Slashdot Mirror


Imax Theaters Demur On Controversial Science Films

circletimessquare writes "The New York Times is reporting that a number of Imax theatres are passing on science-themed films that might provoke controversy among a handful of religious fundamentalists. Films that are having their distribution impacted include '"Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.'"

36 of 2,242 comments (clear)

  1. I don't know what's sadder... by FlyByPC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...that the theater owners think that showing science films is too controversial or not interesting to the general public...

    ...or that they're probably right.

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
    1. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by Jonathan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's weirder is that IMAX theaters normally are *in* science museums. You'd think that the Fundies wouldn't set foot in such "ungodly" places and that the people who do go are those interested in science.

    2. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      They're probably whining that there's public money involved. (I say "they" but it's probably some lame-ass little group that mass-mails form-letter whines.)

      Present them with an ultimatum: STFU or IMAX theaters will show films about creation. All creation myths, everybody's.

    3. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by gilroy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Blockquoth the poster:

      What's weirder is that IMAX theaters normally are *in* science museums. You'd think that the Fundies wouldn't set foot in such "ungodly" places

      Fundamentalists no more need to go to a museum to protest it, than they have to attend a mainstream film before denouncing it. They're not looking for a rational engagement using such trite things as facts; they're going for a visceral reaction based on hot-button emotionalism. Thiongs like facts and experience just slow down their game.
    4. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fundamentalists no more need to go to a museum to protest it, than they have to attend a mainstream film before denouncing it.

      It wasn't religious fundamentalists who protested Mel Gibson's film before they saw it.

      This is a tactic of all thought police, religious affiliation not withstanding.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    5. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Why is it that prejudice against Christians is the last remaining acceptable prejudice?"

      Whoa, buddy. You just spouted some grade-A bullshit.

      Consider this:

      Many consider it acceptable to be prejudiced against gays.

      In many nations, women are repressed. Even in the US they often have to overcome rediculous and antiquated notions.

      People executed in the US are disproportinately black.

      Arab-Americans are more likely to be stopped at airports.

      "Could it be that those screaming loudest for tolerance are in fact the least tolerant of differences?"

      No. Most of the people protesting Gibson's film did so because of its extreme graphic violence. Not that they are right, of course - personally, I believe that *any* censorship is wrong (with a few notable exceptions such as child pornography). However, I also believe Gibson's film should have been given an NC-17 rating.

    6. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by Attaturk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is it that prejudice against Christians is the last remaining acceptable prejudice? Could it be that those screaming loudest for tolerance are in fact the least tolerant of differences?

      Or could it be that those professing to follow the teachings of a supremely tolerant philosopher are in fact supremely failing to be tolerant. After all we're responding to a an article about Christian intolerance aren't we?

      To this day I've yet to come across a "Christian" - ordained or otherwise - that truly understands and practises the teachings of Jesus Christ himself - and I really am looking.

    7. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by NoData · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's all the rage and fashion now to ascribe to fundamentalists some sort of lock-step mindless adherence to bizarre beliefs.

      Yes, it's all the rage and fashion now to ascribe to a word the very meaning it is defined by.

      Denotation. All the kids are doin' it.

      Why is it that prejudice against Christians is the last remaining acceptable prejudice?

      This is among the more hilarious statements I've read on Slashdot. Unlike conspiracy theories alleging otherwise, uhm, who is in control of the government (all three branches thereof), and just about every major corporation? Oh yeah, Christians.

      What is all the "fashion and rage" in fact, is appeasing the Christian right, what with the sudden general outrage against gay marriage, stem cells n' abortions, heathenous evolution, and boobies. Suddenly our very upright and moral members of Congress feel the best use of the might and power of the legislative branch of government is to spank the naughty boys of baseball and turn a doomed woman's life into a political football. Cuz it all plays well with the God-fearin' folk.

      Early 1920s temperance movement, 1950s McCarthyism, 1980s Moral Majority, and now the post-9/11-"red state-ism." Every 30 years or so we get all high-n-mighty and take a giant step back for mankind that later proves to be a national embarrassment. Hopefully this one will pass quickly.

    8. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by Ztream · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If christians can dictate what should be shown in science museums, then scientists should be able to dictate what should be taught in church. This isn't a school textbook we're talking about.

      (And yes, I know it wasn't their initiative here, but still).

  2. it's sad by promantek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    because this is epidemic of our society in america.

    we lose out on interesting ideas and concepts because they may offend someone. it happens in all levels of education, in business, everywhere.

    this is sad but not suprising.

