Weekend Boxoffice Chart

[Evil Avatar]

Another fantasy world has joined Hollywood's instant-blockbuster club. Disney's The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe adapted from C.S. Lewis' tale of enchantment, epic battles and talking animals debuted as the weekend's top movie with $67.1 million, according to studio estimates Sunday.

Here is the Weekend Boxoffice Chart for the weekend of December 9th to December 11th.


The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe $67.0/$67.0
Syriana $12.0/$13.5
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire $10.3/$244.1
Walk the Line $5.7/$77.0
Yours, Mine & Ours $5.1/$40.9
Aeon Flux $4.6/$20.2
Just Friends $3.9/$26.4
Pride and Prejudice $2.4/$26.3
Chicken Little $2.2/$127.2
Rent $2.0/$26.9
Derailed $1.2/$34.7
The Polar Express: An IMAX 3D Experience $.9/$3.8

[evilpenguin9000]

I saw Just Friends this weekend and it was pretty good. Good date movie and I'm a Ryan Reynolds fan. It was infinitely better than steaming Aeon Flux.

Should i bother with Narnia. I liked the books as a kid (when I didn't have any idea it was a Christian allegory), but is there an overt Christian bias worked into this movie that will offend my left-wing godhating sensibilities?

[zipR]

Syriana was good. Very good. I want to see it again because I know that there were some things I missed.

[ezra]

but is there an overt Christian bias worked into this movie that will offend my left-wing godhating sensibilities?

I doubt it. Some people would say that anything that involves a battle between evil and good is christian themed, which is of course BS. Its a good story and thats all there is to it, whether or not it's based on another classic story, the bible (an important piece of literature regardless of your religious views), is irrelevant.

[Abednigo]

Narnia was great. There is no bias toward anything. The movie is nearly identical to the book. If the book didn't offend you, the movie won't. Granted, you probably weren't a left-wing God hater back then and probably didn't pick up on the stuff. If you read the book now (or saw the movie) you'd probably notice it. But, like ezra said, it's a great story regardless.

[GrinR]

Anyone else pick up on the irony of being a "godhater"?

[pacmanfever]

Anyone else pick up on the irony of being a "godhater"?

because it's silly to hate non-existant things?

[Pnorcio]

Fuck Aeon Flux. That was hands down the worst movie I have seen this year.

[PantherModern]

Narnia was a solid flick, no doubt. I was really afraid that it would just be a poor-man's Lord of the Rings (sucks that those were so good that all fantasy films will be judged by them now), but it was enjoyable and well-done. Definitely a great family film, but a good popcorn movie as well. I hope they get the funding to make the rest of them.

[PantherModern]

Fuck Aeon Flux. That was hands down the worst movie I have seen this year.

Eh, it was ok. If you dig slow-moving sci-fi like Gattaca, then it might be up your alley. I really dug the whole drug angle, and how the society was built on it, ala Equilibrium. The action sequences were weak, and Charlize Theron sucked (big surprise :) ), but overall I left the theater at least marginally satsified. But, my expectations were low going in. ;)

[GrinR]

because it's silly to hate non-existant things?

For starters. It's also a protesteth-too-much situation. Nobody seems to believe in god as much as the god-haters.

I've always found that weird, and kinda sad. Like the people who talk to invisible people on the street.

[Wadmaasi]

If nothing else, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is worth seeing just for the acting that the little girl playing Lucy manages. She was fantastic.

The scenery is gorgeous, Liam Neeson does a good Aslan, the CGI is very well done, the Witch is fun to hate, the battle scenes are cool (though bloodless, even when you see Peter yanking his sword right out of a critter). For some reason I was extremely impressed with the makeup of the Witch's minotaur general. If you know ahead of time that Aslan = Jesus etc. then the elements are still in the movie, but being an ex-Catholic myself I didn't feel like anyone was preaching to me through the adaptation. It was a good movie.

[Wadmaasi]

For starters. It's also a protesteth-too-much situation. Nobody seems to believe in god as much as the god-haters.
Part of it is, I think, our reaction to the heavy-handed influx of religion into politics we've seen over the last several years. It feels like the religious nuts are taking over, that we're backsliding into religious fundamentalism on a nation-wide scale. I find it mind-boggling that there's any legal justification for teaching intelligent design and creationism in public shools, given that separation of church and state is written right into the Constitution.

For my money, freedom of religion also requires freedom from religion, if one so chooses.

[Pnorcio]

Eh, it was ok. If you dig slow-moving sci-fi like Gattaca, then it might be up your alley. I really dug the whole drug angle, and how the society was built on it, ala Equilibrium. The action sequences were weak, and Charlize Theron sucked (big surprise ), but overall I left the theater at least marginally satsified. But, my expectations were low going in.

I totally loved Gattaca, and in my mind Equilibrium was on par with The Matrix. But Aeon's turtle-slow plot pace, suck ass action scenes, and blatent disregard for any plot...I can usually walk away from any movie partially satisfied, but this shit was too much for me.

