1. Comment #243144 by Dhamma on September 5, 2008 at 7:54 am

Sounds intriguing. I just hope it will be really well-made. I fear Darwin may be viewed in a bad light when people will realize he married his cousin.

The timing will be off though, as it's next year he'll be celebrated and I doubt the film will be out that early.

Edit: I wonder why they've chosen the bad name Creation. To make religious people interested? On IMDB it's called Origin, which seems far better.

Other Comments by Dhamma

2. Comment #243159 by Thurston on September 5, 2008 at 8:16 am

I fear Darwin may be viewed in a bad light when people will realize he married his cousin.

Such prejudice is easily combated though; so did Churchill and Einstein!

Few films have been made about Darwin, which seems odd given his importance, not to mention the details of his early life which are sufficiently dramatic: exotic locations, character development etc.

Other Comments by Thurston

3. Comment #243160 by sheepscarer on September 5, 2008 at 8:17 am

Looking forward to it - sounds like a British movie so hopefully will avoid the Hollywood sugarcoated pill treatment.

Just watched the BBC's 'God On Trial' which was an excellent portrayal of a theological debate by Jews about to be exterminated in Auschwitz. The ending probably shocking to most believers.

I've criticised the BBC before for not trusting their audience to pay attention to drama or documentary that required some effort on their part but this was great stuff. Catch it if you can.

Other Comments by sheepscarer

4. Comment #243162 by William Kaiser on September 5, 2008 at 8:19 am

Dhamma, you stated "I fear Darwin may be viewed in a bad light when people will realize he married his cousin."

I see news articles several times a year about religious groups actually arranging marriage between cousins. And they prefer to have the female just entering puberty. But if the female is extremely attractive she becomes another of the local religious leaders wives!

It will be interesting to see what happens with this film when/if they release it in the USA. I hope they don't allow Ben Stein into the premiere. ;-)

WK

Other Comments by William Kaiser

5. Comment #243164 by Edamus on September 5, 2008 at 8:21 am

Ah, very good. I like Paul's acting ability, I hope to see this do well!

Other Comments by Edamus

6. Comment #243173 by Dhamma on September 5, 2008 at 8:30 am

Thurston: I'm not sure what you mean. Churchill was an atheist and Einstein may have been one too. Wouldn't that just add to prejudice towards atheists? Anyway, did Churchill really marry his cousin?

Other Comments by Dhamma

7. Comment #243178 by Apathy personified on September 5, 2008 at 8:42 am

Paul Bettany:
The Good;
'Beautiful Mind'
The Bad;
'Wimbledon' and 'A Knights Tale'
The downright ugly;
'Da Vinci Code'

Jennifer Connelly:
The Good;
'Beautiful Mind' and 'Requiem for a dream'
The Bad;
Has she made any bad films?

Let's hope that the script does Darwin, Bettany and Connelly justice.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

8. Comment #243189 by Dhamma on September 5, 2008 at 9:11 am

Apathy: I certainly agree. She's really great in Requiem for a dream, as everyone else in that picture. I feel depressed watching it, but can it get any better? :)

Other Comments by Dhamma

9. Comment #243191 by Elli on September 5, 2008 at 9:14 am

Let's not forget Labyrinth. Great film, and Connelly was terrific!

Other Comments by Elli

10. Comment #243195 by Verylee on September 5, 2008 at 9:21 am

Comment by William Kaiser

I hope they don't allow Ben Stein into the premiere. ;-)

What a great comment! Wish I had thought of that one!

Other Comments by Verylee

11. Comment #243197 by RussC on September 5, 2008 at 9:23 am

I hope this film does justice to Darwin's work. If so it'll be a good film so I look forward to it in the hope that it does. Agree with Dhamma though that it is an awful title.

Damn! William Kaiser beat me to the Ben Stein gag. It had to be done didn't it?

Russ

Other Comments by RussC

12. Comment #243199 by Apemanblues on September 5, 2008 at 9:25 am

I'll look forward to this one. Might even get up off my ass and go to the cinema.

I hope they handle it well.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

13. Comment #243202 by ggab7768 on September 5, 2008 at 9:30 am

I would watch a movie glorifying the creation myth if Connelly was in it.
SSSStunning! Homina homina.

