…and this is a 
Do we care about Expelled anymore?
Category: Creationism
Posted on: May 21, 2008 4:19 PM, by PZ Myers
Apparently, a New York judge has upheld the injunction against the movie, so there will be no new showings, and DVD rights are in limbo.
The movie is dead anyway, so it doesn't seem to be a significant decision. It's not as if theater distributors are lined up clamoring for more copies of this stinker. Although, to be honest, I would like the rights cleared up, because the only way I'm ever going to see it is if I can rent the DVD from my local store.
Comments
Or wait till someone posts your Expelled interview on YouTube.
Posted by: Zeno | May 21, 2008 4:21 PM
You and some other scientists should do an MST3k-ish thing with Expelled.
Posted by: LordJiro | May 21, 2008 4:24 PM
It'll be available for illegal download soon enough, and if you get it through Netflix with a monthly payment, I don't think that would give them any extra money. I don't know all that much about Netflix, though.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 21, 2008 4:25 PM
Buying the DVD still gives income to the creators, I was planning on torrenting it, but I've yet to find a decent feed.
Posted by: Josh West | May 21, 2008 4:26 PM
And oh yeah, have we heard anything about the copyright issues regarding the cell animation?
Posted by: Josh West | May 21, 2008 4:28 PM
Now that's good news! I think the world would be a better place without Ben Stein in his shorts offending customers in DVD stores. But now that Hollywood knows you can create tons of publicity for movies, PZ, I'd suggest being more picky and demanding script approval with the next blockbuster.
Posted by: Prazzie | May 21, 2008 4:28 PM
You know a movie isn't very popular when you can't find a torrent for it.
Posted by: Ted D | May 21, 2008 4:29 PM
It matters somewhat, since they could make money (pare losses, more like it) in Canada, and yes, the DVDs should benefit them economically.
The less money they make (or the more they lose), the less likely another oozing sore of a movie like it will be made any time soon. Hence it matters somewhat how the lawsuit turns out, and how much they make in tickets and on DVDs.
They claim that they wish the movie to influence the election as well, though I wonder how much Expelled even could benefit their side. That might only be a ploy to go along with their claims of fair use of the Lennon music.
I am glad that the decision will be expedited, however, because allowing them to say what they wish to audiences is an important right.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 21, 2008 4:29 PM
"...I would like the rights cleared up, because the only way I'm ever going to see it is if I can rent the DVD from my local store."
Vanity, vanity.
Posted by: Alex | May 21, 2008 4:29 PM
I'd call it the "Refer Madness" of the 21st Century, but the century is still young.
I don't know all that much about Netflix, though.
It is neat.
I dunno... renting it might have some chance of making them buy another copy if your rental pushes some counter past a threshold somewhere in their accounting system. I wouldn't worry about it.
Rent it and make copies and distribute amongst the like minded.
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | May 21, 2008 4:30 PM
All the Google-generated news hits say only that the judge has promised a quick ruling. I don't know where the wiki article is coming from.
Posted by: PatrickHenry | May 21, 2008 4:30 PM
Current box office numbers:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/numbers.php
They'll be paying people to see it at this rate.
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | May 21, 2008 4:34 PM
i dont imagine any of us in the uk would ever have chance of seeing it anyway.
which is a pity because it would have tremendous kitsch value among us studenty types.
Posted by: alex | May 21, 2008 4:35 PM
Now that this denialist fantasy has quickly come to an end, ... on to summer escapist fantasy (new Indiana Jones!).
Posted by: hje | May 21, 2008 4:38 PM
the only way I'm ever going to see it is if I can rent the DVD from my local store.
Do you believe that they will allow it to be distributed to movie rental places anywhere near Morris? ;^)
Posted by: Mena | May 21, 2008 4:40 PM
I generally look in the local library for films that I don't want to contribute revenue to (such as The Passion of Mel Gibson). I'm not sure if Expelled will even make it that far, however.
A different tactic is to claim you're a pastor and are requesting a promotional copy for your congregation. (If that's still too distasteful, ask someone else to arrange the deal in exchange for a six of HeBrew or something...)
Posted by: Duncan | May 21, 2008 4:46 PM
I won't say whether or not I downloaded it, but I noticed Expelled was on the pirate bay.
Posted by: AJ Hawks | May 21, 2008 4:46 PM
I'm waiting for the MST3K version.
