Darwin drama Creation spooks U.S. distributors

[lord_feldon]

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tiff/story/20...n-none-us.html

Creation, which opened the Toronto International Film Festival last week, might be winning favourable early reviews, but its still-controversial protagonist — naturalist Charles Darwin — has prevented the film from snagging U.S. distribution, according to one of its producers.

[snapdragonfly]

Yeah, Rachel Maddow just did a thing on that. It was funny and pointed but that this is even "controversial" anymore is...mind blowing.

I think Darwin got it wrong - I think the human race is de-volving!!

[AnglRdr]

I read about this earlier. Quite honestly, I think it has been passed on by US distributors because, really, what is the film-going audience for a movie about Charles Darwin likely to be?

I don't think the problem is that evolution is controversial; I think the problem is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. FWIW.

[snapdragonfly]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

I read about this earlier. Quite honestly, I think it has been passed on by US distributors because, really, what is the film-going audience for a movie about Charles Darwin likely to be?

I don't think the problem is that evolution is controversial; I think the problem is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. FWIW.

That was one of the jokes that Maddow made about it. How droves of children would flock to the theater to be exposed to *horror* EVOLUTIONARY THEORY because nothing is more fascinating to them than movies about some 19th century scientist's day to day futzing around. (or something like that, I was in the other room organizing gift wraps, but the gist of it I got was pretty funny)

[Simply Madeline]

Exactly. A film about a scientist who is neither a) schizophrenic/physically disabled nor b) studying sex and/or making sexytime with a hot lady scientist = box office poison.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

I read about this earlier. Quite honestly, I think it has been passed on by US distributors because, really, what is the film-going audience for a movie about Charles Darwin likely to be?

I don't think the problem is that evolution is controversial; I think the problem is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. FWIW.

I thought Hollyweird wouldn't make the same mistake twice after passing on the edge of your seat thrill ride that was Helvetica: The Movie. I guess I was wrong. And therefore so is evolution.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

I read about this earlier. Quite honestly, I think it has been passed on by US distributors because, really, what is the film-going audience for a movie about Charles Darwin likely to be?

I don't think the problem is that evolution is controversial; I think the problem is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. FWIW.

Yeah, I'm a huge fan of Charles Darwin (I'm considering some day taking a trip based on the book Darwin Slept Here), but this movie doesn't really look like something I want to watch.

On the other hand, I think that all the sappy, inspirational, based-on-a-true-story movies about troubled kids in small town high school football teams go on to become major sports stars should be replaced with sappy, inspirational, based-on-a-true-story movies about poor kids who go on to become world famous scientists.

[MidgardDragon]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

I read about this earlier. Quite honestly, I think it has been passed on by US distributors because, really, what is the film-going audience for a movie about Charles Darwin likely to be?

I don't think the problem is that evolution is controversial; I think the problem is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. FWIW.

Lots and lots of boring and crappy films get US distributors, easily. The problem here is that people are too afraid of the ultra-right-wing Bible Thumping Literalists who equate fantasy with reality. It's the same thing with the movie release of The Da Vinci Code. Yes, that movie wasn't very good either, but it created massive controversy because *gasp* teh poor wittle Cwistians were offended. I'd say this controversy, if it ever finds a distributor, will boost this films numbers greatly even if it's a boring biopic (and most biopics are, so yeah). But it's still sad as hell that we live in a world where a man who made such a great leap in Science is considered a devil person. We might as well be living in the middle ages and still saying the Earth is flat.

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by MidgardDragon

Lots and lots of boring and crappy films get US distributors, easily. The problem here is that people are too afraid of the ultra-right-wing Bible Thumping Literalists who equate fantasy with reality. It's the same thing with the movie release of The Da Vinci Code. Yes, that movie wasn't very good either, but it created massive controversy because *gasp* teh poor wittle Cwistians were offended.

DaVinci Code was a best-selling book, though, too, before it was made into a film.

Considering there are anti-religious movies that do get distribution, I am going to stick with my original "lack of broad appeal" position.

Also, I want to say that the producer is a big freaking crybaby. The TFF is still going on; it's not too late for him to find a distributor. And not every film gets distribution right away; it's an expensive proposition, and it would just be stupid business to invest that kind of money on a film that may not see a decent, if any, ROI.

[ETA: I think I would like to see this film, but I can guarantee I am not going to pay $10 to see it at the megaplex, or $15 at the art house.]

