It's a dark day for the subject of evolution in the U.S. Two years ago I made a pro-evolution movie, "Flock of Dodos," trying to warn the evolution community they are not good with mass communication, and that the people behind the attacks on evolution are VERY, VERY good. This weekend Ben Stein's anti-evolution movie, "Expelled," had a HUGE opening, estimated to rake in over $3 million dollars. One of the top openings EVER for a documentary.
Ben Stein says evolution is for losers, and nobody seems to be able to answer him.
Comments
Huge success?? Compared to what? What was Flock of Dodos box office earnings?
Rotten Tomatoes gives the impression that Expelled wasn't too successful. I don't know though - it's clear that Flock of Dodos got its best exposure at museums and universities (after Tribeca). And who's probably watching Expelled? I imagine that it's mostly Christians who've already made up their minds on intelligent design.
I can't be certain, but the only huge success that Expelled has is in preaching (or insulating the minds of) the choir, I think.
Posted by: Dan | April 20, 2008 12:23 PM
Success in America is not determined by reviews, it's determined by box office. The movie has already been enormously successful. They put ads all over Comedy Central, got coverage in Time and Newsweek, and will score further exposure from such a solid opening. Also, there was very little drop in box office from Friday to Sunday. This wasn't a fluke.
The evolution community has been taken to the cleaners. It's very unfortunate. Didn't have to happen. But it has. What's important now is to do an honest assessment of it, then consider NEW ways of dealing the mass communication of evolution. So far I'm not hearing any evidence of that happening.
Posted by: Randy Olson | April 20, 2008 12:50 PM
But Randy, the pro-science part of the blogosphere has already told us that the movie is inaccurate, unfair, and even copying other people's work. Thus the movie is dead, right?
Seriously, I saw the trailer and it's good. Haven't seen the movie. I don't think it'll change the world, but score one big goal for anti-evolution with this huge opening.
Maybe we can just mount a few more fuming blog posts in response, and call it a victory for our side.
Posted by: Mark Powell | April 20, 2008 12:55 PM
Hi, Randy. Thanks for a sane and sobering assessment of the weekend's developments. It's very refreshing after the partisan posturing from both sides over the last several weeks.
From a non-partisan critic who's been caught in the middle of it all by necessity but not by choice, I'd offer the following advice: find some way to harness the dogs of war. The reactionary and uninformed, disdainful behavior of the film's detractors only serves to reinforce the film's claims -- and for anyone who's really paying attention, turns the film's vocal detractors into untrustworthy sources of information.
Standard practice in the film industry (and even more so with agitprop docs like Expelled) can easily come off as deceptive and dishonest; but gloating over inconsequential stuff that could never possibly lead anywhere makes otherwise reputable people look bad.
One thing that might be useful would be getting an industry insider on board to construct a film and TV industry fact sheet as a resource for people to find out what's standard practice and isn't. That way real issues could be complained about instead of smokescreens.
Perception is king in the media, as you well know, and first impressions count for more than the later ones.
Right now, if you visit Pharyngula, Kevin Miller's blog, the Bad Idea Blog, or even Hollywood Jesus, the first impression one gets of ID detractors is that they're hateful, small-minded, and frightfully naive, if in possession of better facts about the science.
Being right doesn't matter if you come off as a prick.
Posted by: Greg Wright | April 20, 2008 1:12 PM
Who are these people making these comments here, and why isn't NSF calling them up for advice? Both comments are right on the money and are helping relieve my anxiety today.
Dodos had such a clear warning about the communications savvy of the anti-evolutionists. And for a year or so I was feeling like I might have gotten it wrong as the Discovery Institute seemed to fumble with such amateurish things as the Hoax of Dodos website they built to attack my movie. But I had heard over a year ago about Ben Stein getting involved in an anti-evolution movie, and I tried to start warning people what was coming.
And now, the same evolution communications people who ignored the warnings, will figure out their own spin about how the movie was a failure because it got bad reviews.
After a while, what can you say. Flocking dodos.
Posted by: Randy Olson | April 20, 2008 1:25 PM
I'm sorry, but how is 3 million on it's opening weekend an enormous success? That is actually pretty weak compared to most of the movies out there and can probably be attributed to the brainwashed masses that were told that god wanted them to see it.
Posted by: Scott | April 20, 2008 1:49 PM
Indeed. In 'Flock' you made it perfectly clear that Creationists are just jolly ol folks that you want to have a beer with. Since then, Ive been threatened, harassed, and what was that one comment from Behe? Oh yeah, he told me I should go kill myself. He told a 24 year old female student to go kill herself after she had the audacity to point out he hadnt even done a goddamn Google search before dismissing decades of HIV research.
Oh yeah.
Great guys, those Creationists.
Fantastic communicators.
You should have seen the way Dembski disintegrated after a few questions from hoity toity Ivory Tower undergrads last fall.
Charismatic fellows, those Creationists. Born with silver tongues.
...
Im sorry, what planet are you on?
Congrats, Im sure youve just given Uncommon Descent another front page article.
Posted by: ERV | April 20, 2008 2:08 PM
There's a little statistic called, "Per Screen Average." In general, $1000 per screen is considered impressive. Expelled did $2,997 for the weekend. These guys did a very good job of placing their movie in the right theaters. It's in only one theater in the Hollywood/Beverly Hills/Santa Monica region -- a huge population, but not likely to be supportive. In Kansas City it opened in 12 theaters.
