Chris Mooney is a freelance writer and the author of two books, 
...by Greg Laden. Or as one of my own commenters put it, "Either you really are just fucking stupid, or you're a closet creationist in this blog group. Pick one." I won't be deleting that comment despite the profanity, because I want to have it all on the record--the record of what now happens at ScienceBlogs if you say certain thing that people don't want to hear.
All this happened, I suppose, because I dared to point out the obvious: Expelled is a success. I mean, it's the eighth highest grossing political documentary of all time...after its first week. Randy Olson of course knows this, because he's, like, a filmmaker.
But go ahead, ignore Olson. Keep on firing inward. Beat up on me. Call me (the author of The Republican War on Science) a creationist.
This abuse will not stop me from continuing to call for serious introspection about the massive communication crisis we're facing in the science world.
Education & Careers
Politics
Comments
No one seriously thinks your a creationist, just that you are capable of quite terrifyingly poor framing for an expert on it.
Calling a propaganda piece by those you oppose a "success" is poor framing, especially when the producers gave objective quantities by which its success could be measured, which they failed to meet by a factor of at least 4.
Posted by: Mark Norris | April 21, 2008 9:08 AM
Chris: "This abuse will not stop me from continuing to call for serious introspection about the massive communication crisis we're facing in the science world."
You are free to call as much as you want. However, if those who should (in your opinion) do the introspection don't take you seriously, what's the use in whining?
Time to develop frames that make people trust that you really know what you are saying?
Posted by: Matti K. | April 21, 2008 9:32 AM
da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-daa-daaa-daa-daa
Posted by: PhysioProf | April 21, 2008 9:37 AM
Attached is a post from Ed Braytons' blog which is in total disagreement with Mr. Mooneys assessment of Expelled. Mr. Brayton is, like Mr. Mooney not a scientist and is no acolyte of PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins. I would accept his take on the movie over someone who is obsessed with the alleged expertise of Prof. Matt Nisbet.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/04/expelled_flops_at_box_office.php#more
Posted by: SLC | April 21, 2008 9:43 AM
Why is it that when you put your foot in your mouth and people call you on it you selectively quote the worst of the critiques and then quickly brush them aside with all of the others? Cherry picking and poisoning the well are denialist tactics. You should be above that.
Why don't you take on the moderate criticisms leveled by PZ, Orac and Kevin in the previous post? Why did you post it as "just the facts" and ignore all contradictory facts?
Posted by: Jim RL | April 21, 2008 9:46 AM
I was expecting you to explain why you framed Expelled's takings as a success rather than a failure (by the producers own standards!), or to just admit that you'd made a mistake (we all make them from time-to-time). I certainly wasn't expecting you to cry "I'm right, you're wrong, and you're being meeeeaaan".
And I can't believe you mentioned the troll who called you a creationist! Trolls are to be ignored, not to add weight to your tales of persecution. WE ignored him.
Look what you've done. You've ignored all of your constructive commenters, and focused on a troll and a post by Greg (who, lets face it, hasn't liked you for a long time, has he?). What impression do you think people will get from that?
Posted by: MH | April 21, 2008 9:50 AM
We can spin the success or the failure of expelled either way. I don't agree with those who have called it a "flop". It may yet be; but the opening weekend was quite respectable. Not as good as they hoped, perhaps, but it got to a record breaking number of theaters; and the return per theater was in the low end, but certainly not bottoming out. I very much doubt they've made money on it; but I don't think that was the objective. They've been throwing money at this with a view, I suspect, to making an impact no matter what it costs. And they did get that.
Any genuine attempt to deal with the facts must deal with the record breaking number of theaters and the high absolute box office takings, and ALSO with the comparatively low return per theater, the drop in numbers as the weekend progressed, and the absolutely dreadful reviews that have been obtained.
In my view, this was bound to be a "success" to some level. The push for this result has been intense, and the marketing to a ready audience of dupes was bound to make an impact. There's no vindication here whatever for your curious claims about Expelled and publicity over the last few months.
I think, frankly, it is just the reverse. The extraordinarily bad reviews are due, in my view, in no small part to the tireless work of the NCSE, and of a host of bloggers: PZ Myers especially. Richard Dawkins also has helped, but PZ Myers has been just tremendous in this. You've been no help at all.
I'm usually critical of PZ Myers' approach to religion; but his approach to Expelled has been the perfect example we all should be supporting of how to frame the response. He's said virtually nothing about religion; the frame has persistently been that this is a dreadfully bad movie by dishonest scoundrels. And now, as the reviews come out, we see the same message. That's GOOD, and PZ Myers deserves from you a plain "I was wrong" admission.
Instead, we got from you an unadorned endorsement for Expelled's success. That was a creationist apologetic. You may feel it was justified, and if so you're also being stupid about it. I'm tremendously saddened by this, frankly, because you are simply not getting this AT ALL; and that's tragic. But it can't be fixed just by telling you you're okay.
You're a good guy, and you've done good work in the past, and you've made a total hash of things in the recent past.
Your attempt to recover from the framing debacle recently was horrible. Despite countless requests for actual substance on the specifics of the various claims you made explicit in posts, you never ever got around to that; but just tried to rebuild the whole framing debate from the ground up. Nothing really new, no lessons learned, no indication of any error you might have made except that you failed to get the message across. But that wasn't really the problem. You failed, Chris, because you were so often flatly incorrect in the specifics; not just because you failed to explain yourself well enough.
My own attempt to make a positive suggestion on framing is now up at my blog. It is Thank you, Sir David Attenborough. I've been pretty hard on you here, but even so, I would be interested to know what you think of the idea that David Attenborough is an good example of great framing.
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | April 21, 2008 9:59 AM
And with this post, you have now completely and utterly lost whatever remained of the respect I once had for you. To take one single comment from a lengthy thread and use it to trivialize all of the more thoughtful comments disagreeing with you is simply reprehensible. I see now that, to you, "framing" means behaving like creationists, anti-vaccinationists, and all the other dishonest cranks. Sorry, but I'm not going to surrender my ethics like that.
