ROTTEN TOMATOES: Box Office Guru Wrapup: "Evan" Not-So-Mighty Opens at #1

Box Office Guru Wrapup: "Evan" Not-So-Mighty Opens at #1

by Gitesh Pandya | June 24, 2007

Summary

Steve Carell took over the number one spot this weekend with his new comedy "Evan Almighty," but it failed to generate the flood of business needed to recoup its mammoth production cost. Back to Article

(1-88 of 88 posts) | Reply

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jun 24 2007 06:39 PM

Glad to see 1408 did pretty decentley. Great movie.

(Reply to this)

remyrem12 writes:
on Jun 24 2007 06:40 PM

I am a banana.

(Reply to this)

LowBalls writes:
on Jun 24 2007 06:44 PM

I am a meat popsicle...and 1408 was a great movie

(Reply to this)

screwhead100 writes:
on Jun 24 2007 06:54 PM

i am going to see 1408 in an hour...........i think these numbers tell us that people want to see real horror movies and not gore fests..........

(Reply to this)

MattBaerFTW writes:
on Jun 24 2007 07:20 PM

yeah 1408 was a fantastic horror/thriller or whatever it was i tend not to like many of em especially recently but john cusack was awesome in it just overall movie it was quality which you don't see to much these days

(Reply to this)

tycox writes:
on Jun 24 2007 08:06 PM

[b]1408 was excellent![/b]
Its been a while since a really good psychological thriller has come out and 1408 put an end to that! John Cusak did a great job playing someone who is wiggin out the majority of the time! I almost thought they were going to end it really freakin lame there for a minute but thankfully there was still another good 20 minutes left! Freaked me the hell out and the doesn't happen a whole lot anymore. One movie that will keep me freaked out everytime I watch it is the Blair Witch Project. Maybe its just me but the realism of it (especially if you watch it in the dark)...I don't know it just creeps me out. Of course I do live in a shithole town in a shithole state and there is a nice patch of woods right behind my house.

(Reply to this)

Bloody Mathias writes:
on Jun 24 2007 08:57 PM

[b]$70,000 on one screen?!? Damn......[/b]
Next weekend will be very interesting. Die Hard 4, Ratatouille and Sicko will open wide and all of them might open above $30 million. Pixar's flick for sure.
Hope they all do well.

And sucks to be Universal right now. Sinking $135 million on Miami Vie and $175 million on Evan is beyond stupid. Bet they can't wait for Jason Bourne to bail them out again in August.

(Reply to this)

CannibalPenguins writes:
on Jun 24 2007 09:09 PM

[i]So like all these movies suck anyways...[/i]

(Reply to this)

Film Cricket writes:
on Jun 24 2007 09:18 PM

Evan Almighty can be considered the first big budget, star-powered, mainstream Christian movie to be released, and it did numbers that seem to reflect the niche appeal of watered-down, politically-correct, trying-to-be-sensitive-to-everyone tripe. Evan is a movie for Christians who are so insecure in their faith that they need a huge Hollywood blockbuster to reinforce their beliefs, much like a middle-aged man who buys a Mustang convertible and takes a young, blond trophy wife. And didn't God say in the Old Testament that He would NEVER flood the Earth again? Wasn't that the symbolism of the rainbow?

I wish 1408 had come in #1 so that it could benefit from the positive publicity. Cynical, micro-managing studio suits win again.

(Reply to this)

woot writes:
on Jun 24 2007 09:40 PM

This might be a good time to remind everyone that the original flood never happened. The Biblical account is demonstrably false, and ironically this movie does much in demonstrating that. They had to film the animals separately because otherwise they would have eaten each other, the people continue to laugh at Evan even as obvious miracles were going on, which also couldn't have happened, etc.

The more obvious evidence has more to do with the amount of water necessary and the consequences it would have, as well as animal size/climate issues.

(Reply to this)

rdproductions writes:
on Jun 24 2007 09:47 PM

Evan Almighty has nothing to do with Christianity. It's just a Bible themed comedy. If Film Cricket is right, Family Guy and the Simpsons are Christian aimed since they have Christian humor in them.

(Reply to this)

Bardego writes:
on Jun 24 2007 09:53 PM

Evan Almighty sucked. Maybe these poor box office results will teach the studios that you can't just throw money at a bad movie to make it better.

Happy about 1408, though. It's interesting that this movie did so well in the wake of the financial failure of Hostel: Part II. Maybe this is the sign of a new horror trend?

(Reply to this)

zooman writes:
on Jun 24 2007 09:58 PM

im actually happy to see these results... 1408 did well and should get good legs, fantastic four did alright but doesnt seem to get more than what it deserves (well i guess more than its cost is already more than what a movie like this deserves), so that studios wont be too excited to make bad action flicks that make easy money; oceans is doing decently, and I guess it desrves it (being a decent popcorn flick); spiderman 3 is the best of the huge movies this summer, even if it was disappointing, it was good, so I am happy it is above pirates at least in the US. I know I shouldnt care about these things, but there is a certain happy feeling, as sad as that might sound...