I'm so tired of reading the rants of academics on these blogs who know nothing about the film world but feel certain "Expelled" flopped because the critics didn't like it. And they also got excited about what they thought were copyright violations that would sink the movie. But in the end, it was again just their lack of knowledge of the film world.
It's sad to watch evolutionists swinging in the dark. As comments above say, let's go ahead and be honest here -- concede that these guys scored a major victory -- then figure out how to realistically deal with this communications failure rather than try to deny it happened.
Posted by: Randy Olson | April 20, 2008 2:09 PM
So you're saying that Expelled has 60% of the per screen average of Megiddo: The Omega Code II ($5,011) in its respective opening weekend. Yep, evolution just can't stand up to that kind of public awareness.
Posted by: Nyo | April 20, 2008 3:21 PM
ERV - I'm not the enemy. You should focus your anger on the people who are paid to communicate evolution broadly. They should have created a voice for evolution so loud and powerful that disinformers like Ben Stein are drowned out. There should be five popular pro-evolution movies at the box office right now, instead of none.
Posted by: Randy Olson | April 20, 2008 3:24 PM
I'm saying it has $2,997 higher per screen average than "Mansquito II: A new species" ever did on any weekend.
Posted by: Randy Olson | April 20, 2008 4:04 PM
Randy, I liked your Flock of Dodos film a lot. Your point about the creationist/ID camp being an excellent propaganda machine is well taken. However, I'd also like to comment on something that Greg Wright alluded to, i.e. evolutionists coming across as being pricks. I think that itself is a rather one-sided view, as ERV points out. Sure, there are the acerbic, teenage YouTube atheists on the one hand, and affable, rice-krispie-square-baking creationist moms on the other. But at the same time you have death-threat-hurling, bible-thumping bigots and level-headed evolutionists open to debate as well. I mean this is the internet after all, and any hotly debated topic is bound to rife with vitriol from both sides. Look at Dembski's own blog - I wonder if he comes across as any less of a prick after his constant and puerile bashing of Judge Jones.
For what it's worth, being nice probably helps but it will only get you so far. There comes a point where you simply cannot win against The Word. New Scientist offered a list of 24 common misconceptions about evolution, which for the most part is quite good. But then they try to tackle theological issues, i.e. evolution being compatible with religion, and IMO that's probably going to fall on a lot of deaf ears. The NCSE often stresses this same point about the compatibility of science and religion, but while it may be true, somebody who believes in the literal truth of Genesis is not going to take theological lessons from Eugenie Scott.
The solution is not that people like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins need to temper their forthright views on religion, in order to score PR points with the religious right. Bill Cosby said that the formula for failure is trying to please everyone. Getting a single person or advocacy group to speak for science will never be the solution. We need different voices that pander to the different audiences. After watching the seventh installment of the PBS' evolution series, it appears to me that an evangelical paleontologist is more likely to get a Christian student to reconcile the science of evolution with his or her faith than somebody like Kevin Padian could. Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God will probably reach out to many Christians struggling with the reality of evolution, but to those who regard Catholicism to be a heresy, his message won't get through. Blaming "people who are paid to communicate broadly" simply isn't part of the solution, in my opinion.
Posted by: NP | April 20, 2008 5:22 PM
During one of the "canceled" screenings, the Expelled guys apparently said they'd consider it a success if they grossed $12-15 M on the opening weekend. It's also relevant that they've poured millions into their marketing campaign, including having hired 4 separate PR firms, a TV ad campaign, a cross-country sneak preview tour, etc. With production costs of $3.5 M, I think a very conservative estimate would be $10 M total when you add in marketing; a more realistic estimate may be twice that.
A $3 M opening weekend would net the filmmakers maybe $1.5 M. Unless they can duplicate this feat for seven more weeks (not bloody likely) they're going to be deep in the hole.
So the opening weekend was indeed very successful, just so long as we discount little things like profitability or the filmmakers own expectations. But at least they have Randy Olsen congratulating them.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | April 20, 2008 5:43 PM
Randy, your points are well taken, but the main problem is: who are they directed at? Government science by and large orgs aren't the business of huge PR campaigns or making movies. Things like the Dover doc are about the best we can expect from that quarter. Who does that leave? Individual scientists, even those that are super-activist, don't make films (and openly admit they have no idea how). There are a bunch of think tanks in these areas, but most struggle to fund otherwise modest efforts and missions.
These guys have bank because they have a few nutty millionaires with axes to grind, tons of ideologically committed donors, and built in audiences that WANT to be preached to, and preached to with this exact message.
So who is supposed to take your advice and run with it to combat these guys?
The reality is that for all the noise of these films, their side never makes any real progress because they simply don't have anything going for them legally or scientifically when it comes down to brass tacks. The most they may win are a bunch of really stupid state bills and some kids in public schools getting told that horse fossils are really hyraxes. That sucks, but it's still not enough to awaken the sort of ideological fervor that drives the creationist side of things.
I've worked in political campaigns, and have a pretty good idea how messaging works: enough to appreciate that you're right when you note the savvy things the Expelled folks have done. And I'd love there to be a big well funded bunch of campaigns to hit back. (For one thing, I'd have a chance to be employed at doing something I'd really love). But I don't see anyone out hiring or willing to pour money into such an effort. I don't see how we're going to get from point A to point B on this one.
Posted by: Bad | April 20, 2008 6:00 PM
Just because the movie Expelled appeared to have a successful opening weekend doesn't mean they did an effective job making the case for their argument.