Posted by: tonyl | April 21, 2008 9:59 AM
Chris, as SLC suggests, look at Ed's post. You've both posted about exactly the same thing, and yet they are framed completely differently. You both posted "just the facts", but only one could be passed off on a creationist site.
Remember, I'm not calling you a creationist or a creation apologist, I'm just saying that your post could appear on a creationist site and wouldn't look out of place. Surely you must see that? We're just trying to understand how your post came about. Please don't do a Michael Dunn on us.
Posted by: MH | April 21, 2008 10:02 AM
However one feels about Chris' and Randy's assessment of the Expelled box office receipts, you've got to admit that Laden's post is one for Carnival of the Demented Wackaloon.
Posted by: cobbler | April 21, 2008 10:04 AM
I will answer the substantive point. I don't find Ed's post at all persuasive. If you compare Stein to the single most successful political documentarian ever, Michael Moore, then no, Ben Stein hasn't beaten him after one week.
In other words, if you define success as something virtually impossible to attain, then no, Ben Stein did not succeed.
Posted by: Chris C. Mooney | April 21, 2008 10:06 AM
Chris, Expelled's take in theaters falls far, far short of what they were expecting, and given the heavy marketing towards the already-convinced it's doubtful that the measly $3 mil came from a broad audience. Rather, I wouldn't be surprised if most of that came from churches--ie, people who already believe it anyways. Given how much they spent on production and marketing, will this movie turn a profit? Hard to tell at this point. They're gonna have to sustain the momentum for several weeks to make a profit. We'll just have to wait and see whether that happens.
But I see no reason to think it's a success. Its ranking at Box Office Mojo is completely and utterly irrelevant. Why would that even matter? Their goal was not to make a list at a box office statistics website. Their goal was to spread their message, and I don't see evidence of them achieving that goal.
Posted by: Wes | April 21, 2008 10:07 AM
Chris, if I thought my 'abuse' would stop you I would never render it, because the last thing I want to do is to stop you. To disagree with you and chide you, well, that is a different story.
I don't think you are a creationist apologist at all. What I said was "...seems to transmogrify more and more into a creationist apologist..." which I say with great trepidation.
I do have to say that I detected a bit of snark in your original post, a bit of "I told you so ..." Admit it, Chris, it's there.
I do think there is a legitimate debate over actually success and failure. Or what those words mean.
This post:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/03/saving_science_from_creationis.php
is one that I was very unhappy to see that you did NOT comment on. That post reflects what I think is the key point of discussion here. I think there are areas where we (you and me) could agree, disagree, agree some more, and come out with something productive. Please take a look at it.
People: Give Chris a break. He may be totally wrong. Or maybe not. But he is trying to do the right thing.
G
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 21, 2008 10:08 AM
That's Michael Dunn the editor of Proteomics, not Michael Dunn the dwarf.
Posted by: MH | April 21, 2008 10:08 AM
Chris, if you define success by the producer's own metrics it fell short by a factor of 4-5. How do you reconcile that fact? They were talking on Friday of taking down Farenheit 9/11's record just three days ago.
Posted by: Jim RL | April 21, 2008 10:11 AM
Sorry Chris, but you are comparing apples with oranges with this list.
To call Expelled a "success" - just in terms of money - you have just looked at gross, but that's really not the full story here, you have to look at how much money has been pushed into Expelled up front which is probably unlike every other movie on that list.
The Expelled producers themselves put an opening weekend success figure at $10-15M, a figure they are $7-12M down on, and it's not hard to see how they came up with the numbers.
Expelled opened BIG, on more screens than any other movie on the documentary list you quote including Fahrenheit 9/11 which came from an established "bankable star" in box-office terms in Moore. This took major marketing and an associated major spend - take into account the fact they're offering money back on ticket stubs from groups, they won't have a mainstream studio style deal with the theatres (theatres won't have gambled too much on Expelled and so won't have cut a standard 90/10 deal like a majors would benefit from) - so the producers may be clawing back a low percentage of that $3M gross and be well down on breaking even
Due to this it doesn't bear comparison with the other films on the list - arbitary documentary tag aside - this spent way more than any other movie and was marketed with the budget of a non-niche project and they are, in effect, paying people to go see it.
What will worry the Expelled producers more is that for the majority of the documentary movies on your list, big success came from opening small then gradually expanding with positive word of mouth. That's how niche films make money as marketing and cost of new prints only comes with some confirmation of increasing demand. Expelled has - time will tell - probably shot it's bolt on it's opening weekend by playing in all the locations it's likely to get any audience so there won't be many people now waiting around to see this. It's not going to be around for long and it's not going to be a slow burner like other films on that list. Let's sit back and watch how viewing figures keep up, or not, to see if I'm right.
Put it this way - stack that documentary list on profit rather than gross, and Expelled could be the only overall loser on there. In fact it could be off-scale at the bottom end as there's bound to be an 11th movie that did scrape a small profit that would replace it in the top 10.
So how else can we measure success - money aside, for all the "success" in whipping up its already committed audience, the general reviews are so terrible, especially on the digusting Nazi angle, that it won't positively influence the "floating voter" so to speak.
It has, however, positively "framed" ID as a pure religious argument and also, via argument ad nazium, nauseated people who aren't already so far into ID they can't be impartial.
Some success.
Posted by: jcmacc | April 21, 2008 10:11 AM
My fricken word... what a whiner.