I would bet they can get it out for next year. It doesn't take as long as it used to, unless there's cgi work to do.
Somehow I doubt there will be any of that.

If done well, this could have a very possitive effect for the cause.
There will certainly be plenty of press from the inevitable protests.

Other Comments by ggab7768

14. Comment #243203 by Apathy personified on September 5, 2008 at 9:30 am

Dhamma,
It is such an immense film, very dark... i loved it! - and no, films (in that genre) can't get any better, ever.
The same director also made 'pi' - another good film.

Elli,
Labyrinth - i haven't seen it, though any film with David Bowie has got to be absolutely amazing, by definition.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

15. Comment #243204 by Dhamma on September 5, 2008 at 9:32 am

Verylee. "What a great comment! Wish I had thought of that one!"

Well, I understand his joke, but on a more serious side-note, I'd be really sad if he's not allowed entrance. We shouldn't sink to their low levels - We have some values.

Other Comments by Dhamma

16. Comment #243207 by Verylee on September 5, 2008 at 9:36 am

Comment #243204 by Dhamma

We shouldn't sink to their low levels

No, of course not, but you got to admit it was funny!
In fact it would be an idea if he (Stein) was invited to the premier. I wonder if he would accept? :)

Other Comments by Verylee

17. Comment #243208 by NewEnglandBob on September 5, 2008 at 9:38 am

1. Comment #243144 by Dhamma:

One set of my grandparents were first cousins and there is nothing wrong with me, nothing wrong with me, nothing wrong with me, nothing wrong with me, nothing wrong with me, nothing wrong with me...

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

18. Comment #243213 by Apathy personified on September 5, 2008 at 9:46 am

Ha - after his cameo in Dr Who, maybe RD has got the acting bug, should he be considered for a role in this film?

Other Comments by Apathy personified

19. Comment #243223 by bucketchemist on September 5, 2008 at 9:58 am

Maybe I'm missing something but how exactly are Darwin and his ideas 'controversial'?

Other Comments by bucketchemist

20. Comment #243232 by shellemush on September 5, 2008 at 10:06 am

Paul Bettany is the sexiest man alive! This should liven things up a bit. :)

Other Comments by shellemush

21. Comment #243237 by Ishruul on September 5, 2008 at 10:13 am

Darwin on the big screen, about time! Take that Ben Stein.

The only negative point I found out is Amiel crapped The Core. Let's hope it will be a biographical movie, down to earth, without the usual bollywood soap drama crap!

Other Comments by Ishruul

22. Comment #243242 by Miles on September 5, 2008 at 10:16 am

Yes, I'd have to agree that 'controversial' wasn't a particularly pertinent term. Unless, of course, you're talking about how the theory is generally received in America. Nevertheless, the term infers no claim as to the truth value of the theory, so we shouldn't really worry about it. Many controversial ideas happen to be supported by mountains of evidence.

Other Comments by Miles

23. Comment #243245 by Eshto on September 5, 2008 at 10:19 am

Sweet.

The title of course will capitalize on the "controversy".

I highly doubt they will make her his cousin in the film.

Other Comments by Eshto

24. Comment #243250 by BeyondBelief on September 5, 2008 at 10:23 am

Dhamma,

It's called "Creation" for exactly the same reasons "Expelled" was called something else until shortly before release.

Stealth.

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

25. Comment #243284 by Art Vandelay on September 5, 2008 at 11:17 am

Interesting, Bettany played a Darwin-like ship-faring naturalist in Master and Commander. Maybe he got the bug. Pun completely unintended. Honest.

Other Comments by Art Vandelay

26. Comment #243288 by RevJimBob on September 5, 2008 at 11:31 am

There was a cracking BBC dramatisation of Darwin in the late 70s. I have never seen it repeated.

Other Comments by RevJimBob

27. Comment #243289 by Raiko on September 5, 2008 at 11:33 am

Personally, I find "Creation" is a horrible choice for the title, no matter what the reason.

Other Comments by Raiko

28. Comment #243291 by Quetzalcoatl on September 5, 2008 at 11:35 am

"The End Of Creation" might be better. Or "Darwin". But "Creation" is precisely what it isn't.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

29. Comment #243293 by Lucas on September 5, 2008 at 11:37 am

The only bad movie Jennifer Connelly has done was Hulk, and she was the best part, a sparkling diamond in an otherwise odious shitpile. They made a mistake in not keeping her on for the recent one, which was much better.