    1. Re:it's sad by MC68000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ever heard of the Iran-Iraq war? That's at least a million dead in a war infused with religious rhetoric. If you include governments in your argument, the death toll numbers don't stack favorably to your side.

      You say that GWB murdered 120,000 people for a few oilfields. While the word "murdered" and the number "120000" are for another thread that would be far offtopic, if Iraq was all about oil, what does religious fundamentalism have to do with it? The pope opposed the war in Iraq, as did quite a few religious people, so by your own argument, the civilian deaths in Iraq have nothing to do with religious fundamentalism. Which is it? Is Bush a bible-thumping hick, or is he a master schemer serving exclusively a global oil elite?

      You won't find a (reasonable) Christian minister who cheers at the sight of gruesome civilian deaths, but it's not hard to find an imam outside of the US who does cheer when a child blows up a pizzarea. People who believe that the earth is 6000 years old are simply deluding themselves, but at least they don't cheer when innocents die.

      You are right that wacko fundamentalism is dangerous no matter what the variety. Perhaps I should have made this clearer in my original post, now modded Flamebait. There is a huge difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. Only a small minority of Muslims are violent, and the rest are decent people.

      --
      E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
  3. offensive? by cRueLio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    how is "an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor" offensive in any way?

    we shouldn't let a minority dictate what is right or wrong because we risk having our freedom become the same "freedom" they have in China.

    1. Re:offensive? by yog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is it offensive?

      Well, it's been postulated that the anaerobic bacteria which exist in hot, sulfurous ocean floor vents resemble the earliest life. The original life on earth, probably bacteria or similar single cell prokaryotic (lacking in nucleus) organisms, existed in an atmosphere lacking in oxygen. It was only a few billion years later that oxygen-producing organisms began to exist, and the anaerobic life had to adapt or die.

      Basically any film that features this kind of life will by definition be flaunting the theory of evolution in all its glory. This, presumably, offends or threatens the creation literalists.

      People are saying it's a shame that fundamentalists are attacking science in this country. I would add that it's a shame that these idiots have hijacked religion. The bible as allegory is brilliant and holds many lessons in morality with bits of history and culture sprinkled in. The bible as literal word is nonsense that flies in the face of all evidence. To deny evolutionary theory makes about as much sense as claiming the world is flat.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
  4. religious fundamentalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What is wrong with these people?

    Why do they stick their heads in the holy sand all the time, why can't they just accept that people have different views and should be allowed to express them.

    It makes me sick that religious wackos are given all the freedom to worship/teach/live as they please, but fuck everyone else over with their righteous bullshit.

    1. Re:religious fundamentalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, depending on the exact meaning you intend by the term "Bible-believing," you may indeed have "checked your intelligence at the door."

      That is, you might just be willing to accept words written down by some anonymous person a few thousand years ago with who knows what kind of agenda (and edited and approved by various self-appointed authorities in the meantime) over the use of your own critical faculties and scientific knowledge in your understanding of the world.

      Face it: people didn't design the computer you used to make your post by asking God how to do it or reading some book. Instead they relied on the experience of people who actually did the hard work to experimentally find out about the world.

      Why do you believe in the Bible? Because it is the word of God? Why do you believe *that*? Because your minister told you so? That isn't intelligence. That's dogma.

    2. Re:religious fundamentalists by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You'll have to explain better how scientists "are fucking everyone else over with their self-righteous bullshit". It only makes sense if you believe that science is some sort of publicly funded alternative religion that is competing with yours for attention, money, and followers. Science is not a religion. It's simply a methodology for finding things out about the world.

  5. Boring by MavEtJu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The New York Times is reporting that a number of Imax theatres are passing on science-themed films that might provoke controversy among a handful of religious fundamentalists.

    Wake me up when there is something happening the US which doesn't upset a minority group which goes in search for media attention or takes it to court.

    --
    bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
  6. Welcome to America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Welcome to America, where ignorance isn't just bliss, it's a virtue.

  7. ChrisTaliban by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who will welcome our new overlords, the ChrisTaliban turning the USA into Afghanistan West? Where are the reasonable Christians who repudiate this demented abuse of our country into a market theocracy in their name? ...tumbleweeds..

