This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Newmarket nabs rights to 'Creation'

Newmarket nabs rights to 'Creation' - Comments

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 1 by mordacious1

I won't see it...inaccurate...and probably a chick flick.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:31:00 UTC | #400560

prolibertas's Avatar Comment 2 by prolibertas

I don't care if it's inaccurate. It's not exactly a documentary, and besides, it makes Darwin more of a real person with whom people can identify, rather than just some abstract historical figure whose ideas they couldn't care less about.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:45:00 UTC | #400563

SmartLX's Avatar Comment 3 by SmartLX

RD said he had issues with it (by the way Richard, how did you come to see it?) but it's worth supporting just to keep people from seeing The Voyage That Shook The World or the upcoming Kent Hovind biopic Creation by mistake.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:52:00 UTC | #400565

Thomas Bolanos's Avatar Comment 4 by Thomas Bolanos

Yes!!! I can't wait to watch. Who cares if it is inaccurate or a chick flick. It's about the greatest scientist ever! I am going to watch it with my 11-year old sister.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:16:00 UTC | #400571

Shuggy's Avatar Comment 5 by Shuggy

How many films would we ever see if we missed them because they're "inaccurate"? My favourite is "Krakatoa, East of Java" (Krakatau was west of Java) but there's one just coming out called "Time of the Comet". The comet is Halley, and it's set in 1914.

Provocative of them to call it "Creation". How many people would go to a film called "Evolution"?

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:34:00 UTC | #400574

Fuzzy Duck's Avatar Comment 6 by Fuzzy Duck

I was just wondering about this today. Even if it's mediocre, it deserves a U.S. release.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:50:00 UTC | #400577

Gibbon's Avatar Comment 7 by Gibbon

How many people would go to a film called "Evolution"?

A movie about evolution, called evolution. About $38 million at the US domestic box office.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:15:00 UTC | #400579

Enlightenme..'s Avatar Comment 8 by Enlightenme..

3. Comment #418737 by SmartLX on September 25, 2009 at 3:52 am's worth supporting just to keep people from seeing The Voyage That Shook The World

Oh no!

I wiki'd that to find out what you were referring to..

The director and co-writer is my namesake (as was the reverend in a recent Mitchell & Webb sketch)

Steve Murray

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:41:00 UTC | #400581

ghost of numf-el's Avatar Comment 9 by ghost of numf-el

Let's be honest - I'm going in to see it 'cos Jennifer Connelly is in it. :)

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:30:00 UTC | #400585

Roy_H's Avatar Comment 10 by Roy_H

"Comment #418746 by Shuggy on September 25, 2009 at 4:34 am"

One of the funniest moments in movie history,in the Roman epic 'Gladiator' we see Russell Crowe stood in a field of barley which has TRAMLINES ( i.e.tracks created by for or by tractors to facilitate accurate crop spraying/ fertiliser spreading ) running through it!
The TV series "The Tudors" that is being shown here on the BBC is riddled with historical inaccuracies and also (Something which I find hilarious )up to now, Henry VIII never seems to get any older or fatter. But of course, its popular!

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:37:00 UTC | #400587

SmartLX's Avatar Comment 11 by SmartLX

You know Ghost, that might be why I would go all by itself except that her husband is, like, right there. I'd feel all guilty. So I'll just go 'cos it looks okay.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:40:00 UTC | #400589

alan baylis's Avatar Comment 12 by alan baylis

There may have been some nit-picking from Darwin aficionados, but both Adam Rutherford and Arianne Sherine have written very positive reviews of this film.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:26:00 UTC | #400597

Sharrow's Avatar Comment 13 by Sharrow

Accurate or not (it's a movie for heaven's sake) it deserves our support!

Besides, what is accurate? As long as they get the science right and the message across!

I am looking forward to seeing placard carrying protesters outside the theatres!

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:46:00 UTC | #400600

davorg's Avatar Comment 14 by davorg

by the way Richard, how did you come to see it?

I hope Richard doesn't mind me answering for him, but the BBC arranged for him (with a few others) to see it so that they could discuss it on last week's "Newsnight Review".

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:04:00 UTC | #400606

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 15 by rod-the-farmer

Re 10. Comment #418759 by Roy_H

My wife and I watch the Tudors on CBC ahh religiously. Cough. What I find amusing is that the fountains keep running in the exterior shots. One can only imagine the 14th century galley slaves beavering away at undergound pumps to make the fountains work. Yes, I know you can make a fountain work if you pipe water downhill. My recollection of English geography says there are no water sources uphill from those particular castles/estates.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:14:00 UTC | #400637

Roger Stanyard's Avatar Comment 16 by Roger Stanyard

The good news is that Creation is being advertised heavily on British TV this week, suggesting that it is likely to prove popular amongst British film goers.

No doubt amongst the American fundies there will be moaning and nashing of teeth about evil Brits.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:02:00 UTC | #400658

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 17 by Border Collie

As long as there are no car chases, I'll probably see it. Roger ... There's always wailing and gnashing of teeth about something or another among the fundies (they define themselves by their imaginary enemies). If they show it here if Fort Worth (or Dallas) and the fundies are protesting outside, I'll proudly walk in chanting/shouting "Darwin, Darwin, Darwin!" just to make 'em retch a little harder ...

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:50:00 UTC | #400680

JackR's Avatar Comment 18 by JackR

Rod the Farmer: fountains fed by water raised by pumps existed even in 13th century Persia. The fountain was a very popular and common feature of English gardens during the Tudor period - which was the late 16th century, by the way. Not the 14th. :-)

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:52:00 UTC | #400682

Dagwood's Avatar Comment 19 by Dagwood

From the article
[Newmarket is best known for releasing "The Passion of the Christ."]

This may make some of those church protests awkward.

