Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Let's write an editorial....

And sent it to people, about this movie. Anyone with me? Also, who here lives in New York city and will protest it with my girlfriend and I when it comes out in February?-αmεσ (historian) 00:19, 12 November 2007 (EST)

I'm afraid that I can only be with you in spirit. (So to speak.)--Bob^{bing up} 01:03, 12 November 2007 (EST)

First time

I never made a lolcat, but I had to try. ^{— Unsigned, by: PalMD / talk / contribs}

I think it's worthy of being moved to the article. human 23:09, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Seeing the movie

Since I wouldn't want to be committing a crime of which we often accuse Christian Fundamentalists, I want to be able to judge the film having seen it. However, I'm certainly not going to give their stupid cause a even a single dime, so if anyone comes across any torrents or the like, please post them. Alternatively, if there's free screenings anywhere... DogP 14:12, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't think you'll have to cough up any money at your local Cineplex to see it DogP. I'm sure this will go straight to video YouTube. Genghis ^Marauding 07:22, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I was at a friend's house in a store watching a news report listening to the radio, and they, uhm, they said that there are apparently torrents for the movie available online now, and people are downloading them. It was on the radio, you see, I heard it while I was driving. In my car. On the radio. DogP 17:40, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Can you elaborate where the car was when you heard this and was the radio actually in the car with you? Also was it your own car or were you just joy-riding? Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:08, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Let me point out, that when I said it was "my" car, I didn't mean that in the traditional sense of ownership. It was only "mine" in the sense that it was the car in which I was traveling towards my destination, hence it was "my car for the journey", hence "my car" ad reductum. It was in fact, someone else's car - some Taliban bloke who I don't know. And he had the radio on. In his car. I don't know where I was precisely at the time, as I was kidnapped this morning by him, and had a hood over my head. I think we didn't fly or take a boat anywhere, so it was in America somewhere. Sorry I can't be more precise GK. DogP 18:13, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Log out now and post another message. We will be able to track you down from your IP address. A RatWikiSWAG (special weapons & goat) team is being assembled as I type. However, I hope you're not in Detroit as it will just be another of PalMD's IPs and the Feds totally ignore them. In the mean time keep blogging, the networks are paying our server bills. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:21, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I tuned my radio to the same channel the Taliban dude was listening to and I heard that the torrent is actually just the trailer looped multiple times. Those clever cdesign proponentists! DogP 20:15, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Much as I love the coy hilarity of this convo, why not just post links that we can delete, and then say "check the history"? human 23:17, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I guess that some of us, by one means or another, will eventually end up watching the thing. Should we set up a special space for RW reviews so that we can have a common place to vent our views?--Bob^{bing up} 18:01, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

How about a sub-page of the article, with a header for each "reviewer"? ("E: N I A/RW reviews") human 22:49, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Crossroads controversy

Would it be useful to add information about the domain name registration for "Expelledthemovie.com" before/during the claims of Crossroads being the working title? Also, Mathers has given conflicting explanations for the "PZ Myers incident." Should we include this, too? Arcan 12:01, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely on the first question, and why not on the second? Do you have all the links handy? human 13:58, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Not yet, but I'm not busy. I'll have them in a bit --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:13, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Ok, so about the bit I added (I hope to get to the Mathers conflicting explanations in a bit), I've got a few questions:

• Is there a better site for the WHOIS lookup? I just used the first I found on Google.
• Should we link to the actual site for the movie? I'm loath to direct any traffic there.
• The last bit about Myers being contacted in April is from a previous reference [1]. Is it necessary/useful to cite that, and if so, is there a way to reuse the [1] ref without adding another reference number?