[Il-Mari]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

DaVinci Code was a best-selling book, though, too, before it was made into a film.

Considering there are anti-religious movies that do get distribution, I am going to stick with my original "lack of broad appeal" position.

Worse than that, what I've heard from several critics is that it's just too much of a standard, run-of-the-mill biopic without much in terms of interesting style or profound content.

The subject matter doesn't even matter as much if it simply isn't that great a film - not that biopics are usually big moneymakers anyway.

- Il-Mari

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by snapdragonfly

. . . I think Darwin got it wrong - I think the human race is de-volving!!

We're simply moving into an ecological niche in which the capacity for intelligence no longer provides a survival benefit commensurate with the high metabolic costs associated with a large brain. Much as was depicted in the Matrix movies: you don't need remote data-processing capacity when you are an end node in an information matrix. We need enough intelligence to press the channel-selector button on the tv remote control, but no more...

Silas

[snapdragonfly]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

We're simply moving into an ecological niche in which the capacity for intelligence no longer provides a survival benefit commensurate with the high metabolic costs associated with a large brain. Much as was depicted in the Matrix movies: you don't need remote data-processing capacity when you are an end node in an information matrix. We need enough intelligence to press the channel-selector button on the tv remote control, but no more...

Silas

On that note, did you ever see "Idiocracy"?

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by snapdragonfly

On that note, did you ever see "Idiocracy"?

I'd never heard of it before... I just looked it up on the IMDB... Is it pretty good? From the synopsis, it looks like it could be either very good or very bad! On the snapdragonfly ratings chart, how many stars? The premise certainly is cute!

(The last movie I saw was "Plan 9 From Outer Space," so, even if a movie is very bad, I'll still sometimes watch it!)

Silas

[Plurabelle]

I really hope we never get to the point where Darwin movies become fascinating in and of themselves, without benefit of cheating wives, mental delusions, etc. Indeed I hope they remain as conceptually boring as Newton explaining calculus--i.e. a foregone conclusion, if not one that requires some intellect to comprehend. He lead a pretty uninteresting life as blockbuster movies go and if we regress to the point where evolution is considered a form of laffs I will mourn our society.

[Errata]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

I'd never heard of it before... I just looked it up on the IMDB... Is it pretty good? From the synopsis, it looks like it could be either very good or very bad! On the snapdragonfly ratings chart, how many stars? The premise certainly is cute!

I think it's entertaining, but "good" might be a stretch. For a movie that is pro-intelligence, it isn't all that smart itself. It's funny though.

[snapdragonfly]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

I'd never heard of it before... I just looked it up on the IMDB... Is it pretty good? From the synopsis, it looks like it could be either very good or very bad! On the snapdragonfly ratings chart, how many stars? The premise certainly is cute!

(The last movie I saw was "Plan 9 From Outer Space," so, even if a movie is very bad, I'll still sometimes watch it!)

Silas

It's by Mike Judge - if you like King of the Hill (and I really do) it was pretty good. I don't know what the story is on why it got sort of screwed over in distribution, release, and promotion - maybe it's too close to the truth! It's one of those movies that has all kinds of funny stuff going on in the backgrounds.

I'd recommend it. Typical Mike Judge rather slyly stinging but funny commentary on humanity. 3 out of 4 stars I'd say.

[bufungla]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

I'd never heard of it before... I just looked it up on the IMDB... Is it pretty good? From the synopsis, it looks like it could be either very good or very bad! On the snapdragonfly ratings chart, how many stars? The premise certainly is cute!

(The last movie I saw was "Plan 9 From Outer Space," so, even if a movie is very bad, I'll still sometimes watch it!)

Silas

From what I've seen of it, it's an updated version of The Marching Morons by C. M. Kornbluth, only without the grim ending. Also, from what I can tell, Kornbluth gets no credit for the premise of the story.

[Troberg]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

We're simply moving into an ecological niche in which the capacity for intelligence no longer provides a survival benefit commensurate with the high metabolic costs associated with a large brain. Much as was depicted in the Matrix movies: you don't need remote data-processing capacity when you are an end node in an information matrix. We need enough intelligence to press the channel-selector button on the tv remote control, but no more...

Silas

Kurt Vonnegut explored the same subject in Galapagos, and came to the conclusion that out intelligence was our greatest flaw.