Yet, I had been very annoyed, and now that I think about it, I am again, that the huge movies like shrek and fantastic four take so much space in the theaters from other movies. Havent been able to see Once or Waitress thanks to these, and would like for Fido and black sheep and many others to have more attention than this movies will allow them..

I know I shouldnt care about these things, but there is a certain happy feeling, as sad as that might sound...

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jun 24 2007 09:59 PM

In reply to this comment (#870876)
How does it rank compared to other Stephen King movies?

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jun 25 2007 12:39 AM

In reply to this comment (#870891)
Good Question. King has such a mixed bag of movies it's easy to judge movies on where they fall in his pantheon. Least Favorite King movie for me. Hearts in Atlantis.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jun 25 2007 01:37 AM

In reply to this comment (#870892)
My favorite is Christine, least favorite is Cujo. I liked Hearts in Atlantis because it was unique.

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Jun 25 2007 04:17 AM

thats more than Evan should have made. i bet 85% of that is jesus freaks bringing buses from their churches to "enlighten" the youth. they realized they had a sh3t movie and its OBVIOUS they started marketing to the jesusfreak crowd...knowing how that helped Passion.

1408 is decent. not as good as i thought cuz of the predictability but...it was decent. watching it...i just got this feeling i've seen it before. nothing really surprised me...and no, i didn't read the book. it just wasn't very original...

(Reply to this)

pinkincide writes:
on Jun 25 2007 04:43 AM

I'd be surprised to see any Christian leaders recommending Evan Almighty. Looked to be more mocking than anything else--especially with Carell as star. Church leaders are pretty suspicious of hollywood and tend to only recommend pre-stamped Christian movies like Narnia or Passion.

(Reply to this)

selke99 writes:
on Jun 25 2007 05:11 AM

Even though Clooney and Sodoberg said they would probably stop at Oceans 13, if this makes more than 12, how can Hollywood not convince them to make a 4th one with all the sequels being made? I mean, how does Hostel get a sequel after only making 47 mil?

Count me in the minority that also liked Hearts in Atlantis. It was a good story and acting with Hopkins and the kid. I don't think it did that well and was not too well received. And how can Shawshank not be the best? Green Mile was good too, but I guess these weren't horror films.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jun 25 2007 05:25 AM

In reply to this comment (#870891)
Not as good as Shining, but better than It. I liked It, but it wasn't scary. I really enjoyed Hearts in Atlantis, even if it got somewhat hokey at times. Good question

(Reply to this)

Shatter24 writes:
on Jun 25 2007 05:46 AM

In reply to this comment (#870880)
[b]I agree, well spoken sir[/b]
Gore does not make a good horror movie.

(Reply to this)

jeanpaul writes:
on Jun 25 2007 06:06 AM

In reply to this comment (#870895)
[b]THAT RIGHT.[/b]
Pickincide, you are right that Christians are suspicious of Hollywood.
So, get off 'your mountain', and look at everyone (Christians too) at eye-level.

Christians have been given every right to be so (suspicious);
What with, Hollywood being run by Christian-haters who have Hollywood
by the crotch, by endorsing and heavily marketing Christian-hating movies like that ugly and demeaning "Da Vinci" crap---
which all Christian-haters "ate" like hot chocolate.

So It's a two way road, you know? Atleast aknowledge that.

As a proud Christian, I welcome movies which are pro-Christian.
(Yes, even comedies like "Evan")
Even if, sadly, it's uneasy for people who have got "accustomed" to the trend
of anti-Christian movies, coming regularly from Hollywood.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jun 25 2007 06:12 AM

In reply to this comment (#870898)
[b]Agreed[/b]
1408 is thus far my favorite movie of the year and the only blood and gore came from innuendo.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 25 2007 06:27 AM

I know this is completely off topic, but I just had to let everyone know that our film, Cold Storage, got picked as an official selection in the First Glance Philadelphia Film Festival, so if you liked 1408 and live near Philadelphia, come check us out in September at the festival.

Oh, and my favorite movie based on a Stephen King book is "Stand by Me." My favorite horror based on his book would probably be "Pet Semetary."

(Reply to this)

jeanpaul writes:
on Jun 25 2007 06:36 AM

[b]Slasher films out please.[/b]
I second that.

Slasher/Gore films are plain ugly and revolting, showing despicable things.

A true, good horror flick should be like reading an engaging and interesting pageturner--- and many who've seen "1408" say it's like that;
Like reading a good novel. Stimulating and engrossing.

(Reply to this)

Vitamin M writes:
on Jun 25 2007 06:38 AM

1408 is definetly one of the better King movies...Shawshank and Stand by me being the best followed by The Green mile and the Shinning...with 1408 somewhere in the middle. At the very least it's better then the childish but R rated horror film remakes like the hitcher and Texas chain saw atrocity. It has some legitemate scares. The weakest part was the ending for me.