Posted by: Eric | May 21, 2008 4:51 PM
To quote my favorite band, Swans, "I burned all the books that closed my mind." In that spirit I refuse to watch it.
Posted by: Prof MTH | May 21, 2008 4:51 PM
Ugh. I really hope it never comes to Canada. Movies like this make me nauseous.
Posted by: Jen | May 21, 2008 4:51 PM
Beware some of the torrents. A friend of mine (honestly, not me) downloaded a huge file and it was simply the trailer repeated over and over again.
Geez, even the torrents on this loser suck.
Posted by: Duncan | May 21, 2008 4:51 PM
From the Wiki:
I wonder why.
Posted by: Susan | May 21, 2008 4:52 PM
Isn't it a common courtesy for a producer to give a copy of a film to everyone who appeared in it?
Oh wait... common courtesy... Mark Mathis... HA!
Posted by: ThirdMonkey | May 21, 2008 4:57 PM
"Beware some of the torrents. A friend of mine (honestly, not me) downloaded a huge file and it was simply the trailer repeated over and over again."
That's the one I got too. Just be glad it wasn't an embedded trojan.
Posted by: Josh West | May 21, 2008 4:58 PM
Thomas Robb, Baptist minister and KKK leader, reviews Expelled
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | May 21, 2008 5:00 PM
Are you referring to the actual movie here?
Posted by: Dennis N | May 21, 2008 5:03 PM
isn't there a pirate copy on the internet anywhere?
Posted by: writerdd | May 21, 2008 5:04 PM
Geez, even the torrents on this loser suck.
It is a conspiracy of pirates.
Posted by: Prof MTH | May 21, 2008 5:07 PM
Glen, you're forgetting the basic premise of wingnut welfare economics: "There will always be a person to bankroll right-wing dreck, no matter how unprofitable, no matter how bad a stinker it is."
Posted by: J. A. Baker | May 21, 2008 5:08 PM
Couldn't they just re-edit the movie to remove the song and then redistribute it? I haven't seen the thing, though. Ever since my recent bout of food poisoning, I haven't felt like vomiting in public (again). I don't imagine they have the money to re-edit unless some benefactor steps forward, which certainly seems possible. But, all in all, this little news item made my day!
Posted by: Eximious Jones | May 21, 2008 5:08 PM
It is a conspiracy of pirates.
Posted by: Prof MTH | May 21, 2008 5:10 PM
> I'd call it the "Refer Madness" of the 21st Century, but the century is still young.
They already made that, it was called Requiem for a Dream. Of course, checking IMDB, it was made in 2000, which was technically still the 20th century...
No, I'd call it The Birth of a Nation for the 21st century. Anyone think it'll be Bush's favorite movie as BoaN was for Woodrow Wilson?
Posted by: Jared Lessl | May 21, 2008 5:11 PM
"Just be glad it wasn't an embedded trojan."
That might have provided more entertainment.
Besides, my video software practices safe-playback. (I wouldn't trust a free trojan from Ben Stein anyway.)
Posted by: Duncan | May 21, 2008 5:13 PM
Would it be paranoid to suggest that the plan from the start was to get the movie suppressed by Darwinist courts to emphasize how all open minded dissent in the US is crushed by the forces of Satan?
Posted by: 74westy | May 21, 2008 5:13 PM
"Would it be paranoid to suggest that the plan from the start was to get the movie suppressed by Darwinist courts..."
I'm sure that was one possible scenario that they considered during production and funding. Why not come out with a movie called "Help! I'm a victim of a vast conspiracy!" and watch the self-fulfillment click right into place.
Posted by: Duncan | May 21, 2008 5:19 PM
#5:
I just looked at the court's docket. The only major development since the case was filed April 14 has been the filing of an Amended Complaint adding "Joseph Condeelis" as a plaintiff on May 8.
The Amended Complaint alleges that Condeelis is "one of the animators who worked on [Expelled]" and that "[i]n a series of voicemails" in early May "XVIVO has threatened Mr. Condeelis with imminent legal action regarding XVIVO's copyright dispute with Premise Media regarding the Inner Life Video, if Mr. Condeelis did not cooperate with XVIVO. XVIVO also agreed to 'indemnify' Mr. Condeelis in exchange for his 'cooperation.'"
XVIVO has not yet responded. (It's not clear whether it has even been served yet.)
Posted by: Lowell | May 21, 2008 5:22 PM
By the way, I should point out that there is a glaring error in the claims made by the Expelled bozos.
