I went and saw Fireproof this weekend, the low budget Christian film starring Kirk Cameron. It cost all of $500,000 to produce thanks to tons of volunteer efforts and community donations. As far as I know Cameron refused a paycheck for appearing in the film.
It was written, produced and directed by Alex Kendrick, whose previous two films Facing the Giants and Flywheel (neither which I’ve seen) are both also Christian-centric films.
|
|
I haven’t seen Bill Maher’s Religulous, and honestly, have no desire to do so - at least for a few months. All this electioneering has my blood pressure spiking already and I don’t need to see Maher’s smarmy approach to belittling religion to put me over the top. Maybe once the election dust has settled and it’s no longer saturating the web I’ll feel up to it.
Expectedly, Religulous has been getting much better reviews than Fireproof. I can’t say I’m surprised due to a number of reasons - I’m sure the production values on Maher’s film are far higher than on Kendrick’s, and the Fireproof cast was populated by members of the local church… no professional actors outside of Kirk Cameron. And of course the subject matter and message of the film doomed it to critical panning overall, regardless - although I was surprised to see at least moderate recommendations from a couple of critics at the NY Times and Variety which looked past the obvious at the emotional impact of the film.
Bill Maher conducts an interview in Religulous
What I found to be completely unexpected is the fact that Fireproof has earned twice as much at the box office as Religulous.
Both opening weekend box office numbers and total to date are as close to two-to-one as you can get. On their respective opening weekends (one week apart), the barely advertised Fireproof earned $6.8 million while the highly advertised Religulous earned only $3.4 million. As of the date of this post the numbers are $23.6MM vs $10.6MM.
And let’s not even get into the profit margin side of things. Fireproof had an ROI of $46 for every dollar spent while Religulous earned $4 for every dollar (probably less, if marketing is considered).
Granted, Fireproof opened on 60% more screens, but over ensuing weekends its numbers have dropped by a far lower margin due to word of mouth than Religulous.
A friend of mine who runs a movie news site asked (incredulously) how in the heck a movie like Fireproof could have a $6 million opening weekend. I would add to that how the heck did it manage to trounce Bill Maher’s anti-religion movie?
Sure, I’ve heard the “call to action” reasoning - churches exhorting their members to go out and see the film and support it. I can tell you that I heard no such announcement or mention at the church I attend. I didn’t even know about it until after it had already opened. Of course I’m not saying that didn’t happen, just that it didn’t happen at my church.
Kirk Cameron rescues a child in Fireproof
What I do find interesting is that the movie has held up so well - this must be attributed to good word of mouth. Believe me when I tell you I was not looking forward to watching it, but my wife and I and another couple made a day of it, driving up to Park City. I was expecting a cheesy movie along the lines of the Left Behind movies - and while the acting was far from great (with a few surprising exceptions), I found the film to be much better put together than I expected.
And personally, I found it extremely moving and that surprised me big time.
Now if someone shows up to see this film who is a hard core athiest or an anti-religion/anti-Christian person, they’re going to hate it and its heavy slathering of “the message” starting at about the half way point. However for those who can set that aside, you’ll find a very emotionally intense film about the attempt of an estranged husband trying desperately to keep his marriage together.
I cannot speak to the content of Religulous - I’m sure it was quite enjoyable for fans of Bill Maher. But I’ll tell you what’s fascinating about all this to me… I spend a LOT of time online, and it gives one a skewed view of the population. I would say that people who don’t believe in God and are vocal about it probably outnumber believers by at least 5 to 1 online. There’s nothing scientific about that number, it’s just my impression from blogs and social networking sites that I frequent.
I say it’s skewed, because if that translated to “the real world” Religulous should have beat the crap out of Fireproof at the box office. By a very wide margin - especially considering TV commercials, trailers, etc.
But that didn’t happen.
I know that spending a lot of time online can cause us to think that this little “bubble” represents everyone out there, so maybe we should step back once and a while and remember that it doesn’t.