Also I can't recommend Knocked up enough, it's not the funniest thing I've ever seen but it's the funniest thing I've seen in awhile and also manages to be a very good movie critically.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 25 2007 07:35 AM

In reply to this comment (#870902)
Slasher films have their place, and a well-executed one (no pun intended) can still be scary and thrilling in a visceral way, but most of the latest crop have substituted gore in place of thrills and relied on shock value as opposed to genuine scares. I'm glad F/X makeup artists are getting work, but really, it's time to give the slashers a break and move on to something else for a while. (Although I'm still excited about seeing the Halloween remake)

(Reply to this)

luckystar writes:
on Jun 25 2007 07:43 AM

In reply to this comment (#870896)
[b]Hostel made %#@!loads of money[/b]
Sure, it's domestic take was only 47mil, but worldwide it jumps to about 80mil. Considering it only cost 4.5mil to make, thats a nice profit margin of around 1,700%. To put this in perspective, Spiderman 3, which is expected to top off in the 900-950mil range globally, would have to hit 4.38 billion worldwide to have the same return on investment, as a percentage.

(Reply to this)

cgcbooks writes:
on Jun 25 2007 07:46 AM

The Dead Zone is my favorite King film.

(Reply to this)

pota1967 writes:
on Jun 25 2007 08:04 AM

my favorite King movie is Salem's Lot

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Jun 25 2007 08:40 AM

Big Steve Carell fan here...but I am boycotting Evan Almighty. Looks like a real turd and I'm scared they're going to ruin his career with bad movies.

(Reply to this)

Juan Alvino writes:
on Jun 25 2007 08:59 AM

[b]Evan Almighty[/b]
Very funny movie. No religious message(Didn't expect one) but the moral should please environmentalists. Great special effects with animals. And quite a few outstanding cameo appearances. Also subtle humor: Evan's wife's name: Joan (get it?) and a character named Eve Adams. Do not understand some of the waspish commentary I've read. Can't we just relax and enjoy a funny movie now and then?

(Reply to this)

unbreakable_samurai writes:
on Jun 25 2007 09:00 AM

I thought Evan Almighty was alright, kinda a fun popcorn movie worth seeing once, not as good as Bruce but it's not that bad, Carell and Freeman did a good job in it. I'm going to 1408 in a few hours so hopefully I like it. But yeah I definitely prefure psychological thrillers to the gore films anyday so hopefully they start taking over the horror crowd. Best King movie still has to be The Shining.

(Reply to this)

flit writes:
on Jun 25 2007 09:22 AM

In reply to this comment (#870891)
[b]Steven King at his... Steven King-est.[/b]
A conflicted writer struggles with his past, the horrors that haunt him are related to his past, and could be real or imagined, only to have the whole thing explode at the end, writer escapes alive and unscathed, only to be a better person.

Hmmm, which steven king movie was I talking about again?

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jun 25 2007 10:36 AM

In reply to this comment (#870893)
I like Christine too, along with the TV movie IT it's my favorite of his horror stories. Also thought the TNT version of Salem's Lot was good. All around I'd have to say Stand By Me is my favorite of his all time. I don't count the Shining as one of his since Kubrick really did his own thing with it.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jun 25 2007 10:44 AM

IMO Good King: Christine, IT, Stand By Me, Shawshank, The Green Mile, Salem's Lot, Carrie, Pet Semetary, Dreamcatcher, The Dead Zone.

Bad King: The Langoliers, The TommyKnockers, Nightflyer, Pet Semetary II, TV Version of The Shining, Hearts in Atlantis.

Mediocre King: Cujo, Graveyard Shift, The one with Johnny Depp as the author, The Stand.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jun 25 2007 11:54 AM

In reply to this comment (#870913)
The "Johnny Depp as the author" one is Secret Window.

(Reply to this)

renodc writes:
on Jun 25 2007 12:38 PM

In reply to this comment (#870887)
[b]No Flood[/b]
Amazing!!! Secular & Christian Scientists have been trying to prove or disprove the flood for centuries with no definitive luck, although there is some strong evidence to suggest a worldwide flood may have occurred. Unfortunately, they are wrong because Woot said so. I would love to see your research that supports your supposed statement of fact.

(Reply to this)

woot writes:
on Jun 25 2007 12:47 PM

@renodc

If you think "there is some strong evidence to suggest a worldwide flood may have occurred" you've been reading some stupid stuff. Just off hand, I found

http://secularskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/05/noah-and-flood.html

It's only a brief summary, but it does a good job of explaining that the whole thing is impossible.

Thinking that there is any scientific controversy about it is ignorant, just as thinking there is a tiny bit of scientific controversy about evolution vs creationism is ignorant.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jun 25 2007 12:50 PM

In reply to this comment (#870914)
Thanks, knew it was a window thing. Too lazy to google.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jun 25 2007 01:33 PM

In reply to this comment (#870916)
Using a secular site as fact is completely wrong. You want to use a source try using a nonbiased one. Not smart huh?

