Talk:Creation (2009 film)

No distributor

No distributor in the U.S.. Due to potential controversy. Ugh. The blatant rejection of rational thought in my country is exasperating.Hazor (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try going to New York, LA, or San Francisco for 3 seconds. Saberwolf116 (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Life of Brian was protested by Christians in the United Kingdom, but I do not remember any fuss at all when it was shown, quite idely, in the US. Creation may just be considered boring, compared to Life of Brian. But with stars like Connelly and Bettany, you can believe it will make money. And if it will make money, it will find a US distributor. I know lots of films that are not released in the UK until some time after they were released in the US. I am not surprised that films that are made in the UK take some time before they are released in the US. Many UK films do not do very wel at the box office in the US (Happy Go Lucky for example; I am not sure if This is Britain' was even released in the US) so it is not at all surprising that it takes a while for a UK drama to find a distributor in the US. I find this banal and all the stuff about "it is because Americans are so religious" is just, well, gossip. Does NPR broadcast Sunday Mass? BBC Radio 4 does. These comparisons are not so simple after all. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A small correction

"Charles Darwin studied at a university to become a preacher, but had more interest in science, so he instead became a naturalist. It was Annie's death that shattered his belief in Christianity, while in the film, he is presented as having been an evolutionist beforehand, and Annie agreeing with his beliefs."

The bold part appears to be misrepresented in the Historical Accuracy section by (apparently) suggesting that Darwin wasn't an evolutionist before Annie's death. In reality, he already became an evolutionist in 1837[1] (developing the concept of natural selection just a year later), so the film's presentation is accurate. Also, the situation of having to choose between science and becoming a preacher took place before his voyage on the HMS Beagle, long before the events of the film. So I shortened and corrected the whole part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauri Hirvisalo (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical accuracy

I´d like to remove this section unless it can be sourced and somewhat rewritten, the first part don´t read very well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur about the section. WP:FILMHIST may provide some guidance on a better writeup in the future. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding ring?

Darwin in the film is shown wearing a wedding ring. Is that an anachronism?
Wedding rings for men is more of a 20th century convention.
Varlaam (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Negative reviews?

Have any critics of notoriety written a negative review for this film? Right now the section only lists the fact that it was mostly negatively perceived on Rotten Tomatoes, followed by several heavily positive reviews. Reads a bit awkwardly. W ASB94 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]