Debate over evolution shuts down IMAX film

[zimv20]

link (http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/debateover5.htm)


WOODS HOLE - It seemed innocuous enough: a 40-minute movie about underwater volcanoes that briefly mentions life on Earth may have arisen from the sea.

But the 2003 IMAX film ''Volcanoes of the Deep Sea,'' whose producer consulted with scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and used its Alvin submersible to film the underwater volcanoes, has been banned by some theater owners and managers in the Bible Belt because it briefly mentions the theory of evolution.

The controversy, coupled with a nascent effort to include teaching ''intelligent design'' alongside evolution in public school curricula, has helped thrust the long-running battle between religion and science back into the limelight.

Proponents of religion argue that evolution is ''theory,'' not fact. Supporters of science point to the time-tested underpinnings of Darwin's theory of evolution, a pillar of the modern life sciences since it was introduced in the mid-19th century.

The evolution reference in ''Volcanoes,'' which includes footage filmed from Alvin at depths of more than 12,000 feet, prompted officials of more than a dozen IMAX theaters to ban the film. Previews indicated some audiences found the big-screen movie blasphemous because it contradicts the biblical account of how life on Earth began.

(more)

seems there's a battle brewing between proponents of "separation of church and state" and "separation of science and commerce."

[anonymous161]

It seems there is a battle brewing between people who have brains and people who don't. So much for natural selection.

[miloblithe]

It's interesting that "intelligent design" pretty much means sitting in a dark room with your fingers in your ears, eyes closed, rocking back and forth mumbling "God is the creator, God is the creator."

[skunk]

But it's also interesting that the theory of evolution needs so much blind faith to fill in the gaps.

[anonymous161]

"ID" seems to suggest that God, which I consider a perfect being, created a system whereby all these complex elements could grow and change over time but the system wasn't perfect enough to create man, so he had to come down and "manually adjust" the system. If he was going to go to all that trouble, the least he could do is make it so that my ***** doesn't stink.

[skunk]

If he was going to go to all that trouble, the least he could do is make it so that my ***** doesn't stink.That's down to your diet...

[IJ Reilly]

But it's also interesting that the theory of evolution needs so much blind faith to fill in the gaps.

More science, no blind faith.

[skunk]

More science, no blind faith.In time, maybe. At the moment all I see is assertion.

[IJ Reilly]

In time, maybe. At the moment all I see is assertion.

Go ahead, pull the other one.

[skunk]

Go ahead, pull the other one.I thought like any good pirate you only had one to pull.
:)

[swindmill]

In time, maybe. At the moment all I see is assertion.

Evolution is far more than an assertion. It's a theory just as gravity is a theory. The statement made by creationists that evolution has "so many holes" is simply ridiculous. Sadly, it's something people hear and accept. Evolution could be a well supported theory even without a fossil-record which allegedly has so many holes.

[Peterkro]

Obv. creationism is a load of bollocks the problem is science is not so different.

[swindmill]

Obv. creationism is a load of bollocks the problem is science is not so different.

Please expound on this . . . a statement so ludicrous needs to be supported.

. . . I don't expect support for it, I just want to point out how ridiculous of a statement that is.

[IJ Reilly]

I thought like any good pirate you only had one to pull.
:)

Just call me Mr Spigot.

[skunk]

Obv. creationism is a load of bollocks the problem is science is not so different.Very succinctly put.
:D

[Don't panic]

creationism is to evolution what a raindeer is to a rocket engine.

anyone cares to try to convince NASA to seriously consider reindeers as propulsion systems?

[Sayhey]

It seems there is a battle brewing between people who have brains and people who don't. So much for natural selection.

Quite the contrary. Natural selection means that those within a species that are best adapted to their environment are more likely to pass on their successful traits to the next generation. In the current political climate, it is obviously the brain dead who are most suited to survive and pass on their genes. So Bush's success is just natural selection in its continued action. Gives you lots of hope for humanity, doesn't it? :eek:

[ham_man]

Meh. I accept Evolution and I believe that God was responsible for much of it.