To some that will be disconcerting (and they’ll no doubt deny it), but to others it’s a comforting thought.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Learn more about Screen Rant or if you want more frequent updates follow us on Twitter. Thanks for visiting!
154 Comments
We managed to have a civil conversation regarding “Expelled” and I hope we can do the same here.
Vic
Sounds like a good see Vic, thanks.
BTW I have never really liked Maher, mainly because I don’t think he’s that funny, so I doubt I ever see his movie.
well, i was considering going to see Religulous but my friend told me it wasnt very funny at all. I havent seen fireproof either but my uncle(who is agnostic)told me it was a good movie, so ill believe him.
Very similar to the whole Ron Paul running for Pres thing ealy last year, with all the ranting and raving his supporters were making online, I though for sure we might see something. The primaries proved otherwise.
But when he came onstage it was one f-bomb after another. I mean I’m from Jersey and I used to cuss up a storm with the best of ‘em, but I did not expect this at all and was actually embarrassed I’d brought my wife to see him.
It was nothing like the TV show… more like he was trying to out-Murphy Eddie Murphy’s “Raw” stage show.
Changed my opinion of the guy on the spot.
Vic
mccain fans dont know how to use computers lol
Apparently this one does.
Vic
I don’t like Maher. I know a lot of atheists, and none of them try and rain on my parade because I believe in God, none of them make fun of me. My one friend who is an atheist even told me he thinks people should at least follow the moral standards of the bible even if they don’t believe in God. I will say I haven’t seen either movie. I don’t personally like pushy believers that think I should go to church every sunday, but I dislike people making fun of other people and their faith even less so…
Not sure why you were surprised that Fireproof made more Vic. Religulous is a documentary… documentaries do not make as much money as other films. Never. Doesn’t matter what the subject is.
The highest grossing documentary of all time is Fahrenheit 9/11 and it only made $119 million, while the biggest grossing movie of all time made $600 million.
And Fahrenheit was an aberration, not the norm. Religulous has made $10 million already. That makes it the 9th highest grossing documentary of all time.
Where does Fireproof’s $23 million land it on the biggest movies of all time list?
Two completely different types of films, not really comparable in this sense.
Then again, maybe not so much.
With all the pro/anti religion verbosity permeating the internet in general and specifically in regards to this election, I would have thought Religulous would have done much better.
Vic
I find it fascinating that the public can sit and eat thier popcorn while viewing flicks like the rediculous “Saw” lot, but seem to get really worked up when something religion based is released into the theaters. I don’t prescribe to any particular religion, but as one of the many carbon based types running around this little rock I often do find myself hoping in my heart of hearts that everything will somehow work out for the benefit of all. Either by our own efforts or that of the workings of a benevolent or mysterious entity. Sometimes its better IMHO to look past the content of such a film and dial in on the message as it appears to you, and allowing others to do the same without fear of persecution or slight.
I do believe that if there is in fact a GOD, that he certainly doesn’t take sides…
Ok, lets look at the numbers. Approximately 250 million Americans claim some sect of Christianity. Only about 12%, or 30 million Americans, consider themselves to be Athiest/Agnostic.
So, Fireproof was seen by approximately 2.4 million(assuming a $10 ticket cost) out of 250 million: Less than 1% of it’s core audience went to see it. By contrast, Religulous was seen by 1.1 million out of a target audience of 30 million, so 4% of it’s target audience went to see it. That means 4 Times as many Non-theists went to see “their” movie as Christians went to see “their” movie. (And Fireproof opened in 60% more theatres than Religulous)
As an Athiest, that substantiates a number of thoughts i’ve had, as well as makes me smile in general. It’s a reflection of just how many lip-service christians there are out there.
A movie opens, Made Just For Them, in a TON of theatres, and less than 1 percent bother to go see it. Religulous opens in less than half the amount theatres, aimed at a small minority, and manages to garner the support of 4 times more of it’s core audience. I consider that a huge success.
