Um, Leonidas, the film has received great reviews and has been picked up by distributors all over the world — almost everywhere except here. The movie has had NO trouble “marketing itself.” Do you even read before slapping down your right-wing template?

Well the reviews I posted above seem to indicate it was pretty boring.

If the film was really good or potentially very profitable, it would have been picked up, the bottom line is what distributors look at, their politics run green.

Sure. Just as you can make the identical criticism against a film that U.S. film distributors tell the producer they don't want because it's politically radioactive in the U.S. among a relatively small but well organized population of religious extremists. You can say that it has nothing to do with U.S. film distributors being afraid to challenge Christian fundamentalists; they just don't think the film is good, they just don't think the film will sell.

As usual, your response when I prove that my initial point was correct is to change the rules rather than just admit that you were wrong this time.

Austin, I'm not even sure what your point is, to be honest.How is a book by a conservative author that is a runaway best-seller, is being read by both Republicans and Democrats, and thus is obviously both a commercial and a popular success, have to do with a film that can't be seen by anyone in the U.S. because U.S. film distributors refuse to pick it up?

What is it you're upset about with this book? That it hasn't been reviewed by the New York Times?

And what exactly made you say the film was 'hugely popular'? Where is the proof it is drawing large crowds anywhere?

Well, I don't know for sure, but it's been picked up by distributors in every market in the world except for here. It opened the Toronto Film Festival, so it's certainly got to be popular with indy film buffs, which is not a massively huge market, but not a tiny market, either. It's apparently gotten a lot of word-of-mouth buzz from people who've seen it. And I would love to see it, but I can't. I think that gives me more cause to be grumpy than you have.

And you can make that same lame criticism against ANY book that sells well but is not your cup of tea. Harlequin Romances fly off the shelves because they are bought by lonely, overweight, depressed middle-age woman, not quite the same broader demographic this book garnered.

As usual, your response when I prove that my initial point was correct is to change the rules rather than just admit that you were wrong this time.

And what exactly made you say the film was 'hugely popular'? Where is the proof it is drawing large crowds anywhere? It still sounds like a small indie film of dubious distinction to me, as a film lover and pure believer in science and evolution.

I know the Mark Levin book is popular among conservatives, but that doesn't mean it's good. Harlequin Romances fly off the shelves too, you know.

Sure, it is easy to overlook individuals. But that doesn't negate the main point, which is the fawning of the MSM over left-leaning political writers when any book of theirs even sniff's the NYT #1 position (which for political books, 1 – 2 weeks there, and maybe 5 – 10 weeks in the top ten is doing REALLY well. Political books have a very short shelf life as a whole), but they are completely ignoring this one. That is my only point.

Sometimes us conservatives can actually be correct that the MSM is ignoring us if it isn't negative news!

And BTW, they love to have Ann Coulter and/or Michelle Malkin on, because they can make fun of them.

Not necessarily true at all. I am a voracious reader and could not tell you the name of even one book on the best-seller lists, fiction OR nonfiction — although I'm sure I would recognize titles if I heard them or saw them. I don't ever look at the best-seller lists — it's not how I choose the books I read.

The fact that it is that popular, has sold well over a million copies (may be closing in on 2M by now), and no one here could name it speaks to EXACTLY what I was talking about. And this is an academic book, not a page-turner, which makes its success even more incredible.

Have you heard the book mentioned as a publishing phenomenon (which it is)? No.

Have you seen Mark interviewed on any major TV show, like almost every other writer with a fraction of those sales? No.

Why? Because not only is he conservative, he is very intelligent, well-spoken, and non-demonstrative. He would eat up and spit out any of the the light-weight morning hosts and make them look the platitude-spouting, non-thinking Leftist robots that they are.

If you are implying it was a book by Glenn Beck, wrong answer!

I was stating, not implying. Glenn Beck currently holds the #1 spot for paperback non-fiction. Michelle Malkin holds the #1 spot for hardcover non-fiction. If it is not these two, then which non-fiction might it be?

By the way, I don't accept books of mythology as non-fiction. As such, the Christian Bible, Koran, Tanakh, Sruti, or a dozen others don't apply.

To steal a phrase, if life hands you chopped liver, make pate!

What I said was that U.S. film distributors would not touch the Darwin movie because they feared an uproar from right-wing Christian sources. They know how rabid these fundamentalist Christian groups are — and even more to the point, how powerful and well-organized they are. The article in the Telegraph doesn't spell this out, but one assumes the reason the producer said that Biblical literalists and creationists made the film “too hot to touch” for U.S. distributors is because *the U.S. distributors told him so.* You think he just made it up that U.S. film distributors all rejected the film because of opposition to anything that puts Darwin in a positive light?

Since the distributors acted preemptively, Christianists didn't organize any campaign this time, but they certainly have in the past on similar issues and I have no doubt they would have on this one. If that is a conspiracy, then perhaps all organized political advocacy is conspiratorial — I don't know.

Um, well, yeah you kind of did imply that Christian organizations were driving a refusal of distributors to bring this film to market.

'Conspiracy' can mean “any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.” I though you meant it in that way. Not all, nor even a majority, of conspiracies are illegal or even necessarily detrimental.

AR! Why aren't you always this charming?

Ahhh, you're making me blush.

I said I was going to be more positive for a while with my daughter home now. And I am bi-polar (medicated), so sometimes I can go off the deep end a little.

Not that you can notice that much difference when I do, mind you.

Here, you make it sound as though I thought a conspiracy was behind the refusal of US film distributors to pick up the Darwin biopic, and I don't know what in my post made you think this. I mean, unless I'm not understanding what the word “conspiracy” means.

I'm glad to know I guessed right, anyhow. It had occurred to me that your first name might be the city, and not your given name.

How about not all movies get distributed? And when they don't there isn't always a conspiracy?

Economic times are bad, and the indie film market has been hit hard. I am lucky to live in Austin which is very supportive of it and has a lot of filmmakers here, but even so they are all talking about how hard it is to get a film made these days, and even of you do, getting it distributed is even harder.