[jeffool]

I've seen tons of people claiming that 'athiests hate the movie' because it's a Christian allegory. Plenty of people who weren't athiests. I could be wrong, and some group may be boycotting it or something, but I'd think it because they're asshole athiests, rather than 'just' athiests.

I mean, Passion of the Christ did a bajillion dollars. As far as I know the only folks who hated that were religious, just 'other' religions.

(Though I'm an athiest, and I loved Jesus Chainsaw Massacre. But plan to wait for rental with Aslan and crew, though my friends say good things.)

[GrinR]

Part of it is, I think, our reaction to the heavy-handed influx of religion into politics we've seen over the last several years. It feels like the religious nuts are taking over, that we're backsliding into religious fundamentalism on a nation-wide scale. I find it mind-boggling that there's any legal justification for teaching intelligent design and creationism in public shools, given that separation of church and state is written right into the Constitution.

For my money, freedom of religion also requires freedom from religion, if one so chooses.

*this will end badly*

Well, anyone who thinks the "religious nuts" are taking over now should hit the history books. This ain't peanuts.

Also, my experience to date has been that very very few people even know what the intelligent design theory is. I understood it long before it hit the mainstream media as an "issue" and it never bothered me much. Science is full of theories, many if not most of them unprovable. You know, like evolution.

[Captain Awesome]

Syriana was good. Very good. I want to see it again because I know that there were some things I missed.


Totally agree, good film!

[nonchalance]

Should i bother with Narnia. I liked the books as a kid (when I didn't have any idea it was a Christian allegory), but is there an overt Christian bias worked into this movie that will offend my left-wing godhating sensibilities?

It's not a Christian allegory.
C.S. Lewis's son, a hardcore fundy Xian himself, was talking about it in an article I read recently - he said that like Tolkien with LotR, Lewis really didn't want his religion to come through in the Narnia books. He also talked about how the most difficult part of consulting on the movie was avoiding putting his own prejudices and beliefs into it.

[anakin876]

Also, my experience to date has been that very very few people even know what the intelligent design theory is. I understood it long before it hit the mainstream media as an "issue" and it never bothered me much. Science is full of theories, many if not most of them unprovable. You know, like evolution.


Flame on!
That's a hilarious statement. :p

[IndependentGMR]

because it's silly to hate non-existant things?
Har har har!

[Mason]

*this will end badly*

Well, anyone who thinks the "religious nuts" are taking over now should hit the history books. This ain't peanuts.

Also, my experience to date has been that very very few people even know what the intelligent design theory is. I understood it long before it hit the mainstream media as an "issue" and it never bothered me much. Science is full of theories, many if not most of them unprovable. You know, like evolution.

It started badly.

If something is unprovable (i.e. it makes no falsifiable claims that can be observed to be true or false) then it is not a theory, in the scientific use of the term.

Please don't make me define these terms for you.

Now then, what falsifiable claims does intelligent design make? What observable things does it assert about the world that can be used to determine whether or not it is true or false?

[GrinR]

Flame on!
That's a hilarious statement. :p

I'm not sure in which way you mean...?

[Mason]

Flame on!
That's a hilarious statement. :p

Yeah, even EvAv apparently needs trolls who can turn a movie discussion into a defense of intelligent design. I'll probably argue with him for a while, so I'm sorry if it clutters up the thread.

[rubek]

Also, my experience to date has been that very very few people even know what the intelligent design theory is. I understood it long before it hit the mainstream media as an "issue" and it never bothered me much. Science is full of theories, many if not most of them unprovable. You know, like evolution.

However, evolution takes into account evidence spanning millions and millions of years.
Intelligent design is based on a fairy tale that is a couple of thousand years old.
I know which one I would back with my money. :)

Interestingly, I went to an exhibition on the weekend of antique books. Amazing show, including ORIGINAL laviathan, 1st translation of the bible to english, first typeset book, Albrecht Duhrer's, Leoanardo's, etc.
It's an amazing feeling to see an artefact about a foot away from your face, that is thousands of years old, and had such an impact on the lives and direction of the human race.

[jeffool]

*this will end badly*

Well, anyone who thinks the "religious nuts" are taking over now should hit the history books. This ain't peanuts.

Also, my experience to date has been that very very few people even know what the intelligent design theory is. I understood it long before it hit the mainstream media as an "issue" and it never bothered me much. Science is full of theories, many if not most of them unprovable. You know, like evolution.It doesn't have to end badly. Let's find out. :D Though, agreed about "religious nuts." Plenty of facists have done much worse while touting God as the justification. Damn facists.

But anyway, Wikipedia says ID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) is a theory that argues "certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection." But most peoples (including my,) problem with calling it a scientific theory. Again Wikipedia, says that a theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/theory) is "a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified."

If anyone can put forth an aspect of ID that can be scientifically tested, then it can be called a scientific theory. Until then, it's a theory on par with the "there are tiny, invisible, transparent elephants that give off no energy, hiding in my kitchen." You can't prove it's not true.