Why worry about how the die hard American Christians take how or what the science community has to say? Seems to me science has the most important element of any argument on its side, the truth.
The solution is to keep speaking the truth and eventually the truth will win out.
Posted by: Joel | April 20, 2008 6:12 PM
Mr. Olson: your reference group should be movies which could count on bussed-in opening week-end church groups and large purchases of tickets from ideologically allied web sites and associations, not to mention free positive publicity by similarly allied big media entities (Fox, Limbaugh, etc), and even politicians parading Stein and the movie around to get it and themselves free time on the local news channels. And with all this fanfare and PR, the movie still seems to have fallen far short of their predictions. Sure, a bunch of people went to see it, but I am almost sure that very few if any had their minds changed.
Just to give you a sense of the mood, note that after blowing the Expelled horn for months, Dembski's blog Uncommon Descent is already distancing itself from some of its excesses regarding the Nazism-Darwin connection, which backfired mightily with independent viewers, and ID's crazed cheerleader Denyse O'Leary can only pull herself to claim the movie did "agreeably".
Regardless, dishonest ideologues will always beat science at PR, and frankly, I'd take the reverse as a sign of something seriously amiss. Sure, we could do better at getting our message across. But if you expect a honest, objective documentary about the Creationism-evolution political controversy to attract crowds, you are just dreaming.
Posted by: Andrea Bottaro | April 20, 2008 6:14 PM
So other than telling the "evolution community" that they were doing it wrong (a la Nisbet), what have you been doing the last two years? Have you been doing anything to directly fight ID? Nope. Have you even blogged against the lies and caricatures that Expelled uses? Nope. You've just told folks that they are doing it wrong. Smugness is not a strategy.
And $3M is not a "HUGE" opening. Perhaps for a documentary but given the investment that the backers put into it it's still disappointing. It will be gone next week once the bussed-in crowd have seen it.
Posted by: John Lynch | April 20, 2008 6:14 PM
Greg Wright: "Right now, if you visit Pharyngula, Kevin Miller's blog, the Bad Idea Blog, or even Hollywood Jesus, the first impression one gets of ID detractors is that they're hateful, small-minded, and frightfully naive, if in possession of better facts about the science."
I can see someone reading Pharyngula and getting the impression that ID detractors are hateful, etc., because PZ Myers comes off so, ahem, colorfully. I can see someone reading Kevin Miller's blog and getting the impression that ID detractors are hateful, etc., because Miller wants to send that message. However, the Bad Idea Blog is pretty even-keeled in general, and the tone of your own Hollywood Jesus is more regretful than contemptuous. I'm not sure where you are coming from here.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | April 20, 2008 6:24 PM
From Richard Dawkins site. A very well written response.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins
Posted by: Joel | April 20, 2008 6:49 PM
My point was not to pick on anyone's site for being a host to bad behavior; as anyone who's run a blog knows, you want to encourage discussion, and you even want to be a little provocative in what you write in order to generate discussion... because discussion drives traffic to the site. And certainly, everyone who runs a blog has got to make some tough choices about that noise-to-traffic ratio.
My point was simply to cite a few places where it's easy to see "hateful, small-minded, and frightfully naive" posts by those who at least associate themselves with the anti-ID crowd. That's all.
And the capacity for being a prick is certainly universal... and it doesn't represent anyone's cause well.
(A tip of the hat to BadIdea, too, for doing an admirable job of moderating the comments over there.)
Posted by: Greg Wright | April 20, 2008 7:21 PM
Come on, Randy. This is letting your aggravation get the better of you. I agree entirely that we need better science education, communication, and entertainment, but inflating the successes of the creationists does not help.
Ben Stein is not the new spokesman for evolution. His movie is nothing about evolution. Ben Stein is the new spokesman for creationism. Let's keep things straight.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 20, 2008 7:25 PM
Last month someone was saying that Ben Stein was nothing to worry about?
Are they paid enough to be able to make blockbuster movies promoting evolution?
Would those be playing in 12 theaters in Kansas City? And even if they were, how would that make less people see Ben Stein's movie?
Posted by: windy | April 20, 2008 7:43 PM
From where I sit -- and I know no-one particularly cares about my perspective! -- that's a win-win proposition. 'Cause then I can just get back to talking about films as films rather than as propaganda!
Posted by: Greg Wright | April 20, 2008 8:06 PM
I'm not sure if this is completely tongue-in-cheek... so the pro-evolution side should basically take over Hollywood?
Posted by: windy | April 20, 2008 8:19 PM
I guess that it depends on what you are looking for, doesn't it?
As the terrific review of Expelled on your site notes, it is easy to see that evolution inspired Hitler to murder millions of people, and it is easy to not see any of the other influences, including Christian antisemitism. If that is what you are looking for, that is.
I have to say that, as someone who is just about fed up of being told that we must always cater for the lowest common denominator - least intelligent, youngest, most sensitive, etc - there are limits to how far I am prepared to go, if only for the sake of my own self-respect. After a while it starts to feel like manipulation.
Having said all of that, I am quite prepared to go out of my way for anyone, as long as they treat me with respect.
Posted by: Damian | April 20, 2008 8:34 PM
A 3 million opening on 1000 screens with a per theater average of $3000, after being backed up by a substantial media buy, isn't a "successful opening" by any standard of the movie industry.
This is what is what is called "tanking" or "flopping".