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jun 25 2007 01:34 PM

I remember being so scared of IT when i was young, i used to hate clowns and that actor made him scary as hell but as i grew up i found it to not be scary but still interesting.

(Reply to this)

woot writes:
on Jun 25 2007 01:41 PM

@aknddon3

Attempting to find bias is ad hominem. I can easily refute all the religious nutters' claims despite their bias, and yet they can't do the same.

Your argument is like saying that Creationism might still be true since the science books that refute it are biased because they're full of science.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jun 25 2007 01:59 PM

In reply to this comment (#870921)
Here's the thing brother, even if Evolution were true and the Flood didn't happen, and I'm with Aknddon3 on that second one I'd need more proof than a site called secularskeptic or any kindof skeptic blog before deciding anything conclusive, who's to say that's a knock against God? The way i've always looked at it is the bible is people's interpretation of God's word and people no matter how well intentioned are fallible. It's up to us as good Christians to find our own path and the Bible is just one tool for that. Now here's the thing that pisses me off about a lot of Atheists. What do they/you get out of tearing down someone elses Faith besides perhaps a smug sense of your own self-importance. Is your life somehow richer if a large portion of the population lose the moral center that religion provides? Just because you don't believe something why does it upset you so much that other people do? Let people have their Faith and believe whatever the heck you want to. Both parties will be much the happier for it.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Jun 25 2007 02:16 PM

Here's the problem with Science versus Religion debates: Neither side believes in the basis of thought for each other, so there's no common ground. Fundamentalists will always say that science has no proof since fact isn't present in their scripture, and atheists won't ever understand the need for faith since the proof they need of a Godless world involves "fact".

Is this debate really going on because of "Evan Almighty"? Well, I guess an open dialogue is at least one good thing coming from this movie. Maybe it's because people would rather discuss this than the actual movie?

(Reply to this)

Monkeyfist writes:
on Jun 25 2007 02:22 PM

In reply to this comment (#870913)
Dreamcatcher is terrible.

Honorable mentions: Cat's Eye and Creepshow

(Reply to this)

woot writes:
on Jun 25 2007 02:25 PM

@bigbrother

If you cared to actually learn the facts you'd do some research, even a tiny amount of which would provide sufficient evidence to debunk creationism and the flood (Check out talkorigins.org for example, but beware, there's lots of science and not much "god done it"). Instead, you choose to continue attacking a website because it is "secular." Would you honestly want your medical research done by someone who doesn't believe in science? "Secular" doesn't mean "atheist," it just refers to something not influenced by religion. In the case of science, secularism is an extremely good thing.

I agree that everyone must find their own path, but if your "path" includes believing in obvious falsehoods, expect to be ridiculed, and expect your path to lead nowhere.

I try to inform people about science because I think there is benefit in understanding reality and not giving in to fantasy.

The "moral center" that you think religion provides actually has very little to do with religion. Morality is evolutionarily advantageous for one thing, and it's clear that in modern times morality evolves according to the general zeitgeist and not because of anything preached by any particular religion.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Jun 25 2007 02:52 PM

In reply to this comment (#870925)
woot,

Have you read "The Science of Good & Evil" by Michael Shermer? Fascinating book, although I disagree with him on certain things. Seem like something you'd be interested in based off of your argument over morality.

(Reply to this)

woot writes:
on Jun 25 2007 03:00 PM

I'm not familiar with that specific work, but have read some of his other writings and found them quite good.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Jun 25 2007 03:13 PM

In reply to this comment (#870927)
One of the major themes in that book is that there are larger factors that contribute to man's morality than religion. I'm at work so I can't cite it verbatim, but he's quite persuasive.

(Reply to this)

woot writes:
on Jun 25 2007 03:35 PM

yea Dawkins covers it quite well in "The God Delusion" as well. Chistopher Hitchens even finds evidence in the Bible that morals don't come from religion, citing the good Samaritan, who is lauded for his goodness while clearly being unfamiliar with Christianity, and also pointing out that most of the 10 Commandments would not have come as a surprise, as any civilization with longevity would have already been very familiar with the obvious consequences of killing, lying, and stealing and would have forbid them long before.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jun 25 2007 03:57 PM

In reply to this comment (#870921)
No using a site with a clear bias is not an ad hominem. It would be like me using the KKK site as a source for what the Jews believe in. Not smart huh?

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jun 25 2007 04:02 PM

In reply to this comment (#870925)
Okay here is a scientific question. How has science proven God to not exist?

Now can you come up with an answer or do you need two bigots, dawkins and hitchens to answer that for you?

You need to learn how to debate, using people whos opinions mean nothing is not a debate.

P.S. If you were smart most historians assume that the flood was actually just the black sea which is possible and would make sense because back then that was then entire world to them.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jun 25 2007 04:03 PM

In reply to this comment (#870925)
P.S. Creationism has never debunked because the only way to debunk it is to prove that god does not exist.

