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.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
You may all recall that a certain bad movie was released in mid-April…a movie which I have not yet seen, but which is now available on DVD. I was just at the local gas station/grocery store/video store, and there it was, available right there on the shelf. I considered it for a few minutes, and…
People are asking me to tell them more about the movie, Expelled. I can't! I was thrown out!
Let me clarify a few things. This was a private screening with no admission charge, and you had to reserve seats ahead of time; you also had to sign a promise that you wouldn't record the movie while you…
That new Darwin film, Creation (reviews here and here) doesn't look like it will get to my neighborhood theater — it hasn't got a US distributor, for familiar reasons.
A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for…
So much for that "Don't Be Evil" Google bullshit:
Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege.…
Or wait till someone posts your Expelled interview on YouTube.
You and some other scientists should do an MST3k-ish thing with Expelled.
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.
Buying the DVD still gives income to the creators, I was planning on torrenting it, but I've yet to find a decent feed.
And oh yeah, have we heard anything about the copyright issues regarding the cell animation?
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.
You know a movie isn't very popular when you can't find a torrent for it.
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
"...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.
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.
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.
Current box office numbers:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/number…
They'll be paying people to see it at this rate.
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.
Now that this denialist fantasy has quickly come to an end, ... on to summer escapist fantasy (new Indiana Jones!).
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? ;^)
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...)
I won't say whether or not I downloaded it, but I noticed Expelled was on the pirate bay.
I'm waiting for the MST3K version.
To quote my favorite band, Swans, "I burned all the books that closed my mind." In that spirit I refuse to watch it.
Ugh. I really hope it never comes to Canada. Movies like this make me nauseous.
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.
From the Wiki:
I wonder why.
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!
"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.
Thomas Robb, Baptist minister and KKK leader, reviews Expelled
Are you referring to the actual movie here?
isn't there a pirate copy on the internet anywhere?
Geez, even the torrents on this loser suck.
It is a conspiracy of pirates.
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."
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!
It is a conspiracy of pirates.
> 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?
"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.)
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?
"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.
#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.)
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
So, would it be appropriate to say that "Expelled" has crashed and burned before taking off?
I guess this illustrates the converse of Poe's law - a sufficiently nutty kook cannot be reliably distinguished from parody.
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).
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.
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.
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.
"...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.
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
EMI is also suing over Premise's use of Imagine
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!
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?
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/review… (copy and paste into address bar)
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.
Damn activist judge. Heh!
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!
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.
I think you do, as you keep writing about it. Lame.
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.
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.
What are you talking about? This movie is a big success!
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
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.
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.
#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.
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.
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.
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!"
<<"This is the best (and only) documentary feature I've ever seen.">>
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.
"...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.
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...
One more item:
The loss and deliberate violation of copyright laws makes the whole thing smell like a film version of "Springtime for Hitler"
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.
#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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
What? You expected something other than hypocrisy from this crowd?
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.
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.
So, what do Nisbet and Mooney have to say about the success of Expelled now?
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
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.
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.
And were that true it still doesn't change the fact that it is chock-full-o-lies.
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!)
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?
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]
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.
"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.
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.
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.
So, what do Nisbet and Mooney have to say about the success of Expelled now?
I mean this in every possible way:
who cares.
PZ,
Rent the DVD?
It's called torrents, mate.
No, you do want the DVD injunction to go through. Because that's the real danger of the film; it's destined to become one of those movies that they screen in church basements and parochial schools for the next thirty years, like Kent Hovind's garbage or The Silent Scream. It's best to nip this one in the bud while that's still an option.
No, you do want the DVD injunction to go through.
well, that's the issue being debated. Is it right to use, or even wish to use, an injunction to stop distribution for merely punitive reasons? I don't think that is really the spirit of utilizing an injunction in this case.
even though the film is utter crap, and will likely cause problems for educators in the future, I think most here would have second thoughts about using media rights issues in such a fashion.
what if the shoe were on the other foot?