And as far as Religulous having “Higher production values”… Not even close. You can just watch the Trailers for each movie and easily see that Fireproof has ALOT more production value and Hollywood-trickery behind it. Religulous is filmed like a documentary, meaning most times, there’s just a guy holding the camera. No cranes, no theatrics, no special effects, no make-up, no special lighting, No professional actors… NONE of the frills of Fireproof.
Though we might disagree on Theology, I think these facts paint a clearer picture of these two movies, especially as they relate to each other.
In addition, I thought Religulous was Hilarious, and so did my christian brother. Granted, it will certainly ruffle your feathers a bit if you practice a religion, but if a movie will ruffle your feathers That Bad, then you might want to rethink the conviction of your faith in the first place. Plus, I believe you have to shake yourself up every now and then, I think it’s good for you. To hold on to something just because you’ve always held on to it is a bad reason, and it’s always good to go back and re-examine things to know how they fit in your life, if they still apply to you, Why you feel how you feel, etc. You gotta shake things up every now and then.
Anyway, just some points to ponder.
Wow Vic, I’m sure you’re familiar with the political ad that michael is referring to. The one where they make fun of McCain for not using computers. Well, McCain does use them, and knows how to use them, he simply doesn’t like to since he can’t type due to arthritis he has from his war injuries. I broke my wrist a few years ago. I’m not old, but because of that injury, I get arthritis on my wrist, and yes, it hurts if I type a lot, but since it’s only one wrist, I manage anyhow. But McCain broke both his arms SERVING OUR COUNTRY and these people insult him for his war injuries. Do you throw tennis shoes at the first legless veteran you see as well? How appalling.
Anyway, about the film, I haven’t watched either one, but I would say if I had to, I would definitely watch Fireproof. I will not give my money to some attack movie like Maher’s retarded film. I’m not religious, and I’m sure I will find most of what Fireproof says pretty corny, but at least they are celebrating something and not senselessly attacking something. I’m agnostic, but I hate when some atheist is talking crap about religion. It’s their BELIEF and I believe that everyone has their right to believe in whatever religion they choose, including my right to not pick sides, and the atheists’ right to not believe. But on the same note, I respect religious people more than atheists since at least they are picking to stand FOR something and not simply standing AGAINST something like atheists do.
I think that shapes me political views too. I’d rather elect someone who is standing for a certain ideal than those who simply oppose everything. Even if I don’t happen to believe in some of the things they do, it’s better than having a weak president that can’t stand for anything.
I’m glad Fireproof earned more money than Religulous. What is Maher going to do with the money? Donate it to a certain political candidate? Buy another personal jet? At least with Fireproof, maybe it might just inspire some people, who knows. I see no harm done. But attacking people for being religious is just mean-spirited.
Why do we have more and more of these stupid comedians thinking they can tell us what to think about politics and religion like Bill Maher and Al Franken. When I see people like that, I see clowns, I don’t take advice from clowns, do you?
What an interesting discussion… particularly given our early emails about me writing for Screen Rant, hey Vic? ;o)
Meanwhile… I’m still waiting on even a HINT of a release date for ‘Religulous’ here in Australia but I’ve heard it’s not the “smarmy” or “belittling” film it at first seems… but rather a series of genuine questions aimed at ALL religions. It’s certainly not a ‘Borat’-style “gotcha” film, as first assumed… and even religious people have reportedly found it more enjoyable than offensive.
But as for ‘Fireproof’… really? I saw the trailer when looking on YouTube at some of the cringe-worthy things Kirk Cameron says and does these days* and I’m surprised it even got a cinema release. In fact, if it wasn’t for its religious “message”, it looks like it would barely have stood out alongside ‘Snowman’s Pass’ and ‘Ring Girls’ (a pair of straight-to-DVD releases I had the “pleasure” of reviewing last year). ‘Fireproof’ strikes me as a Hallmark telemovie in ‘The Passion’ clothing - nothing more, nothing less.
