price.

[Farnan]

A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer.

Maybe its because maybe the movie sucks...

Anyways too controversial is never a reason that a movie isn't picked. The Da Vinci Code has a sequel, movies about 9-11 have been made, Brokeback Mountain had its controversy. Hollywood loves controversial movies.

[My Favorite Martian]

It's a nice movie suited for TV early evening.