For those who missed it, Winged Migration is a thing of beauty. Put in in your queue. :-)
Re: #2
I suggested exactly that months ago. I still want to see Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and PZ get together and go all Shadowrama on Expelled.
http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/?p=227
I had chuckled a bit at the judge's inquiry, wondering why the producers just didn't flash the words on the screen...lol...Has the judge ever heard of using pictures (namely political cartoons which many don't have words) or in this case video as a means of expressing one's view. Injunctions are the norm for these types of cases until a ruling is declared...
No, you do want the DVD injunction to go through. Because that's the real danger of the film; it's destined to become one of those movies that they screen in church basements and parochial schools for the next thirty years
Sounds like you want to use the state to impose your beliefs on the population which is wrong.
Sounds like you want to use the state to impose your beliefs on the population which is wrong.
Or he could just be hoping that the creationists undermine their own argument by making a legal mistake. It's a bit like hoping mafia members go to jail for tax fraud. There's nothing wrong with that.
Then again, I'm the IP communist. My viewpoint is slightly skewed.
what if the shoe were on the other foot?
I should clarify and say that no matter what, that shoe wouldn't likely have the stinking mess that occurs when one steps in "Expelled".
No, what I'm saying is that if there's an injunction on the film because of copyright infringement, you shouldn't try to stop it. I come from this culture, so I know how the film will be used; if the producers shoot themselves in the foot legally and thereby unintentionally subvert their true purpose, it would be stupid to try to bail them out. (It's almost poetic justice, in a way.)
Tulse @ #91:
"Right, so in terms of documentaries it is behind Tupac: Resurrection."
And, it still hasn't been able to pick off that pesky 1994 High School basketball vehicle, "Hoop Dreams." I was wondering why I can't get any daily numbers out of Box Office Mojo since Sunday. This would be the reason.
Eric @ #18:
If I happen to see it on Rifftrax, I'll pass it along.
The only reason it got as much attention as it did was because of you (you should be ashamed of yourself). If you truely believe that this film is dead then this will be your last post on the subject, right? Let's go back to how we were before because quite frankly the discussions about the movie are becoming about as boring as Ben Stein's monotone voice.
So, PZ said he wanted religion to play about the same role in science as knitting does, which is, apparently, the same idea as proposed in John Lennon's utopian song "Imagine", (even though the line there is "no religion", not "religion on a par with any other hobby"), both of which are, apparently, directly comparable to Stalin's Russia (which banned neither religion, nor knitting, but which did repress the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution).
Have I got their argument for fair-use right?
"The movie is dead anyway..."
Even the expelled website seems to be dead. There have been no new blogs there since April 23rd and they have disabled all comments.
ID sucks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO2n3GHGK7c
What I don't want to happen is for Expelled to get away with removing the audio clip from the movie and redistributing it after. That would be like getting caught carrying something out under your coat from Nordstrom's, then saying "Oh, did I steal this? Just a mistake. Here, I'll put it back, no harm done." Nope. Especially if they got licensing rights for the others, that means they knew what they were doing, so no. They should get slammed for the entire gross the picture has made to date, and be prohibited from distributing it again.
I'm with Ryan Cunningham - Intellectual Property is Theft!
Everything is unfolding according to teh plan.
To the folks busting chops about copyright infringement:
As a general rule I only torrent things that I already own; are already available for free from other sources; or are unavailable to me in the U.S.
I'm in favor of the spirit of copyright laws, ie giving creators credit for their work. In the real world its a bit more sticky. In the case of Expelled, I'm not costing the 'creators' any money because I would not see the film in any other way. Rationalized hypocrisy? Maybe.
I think there's something totally disingenious to claim that Expelled didn't do too bad as it arrives #12 in the list of all documentaries of all times, in front of Roger and me.
Isn't that surreal that someone could claim "success" by pumping close to 12 million $ in a sleak production and a massive advertising campaign and hiring a relatively famous man to promote a movie that opens in 1000 theaters which has never been seen before in the USA for a documentary, to end up selling 40% less tickets (compound inflation from 89 to 2008) than Roger and me, a small independent production with a tiny budget that opened in 4 (yes four !) theaters and an unknown character.