Let's look at the FACTS
You made commments claiming that PZ and Dawkins were helping the makers of expelled by, um, exposing the irony of the title "Expelled". You make this claim even though the massive ad campaign for the movie is likely to reach far more of the intended audience than any story circulating on blogs and a in a few news articles. You then proceed to make a "ha-ha, I was so right" "just the facts" post claiming that Expelled was a success (implying, of course, that it is the fault of people like PZ who just had to go and to help give publicity to a film that otherwise would have been totally ignored, despite the ridiculous ad campaign). Except, your claim was bullshit. The film may have succeeded in being good propaganda, but it did not succeed in the box office, as it has a hell of a long way to go before it even breaks even. When you are called on this bullshit, as you should expect to be when you use easily checked and misleading "facts" on your blog, especially when you do so with the implied full-of-yourself message "See, I was sooo right, I told you so," you whine. "Oh, you're beating up on me, and all this infighting is only hurting our cause" (Because you know, every group of people with one common cause/opinion that fights within the group at all never accomplishes anything. It's not like debate or, I don't know, the truth, are useful in any way)
What a baby.
Posted by: kc | April 21, 2008 10:14 AM
The general standard for breaking even is to double what the movie cost to make. E.g if it cost $3 million, you need $6 million to cover marketing and so on. These rules may not apply precisely in this case as marketing may have outstripped production costs by some margin, but the rule probably still provides some rough idea. I reckon $10 million would be a decent enough performance.
As it stands, it hasn't been a total flop as some suggest, but I must disagree with Chris and argue that it has not been a roaring success. It's a bit too early to say, but I suspect it will end up as a minor failure in boxoffice terms.
Posted by: SteveF | April 21, 2008 10:22 AM
I can imagine the scene, Mooney returns from a holiday and meets his buddy:
Nisbett: Did you have a good time shopping in Sofia, Chris? How did you get on with speaking Bulgarian?
Mooney: Oh, Matt, it was terrible, those Sofia shopkeepers are rubbish, they couldn't understand my Bulgarian, they need more lessons.
Nisbett: Yes, I know what you mean, they sometimes even have the nerve to correct you, and I've read several books about the language, what do they know about it?!
Posted by: Sam C | April 21, 2008 10:27 AM
After taking a week of Spring Break - from which I need another week off to recover - I come back to the blog-o-sphere to find that, once again, so many are missing Chris Key point. Perhaps that is an arguement about Chris' framing; I suspect it has more to do with a natural human tendency to look at the world through our own eyes, instead of actually setting aside our preconceptions to deal with new issues.
Ragrdless of the actual dollars, that Explled opened in as many theatres as it did is arguably "a success." Most of Moore's documentaries, particularly the early ones, could be counted on to open only in NYC, and then spread slowly across the US (not unlike the Creeping Charlie in my yard). Expelled tried the buckshot approach, which tells me some powerful film "insiders" were willing to make a few phone calls to it could get wide distribution. Kind of makes you wonder about the Hollywood liberal label doesn't it?
Think about it folks - if we're fighting an intellectual war against ID/Creationists as Chris says we are (or should be), what other movie opened this week NATIONALLY that bolsters our side of the arguement? What did we do this weekend that attracted that much attention for sound science? How did the ID folks LOOSE this weekend by getting the press?
And as to the $$, I didn't do anything this weekend that profitted me $1,300. Neither did you all I suspect. So Chris' point is actually well founded.
Now, did he frame it the way we all wanted him to? Probably not, but he did frame it, and you all started talking about it, so I fail to see how this was bad framing. Hate to say it, but many seemed to walk into his trap, if only by the reactions they put down on paper.
Posted by: Philip H. | April 21, 2008 10:27 AM
Whoa...somebody said you were a creationist? Did you believe him? Do you think any of your other commenters did? Or is this post directed at just the one person (in which case, better you had emailed him)?
I think Expelled is starting to have an effect on you. It's called "persecution envy".
Honestly, your regular readers are a little too smart to believe this petty posting.
Posted by: Jim C. | April 21, 2008 10:31 AM
I'm a statistician, which means I'm pretty much aware that you can draw conflicting conclusions from the same set of data, depending on the way you look at it.
I don't know if "Expelled" is a success, but I'm not really convinced. It seems at least that this so-called success is not up to what the filmmakers expected.
Anyway, let's admit, for the sake of argument, that it's actually a success. So now, what should "we" do ? Try to emulate it ? The problem is that the key ingredients of "Expelled" are dishonesty, audience manipulation and outright lies. I've seen several M%ichael Moore movies: what he does is of course open to ctiticism, but I've never seen him stoop so low. And it's a very important contribution to whatever success the film may have (if only a limited one among a very specific crowd). If "it works", it's by intoxicating people. See the "David J letter" that Michael Shermer received, and that Dawkins replied to.
So one thing is for sure: there won't be an "Expelled" #2 from "our side", because it would require the use of methods that science proponents usually find disgusting.
Which doesn't mean that there couldn't be some good, popular, pro-science documentaries. "Flock of Dodos" could be an example, but for whatever reason, it seems that it's not. What I'm dreaming of is :
- a widespread distribution of "Judgement day", perhaps in a slightly revised and condensed form
- an adaptation of Carl Zimmer's "Evolution". I think there's no better way to explain evolution than to retrace its steps since the beginnings of "Darwinism", not forgetting the (real) controversies that opposed it to Lamarckism, orthogeny, mutationism, etc.
- a movie about the "really expelled", the teachers who were kicked out by creationists. Sort of an expanded version of the short doc about Chris Comer shown on "Expelled Exposed".
Wouldn't that be nice for a beginning ?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | April 21, 2008 10:31 AM
Chris, this ill becomes you. Sure, Greg was a bit of an asshole for calling you a "closet creationist." He shouldn't have done that. It was just plain stupid. I can practically hear the outrage in your writing. Unfortunately, you clearly appear to be letting that ourtrage affect your response. This is particularly evident in your self-righteously cherry-picking the worst response to you as representative of responses in general and then ignoring the rest.
Is Expelled! a "success"? It all depends on how you define "success." By the producers' own predictions it is most definitely not a success; it grossed far less than they had been predicting. Perhaps by other metrics it is. By the main metric that matters in Hollywood (did it make money?), the answer is clearly no, unless massive DVD sales somehow make up for the fact that there's no way in hell this movie is going to make back its production costs and marketing expenses at the box office. It won't even be close.