This problem being that they're now claiming to be critiquing (hardly) the song because of its "anti-religious" message, when the images shown are of a Soviet atheist state and its oppressive nature. They have to presently claim that they were critiquing the song as "anti-religion", not as atheistic in nature nor that it somehow embodies "persecution by Big Science", because it simply is not atheistic nor is it anything like promoting the Soviet world view.
But they were in fact criticizing atheism with Expelled, and not just atheism, government-sponsored atheism. Just because they conflate Lennon's anti-religion message with state-sponsored atheism does not turn their lies about science and atheism into a "critique of Imagine". That's a ludicrous proposal.
The fact is that they simply did not critique Lennon's song, they merely pretended that it embodies the same thing as state-sponsored atheism, and the lack of freedom of religion in the USSR (and supposedly in science departments in the US). I really do not think that such tawdry dishonesty absolves them of the need to get the rights to Lennon's song to use it.
Had they truly been critiquing Lennon's song, no matter how dishonestly, that would be an argument for fair use. They were critiquing (so to speak) atheism and state-sponsorship of atheism (as they falsely contend is happening in US science), and merely tarring Lennon's song with the same brush, even as they used its artistry for their own purposes.
This is not to say that I think that their 15 seconds should not be considered fair use on other grounds, simply that the arguments they use are lacking in relation to what the film and that segment were actually covering.
I simply do not understand how an anti-science, anti-atheist propaganda film can be understood to be criticizing Lennon's merely anti-religion song when their entire point was about atheism and its supposed censorship. Lennon's song is not atheistic (or about science), it is only anti-religion, hence it has little or nothing to do with their various lies about science and atheism.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 21, 2008 5:23 PM
So, would it be appropriate to say that "Expelled" has crashed and burned before taking off?
Posted by: Stanton | May 21, 2008 5:23 PM
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | May 21, 2008 5:24 PM
They already made that, it was called Requiem for a Dream.
You know I copied that off a Netflix rental but never got around to watching it. Should I not bother? It seems quite well liked. I'm also a Darren Aronofsky fan. I'm one of the four people who liked The Fountain (a number that includes Darren and his wife).
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | May 21, 2008 5:27 PM
Requiem is a great movie, cuz heroin is actually bad for you, unlike pot. I liked The Fountain, too. I own Requiem, Fountain, and Pi.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 21, 2008 5:31 PM
I'll bet my sister in Indonesia can get a bootlegged copy at her local bootlegged DVD copy shop ( and yes, thats how its advertised)( I kid you not if they don't have it in stock they'll "find" you a copy in 12 hours)but I'm not sure its even worth paying 2 Rupiah for it.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | May 21, 2008 5:34 PM
Hell yes. My anger has not diminished at all.
In the AP article:
Took me 1/4 second to see the error. I hope they fix it.
Posted by: MikeM | May 21, 2008 5:36 PM
"...I haven't felt like vomiting in public (again)."
Gee, why not?
When I did that (very nearly on a very crowded light rail train; I got off JUST in time), I'm sure people thought I was just another hammered homeless person. No big deal.
Posted by: MikeM | May 21, 2008 5:45 PM
BWAHAHAHAHA !@!! You can't play a F%*#*ng song in a movie and not play royalties !! I didn't realize they stiffed on the licensing. WHAT IDIOTS!!
Did the think they were making a You Tube video?
GEEEEZ, we have to pay royalties even in non-commercial radio.
Well I'm almost sorry to see it go. It was an endless source of fodder and I've been getting endless laughs here and elsewhere over this Bomb.
Also milked a whole hour of radio from it:
---SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTION ALERT!!!!---
EXPELLED COLON no intelligence required Pt 1
EXPELLED COLON no intelligence required Pt 2
Posted by: scooter | May 21, 2008 5:47 PM
EMI is also suing over Premise's use of Imagine
Posted by: Tophe | May 21, 2008 5:49 PM
I just hope the judge keeps it off of HBO. I can avoid a DVD easily enough.
@Scooter "---SHAMELESS SELF PROMOTION ALERT!!!!---"
I wasn't aware we could do that! Here's another one ...
Transitional Fossil Found!
Posted by: S.Scott | May 21, 2008 5:56 PM
Should we care?
Yes!
The issue was never whether this made money or not, but whether they could get people (especially children) watching their propaganda. They succeeded at that, not just in the box office, but also by showing trailers, ads, and getting Stein's "talking" head on tv.