And besides, that evolution happens is a 'fact'. The 'theory of evolution' is much like the 'theory of gravity'. A changing theory founded in fact, that is not yet completely understood/explained. But is changed by tests and their outcome.

*gasp* I'll be someone already beat me to posting something like this.

[GrinR]

It started badly.

If something is unprovable (i.e. it makes no falsifiable claims that can be observed to be true or false) then it is not a theory, in the scientific use of the term.

Please don't make me define these terms for you.

Now then, what falsifiable claims does intelligent design make? What observable things does it assert about the world that can be used to determine whether or not it is true or false?

Mason, Mason, Mason. I love you to pieces, but your love affair with logic really is too much! We are on an internet forum generally centered on gaming - my writing here is going to be colloquial, not scientific. I'm talking to friends, not academic peers. Obviously I meant 'currently unprovable' and not 'absolutely unprovable'.

Tut-tut, before you get your panties all in a bunch about the rigors of clear speech, let's remember the sort of nattering that came about the last time you attempted to clarify things. It's best to be avoided.

And since I can feel your fingers a-tingling with the power that only a member of the intelligentsia can weild - save it for later, it'll keep.

[bobbler]

Syriana was very much the most disappointing movie I've seen all year. Probably because I was expecting a political thriller and got something political but nothing thrilling. It was a borefest. The acting was good, but it was just full of a ton of nothing. It wasn't bad, but it definately disappointed me and the 3 people I went to see it with (and a few people I know, expecting a political thriller).

[Mason]

Mason, Mason, Mason. I love you to pieces, but your love affair with logic really is too much! We are on an internet forum generally centered on gaming - my writing here is going to be colloquial, not scientific. I'm talking to friends, not academic peers. Obviously I meant 'currently unprovable' and not 'absolutely unprovable'.

Tut-tut, before you get your panties all in a bunch about the rigors of clear speech, let's remember the sort of nattering that came about the last time you attempted to clarify things. It's best to be avoided.

And since I can feel your fingers a-tingling with the power that only a member of the intelligentsia can weild - save it for later, it'll keep.

So...you're admitting what you said was meaningless? Wow, much faster than usual.

And of course, you're dodging wildly around the questions I asked you. Pontificate all you please, but just be clear on your failure to defend your claim about ID. But heck, take another swing at it if you want, this time using formal terminology.

[DoubleUranium]

For starters. It's also a protesteth-too-much situation. Nobody seems to believe in god as much as the god-haters.

I've always found that weird, and kinda sad. Like the people who talk to invisible people on the street.

I agree. I prefer it when people talk to invisible people inside buildings instead, like in churches.

[jeffool]

Mason, Mason, Mason. ... And since I can feel your fingers a-tingling with the power that only a member of the intelligentsia can weild - save it for later, it'll keep.*sigh* Damn it, GrinR! You say that after I'm all a-tingled out! :D


Though, for the record, whatever my next post is here at EvAv, I'm using 'a-tingle'.

[GrinR]

So...you're admitting what you said was meaningless? Wow, much faster than usual.

And of course, you're dodging wildly around the questions I asked you. Pontificate all you please, but just be clear on your failure to defend your claim about ID. But heck, take another swing at it if you want, this time using formal terminology.

Mason if you were any more clever, you'd likely invert your local reality into an origami of self-important laughter.

[CapnBob]

I'm a big proponent of the Incompetent Design theory myself. The theory holds that if any sort of intelligent force did design aspects of humans or other biological creatures, they did a piss-poor job of it. Seriously, the appendix? What kind of idiotic supreme being came up with that?

[anakin876]

But heck, take another swing at it if you want, this time using formal terminology.

Ha ha ha!
Formal terminology? Heck, I'm glad when people use correct spelling and proper grammar on the internet. Asking for formal terminology is pretty hopeless.

[GrinR]

From the often unreliable Wikipedia:

"Proponents of Intelligent Design claim that they look for evidence of what they call signs of intelligence—physical properties of an object that necessitate "design." The most commonly cited signs include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Many design proponents believe that living systems show one or more of these, from which they infer that some aspects of life have been designed. This stands in opposition to mainstream science, which attempts to explain the natural world exclusively through impersonal physical processes such as random mutations and natural selection. Intelligent Design proponents claim that while evidence pointing to the nature of an "Intelligent Designer" may not be observable, its effects on nature can be detected. Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence, claims "Proponents of Intelligent Design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes. Note that Intelligent Design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes per se." In his view, questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the idea, since one cannot test for the identity of influences exterior to a closed system from within."

I think that about covers it. I see no problem with teaching a theory. In fact, I think if you just read that paragraph, that just about covers what would need to get taught. Takes less time than doodling a caricature of your teacher!

[GrinR]

Ha ha ha!
Formal terminology? Heck, I'm gald when people use correct spelling and proper grammar on the internet. Asking for formal terminology is pretty hopeless.

BITTER IRONY AGAIN! You're "gald" when people use correct spelling?

LOL!

:-D I mean this with all humor, anakin! In my coddling of Mason, I made a spelling error myself. Thank god for EDIT.

[CapnBob]

I think that about covers it. I see no problem with teaching a theory. In fact, I think if you just read that paragraph, that just about covers what would need to get taught. Takes less time than doodling a caricature of your teacher!

That's barely a hypothesis, much less a theory. But, if students need to be exposed to a "theory" that has no real evidence that any biological structures cannot have been developed through observable natural processes then why not teach them about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in Sunday School?

[net7runner]

Went to see Narnia. Of the enjoying there was much:

The good:
-Lucy : as someone mentioned earlier, she steals the show. Her performace and that of Mr. Tumnus were probably the most enjoyable of the movie.
-The execution : the movie keeps your attention, makes you believe in the world, care about the characters, and genuinely get excited about the action
-The world : very detailed, very pretty, very similar to what I imagined. Yay for teh WETA.
-The CG : There's a LOT of it, but most of it is actually pretty durn believable. Azlan is amazing, and with the exception of his face (which always seemed strangely out-of-focus...) looks pretty real.
-It's FRICKIN NARNIA - just seeing it come alive with decent special effects for once (sorry, BBC production, I love you...but....yeah...) is a real joy.

The bad
-Some of the acting is meh at times, especially some of the other children
-No blood. Ever. Confrontations are structured in such a way that they avoid some of the oh-crap-they-might-die tension, so you're rarely ever in fear for your heroes' lives.
-So much has to happen in the story that a lot of character development gets squished. The children are for the most part okay, but the level of trust and hope they are entrusted with by the "good" army (after just meeting them for a few hours/days). Specifically there's a totally bad-ass centaur who gets a lot of screen time, but no lines to really explain his conviction.

Truth to say, though, I loved it.

[EternalGamer]

Instead of arguing whether or not talkin lions are actually real, everyone should just stop arguing and go see Syrania. It's a much better film and there are no god references of any kind, so everybody can just enjoy.

Dan

[SaintArnold]

ID is not a scientific theory. The "proponents of [ID]" who "regard it as a scientific research program" are not scientists.

Evolution is not scientifically controversial. It is only politically controversial.

edited: was way over the top before.

[CapnBob]

As far as the christianity/Narnia stuff goes... I don't really see much of a connection. I know it's an "allegory" but there's not a whole hell of a lot of turning the other cheek. Plenty of kids stabbing stuff though, which is "ok" because they're only stabbing "bad guys." And no nasty blood to give any real sense of consequences for violence. If J.K. Rowling had just said at the beginning that Harry Potter was an allegory, she probably could have avoided the fundamentalist boycotts... but that's free press, and who wants to turn THAT down?

[Oblivion]

Aslan, huh? Aslan means lion in Turkish. weird.

[EternalGamer]

Instead of arguing whether or not talkin lions are actually real, everyone should just stop arguing and go see Syrania. It's a much better film and there are no Jesus lions of any kind, so everybody can just enjoy.

Dan

[Kelegacy]

Syriana was good. Very good. I want to see it again because I know that there were some things I missed.
Ooooo, I wanna see this badly. One of the few flicks to really grab my interest this year. Did anyone else like it?

[Mason]

In my coddling of Mason, I made a spelling error myself. Thank god for EDIT.

Umm, you asserted a false claim about the scientific validity of intelligent design and like a half-dozen people corrected you about it. How that gets turned into "coddling Mason" in your head is anyone's guess. But yet again, I find you creepy and vaguely lecherous.

How do people think Syriana compared to Traffic, overall?

[Mozain]

Instead of arguing whether or not talkin lions are actually real, everyone should just stop arguing and go see Syrania. It's a much better film and there are no Jesus lions of any kind, so everybody can just enjoy.

Dan
Is there a reason you posted this twice? At any rate I have to disagree completly for reasons of a friend. I went to see Narnia (Thought that it was very very good) as did a friend of mine. Next day she and her Father went to see Syrania, now she never leaves a movie she pays for but in actuality she felt she had no choice but to walk out of this "Pitifully Boring And Pointless" movie and demand her money back from the manager. Just my thoughts as I think I should say that if your the kind of person who trusts what others (ie: EternalGamer) say completly why not trust the obviously more popular opionion based off ticket sales.

[ezra]

Also, my experience to date has been that very very few people even know what the intelligent design theory is.

And my experience is that most people seem to know absolutely about why we're having this argument in the first place, and where inteligent design came from. Here's a starter.

ID is the old creationist argument with a new name and clever marketing. Its being pushed by an organization called the discovery institute. The discovery institute is a christian braintrust whose primary goal is to get christianity back into politics and back into schools. A few years ago there was a leaked memo which basically stated, loud and clear, how they intended to use 'ID' in order to wedge christianity back into the public eye and thus into the education system. There's no scientific basis for the whole 'theory' - its a tool used to promote christianity, and its working. Anyone who knows even the basics of evolutionary theory knows that all the criticisms launched by ID supporters (see: "pandas and people") are irrelevant or were countered decades ago. I read the dover trial transcripts and they went through that textbook, and many other ID talking points, and basically showed how they're all based on science more than thirty years old, and that none of the criticisms are even relevant. The whole thing has nothing to do with promoting science.

