No US distributor will pick up Charles Darwin movie

[JustKate]

"Too controversial to show in the United States."

How can anybody fall for that?

Goooood question. I mean, it's absurd. If somebody thinks it will make money, they'll find a way to distribute it, no matter how many people hate it. If they don't think it'll make money, they won't. It's as simple as that.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I heard this on the Rachel Maddow show tonight. W. T. F???

That no company picked it up or that it was on the Rachel Maddox show?

I think no one picked it up because they figured it wouldn't play to the audiences here and wasn't worth the investment.

 

[Lookingglassman]

I think this has more to do with money, seriously, how many Americans that dont even believe in Creationism will pay to go see this movie? Most probably dont even know who Darwin is.

 

[Skywalker]

It's sad that The Passion of the Christ can be screened in this country, but not this movie.

 

[Miss Chicken]

This thread has made me recall something that was said many years ago.

In 1974 the City of Darwin was almost completely destroyed by a cyclone. The death toll was 71.

A minister of religion got on national TV and stated that the destruction of Darwin was a result of the city's name which was an insult to God and his ceation.

I wonder if the same thing would be said if Darwin was severely damage by a cyclone today?

 

[Aragorn]

It's sad that The Passion of the Christ can be screened in this country, but not this movie.

The Passion was distributed in the states by Newmarket, after all the other studios rejected it.

 

[Middle Earther]

It's sad that The Passion of the Christ can be screened in this country, but not this movie.

The Passion was distributed in the states by Newmarket, after all the other studios rejected it.

Gibson did a lot of the funding from his own pocket because Hollywood wouldn't touch it.

 

[Skywalker]

It's sad that The Passion of the Christ can be screened in this country, but not this movie.

The Passion was distributed in the states by Newmarket, after all the other studios rejected it.

It's sad that The Passion of the Christ can be screened in this country, but not this movie.

The Passion was distributed in the states by Newmarket, after all the other studios rejected it.

Gibson did a lot of the funding from his own pocket because Hollywood wouldn't touch it.

Yeah, I know, but it still managed to get released to a wide audience. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but I think Creation should be allowed the same chance.

Honestly, I wouldn't have cared about releasing either movie, regardless of my personal beliefs. There's way too much hand-wringing about not offending anybody in this country.

 

[chrisspringob]

"Too controversial to show in the United States."

How can anybody fall for that?

Goooood question. I mean, it's absurd. If somebody thinks it will make money, they'll find a way to distribute it, no matter how many people hate it. If they don't think it'll make money, they won't. It's as simple as that.

The complicating factor for controversial projects is that, even if the property in question makes money, there is the threat of negative publicity, boycotts, etc., that could hurt ticket sales for the distributor's other movies. I highly doubt this'll cause enough of a stir that that would be much of an issue, just thought it's not necessarily just a question of whether this pic will make $.

Incidentally, this story reminds me of the story from earlier in the year, about how, when Spielberg was considering doing a Lincoln biopic for his next project, he had problems finding a studio that would put up the $, because they're all thinking that no one cares about historical biopics anymore, and they can make more money off of comic book movies.

 

[Finnegan]

An outrage that a film with science at it's core, or at least a generally accepted scientific theory, cannot get backing for fear of offending the narrowminded.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Well, it's not as if the film would be in danger of not being made. It's already finished, isn't it?

I mean, if they're having problems getting it distributed in America...well, I hate to be blunt, but why is that such an outrage? No one should be forced to carry the film.

 

[Finnegan]

^ Well, it's not as if the film would be in danger of not being made. It's already finished, isn't it?

I mean, if they're having problems getting it distributed in America...well, I hate to be blunt, but why is that such an outrage? No one should be forced to carry the film.

A film that gets made is of little value if it cannot be seen. No company should be forced to distribute the film if they don't want to--that is not a workable solution, either. Maybe a straight to video release is the only option.
Hell, it's garnered some pretty good (and free) word of mouth already--it might be a decent seller and could be seen that way. Still, with all the controversy driving up the attention about this film, I'm sure somebody will wise up, sniff the bottom line, and decide to make some money off it, God be damned, so to speak....

 

[TGTheodore]

Perhaps it's just a crappy movie -- regardless of ideology.