By any measure, Expelled is an absolute and total disaster : Financially, commercially, strategically, intellectually, cinematographically.
Here's an idea for those who claim that being number 12 on the list of documentaries is a sign of "success" : come up with any stupid idea, the stupidest you can imagine, the most baseless claims you could ever make.
For example, call it the "TEAPOT CONSPIRACY", a documentary about the fact that some evil atheist darwinist scientists are secretely conspiring to biologically engineer a new species to take over the world, and they are using public funds to finance this project, that their base is in the Galapagos, and that Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers are the master minds.
Make a documentary movie on it and pump in 100 million $, hire Tom Cruise as the guy who is going to save the world from these evil atheist darwinist scientists, and of course to promote the movie (hoping he doesn't try to promote scientology with it, or maybe he should, that would be even funnier). Why not ? You'll see, you'll make much better than #12. Maybe you'll make the top 5 even, that shouldn't be difficult !
> Requiem is a great movie, cuz heroin is actually bad for you, unlike pot
It's a piece of prohibitionist trash which perfectly illustrates the 'logic' used by drug warriors to justify the crusade they've been waging for nearly a century and a half now.
(Spoiler alert!!)
Three of the four characters met their dismal ends not because of drugs but because of their illegality (prison, refusal of medical treatment, and black market prices), and the fourth because her doctor should have had his license suspended.
Yes, heroin is bad for you. So what? So are alcohol, skydiving, and fatty foods. And when someone comes into a hospital with an arm infected from shooting up, why wouldn't you treat the poor SOB instead of tossing his ass in prison and letting his arm literally rot off? Oh right, because drugs are bad, m'kay.
My irony-meter is smoking and whining at the contradiction inherent in a bunch of people rejoicing over how Expelled is getting whacked for copyright infringement, and then saying "I'll download it from bittorrent."
I don't know how many people will actually download it, because really, who wants to waste the hard drive space and the time? My brain is exposed to enough nonsense during the typical day that I don't need to go adding more.
Hm.
I wish it had been allowed to rot and die on its own. Why bother putting it out of its misery? This just enhances the victim complex it was all about in the first place.
When I snuck in after Iron Man (which was AWESOME) there were two old white republican-type people in the theatre, watching very righteously. I just sorta sat there fuming until I left, but it was good to see that nobody was there.
Interestingly, it got a straight 9% at Rotten Tomatoes: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/
#112: Yeah, this is what I'm saying. It's kind of a chickenshit way to win. And it seems especially pointless when the thing was so widely failing in so many ways, anyway.
Who's really winning here? With this court decision, they get a chance to salvage this clusterfuck and get creationist types to rally around it. They go from embarrassment to martyr.
I'm puzzled by all this. Has anyone seen a copy of the injunction? Has the film really been pulled from theaters? News reporters have a nasty way of getting really, really confused by court proceedings, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's what's happening here. I cannot find any corroboration of the story. If there is an injunction, it's in writing--has anyone seen it?
Barry
"Expelled" isn't a political documentary, it's about science and religion.
Yes, Marcus, that is a bit odd. A parity error, so to speak.
I already pointed out my position on the downloading thing, don't really see much irony. Paying for Expelled would be like giving money to a cause I do not agree with, yet there are some chumps who would argue that I 'cannot criticize it without seeing it'. A silly idea, but its a part of the conversation I'd rather just be able to skip.
The injunction did not demand the film be pulled, only that no additional copies could be made beyond those in existence. This impacts on DVD production (and would have had an effect if they tried to push the film into more theatres than they opened it).
You freaks crack me up... criticizing the movie for what you claim are licensing infringments, while toiling away at trying to get your hands on a black market pirated copy for your selves, or finding some way of seeing it without paying for it. The irony is astounding...