Imagine what kind of shit we would be in if the bible said in it somewhere that "matter is not composed of smaller pieces, and is indivisible". The atomic theory would definitely be in trouble.

[GrinR]

That's barely a hypothesis, much less a theory. But, if students need to be exposed to a "theory" that has no real evidence that any biological structures cannot have been developed through observable natural processes then why not teach them about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in Sunday School?

I think, offhand, that investigating the points of unknown between the collections of the known is a bit better than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ok, no, I don't. The image of that creature is ten thousand times more interesting.

[momusak]

Good to see Gabriel the Angel in another movie (Gabriel in Constantine is in Narnia as the witch). I enjoyed her portrayal of a fallen angel, wonderfully well done. The ability to be androgynous covered about what I expect from an angel.

[GrinR]

Umm, you asserted a false claim about the scientific validity of intelligent design and like a half-dozen people corrected you about it. How that gets turned into "coddling Mason" in your head is anyone's guess. But yet again, I find you creepy and vaguely lecherous.

Mason (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/android.htm), it's a real delight to find someone aspiring to my level of arrogance. FINALLY. Your obstinate need to impress me and seek the approval of "a half-dozen" others makes me tingle in my pants. Perhaps this is why you find me "creepy and vaguely lecherous." At any rate, you of all people should know that merely making an assertion does not make it true.

Deep inside, you know the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real.

[GrinR]

And my experience is that most people seem to know absolutely about why we're having this argument in the first place, and where inteligent design came from. Here's a starter.

*yadda yadda science is true religion is not etc etc*
The whole thing has nothing to do with promoting science.

Imagine what kind of shit we would be in if the bible said in it somewhere that "matter is not composed of smaller pieces, and is indivisible". The atomic theory would definitely be in trouble.

I think it's surprising that an enormous concession like, "science is all the way to go, but this business of explaining the parts that are currently incomprehensible... that might be on purpose" as opposed to the regular hoo-ha of universe created in a day and people made of clay and ribs, is not a welcome sight in the secular world.

I don't really need to know the nefarious star-chamber cabal behind the theory. I understand the notion of there being a level of incomprehensible complexity, and I can posit many things - random mutation and happenstance, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - in an effort to understand my universe. I'm not particular. Whatever works. As far as getting into a tizzy because someone insists that their way of looking at it is the absolute best way of looking at it, you can count me out. I've got better things to waste my time on. Like playing with Mason.

[Abednigo]

separation of church and state is written right into the Constitution.

That's what I love about this site. People will take a discussion about an amazing movie (Narnia), bring up another debate that is totally unrelated and then make uninformed comments like this.

No where in the constitution does it say the words "separation of church and state". That phrase was written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to a group calling themselves the Danbury Baptists. It was mainly to address the fear of a government established religion and forcing people to worship a certain way. The whole concept is to keep the state from interfering in churches and forcing them to practice one religion. It has nothing to do with keeping churches (or religion) out of government. The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. Read a little history will ya?

[Mason]

Mason (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/android.htm), it's a real delight to find someone aspiring to my level of arrogance. FINALLY. Your obstinate need to impress me and seek the approval of "a half-dozen" others makes me tingle in my pants. Perhaps this is why you find me "creepy and vaguely lecherous." At any rate, you of all people should know that merely making an assertion does not make it true.

Deep inside, you know the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real.

What, did you just hear about the FSM thing today or something?

And here's what you don't get. You'd be wrong even if I wasn't here. It has nothing to do with me. Several other people have pointed out the exact same things that I did. I don't know why you get all campy and personal about this.

I think it's surprising that an enormous concession like, "science is all the way to go, but this business of explaining the parts that are currently incomprehensible... that might be on purpose" as opposed to the regular hoo-ha of universe created in a day and people made of clay and ribs, is not a welcome sight in the secular world.

Supplanting the scientific method for the sake of politics is a good thing? What the hell?

I don't really need to know the nefarious star-chamber cabal behind the theory. I understand the notion of there being a level of incomprehensible complexity, and I can posit many things - random mutation and happenstance, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - in an effort to understand my universe. I'm not particular. Whatever works. As far as getting into a tizzy because someone insists that their way of looking at it is the absolute best way of looking at it, you can count me out. I've got better things to waste my time on. Like playing with Mason.

Science is not a "way of looking at" things. It is a method by which you determine which way of looking at things is accurate more often.

Look, all your blathering is pointless until you reveal to us what we could possibly observe in the universe that'd prove intelligent design false. It is a magical system, it works on everything. If there's simplicity somewhere, bam, elegant designer. If there's complexity somewhere, bam, intricate designer. It has an answer for everything, and as such, it answers nothing.