Oh, and if you boys and girls remember your science lessons, much of it is based on survival of the luckiest... :rolleyes:

[katchow]

But it's also interesting that the theory of evolution needs so much blind faith to fill in the gaps.

bang! and they're off. jes' kidding guys. i enjoy the discourse around here :)

anyone cares to try to convince NASA to seriously consider reindeers as propulsion systems?

i'm reminded of a conversation i had with a pastor when i was a kid (friend dragged me to his church youth group). When trying to convince me that faith is all you need he asked me if i believed in atoms. I said sure, to which he quickly retorted, "well, have you ever actually seen one?". Boy, he really had me there. At the time, i think i said something like "no, but i don't worship atoms either". Thinking back, (the best quips come years later) i would have asked him "do people from Hiroshima believe in the atom?"

[skunk]

bang! and they're off.Sorry 'bout that...
:o

[LethalWolfe]

"ID" seems to suggest that God, which I consider a perfect being, created a system whereby all these complex elements could grow and change over time but the system wasn't perfect enough to create man, so he had to come down and "manually adjust" the system. If he was going to go to all that trouble, the least he could do is make it so that my ***** doesn't stink.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Something is either perfect or it's not.

Personally, I find the "Who are we to question the will of God?" response a much better non-answer.


Lethal

[zimv20]

i shall pose the age-old question: can god make a rock so big that i cannot lift it?

[mactastic]

i shall pose the age-old question: can god make a rock so big that i cannot lift it?

Yes, easily.

The question is, can God make a rock so big she cannot lift it?

[zimv20]

Yes, easily.

(only if god exists)

[mactastic]

(only if god exists)

Correct. However, that question is usually used to debate the existance of God with believers, hence the assumption that God does exist.

Or as a Jewish friend once asked, can this God make a bagel so big even He could not eat it? :p

[skunk]

In the end, it all comes down to self-creation. At some point in the story.

[IJ Reilly]

Correct. However, that question is usually used to debate the existance of God with believers, hence the assumption that God does exist.

Or as a Jewish friend once asked, can this God make a bagel so big even He could not eat it? :p

I've probably quoted this one before, but I like it a lot so here it goes again. In a novel by Isaac Bashevis Singer, he has God in his heaven pondering, "Who put me here? Who gave me all these terrible powers?"

[katchow]

In the end, it all comes down to self-creation. At some point in the story.

it is impossible for us (and our puny mortality) to grasp, but perhaps there is no beginning?

[idea_hamster]

What I've never understood is that the creationists seem to dismiss the clear and observeable evolution that we can in fact see.

I would be interested to hear why a creationist thinks s/he needs a new flu shot each year. Or why agricultural pesticides loose their effectiveness? Or just where the strains of Staphylococcus aureus that are partially resistant to Vancomycin (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/20/1728_53976.htm) came from?

These organisms have short life cycles and reproduce by the millions, giving us a "fast-forward" type view of how organisms with longer lives change over longer periods.

I'm curious to know creationism's alternative.

[idea_hamster]

it is impossible for us (and our puny mortality) to grasp, but perhaps there is no beginning?
A very Bhuddist sentiment, katchow. "Beginningless time," they call it.

[Dont Hurt Me]

What I've never understood is that the creationists seem to dismiss the clear and observeable evolution that we can in fact see.

I would be interested to hear why a creationist thinks s/he needs a new flu shot each year. Or why agricultural pesticides loose their effectiveness? Or just where the strains of Staphylococcus aureus that are partially resistant to Vancomycin (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/20/1728_53976.htm) came from?

These organisms have short life cycles and reproduce by the millions, giving us a "fast-forward" type view of how organisms with longer lives change over longer periods.

I'm curious to know creationism's alternative.In a unvierse that is changing and evolving everyday to deny evolution is to deny God. Thats how i see it. Same group thought the Earth was flat. :eek:

[katie ta achoo]

What I've never understood is that the creationists seem to dismiss the clear and observeable evolution that we can in fact see.

I would be interested to hear why a creationist thinks s/he needs a new flu shot each year. Or why agricultural pesticides loose their effectiveness? Or just where the strains of Staphylococcus aureus that are partially resistant to Vancomycin (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/20/1728_53976.htm) came from?

These organisms have short life cycles and reproduce by the millions, giving us a "fast-forward" type view of how organisms with longer lives change over longer periods.

I'm curious to know creationism's alternative.


I never understood this either.
As the daughter of a neurobiologist, I'm always hearing about what they are doing with Alzheimer's. short story: rats and rat brains.
I've always been quite scientifically inclined; I would rather read an article about the new breakthrough in treating ALS or AIDs or the like than read an US weekly, People, or other similar magazines.