Regarding the legal allegations:
Posted by Dan Slater
Wall Street Journal
{Lawyers from both sides have declined to comment, but Columbia copyright guru Tim Wu told us this: "I don't think this is a hard case; nor a close case. Playing 15 seconds of a song to criticize it is as fair as fair use gets. With respect to Yoko Ono: if this case isn't fair use, then copyright law has become censorship law."}
A good review from the United Methodist Reporter:
http://www.umportal.org/article.asp?id=3528
I agree with said 'chumps'. From now on, no one should discuss or even be religious unless they've actually seen the god(s) they claim to believe in.
Ah, Javascript is back.
FWIW, I agree with you on the copyright issue. Or, at least, what I want is for the issue to be settled in accordance with the law, whichever way that may be. I don't care who wins; I want appropriate and mutually equitable Fair Use to win.
Quite true, in a way. Whew. Such prescience!
For those of you who have seen Gondry's "Be Kind, Rewind":
PZ, maybe somebody can "Swede" the movie for you.
I went to the movie, paid for it & sat through the whole thing. My brain about burst at the amount of out and out lies that were being told. The scene with Ben and Darwin made me furious, the jerk. But the use of Imagine turned my stomach. Lennon must be doing 100 rpm's in his grave. I hope Yoko wins.
Including me there were 36 people in the theater. Pretty bad for deepest darkest fundy land.
I saw Expelled on the Tuesday after it came out. I attended the first showing of the day and I was the only one in the theater. It was my own private screening. I also saw the IMAX version of Apollo 13 that way. Its strange how opposed thoose two movies are in philosophy. Apollo 13 champions man's quest for knowledge and as much as Expelled tried to indicate it was fighting for freedom, it did nothing but vilify the science that we, in part, used to accomplish the amazing feat of reaching the moon.
Reaching the moon leads to killing people.
I agree. Reaching the moon was responsible for all sorts of amoral behavior. Hitler believed in the moon. Stalin believed in the moon. Rock Hudson believed in the moon! Won't someone please think of the children?
Ryan Cunningham @ #86:
The bastards behind Expelled *jazz hands* are clearly liars and thieves. Their entire movie is a vile and slanderous lie, and significant parts were obtained through theft and fraud.
As the producers of the movie stole footage, they should not be treated as having any moral or legal right to object to the theft of their work. A thief does not have a right to keep stolen property. They ignored the law, so they should not be granted the protection of that same law.
Laws exist for a reason. If a law does not serve its purpose, especially if it is twisted to serve the opposite purpose, it should not be enforced. Copyright law exists to encourage creativity by protecting artists form the theft or misuse of their work. Premise is not using copyright law for this purpose. They are using it to prevent people from exposing their theft and fraud (witness the YouTube clips from Expelled that were pulled, ostensibly for copyright reasons, after they were found to expose the moral bankruptcy of the producers). They are using it to assert a right to hold onto material that they obtained by dishonest and criminal means. As such, the intent of the law is being perverted. Premise should not be allowed to get away with that.
I say this as someone who has no particular interest in torrenting this piece of trash, except that it's the only movie in theaters that I see no moral problem with bootlegging.
Evolution is God's plan
to give the Jews the Promised Land.
(From The Nation)
John Hagee, the controversial pastor who has endorsed John McCain, argued in a late 1990s sermon that God sent Hitler to help the Jews get to the promised land (Israel, not Auschwitz)....
So God created Evolution to inspire Darwin to inspire Hitler to instigate the Holocaust so the UN would create Israel.
Somewhere towards the beginning of Expelled (*jazz hands*), BS delivers a long, monotonous ramble about how great freedom is, and how it is responsible for all the US's accomplishmentz. One of his examples is "exploration," and he shows a space shuttle lift off.
Now don't get me wrong, I think the space program is an amazing thing (and tragically underfunded right now, but that's another story...), but it wasn't being funded out of some nebulous concept of intellectual freedom...we were trying to outdo the (not-so-free) Soviet Union.
Out of all the misrepresentations in the movie, I have no idea why this one bothered me so much, but it really did.
(Unrelated, I *love* Apollo 13...a childhood favorite, and it still brings tears to my eyes every time I watch it....)
You ain't seen nothin' yet. Just wait until Ben 'I Hate Science' Stein comes down with something terminal. Irony? That story will have its own magnetic pole.