Name these falsehoods you talk about little bigot. And point out how they are false.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Jun 25 2007 04:08 PM

In reply to this comment (#870929)
I've been very much turned off of "The God Delusion" as I dislike Dawkins' attitude. The problem with many Atheists is that they appear very arrogant and tend to look down their noses at anyone who has a separate belief system. Let's remember that new scientific studies are published seemingly every day that refute previous schools of though, so it's not a good idea to claim that all the answers have been found. It also appears to me that we've barely scratched the surface of what science can do for us. One problem I have with science is the emphasis on medicine. It's great to help people in need, but science should be used to unlock mysteries, not to further prolong our fear of death and heighten the population problem. (I know, off topic).

And Hitchens has always bothered me. Something about his personality. He's also responsible for some of the most blatant fear-mongering in journalism, such as his articles on Iraq prior to the war.

All that aside, those two are very capable of valid arguments, especially the one about the Samaritan. I'll have to remember that one.

Great conversation here! Amazing considering the article that spawned it...

(Reply to this)

woot writes:
on Jun 25 2007 04:14 PM

Your first point is worthless, as the KKK's thoughts could easily be either corroborated or dismissed, and "How has science proven God to not exist?" is the wrong question to ask. Science can't disprove something specifically designed to be disprovable. I hope you don't think that such a question actually gives credence to your god, as it would also give credence to the thousands of other gods various people have dreamed up, as well as any other fanciful notion you could think of. Atheists don't positively claim the non-existence of God anyway. They only assert the irrationality of believing in one.

I certainly do recognize the possibility that there was a minor flood which was exaggerated by the story-tellers of the time, but that point is a red herring as a very large percentage of people in America today believe in a universal flood and it is to them that I direct my comments.

As for your thoughts on Dawkins and Hitchens, I think you'll find that I was having a side conversation with arendr and was not using the opinions of others to defend my position. On that note, however, if you disallow using the opinions of others (which you should, as argument from authority is a fallacy), you'll quickly find that all religion quickly disappears, as authority is all religion has.

If you find the arguments of Dawkins and Hitchens offensive, rebut them. If you can't, then admit defeat. Getting offended is not an argument; nor is calling people silly names without justification.

And I'm the one who needs to "learn how to debate."

(Reply to this)

woot writes:
on Jun 25 2007 04:29 PM

@akkndon3

Read this and be gone:

http://www.defconamerica.org/creationmuseum/creation_museum_guide.pdf

Feel free to continue calling rational people bigots, but you'll also have to use that label on anyone who doesn't believe in Allah and invisible pink unicorns too in order to avoid hypocrisy. Your claim that the only way to disprove creationism is to disprove the existence of God is just silly. All of science tells us that the earth and the universe are billions of years old. If you want to believe in a deist version of god that started things off and then left, never to be heard from again, fine. Science has nothing to say about such a God, except that he would likely be superfluous. Anything more than that and you're just wish-thinking.

@arendr:

The idea that Dawkins is arrogant or pugnacious is a myth. There's not a single thing in the God delusion that is as abrasive as what I see every day on political shows. I even saw an interview he did with Allistar McGrath (the guy who built much of his career on Dawkins' back) in which he was extremely cordial.

Dawkins also never once claims to know even most of the answers. He only says that filling scientific gaps with God is a dumb thing to do, with which even intelligent theologians agree.

Hitchens I think is more deserving of his reputation, as he can be very strident. Still, he is very active in political discourse as well and I don't know of anyone he offended in discussing those things. I personally think he's wrong about a lot of things, but I was never offended by anything he wrote.

The special status of religion as off-limits to criticism is the main culprit, not those doing the criticizing.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Jun 25 2007 05:44 PM

In reply to this comment (#870935)
I think you and I are very much in agreement here. I suppose Hitchens and Dawkins just rub me the wrong way. I believe in some sort of higher power, although I don't think anyone else could understand that belief, nor should they. It should be a personal thing rather than one shared universally. Conversely, I have no right to criticize anyone else's personal belief. However, when it comes to matters of government, this should be a moot point (at least in the US). Unfortunately, many Americans are ignorant of a) the reasoning behind a separation of church and state, and b) many of our founding fathers were deists (belief in God setting the world in motion, and letting the world run it's course).

(Reply to this)

MaxRobert writes:
on Jun 25 2007 05:54 PM

In reply to this comment (#870934)
[b]Religion is authority[/b]
WOOT:
"Your first point is worthless, as the KKK's thoughts could easily be either corroborated or dismissed, and "How has science proven God to not exist?" is the wrong question to ask. Science can't disprove something specifically designed to be disprovable. I hope you don't think that such a question actually gives credence to your god, as it would also give credence to the thousands of other gods various people have dreamed up, as well as any other fanciful notion you could think of. Atheists don't positively claim the non-existence of God anyway. They only assert the irrationality of believing in one."

Here's my throw into this little religion debate...