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  8. Things like this will destroy the American economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Soon enough American students will not be exposed to scientific methodologies and theory because of the complains of Christian fundamentalists. While the Religious Right will feel their children are pious and enlightened, the rest of the world will progress with our understanding of nature and science. The rest of the world will innovate and prosper, while America will be dragged down into religious strife. Christian fundamentalism will be the death of America.

  9. Worrying development by theolein · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not American, so I can't say how much of a real impact something like this has, but I wonder if this recent rise of very conservative religious fundamentalism in the USA and efforts to stop the presentation of things that contradict their view might not lead to the USA eventually falling beind in key sciences, and, as a consquence, losing its edge in the world of technology.

    While the situation isn't as bad as that Escape from LA movie from the late 80's, there certainly are aspects of that in modern American politics it seems.

  10. this is why I dont like these kind of people.... by Mark19960 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First off, I am not a religious person.
    But, this is my gripe with them...

    If I had a conversation with one of these people, they want you to embrace their way of thinking... OK fine.

    Yet, when I try to peddle MY truth, its immediately too much to handle, so not right and so horrible they wont hear it.

    I am in the south. This is how these people are.
    but, then they are quick to call themselves open minded. YEAH RIGHT.

    If I cant tell you my truth, and have you at least LISTEN, your not open minded. your a closed minded fool that doesnt deserve to breathe air. its that simple.

    All I ask of these people, is to meet us all half way here. they dont have to like it, and they dont have to agree with it.
    but saying they are 'good, understanding people' is a REAL stretch.

    They DO NOT have to go see these movies....
    yet, they boycott their presence. thats not open minded... that is just religion attempting world domination. their way or the highway.

    Go watch the documentaries. I do.
    Rebel against religious zealots. ....as I watch my Karma plummet....

  11. Another loss for American culture by puppyfox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It keeps happening! The "PC" culture of this country keeps destroying what's left of the free thought that was painfully conquered a long time ago (I'm not even going to go into free speech).

    It's a battle on two fronts: the religious lobbyist that do things like hindering the teaching of science in schools, and the large corporations that would do anything not to offend anyone for fear of losing a few bucks.

    How do they get away with it? Why don't people say "oh this is horrid, no more IMAX for me". We just can't be bothered anymore: the PC rants (if you say something controversial YOU are at fault), the lack of any real political debates (besides minor economical and odd moral-related issues) since the outlawing of Communism and any other non-majority view, and of course the the vultures of the media that keeps feeding on this whole thing (WHY show that piece about "evolution is just a theory" over and over?).

    I'm an European, and I have no voice in what the American people decide to do, but it's their lack of action and ignorance of the issues at hand that makes me heed this warning: how soon until the free-flying politicians and corporations will do all they wish while you're too busy watching TV? You may have these comfy lives forever, with no blood or guilt on your own hands, but one day you may find yourselves unwilling free citizens of what you yourself would name an "evil empire" if you were on the other side.

    --
    The cookie told me to.
  12. Science by panxerox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a thinking christian (as opposed to the new moronic version of christian) I really despair of this childish rejection of reality (science). Religion has lived with the reality of the world around them for a very long time. I believe now in this time of deep denial about the changing landscape of America and an uncertain future that the more unstable elements in many sects see the rejection of science as somehow bolstering there own flagging faith. A faith that if real in these people would easily be able to encompass science as a wonder of God and not a challenge to him.

    --
    "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
  13. organized religion is spiritual zombification by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you don't get love from a whorehouse.

    likewise, you don't get spirituality from a church/ temple/ mosque.

    but that is ok, because just as there are some who will never know real love due to intellectual or character issues, and therefore need whorehouses to sake their lust that would otherwise drive them insane or drive them to commit horrendous crimes on the street, so to are their spiritual pinheads in this world who need churches/ temples/ mosques to give answer to their doubts and fears, so they don't commit horrible atrocities of spiritual void.

    so the lowest common denominator empty pap we call organized religion is vile, but still necessary. just like whorehouses.

    we don't want ugly or crude men raping women on the streets and we don't want small-spirited people walking around without a sense of morality or a human conscience. if they don't have the spiritual backbone to decide right or wrong, or find the basic goodness in human existence on their own, well then please, let the church turn them into sheep. better sheep than demons without a sense of social responsibility or a clue as to their relationship to human society and the idea of a greater good.