(* Silly even to deeply religious people I know of, by the way…)
Ken J… just one little thing, since I believe Vic doesn’t want this to be a place for insulting peoples’ beliefs…
Atheism is not “simply standing AGAINST something”. If you actually look into it, it CAN BE as much a passionate belief system as any. That is… by believing strongly in a conscious creator NOT existing, Atheists believe in nature and scientific reasoning as the highest “authority” (for want of a better word) and find endless fascination in the idea that the answers to life’s questions are infinite. Just when you discover the origin of one thing, there’s more to learn… and more… and more. I, for one, find a great deal of peace and wonder in that.
Yes, the side-effect is obviously a tendency to “shoot down” religious faiths… but I don’t think that’s any different to a Christian proselytising to an Agnostic… or a Jehovah’s Witness door-knocking.
Don’t be so quick to pass judgement on a belief system you clearly do not understand.
No one at my church told me to go see it either.
I am rather surprised to read this story though. If a friend had mentioned this in casual conversation, I would never have believed them.
@Kane
I completely agree with you. I often feel like too many people automatically discount the opinion of Christians just because of what we believe. I really wish people could stop attacking what certain groups may believe just because they disagree. I have atheist friends as well as Christian friends. I just dont talk belief systems with my atheist friends.
If you don’t believe, just don’t comment on it.
Oh, don’t get me wrong Deadpool…
I OFTEN discount the opinions of people’s religions - in fact, I make it my life’s work - but I welcome them to discount mine and want both sides to have a solid backup. Without debate and genuine questions, I don’t think we can grow or learn.
Having said that, this is not my personal space… and Vic’s asked for respect… so I was merely pointing out that even Atheists deserve that. Discounting them as “not standing for anything” is an absolute farce.
I agree with Kane, not because im an atheists but I believe in not judging a book by its cover. I’m not trying to attack you Ken but I dont find it right for someone to attack another belief, and even if they were talking “crap” about another religion in the movie, you just let it go.
I havent seen either of these movies but I will probably wait till they come out on dvd.
Kane, I also believe in science and evolution and all of that, but my question to you as an agnostic is how can you be so sure that science and evolution wasn’t “created” by a higher power so there appears to be a “logical” explanation for it? What exactly is “logical” anyway? What you think is common sense, physics, or science, could all have been created by God if he is all powerful.
I don’t actually believe that, but you can’t disprove it. One can say that God created all of this science and scientific ways to explain everything so that the people who still believe are people acting on faith and not simply because there’s no other explanation. It kind of proves their devotion. Think about it, if God actually came to earth and showed everyone that he exists, then people will believe simply because they know it’s true, not because of faith like it’s supposed to be.
Anyway, just making a point that you can’t prove a negative. It’s PHYSICALLY impossible to prove a negative, lol. But like I’ve said, that’s not actually my personal belief. I choose to not pick sides, there could be a God, there could be multiple gods, there could be no god, who knows… I’ll find out when I die.
I think Maher is a terrific comedian with a sharp mind. I haven’t seen Religulous yet but I do expect to rent it , eventually .
I saw Maher promoting the film on The Hour ( CBC ) recently and it seems to me that he feels his perspective (as an atheist/agnostic ) is under-represented.
Discussing ( or even promoting ) religion is a very common and accepted thing. Atheists are , I think , often regarded scornfully and perhaps even considered subversive .
I do feel that faith can be a very valuable and important part of a person’s life.
I also feel that its very important to think for yourself and to learn what else is out there. In most aspects of life there’s more than one way to do things.
As for Maher making fun of the religous ……….well , the man IS a comedian. Thats just naturally going to be his approach to most any topic .
He’s promoting a movie , so he will try to push as many peoples buttons as he can . If you agree with him and go see his movie , great , that helps his project ; if you disagree with him and phone Larry King to say so , that helps his project too.
In show biz ( with the right spin ) there’s no such thing as bad PR.
His ” jokes ” cannot diminish the power or significance that your faith has in your life. So, don’t let him piss you off , people
That’s funny Jess, I was just saying that it isn’t right for people to attack other peoples’ beliefs… Thanks for agreeing with me??