I agree with your explanation woot. You really hit the mark... My view:

If you can't prove it exists, then I won't believe in it. GOD! SHOW YOURSELF!
: P And using the "How has science proven God to not exist?" is an incredibly stupid argument, because if you can prove that he DOES exist, then you know that he does, the other argument is based on speculation, if you think he exists then you are only believing=guessing that he exists. Anyways, you religious folks will always play the "How has science proven God to not exist?" card, it's easy, and it's not like your're working on discovering a physical god either, because he exists in your heads. Remember, I'm stating MY views now so keep your calm.

"Science can't disprove something specifically designed to be disprovable."

...And having a creation museum is stupid, couldn't they just have put it in a church? Never ever would they have an abomination like that here in Sweden unless it was meant as a joke : )
I know believing in God can help people feel better, but don't forget that there's been many terrible crimes done in a Gods name too(the crusades, burning witches,suicide bombings etc.) in the past and today and they are still likely to continue. Religion can also and do divide nations and people. All religions must learn to respect those who don't believe in their religion too. That's my belief, I respect your beliefs, so don't flame me for stating my views. Tolerance ok? This is a forum after all. Peace people.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jun 25 2007 05:59 PM

In reply to this comment (#870920)
[b]Agreed.[/b]
It scared me when I was around 5 or 7, and a few years later when I was around 10 I expected the same effect, but, while a good movie, it didn't scare me at all.

(Reply to this)

wilkiedriver writes:
on Jun 25 2007 11:17 PM

Why does it seem atheists were raised by parents that didn't love them enough and never told them to respect other peoples beliefs, which is probably the case most of the time? They seem more hostile against Christians more then they do around the Jewish faith and Muslims, etc. Why is that? WTF did Christians do to you personally? Please sound educated so I can understand some of you. And if there any Christians out there coming off as though they are "holier" then others, keep your mouth shut and leave. God wants no part in your selfish crusade.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jun 25 2007 11:37 PM

In reply to this comment (#870935)
No proving the earth is billions of years old is not evidence enough to show that creationism is false. And yes they are bigots, they are not rational because they go out of their way to ATTACK a persons beliefs. Have you ever heard of evolution through divine intervention? That is a branch of creationism that is not disproven.

P.S. Dawkins is arrogant, he called all the parents that raise their kids thiests as child abusers.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jun 25 2007 11:41 PM

For those that think that atheists have done no wrong just look at Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao; all of which have killed more than religion has.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jun 25 2007 11:52 PM

In reply to this comment (#870925)
I am actually consider myself an educated man and am as informed on this issue as the next guy. I haven't studied it as much as you probably because it's not of great interest to me. The difference between the two of us is that I'm more than happy to let you go on believing what you believe because it doesn't effect me or my happiness or the happiness of anyone I know one bit.

No, I wouldn't want my medical research done by someone who doesn't believe in science, but I wouldn't want to necessarily learn morality from a good many doctors either. Also, in this world we live in believing in God doesn't exclude you from believing in Science as well. Some of the greatest scientist the world has ever known were very religious men. Galileo, Newton, Oppenheimer. In fat the vast majority of our major scientific discoveries were made by men of God. I have to go to work now, I'll finish up later.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jun 26 2007 01:20 AM

In reply to this comment (#870942)
Even one of the biggest christian sects is adopting science as part of thier beliefs.

(Reply to this)

screwhead100 writes:
on Jun 26 2007 01:24 AM

[b]in response to zooman[/b]
pirates 3 was better than spider man 3...........duno what your talking about........

(Reply to this)

Silverevilchao writes:
on Jun 26 2007 02:09 AM

In reply to this comment (#870899)
Oh, wow.

It doesn't help that you guys walk all over us atheists and other minorities in real life. I'm happy you finally got a taste of your own medicine.

(Reply to this)

Silverevilchao writes:
on Jun 26 2007 02:16 AM

In reply to this comment (#870939)
[b]Oh, so Atheists are evil all of a sudden...[/b]
Ya know what? I'm constantly told I'm going to hell because I don't worship God, nor believe in him, even though I'm a good person and rarely ever get in trouble. I often see people in religions forcing their beliefs upon others (whether it's Islam or Christianity, or whatever religion), both present and past. Thus I am very bitter about religion.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jun 26 2007 05:05 AM

In reply to this comment (#870946)
Dude, slow your roll. Who said anything close to Atheists are evil?!? If people are telling you you're going to hell for not worshipping God it's probably not because they're Christians...It's because they're assholes. The Christian/religious thing is more than likely just coincidental. Who exactly is forcing their religious beliefs on you? If it's the Jehovah's witnesses and other door to door groups believe me we all share your distaste, but really all you have to do is close the door. I'll give you the past thing, mistakes were made, but last I checked their wasn't exactly and Inquisition going on anymore. Just about any organisation that has lasted for a good long time has things they're not proud of (because of that darn fallibility of man thing), but it doesn't mean it needs to be scrapped all together. If that was the case we'd pretty much have to scrap every government in the world. Bottom line no one can force you to believe anything you don't. What I'm saying is don't repeat the mistakes of the past and try to force your beliefs on them.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 26 2007 06:38 AM

Hey, know what you get when you cross an atheist with a Jehovah's Witness?

Someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason.

(Reply to this)

wilkiedriver writes:
on Jun 26 2007 07:42 AM

In reply to this comment (#870946)
Why do atheists overreact? That's my question, never said you guys are "evil". Bitter about religion? Unfortunately, that happens a lot (and understandable), but why are you really bitter? Did you lose a close friend/relative, parents forced you into something you didn't want to do, etc.? So much anger, and you are one of the calmer ones...

(Reply to this)

selke99 writes:
on Jun 26 2007 08:02 AM

In reply to this comment (#870948)
Dude that is awesome. And I stand corrected about Hostel I not making much about 80 posts ago. I didn't realize how much it made worldwide nor the cheap production cost.

(Reply to this)

woot writes:
on Jun 26 2007 10:59 AM

I'd just like to point out that this discussion has again devolved into name-calling and pretend psychology. That's all the religionists have, since they have no rational argument.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jun 26 2007 11:49 AM

In reply to this comment (#870951)
Seriously man, who's calling names? Any time you discuss a topic in forums like this SOME people are going to resort to name calling. I think several people here have made some pretty rational arguments. Everything is NOT cold rational scientific fact because people are not always cold rational beings. If you want to live on the planet of the Vulcans more power to you, but I for one am happy for a world with a little bit of variety where we're free to occasionally make leaps of faith, do things that aren't 100% rational and have the right not to imagine ourselves as the sole center of our own universes. Grow some thicker skin or you're never going to make it in this world. Pretty much everybody has something that they get persecuted for, it's part and parcel to being unique. We live in pretty much the most secular time in American history. Get over yourself, the Pope isn't going to come to your house and burn you as an atheist. I still haven't heard from you why religion bothers you so much. Here's a wacky thought did you ever think religious people might have something against you because you treat them in a very condescending fashion and pretty much openly mock something they consider an essential part of their lives. How do you think people are going to react when you do that? Oh, and before you right me off as some religious nutjob or pitiful religious sycophant. I'm actually a non-practicing Catholic bordering on Agnostic.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 26 2007 12:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#870950)
Glad you liked it. It's my favorite clean joke.

(Reply to this)

BigMojo writes:
on Jun 26 2007 12:33 PM

In reply to this comment (#870948)
[b]Great Joke[/b]
I'm going to tell that one to my mom, she'll get a kick out of it.

Dreamcatcher was horrible, probably the worst King movie of all time. Right there with The Night Flier. Best were Shawshank and Green Mile, but best horror would have to be The Shining, even though its Kubrickized. (imo the TV miniseries was pretty good too) When are they finally going to come out with a qaulity version of The Mist!? Seems you could meld claustrophobic tension, sci-fi, psychological horror, and some good ole' monster madness with a movie like that.

The whole religion v. science argument has me reading along mostly amused. I'm agnostic. Not arrogant enough say there is absolutely nothing spiritual that could be concieved as a "god" out there or to cling to the only major religion I've been exposed to as the ultimate truth when there are literally thousands of alternatives that were most likely not even explored. Both sides are distasteful and go against their own arguments. Theists maintain the fallibility of man, but insist their beliefs are the only truth and those who don't agree with that "truth" will be punished eternally. What about those fallible people who make a mistake and choose another religion? Your God dooms them for eternity? I don't want any of that action. Athiests seem to be of personality types that enjoy being contrary. Atheism is just as bad as Theism because it also attempts to state an absolute truth, that there is nothing beyond the physical world that has any effect on us. I don't want to hear arguments that Atheists aren't saying there isn't a God either. Reminds of White Power people people saying they aren't racists, just showing pride. Call it what it is. Both sides are so busy staring each other down they will most likely miss whatever truth they could have found with a little tolerance and thicker skin. Now hug and make up so we can get back to talking about movies.

Spiderman 3 wasn't as good as 2, but better than the first.

At World's End was the most entertaining of the series, but the first is superior overall.

Bug was the one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Art house crap isn't ALWAYS good because you feel smarter "getting it," I don't want to be screamed at for 30 minutes by two tweekers in a crappy motel room.

Hot Fuzz ruled.

Now I want to check out 1408, but I still want to see Hostel 2 as well. Has anyone seen it? It got good reviews, but I don't know anyone who has personally seen it.

Why is it that I didn't particulary like Fantastic Four, but I still get it on NetFlix to prepare for seeing the short ass sequel? How did I become such a special effects/superhero movie whore!?!?!

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jun 26 2007 12:53 PM

In reply to this comment (#870951)
So now you are talking about your arguments? I have yet to see you give a valid claim.

(Reply to this)

andretti #1 writes:
on Jun 26 2007 01:03 PM

Religion vs Science is always a fun debate for those who can discuss it rationally and in a civilized manner but it's a debate that will never end.