I'm fairly new to wikis, and this is a little more complex than I've come across so far. I welcome/encourage rephrasing, as I'm feeling more ill than I thought I was, and I'm literally having a little trouble seeing straight. Translation: this might be crap work, I have no way of knowing, please fix it suitably, and I'll be gone for a bit. :-( So long! -Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 15:11, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

On question 3, yes, you can "name" a ref the first time it's used, then just refer to the name later. There may be something telling exactly how at one of the help files. human 16:17, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Not only was expelledthemovie.com registered on 2 March 2007, but also .net, .org, .info & .biz. My normal whois shows the .com & .net were registered through Tucows (I may be misreading this). All contact information is anonymous through contactprivacy.com in Canada. Genghis ^Marauding 14:52, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Viral Marketing

What? Is this it? Uchiha^KATON! 00:14, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I heard that the video in question is the latest internet sensation, "Exposed". שְׁלֹו 01:08, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

PZ Myers: Gatecrasher?

Dude, it wasn't exactly a private screening-- All you had to do was fill out a form online. He wasn't hacking the call, either. Some moron mentioned the code for two-way calls and PZ used it. Lay off the guy. Barikada 00:34, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

All cited, one cite from PZ himself. Most others from friendlies. Please don't call vandalism. PZ is a gatecrasher 00:47, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

All cited and spun to hell, yeah. Barikada 01:29, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Sorry Barikada, it's late, I didn't have the mind to sort through it... Though liberal Wikipedia seems to support the original "version". Uchiha^KATON! 01:38, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

'salright, man. Barikada 10:43, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

No, it's not vandalism (at least not the second iteration including both "versions"). I suspect it won't be too popular either, but I won't revert; if others have objections, I'd ask them to please at least explain changes. Uchiha^KATON! 01:06, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

• Thank you Uchilha, you're a scholar and a gentle person. שְׁלֹו 01:10, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

On the internet that could be flattery or sarcasm, neither of which I trust... eh, nuts, benefit of the doubt. Thanks. Uchiha^KATON! 01:20, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Wow, so PZ Myers is a bad person for trying to go to a movie? What fricking planet are we living on? Dawkins got in... By the way, I blocked the troll for a day. Were there no other sysops around? When this piece of crap goes into wide release, will any non-YEC IDiots attending be "gatecrashers"? human 01:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

...I'll just... shuffle lamely into the corner then. Uchiha^KATON! 01:59, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

If an ID'er attended an evolution class, would that be "gate-crashing"? Sterile^xx 08:35, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Only if there was a sign outside saying "No Creationists Allowed". --Gulik 10:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Press Pack

Anybody got any journalistic credentials? The press pack might be interesting. --Bob^{bing up} 05:49, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Sure. I used to edit our student magazine... until it went south last year, but still... I could try signing up and see what they say. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 11:20, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Go for it AKj.--Bob^{bing up} 11:30, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Did this ever turn up AKjeldsen?Bob^{bing up} 05:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it did - I just forgot about it. There's a press release, some bios, a bunch of articles, list of endorsements, and some pictures. I put the whole thing up here, if interested. And of course, I'm posting this for the sole purpose of promoting the Movie and ideas of EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Because that's just how great it is. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 08:09, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Interesting. There's quite a bit of stuff there. Presumably if it's in the press pack then it's all public domain.--Bob^{bing up} 04:02, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm not entirely sure, but their terms are very specific about only granting right to use for the purposes of promotion. So just to be on the safe side, I'm totally promoting right now. Great movie. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 06:19, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

XVIVO

Oh, now that is just too, too good. That will put the release of the movie back a looooong way, or will make them pony up a large fee for the footage. DogP 20:57, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

It will be interesting to see what they chose to do. EnVe 21:03, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Blogs are going nuts over this one:)--TimS 00:10, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

It's all over the place... Sterile^xx 11:16, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

It's also brilliant timing. It's going to be hard for Premise to avoid the inevitable media attention, and if they have to pull it, it will be expensive as likely the film has been distributed to theaters at this point. I highly doubt the theaters will be pleased to have to "cover" with a replacement film. Sterile^xx 11:30, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Does this section refer to the Harvard cell animation, or something else? human 11:52, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes. Sterile^xx 11:57, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

The "Harvard" animation was done by this XVIVO company. Brilliant work. Though I still pine for Bugs Bunny oncest in a while.CЯacke® 18:36, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

You know, I just found myself musing about why the IDiots thought they could just "use" the Cell animation in the way they did, and it occurred to me that it's just an extension of what they do all the time, habitually and intentionally. They dig through the results and literature of "real" science, looking for anything they can quote out of context to try to further their case/agenda. Which is what they did with the Cell thing - remove the credits, and add their own commentary. I suspect that to them, it was just high-tech quote mining, without any issues of the rights of the original creator/publisher occurring to them. FrickinIDiots. human 17:31, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Opening on schedule, or pushed back?

