Head of Science Association condems IMAX censorship

[headscratcher4]

About frigg'n time. Though, I am afraid this will fall on def ears in the regions where it is happening....

Oops, don't know why that won't let me link to the article, but here is a section of the article from the AP wire via Yahoo...


Censorship of IMAX Films Threatens Integrity of Science, Leader Says

Tue Mar 29,12:42 PM ET Science - SPACE.com/LiveScience.com


LiveScience Staff
LiveScience.com


The leader of the world's largest organization of scientists said the suppression of some IMAX films because they run counter to religion threatens the integrity of science and public education.

Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science, sent a letter Monday to 410 members of the Association of Science-Technology Centers. The letter prompted by recent reports that Imax theaters in at least a dozen U.S. cities have declined to show films that endorse the science of evolution.


"We are writing now to express strong concerns about increasing threats to science that endanger our shared missions and to offer our support and partnership in dealing with them," Leshner's article said.


Some IMAX theatres have refused to show movies that mention evolution or the Big Bang because the ideas contradict the Bible, according to a March 19 article in The New York Times. The protests involve a dozen or fewer theaters, but the effect could be significant because only a few dozen IMAX theatres exhibit science documentaries.


"The desire not to antagonize audiences and to avoid negative business outcomes is entirely understandable," Leshner wrote. "Yet, the suppression of scientifically accurate information as a response to those with differing perspectives is inappropriate and threatens both the integrity of science and the broader public education to which we all are committed. It is also objectionable to many stakeholders-including many with strong religious convictions -- who understand that religion and science are not in opposition."

[/url]

[crimresearch]

Maybe THIS (http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050329_imax_letter.html) link? (Yahoo seems to be having a problem)

[headscratcher4]

That link works too...thanks....:)

[Beerina]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


LiveScience Staff
LiveScience.com

...

Some IMAX theatres have refused to show movies that mention evolution or the Big Bang because the ideas contradict the Bible, according to a March 19 article in The New York Times.


I guess the only proper conclusion is that the Bible is wrong, and therefore cannot be the inerrant Word of God.


What? Stop looking at me. What?

[aerocontrols]

Some IMAX theatres have refused to show movies that mention evolution or the Big Bang because the ideas contradict the Bible

Yeah, if I was running an IMAX theatre and I wanted to quit showing science documentaries and instead show theatre-filling popular entertainment, that's what I would say, too.

Is there one shred of evidence that someone has protested anywhere because some IMAX movie endorsed evolution?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Yeah, if I was running an IMAX theatre and I wanted to quit showing science documentaries and instead show theatre-filling popular entertainment, that's what I would say, too.

Is there one shred of evidence that someone has protested anywhere because some IMAX movie endorsed evolution?

You seem to be right. The "they're banning it because it mentions evolution" seems to be an urban legend. The articles "exposing" this fact seem to have relied mostly on the film's creators or others involved with it to come up with this explanation. AP (As reported in www.nro.com , in the "tks" corner) has a different, more reasonable article:

Some IMAX theaters at science centers have declined to show Volcanoes of the Deep Sea — but is it because of debates about evolution, or is it just a so-so movie?

They have declined to show it at least partly because of its references to the way life may have evolved and how that message might play with fundamentalist Christians.

But theater managers said they rejected the movie largely because it did not stack up to other scientific films they booked instead…

IMAX theaters at science centers in Charlotte, N.C., and Fort Worth, Texas, received similar comments at test screenings, but officials at both said they passed on Volcanoes mainly because the movie received low marks on quality.

Executives at several Southern science centers said test audiences disliked the film's music and narration, found the tone too academic, and the deep-sea images lacking in color.

''The scientific team and research on the film was top-notch,'' said Anita Kern, dean of science at Atlanta's Fernbank Museum of Natural History, whose IMAX theater chose not to run Volcanoes.

"But when you're doing IMAX films, you're doing it for the general public. What you want is to educate people in very entertaining ways. This film just didn't do it. It was slow moving and a little dry."

Volcanoes filmmaker Low said science centers are calling it a ''lousy film'' so they do not have to admit they bowed to religious sentiment.

Translation of Mr. Low's words: "Well, they say my film is lousy, but what did you expect from such creationi-believing philistines! Of COURSE they won't appreciate my genius!"

What seems to have happened is that this film did recieve complaints--probably by the fringe of lunatics which complains to the IMAX theatres and science museums about every single movie they show which isn't "The Passion of the Christ".

Theatre managers, as usual, ignored these complaints, and decided whether or not to show the movie based on returns and reviews. The movie was badly attended and the audience disliked it. So they decided to pull the film.

Nobody would have said a word, of course, if the film was pulled in an IMAX in New York due to lousy returns. But since it happened in Texas...

...well, in that case, the film makers go to the papers to pontificate about how they are being censored and abused by fundamentalists. After all, it couldn't POSSIBLY be that those rednecks in the south have the mental ability to dislike a film on aesthetic grounds! It must be their creationist brainwashing...

[Ipecac]

Anyone see this?

Roger Ebert Kicks Some @ss. (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050328/COMMENTARY/503280301)

Excellent article!

Surely moviegoers deserve the right to decide for themselves what movies to see? "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," according to the AP, "makes a connection between human DNA and microbes inside undersea volcanoes." It says that if life could evolve under such extreme circumstances, it might help us understand evolution all over the planet.