Science can never prove the existance of "God" as it's a completely based on a spiritual faith. Science can only use the evidence available and come up with a pretty solid theory. On the flip side, those that have faith will never believe science if there is indisputable evidence that God is just a delusion... faith is not based on facts but is rooted in the heart, which does not follow logic.

Faith can be a good thing in the end. If it helps individuals get along in life then all the more power to them. Other individuals don't feel that need or have that feeling that a specific God exists. It doesn't make one view better or correct, it's just the way it is.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 26 2007 01:54 PM

In reply to this comment (#870954)
There is a movie being made of The Mist. Frank Darabont is directing. They're done shooting and it's in post now. They shot it in Louisiana and a friend of mine has a pretty good part in it. (He plays the store manager) Not sure when it's supposed to be released.

(Reply to this)

MaxRobert writes:
on Jun 26 2007 03:54 PM

In reply to this comment (#870956)
Good post andretti #1

I'm sorry if I offended the religious people on the board. It wasn't my intent. If you believe and it makes you happy that's good for you. I respect that. : ) I'm not an angry atheist. If I sounded that way, I apologize. Stalin and others tried to forbid religion, and I'm totally against that. Religion is everyone's own right. Now lets talk movies! Woohoo!

(Reply to this)

BigMojo writes:
on Jun 27 2007 08:54 AM

In reply to this comment (#870957)
[b]Oooooh[/b]
I knew The Mist was supposed to be in production, buyt I haven't looked up news on it in awhile. If Frank Darabont is pimpin the helm, then my hopes are much higher!

(Reply to this)

HollyGoKimsy writes:
on Jun 27 2007 12:10 PM

In reply to this comment (#870959)
[b]The Mist Release Date[/b]
According to imdb.com, the release date for The Mist is 11/21/07 in the US. I'm looking forward to it.

Also - I hated Hearts in Atlantis. But only because they seem to have forgotten most of the book, and that bugged me. I did like Stand by Me. Favorite TV King has to be The Stand, hand's down. Favorite King film, not sure.

I will say that the first King I ever read, which was Christine (I was about 10 or so at the time) put me in a trance for days. Had never found anything like it.

Is it true that a movie is in development of "Cell" also or is that just for TV?

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jun 27 2007 12:31 PM

In reply to this comment (#870960)
I was just discussing King with some people at work. One of the guys I work with was apparently a couple of years behind him at the University of Maine. We agreed a lot of the time it's not even what King writes about that's so awesome it's the way he writes. I often times find myself enjoying the forward of the book where he shares his thought processes in coming up with the story and how it developed as much as I enjoy the stories themselves. I think King is going to be the author which are generation is remembered for. Like Hemingway or Joyce. Here's hoping the idea's continue for many more years.

(Reply to this)

itsaysicanuse25characters writes:
on Jun 27 2007 01:28 PM

What is important to remember in any "debate" such as this current religion/science one is that one should not assume what exactly another's beliefs and motives are because of the general ideology to which one ascribes. It is worse still to base one's arguments off of those assumptions; the worst is to base unfounded insults on those assumptions. Conversely, it is also bad to make generalizations about those who identify with one's own ideology and base one's arguments off of those. I know that is a generally accepted method of debate, and that it is pointless to try to combat it in an internet forum, but I would hope that at least those who seem as smart as those (in both sides) currently discussing this would use more caution in their words. An additional caution: be careful of accusing someone of something (i.e. fallacies, name-calling, etc.) and then being guilty of that same thing.

In summation, I ask you to remember one simple fact: all generalizations are wrong.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 27 2007 02:01 PM

In reply to this comment (#870960)
Supposedly Cell is in development with Eli Roth at the helm, but I haven't read much about it lately.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jun 27 2007 02:21 PM

In reply to this comment (#870963)
What I heard too.

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Jun 28 2007 12:36 AM

In reply to this comment (#870963)
The Weinstein Company may very well let Eli Roth go in the wake of Hostel 2. Look at what a PG-13 Stephen King property did at the box office.

The difference, of course, is that Hostel 2 would have done well were it actually released in an appropriate frame. Saw 17 will do gangbusters so long as they keep pumping them out every Halloween. Let's also not forget that 1408 was essentially canny counterprogramming against a comedy that absolutely no one was laughing at in the trailers. Plus, who doesn't like Cusack?

Anyway, Roth's an R Director through and through, and for TWC, Cell might be too important to let him have the reins. That's just my outside speculation though.

(Reply to this)

Messor writes:
on Jun 28 2007 01:00 AM

[b]Evan Almighty and other sucky sequels[/b]
I knew Evan Almighty was going to stink and should i say now that Fantastic Four movies should stop because its just dissapointing watching a legendary comic book series get ripped to pieces. 1408 still looks like a watchable film, Ocean's 13 also and probably Die Hard 4 when the theaters are not so packed. But Shrek 3 and the many more down the road are not going to be very good. I kinda hope they don't make another Pirates movie because three is enough. Spiderman i kinda still have to see but as mich as i have been hearing about it being to plot oriented and less character dev.

(Reply to this)