I am excited to see a film about Darwin. Even if it is not accurate, and creates unhistorical drama, it should still be a decent movie. They have a fascinating subject and amazing actors. I hope they don't focus too much of the ghost of his daughter. A movie about science that shows the existence of detached "souls" communicating with he living will send mixed signals. From what I read, they use the ghost to show his pain from her loss, and her memory as a motivator for writing. If they use her physical appearance to visualize his sadness and loss, that is fine with me. Much more than that will confuse the fundamental masses. Not that they will see it, but they will "quote mine" and confuse it with history for sure.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:10:00 UTC | #400691

Anvil's Avatar Comment 20 by Anvil

Okay, it may be getting panned a bit by scientists - but this from my local cinema:

The Thursday 1 October 8.00pm screening will be introduced by a member of the Centre for Behaviour and Evolution at Newcastle University who will lead a Q&A session after the show.

See the next Tyneside Cinema guide for our Darwin quiz and special screening of Stanley Kramer’s Inherit The Wind in November.

Simply brilliant. Especially so as Newcastle is a hotbed of genetic research just now. Can't wait.

I'm just about to email them thanking them for this and suggesting they do the same for 'Inherit The Wind'.


Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:40:00 UTC | #400709

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 21 by Stafford Gordon

Comment 3 Smart LX: Previews are given to invited audiences.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:16:00 UTC | #400822

Sci_Guy_Bri's Avatar Comment 22 by Sci_Guy_Bri

I'm surprised there was any trouble finding a distributor for the U.S. After all, we showed "Religulous" here.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:47:00 UTC | #400895

MelM's Avatar Comment 23 by MelM

Here's the review by Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education, that she posted on the "Panda's Thumb" web site.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:17:00 UTC | #400927

MelM's Avatar Comment 24 by MelM

BTW, I see that there will be a two-hour Darwin drama on U.S. PBS NOVA airing Oct 6. It's called "Darwin's Darkest Hour: Tragedy, triumph, and the birth of a new idea".

Link to the show's page:

This show is the first of three "evolution-themed programs". The other two are "Becoming Human" and "What Darwin Never New". See the PDF press release:

A comment by NCSE:

Looks fascinating.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:18:00 UTC | #400935

Wadsworth's Avatar Comment 25 by Wadsworth

Comment #418746 by Shuggy on September 25, 2009 at 4:34 am"

One of the funniest moments in movie history,in the Roman epic 'Gladiator' we see Russell Crowe stood in a field of barley which has TRAMLINES ( i.e.tracks created by for or by tractors to facilitate accurate crop spraying/ fertiliser spreading ) running through it!

Sure they wern't chariot tracks?

Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:24:00 UTC | #401005

Kenn's Avatar Comment 26 by Kenn

Comment #419108 by MelM on September 26, 2009 at 12:18 am

Melm, Thanks for the links. just heard of DDH, but not the others.

Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:18:00 UTC | #401154

jackybird's Avatar Comment 27 by jackybird

It seems that every time I come onto this site I encounter misogyny. The last time I was here there was a comment on another thread about how women want to dominated. For personal reasons I found this very upsetting. I didn't comment on it at the time because I couldn't figure out whether or not the commentor was being fascetious and, like many people, I have a fear of being percieved as a humourless, strident feminist.

Now, I come here after a week's absence and one of then first comments I see judges the quality of the film by the gender of its presumed audience.

Personally, I've never been drawn to the sort of movies deemed chick flicks, but since some critisms of evolution use false accusations about Darwin's personal life, there is perhaps some utility in film like ths.

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:48:00 UTC | #402292

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 28 by Sally Luxmoore


I looked back at the comments and saw 2 refs to 'chickflicks'. The point about such an expression, (and also 'chicklit') is that, although a flippant word, it actually does describe a recognisable type of film or book. One reason for this is that some books and films are deliberately produced with an eye on a definite audience (which DOES exist - my sister devours chick lit at an amazing rate!) Great profits are made, thus ensuring the continuation of the 'species'.
I think it is showing oversensitivity to call this misogyny. After all, the opposite also exists. What they generally have in common is a lack of intellectual content and that (and not the gender of the audience) is usually the target of the implied criticism.
I have not seen this film so cannot judge, but it seems to contain some of the standard elements of a 'formula' mass-produced love story. For that reason, it probably will appeal more to a female audience than a male one. I don't see this as a criticism of our gender, and don't think that you should feel affronted by an acknowledgement of the situation.
Please don't be put off this site. About the only intolerance you will encounter here is that expressed against poor reason or bad arguments, which seems fair enough. Generally people are assumed to be intelligent and reasonable until they prove themselves otherwise!

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:07:00 UTC | #402300

phatbat's Avatar Comment 29 by phatbat

27. Comment #420478 by jackybird

I don't think mordacious1's comment can be described as mysogyny if that's what you meant.

Films have genre's, after watching lots of examples of different kinds of genre you can start to work out what you do and don't like. Movie makers know this and make their films aimed at certain types of people. Romantic comedies and stories are often called chick flicks as mainly women like them and mainly men dont. It doesn't mean there won't be exceptions, but what it does mean is that unless you want to watch every film ever made you have to make educated guesses on what you are likely to like and what you aren't. This can be done by either considering the actor in it, or the director who directed it, or by the genre. Saying i don't like chick flicks does not constitute mysogyny or anything near it. It tells you nothing of the person saying it's view of women, only of their view of the types of films made by movie makers that are aimed at women.

If you didn't mean this then perhaps you should have started your email differently. I agree with you over the utility of a movie that shows Darwin's real nature, if indeed this movie does that.

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:24:00 UTC | #402306

phatbat's Avatar Comment 31 by phatbat

oh Sally beat me to it.

well said.

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:27:00 UTC | #402308