It's due to open next Saturday, so this is the week we'll find out if the open gets pushed. The movie website still shows the 19th as theatrical opening date. DogP 13:27, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, that be now, and they were buying TV ad time this last week (on the Daily Show!!!). I'm gonna wait until it comes on the Sci Fi channel ;) human 20:13, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

#9 in Weekend Box Office

Proving William Meuhl right one more time when he said, "we should never underestimate the intelligence or overestimate the education of the American people, Ben Stein's Expelled:I Haz No Brainz is in at #9 for the weekend box office, grossing $3.1m. They're makin' it in Hollywood, break out the red carpets and bottles of apple juice - the rednecks are a comin'! Yeee haw! (With apologies to rootin' shootin' ornery rednecks, who are great folk). DogP 03:19, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I dunno if you'd call that "makin' it", given that the movie cost $3.5m to make. They didn't even cover production costs, let alone promotion, in the opening weekend. From what I gather, that's a very bad sign for a film. Also, they managed to make, on a per-theatre basis, about 1.6% of An Inconvenient Truths opening weekend revenue. I think Ben Stein is wishing he stayed with game shows. --Kels 12:19, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

It's going to be tough to analyze the sales numbers for this film, from initial box office through long term DVD "sales", due to: A highly focused marketing campaign which is geared to bringing out large groups of true believers, to vote with their movie-going dollars; marketing efforts that involve substantial refunds of ticket prices; and what will almost certainly occur - similar marketing efforts with regard to DVD distribution. human 12:47, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Possibly, but from the numbers so far, the opening weekend didn't go so well. DVD sales might go well, and being propaganda it isn't about making money but getting seen by as many people as possible. So I doubt the filmmakers are really all that concerned with recouping any costs. --Kels 13:12, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

That's kind of what I meant... but also, they want to be able to claim "commercial success" as well. Hence the tricky rebate games. Part of doing that is to get around "promotional" freebies not counting. The person pays full price, so they "count". The rebate, even if it equals or exceeds the ticket price (or DVD price), is a separate deal between manufacturer and end buyer. So, they could "give away" a million DVDs but claim they sold them at full price, likewise theater tickets. human 13:40, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Honestly, this was a good opening weekend for them, covering much of the upfront costs of production and marketing. There's an unkown in the XVIVO deal - they would presumably have had to pay a hefty sum upfront for the rights to that to get clearance to distribute, but it won't bankrupt the film. They're lucky - they have a built-in audience who will essentially automatically go see the movie, and many of them will probably buy the DVD too. Then schools and institutions, and then overseas DVD sales will be healthy too - there's plenty of evangelicals around the world, and the movie is almost guaranteed to not find a distribution deal overseas. With DVD sales down the road, they will not make a ton of money - no-one does on a documentary - but they will turn a healthy profit of a million or two. Expect more movies with brainz in your local metroplex next year! DogP 15:27, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

The audiences and contexts are vastly different for "political" films. Fahrenheit 911 came out during a hotly contested pres. election year and did dynamite on its own. An Inconvenient Truth was never really marketed, but did OK considering it is Al Gore's powerpoint presentation. Expelled was heavily marketed and has a rapid base of people, but beyond that, who's going to see it? I suspect sales will tail heavily after the first few weeks. Sterile^xx 15:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT) EDIT: Considering that Prom Night (a wretched movie) and Horton Hears a Who (already out for a few weeks) did better thant Expelled, I think all is well. Sterile^xx 15:41, 21 April 2008 (EDT) EDIT: If you assume a 1/3 drop per week (which seems standard) it won't make more than $10 million domestically, pre-DVD-release. Sterile^xx 15:52, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Box office for docs is notoriously shy of drama - no-one makes major bucks off docs. Expelled hammered Morgan Spurlock's Where In The World Is Osama Bin Laden follow up to Super Size Me this weekend (which I'm sure he's horrified by) and opened in almost ten times as many theatres and taking double per screen. DogP 16:27, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