Now it is true that this isn't a standard commercial release from a major entertainment company, so expectations would be substantially less. Since the theatrical release is probably seen as a way of boosting sales in other formats, perhaps the producers/distributers are comfortable with the numbers. Perhaps they're not even interested in making money. But I don't know anyone who would see this opening in a positive light.
As for being one of the top documentaries. Well, that's not saying anything as docs generally make very little. Taking Moore's films as a gauge of what docs make is like looking at Stephen King as "average successful writer".
But what sets this one apart is the number of screens. Most independent efforts platform on a handful of screens and thus generate tiny opening numbers. However, the commercially viable ones have high per theater averages. $20,000 to $50,000 isn't unheard of for a film with high audience "want to see". Based on high per theaters, the distributer then expands to more screens/markets.
For a studio, releases tend to fall into "small wide" 2,500 screens, "wide" about 3000 screens, or just huge 35000+. They rarely put anything out in this range. Unless you're talking about dumping the film. That's what you do when you know you've got a stinker and are just trying to grab the opening weekend and run.
Posted by: matthew | April 20, 2008 8:43 PM
Right, but another little statistic is percentage change from opening weekend, and that's far more important for long-term success. I think it's a mistake to draw conclusions before we know if this film has any legs after the bused-in crowds of opening weekend.
For comparison, Sicko (2007) opened wide on 702 screens with slightly larger take of $3.6 million and a much larger per-screen of $5,128. But it dropped by 20% the following weekend, and continued to drop by that and more each weekend for the rest of its run. (Such drops are actually mild by Hollywood standards -- typical horror films, including top 10 openers, will drop by 40-50% the next weekend.) Sicko finished with $24.5 million domestically, when it opened on fewer screens and with a bigger opening per-screen average. And note that 702 screens was not its widest weekend -- that was 1,117 screens.
But perhaps Sicko is not a great comparison. We could also compare it to, say, Left Behind (2001), which appeals to a similar demographic as Expelled. Left Behind earned $2.2 million opening weekend on 867 screens, for a per-screen of $2,489. But that was the widest it ever played, and the next weekend it dropped 67%. It was gone in 6 weeks, and ended with a total box office of $4.2 million.
So is Expelled more like Sicko, or more like Left Behind? I don't know, and none of us will until (at the earliest) next weekend. That said, I doubt very much that Expelled will ever play on more screens than it opened. I doubt very much that it will hold more than 70% of its box office next weekend, especially after the scathing reviews (those may not affect the True Believers, but it will indeed scare away the curious).
My only point is that if we're really judging this on the standards of Hollywood, let's really do that, and not just grant them a win because the film got released.
Posted by: Tulse | April 20, 2008 9:00 PM
Well, did you read the review there by Darrel Manson? He had quite a different view. No groupthink at HJ, or heavy-handed editorial inquisition. It's a weakness, and it's a strength.
Oh, I hear you there. I'm just suggesting a course of action; I'm not saying it's palatable. It's not a game I'd play, either. Guess that's why I'm an editor, and not a filmmaker! Tried that once.
I think that goes for a hell of a lot of us. And it's that "respect" factor that's missing far too often -- and it is possible to respect people we don't agree with.
Posted by: Greg Wright | April 20, 2008 9:43 PM
Randy, Since you are so smart - what is the answer? "Flock of Dodos" wasn't - so it seems you are even more clueless than the evolutionary biologists you disparage. Perhaps it is time for you to put up or shut up. Why don't you find some funding sources to match religion in this country and then we will see what we can do.
Posted by: michael fugate | April 20, 2008 9:51 PM
One of the recurring notions that comes up in these "us vs them" discussions is that really, we shouldn't worry about refuting creationism and intelligent design and so on, and just focus on getting people excited about real science, and evolutionary biology. Don't even mention creationism. Don't give them the attention. Just get people excited about the real science.
It's been done.
Thank you, Sir David Attenborough.
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | April 20, 2008 10:36 PM
michael fugate wrote:
Randy, Since you are so smart - what is the answer? "Flock of Dodos" wasn't - so it seems you are even more clueless than the evolutionary biologists you disparage. Perhaps it is time for you to put up or shut up.
Agreed, I also don't appreciate Randy's pissing on the NCSE's efforts. If you think you can do better than Ms. Scott, then dig out your camera, find some backers, and make a documentary to counter "Expelled." May I suggest a little less poker playing with fundies and even less pissing on your own side for not being as PR-savvy as you claim to be?
Posted by: Murtant-Q | April 20, 2008 10:44 PM
Correction: I meant to say the NAS's efforts. I misconstrued Randy's sarcastic poke as an attack on the "Expelled Exposed" site. My apologies.
Although, I still stand by the rest of my comments.
Posted by: Murtant-Q | April 20, 2008 10:51 PM
Wow. I finally slip out to see "Expelled," and come back to all this. Amazing.
First off, John Lynch -- I've done a lot over the past two years -- I personally have taken part in over 50 screenings of Dodos with panel discussions everywhere from Midland, Texas to Panama, from Harvard and Yale to Manhattan, Kansas, night after night of talking myself hoarse about this whole messy issue. I also sat in the conference room at the Discovery Institute and endured two hours of Chapman, Wells, West, and Luskin literally shouting at me calling me a liar and defamer (West talked about it a month ago on C-Span). Plus the movie is on Showtime, which has 5 million subscribers and has brought in several hundred emails from members of the general public who just want someone to discuss evolution with which I oblige. So your comment simply misses the mark.