This is not a controversial opinion. The overwhelming majority of all scientists everywhere in the world who have studied the subject would agree with it. Although discussion continues about the mechanics of evolution, there is no reputable doubt about the existence of DNA and the way in which it functions.

Yes, there is “creationist science,� an attempt to provide a scientific footing for beliefs which should be a matter of faith. Creationists say evolution is “only a theory,� and want equal time for their theories, one of which is that God created the earth from scratch in six days, and rested on the seventh.

Evolution is indeed a theory. Creationism is a belief, not a theory. In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and the challenge of opposing views. It is not simply somebody's notion about something. The creationist belief cannot withstand such tests and challenges; it exists outside the world of science altogether.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You seem to be right. The "they're banning it because it mentions evolution" seems to be an urban legend. The articles "exposing" this fact seem to have relied mostly on the film's creators or others involved with it to come up with this explanation. AP (As reported in www.nro.com , in the "tks" corner) has a different, more reasonable article:



Translation of Mr. Low's words: "Well, they say my film is lousy, but what did you expect from such creationi-believing philistines! Of COURSE they won't appreciate my genius!"

What seems to have happened is that this film did recieve complaints--probably by the fringe of lunatics which complains to the IMAX theatres and science museums about every single movie they show which isn't "The Passion of the Christ".

Theatre managers, as usual, ignored these complaints, and decided whether or not to show the movie based on returns and reviews. The movie was badly attended and the audience disliked it. So they decided to pull the film.

Nobody would have said a word, of course, if the film was pulled in an IMAX in New York due to lousy returns. But since it happened in Texas...

...well, in that case, the film makers go to the papers to pontificate about how they are being censored and abused by fundamentalists. After all, it couldn't POSSIBLY be that those rednecks in the south have the mental ability to dislike a film on aesthetic grounds! It must be their creationist brainwashing...

So, are they being pulled in the "north"? If it is lousey, how come only the IMAX owners in the South are speaking up or having to find excuses?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
So, are they being pulled in the "north"? If it is lousey, how come only the IMAX owners in the South are speaking up or having to find excuses?

Well, they are speaking up because of the media bruhahaha accusing them of cowtowing to creationists. If nobody asks you why you are not showing a film, naturally you will not have to "find excuses" in the first place.

You can hardly both accuse someone of "creationism" and then use their very denial as "evidence" that they are "finding excuses" and therefore surely are creationists anyway. That is "have you stopped beating your wife" logic.

As for the film being "pulled in the north"--the film was not PULLED; they decided not to show it after test screenings. I checked, and there are only nine IMAX theatres worldwide showing the film at all. This means that the vast majority of such theatres aren't showing it, and (so far as I could tell) never did.

This means it is quite likely the film never had a particularly large distribution; theatres preferred other IMAX films--in the north as well as in the south.

[shanek]

The IMAX theater in Charlotte will be playing the movie:

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/charlotte/entertainment/movies/11282770.htm

Discovery Place announced Thursday it will show a controversial film touching on evolution, reversing a decision that had sparked community debate.

"We were surprised at the amount of interest this issue has generated," Discovery Place President and CEO John Mackay Jr. said in a prepared statement. "It appears that many people are interested in seeing this film, and we don't want to deny anyone this opportunity."

Discovery Place estimates it has fielded 100 calls, letters and e-mails sharing varied reactions to its decision to pass on "Volcanoes." That decision was made nearly two years ago but was first reported last week in the Observer.

Mackay has said the film's take on evolution was a "minor consideration" in Discovery Place not taking "Volcanoes" at first. In his statement Thursday, he said some surveys of those who had seen the 47-minute film indicated it might be scary for children, who make up a large part of the IMAX audience in Charlotte.

Oh, and one OT comment:

Wayne May of Mooresville said that if Discovery Place shows a film touching on evolution, it ought to show a film that gives God all the credit for creation.

Fat chance, he predicted.

There are hundreds of hours of religious programming on TV every week. I don't see them giving equal time to the atheists.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Skeptic
As for the film being "pulled in the north"--the film was not PULLED; they decided not to show it after test screenings. I checked, and there are only nine IMAX theatres worldwide showing the film at all. This means that the vast majority of such theatres aren't showing it, and (so far as I could tell) never did.

The film was released in 2003. Most of the theaters (north and south) that were showing it have long since moved on to newer programming.

This entire controversy, it seems to me, was ginned up to get a second run of the movie.


Originally posted by shanek
The IMAX theater in Charlotte will be playing the movie:

SCORE!!!

[Libertarian]

Not to ruin the party, but the word "censorship" loses its meaning when it refers to voluntary actions by private parties. I.e, self-censorship is an oxymoron.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Not to ruin the party, but the word "censorship" loses its meaning when it refers to voluntary actions by private parties.

Dogma stated as fact.

[Libertarian]

Your non sequiter aside, I'm merely pointing out that there are two connotations to the word. The watered-down version commonly used (including above), and the stricter version (which, by the way, is used in the first two definitions of my American Heritage dictionary: 1. "an authorized examiner...." 2. "an official ......").

[Tony]

Originally posted by Libertarian
...and the stricter version (which, by the way, is used in the first two definitions of my American Heritage dictionary: 1. "an authorized examiner...." 2. "an official ......").

That is the definition of "censor" as a noun.

A censor as a verb (which is how it's being used in this context) as defined by Webster is:

Main Entry: 2 censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable