Guess Who’s Behind the Creation Movie…? September 14, 2009

Guess Who’s Behind the Creation Movie…?

By Guest Contributor
September 14, 2009

***Update***: Ignore the post below. The news source got it wrong:

The original article confused the film’s distributor, Icon Distribution, with Mel Gibson owed Icon Productions. The companies use the exact same logo and indeed Icon Distribution was once owned by Gibson. It is no longer. We regret the error.

…

The Creation movie controversy just got weirder. First, producers could not find an American distributor.

Now, there’s a bidding war for the film.

Also, we have this interesting note:

… the film was bankrolled by Mel Gibson’s Icon Productions which was also behind “The Passion of the Christ.”

Gibson!? How did he get a piece of this action? Does he just deal with religion-related “controversial” movies these days?

Now, there’s a dilemma. Do you go see this movie now that you know who is partly responsible for it?

(Thanks to Sackbut for the link!)

Previous Post
Stand Up for God Bless America... Or Else
Next Post
Potential Indonesian Law: Commit Adultery; Get Stoned to Death
"😂"
Andy Horsuroddinon
Polk Co. (FL) Will Let Chaplains ..."
"I am tempted to read it."
Jezebel'sOlderSister
How Sex Workers Operate in the ..."
"Why not, it's Utah, isn't it?"
Jezebel'sOlderSister
How Sex Workers Operate in the ..."
"Bringing Aria near water is as good as wetting a Mogwai. Your funeral."
French Pandora
Polk Co. (FL) Will Let Chaplains ..."
Browse Our Archives
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

  • I wasn’t planning on seeing it in the first place, actually, because I keep hearing that it’s a load of wishy-washy romantic crap pushing the idea that Darwin was somehow “torn” by his love for his wife Emma, when it’s a well-known fact that the two of them discussed their ideas and beliefs quite openly, and if anything, it was Emma who was torn by her husband’s growing disbelief—if, in fact, she was, which I don’t think is the case; I think she believed that honest, reasoned inquiry could not be considered a sin.

    This just cements my distaste for the idea of this movie, and Mel Gibson backing it makes me even less likely to spend money on it. I wouldn’t watch a movie bankrolled by Ben Stein, either.

  • ennui

    … That just confuses me. Doesn’t seem like Gibson’s cup of tea.

    Like defiantskeptic, I wasn’t particularly keen on the movie in the first place, and am even less so now. Gibson would’ve seen the script before opting to back it, and I can’t imagine someone as prejudiced as him doing so unless the movie had some… er, rationally objectionable elements?

  • Oh, jeez … Who cares who bankrolls the film? First of all, it’s a BBC production, Gibson doesn’t have any say in what happens on-screen. Second, I couldn’t care less who paid for it; it would be bin Laden and I wouldn’t break a sweat, if it meant the damned thing reached American screens. The fact that the bankroller is “unsavory” is completely irrelevant. He didn’t make the film, or even have anything to do with it until it was well done and ready to be distributed.

  • Oh, jeez … Who cares who bankrolls the film? First of all, it’s a BBC production, Gibson doesn’t have any say in what happens on-screen.

    I’d rather not contribute money to something that a racist, sexist fanatic like Gibson stands to profit from. I know it won’t make a difference but it’s a matter of principle. I lose nothing by denying Mel Gibson a few extra bucks. Furthermore, does it not occur to you at all that Gibson may have some agenda in promoting this movie?

  • Eight

    WTF? How did that even happen?

  • He’s a very religious person, and very outspoken about his beliefs. I find it hard to believe that he was able to put aside his personally beliefs to make this film the way it should have been made. I don’t want to see it now. I feel he’s up to something…whether it be to prove something, or if there is some religious parallel IN the film? I don’t know, but it just strikes me as very odd.

  • Sesoron

    What if… Gibson’s people intend that the film’s thesis is that only the death of Darwin’s daughter could make him an atheist? I was once solicited by some JWs who asserted (fallaciously, of course) that atheism was usually caused by some traumatic experience, so I wouldn’t put it past Mel to try and weaken Darwin’s skeptical cred by that route.

    I wonder…. The belief or lack thereof of the viewer may significantly color how they perceive it. The atheist may interpret it as an innocent drama about a brilliant man, while the Christian reads it as a rationalization between Darwin’s story and their ethos, or perhaps a sympathetic tragedy.

  • It is possible that a person could both be religious and not have a problem with evolution. It is possible that Mel Gibson is one of those people. I don’t know one way or the other, though.

  • Joseph R.

    If it is a good film, I want to see it regardless of who funded it. That goes for any film. This one might stink. I don’t know.

  • Gibson killed of Jesus and now he is involved in a movie that kills off God.

  • I’m not too shocked. When I saw the previews, it was not at all clear that this film was friendly to the rationalist viewpoint. It’s sensationalist at the least.

    On the other hand, it does have Jennifer Connoly, so I might have to see it regardless.

  • Kelly

    I think the producer in the original articles claiming that “no one” in the US would distribute the movie because of religious fanatics was full of shit, and just doing a little promotion via controversy. I had a hard time believing that no one in the US would distribute it. There are plenty of controversial films that have done well here.
    Oh, and while Gibson is an ass, just because he’s Christian doesn’t mean he’s a creationist.

  • Kelly

    p.s. here is a review by Eugenie Scott:
    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/09/eugenie-scott-r.html

  • False Prophet

    Gibson is a Catholic, and even though he’s a kooky conservative Catholic who doesn’t acknowledge the Vatican II reforms, he’s not doctrinally required to be a creationist. There was maybe a decade-long period in the late 19th century when the Pope rejected evolution, but since then, Church doctrine allows for Catholics to accept evolution as God’s method for creating life.

    Also, crazy racist git he might be, I don’t think Gibson is easily pigeon-holed.
    He and Michael Moore expressing mutual admiration for each other messed with all those people using them as weapons in the culture war. And I think the most important thing to note is that Mel Gibson has a martyr complex. He tends to play characters who suffer incredible trials (Riggs, the Man without a Face, William Wallace) and are frequently messianic. Passion of the Christ is more Gibson autobiography than bible film. I think he would find the frequently tormented and persecuted figure of Charles Darwin pretty compelling.

  • Abbie

    Eh, I try to separate artists from their art- to a point, at least. I just watched Apocalypto, with some reservation. I gave it a chance (I had avoided Passion of the Christ) and thought it was captivating enough but kinda simple.

    I actually really wanted to see POTC for the fact that it was done in Aramaic and Latin; but I balked after the reviews comparing it to a snuff film. If it wasn’t for the language novelty I probably would have avoided Apocalypto too.

    I’d look at what other movies his production company has done; it’s probably more of a financial than ideological arrangement.

  • The Other Tom

    Hemant:

    Do you go see this movie now that you know who is partly responsible for it?

    No, I’ll probably wait until it’s been out on video for a while and pick up a used copy so Gibson doesn’t get any percentage of my money.

    ennui:

    Doesn’t seem like Gibson’s cup of tea.

    I think Gibson’s cup of tea is money.

  • anonymous

    eh, he’s a crazy loon, but he’s also about money. i highly doubt he had any influence in the content at all.

    i can’t wait until all the right-wingers find out and are horrified

  • Hi all,

    I think there is some confusion here – although I may be wrong. The company Icon Film Distribution is a distribution company and is no longer associated with Mel Gibson. He sold it to Stewart Till.

    See: http://tinyurl.com/m7q3xl

  • anonymous

    MEL GIBSON HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS FILM.

    Icon – a company which Gibson is a majority SHARE holder bought the distribution rights for the UK alone. They did not have a say on the script or production process, he wouldn’t even have known that they had picked it up till the trade press announced the deal. To think he is that involved would be to assume Bill Gates hand codes every Microsoft Windows update or the Pope proof reads every sermon given in every church around the world…

  • Jim

    What if Gibson didn’t really take notice of what the movie was actually about and just signed on because it’s called, Creation. I’ll be honest, when I first heard about it I thought it was a religious film.

    Dunno – but I’d go see it regardless.

  • Thanks for that review link, Kelly. I was nervous about the movie; now I’m excited! I hope it gets in theaters!

  • Amy

    There is a somewhat widespread misconception that the film “Creation” was produced by Mel Gibson’s company Icon Productions LLC and this causes speculation that the science of evolution may be misrepresented in the film. The idea that it is “an Icon production” comes from seeing the Icon logo at the beginning of the trailer but it is simply being distributed in the UK by Icon Film Distribution UK, which *was* part of Gibson’s company but was sold as a separate entity to Stewart Till in 2008 (see http://tinyurl.com/r2stt4). Showing the distribution company’s logo at the beginning of a film’s opening credits is common practice but in this case is confusing since the two companies share a logo.

    The film “Creation” was produced by HanWay and BBC Films (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfilms/comingsoon/creation.shtml).

  • Amy

    Apparently, NBC Bay Area doesn’t employ fact-checkers. After they published the story citing Gibson as “bankrolling” the film, I posted the correct info as a comment and they put up a retraction today:

    “The original article confused the film’s distributor, Icon Distribution, with Mel Gibson owed Icon Productions. The companies use the exact same logo and indeed Icon Distribution was once owned by Gibson. It is no longer. We regret the error.”

    http://www.nbcbayarea.com/entertainment/movies/Creation-May-Cause-Big-Bang-in-US-59246832.html

    Unfortunately, they fanned the fire of that rumor and their incorrect first post is being quoted everywhere now. Ugh.

  • Steve

    FYI – Correction – it’s NOT GIBSON!

    The original article confused the film’s distributor, Icon Distribution, with Mel Gibson owed Icon Productions. The companies use the exact same logo and indeed Icon Distribution was once owned by Gibson. It is no longer. We regret the error.

    Scroll to the bottom of the original linked Article:
    Original Link from post

  • muggle

    The title had me skeptical. This just adds to it. And I’ll agree with the others who say the trailers have left me not that impressed. Looks like a chick flick and I may be a chick but I don’t care for chick flicks.

  • > Looks like a chick flick and I may be a chick but I don’t care for chick flicks.

    Damn. Scratch that plan.

    Why can’t Richard Dawkins make a science documentary with inspiring personal relationships and romantic bedroom scenes?

    Atheism really needs some sexing up. I’ll get right to that.

  • Juan

    I can’t wait for this film to be in the US (whether it be in theatres or DVDs) It doesn’t look like it will focus on the scientific aspect or much on Darwin’s research itself, but mainly on the man’s personal “demons” is so, it will put a hole in it that not a few salivating creationists will try to exploit., but I could be wrong., we’ll just have to wait and see the film to find out..

error: Content is protected !!