Oh wow you lost me im so confused you can just ignore my last comment im haveing a really off day lol
Ken… I don’t think it’s really the place to debate religious philosophy but trust me when I say I’ve heard all the arguments and so far I’ve found each and every one fundamentally unsound.
To answer your question about proving a negative though… look up something called “the celestial teapot” or “the flying spaghetti monster”. These things are ludicrously silly (or are they not?)… but they do make the very valid point that just because something’s existence cannot be disproven, doesn’t mean it’s not REASONABLE to disbelieve it.
And Atheism has various interpretations… one being the complete “I KNOW FOR SURE there is no God” angle and the other “I REJECT the idea of a God, based on what I know and understand” angle. Nothing in this world can be known for absolute certain - just look at medical improvements since the days of Deadwood, less than 150 years ago - but we can move forward based on the knowledge we’ve ascertained thus far… and make reasonable projections as to what is likely the truth. As an Atheist, I actually am open to the idea of a conscious creator… ON THE CONDITION that if I believe in that, then I have to ALSO ask who or what created that. If the answer is “no one - God just simply IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN”, then the logical counter argument is “then why can’t nature and the universe not simply BE and ALWAYS HAS BEEN?” At some point, logic has to reconcile if you choose to use logic as ammunition.
Alternatively, you can have faith in a book and what your community has always taught you… and I’m okay with faith if it comes purely from what I guess you’d call “gut instinct”. If your journey has led you to faith, then - in some ways - I envy your conviction. But until that faith is put through the the full and unbiased wringer of rational questioning and scientific evidence, I don’t think it should dictate the progress of otherwise peaceful and non-religious people’s lives.
That is why I say I’m Atheist - because I’m passionate about making sure our society is not governed by what could well be viewed in the year 6008 in the same light as we today view the ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman religions and those practiced by native Americans and Australian Aborigines.
It’s not about offending people for the sake of it… it’s about trying to find the truth through looking at EVERY angle… and I think that’s what Bill Maher tries to do, when you truly look beyond his acerbic sense of humour.
I just got back from watching Fireproof… it was great to see such a different-flavored movie on the regular, big screen; this occurred to me as i dashed out to go to the bathroom in the middle of the movie, and walked by the pain-filled screaming coming from the Saw 5 theater
That’s a straw man argument if I ever heard one. So only ATHIESTS were going to turn out to see Maher’s movie? Not agnostics, Christians-in-name-only, etc.?
Heck if just the anti-religious members of the Digg community showed up to see the movie it probably would have beat “Fireproof” easily.
Vic
It’s just the wrong time for Religulous. Bill Mauher’s political affiliation mixed with how close it is to the election just tells me the intention was to do nothing more than act “controversial”.
What I’d like to know though is how much time is spent attacking which faith.
Vic I can still insult Bill Maher can’t I????
Fireproof is more of a movie where as Bills home movie is a pile of steaming crap,,, (who wants that?)
(Myself) I would never see Fireproof, just because its a story/topic I don’t care for…
It hardly matters to me if a religious group receives the profits from the film,,, sheesh its better than Disney or Sony !
^
Bill Maher, has always been a No-talent hack, and a vulgar tool…
I don’t like him!
Basically I wouldn’t see ether one of these “films”…
Oh and I love sleeping in on Sundays,,,
I’m an atheist/agnostic who saw Bill Maher’s movie cuz I heard it was funny. I was reluctant cuz I think Bill Maher is an arrogant dousche usually, but I actually really liked it. I can’t back this up, so I might be wrong, but I actually thought he was pretty respectful the whole time. He was definitely honest and logic the whole time.
To be fair, during the ONLY religious argument brought up that I actually related to (being formerly Jewish) was about an Orthodox anti-Zionist, he made the guy look dumb. I happen to know there’s a lot of logic behind that guy’s argument, so as far a I know every other religious argument was wrongly torn apart to a certain extent. I happen to not believe that to be the case, but it’s definitely possible.