I also am curious to creationism's explanation to mutating diseases. AIDs mutates quickly. Is (a/their/your) god responsible for this? Furthering the suffering and pain of millions with the disease? I don't see why (a/their/your) god would allow this. Why would the god create this horrible disease in the first place?
(if you want, replace the word AIDs with any of the following: Malaria, influenza, SARS, cancer, and all the diseases that have changed and are now immune to things like penicillin and other antibiotics)

[miloblithe]

What I've never understood is that the creationists seem to dismiss the clear and observeable evolution that we can in fact see.

...

I'm curious to know creationism's alternative.

The "intelligent design" folks argue that there is a difference between micro-evolution (because they have to because only a real idiot would argue against it) and macro-evolution. They admit that butterflies might evolve to have different colors to match their environment or viruses might evolve to become more resistant, but they don't agree that a fin can become a leg.

Of course, it's the same process, but they pretend that it's not.

[JDar]

What I've never understood is that the creationists seem to dismiss the clear and observeable evolution that we can in fact see.

I would be interested to hear why a creationist thinks s/he needs a new flu shot each year. Or why agricultural pesticides loose their effectiveness? Or just where the strains of Staphylococcus aureus that are partially resistant to Vancomycin (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/20/1728_53976.htm) came from?


I'm curious to know creationism's alternative.

These things, as well as fossils, are put on the earth by the devil to confuse us. :D

[Xtremehkr]

Intelligent Design is creatively lazy. Instead of proving a whole lot, it just tends to rely on a single claim.

Everything is just to clever to have evolved by itself.

Just for varieties sake, let's diversify a little.

Who created the creator?

Why does a creator/diety exist in the first place?

If there was a beginning, how did that beginning come about? (In terms of the creator)

Why would a perfect being establish such an imperfect system?

Why would a perfect being create an imperfect creation that not only feels pain but is willing to inflict it? Everyone could have been created in the same light, saving the need for punishment and reward. No?

Why does an all powerful, perfect creation have a nemesis? God has been shown to be more than willing to smite those who he disagrees with on occasion. Why not just smite the devil?

Why does God need a plan?

[idea_hamster]

I also am curious to creationism's explanation to mutating diseases. AIDs mutates quickly. Is (a/their/your) god responsible for this? Furthering the suffering and pain of millions with the disease? I don't see why (a/their/your) god would allow this. Why would the god create this horrible disease in the first place?
I understand your point, but I think that there's a subtle difference between a disagreement about whether or not evoluton explains the current state of life on earth and whether or not the mind of a postulated God is understandable to a human.

Assuming, arguendo that we live in a strict creationist's world, the fact that we can't understand God's plan doesn't make it less legitimate. I don't understand the Krebs Cycle, but here I am, ATP and all. :)

My complaint is that the creationists I know (and love) dismiss demonstrable evolution as "not the same" and then turn around and say we have "no evidence" for it. If there's a subtler, more nuanced counter-evolutionary argument, I like to know.

Now your complaint, that God's plan should be rational and it seems to you that it isn't -- well, that's just heresy! ;) Actually, I think that Bhuddism may be the most rational religion, but it's tough to get over the whole idea that in some past life I have been Osama bin Laden's mother. And he's been mine. *shudder*

[miloblithe]

The Int Des argument is pretty scientific sounding when they point at some of the things that evolution has difficulty explaining (like single-celled to multicellular). However, pointing out the things we don't yet know about evolution and saying that _proves_ something for which they offer no proof is a not a scientifically valid argument. It's basically just poor reasoning.

[idea_hamster]

Is single- to multi-cell life one of evolution's big gaps?

It may be banal, but I always assumed that this came from a single-celled creature that divided to reproduce but failed to do so completely. Somehow that worked better, and off we went.

But I'm sure that far sharper folk than I have other ideas....

[Xtremehkr]

It all depends on how much you really want to know. (http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution8.htm)

Believe it or not, the information is out there.

[idea_hamster]

Thanks -- nice link.

The last "serious" bit I read on evolution theory was Gee's In Search of Deep Time (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801487137/qid=1120790942/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-4451256-4515947?v=glance&s=books). The book was quite good but its focus was mainly on dispelling the implicit purposefulness that is commonly taught with evolution, e.g., fish developed legs "in order" to live on land.

My favorite part of his book was the statement that on some level, we are fish who have evolved to thrive in very shallow water.