The question should be: what impact has this had?
Posted by: Adrian | May 21, 2008 5:59 PM
Found something depressing. Went to Rotten Tomatoes for Expelled, hit the "community" tab, and saw this:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/reviews_users.php (copy and paste into address bar)
Posted by: Brandt | May 21, 2008 6:07 PM
I nailed it. I predicted that Expelled! would make about $7m in its run. On Hollywood Stock Exchange the film delisted at $7.24m (the game delists movies after 4 weeks). That's respectable for an indie film, but not for one whose advertising budget alone likely cost that much.
Posted by: Bluegrass Geek | May 21, 2008 6:10 PM
Damn activist judge. Heh!
Posted by: roddg | May 21, 2008 6:10 PM
OMG! OMG! OMG! If you haven't missed it (East Coast) The Simpsons episode on right now (in FL) is about the evo/creo fight in schools!
Posted by: S.Scott | May 21, 2008 6:15 PM
I am almost sorry to see it tied up in the courts, because they will spin that as oppression. "Help, Help, I'm bein' repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!"
Much rather just see it die on the vine.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | May 21, 2008 6:15 PM
I think you do, as you keep writing about it. Lame.
Posted by: Paulo | May 21, 2008 6:18 PM
There's got to be a better way to see it, PZ! I contributed my ten bucks to the opening weekend of Baby Mama. It did very well.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | May 21, 2008 6:21 PM
Expelled was so trashy that taking out 15 seconds of stolen music isn't going to make any difference. I'm sure they will just reedit it if the court case drags on.
The DVDs will probably be given away free in mass quantities. I don't know how much a DVD costs but lots of them come in the mail for one reason or another, mostly advertising and they just get tossed.
But for a low cost alternative, it will end up being rerun on late night Xian TV like it's inspiration, From Darwin to Hitler.
Expelled will probably end up being counterproductive for the creos. Stringing lies together works for a while but not forever. Even Goebbels made it to Chancellor but ended up killing his 6 kids and shooting himself.
Posted by: raven | May 21, 2008 6:21 PM
What are you talking about? This movie is a big success!
Posted by: Shaden Freud | May 21, 2008 6:22 PM
Ah! That reminds me: PBS "Secrets of the Dead" tonight will be "The Hunt for Nazi Scientists" (or some such title). :)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qRcyM0_8DI0
Posted by: SC | May 21, 2008 6:26 PM
Let's see;
Box office sales : $ 7.5 Mill.
Distribution margin : 40%
Net revenues : $ 4.5 Mill.
Production costs : ($ 4.0 Mill.) (1)
Advertising & Mkg : ($ 8.0 Mill.) (1)
Net Loss : ($7.5 Mill.)
Close to $ 8 Mill loss should disuade any future attempts at making pseudo-intellectual-false documentaries targetted at creationists. Not only it's all based on lies (but that doesn't explain failure), there's just no market for this : intellectual & creationists ?
(1) from an interview in the Dallastimes, the ceo of premisemedia declared production costs were 4 million $ and advertising and promotion were a multiple of that, which I estimate this multiple being 2 at minimum.
Posted by: negentropyeater | May 21, 2008 6:28 PM
Considering that Expelled is currently the 12th highest grossing documentary, no it would not be appropriate to say so.
This legal situation may take a huge bite out of their earnings, but that doesn't really matter. The concern about Expelled isn't whether the producers made money, it's about whether the producers succeeded in damaging science's credibility. In that respect, the numbers are a strong indication that Expelled was a runaway success.
Posted by: cerveaux | May 21, 2008 6:36 PM
#59
Close to $ 8 Mill loss should disuade any future attempts at making pseudo-intellectual-false documentaries targetted at creationists
Plus, scientists and science advocates will be more cautious with interviews now. It's sort of a Borat factor, except for Holocaust revisionist, anti-science propaganda.
Posted by: James F | May 21, 2008 6:36 PM
Brandt @ #49,
My favorite is the first:
"This is the best (and only) documentary feature I've ever seen."
Can't argue with that level of expertise.
Posted by: SC | May 21, 2008 6:45 PM
I'm really glad that the Killers management responded regarding their involvement in this debacle. My letter to Killers management, sent March 27:
Subject: Killer's song used in creationist propaganda film....
