because movie distributors are cowards and many Americans are backwards caveman-thinkers.
Related posts
Fundraisers to Look At
because movie distributors are cowards and many Americans are backwards caveman-thinkers.
Sean K Reynolds 
Although there definitely are backward caveman-thinking Americans throwing a fuss over this, the thought that movie distributors are afraid of controversy is kinda silly given just how much the American movie industry thrives on controversy.
My gut feeling (and utterly lack of evidence, of course) is that the US movie distributors fear a movie that doesn’t have:
a) explosions
b) big name tabloid friendly actors
c) a period piece based on a novel high school students are forced to read (and can therefore dip into the Cliff Notes crowd and those who actually liked the book)
d) a period piece with intense emotional outbursts and languished sobbing screaming at each other that will be automatic Oscar nominations, or
e) all of the above.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be shown in the US or that it would be a flop. I just think the “movie industry likes to release crap that makes money” as more likely culprit than “movie industry doesn’t want to be controversial”.
Heck, it might just be some shadow play by the producer to generate enough controversy that by the time it is picked up in the US, the buzz will have been the best marketing possible for the film.
Of course, none of that precludes there being a vast number of uneducated twits throwing a fit over the movie. I just think they have as much influence as every other threatened boycott. None (or even a net positive by generating more interest by those not boycotting).
But if it helps marginalize and poke fun at the anti-science crowd, I guess the “movie industry cowers when faced with yet another Christian fundamentalist boycott” meme isn’t a bad one.
I have friends who work in Hollywood. They admit that Hollywood produces crap. Look at the movie “Tomcats,” for example. No big names in that, still got plenty of advertising on TV, awful movie, 4.8 stars on IMDB is *generous* for that movie. It meets none of the 5 criteria you list (though it does have sex).
I guess I could have specified it was the criteria I figure they use for non-PBS period movies.
But mostly it was tongue-in-cheek. :)
Although, I could be cynical and just list 3 criteria for most every movie out of Hollywood:
1) Explosions/huge special effects budget
2) Sex/Sexiness
3) Emotional outbursts trying for Oscars
But really I’m just being cynical and poking fun at our rather terrible movie industry. Whatever the reason, I still agree that the Charles Darwin movie should be shown in the US, and I’m pretty sure with the amount of free publicity its currently getting, it’ll soon find a distributor.
But I have no idea. I just make this stuff up. :)
This also explains the thinking where “bad guys” can shoot, torture, run over people, etc. but they have to wear seatbelts and rarely smoke anymore.
What’s frightening is that issues like this (and Paris Hilton) make the rest of the world think, in generalized terms, that people from the US are cavemen, which, admittedly, some are, but there’re also a lot of thinking people… unfortunately they get drowned out by the cavemen.
many Americans are backwards caveman-thinkers
OK, this finally explains those $%^&*! Geico cavemen commercials.