Kirk Cameron must be stopped

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Finny61

^What if the movie actually just sucks (for movie-goers), seriously, bad acting, directing, screenplay or script, no action, nothing compelling, something.

Definitely could be, like I said I'm not convinced its just about it being Darwin, but I do think its a part of the reason. Especially that seemingly all the other countries seem to be picking it up.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Finny61

Sure but what about DaVinci Code? I'm confident that created a firestorm with religious groups but it did fairly well in the theatres. I understand there might be some portectionism in the US but still, stuff gets on the screen. I assume this protectionism angle is what you are looking at.

Well Davinci Code had 'splosions and murder and stuff.. plus the novel was a huge best seller so they knew there would be an audience for it.

Originally Posted by Finny61

^What if the movie actually just sucks (for movie-goers), seriously, bad acting, directing, screenplay or script, no action, nothing compelling, something.

Could be, though by the accounts I read it's good, just slow.. biography kind of movie.

If they distribute Dragonball and similar horrible movies that can't be the reason for not picking this one up.

In reality the answer is probably complicated, a combination of many different things.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think the point has more to do with the distributors in the US feeling that the movie won't make them any money than it does with the movie being pro-evolution.

For sure, but the reason they don't think it'll make money is that a significant segment of the population would regard it in the same they would a movie that paints Stalin in a good light. And that segment is disproportionately noisy.

[Cheese]

More Tubers from the lovely blonde Romanian

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Finny61

^What if the movie actually just sucks (for movie-goers), seriously, bad acting, directing, screenplay or script, no action, nothing compelling, something.

That's generally it . . . . . if it can make a buck in America, someone is going to flog it, regardless of content.

In a similar vein, I guess I'll leave it up to you to figure out the merit of the message being delivered by the public if some garage band the music snobs on the board believe is better than Nickleback, the guys who sell all the records.

Cowperson

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

That's generally it . . . . . if it can make a buck in America, someone is going to flog it, regardless of content.

In a similar vein, I guess I'll leave it up to you to figure out the merit of the message being delivered by the public if some garage band the music snobs on the board might favour, is better than Nickleback, the guys who sell all the records.

Cowperson

Some positive reviews:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1205717-creation/

Release date in UK is Sept 25th:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0974014/

Expelled grossed $7.7 M in the US, released in 1,052 theaters:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm

[troutman]

Update:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0974014/news#ni1019954

Remember last week, when the producers behind the Paul Bettany movie Creation were blaming American fundamentalist Christians? And remember how I kinda figured it was because it wasn't any good, given the largely bored response at Toronto? Now the producers will have to find something else to blame for their movie's lack of success; Newmarket Films has picked up Creation for distribution, according to THR. The indie distributor plans to put the movie in theaters around Christmas, which is good timing for the kind of movie that would want Oscar buzz, but hilarious given the fact that Christians are bound to hate it. Now we'll see if they can combat the bad Toronto buzz between now and the December release.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

That's generally it . . . . . if it can make a buck in America, someone is going to flog it, regardless of content.

In a similar vein, I guess I'll leave it up to you to figure out the merit of the message being delivered by the public if some garage band the music snobs on the board believe is better than Nickleback, the guys who sell all the records.

Cowperson

The public is delivering the message that the public, as a whole, has bad taste. As to the merit of it, well, it's true. We all know it.

And the movie business makes mistakes all the time. We don't know this movie wouldn't make money in the States if it found a distributor. At least one of those distributors is going to take a bath on some crappy movie that they release tomorrow. Next week it might be someone else's turn.

edit: looks like we'll find out

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I think it's too bad that the conversation has gone into the topic of censorship, which is in a lot of ways an easier issue to settle. Obviously part of the negative cost of free speech is that from time to time we have to listen to cretins like Kirk Cameron flogging their snake oil on public airways. That's just how it works--it's the price we pay for being able to say whatever we want to, when we want to say it.

In fact, the real counter-action to someone like Kirk Cameron is not censorship: it's ridicule.

Kirk Cameron has every right to be an idiot. We also have every right to call him an idiot, and to make fun of him for his utterly risible ideas. That's called the marketplace of ideas, and if it works as it should, eventually the truth will win out, and morons like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron will sink into infamy and obscurity, which is where they belong.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think it's too bad that the conversation has gone into the topic of censorship, which is in a lot of ways an easier issue to settle. Obviously part of the negative cost of free speech is that from time to time we have to listen to cretins like Kirk Cameron flogging their snake oil on public airways. That's just how it works--it's the price we pay for being able to say whatever we want to, when we want to say it.

In fact, the real counter-action to someone like Kirk Cameron is not censorship: it's ridicule.