I would hope that management of such a great band wouldn't have knowingly allowed usage rights for a fundamentalist propaganda film, yet in the upcoming movie "Expelled", this is one of two alternatives. Either the song was used with permission (The Killer's song "All these things that I've done" is used in the end credits), or it has been co-opted for use under misleading pretenses. This, certainly, wouldn't be the first time for this film, as much of its scientific gravitas was gained from tricking prominent biologists to appear in a DIFFERENT film, called "Crossroads". There have also been concerns over proper licensing of the song "Bad to the Bone" by George Thoroughgood. The perception is that the filmmakers were more than willing to lie and steal outright in order to promote an agenda that includes, among other things, that the earth is only 6000 years old, that the foundation of biology and medicine (evolution by natural selection) is somehow all a big lie, and that the teaching of science should be based not on evidence or facts but on popular opinion and political force.
I wanted to make you aware that the song was used as a part of the film, and was shown at the Mall of America to a studio audience. If you didn't know (or were misled as to the fatuous, silly content of the film) then I hope this helps you to pull the song and take whatever action is appropriate and legal. If 'The Killers' management DID know, then I have to say that I am disappointed at their lack of judgement and their promotion of a roundly disproven worldview that contributes daily to the suffering of millions. If the Killers themselves allowed the use in the film, then I'm sad to say they have lost a listener.
Thanks for reading,
Aegis
---------------------------
Glad that they admit to having been duped (going as far as attempting to pull the song from the film). As it is, I hope that the Lennon family now sues them for the entire proceeds of the film. Hopefully, the insurance that filmmaking companies purchase will default the producers claims if Lennon wins a judgement (which seems likely). I'd love to see the angry ghost of Lennon reach forth from the grave to smite down "Faulty Premise" Media and their ilk.
Do we care about Expelled? Only as much as I care about seeing creationists and theists hoisted by their own petard. Which is, by the way, quite a bit.
Posted by: Aegis | May 21, 2008 6:48 PM
And I know just the song for it. You wouldn't even have to make the movie; just create a trailer with "Help!" in its entirety in it, and wait the 6-8 seconds it'll take to get
"See? See how the liberal media/atheists/scientists/Freemasons/etc. are repressing me and my message? They'll be coming for your children next! Be afraid; be very afraid!"
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 21, 2008 6:49 PM
>
This reminded me of a conversation I had with a Christian co-worker, who was stunned--STUNNED, I tell you!--that "The Passion of the Christ" wasn't nominated for a Best Picture Oscar.
"How many movies did you see in the theater this year," I asked.
"One," she replied.
"So, of the one movie you saw, it was the best?"
"Yes!"
I pointed out that my partner and I had seen literally dozens of movies that year, and I could easily name five better movies than Mel's sleazy little magnum opus, which I quite frankly found offensive.
"Yes, but YOU'RE not a Christian," she pointed out.
I had to admit, she had me there. Obviously, I was prejudiced...and she, being a Christian, couldn't POSSIBLY have been biased.
Posted by: Robin | May 21, 2008 7:27 PM
"...because the only way I'm ever going to see it is if I can rent the DVD from my local store."
You mean it was so bad it didn't even warrant the Handycam-in-a-trenchcoat treatment from movie pirates?
I think that's the clearest sign of how bad it was from a spectator POV.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | May 21, 2008 7:39 PM
I have an old friend from high school days who is a PhD Political Philosopher from one of the reputable Boston universities (and teaching at a well known New England college). This dear friend of mine has seen that movie more than once and absolutely insists that I see it before I comment on it. I pointed out the expelled exposed site to him but to no avail. He is very concerned about the gatekeeping that scientist use in the peer review process and how that will ultimately lead to party line thinking. He is not impressed with any of the advances that science has made and that philosophical naturalism as well as scientific knowledge blinds us to the ultimate reality of truth. He's a very bright guy, and if this movie fooled him, I shudder at what it did to the small number of people who actually went to see it.
Of course, it's my fault that he saw it. I had told him I was going back to school to get another BS, this time in Biology (first 2 in Physics and Astronomy, w/ a Masters in Engineering) and he mentioned his discomfort with the notion of life not being guided by a high order. I then off handedly mentioned Expelled as the nutcase side of the issue.
I must be careful what I say next time...