The success of the film should be judged by how many people who accepted the theory of evolution change their minds, and how many undecided people join the ID chorus. If the vast majority of the people who go to the movie already believe in the the Bible is literally true, the film will have failed in its purpose. Rational Ed^evidence 16:03, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, you're completely right - and I think you always will be. These 'missionary zeal' films always only end up speaking to their own audience and never convince anyone. DogP 16:27, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Side note: "no-one makes major bucks off docs." I don't know how Columbine did in the long run, but F 9/11 made literally millions for whatsisface, oh yeah, Moore. human 22:55, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, uhm yes. Although of course in MY world, that's a paltry sum. Now, I'm off to crash my Maybach into all my Ferraris down by the dock where my yachts are. DogP 15:26, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

From [1]:

Movie	U.S.	International	Total
Bowling for Columbine	$21,576,018.00	$37,000,000.00	$58,576,018.00
Fahrenheit 9/11	$119,114,517.00	$103,300,000.00	$222,414,517.00
An Inconvenient Truth	$23,814,997.00	$25,200,000.00	$49,014,997.00

The ID'ers are sooo excited about how "well" they did. But, using their source, I suspect that they aren't going to touch F9/11 or An Inconvenient Truth or even Truth or Dare. Maybe Super Size Me. Maybe. Sterile^xx 15:07, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Bottom line is that despite all our bluster, there is of course an audience for this piece of specious nonsense. Horrified though I am by the thought of more of this claptrap down the line, they'll do fine with it and certainly we can now expect to see evangelical movies returning regularly to the theatres. Worse luck. DogP 15:23, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

One last thing, and then I'll let my obsessive-compulsive self go. The people who bet on these things in a virtual stock market page have a prediction for Expelled here. It only goes out 24 days... Sterile^xx 15:48, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Ultimate Irony

Isn't this a "rational" wiki? Aren't we supposed to judge things by observed truths and use ration and critical thinking to decide which ideas we have more faith in being true? Rational people now attack suggestions of "intelligence design" through Ad Hominem and Appeal to Belief? Propaganda or not ultimately what's the point of attacking a film? If the "facts" Ben Stein may or may not produce fail to sway you one way or the other then isn't that what we should be arguing? Not the history of the domain name or the publisher. What relevance is any of that to the arguments the film makes? This whole article is completely void of rational. I think a start would be to take a look at the literal fallacies used in debate. And after that maybe you can start at the teachings of some of the first philosophers to popularize rational thinking. Socrates maybe? "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing." And please calm down. Expressing a belief will not undo the truth, so if your wrong or someone else is, you have plenty of time to correct yourself without getting overzealous or angry. ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.249.238.42 / talk / contribs}

• We have an excellent refutation of content at Expelled:Leader's Guide. I suggest you read there.
• There's a different between ad hominem without basis and giving evidence to show the character of a person. I think the actions of the filmmaker are pretty sleazy based on the evidence given. (Ethos is a part of rhetoric, by the way.) Especially when there has been so much linking of "evil" practitioners of evolution to Nazism, abortion, etc.
• We do not do a neutral point-of-view. Our articles are biased. And we try to be funny at the same time. That might offend some.
• Calm down? When a piece of propaganda being hoisted to try to get ID into schools? No way! Sterile^xx 11:37, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Right Sterile, this article isn't supposed to debunk ID that's done elsewhere. It's to expose the hypocrisy of the film makers who deceived the scientists into taking part by outright lying and then used the same tactics of which they accuse their targets. The movie isn't even about giving evidence for ID but purely about knocking evolutionists. And if you want to use the term "we" then I suggest you log in properly so that we know who you are.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 12:20, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