[dejo]

Back to the original topic, what's the problem with a theater owner refusing to show a film that goes against their beliefs? There's nothing illegal about it. An atheist would be just as justifed in not showing The Passion of the Christ.

[Xtremehkr]

Thanks -- nice link.

The last "serious" bit I read on evolution theory was Gee's In Search of Deep Time (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801487137/qid=1120790942/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-4451256-4515947?v=glance&s=books). The book was quite good but its focus was mainly on dispelling the implicit purposefulness that is commonly taught with evolution, e.g., fish developed legs "in order" to live on land.

My favorite part of his book was the statement that on some level, we are fish who have evolved to thrive in very shallow water.

Which in a way makes sense. Humans are currently developing means by which they can survive in space and possibly beyond, other planets for example.

Given enough time and exposure, humans may develop biologically to alien environs through evolution. At that point the question of what is biologically human would arise. Is it those who are biologically developed to suit their first planet of residence or those who are of the same stock and genetically different (according to where they are existing at the time) human?

Or, should all life be treated with the same level of regard, given that that the laws of evolution govern that while we may be one thing now it does not prevent becoming something different over time. Evolution does inherently carry an aspect of uncertainty as it suggests that change is inevitable. Maybe that is something that makes the whole idea uncomfortable for some.

Examples of humanities different evolutionary paths already exist. Skin, hair, and size differences already exist across the board according to geographical development. And yet, these different races are still able to interbreed. And yet, the same physical differences have lead to enormous problems amongst groups that have become known as races. If they were so different though, the ability to breed amongst them would not exist. And yet, successful hybrids emerge all the time, Tiger Woods is a good example.

If God created Adam and Eve in his image, it sure has evolved into a wide variety of people today. You might get the impression that all males would look like Adam and all females Eve. And yet, that is not the case.

If evolution did not exist, wouldn't all males and females have basically the same appearance? Micro evolution cannot explain whatever the popular image of Adam was then resulting in the diversity amongst male appearances now can it? The same goes for the diversity in the female form. What makes it gel is the fact the two people who look nothing alike can biologically reproduce something that is a new mix altogether. How did that come about?

[Xtremehkr]

Back to the original topic, what's the problem with a theater owner refusing to show a film that goes against their beliefs? There's nothing illegal about it. An atheist would be just as justifed in not showing The Passion of the Christ.

It shows the inherent problem that exists in a free market that could allow the distribution of knowledge and ideas of an opposing ideal to become non existent. It is anti freedom when one ideology is allowed to suppress the ideas of another ideology. For a truly free nation to exist, there must be the opportunity for all ideas to have the opportunity to be presented. Otherwise it is a nation of a few and not the majority, which is anti Democratic.

[dejo]

It shows the inherent problem that exists in a free market that could allow the distribution of knowledge and ideas of an opposing ideal to become non existent. It is anti freedom when one ideology is allowed to suppress the ideas of another ideology. For a truly free nation to exist, there must be the opportunity for all ideas to have the opportunity to be presented. Otherwise it is a nation of a few and not the majority, which is anti Democratic.

Well, I don't think this movie is being banned everywhere, so saying the ideal is becoming nonexistent is rather strong. If this movie was being completely banned and creationists were actively preventing it from being shown anywhere, I'd agree with you. And I am not aware that this film is presenting the theory of creationism alongside evolution in order to allow "for all ideas to have the opportunity to be presented". See what a slippery slope this becomes.

To me, a free nation includes the freedom for a business owner to run their business as they choose, as long as they don't break any laws, even if I don't agree with it. I worked for a company once that would consistently charge clients less money for projects than it actually cost the company to do the project. Doesn't sound like a money-making approach to me but that was their choice.

[Xtremehkr]

And somewhere in there lies the balance. Unregulated capitalism allows the possibility that one or a few may be able to hold sway over all of the information that is able to be publicly presented.

Profitability is a different issue here. The owner of the IMAX theatre rents the ability to present items in his theatre.

So, if a distributor has the financial means to pay the going rate, profitability is not in question for the owner. The distributor is the one who may lose if the paying audience to too small to return the cost of renting the facilities. That is why this is an issue, it is not a matter of profitability, it is a matter of ideology. And if enough popular outlets are owned by those of a specific ideology, the freedom of others to present an ideal is lost.

When private owners start abusing the privilege they have to controlling specific outlets it becomes a real problem if nothing prevents them from controlling the interests of all outlets.

