• Charles Darwin Film unable to find American distributor, producer blames evolution
    479 replies, posted
Aren't we getting off topic here? Wasn't this thread supposed to be about American publishers being paranoid about pissing off religious people?
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;17286888]After the conquest, England, shocked by how barbaric India was, reformed it. After an invasion, they wanted to help the people.[/QUOTE] you mean protect their economic interests ghandi was an idiot, the british were doing good!
[QUOTE=NoDachi;17286893]East India Trading Company?[/QUOTE] About every major nation had an India Company: Portugal, France and Britain especially, Netherlands, etc..
[QUOTE=paul1290;17286916]Aren't we getting off topic here? Wasn't this thread supposed to be about American publishers being paranoid about pissing off religious people?[/QUOTE] Welcome to Facepunch.
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;17286888]After the conquest, England, shocked by how barbaric India was, reformed it. After an invasion, they wanted to help the people.[/QUOTE] How barbaric India was? Is that why they killed large numbers of Indians during their stay?
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;17286735]a) I am basing my argument on reference from TH98, and from the fact that the movie was banned. I am pretty sure that if it was accurate and fair, historical movie, the ban would not pass. b) Where?[/QUOTE] The part that I bolded in my other quote. Hold on let me find it .. EDIT [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;17286386]1. I don't really know what is the movie about, and I didn't even say if it's right or wrong they banned it. As far as I know, Darwin never tried to prove that religion was wrong by whole, and that god does not exist (now again I am not sure, this comes just from my poor information about him), but I am afraid that the movie portraits him as a fighter against religion, trying to hang pope with his massive beard, because that's the way many movie scenarist tend to bend real historical stories to give them some sparks. If this is true, I am against this movie. [b]If the movie is really historically accurate without any additions and dramatizations, I am against it.[/b][/quote] There. The first half of that statement you imply that you were praising Darwin for not directly attacking religion, and simply stating his findings and opinions, but then you say that if the film was historically accurate, you would still be against it.
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;17286937]About every major nation had an India Company: Portugal, France and Britain especially, Netherlands, etc..[/QUOTE] But neither of them was anything on the scale as the oldest, original British one. Just imagine it. A COMPANY declared war on china, and won. Twice.
[QUOTE=CanibalMonke;17286954]How barbaric India was? Is that why they killed large numbers of Indians during their stay?[/QUOTE] The three empires before it - Mongol, Mughal, and Marathan - were far more brutal than Britain was. India also practiced human sacrifice, especially for couples; if a woman's husband died, she was forced to be burned along with him. Britain ended this and other practices.
[QUOTE=paul1290;17286916]Aren't we getting off topic here? Wasn't this thread supposed to be about American publishers being paranoid about pissing off religious people?[/QUOTE] I have a feeling that BBC just didn't look hard enough for a publisher. As in they might have just asked one and they said no.
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;17286761]He several times in his books said his ideas could never be proven, and hinted to them not being true at times.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, now actually read the bloody book rather than make shit up. Even if you don't believe it (Which is fucking stupid for something literally proven, and has been observed actually happening in our time.) it's still interesting.
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;17286988]The three empires before it - Mongol, Mughal, and Marathan - were far more brutal than Britain was. India also practiced human sacrifice, especially for couples; if a woman's husband died, she was forced to be burned along with him. Britain ended this and other practices.[/QUOTE] Oh no! They have their own practices. I guess we should invade and kill even more, in hopes of stopping the killing.
we have the passion of the christ but not a film on charles darwin wtf america
[QUOTE=TH89;17286760]Might be because Religulous was made by a popular American comedian, whereas this is focused on a Science Guy a lot of Americans don't care about that much.[/QUOTE] Yeah but Religulous was just a big criticism of religion, making fun of it a ton, this wouldn't be nearly as direct.
[QUOTE=CanibalMonke;17287019]Oh no! They have their own practices. I guess we should invade and kill even more, in hopes of stopping the killing.[/QUOTE] So you're saying human sacrifice and other brutal practices were right?
Things like this make me feel ashamed to be an american...
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;17287028]Yeah but Religulous was just a big criticism of religion, making fun of it a ton, this wouldn't be nearly as direct.[/QUOTE] In "Creation", it's using facts from Darwin. In "Religulous", he is directly mocking religion. Much as you said.
Why do historical events from over 150 years and some 30 governments ago have any relevance to anything in this thread? :confused:
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;17286937]About every major nation had an India Company: Portugal, France and Britain especially, Netherlands, etc..[/QUOTE] Saying "every other country was doing it" every time someone points one of these things out doesn't really help your argument that the world was a better place then
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;17286965] There. The first half of that statement you imply that you were praising Darwin for not directly attacking religion, and simply stating his findings and opinions, but then you say that if the film was historically accurate, you would still be against it.[/QUOTE] Oh damn me I forgot negation in the last sentence. My bad.
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;17287039]So you're saying human sacrifice and other brutal practices were right?[/QUOTE] I'm saying Britain shouldn't have invaded just because they didn't think it was right.
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;17287039]So you're saying human sacrifice and other brutal practices were right?[/QUOTE] Evil is lack of good hurf durf
[QUOTE=CanibalMonke;17287066]I'm saying Britain shouldn't have invaded just because they didn't think it was right.[/QUOTE] They invaded for profit, they stayed to improve. However, if that is what you believe, then America shouldn't have invaded the Middle East because they thought bin Laden or Hussein weren't right? (though America only invaded for genocide and oil)
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;17287062]Oh damn me I forgot negation in the last sentence. My bad.[/QUOTE] This argument is getting too complicated; we'll end up contradicting ourselves and making ourselves look like idiots, let's just stop.
Fucking stupid. I'm an atheist in America and I think that it's bullshit that no one will show this movie because of the religious idiots that are sensitive about it. I would definitely pay to see this movie in theaters.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;17287098]This argument is getting too complicated; we'll end up contradicting ourselves and making ourselves look like idiots, let's just stop.[/QUOTE] Agreed.
[QUOTE=CanibalMonke;17286421]Also, why was Religulous showed? The guy in it was challenging the Christian beliefs.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but it was fucking shit, this looks quite good.
[QUOTE=SgtSpankeyII;17287118]Yeah, but it was fucking shit, this looks quite good.[/QUOTE] True. I tried watching Religulous ( There was a free showing on Youtube or something), and I got utterly bored of it.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;17287098]This argument is getting too complicated; we'll end up contradicting ourselves and making ourselves look like idiots, let's just stop.[/QUOTE] I agree.
Lol Atheists.
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;17287096]They invaded for profit, they stayed to improve. However, if that is what you believe, then America shouldn't have invaded the Middle East because they thought bin Laden or Hussein weren't right? (though America only invaded for genocide and oil)[/QUOTE] Actually, some of the reasons were 1) Suspected WMD, 2) War on Terrorism, and 3) Oil. ( You got that one). We didn't enter for genocide. Also, final word in about the off-topic argument.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.