More importantly, it's just funny how everyone agrees that the science community is not good with communication, and the mass communication of evolution has not been effective, but when you try to state it publicly you get all these folks who, I guess out of some sort of feeling of loyalty to their profession, feel the need to defend how evolution is communicated. Mostly what I'm saying is that it could be done so much better.
You want to know how to start -- why doesn't somebody run a film festival for pro-evolution films? THAT is how you reach out to tap into new voices, new blood, new perspectives. THAT is what is desperately needed. Efforts to fan the fires of creativity and innovation. THAT was how I got started as a filmmaker -- winning awards at the New England Film and Video Festival while I was still a professor. That festival, and others, drew me into the world of filmmaking. But right now, if a high school kid makes a really great video about evolution, where is he or she supposed to send it? And more importantly, the presence of such a festival becomes an incentive to draw new talent into the subject.
These things are possible. It's called supporting innovation. It DOES NOT HAPPEN in the world of science communication right now. I know from experience. I've run the gauntlet and managed to survive, but I don't see any efforts to foster new science filmmakers. And yet we can continue to see large amounts of money poured into the same old sluggish, conservative, large scale "educational" media. There is an exciting new world of filmmaking out there. I see it at USC film school every time I go over there. But the science world isn't making use of it.
On a different, and I think very cool, note mentioned above, let me say a few things about "the voice" of evolution. There are basic traits that are more likeable, and less likeable. Cursing and condescending are not likeable and turn the broad audience off. Listening, being patient, and speaking in a genuinely concerned manner (rather than hurling insults) are traits that draw the mass audience in to what you have to say.
And you want to see the perfect example of this -- go see "Expelled" and watch Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers. BOTH of them come across as very friendly, very patient, very likeable, and I'm certain their "performances" undermined a great deal of what the filmmakers were hoping to get with their interviews. There's not one moment of Dawkins sniping at Ben Stein in the lengthy interview at the end, not one bit of "you dumb ass" type of glare, and so in the end, there's very little for the atheist haters to cheer at. Both Myers and Dawkins come across as very nice folks that seem totally contented with their views (rather than full of rage and frustration). Film is such a sensitive medium, it takes very little emotion to register very large. They come across great.
So there, I think, is the proof of a lot of what was discussed above. A lot of potential ammunition for the anti-evolutionists was diffused simply by these spokesmen for evolution NOT coming across as unfriendly folks. I know this sounds superficial and maybe even silly, but guess what film and television are, by definition, as media -- superficial and often silly.
Posted by: Randy Olson | April 20, 2008 11:26 PM
J.J. Ramsey said, "I can see someone reading Kevin Miller's blog and getting the impression that ID detractors are hateful, etc., because Miller wants to send that message."
Sorry, J.J., but the commenters on my blog are generating that message loud and clear without any help from me. I'm merely providing a venue. For the record, I don't moderate my comments at all. The only thing I censor is spam.
Posted by: Kevin Miller | April 20, 2008 11:27 PM
There's already an anti-"Expelled" weampon. Of course, it's not exactly in the same category. It requires a bit more thought and is a little late accessible to lazy viewers. But it's wonderfully educative. It's got drama and politics and science lessons. It's called "Judgement day". It should be widely distributed, on DVD for instance. Or even better : the documentary itself should be made freely available on the Net, and a bonus-powered DVD should be sold.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | April 20, 2008 11:31 PM
"Wow. I finally slip out to see "Expelled," and come back to all this. Amazing."
Randy,
Noooo !!! It's too late. You've done it. You've increased their statistics. Are you proud of yourself ?
:-)
Posted by: Christophe Thill | April 20, 2008 11:41 PM
That should probably take care of the problem.
So when do you start?
Posted by: Steve Reuland | April 21, 2008 12:01 AM
Randy wrote "You want to know how to start -- why doesn't somebody run a film festival for pro-evolution films?".
Why don't you organise it? You are a scientist and a film-maker, and you have one successful film under your belt, so are you not the perfect person to initiate this event? I don't expect you to fund it, or organise it all by yourself, but if you are really serious about this, I do expect you to look into making it happen. Who do you think could help with it?
Posted by: MH | April 21, 2008 2:21 AM
Duae Quartunciae:
I agree for the most part, and as far as long term solutions go, getting kids excited about science and understanding how it works is imperative. Ideally, we should be able to communicate science without resorting to partisanship.
However, when you have multi-million dollar Creation Museums that essentially teach kids to mistrust scientists, the challenge is far more complex. Teaching parents to appreciate good science is a lot more difficult if they have ideological hang-ups or if they didn't have the same kind of appreciation when growing up.
Randy:
From the clips I've seen, PZ and Dawkins come across as being quite genial. But apparently PZ's rather innocuous comparison of religion to knitting apparently drew gasps from certain audiences, so I think this underscores my point that while being nice is usually a good thing, it can only get you so far. This is why I think we need more voices reaching out to different segments of the population through a variety of mediums.
We also need to recognize that there has been a substantial effort into promoting evolution in their own ways. It's just not easy when people don't have vast amounts of financial backing or the Irrefutable Word of God.
Posted by: NP | April 21, 2008 2:46 AM
Duae Quartunciae wrote "Just get people excited about the real science. It's been done. Thank you, Sir David Attenborough."
I remember hearing that the Planet Earth TV series, originally narrated by David Attenborough, was re-dubbed for the American market (using Sigourney Weaver), and that the script was changed to avoid mentioning evolution, so that fundies could see it as evidence of God's design. Sad.