I don't think profitability is a factor here. The people wanting to present the piece are going to have to pay the cost of renting the theatre. Which guarantees that the owner will make his or her profit.

This is an ideological matter, and one that has the potential to be monopolized.

[dejo]

And somewhere in there lies the balance. Unregulated capitalism allows the possibility that one or a few may be able to hold sway over all of the information that is able to be publicly presented.

I hope you're not suggesting that the solution to this situation is a regulation that would force these theater owners to present this film.

Re: Profitability) I was just using that story of a previous employer and their consistent lack of profitability as an example that a business should be allowed to be run as the owners see fit (within the law), even if I disagree with it. A free nation allows one to be as stupid as they like.

[Xtremehkr]

A free nation allows one to be as stupid as they like.

And given enough ownership it allows them to apply that ("stupidity") to the rest of the free citizens through denial of information. Is that what you want?

Not only that, but it allows them to be able to promote their "stupid" positions through the promotion of other information which they can choose to take a loss on. Is that how things should be in nations where all people are supposed to be able to have their say?

How can a nation be free when the ability of some to express their views is limited by the abilities of others?

When it comes to the point where you have populations that are reaching 100s of millions, you need more than the ability to stand in your front yard and yell away. You need an ability to have your voice heard. If that ability exists in a manner that is financially beneficial to those who can provide it, great. When that ability is taken away by ideological control of popular outlets, freedom is lost.

[Xtremehkr]

Would you be ok with Scientology pulling the same crap on Christianity?

People should be able to decide for themselves, and based on that there needs to be the ability for everyone to hear all of the different viewpoints that exist. Optimistically the best one will win out.

[LethalWolfe]

And somewhere in there lies the balance. Unregulated capitalism allows the possibility that one or a few may be able to hold sway over all of the information that is able to be publicly presented.

Profitability is a different issue here. The owner of the IMAX theatre rents the ability to present items in his theatre.

So, if a distributor has the financial means to pay the going rate, profitability is not in question for the owner. The distributor is the one who may lose if the paying audience to too small to return the cost of renting the facilities. That is why this is an issue, it is not a matter of profitability, it is a matter of ideology. And if enough popular outlets are owned by those of a specific ideology, the freedom of others to present an ideal is lost.

When private owners start abusing the privilege they have to controlling specific outlets it becomes a real problem if nothing prevents them from controlling the interests of all outlets.

I don't think profitability is a factor here. The people wanting to present the piece are going to have to pay the cost of renting the theatre. Which guarantees that the owner will make his or her profit.

This is an ideological matter, and one that has the potential to be monopolized.

Forcing a private business to show something it doesn't want to show is as bad as banning them from showing something they do want to show. Freedom isn't forcing people to do what you think is best.

And your view of distribution is off. Theaters have to put butts in seats (and sell a lot of popcorn) to make money, and the box office take is split between the theater and the distributor.

You can't show movies people don't want to see and expect to keep your doors open.


Lethal

[Xtremehkr]

Forcing a private business to show something it doesn't want to show is as bad as banning them from showing something they do want to show. Freedom isn't forcing people to do what you think is best.

And your view of distribution is off. Theaters have to put butts in seats (and sell a lot of popcorn) to make money, and the box office take is split between the theater and the distributor.

You can't show movies people don't want to see and expect to keep your doors open.


Lethal

Not true, theaters often place the financial burden in the hands of distributers by charging for the cost of distribution. Which covers their financial needs whether the seats are filled or not. I made that point already, IMAX is for rent. The cost of rent covers the financial needs of the owner, the profit is made when people are interested enough in what the Renter/Distributor has to show.

[Xtremehkr]

Now, consider why Europe has mostly moved from a Monarchical system to a Parliamentary one. Why? because the needs/"stupidity" of a few more often that not do not suits the needs of the many. And in order for a society to exist cohesively, the needs of most have to be met. Is this not how things have turned out in the nations that we are of and have developed from.

[LethalWolfe]

Not true, theaters often place the financial burden in the hands of distributers by charging for the cost of distribution. Which covers their financial needs whether the seats are filled or not. I made that point already, IMAX is for rent. The cost of rent covers the financial needs of the owner, the profit is made when people are interested enough in what the Renter/Distributor has to show.