The history of the domain name, how the movie was presented to potential interviewees, and the various intellectual property tempests are all "facts", and they are facts that call into doubt the credibility of the authors of this film. "If the "facts" Ben Stein may or may not produce" - one major criticism of the film is its incredibly light weight when it comes to producing "facts". And, lastly, "to decide which ideas we have more faith in being true" is not the rationalist perspective - it's not about deciding what to "have faith in", but determining what ideas have more weight behind the likelihood of their representing reality, and pursuing them vigorously to undo or strengthen them. human 12:57, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

The next one

This movie has to fit into the new seekrit Wedge Strategy quite nicely. Any guesses as to what the next pop culture effort will be to drive the wedge in deeper? I'm waiting for a Broadway musical version featuring a character named "Mitchard Squawkins" who sings a song called "A Darwinist's Life For Me" and winds up turning into a Nazi at the end.--Bayes_yikes 14:19, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Nah. Too retarded for Broadway. It is in that goldess haven for liberals, New York City, ya' know. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:28, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

They could pass out guns to the audience to de-liberalize it a little.--Bayes_yikes 16:14, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

I think something like this could be a huge hit, in the "Springtime-for-Hitler" vein. They've already made the Nazi connection and their claims are a farce, so that kind of show would be very fitting. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 17:13, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps the surviving members of MPFC would deign to assemble this beauty you guys have just brainstormed. I will dream it, at least... human 23:28, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

IMDB rating

I deleted the addition of a comment that it's rated 3.7 at IMDB, since, one, ratings like that are easy to rig, two, it will almost certainly change as the movie enters its second week on screens, and 3 the additioner didn't bother to even provide a link. human 20:25, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

DARWIN = HITLER

I think we might want to add a Darwin = Hitler section. That seems to be the largest argument "against" evolution and it's all over the internet... Sterile^xx 14:45, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

I took the liberty of knocking up a quick draft under Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed/Darwin_and_Hitler. I think everything there is correct, but anyone should feel free to give it a quick glance and correct glaring errors/expand on/whatever before copying it to the article. Zmidponk 20:38, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

While I heartily approve, have any of us seen the movie yet? Is the draft based on an actual viewing, or just that "we know" Stein plays the reductio ad hitlerum card in the movie? (We covered it well in the Expelled:Leader's Guide, but we had their material to respond to directly there) Any chance we can actually get some quotes from the movie? human 20:54, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, doing a quick Google on it, I can't see any quotes directly from the film itself (though this was a very quick Google), but all the reviews and articles about it seem to agree that this link is made - even such places as the Discovery Institute. Zmidponk 21:18, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

And, no, I haven't seen the film - the draft is based purely on being aware that such a link is made, and simply knocking up a quick response to that idea. Zmidponk 21:26, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

There's some detail from The Stranger newspaper (in Seattle, kind like its NY Post) here. (Actually, they call the article "Darwin = Hilter." Relevant paragraph:

Comparing one's opponent to Hitler is a debate technique so unsophisticated it would get you laughed off an internet message board. (The Discovery Institute doesn't allow comments on its blog.) Expelled doesn't resort to this evolution-leads-to-Hitlerism hysteria in passing. It devotes a solid 20 minutes of its running time to a sequence in which Stein, who is Jewish, visits a German hospital where Nazis starved, murdered, and cremated the physically and mentally disabled. Asked what inspired this cruelty, a random museum docent (who doesn't speak English very well) softly replies, "Darwinism." Never mind that scientific theories do not stand or fall depending on whether homicidal dictators wantonly misinterpret them, or that Charles Darwin was never a proponent of social Darwinism, or that he contributed only a modest portion of modern evolutionary theory. Just compare scientists to Nazis—that'll, uh, really convince everyone that intelligent design should be welcomed as a legitimate scientific pursuit.