Personally, however, I find your "nyah, nyah, told you so" posts to be...disappointing, especially since it is not at all clear that you're correct. May I suggest that you ignore Laden's mind-bogglingly ill-advised and just plain dumb line about "transmorgifying into a creationist apologist" and try not to start sinking down to that level?
Posted by: Orac | April 21, 2008 10:40 AM
You know what a good, effective way way to counter the pernicious misinformation in Expelled is? Countering the pernicious misinformation in Expelled! Have you, Randy Olson, or Nisbet tackled even one of Expelled's lies in your blogs entries? You have a bunch of followers, and you serve a different readership than PZ, a word on the facts in the movie would have helped. Have you even linked to and publicized Expelled Exposed? I don't recall you doing it, while everyone else was trying as hard as they could to get the EE site up the Google rankings so that the public would see it.
Stop bellyaching about box office numbers, comparisons are meaningless when you are dealing with a propaganda machine that gives free tickets by the bucket and bus rides to church groups.
I understand you are enthralled with the whole issue of mass communication, and you can't help admiring the Creationist PR skills, but seriously, things should be evaluated by more than just $ signs. Even Creationist cheerleader blogs are obviously disappointed about Expelled's reception, and arguing about where things were wrong.
And no, you are not a Creationist, but right now you certainly are not helping either.
Posted by: Andrea Bottaro | April 21, 2008 10:41 AM
Chris, I'm not here to pile on, but I do agree with those that think your previous post claiming to be "the facts" was remarkably problematic.
Obviously you aren't a creationist, but what is raising the hackles of many here is how similar your tone appears to be to what many veterans of the creationist-evolution argument on the 'tubes view as "concern trolling".
I am in agreement with you and Olson that Expelled has raised some troubling questions about the effectiveness of science communication. However you do seem to be ignoring genuine and thoughtful criticisms of your perspective in favor of defensive rebuttals to the more inflammatory and less productive comments.
I think you owe it to yourself and your readers to address the substance of the critiques in regards to the way your previous post was framed.
I say this as a person that read and enjoyed tremendously both The Republican War On Science and Storm World.
Posted by: Jon | April 21, 2008 10:42 AM
Forgot to fix this and turn it into "creationist apologist." I'm mixing it up with other insults I've seen thrown at Mooney & Nisbet. Sorry.
Posted by: Orac | April 21, 2008 10:43 AM
The only reasons we should care if Expelled makes a profit or not are (i) just for the satisfaction of it, and (ii) a concern that it will inspire more ID propaganda flicks in the future.
Other than that, the real concerns should be how the film is influencing the public. People say that this film is preaching to the converted, but that's almost assuming that these people will never change their minds. While it's certainly true that some never will, there's no shortage of examples of fundamentalist Christians who have gone on to accept evolution. It's hard to know just going by box office statistics, but it would probably be safe to say that the film is at least reinforcing many misconceptions or paranoias that some members of the public may have. From that perspective, it is a success for the ID propaganda machine - regardless of how much they profit from it.
In fact, Expelled was a partial success even before it hit the screens. What role did it play in Florida's "academic freedom" bill? The notoriety of the film gave Ben Stein the opportunity to spew his nonsense at the Missouri Capitol. The kind of success that should matter to us is the extent to which this film influences public policy and our educational systems, not its financial success.
Posted by: NP | April 21, 2008 10:45 AM
A second point - on "framing" and the idea that PZ Myers' activities around Expelled were own-goals for the scientific side. Try reading the UK coverage of Expelled in this weeks Sunday Times:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/film_reviews/article3758012.ece
The textbook irony of Expelled's producer complaining about academic freedom while expelling an academic from a screening has been the single most effective anti-Expelled "frame" there's been.
Chris, you owe PZ an apology, turns out he understands effective framing a lot better than most.
Posted by: jcmacc | April 21, 2008 10:47 AM
Philip H wrote: "Regardless of the actual dollars, that Expelled opened in as many theatres as it did is arguably 'a success.'"
That doesn't tell you anything. Remember that 529 of those theaters (Regal Cinemas) are owned by Philip Anschutz, who is involved with the distributor, Rocky Mountain Pictures, has financed other pro-Christian films (Chronicles of Narnia), and is also a contributor to the Discovery Institute. What deal did they get from him? I bet it was a good one.
Also, of those other theatres, what cut were they taking? Normally it's 10% for the first week, but I could get a 90 minute movie of my arse to open in 1000 cinemas if my budget was big enough and I didn't mind making a net loss .
Posted by: MH | April 21, 2008 10:47 AM
You're quickly becoming more and more unworthy of a blog subscription in my book. Instead of responding to the open, honest, and reasonable criticism in the original thread, you clung to one comment, labeled it abusive, and victimized yourself.
Perhaps is was abusive, I don't know. You are familiar with the internet, though? You're always going to get posts like that. Ignore them, and focus on the ones with meat. I had a lot of respect for you after your book, and then I saw a video from one of your talks, but recently, you seem to be losing it.
You just take it as obvious that 'Expelled' was a success, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. *Filmmakers* seem to think it's a success, and since their the experts, they're right. That is not an attitude conductive towards creating a dialogue, nor is it an attitude that science is keen on. Are you really that surprised that there has been a backlash?
Posted by: Josh | April 21, 2008 10:48 AM
Which in movie terms is like being the worlds most eligible syphilitic.
In one month, what will the numbers be compared to other docs?
So far it isn't looking good. It hasn't even caught on with its core audience, like, say, the Left Behind books.
At least it's been panned by everyone, including the right wing press, for being the lying piece of crap it is. It's helped get the word out on how dishonest these guys are.
Posted by: PalMD | April 21, 2008 10:49 AM
"All this happened, I suppose, because I dared to point out the obvious: Expelled is a success. I mean, it's the eighth highest grossing political documentary of all time...after its first week. Randy Olson of course knows this, because he's, like, a filmmaker."