Posted by: MH | April 21, 2008 3:27 AM
Has he sued yet?
Because he should. Really.
Posted by: David Marjanović | April 21, 2008 4:16 AM
Wow. I finally slip out to see "Expelled,"
Why the f* would you do that?
Posted by: Joel | April 21, 2008 4:25 AM
David wrote "Has he sued yet? Because he should. Really."
If only! However, it was co-produced by the Discovery Channel, so the changes were no doubt agreed from the beginning. The BBC were hardly in a position to say no on principle.
Posted by: MH | April 21, 2008 5:02 AM
"Success in America is not determined by reviews, it's determined by box office."
And more accurately, whether or not it makes a profit.
Will it? I think it is possible that they won't make back in theaters what they spent on marketing. Of course the big money could very well be the DVDs which was probably where these guys planned to make their profits anyhow.
If it does make money, we can expect more such films and probably by more talented movie makers especially since there are a lot of deep pockets that want to win souls.
I am looking at the B.O. per theater average since that is in contention here. Friday it was #4, Saturday it was #5, and Sunday it was #3. Clearly that is not a bad take for the investment of a screen from the point of view of the theater owner.
I suspect that the a good portion of fundamentalist who just had to see it have done so. If the movie is as bad as people have claimed the word of mouth will kill it. If these people give it good word of mouth then clearly it will improve.
Posted by: A Lurker | April 21, 2008 5:46 AM
But right now, if a high school kid makes a really great video about evolution, where is he or she supposed to send it?
A high-school kid? Youtube of course. And that has the potential to reach an audience larger than Flock of Dodos and Expelled combined.
I find the idea of a "film festival of pro-evolution films" as outreach hopelessly naive, if not just self-important. 99.9% of the public couldn't name a single major international documentary film festival (let alone a specialized one), and a vast majority probably don't even know documentary film festivals exist at all.
That's not to say that an evolution film festival would not be a good thing for other reasons, of course. You can never have too many good science documentaries. But broad outreach? No way.
With the exception of really major productions, like the Evolution and Life on Earth series, the best a good, successful documentary about evolution could hope for would be to go straight to the Discovery Channel, maybe NOVA. Something about the political controversy over evolution could play on Frontline, or perhaps on some network late at night. Basically, peanuts.
I also am surprised at your reading of Dawkins and PZ Myers in Expeleld: all Creationist sources, and even some independent ones, highlight their interviews as the big scores of the movie with respect to making the point to a religious audience that Darwinists are out to get them. Of course, they were dishonestly acquired and edited interviews, but they seem to have been unquestionably effective as propaganda.
Posted by: Andrea Bottaro | April 21, 2008 5:52 AM
"Also, there was very little drop in box office from Friday to Sunday."
They went from $1,145 per theater on Friday to $941 per theater on Saturday. I haven't seen the final numbers for Sunday, but the estimate on Friday was $911 per theater to get the $3.1M weekend total--actual will probably be less.
I believe "Expelled" was the only opening film to drop in revenue during the course of the weekend.
Of the other top documentary films of all time, every single one of them opened in fewer theaters and then expanded on good reviews and word of mouth. "Expelled" is almost certainly going to work in the reverse manner--a big opening and decline in revenue and number of theaters on terrible reviews.
I've seen huge traffic bursts to my blog posts about "Expelled" which link to ExpelledExposed.com. I suspect that the more people who do actually see it, the more people will go home, do a Google search on "Expelled," and then discover how dishonest the producers of the film are.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | April 21, 2008 7:12 AM
I'm not sure you can count 'bums on seats' as a measure of success here when people are being paid (free bobbleheads, charity donations, etc) to come and see the film. Once the invitations are all sent out will the money keep rolling in? I think not. It's a very narrow view of success you're taking here.
As I wrote over at Greg Laden's place, what about real success i.e. the film acheiving its aim of exposing the horrific treatment of, and indeed dastardly discrimintation against the stone-age fundamentalists who make up the pro-creationism crowd? Seems to me the audeinces so far will have consisted of the sheeple who already support their drivel and the likes of ScienceBlogs readers who are there for a laugh thanks to the Myers/Dawkins incident. Not really successful by a long shot...
Posted by: Paul A | April 21, 2008 7:16 AM
After writing the comment here, I kept thinking about it, and the end result is the latest post at my blog: Thank you, Sir David.
As you can see, I am certainly NOT proposing that we should put all our eggs into one basket and ignore creationists all the time. I do want to celebrate this one magnificent series of beautiful films which make no mention of creationism and which are soaked in evolutionary biology, as a perfectly natural part of our living world. This, I think, can be held up as a good example of successful "framing", or accessible education in biology.
At the same time, I ALSO support a forthright and loud response to the Expelled nonsense; and thanks to Randy and many others here who have helped generate that.
But the most effective use of big budgets is, in my view, to produce more films in the style of the Attenborough documentaries. Don't make them an attack on creationism; but just let them be a celebration of evolutionary biology.
I'm shocked and dismayed that these could have been presented reworded to avoid mentioning evolution. Is that legal? How did they get away with it? It certainly would be a horrible disservice to the films. Evolution was not a tacked on addition, but a simple natural background for the the whole thing.
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | April 21, 2008 7:21 AM
Actually, Duae, I may be mistaken about the how the content was changed. I've been trying to find confirmation, but without success. It's true that the content was changed, but I can't say in what way. I think I just assumed that if they were going to change the content, it would be to take out anything that the US market would find controversial, which is evolution, which must have been mentioned in the series, and which virtually no-one in the UK has a problem with. I could be wrong.