    however, when these spiritual pinheads band together and try to gain political power and enforce their narrowminded interpretation of human nature on everyone else, including those who are spiritually sound on their own, they need to be stopped. in many ways, the consolidation of spiritual pinheads into organized religion and then their subsequent desire to see all of humanity fall in lockstep to their blind interpretation of a given creed is unavoidable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't head them off at the pass and continually deny them political power over the rest of us who are spiritually grounded all on our very own.

    so organized religion should not be stopped, it is useful to the health of society by satisfying the spiritual needs of those who can't do that on their own. organized religion and the fruits of its passion is even enjoyable in the way a quaint parade in a rural backwards town is enjoyable to a tourist.

    but the cost of accepting that means we must be forever and eternally vigilant that the church, the mosque, and the temple never ever enjoy political power. lest they doom the rest of us to the spiritual zombification that is organized religion.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  14. Secularists: it's our fault. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While this article discusses something limited in scope (thanks for the spin, Slashfaux), this is becoming more and more common. But who is to blame? We (secularists and freethinkers) are.

    We refuse to affiliate or support organisations which champion our cause. We refuse to be sufficiently vocal about matters of importance to us. We refuse, at the very least, to put our money where our mouths are.

    Let me tell you, with absolute certainty, that the religious fundamentalists are more than happy to do all these things.

    So, when are we going to step up and demand an end to this nonsense?

  15. Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. by cbreaker · · Score: 5, Insightful


    When I was growing up as a kid, I never thought that Science and the Bible were necessarily in conflict. Most people believe that the bible represents a guide and isn't to be taken absolutely literally.

    For instance, the whole "God created the Earth in seven days." Seven days could mean seven million years, or seven billion years. It's worded in a way that man can understand. Why do people reject Evolution, when it could have been God that kickstarted the whole thing?

    I can't say that I believe these things anymore but if you can believe that there is an almighty being that created us, why can't you also believe that this being crafted the universe as we know it now, and all the wonders it contains that science as yet to scratch the surface on?

    It's a scary time when the few people with extreme religious views can change the life of everyone to suit their needs.

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  16. You misunderstand what "open minded" means... by Generalisimo+Zang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You misinterpreted what they meant by "open minded".

    You, mistakenly, thought that "open minded" meant having an open mind, and being open to new ideas.

    What *they* meant by "open minded" was that they'd no longer accuse you of witchcraft for being different from your neighbors, or throw you in prison for the crime of "blasphemy", or just come by and burn down your house because you're a filthy non-believer.

    The fact that they've allowed you to live, even though you're obviously some sort of eviiil horrible pagan-creationist science-worshipper, shows how open-minded that religious zealots in America have become lately. :)

  17. Re:Undersea volcanoes by grung0r · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm not Christian, let alone a fundamentalist, but I recognize that there are definitely some problems with evolution. If there weren't it would be fact, and not a theory.

    Errrr...If you recognized anything, you would recognize that the word "theory" means a very different thing in science then it does in Common parlance. For instance, Gravity is a theory. That Germs cause disease is a theory. The Earth Revolving around the sun is a theory. Basicly, anything that cannot be directly observed is a theory. Evoultion is Just as well supported as any of the above theories I mentioned(sometimes more so). If you would like to to tell us about the problems you "know" evoultion has I would be glad to address them.

    I feel that the truth lies somewhere in the middle between evolution and creation.

    I thought you said you weren't a christian. Why do you half belive in Creation?

  18. Re:Here's my reasoning by jaoswald · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't be so confident that human stupidity is going away anytime soon. Bible-thumping fundies will just be replaced by some other group of ignorant buffoons, who would rather believe any kind of comfortable fantasy rather than an uncomfortable truth.

    That's the reason Voltaire and Swift are so fresh even today.

    The only thing to hope for is that the ignorance is not sufficient to wipe out human scientific knowledge.

  19. Re:Scientific Theory by the+packrat · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Scientific testing of a theory does not just mean laboratory controlled experiments. It also means careful observation of such things as the fossil record, current genetic content of various species, and field studies of current ecological systems.

    When the original poster specifically mentioned experiments, then experiments are fair game. Read the quoted text. As far as observational science goes, the fossil record provides an extremely fragmentary, internally inconsistent, and generally unhelpful view. It is reasonably well accepted (except by idiots^W americans) that this in itself does not deny evolution, it merely doesn't support it very well.

    If we come to try and make judgements about long-time-scale dynamic processes from point observations, we fall into the trap of blind inductionism. And that's not (good) science.

    Evolution is sufficently poorly characterised that it isn't very good at making predictions, and there aren't many new observations to test them on, so that trivial view of hypothesis doesn't work too well either.