As people have been at pains to point out, your definition of success is extremely narrow and that's the main problem with your post. Also you're touting Olson's opinion as fact just because he's a filmmaker. Guess what - that doesn't mean he's any more qualified to judge whether the film has acheived its aims than anyone else on this thread.
Once more, paying invited audience members in carefully selected areas to view your propaganda != success.
Posted by: Paul A | April 21, 2008 10:57 AM
Chris, affectionately ---
You should have titled this
"I'm Being FRAMED ... "
Pretend a sense of humor, even when you don't feel amused.
Seriously, it will always help.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | April 21, 2008 11:04 AM
NP and Christophe Thrll are right on target here - we need to stop worrying about how to define Expelled success/failure and start worrying about how it will influence public policy. Pretty much everyone here agrees the movie sucks, but do your state legislators think the same way?
We need something that will emphasize to the public how artificial dissent is created and how the process of real science is different from the process of ID. Pointing your state legislator in the direction of Expelled Exposed: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth is a good start (especially if you're in a state with an "Academic Freedom" bill, but it would be nice to have some mass media targeted for the general public that helps differentiate between scientists and 'scientismists.' This would help on a variety of fronts, and not just the ID/creationism controversy.
I have no idea how such a thing could get started, but shows like Mythbusters seem like a good start. If only there were more explosions in Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things...
Posted by: Phoca | April 21, 2008 11:10 AM
Paul A said:
"As people have been at pains to point out, your definition of success is extremely narrow and that's the main problem with your post. Also you're touting Olson's opinion as fact just because he's a filmmaker. Guess what - that doesn't mean he's any more qualified to judge whether the film has acheived its aims than anyone else on this thread."
Great point - an obvious argument to false authority given what's under consideration.
Unless Olson knows exactly how much Expelled cost to make and how much they've poured into marketing, what deal they have with Stein (percentage points of gross?), what deals they have with theatres etc etc then he's *no idea* how much it would have to gross to even break-even let alone be a success in box-office terms.
The fact he's a filmaker has no bearing at all - wouldn't even matter if he was Spielberg himself - unless he had access to Premise Media's accounts then he has no expertise on this question.
Put it this way - what does Olsen know that enables him to say a $3M opening weekend is great despite the producers themselves, who do have the numbers, saying they were looking for $10-15M as a success figure (while hoping to beat Fahrenheit 9/11's $24.9M opening - tee hee).
Posted by: jcmacc | April 21, 2008 11:12 AM
Chris, we know you're not a creationist, but for pity's sake. Ben Stein is going around and saying, "Evolution tried to kill my dad!" with the full implication that you're anti-Semitic for questioning him. What are we supposed to do then against recalcitrant believers who need an enemy? We couldn't stop the Iraq war, and we can't control what gullible people think inside their heads about evolution. So, what do you suggest? Why don't you lead the way, then, by example? None of us knows what it is you envision.
Posted by: Kristine | April 21, 2008 11:12 AM
Olson Olson Olson. Always with the Randy Olson.
Nobody knows who Olson is. Know one has heard of his movie.
Posted by: mlf | April 21, 2008 11:15 AM
I think any of US calling it a success is totally moot because the filmmakers with their history of lies and spin would call it a success no matter what because they simply can't be honest about anything at all and we all know that.
So my question is, Chris, why give them any credit at all?
You could have *either* spun it back and called it a failure as Ed did (since it did NOT succeed by the terms the filmmakers originally said would be a "success"), OR you could have ignored it. Both of those would have been successful PRO-SCIENCE framings.
Instead, you have now created the following quote-mine headline: "Popular Scienceblogger calls Controversial ID Film a Success".
THAT is why you were labeled "creationist", because you gave them EXACTLY what they want - a beautifully framed quote they can use on week #2's word-of-mouth advertising and on the inevitable DVD sales. You literally have now framed yourself, and Greg, albeit impolitely, called you on it.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | April 21, 2008 11:25 AM
I hope you aren't going to start claiming you're being Expelled...
Posted by: Joel | April 21, 2008 11:25 AM
The numbers you've posted are based on estimated take. Weekend box-office won't be available until this p.m.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | April 21, 2008 11:28 AM
I agree that people are being a little hard on Chris. But, one weekend of box-office results is insufficient evidence to label the movie as a success (or a failure). So what if it made a certain amount of money. How many people of those people might have seen Expelled for a laugh, or to educate themselves of its flaws so as to better argue against it?
If a movie makes a lot of money, but is criticized almost without exception by reputable sources (such as most mainstream movie critics, magazines, newspapers, websites, etc), I would call it a failure. The number of people that view of a movie isn't necessarily what's important for it to have an impact. What is important is how it is received, and in this case, Expelled was not well received.
Posted by: Ben | April 21, 2008 11:33 AM
Chris, why is it so hard for you to friggin' listen to people? You take an extreme statement or two and ignore here, and in the past, all of the eloquent, supported statements that should at least make you reconsider some positions. But you are apparently incapable of that. Of course you are not a creationist, but your inability to listen and weigh evidence sure is reminiscent of them. For your own sake, man, listen!
Posted by: Craig B | April 21, 2008 11:36 AM
Why is it when anyone attacks you it's "firing inward", but when you attack someone else it's "serious introspection"? Both of the brouhahas over Expelled at ScienceBlogs have started with you and/or Nisbet firing inward . You purposely pick fights with your fellow ScienceBloggers, then retreat to a "how dare they!" posture when they have the audacity to swing back.
This, not framing, is what's most infuriating about your posts on the matter.
Posted by: Cain | April 21, 2008 11:39 AM
I don't think you are a closet creationist, or a creationist apologist Mr. Mooney; but what you have become, based upon your assessment of "the facts", is irrelevant.
Here's hoping you find some objectivity again...
Posted by: Patrick | April 21, 2008 11:58 AM
Want some good news? (Is that okay with you?)
From The Raw Story: Ben Stein Shows He's No Michael Moore.
If numbers are any indication, Ben Stein has shown he's no Michael Moore.
Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary which makes an argument for intelligent design over the theory of evolution, debuted at just number eight among the top ten grossing movies last week.
"The film made $1.2 million on Friday in 1,052 theaters. By comparison, Michael Moore's 'Sicko' raken in $23.9 million its opening weekend from just 441 theaters, and Fahrenheit 9/11 did $23.9 million from only 868 slots.
"Playing in 1,052 theaters, the pic distributed by Rocky Mountain Pictures earned $1.2M Friday for what should be a $3.4M weekend," penned Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily. "But the per screen average for Friday was a feeble $1,130 (that $3,000 ballyhooed on the Internet would be for the entire weekend), showing there wasn't any pent-up demand for the film despite an aggressive publicity campaign. So much for the conservative argument that people would flock to films not representing the "agenda of liberal Hollywood.'"
Okay-doke?
If you want to reframe this discussion, why not start calling this a "chick [Jack Chick] film"?
Why not sarcastically repeat, "Evolution almost killed Ben Stein's dad!" Okay, two suggestions on the table. Let's do something.
Posted by: Kristine | April 21, 2008 12:01 PM
This, from Kristine's link, is why Expelled will never be a success regardless how many people go to a theater to watch the film.
On Friday, The New York Times' Jeannette Catsoulis called the movie "one of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time... a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry."
Posted by: Joel | April 21, 2008 12:16 PM
You purposely pick fights with your fellow ScienceBloggers, then retreat to a "how dare they!" posture when they have the audacity to swing back.
This, not framing, is what's most infuriating about your posts on the matter.
Of course, Cain, certain BSDs and wannabe BSDs have a tendency to over-personalize legitimate topics of discussion. Padfoot, Prongs and Mooney may poke ol' Voldie with a stick now and again but that doesn't mean everything requires "swing[ing] back". Do it too often and you start moving from humourless pedant to seriously narcissistic head case.
reading stuff like this...
I don't think you are a creationist apologist at all. What I said was "...seems to transmogrify more and more into a creationist apologist..." which I say with great trepidation.
well, the mind boggles. I'm not sure if Bill Clinton or Karl Rove would be prouder. What a dance move!
Posted by: DrugMonkey | April 21, 2008 12:18 PM
I agree with Orac's take on this. I think this particular post just makes you look like a cherry-picking whiner....I don't think it serves you well. And I'm saying this as someone who likes your blog and your book (_Repub War on Sci_), by the way, not as one of your perpetual "haters".
Posted by: Adrienne | April 21, 2008 12:24 PM
It 'ill suits him' to be offended, to post about it in this manner? Oh wow. I disagree that Expelled is an unqualified success yet, but wow, the hypocrisy is fascinating on the part of the 'Chris is uppity' crowd.
I might remind of an earlier round of discussion, not too long ago, where PZ told Nisbett to fuck off. And when Sheril and Chris called him on it she was told that she had no right, that she was a whiny femmy baby. Where were the hordes and hordes of people saying it 'ill suited PZ to be an asshole'? Mooney being slandered? How dare he react!
What is this, a culture of bullies? You're allowed to treat people like absolute crap, but hey, standing up to it is too much for us! Let's be honest with ourselves. The standards are different. Chris, Sheril, and Matt aren't allowed to say things against the angry atheists because then they're 'whining' and 'shrill' and 'unscientific' and 'apologists.' And people are just fine with those characterizations being levelled. Even though they're known allies. And the people who should be standing with Chris in saying that the statement is crap... are too busy telling him it 'ill suits him' to point it out, and to point out how this same dance is done again and again and again, with thousands of posts by whatever-you-want-to-call-the-PZites versus a handful by anyone interested in really engaging in any actual discussion. (I did like the link to Brayton's counter analysis above, for example.)
Since people were just fine agreeing with Chris when he used these same arguments, logics, and theories to point out how Republicans attacked science, the conclusion left is that there's something 'special' about pointing out that the ID crowd might just have pulled something off, or disagreeing with the 'atheism = science' crowd around here.
How dare he be angered at being called what would be considered around here a threat to science itself by him and so many others around here. How dare he? Get over yourselves, and stand up for the right thing, people. Not the 'but you're too whiiiiiiny!' thing.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | April 21, 2008 12:52 PM
Expelled: No Framing Allowed!
Sadly, that wouldn't get the churchgoers off their knees, or off their neighbors.
Posted by: Sam C | April 21, 2008 1:00 PM
Mecha: You certainly have an interesting way of interpreting events.
Posted by: Josh | April 21, 2008 1:10 PM
Considering it a success using the scale of other political documentaries, most of which opened in less than 100 theaters without the benefit of a decent ad budget, seems as wrong as simply comparing it to much higher profile Michael Moore films. Assuming that the vast majority of Expelled's audience are the churchgoers courted by the producers (safe to say), I'm not sure why we should be impressed that they ended up preaching to the converted in the numbers they did. When all is said and done, Expelled, if it has legs, might wind up with an overall gross close to other Christian films like "Facing the Giants" and "End Of The Spear". And being that no one's ever heard of those two movies, I can't say I'm very worried about the impact of Ben Stein and company.
Posted by: Nyo | April 21, 2008 1:15 PM
When compared to other film openings Expelled is a box office flop. However, when you consider the target audience, the creationists, it is probably a success. I suspect Expelled is going to be heavily marketed to churches and be shown in them in much the same way that Mel Gibson's Passion was.
I think the true purpose of Expelled is to reinforce the recalcitrance of the Creationists. Unless Ben Stein is a total moron, I think his goal is to stir the shit. He'll point to all the negative press he's received that he's correct because most of his target audience won't look a it. And it doesn't matter how we frame it because they aren't going to listen to rational people. The creationists will still be distrustful even if we use language they understand.
I was somewhat bothered by this controversy amongst the bloggers on scienceblogs, but I think it has exposed some fundamental differences in the way they look at this issue and how to communicate it. In the end it's going to be a good thing. It shows there is a diversity of opinion and that they aren't mindless robots who march in lockstep like the Creationists do.