The preponderance of crappy movies that easily find distributors would seem to disagree with you.

No, those are pre-packaged.

--Ted

 

[Aragorn]

Perhaps it's just a crappy movie -- regardless of ideology.

The preponderance of crappy movies that easily find distributors would seem to disagree with you.

Huh? Other than Freestyle thinking it was a good idea to distribute a couple Uwe Boll movies (and even spend money on a marketing campaign for Dungeon Siege), it's not like White Chicks, Deuce Bigalow and Meet the Spartans were picked up at Sundance.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Perhaps it's just a crappy movie -- regardless of ideology.

The preponderance of crappy movies that easily find distributors would seem to disagree with you.

Huh? Other than Freestyle thinking it was a good idea to distribute a couple Uwe Boll movies (and even spend money on a marketing campaign for Dungeon Siege), it's not like White Chicks, Deuce Bigalow and Meet the Spartans were picked up at Sundance.

I highly doubt that this is a crappy movie given it's critical response, but it wouldn't be the first crappy independent film or one shown at Sundance that found a distributor.

 

[T'Girl]

Oh and please keep this thread on topic. This isn't a Creation Vs Evolution thread.

While there's no doubt that there's way too many religious nuts who make way too big of a nuisance of themselves,

--- Real nice.

Only 39% of Americans believe in evolution?!?! How is that possible?!

--- Because it the only thing taught in schools with no other possible ideas taught along side it, students and adults feel that it a attempt at indoctrination. And reject it for that reason.

It's sad that The Passion of the Christ can be screened in this country, but not this movie.

--- "The passion of the christ" had a massive built in audience, people went - and took their children - to see it several times, not as entertainment, but as a form of religious instuction.

Gibson did a lot of the funding from his own pocket because Hollywood wouldn't touch it.

--- I heard he financed the whole thing.

An outrage that a film with science at it's core, or at least a generally accepted scientific theory

--- a scientific hypothesis at best, a theory can be repeatedly tested to prove or disprove it. If all you have are a series of observations that's a hypothesis.

 

[Chimpy Chompy]

--- Because it the only thing taught in schools with no other possible ideas taught along side it, students and adults feel that it a attempt at indoctrination. And reject it for that reason.

It is the only valid answer in science currently, and thus the only one that belongs in science class. Other ideas don't belong there. By all means stick them in religious studies or social studies or whatever tho.

I suppose that a general lack of understanding about what science is about, doesn't help. Science doesn't assert ultimate truths. It just provides provisional, working explanations. It's not indoctrination to educate children about those explanations.

--- a scientific hypothesis at best, a theory can be repeatedly tested to prove or disprove it. If all you have are a series of observations that's a hypothesis.

A theory succesfully describes the observed evidence. It's not a requirement to run experiments in a lab, that's just often an ideal we would wish for. Repeatedly describing naturally occuring phenomena in nature works too.

Or would you say that astronomy has no valid theories? I mean we're not building pulsars in the lab.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

--- "The passion of the christ" had a massive built in audience, people went - and took their children - to see it several times, not as entertainment, but as a form of religious instuction.

Well, yeah, I don't think anyone ever expected that movie to be entertaining. People went to see it so they could see, up close and personal, what Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was really like - and what it meant for all of us. If anyone thought that movie was *entertaining*, I'd recommend treatment.

And I doubt anyone will approach this Darwin movie as entertainment either, unless it turns out to be some soapish thing about his home life. (OTOH, while Passion might have been used as instruction in one way, this one will probably be used the other way, so to speak.) In any case, I personally will steer clear of the Darwin film, for reasons that I hope would be apparent.

I do find it ironic that a movie about Darwin is called Creation though. I suppose that's the point.

 

[Chimpy Chompy]

Actually i believe that Darwin's relationship with his deeply religious wife is indeed a central point to the film.

Passion of the Christ was a two hour session of legionaries beating the shit out of some poor guy. Was there a message in there beyond just showcasing peoples' capacity for brutality?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Well, yeah, I don't think anyone ever expected that movie to be entertaining. People went to see it so they could see, up close and personal, what Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was really like - and what it meant for all of us. If anyone thought that movie was *entertaining*, I'd recommend treatment.

I kept expecting that puppet mask from the 'Saw' movies to show up while they were torturing Jesus.