As I understand it that's not correct. For "hollywood" movies theaters rent prints from distributors. Distributors do not rent theaters. Unless a film is massively successful it is merely a loss leader for a theater as the distributor will take the lion's share of the box office. If film A does poorly theaters can loose money on it 'cause the cost of showing film A is more than the theaters share of the box office. If you take concessions out of the picture, by and large, theaters wouldn't even be breaking even.

If theaters did pin the cost of projecting the print on the distributors we'd see digital theaters popping up left and right 'cause the theater would just pass the cost of going digital onto the distributors. But that's just not the case.


For indie films the rules could be different though.

Kinda like w/live music. A small, unknown band will probably have to pay to play at a venue. But a larger band will be paid by the venue to play there.



Now, consider why Europe has mostly moved from a Monarchical system to a Parliamentary one. Why? because the needs/"stupidity" of a few more often that not do not suits the needs of the many. And in order for a society to exist cohesively, the needs of most have to be met. Is this not how things have turned out in the nations that we are of and have developed from.

Talk about comparing apples to bananas. Yer taking the social and governmental evolution of an entire continent over hundreds of years and comparing it to a private citizen's right to sell products he doesn't deem fit to sell?

Government should allow people to be free. Even if what they chose to do w/that Freedom doesn't agree with you. Or is Freedom limited to only what Xtremehkr thinks is right?

Again, how is forcing these theater owners to show content they don't want to show different than banning them from showing content they did want to show?

Forced equality using one person's idea of freedom as the guide line doesn't sound very free to me.


Lethal

[Xtremehkr]

IMAX, this is about IMAX.

[Xtremehkr]

Talk about comparing apples to bananas. Yer taking the social and governmental evolution of an entire continent over hundreds of years and comparing it to a private citizen's right to sell products he doesn't deem fit to sell?

Government should allow people to be free. Even if what they chose to do w/that Freedom doesn't agree with you. Or is Freedom limited to only what Xtremehkr thinks is right?

Again, how is forcing these theater owners to show content they don't want to show different than banning them from showing content they did want to show?

Forced equality using one person's idea of freedom as the guide line doesn't sound very free to me.
Lethal

Either you have not read what I have said or you are purposefully ignoring it. A free society is one in which all people are free, however, if that society is able to get the point where it is owned by relatively few individuals who can them impose their will upon the majority, it is no longer a free society.

Economic domination tends to lead to political domination as well.

Just because this may be an example of something you support doesn't mean that you would not be just as outraged if the shoe were on the other foot.

I don't think that's very complicated.

[Xtremehkr]

Link. (http://biz.yahoo.com/e/050311/imax10-k.html)

FILM PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION

The Company recognizes revenue from licensing of exhibition rights to motion pictures produced or distributed by the Company when the film is complete and has been delivered, the license period has begun, the fee is fixed or determinable and collection is reasonably assured. Where the license fees are based on a share of the customer's revenue, and all other revenue recognition criteria are met, the Company recognizes revenue as the customer exhibits the film. Costs of producing films and acquiring film distribution rights are capitalized and amortized using the individual film-forecast-computation method, which amortizes film costs and accrues participation costs in the same ratio that current period actual revenue bears to estimated remaining unrecognized ultimate revenue as of the beginning of the fiscal year. All advertising, exploitation costs and marketing costs are expensed as incurred.

The Company has developed a proprietary, patent-pending technology to digitally re-master 35mm live-action films into 15/70-format film at a modest cost for exhibition in IMAX theaters. This system, known as IMAX DMR, digitally enhances the image resolution quality of 35mm motion picture films for projection on IMAX screens while maintaining the visual clarity and sound quality for which The IMAX Experience is known. The Company believes that this technology has opened the IMAX theater network up to potential releases of Hollywood films including both library titles and contemporaneous new releases. The Company believes that the development of this new technology is key to helping it execute on its strategy of growing its commercial theater network by its establishment of a new distribution platform for Hollywood films.

While the Company is optimistic about the success of its IMAX DMR technology to date, there is no guarantee that it will continue to be commercially successful and receive widespread acceptance by film studios.

And beyond the denial for economic reasons, there are the greater social implications of what appears to be religious persecution of entities who present a version of events different from their own. Religious movements will fight tooth and nail for the display of religious icons in public buildings but now will also punish private outlets who show movies that present science they don't like?

It comes down to ideological persecution through economic punishment and while IMAX is not entirely to blame, it shows how intolerant people of a religious nature can be.