On the other hand, maybe this divergence of opinion is to drive more readership to scienceblogs. Controversy sells.
Posted by: CLM | April 21, 2008 1:16 PM
Chris, I'm a sympathizer who knows that you mean well. But please take what I have to say into consideration. To be blunt, you guys lost the Framing Wars. And doomsaying is just not working in getting through to fellow ScienceBloggers, SB commenters, and the larger community of evolutionists and freethinkers. The 'sky is falling' thing kind of loses its power after a while and people start turning on the messenger. And some interpret such rhetoric not as a call to arms but acting as a herald for the enemy. Let me quote myself, a comment I made on Pharyngula:
"In a way, Expelled is the farcical sequel to Dover, with the Framing Wars and New Atheism as side plots. The whole saga would make for a great book, or at least a five minute humorous YouTube short.
It's interesting that the Framing Wars were concluded with the majority siding with Dawkins-Myers in the wake of the 'Expelled expulsion' and Nisbet, Mooney and Olson increasingly isolated with their dire warnings about the persuasive power of creationists and the ineptness of atheists. Meanwhile, the Dawkins majority mastered 'framing' through humor; namely, the excellent Sexpelled parody.
I've defended Mooney against the attacks against his motivations. But Mooney aside, it looks like the creationists fell on their ass again.
Rest assured that the creationists will re-emerge; perhaps with creationism/ID re-branded as "front loaded potentiality" or some such thing and a strategy of infiltrating and establishing bases in philosophy and sociology departments in order to get around the establishment clause."
It seems to me that your talents are best directed at offering constructive, positive advice on ways to counter the creationists rather than repeating that we're getting our asses handed to us. I made a couple of suggestions earlier. I would add that humor - especially ridicule - is also a very effective tool.
Posted by: Colugo | April 21, 2008 1:27 PM
FACT CHECK:
The Box Office Mojo numbers you link to, Chris, give an incomphrehensibly low opening take for Sicko, especially compared to those of Deadline Hollywood Daily:
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/jet-and-jackie-nudge-out-judd-on-friday/
Any idea why this is?
Posted by: The Uncredible Hallq | April 21, 2008 1:32 PM
Uh, no. Cherry-picking quotes as representative of responses to him and gloating about it are what led to my criticizing Chris. It was misleading. Actually, I would have had no problem at all if he had just told Greg et al "fuck you very much," just like PZ did to Matt. Indeed, I might very well have responded that way myself.
Posted by: Orac | April 21, 2008 1:34 PM
Sucess? Probably. It will most likely recoup costs.
Did it meet the producer's stated goals? Absolutely not.
People are being a bit nuts over this without good reason.
Posted by: Scote | April 21, 2008 1:36 PM
I guess my problem with Chris and Randy is their labeling of the movie as an unqualified success when it opened in so many theaters and was marketed to a specific niche audience, it was 100% guaranteed to make *some* measure of money anyway. In which case there was no need to wait for opening weekend to declare it a Creationist victory. It would've been a foregone conclusion.
So I'm wondering how much less money would it have needed to make for them to describe it as a failure. Look at the other political documentaries on the list Chris linked to. He can't really have thought that Expelled had a realistic chance of making as much money as Giuliani Time or Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Romeo Dallaire, right? Given the comparative demographics and theater count, that'd be ridiculous.
Posted by: Nyo | April 21, 2008 1:43 PM
The original comment from Chris was something like "PZ's comments are just going to make the movie more popular". There's no way to prove or disprove this. I'd guess that PZ's influence on the actual audience who paid for this movie was nil. I'd rather hear PZ's take than wring my hands worrying that he's going to push Christians into watching it.
Posted by: sibosop | April 21, 2008 1:52 PM
I would suggest that nobody is totally right in this particular instance? Yes the movie made a respectable amount of money in its first weekend. But there are a few questions that have not really been answered.
1. How much of that money was spent by individuals And how much was spent by church groups and pacs? For that matter, of the money spent by individuals how much was spent by people going alone and how many by people going as part of evolutionist groups?
2. Money vs seats? From what I have gathered by people out and about, the number of tickets purchased does not balance with the number of people in the cinemas?
3. Is this about a better cinematic quality or about better PR people? I would suggest the answer to all three questions may be answered by a few weeks of watching the box receipts.
Posted by: bardi | April 21, 2008 1:55 PM
It's unfortunate that you're getting attacked like this -- it's uncalled for, and it appears to reduce the likelihood you'll consider the possibility you're wrong on this. Because so far, the evidence does not support your claim.
Far from being obvious, this is a highly debatable point. Your own link demonstrates it -- look at the per-screen opening numbers for every other film on that list. Using that number, Expelled compares to Chicago 10 and Bush's Brain (neither of which I've even heard of, to be honest).
Framed another way, 3-400,000 people saw Expelled this weekend. That's 3-400 per screen over 3 days. Assuming 6 showings per screen over the weekend, that's 50-65 people per showing, on an opening weekend. I'd consider that a low bar for success for a multi-million dollar film.
They put a lot of money into marketing this, they had the widest-ever documentary release, and they had a huge built-in audience. With that in mind, how low a take would have been required for you to claim failure?
Posted by: Davis | April 21, 2008 1:59 PM
Jesus, Chris, when are you going to stop being such a whiny baby and start giving us some even-handed substantive insight into framing?
The movie is obviously a "success". It's getting a big audience compared to most documentaries. It will whip the fundies into a frothy foam.
The movie is obviously a "failure." It's getting a fraction of the audience it was supposed to, given its huge release and ad budget. It will fail to sway the middle much.
Olson is wrong when he says the critical reception doesn't matter.
The critical consensus is that this is "A cynical political stunt disguised as a documentary."
That's gotta be useful for framing. Tell us how to use it, when the ID folks try to use this movie to promote their legislative agenda.