By the way, have you noticed how many anti-Expelled posters pointed this out before you did?
That's the difference between the science crowd and your little propagandising pals--we're not afraid to call each other on stuff we think is wrong. Maybe you should jot that down for handy reference in the future. As Kseniya notes above, both your memory and your predictive ability leave a lot to be desired.
(No predictive ability? Just like ID? Must be by design!)
Totally OT - except for speaking of vile toads...have any of you seen this atheist bashing week by the choicest vile toad D'Sousa?
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/04/27/atheist-bashing-week/
He doesn't mention you PZ - doesn't that just hurt your feelings? (ha,ha,ha!!!) DD is the worst twirp in the fundie troop for my 2 cents worth.
I meant to say that when Ben Stein comes down with something terminal, he'll be embracing the results of secular science faster than you can say "Gott mit uns".
That'll be the ironic part.
Psst! Brownian - I 'saw' God back in my religious days...can I talk some bullshit then? Believed he was real too! Unfortunatly for god, V.S. Ramachandra showed up and killed him. Better not let that out though. A lot of folks would be disappointed.
Box Office Stats -- Expelled v Roger and Me:
Expelled:
Gross: $7,499,617
Budget: $3,500,000 (estimated; IMDB)
Gross-Budget: 3,999,617
Widest Release: 1,052 theaters
Roger and Me (1989 Numbers):
Gross: $6,706,368
Budget: $160,000
Gross - Budget: $6,546,368
Widest Release: 265 theaters
Roger and Me (adjusted for inflation):
Gross: $11,618,404
Budget: $277,191
Gross - Budget: $11,341,213
Widest Release: 265 theaters
So...Expelled had an almost 4 times larger widest release, an over 10 times larger budget (adjusted for inflation), and still didn't come close to making the adjusted gross of Roger & Me. Maybe not quite the kind of inconvenient truth jsn was hoping for....
Well, I bet BS also drives a car, right? I'm sure he's gotten on an airplane recently. Perhaps someone should enlighten him as to just how tied evolution is to things like biostratigraphy, which remains very important to subdisciplines like structural geology and sedimentology, all of which remain rather important to the field of petroleum geology...
Now some jackass is going to come out of the intertoobz and try to tell us that you can do biostratigraphy without "believing" in evolution, right?
Well Patricia, if he's dead, then what's the point?
I 'saw' god too when I was religious. Except god was more like a pantheistic totality than a sentient entity separate from you or I. And I didn't quite see it as much as have the truth revealed to me. I was also up to my gills in psilocybin.
It's very hard to sleep when you've just met god. And your pillow is speaking to you in Faroese.
Gills? You mean mycology does recapitulate phylogeny?
Cool.
Faroese? Must have been an eiderdown pillow.
Or excellent shrooms.
(these are not mutually exclusive hypotheses)
In a lot of ways, listening to (and reading) D'Souza is like watching him appear on American Idol, D'Souza's tragically off-key notes echoing while Randy Jackson is speechless with embarrassment, Paula Abdul commends his bravery in morse stammer, and Simon Cowell berates the staggering hubris of it all. I struggle to change the channel, but can't. It all ends in tears.
Etha is right that Expelled isn't the kind of success that its partisans make it out to be.
They bought a big open on 1000+, and that's about it---it did 4M its first full week and decayed with a half-life of about a week, coming in somewhere under 8M.
On the other hand, it may not be the flop we'd like it to be.
Randy Olson says that a 3M open makes it likely to make money, eventually. Apparently, the opening weekend alone is typically a good predictor of DVD sales, etc., and industry types don't think the movie was a flop. Most movies don't have much in the way of "legs," so the fact that it decayed 50+ percent per week shouldn't be too reassuring.
I have some doubts about that. Expelled is a very atypical movie, and I wonder if the usual formulas apply to a little movie that bought a big-movie opening weekend. I wouldn't think so, but I don't know, and Randy doesn't show his work. (He basically suggests that we look at movie industry commenters, who didn't call it a flop, like they did Morgan Spurlock's latest.)