Hell, you could just as easily posit that the entire universe was created 5 seconds ago, in exactly such a state as to give us memories of a more distant past. That is not a theory, as nothing can prove it false, and it predicts nothing new about our universe. It's a magical explanation, not science.

How many more people need to say this before you get it?

[pablious]

Well, this is an interesting little debate here, and I feel compelled to throw my opinion out there, even if it’s a bit late. The first thing I would say is that comparing ID and evolution is a pretty foolish thing to do. ID is only referring to how the universe originated, and is more of an alternate to the Big Bang Theory, not evolution. Of course, according to Mason's definition of "theory," the Big Bang is not one. It's not exactly something we can actively study, and as my astronomy professor recently said, we have know of knowing whether it's true or not. So, on that basis, perhaps we shouldn't be teaching BB either?

Now, saying that ID is not a direct alternative to evolution does not mean that I would agree that it is a proven fact like gravity. I know gravity is real because when I jump I come back to the ground; I can't say the same about evolution. While the theory is certainly more testable, and thus more provable, than anything else out there, it still has its holes. There are a lot of "missing links" that have not been found, and there have been quite a few cases of supposed links actually being something normal. The biggest things that evolution has going for it is the physical and genetic similarities between many of the organisms we see today. If there was intelligent design, though, then why wouldn't those similarities be there?

This is all just my opinion, of course. I'm not necessarily trying to convince anyone that I'm right, nor will I very likely be convinced that I'm wrong, I'm just throwing some different ideas out there. So ignore me, flame me, pick it apart, whatever, it’s only the internet, I don't really care.

[critch]

I thought Narnia was meh, very mediocre. Didn't really pay much attention to the Jesus allegory, was too busy being bored out of my mind by the shrek-like effects, the bloodless battles (How many animals can get drug around by their necks by wolves and be PERFECTLY FINE?), the crap characterization (I cared nothing at all for Aslan), and the eh story. It was made because of LOTR, to cash in on it's success, and in the end it simply does not measure up. And the ending was absolute shit. Music wasn't horrible, though. Just seemed like a horrific waste of time to me, all I kept thinking through it was "I could be watching Harry Potter again right now."

I'm not religious, and I thought Passion was a complete waste as well. Nothing of the spectacle or wonder or knowledge of what Jesus is supposed to represent made it's way into that movie, instead it was just the guy that invented the table having a really bad day.

Meh, bring on KONG.

[Mason]

Read a little history will ya?

There's an Establishment Clause as well as a Free Exercise Clause. And a zillion Supreme Court cases interpret those clauses to lead to our current notion of a separation between church and state. And James Madison was big on the wall as well, shouldn't leave him out.

I'd also suggest that it isn't very enlightened to think that church influence on government would always be one-way. If aspects of religion found their way into national policy, that policy would still be under the control of the guys on the Potomac. Does anyone really want politicians to have a say in how, when, and where they worship? I thought the whole point of faith was that it was something special inside you, and not forced upon you by bureaucrats.

[Kelegacy]

That's what I love about this site. People will take a discussion about an amazing movie (Narnia), bring up another debate that is totally unrelated and then make uninformed comments like this.

No where in the constitution does it say the words "separation of church and state". That phrase was written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to a group calling themselves the Danbury Baptists. It was mainly to address the fear of a government established religion and forcing people to worship a certain way. The whole concept is to keep the state from interfering in churches and forcing them to practice one religion. It has nothing to do with keeping churches (or religion) out of government. The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. Read a little history will ya?

Abednigo is right, it wasn't part of the constitution. However, I also agree with Thomas Jefferson. He knew it was wrong to mix business and "pleasure" (religion) and I believe that the two should be separated as well.

Anyway, a separation is good for everyone. Good fences make good neighbors. Not according to the Church, though.

[EternalGamer]

Is there a reason you posted this twice? At any rate I have to disagree completly for reasons of a friend. I went to see Narnia (Thought that it was very very good) as did a friend of mine. Next day she and her Father went to see Syrania, now she never leaves a movie she pays for but in actuality she felt she had no choice but to walk out of this "Pitifully Boring And Pointless" movie and demand her money back from the manager. Just my thoughts as I think I should say that if your the kind of person who trusts what others (ie: EternalGamer) say completly why not trust the obviously more popular opionion based off ticket sales.


I was very dishearted to see many people react the same way when I went to see the film. It makes me very sad to realize that so many people lack the attention span to appreciate it. It is a demanding film on an audience, no question. There are many different characters and the plot threads interweave and connect togther and diverge again (the structure is similar to the film "Traffic"). But what is fascinating is the way that they jointly create a very thought provoking look at the politics of the oil industry. If more Americans could be bothered to look at the complex political and cultural contexts of our involvement in the middle east, perhaps we would not be in the mess we are today. And for any who read that last comment a heavy political slant, please do not. This film is not a soapbox for any political side nor does it shy away from leaving the audience with difficult questions to answer.