Anyway, my apologies if I misled you.
Posted by: MH | April 21, 2008 7:32 AM
I've seen a 'review' by one True Believer as a series of comments in the creation/evolution debate section of a large Christian message board. The message s/he got from Expelled was that 'Darwinists' lie about what they don't know, that hate-filled 'Darwinism' caused the Holocaust, and that Dawkins believes aliens created humans. Oh, and that people who promote ID are being wrongfully silenced by Darwinists.
Evolution supporters on that board have been providing huge amounts of educational material, often in simple to access and understand forms for years. They have linked to ExpelledExposed, and to countless other refutations of the film, as well as providing their own arguments. The board is heavily moderated for insulting or abusive language, so everyone has to make an effort to be 'nice'.
AFAICS, it has made absolutely no difference to the ID/Creationist/YEC crowd. They see what they want to see. They like to feel persecuted. I don't think any amount of education or pro-evolution films could change their minds. I suspect the only really effective process for science in the US is to hold hard to separation of church and state in the school system, and hope most school children are at least made aware of real science and how it works.
A better stab at teaching world history wouldn't hurt, either. I've seen some woefully ignorant 'historical' statements from US participants on such boards, and as much as science education being poorly done sets people up for films like Expelled, so does ignorance of the history of anti-Semitism and the role of religions in various wars.
Posted by: Bee | April 21, 2008 7:48 AM
Wouldn't you be the best person presently available to undertake such a project? So why haven't you run a film festival for pro-evolution films?
Posted by: Orac | April 21, 2008 8:09 AM
Randy, we are listening. We are trying harder than you give us credit for. I have been repeating to everyone who will listen advice that I solicited from you when you showed Flock of Dodos at a congressional event: that we need to give scientists demerits when they speak badly or give boring presentations. I've copied and pasted some of the advice from above to send to colleagues. Would love to send more. Keep it coming.
Posted by: Martha | April 21, 2008 8:31 AM
Randy olsen wrote:
And now, the same evolution communications people who ignored the warnings, will figure out their own spin about how the movie was a failure because it got bad reviews. >>
We've been working on it since then too! we have not been sitting back hoping it would go away! please, dont be a hater, just cause we're not media savvy like you.
Martha a science communicator
Posted by: Martha | April 21, 2008 8:39 AM
Hi Martha - thanks for the comment. It's a shame that it's taken this Ben Stein movie to bring about all these discussions, but ... it has. The science world has a long history of problems with mass communication. As Jeremy Jackson mentioned on our blog last week, it was only 5 years ago that I suggested spending a couple million on television commercials for ocean conservation and was attacked and ridiculed by a number of the scientitsts in the audience. Fortunately Al Gore had the savvy and resources to know how important this stuff is, and now a lot fewer people are questioning the idea of spending big on mass communication. It's the nature of American society. You can try to ignore it, or you can try to understand and use it towards productive ends. The latter IS possible.
As for the film festival idea, I just blurted that out yesterday in a discussion, but it really is what ought to happen. And I'd love to put it together if the funding were easy to come by, but it's not. There is massive resistance to anything new when it comes to communicating science, and I'm very busy now with a number of other projects. I have only so much blood to give to these issues, and when it becomes too difficult, it's just not worth it.
Still, it's tempting.
Posted by: Randy Olson | April 21, 2008 8:47 AM
Quoth Randy:
Erm, so you promoted your own doc and sepent two hours with the DI. Well done, sir! Well done! And clearly it all hasn't made a rats ass of a difference because we're now dealing with "Expelled".
You and Nisbet are cut of the same cloth.
Posted by: John Lynch | April 21, 2008 8:48 AM
I saw Flock of Dodos at the Field Museum (Chicago) in conjunction with meandering through the Darwin exhibit... it was a great time and they had scientists from the Field speaking about the film and their experiences teaching evolution afterward. Now, the only problem I had was that the movie was poorly advertised, there were maybe 25 people in the audience and we were all supporters of evolution: talk about preaching to the choir!
So, I wonder if an 'evolution film festival' would even be attended? The problem at the Field Museum may have been poor PR, but man, there were a LOT of people already there for the Darwin exhibit and the natural progression for us was to see Dodos (which was a good piece, I might add). For the rest, it simply didn't happen. Why?
So, where do you have the festival? At a college? Museum? Who are you trying to draw into the Festival? People who already believe or fence-sitters? How might it be advertised to get as many attendees as possible, especially when there seems to be a lot of festivals already in existence? Could you piggy-back another festival or create a category within an already existing festival? How might this really affect the issues at hand (important ones that deal with legislation, etc)?
Just questions...
Posted by: mezzobuff | April 21, 2008 9:02 AM
And exactly who are you, John Lynch?
Posted by: Randy Olson | April 21, 2008 9:03 AM
Randy,
Expelled has a built in audience of fundamentalist churches, to whom they've been marketing for months. It's not at all surprising that they got some money. That's the result of having a built in audience. What did you expect?
But considering the size of the audience already predisposed towards creationism, $3 mil is not "HUGE" at all, given the size of the evangelical and fundamentalist constituency in America. It's much, much smaller than what they were predicting and hoping for, and it's with church groups going to see the movie all over the country. The producers were hoping for something like $12 mil. They didn't even get close, which might be because they're not reaching as broad of an audience as they hoped. At $10 a ticket that's about 300,000 fundamentalists going to see a movie with their church groups, perfectly within the realm of possibility. These people are already hard core creationists, so it's not like the movie will be swaying potential science allies away if this is the case.