Posted by: OrbitalMike | May 21, 2008 7:43 PM
One more item:
The loss and deliberate violation of copyright laws makes the whole thing smell like a film version of "Springtime for Hitler"
Posted by: OrbitalMike | May 21, 2008 7:58 PM
PZ: "Apparently, a New York judge has upheld the injunction against the movie, so there will be no new showings, and DVD rights are in limbo."
This is not quite true. The judge refused to lift the temporary restraining order immediately after the hearing on Monday (which only means he was not completely overwhelmed by the case that Premise Media presented) but he has not yet made a final decision (although he promises it quickly) on whether to impose a preliminary injunction.
But that doesn't mean he won't lift it when he delivers his decision. Since apparently there is no immediate harm to Premise by continuing it for a couple of more days, it probably is the cautious thing to do. But not a strong sign of what the final outcome will be.
Posted by: Divalent | May 21, 2008 7:59 PM
#67
He is very concerned about the gatekeeping that scientist use in the peer review process...
People don't understand the sheer number of scientific journals and papers that are out there - if it's actual science, a reasonable body of work with conclusions supported by original data, it's virtually guaranteed to get in somewhere if you're persistent.
Posted by: James F | May 21, 2008 8:10 PM
So, does he live in a hut made out of pine-twigs in the forest, ride a mule to his prestigious college and scribble his philosophy on pieces of birch bark?
Posted by: windy | May 21, 2008 8:19 PM
But that doesn't mean [the judge] won't lift [the TRO] when he delivers his decision. Since apparently there is no immediate harm to Premise by continuing it for a couple of more days, it probably is the cautious thing to do. But not a strong sign of what the final outcome will be.
Actually, to be able to halt a movie in mid-run when it is still taking in thousands of dollars on 400+ screens requires quite a strong showing that the interests of the plaintiff (Yoko) will be irreparably harmed. So the judge's refusal to lift the TRO is IMHO a sign of the final outcome.
Posted by: Jud | May 21, 2008 8:22 PM
I loathe Stein and Mathis as much as the next guy, but I also see the irony in responding to a post about Expelled's creators getting busted for copyright infringement by declaring one's intention to download the film illegally.
Besides, I predict a sizable chunk of any money Mathis and company made from this film will end up being paid to Lennon's heirs in royalties and punitive damages.
Posted by: ndt | May 21, 2008 8:48 PM
Keith Eaton! Paging Keith Eaton!
He must be away on business. You know, leading the mob, chasing down Darwinists with hunting dogs.
(Odd side note, the spell check provided by FireFox recognizes Darwinist as a word.)
Posted by: Janine ID | May 21, 2008 9:21 PM
It's amusing to see you clowns blowing your collective wads over this minor and temporary (very temporary) court action. This action is in no way predictive of the judge's ultimate decision. Don't let that stop your group joygasm, though.
Posted by: jsn | May 21, 2008 9:21 PM
Yeah, never mind that Expelled has topped Michael Moore's "Roger & Me" and is now the #5 top grossing political documentary and #12 top grossing general documentary. Inconvenient truths and all that.
Posted by: jsn | May 21, 2008 9:26 PM
What? You expected something other than hypocrisy from this crowd?
Posted by: jsn | May 21, 2008 9:28 PM
Stein might have greeted the news with some relief. Expelled was only showing on one screen in Manhattan (the AMC 25, which also shows 2nd-run movies), and (I think) only one screen in L.A--and that's L.A. county, not L.A. proper; a cynical person might think Stein (and any production/crew people with actual industry chops) was hoping that no one in the entertainment business would see him in it.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | May 21, 2008 9:28 PM
Those of you who think Requiem for a Dream is anything but sensationalist tripe are seriously deluded. There isn't a thing in the movie that even comes close to the truth of junk addiction. It really is like Reefer Madness. I have known enough junkies in my life and a film like Born to Win is far more realistic in its effort to deal with their pathetic lives. Junkies seem to like Requiem for a Dream because they can have a good cry over their blasted lives. Any others that do like it out of simple ignorance.
Posted by: mndean | May 21, 2008 9:38 PM
So, what do Nisbet and Mooney have to say about the success of Expelled now?
Posted by: Carlie | May 21, 2008 9:43 PM
jsn: Expelled has topped Michael Moore's "Roger & Me" and is now the #5 top grossing political documentary and #12 top grossing general documentary.
Maybe you should look at NET instead of GROSS.
Oh! Sorry! I forgot! As a fundie, everything is gross to you!