And this film should definitely be called Origin, if for nothing else than the double meaning; origin of humans, origin of modern biology.

Other Comments by Lucas

30. Comment #243294 by Enlightenme.. on September 5, 2008 at 11:38 am

Some interesting comments after the linked article, including someone who appears to think ToE is Zionist propaganda!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

31. Comment #243323 by Overmann on September 5, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Seems interesting enough, except that Darwin isn't the father of evolutionary theory so much as he is the father of natural selection. A nit-pick, but an important one.

Other Comments by Overmann

32. Comment #243327 by Don_Quix on September 5, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Hah! The Onion has a related story today:

Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain

Other Comments by Don_Quix

33. Comment #243328 by RainDear on September 5, 2008 at 12:56 pm

For a moment after seeing the name, I was worried. Both halves of this happy couple are among my favourite actors, and it would have been be sad to lose them in the Palin-sphere.

But checking up on the project, it seems there will be very little to worry about. Jon Amiel is an accomplished and pro director. He's a bit disappointing when it comes to the scientific facts though, as he's done the utterly silly sci-fi epic "The Core". I guess he just needed the job. But thankfully the writer credits list Randall Keynes and John Collee. Keynes is actually a descendant of Charles Darwin (and apparently John Maynard Keynes) and he's written quite sympathetically about his ancestor's family before. John Collee's filmography includes the film "The Man who sued God", a comedy about a fisherman who sues God and his church after an insurance company denies his claim because an "act of God" is to blame.

So, there is likely to be no intelligent design allowed.

Other Comments by RainDear

34. Comment #243332 by Elli on September 5, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Don_Quix, I enjoyed that! - and it led me to this:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512?issue=4228&special=2005

Other Comments by Elli

35. Comment #243333 by Elli on September 5, 2008 at 1:08 pm

And this one is even funnier:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55807

Other Comments by Elli

36. Comment #243345 by 8teist on September 5, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Can`t wait for this movie to be released.



and while we are looking at images ,http://www.satireandcomment.com/0208toast.html .

Other Comments by 8teist

37. Comment #243353 by mitch_486 on September 5, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Thurston:

I just want to let you know, I am at the office where I work, in an advertising agency. I've seen a lot of funny shit, but that avatar is the reason my monitor is covered in coffee, and people are looking at me like we do creationists.



cheers

Other Comments by mitch_486

38. Comment #243371 by William Kaiser on September 5, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Dhamma you stated in response to my comment:
"Well, I understand his joke, but on a more serious side-note, I'd be really sad if he's not allowed entrance. We shouldn't sink to their low levels - We have some values."

Well of course it was a joke BUT....
I wouldn't be very surprised if Ben Stein and his nitwit cronies would stage such an event in order to get themselves publicity!

I can see the movie marquee now....
"Expelled II - Darwin Bans Ben"

WK

Other Comments by William Kaiser

39. Comment #243380 by aoratos philos on September 5, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Art Vandelay: Yes I thought Bettany's role in master and commander was very close to aspects of Darwins voyage on the Beagle too.
For those who don't know; He played Dr. Stephen Maturin, an enthusiastic naturalist and collector who was Aubrey's gentleman companion.
Maturin even convinced Aubrey to let him spend time on the Galapagos whilst the HMS Surprise navigated round the islands.
During one of the scenes Maturin even speculated about how species came to be, and commented on the diversity and similarities of his specimens.

I expect "Creation" or "Origin" will dramatise Darwins personal life. I do hope the makers explain the science behind the family problems Darwin encountered.

Other Comments by aoratos philos

40. Comment #243387 by adk on September 5, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Yay!! When I saw the title of the article I was like, oh no, it's a religious movie. But Paul Bettany is going to play an awesome Darwin!

Other Comments by adk

41. Comment #243392 by thrutraffic on September 5, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Don't worry Dhamma, most fundamentalist in the south (where I live) are married to relatives. You just thought Deliverance was made up. :-)

Let's just hope they don't end the film with Darwin being saved on his deathbed!!!