... Sterile^xx 10:34, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

I think The Stranger is more like the Village Voice than the Post, but anyway... critiques, quotes and details from third parties who have seen it are fine with me. I just don't want us running overboard with commentary based on little more than hearsay. Shall we paraphrase or just directly quote The Stranger for now? human 13:25, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, I've fixed the draft to remove saying anything about the film that isn't backed up by that Stranger article (and used it as a reference), and also expanded a few points. Zmidponk 09:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Cool. I copyedited it a bit. Gonna add the "20 minute" part, too. I think it's ready for inclusion now... human 14:08, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I think so, too. I'll copy it over just now. If anybody has any objections, feel free to revert and bring them up. Zmidponk 14:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I should also say - I stuck it underneath the 'external reviews and response' section as it is basically a response to one claim made in the film. Zmidponk 14:25, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Is there a variant of Godwin's Law which applies to such viewpoints? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Would've been great

had this movie been a buddy movie starring Ben Stein and a chimp named Darwin. BeermasterGeneral 12:36, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Progress report?

What's happening with the blockbuster? Not seen/heard any mention for ages. Has it just died the death?   ^Contribs_Talk 13:49, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Canadian national release: June 27th! [2] I'm looking for US screens and revenue numbers now... ħuman 14:21, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

The weekend box office has been dropping by roughly 50% per weekend [3]. It is down to 402 theaters as of late May. BOM probably only updates these numbers when they get good audited data? ħuman 17:10, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

It updated all the way through the end of may when it dropped to no theaters reporting showing it. tmtoulouse ^beset 19:44, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah, that would explain the lack of new box office numbers. The old "delete the trailing zeroes" trick. They are, however, trying to get people to set up "private" screenings in local theaters... must be having trouble intelligently designing the menus and extras for the DVD.

By the way, are you sure about the "no theaters" part? I think I was able to find some, albeit 300-500 miles away from me. That wasn't on their web site, though. There, the "find a theater" function has gone away. ħuman 21:11, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah, I did misread/report that a bit. 402 was May 9ish, drops to 210 then 83 the following weekends. Zero seems like a very reasonable "next step". However, I noted this at the "showtimes" link on BOM:[4]

• Cinemark Movies 10 - West Brighton

2613 West Henrietta Road, Rochester, NY

335 Miles (12:05), (2:25), (4:45), 7:05, 9:20

• Carmike Blue Ridge 14 Cinema

600 Blue Ridge Road, Raleigh, NC

653 Miles 1:15, 3:25, 5:35, 7:45, 10:00

• Carmike 8 - High Point

2705 North Main Street, High Point, NC

688 Miles

I went to the Cinemark website, they are indeed showing it still.[5] ħuman 21:17, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Conspiracy theory

The phrase "Conspiracy theory" should be used somewhere, since that is what this "big science" nonsense is. Jaxe (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Teh answer to "Expelled"?

It's named "Creation", but it's a drama film. JJ4e^vote 15:38, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Interesting. I hope they do a good job. ħuman 15:54, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Fair use etc. edit

Cut:

"Interestingly, this case has become a benchmark for the application of Fair Use provisions of copyright in contemporary documentary cinema, and in an "every cloud has a silver lining" moment, is already actually greatly benefiting the film making community. Ref: Stanford Fair Use project for documentary filmmakers celebrates win"

I don't see any connection between our claim and the citation, really. Did I miss something? ħuman 02:40, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Uh, yes. The Expelled case has become the foundation case for Fair Use, and is THE benchmark for documentarian filmmakers. In doc-making circles, despite the fact that most people obviously hated the film, the case is widely celebrated and it's really a hugely important decision in copyright law. The article doesn't state that at all clearly, probably because of a blatant case of hating the criminal, not the crime, and missing the point. So I'm putting it back in. DogP 02:56, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Vid

Is this vid referred to in the article? I can't find it if it is. (passes laptop to companion with functioning ears) I can't find it either, but it spells out the PZ/Dawkins bit well (passes laptop back) 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right. It doesn't appear to be. Although later on PZ did link to that vid (I remember it being much higher quality...), it can't hurt to directly reference it. ^bomination 20:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Great vid, yes! ħuman 00:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)