It has got to be useful that even on UD, people are saying the movie is over the top in a way that's bad for ID.
If DaveScot is distancing himself from this movie, it can't be an unqualified success.
A lot of us agree with many of your points, up to a point, and then disagree or just have substantive questions.
It isn't helpful when you cherry-pick criticisms to make yourself look unfairly attacked by a troop of screechy monkeys.
It would be very helpful if you would actually engage in substantive discussion when most of your critics are serious, polite, and raising substantive issues.
This happens over and over.
Remember your framing posts I-IV? You asked for a serious, polite, substantive discussion, and you got it. A number of people put serious effort into clarifying their concerns and points of disagreement, raising substantive questions, etc.
You didn't like that we didn't simply roll over and agree with you, and took your ball and went home.
Now you seem to be doing it again. It's very, very tiresome.
In case you've forgotten about it, here's the framing IV thread, with good substantive comments that you left unanswered:
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2008/04/part_iv_defending_framing_scie.php
We're still waiting for you to address the real issues.
Posted by: Paul W. | April 21, 2008 2:25 PM
Thanks for that simple breakdown Davis. And with it, I would say that it would be just as apt to compare Expelled to a low-rent slasher flick than a typical documentary (at least documentaries are screened in small art-house venues). I've been to a few of the former and have seen how vacant a 200 seat room looks with only 50-65 people scattered about. You walk in and start to seriously wonder about the movie you paid 18 dollars for, just as your girlfriend elbows you and says "Ha ha, I'm not the only one who thinks this movie is gonna suck."
Posted by: caynazzo | April 21, 2008 2:31 PM
Chris, the problem is that in "pointing out the obvious", you're obviously wrong. You have steadfastly ignored the fact that the box office numbers are terrible for a movie that cost at least several million to make and market, and that it came nowhere close to meeting the producers' own expectations. Instead you're clinging to a meaningless comparison with the larger body of "political documentaries", possibly the least popular film genre in existence. Only a tiny handful of political documentaries have ever been commercially successful, and Expelled! isn't going to beat any of them.
Constantly trying to cite Olson as the authority of all things film-related isn't helping your case either. His claims don't appear to be any better than yours; in both cases you guys are ignoring the numbers, preferring instead to make airy claims about the "perception" of success rather than actual success itself.
If one or both of you can demonstrate in what way the film was commercially successful, taking into account some realistic definition of what Hollywood would consider success, then please do. Until then you are at best spouting unsubstantiated nonsense. And given that dozens of people have patiently explained why, you're also being pigheaded. Don't be shocked or act surprised when people get irritated.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | April 21, 2008 2:39 PM
Framing is no more science than ID. It's trendy bull. It's "Fashionable Nonsense".
I wish we could recognize the root problem here. It's not that Mooney has applied the science wrongly or badly, it's that there is no science of framing to begin with. Like Chomsky before him, Lakoff has sold a bill of nonexistent goods and Mooney bought it (apparently under the spell of postmodern apologist Nisbet). There's a larger problem. Let's focus. Think "Science Wars".
Posted by: Mr_G | April 21, 2008 2:55 PM
Don't miss this message from the real tools used to make the movie
As pointed out here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/who_made_the_beware_the_believ.php
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2008/04/where-is-world-is-mike-edmondson.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUt7nZdUJIk
Posted by: Hank Roberts | April 21, 2008 2:59 PM
By Chris' and Randy's own criteria, Randy is a failure as a filmmaker. Why would any one take Randy seriously if we are supposed to believe what Chris and he say about movie successes. They both want their message that scientists are poor communicators and are the reason so many people are creationists in the US to be true. Given how few people saw Randy's film - he would be better off if he went back to school got a teaching credential and starting teaching high school.
Posted by: michael fugate | April 21, 2008 3:42 PM
Mooney, you seem to be trying to put yourself at the head of the SB parade, but for some reason the marchers won't follow you. So you try to convince them that they're headed straight for failure and need to adopt your strategy to win.
Problem is, you're trying to convince them by claiming that clear failures on the part of their enemies are actually victories. Regardless of how well the majority strategy works, trying to turn the small hole of Expelled into a mountain isn't going to make anyone believe your strategy is correct. It's going to make everyone believe you're an idiot.
Maybe you should rethink your strategy?
Posted by: Caledonian | April 21, 2008 3:42 PM
We usually say here that when the shit isn't flying you ain't doing it right. There is plenty to debate here but the level of comments to your blog posts often makes me think that the creationist do not have the monopoly on stupidity.
You decided to stick your head out and try to do something, so people try to lob off your head. I suppose that's life.
Keep it going. I don't always agree with you but we need people like yourself to speak out and stimulate debate.
Posted by: Mark7300 | April 21, 2008 4:05 PM
Chris, you aren't a creationist -- I loved your War on Science -- but you are misinformed about what constitutes a success for a film.
In Hollywood studios do tout their weekend numbers as a way to tout their success. The thing is, people who follow this stuff, like me, a Hollywood writer of no-renown, know that if a film doesn't build its audience over the weekend, odds are it's going to tank.
Expelled dropped, what, 20% from Friday to Saturday and another 3% or so from Saturday to Sunday. That's not good. For a movie to last, to have any kind of impact, to do any kind of lasting financial business, you either have to build over the weekend or at the very least not loose anyone. Expelled didn't do this.
Most films further drop a huge amount from their first weekend to their second. While perspectives differ, if a second weekend is lower by more than 30%, a film is said not to have "legs." It's going to die on the vine.
Right now, we know that Expelled didn't build an audience from Friday to Sunday. This after having one of the largest in-theater rollouts for a documentary. (Over 1000 screens... unheard of -- and expensive-- for a non-Michael Moore doc.) Based on that alone I'd say that the film isn't a success.
Next weekend will be the real proof though. If there's this huge word of mouth between now and Friday and the film actually gains box office and audience numbers, then you are right. The film is a success. But it just doesn't seem that way.
Posted by: Jody | April 21, 2008 4:12 PM