Is there any evidence, any evidence at all, that Expelled is reaching beyond that crowd? Is there any evidence that Expelled will turn enough of a profit to make these types of movies attractive (ie, to encourage more such movies)? Is Expelled converting anyone? I certainly haven't seen such evidence, and a $3 mil take certainly proves no such thing.
I simply cannot follow the logic you and Chris are using. You're reading much, much more into this opening than the evidence seems to warrant. It seems to me that you're using the results of Expelled's built in audience to impeach scientists for--what? Not converting enough fundamentalists? Not marketing to evangelical churches in Chattanooga, TN?
When I see solid evidence that Expelled has reached a broad audience, I'll start taking you more seriously. But that evidence has not yet emerged. The evidence so far is consistent with them just preaching to the already convert, and you're deluded if you think scientists can prevent that from happening. How could anyone prevent that? And why would that count as a "huge success"?
Posted by: Wes | April 21, 2008 9:06 AM
First off, thanks to MH (#40) for scaring me into thinking that my DVD copy of Planet Earth, which I have been saving to watch when television becomes really depressing, might have been narrated by Sigourney Weaver instead of Sir David Attenborough. Not that I mind Weaver, but, honestly, her or Sir David?
Second, I think that ERV's response was correct, in that she has been attacked by some of these people (as she mentioned) - I'd take that personally too. I've never been on the receiving end of that particular level of viciousness, but I hope that I have a good response ready to deliver when and if I ever am. I think that her frustration - and that of many others - comes from having to take every IDiot or creationist attack seriously, as you never know which one will stick. Is Expelled it, though? Is that the best that they can do, and if so, is their best enough?
Third, what should our response be? Randy (and here I should say that I really liked A Flock of Dodos, by the way, saw it at one of the Kansas City screenings with Steve Case moderating, then at another screening, then when my wife bought the DVD for me), suggests a film festival. Great. So what goes in the film festival? Does it need to be a "film festival + plus..." what? What about a David Attenborough / Carl Sagan / James Burke and the like festival, or are there more films about evolution specifically? It troubles me that I can't think of any.
I guess what I'm really asking is this: where do we go from here? Where? Is this a case of "Don't mourn. Organise." in the union / activist sense?
I'm totally prepared to host a miniature film festival in my home, but I'd be completely baffled as to how to do it on the broader scale. I guess there is such a thing as learning on the fly...
Posted by: William | April 21, 2008 9:10 AM
I disagree with Randy about the success of "Expelled," but the vitriolic responses sent his way are a bit shocking. Look, folks, he's not pissing in your Wheaties because he's against you--he thinks scientists as a whole don't do mass communication well, and he's right. And this whole, "well, what have you done? Oh, that's not enough so shut the fuck up" business is pathetic. He's one guy for pete's sake--if all of us did as much and as well as him, we'd have a lot more impact.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 21, 2008 9:20 AM
Perception is reality. The movie finished in the top ten for the weekend. Take a look at all the weekend box office round up reports. The Morgan Spurlock movie (thankfully) totally flopped, and is reported as such. None of the reports I've seen so far say the Ben Stein movie flopped. Whether the filmmakers had hoped for $100 million opening is irrelevant. What matters is how the business community perceived it's performance on opening weekend -- that will determine the DVD roll out.
Anyhow, I'm getting tired of reading all these box office analyses from people whose limit of knowledge is the articles they've read about how the box office works. Last September I made a post on Pharyngula commenting on the high quality of their trailer and obvious cost of the music cue ("Bad to the Bone"), trying to warn everyone this was a serious movie with serious resources behind it, and then got shouted off by all the experts there who were certain the movie would be amateurish and never see the light of day.
Perception is reality. They splashed Comedy Central last week with very slick ads then made enough box office over the weekend to not be labeled a flop. All I'm doing here is examining the truth of what has transpired. This is supposed to be a science oriented community on these blogs. You'd think there would be some interest in the truth.
To state the truth doesn't mean you are abandoning the world of evolution.
Posted by: Randy Olson | April 21, 2008 9:20 AM
ERV writes:
"In 'Flock' you made it perfectly clear that Creationists are just jolly ol folks that you want to have a beer with."
Actually, I'd like to see them after more than one beer (like the evolutionary biologists in the film). I wonder if they would apepar so nice and reasonable then.
Posted by: Dave Wisker | April 21, 2008 9:40 AM
Filmmaking is about storytelling. In Dodos we told a story with clear characters. I cast the creationists/intelligent designers as "nice folks," but their whole story is told in a single shot at the opening of the film of Connie Morris smiling and winking. A few very literal minded people said, "you need to explain to the viewer that this is a horrible person -- you've made her seem nice." But most people read the entire story in that single wink -- it said it all. It didn't need any further explanation. And none of the reviews of the film ever said those people are genuinely nice folks, they only said that on the surface they seem like nice folks. There's a big difference.
Posted by: Randy Olson | April 21, 2008 9:55 AM
I think a lot of people are still missing the point here.
I wrote this as a comment on Chris' blog, but I think it is apt here as well:
For what it's worth, I think there is something we can do at this moment in time, and that is to capitalize on the modest buzz generated by the film. This is a good time to get those "frames" out there.
Posted by: NP