Dan

[Scull]

... given that separation of church and state is written right into the Constitution.

No it isn't. At no point in the US Constitution are we guaranteed the seperation of Church and State. Read it before you mis-quote it.

[Drinking_Buddy]

I've always found that weird, and kinda sad. Like the people who talk to invisible people on the street.

Harvey the rabbit is not inivisible.

[bapenguin]

Wow...was this thread ever on topic?

I can't believe how many fantasy characters Narnia had in it...I believe the only one missing was Dragons. I don't recall the book having that many characters in it....

[Kelegacy]

Wow...was this thread ever on topic?

I can't believe how many fantasy characters Narnia had in it...I believe the only one missing was Dragons. I don't recall the book having that many characters in it....

And Taint Buggers. It didn't have Taint Buggers.

[Wadmaasi]

No it isn't. At no point in the US Constitution are we guaranteed the seperation of Church and State. Read it before you mis-quote it.
Right right, already pointed out, and already pointed out by others that the intent was in the language that is written. The last time I read the Constitution was...a long time ago (obviously).

[Wadmaasi]

Good to see Gabriel the Angel in another movie (Gabriel in Constantine is in Narnia as the witch).
Shit, that's where she's familiar from. She did a great job, too.

[Mason]

Of course, according to Mason's definition of "theory," the Big Bang is not one. It's not exactly something we can actively study, and as my astronomy professor recently said, we have know of knowing whether it's true or not. So, on that basis, perhaps we shouldn't be teaching BB either?

The Big Bang is a fine theory. It is supported by a body of evidence and observation, it has predictive value, and one could easily envision plenty of things proving it false. No one says just because it is the best theory we have now that it is the final word in cosmology, however.

Your professor was on crack. There are 10^11 galaxies in the visible universe, and all you need is one that's really far away from us and coming toward us to cast serious doubt on the theory. It can be disproven.

Now, saying that ID is not a direct alternative to evolution does not mean that I would agree that it is a proven fact like gravity. I know gravity is real because when I jump I come back to the ground; I can't say the same about evolution.

Evolution was penned before genetics or extensive fossil records were produced. The vast preponderance of evidence has supported evolution, but one could easily find plenty of things that'd violate evolution. Find a whale fossil that predates land mammals, say. You win a Nobel prize and break evolution.

You can't see that you're made of atoms either. Plenty of people used to doubt the molecular nature of matter, too. But you live in a world of electricity, radiation, and chemicals, with observable effects. You could come up with some magical explanation for them, that some invisible entity wills everything to behave in its proper way, or you could subscribe into the atomic model, which describes and predicts the behavior of these things with complete accuracy. Most people ended up believing in atoms, although I'm starting to fear that they'll start doubting it again.

[The Iron Weasel]

Question! In the movie (Narnia) did they speak of turkish delight? That always sticks out in my mind from the books.

[Mason]

No it isn't. At no point in the US Constitution are we guaranteed the seperation of Church and State. Read it before you mis-quote it.

Neither are we guaranteed by the Constitution a "right to privacy", nor the "right to a fair trial" (and there are plenty of ways to uphold the letter of the 6th amendment while violating its spirit). Should we get ignore those concepts, too, since the document has to be interpretted in order to produce those rights?

It has been ruled over and over again that using federal power to force religious behavior on people constitutes an establishment of a state religion, and is thus explicitly barred by the Constitution.

I find it amusing that one of the first results of a strict reading of the Constitution would be the exchange of all private American handguns for muzzle-loading rifles. Afterall, when the founders wrote "arms" in the 2nd amendment, they were clearly referring to weaponry as they knew it, and to assume that they meant to include one particular class of future anti-personal weapons (handguns) and not another (C4, RPGs) is an act of interpretation. So we're only allowed black-powder rifles, as that's clearly what the founders intended.

[anakin876]

Question! In the movie (Narnia) did they speak of turkish delight? That always sticks out in my mind from the books.

Yes it was there - and appeared to be delicious. In the movie the dwarf at some - but in the book I do not believe he did. My understanding of the magical food makes me think he would not have, but perhaps I am wrong. If I recall correctly, in the book some one who had tasted the magical food would eat it at every opportunity until they had eaten themselves to death. In the movie the dwarf grabs a piece, eats it, then tosses the rest away. They also never mention how the queen's magical food affects those who eat it (in the movie).

[pablious]

You can't see that you're made of atoms either.

A very good point; looking back, the way that I put my argument was pretty stupid. Now, I could restate it, come up something new, figure out some other, better way to make my point, but I really don't feel like it. Mason, you are very good at debating, certainly much better than I am, and I'm sure pretty much any argument I come up with, you could find something wrong with it. But I can have my different beliefs, and that doesn't make me a less intelligent person, right?

Unfortunately, on this subject in particular, I feel like people automatically look down on anyone who questions evolution. Does doing that make me an unintelligent, close-minded, imposing, right-wing, uneducated, religion-touting wacko? Well, I wouldn't really consider myself any of those, and I don't see how my view of the world's ancient past has any effect on what kind of person I am. I'm not suggesting anyone here is judgemental like that, that's just how I feel a lot of the time if I do bring up my opinion.