Kirk Cameron has every right to be an idiot. We also have every right to call him an idiot, and to make fun of him for his utterly risible ideas. That's called the marketplace of ideas, and if it works as it should, eventually the truth will win out, and morons like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron will sink into infamy and obscurity, which is where they belong.

To some degree I agree with this statement - BUT - ridicule as a tool is one of the biggest reasons the debate in this society has reached such toxic levels. To use a political example, ridicule by republicans of democrats and vice versa has lead to a very polarized public, one where people cannot agree with each other on some topics, and then disagree with each other on others, because the debate has become very personal, mean, and vicious. Ridicule also leads to attacking the method of the argument, instead of the substance of the argument, which is also not healthy. If someone who is not very good at public speaking has a good idea, or an interesting way of thinking of things, yet presents it poorly, all too often if it doesn't sound like what someone wants to hear, he then makes fun of it.


I used to argue with someone who would make a point, I would make a counter point, then he would push my buttons till I got flustered, then, because I got flustered, he would declare victory in the argument, without addressing the substance of my point - or even of his own point. That's not constructive, it just made me mad. He "won" because he was better at mocking, not because his argument was more valid. I don't think that's what you were advocating, but that's how it works.



I'm not saying that you shouldn't use ridicule, just that it doesn't work as well as many people think, and the side effects are very bad. If you want to change someone's mind, the last thing you want to do is to mock them - people aren't willing to listen to that. It tends to escalate things, which only makes the situation you were trying to solve worse.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Knalus

To some degree I agree with this statement - BUT - ridicule as a tool is one of the biggest reasons the debate in this society has reached such toxic levels. To use a political example, ridicule by republicans of democrats and vice versa has lead to a very polarized public, one where people cannot agree with each other on some topics, and then disagree with each other on others, because the debate has become very personal, mean, and vicious. Ridicule also leads to attacking the method of the argument, instead of the substance of the argument, which is also not healthy. If someone who is not very good at public speaking has a good idea, or an interesting way of thinking of things, yet presents it poorly, all too often if it doesn't sound like what someone wants to hear, he then makes fun of it.


I used to argue with someone who would make a point, I would make a counter point, then he would push my buttons till I got flustered, then, because I got flustered, he would declare victory in the argument, without addressing the substance of my point - or even of his own point. That's not constructive, it just made me mad. He "won" because he was better at mocking, not because his argument was more valid. I don't think that's what you were advocating, but that's how it works.



I'm not saying that you shouldn't use ridicule, just that it doesn't work as well as many people think, and the side effects are very bad. If you want to change someone's mind, the last thing you want to do is to mock them - people aren't willing to listen to that. It tends to escalate things, which only makes the situation you were trying to solve worse.

That's a very fair point, and to a certain extent, I do agree. Honest political debate should be held through a process of clarifying each other's view points and identifying areas of agreement or disagreement. That doesn't mean you have to be "nice"--it's okay to illustrate clear contrasts between your opposition and yourself.

But in the case of Kirk Cameron and his ilk, he's made it pretty clear that debate is impossible, because he refuses to make any effort to understand the arguments of his opponents. Worse than that, he and his crew have shown a willingness to play fast and loose with facts when it suits them. To put it mildly, his ideas are laughable--and he himself is a drooling cretin.

To not say these things--just because we want to be polite relativists accepting the possible truth of any viewpoint--is unproductive. There is such a thing as truth--and not just anyone can be the arbiter of it. If a person runs around saying "the sky is made of polka dot cheese!"--do we "respect their different beliefs and treat them as equal partners in debate"?

No. We say "that's insane. You're an idiot."

Kirk Cameron is an idiot--and the interests of good political debate are best served by saying so. The marketplace of ideas dictates that the most risible ideas will sink to the bottom of the stew and be forgotten, but only if we allow honest exchange to take place--even if not everybody likes the outcome.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think it's too bad that the conversation has gone into the topic of censorship, which is in a lot of ways an easier issue to settle. Obviously part of the negative cost of free speech is that from time to time we have to listen to cretins like Kirk Cameron flogging their snake oil on public airways. That's just how it works--it's the price we pay for being able to say whatever we want to, when we want to say it.

In fact, the real counter-action to someone like Kirk Cameron is not censorship: it's ridicule.

Kirk Cameron has every right to be an idiot. We also have every right to call him an idiot, and to make fun of him for his utterly risible ideas. That's called the marketplace of ideas, and if it works as it should, eventually the truth will win out, and morons like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron will sink into infamy and obscurity, which is where they belong.

I don't think a single poster was in favour of censorship at any point in this entire debate. I was accused of it, but in fact I was saying pretty much what you are saying.