;)
tony
Posted by: tony (not a vegan) | May 21, 2008 9:50 PM
EXPELLED is still playing at a few screens here in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, undoubtably due to all the teenage girls hoping--praying!--to get another glimpse of PZ Myers.
Posted by: Robin | May 21, 2008 9:51 PM
Given that jsn is apparently content to parrot Denyse O'Leary without actually citing her, it's worth noting that the numbers he's presumably quoting are inflation-unadjusted. That is, given that the American dollar is worth approximately shit right now, having the 5th. highest gross in inflation-unadjusted dollars isn't quite as impressive.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | May 21, 2008 10:03 PM
And were that true it still doesn't change the fact that it is chock-full-o-lies.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 21, 2008 10:40 PM
Those are inflation unadjusted numbers they're nattering on about? Oh, I want to play, too!
Did you know that Bio-Dome made more than twelve times the amount that Citizen Kane did in theaters? What do you say to that, huh?
(That was fun!)
Posted by: Carlie | May 21, 2008 10:58 PM
So... we're pro-intellectual property when the creationists are being sued for abusing it, but we'll torrent the creationists' intellectual property? VERY interesting.
I mean, I'm basically a communist when it comes to intellectual property. Essentially Cory Doctrow +15. The more lawsuits between big players, the happier I am. It just makes the untenability of the status quo all the more obvious. I hope the system of people owning ideas buckles under its own weight. And if creationists stand to lose millions, well that just adds another layer of schadenfreude...
But I'm openly hypocritical here for complex reasons. What about the rest of you?
Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | May 21, 2008 10:58 PM
I think it is complicated and possibly a bit hypocritical, Ryan. However, here's my take - I am all for protecting copyright when someone else is trying to make money off of it (as the Expelled people did to Lennon). Watching the movie on one's own computer is not trying to make money off of it. That takes it down a huge notch of severity in my mind. Then there is the question of intent and possible future loss to the copyright holder - would I ever pay to watch this movie, ever? Is this something I want enough to pay for? If not, then there's no money being lost to the producers, because there is no circumstance that would get me to pay for it. In that case, there isn't much harm done by me watching it. [/rationalization]
Posted by: Carlie | May 21, 2008 11:09 PM
recently spoke to some folks associated with the filmmakers. Bottom line: they've lost millions on Exposed(primarily because of marketing costs). They honestly thought they would have a 10-15 million opening and be at breakeven after the first weekend. But the really funny thing that was said was that some of the people involved in making the film are quietly (off the record) saying that the entire experience has exposed them to learning more about evo and done the opposite of what was intended (i.e., moving people towards i.d.) Of course, they would all be shot for saying any of this out loud, so everyone's staying on script. They have one particularly large investor/donor who would cut them all off on other money fronts if they crack. Once they give up on getting their money back, its possible that some involved who are not beholden to the big backers will do some backtracking.
Posted by: Mary | May 21, 2008 11:21 PM
"But I'm openly hypocritical here for complex reasons. What about the rest of you?"
Although I was initially more supportive of Ono, right now I'm neutral on the whole lawsuit. This is because A.) from a moral standpoint I have yet to fully form an opinion on their use of "Imagine", as it's not quite as cut and dry as their rip-off of "Inner-Life" (that is, the latter is quite clearly not fair use while the former is iffy) and B.) am not qualified to comment on the strictly legal dimension of it as IANAL. In general I'm a proponent of reasonable monopoly licensure as a means to protect content creators, so I'm hardly an "intellectual property communist" although I do oppose to overzealous copyright maximalism embodied in, e.g., the "Induce Act".
I also don't support torrenting to movie, so that may all be a moot point.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | May 21, 2008 11:25 PM
Tyler DiPietro (#89):
You have done a good job summarizing my position for me. Thank you. I suspect rather strongly that a documentary could be made whose use of "Imagine" would qualify as Fair, but I remain agnostic as to whether Expelled — jazz hands! — qualifies.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 21, 2008 11:33 PM
Right, so in terms of documentaries it is behind Tupac: Resurrection. And just for context, a documentary about birds, Winged Migration, grossed nearly 50% more. A bird movie beat out Expelled.
If you want real context, Expelled is #9 on the Christian movie list, just behind those hugely influential films Facing the Giants and End of the Spear, and just ahead of Megiddo: The Omega Code II. I'm sure its impact will be similar to those movies.
Posted by: Tulse | May 21, 2008 11:34 PM
So, what do Ni