[skunk]

Now, consider why Europe has mostly moved from a Monarchical system to a Parliamentary one. Why? because the needs/"stupidity" of a few more often that not do not suits the needs of the many. And in order for a society to exist cohesively, the needs of most have to be met. Is this not how things have turned out in the nations that we are of and have developed from.Monarchy and Parliament are not mutually exclusive, as we have known since 1215. Many of the monarchies of Europe (Britain, Spain, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Sweden) may agree.

[dejo]

Religious movements will fight tooth and nail for the display of religious icons in public buildings but now will also punish private outlets who show movies that present science they don't like?

But this is not the case of a religious movement punishing private outlets (i.e. party A punishes party B). It is a case of private outlets choosing, based on their religious beliefs, whether or not to show a particular film (i.e. party B chooses).

If there was an IMAX film that presented the theory of creation as true with (credible or not) "facts" and theater owners were being forced to show it, would you be making the same argument?

[LethalWolfe]

My mistake, I didn't realize IMAX operated different than regular theaters.

Either you have not read what I have said or you are purposefully ignoring it. A free society is one in which all people are free, however, if that society is able to get the point where it is owned by relatively few individuals who can them impose their will upon the majority, it is no longer a free society.

That makes sense if you are talking about consolidation of media ownership by large conglomerates. But we are talking about a few movie theaters not showing a movie that doesn't test well w/their local demographic.

Go to different video stores in a big city and you'll see that each store carries a slightly different selection depending on the demographic the store serves. Is that bad? Should business have a one-size-fits-all approach that completely disregards the people they are serving?

Just because this may be an example of something you support doesn't mean that you would not be just as outraged if the shoe were on the other foot.

Wow, nice blind assumption there.

I support the private sectors right to choose. I don't support the government playing father knows best (we all know where good intentions lead don't we...). I think it's stupid people got so worked up that some theater owners aren't showing the film, because they are afraid it will hurt their business. But it's their movie theater. They can show what they want.

I know it might sound amazing, but people can disagree w/you w/o agreeing w/the theater owners.


Lethal

[Xtremehkr]

But this is not the case of a religious movement punishing private outlets (i.e. party A punishes party B). It is a case of private outlets choosing, based on their religious beliefs, whether or not to show a particular film (i.e. party B chooses).

If there was an IMAX film that presented the theory of creation as true with (credible or not) "facts" and theater owners were being forced to show it, would you be making the same argument?

I would say that The Passion of the Christ was a good example of that. And I had no problem with it being shown anywhere.

I disagree with the limits that can be placed on the dissemination of information. So A. limit the market share an individual or corporation can own, or B. prevent ideological persecution.

[Xtremehkr]

My mistake, I didn't realize IMAX operated different than regular theaters.



That makes sense if you are talking about consolidation of media ownership by large conglomerates. But we are talking about a few movie theaters not showing a movie that doesn't test well w/their local demographic.

Go to different video stores in a big city and you'll see that each store carries a slightly different selection depending on the demographic the store serves. Is that bad? Should business have a one-size-fits-all approach that completely disregards the people they are serving?
Lethal

Either way, I don't agree with ideological persecution. You cannot say that there is nobody there who would want to see the presentation, or the distributers would not waste the money renting the theatre.

[Don't panic]

The Int Des argument is pretty scientific sounding when they point at some of the things that evolution has difficulty explaining (like single-celled to multicellular). However, pointing out the things we don't yet know about evolution and saying that _proves_ something for which they offer no proof is a not a scientifically valid argument. It's basically just poor reasoning.

no it's not.
creationists and their ID variants (idders? iddists? id... ) just continue to reiterate the same (flawed) objections over and over, even after they have been debunked and proven wrong over and over again.
they only have one argument:
it's like this because god wanted it to be like this (presumably to trick us into sin). and that goes for fossils, resistant bacteria and the lot. it can't proven or disproven and has zero to do with science. zero.

As one of our deepest contemporary philosophers once said "you need to keep catapulting the propaganda"

[Don't panic]

But this is not the case of a religious movement punishing private outlets (i.e. party A punishes party B). It is a case of private outlets choosing, based on their religious beliefs, whether or not to show a particular film (i.e. party B chooses).

actually, by all accounts I have read, the decision is not based on the theater's curator beliefs, but on the unwillingness to have zealots' picket lines disrupting business. So in a way it is 'party A punishes party B'.