Other Comments by thrutraffic

42. Comment #243395 by Thurston on September 5, 2008 at 4:25 pm

I just want to let you know, I am at the office where I work, in an advertising agency. I've seen a lot of funny shit, but that avatar is the reason my monitor is covered in coffee, and people are looking at me like we do creationists.

I'm happy to provide a service! lol.

Other Comments by Thurston

43. Comment #243397 by HourglassMemory on September 5, 2008 at 4:36 pm

I haven't actually bothered to read all the comments, so I don't know if this has been mentioned.
Paul Bettany is an atheist and he has played a Darwin-like character in "Master and Commander".

Finally Darwin on the big screen! And I'm glad that his struggle with the matter of God is going to be put on film.
I wonder if putting Darwin's struggle with religious beliefs on film is the result of having books and films recently talking about religion and expressing doubts about it. I wonder if that motivated the director, or the writer, or whoever is responsible of putting this group of people together.

I find the title interesting...
It lead me in with a annoyed face, but made me raise my eyebrows when I noticed that Paul Bettany was going to play Darwin.
So who knows, it might make beleivers look into it.
I hope this film gets to educate a little bit about evolution, but I find the struggle with god much more interesting and even important. Who knows, it might put seeds of doubt on viewers as 'Darwin' makes his point as he thinks about his theory outloud or has conversations with 'Emma'.

Another film that might be interesting to watch and is going to star Rachel Weisz is "Agora", where she plays Hypatia, often told to be a non-believer.

Can't wait for either to come out on DVD!

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

44. Comment #243398 by a non e-moose on September 5, 2008 at 4:48 pm

for a second i thought this article was about a creationist propaganda movie. It made me sad because I like jennifer connely.

EDIT: @adk, guess I wasn't the only one

Other Comments by a non e-moose

45. Comment #243408 by SmartLX on September 5, 2008 at 5:48 pm

Non E-Moose, I was worried about the title until I realised it's brilliant. It's about the creation of the theory itself so it's technically accurate, and it will bring in a whole bunch of creationists who see "Darwin" and "Creation" together and think it'll take their side.

Other Comments by SmartLX

46. Comment #243409 by Don_Quix on September 5, 2008 at 6:17 pm

I liked her a lot in Dark City. Aside from that movie being generally awesome, and having some messianic themes, Connelly has the whole super-hot noir femme fatale thing going on in it.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

47. Comment #243411 by Shuggy on September 5, 2008 at 6:46 pm

"The Da Vinci Code" was crap, but Bettany was good in it. Isn't he a bit young and sexy to be playing Darwin, or wasn't Darwin always an old man with a white beard, as Rabbi Jonathan Sacks assured us?

The Harun Yahya site is funny. He provides so many dated pictures of himself on this page, that you can follow the progressive dewhitening of his beard and temples.

Other Comments by Shuggy

48. Comment #243416 by Flo on September 5, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Bettany is one of my absolute favourite actors, but my immediate reaction was "no, not for this one". Except for that I think "The Da Vinci Code" was a great adaptation of the book, I agree with Shuggy (#243411): I really hope Bettany's attractiveness won't become a distraction.

I know it's not a documentary for spreading hard scientific facts but a movie for, like any movie, mainly entertainment; but still, any movie about Darwin should be more about his great and important work than about his looks.

And not primarily a love story either. PZ Meyers wrote that, likewise, Jennifer Connelly might be "way too hot" as Emma Darwin.

But of course I'm looking forward to the movie...

Other Comments by Flo

49. Comment #243417 by kkelly on September 5, 2008 at 7:20 pm

whoa whoa whoa, Bettany is not sexy or attractive. All he has is personality.

Other Comments by kkelly

50. Comment #243418 by Don_Quix on September 5, 2008 at 7:30 pm

PZ Meyers wrote that, likewise, Jennifer Connelly might be "way too hot" as Emma Darwin.

Did people really, actually look like Emma Darwin in the mid-19th century? Or was there some sort of stylistic thing going on in the drawings/paintings? I've always found it interesting that people in various eras always seem to be portrayed as having a particular "look" to them, beyond fashion and hairstyles, especially in the time before photography. But even after that it still applies. For example, just about every young woman I see in just about every photograph from the early-mid 20th century seems to sort of have the same facial and physical characteristics as pictures of my grandma when she was in her 20s or 30s. It kind of makes me feel creepy ;)

Other Comments by Don_Quix