I agree with Randy at least to the extent that we should be a bit disturbed that they can buy a million theater viewers up front, and may not actually lose money doing it.
It is a bit disturbing that Expelled is the #12 grossing documentary ever, and there isn't a comparably pro-evolution movie in the top 100. (Sure, there are a few "nature" movies, but nothing really pushing evolution AFAICT.)
Maybe we shouldn't expect that because there are moderately pro-evolution shows on PBS, etc., but I still don't much like it.
Back on the first hand, it's at least nice that the movie didn't come close to meeting the Expelled folks' expectations, by a factor of several.
BTW, if anybody finds out how to predict DVD revenues, what assumptions the formulas are based on, etc., please post.
Huh. Really? See, I work for a church--the atheist church secretary, that's me. So I have the bonafides to pull off the promo copy thing.
Trouble is, I'd feel bad associating the pastor with anything Expelled. He's a pretty decent fellow, belief in a fairy tale notwithstanding.
Plus, such a request would probably put the church on the mailing list of every wacka-doodle-do, creotard organization out there, making more work for me. More junk mail to chuck in the recycle bin.
And I really have no interest in seeing the movie.
Still, if I ever had a hankering to see it, I 'spose that would be a semi-legit way of approaching the issue.
@ Ichthyic (95, 100) I doubt the 'shoe would ever be on the other foot.' Most scientists are, if nothing else, meticulous. Failing to procure permissions for use of materials is just not in the scientific lexicon. Even poorly conducted research/ written papers often get the citations right.
@Kseniya, or is that 'fungivory recapitulates Doxology.'
Even though Expelled has (pretty much) expired, I still hope that the all the people who granted interviews under false pretenses take legal action. 'Big science' can handle the lies spouted in the film, the legal system should handle the nefarious conduct and methodology employed in the film's production.
"toiling away at trying to get your hands on a black market pirated copy"
Scene 1. Act 1.
PZMyers [wearing requisite wizard hat and robe, standing in front of a boiling kettle with a broadband connection (boiling kettles are for toiling, see?)] - Dang, the innertoobs are all clogged with porn! Arrg! Oh all masterful Science, what shall we do? What shall we do?
Oh wait, was that witches rhyme actually, "Boil, boil, toilet trouble."?
(Sorry, I can never get my myths correct. And I'm a crappy screenwriter.)
As you were.
Good point about him being dead. Doesn't slow the fundies up much. I've never heard a good reason why gawd has been utterly silent for 2000+ years.
Carlie @ #113:
I don't know how many people will actually download it, because really, who wants to waste the hard drive space and the time? My brain is exposed to enough nonsense during the typical day that I don't need to go adding more.
Then I urge you with all my soul NOT, NOT to go to ERV's blog and click on the link to the HIV-denier debate. You've been warned.
Oh, SC, I know better than that. :)
And just because I've been waiting for a place to use this link, I hope that soon no one in the country will be able to watch Expelled *jazz hands*
I think the "Expelled *jazz hands*" bit is missing the mark. The proper way to write it is "Expelled *lifts right buttock*".
Regarding the issue of downloading a torrent copy - it's only illegal if you actually watch it.
I have depressing news for my local area. I live in a small city in southern Arizona called Sierra Vista. To my sad surprise, [i]Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed[/i] is playing in the local Cinemark at the Mall of Sierra Vista. It started playing on May 16, 2008 and is supposed to continue till May 29, 2008. That is 14 days of showing! I have not gone to see it. I am wrestling with two ethical dilemnas. One dilemna is that I do not want a penny of my money lining the pockets of the people who made this mockumentary. The other dilemna is that I may have an increased challenge teaching science next year and seeing this movie may leave me forewarned and forearmed.
If you weren't actually in it, would you have cared about Expelled, ever?
@#151 Science Teacher --
That one's easily solved -- theater hop (buy a ticket for a different movie -- Horton Hears a Who, for example --, then go to the Expelled theater instead).
Two words PZ if you want to see it: Lime Wire. ;) OO! PirateBay!