    The point is that it is possible to treat singular historical events scientifically. There isn't anything "borderline" about it, anymore than there is something "borderline" about scientific cosmology.

    Popper would disagree. How can a singular event be falsifiable? It's the grue/bleen problem all over again. If you're denying this, what account of science are you using?

    --
    Nihil Illegitemi Carborvndvm
  20. Europe: the era of the individualist by rudi_v · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In Europe, we have the same growing right-wing as in the US, but it has not been incorporated by religious factions.

    So were does the difference come from? The parent post explanation is way off, at least in Western Europe religions are struggling massively just to get people into the churches - most people just don't believe in churches as institutions anymore, that try to prescribe how people should live. So it's not about the content of the religion, it's about the institution that looses acceptance.

    And this is a phenomenon that goes beyond religion; trade unions or any other institutions loose grip on people's lives. We live in the era of the individualist, people make their own choices for their own lives. And they assemble their own 'belief' from religions and non-religous streamings like Buddhism.

    NB: European countries don't have state religions

  21. As an evangelical Christian and creationist... by artemis67 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They do sound interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing any of those, either, nor would I mind exposing my kids to them, so long as the programs don't outright mock what I believe. I would view it as an opportunity to discuss with my kids what I believe and why I believe it. Ultimately, my kids have to decide for themselves what they believe about the world around them.

    I don't think that evangelical Christians, by and large, are afraid of the marketplace of ideas. They are used to being the underdog in an ideological war.

    If you look at the public struggles between creationists and evolutionists, the creationists who represent the mainstream Evangelical thought are not trying to remove evolution, they would just like the teaching of evolution to acknowledge that it is not a proven fact, and that there are other schools of thought, an in particular, the possibility of intelligent design.

    As a creationist, I do *not* want the teaching of religion in the public school classroom. Public school teachers have a wide variety of religious beliefs, so what would be the guarantee that they would represent the Christian belief? I rather not even go there.

    1. Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 5, Insightful


      I don't think that evangelical Christians, by and large, are afraid of the marketplace of ideas. They are used to being the underdog in an ideological war.

      Buddy, you're definitely not from Tennessee.

      Where I come from, Christians want to control what you see, hear, and understand in the world.

    2. Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When the movie "Oh God" was released, a religous person I knew refused to see it if it was "mocking". My response was, and is today, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer". I told him he should go see the movie and make his own decision. He refused to see or read anything that might shake his faith. In my opinion, he therefore had no faith.

      If there exists material (movies, print, etc.) that is contradictory to your believes, then you should not ignore it or ban it, but learn all you can so that you can point out its faults (if any). Trying to sweep it under the carpet only adds credibility. These zealots should see the movies that cast doubt on their beliefs so they can have valid, credible arguments to support their own beliefs in the light of the detractor.

      When any group outright bans something that is contrary to their beliefs, my credence of that thing immediately doubles. Perhaps the problem is that the religous groups are doubting their own beliefs or their faith is not strong enough to survive such a test as people watching a movie.

    3. Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More to the point...

      Teaching in a science classroom that some people believe in the principle of an "intelligent design" teaches children nothing -about science-. The evolutionary model of life has served us well as we've expanded our understanding of biology, zoology, and genetics. Approaching the world scientifically, that is, observing what's observable, formulating a hypothesis, and (to the extent possible) testing that hypothesis has dragged us, inch by inch, from the dark ages to the point in history where we could travel in space, split the atom, and begin to understand a wealth of new mysteries yet to be solved. Science teaches us that -all- our assumptions are subject to revision as new facts come to light. Some of the models we use to understand our world, such as Newtonian Physics, have already proven too simplistic to scale to the world as a whole: but ideas such as these are so time-proven on a practical level, in terms of understanding our world, that they are still good models for understanding how things work. (You don't need special relativity to model the motion of your car, for instance.)

      Think about what the "Intelligent Design" idea really says. What purpose does it have other than to stroke the egos of those who favor this idea? It says that someone intentionally created the world. It doesn't get us any closer to understanding how, or why, or even who. There is nothing in the theory itself that makes it incompatible with the existing idea of evolution, but neither does it add anything to our understanding of the world when taken as an assumption. Really, it is a theory for a -Philosophy- class. That is the proper venue for discussing the implications of -why- the world exists, and other ideas that are, now and in the foreseeable future, far beyond the reach of observation and science.