On a movie note, I highly enjoyed Syriana. It was pretty much exactly how I expected it to be, and it kept me thinking the whole time. Personally, I love those kind of movies, and if that's your thing definently go see it. If you get bored easily, though, then this would be a movie to avoid.

[jwbxx]

I think Syriana is great. They couldn't have done it any better. The movie was totally political because it showed actually how those terrorists were born out of U.S policy. Now before anyone thinks that this is a total Blame America movie, it isnt.

In the trailer, they dont air this clip, but the girl makes a good point by saying "Imagine a America where it was 8 dollars a gallon at the pump, 30% of americans not being able to heat their homes." Something a long those lines. In the movie you feel bad for what happens to the kids and the good prince. But in the end you think to yourself, if the CIA in that movie wasnt doing that shit.

Things would be really fucked up in ameirca. If china and the U.S had to a complete bidding war on oil things would get really ugly.

Anyways great movie, I suggest you guys see it.

And people stop reading into Narnia too much. It's just a god damn movie take it for what it is.

[AbinSur]

I can't believe how many fantasy characters Narnia had in it...I believe the only one missing was Dragons. I don't recall the book having that many characters in it....

Dragons don't show up until Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

[Xerxes]

Just my thoughts as I think I should say that if your the kind of person who trusts what others (ie: EternalGamer) say completly why not trust the obviously more popular opionion based off ticket sales.

Look were popular opinion got movies like Equilibrium and Serenity... I ain't for Syrania or whatever but just saying... We can't trust what's hot at the theatres to be the only thing that's worth seeing. That's like letting you friend in you story dictate to us like EG that the movie is this when to others the movie is that.

[Xerxes]

Also I mean when the hell did the bible have anything about Jesus dying on stones that crack because of magic or any of that. Hell don't see the matrix if religous undertones piss you off. I mean he was more jesus like than this lion aside from his naturing side. And he doesn't have a silly oopps uh oh face like Keanu.

[TheKeck]

Absolutely loved Chronicles of Narnia. My wife did too. I assume others will as well.

[TheKeck]

Question! In the movie (Narnia) did they speak of turkish delight? That always sticks out in my mind from the books.

Of course they did! :)

(That always stuck out for me too.)

[Roc Ingersol]

narnia was pretty weak. typical latter-day Disney.

[Crabby]

Look were popular opinion got movies like Equilibrium and Serenity... I ain't for Syrania or whatever but just saying... We can't trust what's hot at the theatres to be the only thing that's worth seeing. That's like letting you friend in you story dictate to us like EG that the movie is this when to others the movie is that.


Serenity was given its fair due considering the massive hype machine behind it. Don't even kid yourself into feeling that somehow, in some way Serenity was shortchanged and turned away from the eyes of the masses. It was in fact those "ignorant" eyes that turned it away afterall. Maybe it just wasn't as great as you think?

[Magnanimous Gnome]

I agree. I prefer it when people talk to invisible people inside buildings instead, like in churches.

Oh man, that deserves a major TOUCHE from GrinR. I rarely use 1337, but this is completely justified:

pwned!!111! :D


I'm a big proponent of the Incompetent Design theory myself. The theory holds that if any sort of intelligent force did design aspects of humans or other biological creatures, they did a piss-poor job of it. Seriously, the appendix? What kind of idiotic supreme being came up with that?

Well obviously the appendix was put there so that it could burst in a certian percentage of people and earn doctors more money. DUH.

All kidding aside, you make a very good point. I'm going to bogart that "Incompetent Design" thing. ;)

[ezra]

As far as getting into a tizzy because someone insists that their way of looking at it is the absolute best way of looking at it, you can count me out. I've got better things to waste my time on.

Well then you should probably stop using antibiotics, eating vitamins, watching TV, and using the phone. I mean, why should you be forced into believing that the science behind any of those things is proper? Why should you have to accept a narrow little view because someone says it is? Here's a tip - science isnt about opinions, its about verifiable fact. There's no 'way of looking at it' involved.

Why is there all this crticism of evolution, and not molecular theory (tiny little things that i cant see? yeah right!), or electromagnetic spectrum theory (invisible rays? pshaw!)? The only reason that you seem to have this clever skepticism of evolution is because its been seen as an afront to christianity since day one. When the only complaint about a theory is based on a religious view, that complaint is not valid, and has no relevance. An inquiry born of religion and ignorance does not somehow blossom into an important sudden relevation that a widely accepted theory is false. There have been millions of opportunities in the past hundred years for evolution to be proven wrong, and every time the world has shown evolution to in fact be quite acceptable. I'm not neccesarily a proponent of evolution as much as I am a proponent of proper science. If evolution wasnt the best theory, i would not support it. But it is, and if you knew anything about the actual science of it, you would be standing here with me.