While I understand the anger towards arrogant atheists, and I know there are many of them, I do feel there’s some logic to the “anti-religion crusade,” basically if it influences politics. But, I’m a hardcore libertarian: religion doesn’t lead to violence, government leads to violence, and they regularly hijack religion to do so.
Oh wait a sec. my Spellcheck software just got a laugh out of the title
“Religulous”
Mission acomplished turd, I mean D bag ,,, Bill,,,
Damn Spellcheck was taking over, nothing I could do,,,
Don’t get me wrong, I know not ALL atheists are spiteful, like I said, I feel EVERYONE is free to believe what they want, including atheists. But I stand by what I said that the core of atheism is standing AGAINST religion instead of for anything. Supporting science and evolution and all of those things DON’T make you an atheist. That simply makes you an agnostic, and some religious people also believe in all of those things. The only time you become an atheist is when you denounce the possibility of God’s existance.
a⋅the⋅ist [ey-thee-ist]
–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
While simply believing in science and evolution, but not believing in any specific God or any supreme being would make you agnostic. By not believing in, I don’t mean you are against the idea, just that you’re not specifically for it.
ag⋅nos⋅tic [ag-nos-tik]
–noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Think about it this way. Let’s pretend that there are no religions. Let’s say that, for some reason, in all the years it took for us to evolve into what we are today, nobody was curious enough about things they don’t understand to create a religion. So there is no Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Wicka, Scientologists, whatever, lol. I’m sorry, but there would also be no atheists. Atheism RELIES on the existance of religions and concepts of gods or supreme beings to denounce for it to exist. Now I know your argument for this, if there were no religions, EVERYONE will be atheists. I do not believe that is correct. I believe in that case everyone will be agnostic, because they don’t know, they don’t pretend to know, nor do they even think about it. To further support this, look at your own words:
Kane wrote:
“As an Atheist, I actually am open to the idea of a conscious creator… ON THE CONDITION…”
I personally believe that you have mistaken yourself for an atheist, but you are, in fact, an agnostic, since you are saying you are open to the idea of a conscious creator. Even though you are giving conditions and criteria, a true atheist believes that there is no such thing, regardless of conditions or criteria.
But like I said, not all atheists conduct themselves in an insulting way. Some people are atheists but simply keep their beliefs their own opinion and do not express them against religious people in an antagonistic manner. But sorry to say this, but EVERY true atheist I’ve ever met have always been very spiteful and hateful in the way they confront religious people or the concept of religion. Most don’t antagonize the people themselves, but if the topic of religion is ever brought up, they have nothing but negative and condescending things to say about the religion and the people who follow them.
But just to set things straight, I’m agnostic, I’m not religious. I 100% believe that we evolved from an ape that was very similar to the chimpanzee. Most people misunderstand the theory of evolution as saying we evolved from the chimpanzee, it doesn’t. In fact, both humans and chimpanzee’s evolved from the same ape, but the chimpanzee remained very similar while we took a path not taken by the rest of them.
Which brings on the arguments over which theory of human evolution people choose to believe. There has to be isolation for us to evolve in such an independent way from the others. The Savannah theory is WRONG, sorry to anyone who still believes it, but it has been proven wrong for many years, but nobody has another theory to replace it with, so the scientific community is hesitant on making any kind of public campaign to denounce the savannah theory. Well, I don’t want to hijack this any further, but I actually like discussing that, so if you would like to discuss issues with evolution, email me at slagman5@yahoo.com as long as you promise to keep it friendly, lol.
Well Oren, I’ve read several people say that he wasn’t too critical or seemed like he was out for blood on this one. So having not seen the film, I’ll have to conceed to your assessment of the film. I’m still not going to see it, but simply because I’m not too interested in these wannabe documentaries I like to call mockumentaries we see in theaters lately… blame Michael Moore…
Human life could have also been seeded on Earth by alien beings, that took the very chimpanzie dna, and altered it with 5 other life forms.
The end result “US”. They drop off some text books next thing ya know over time those text books become lore…
We will all find out one day,,,
People who saw fireproof have little taste in movies. They don’t care that it’s not good, they just care that it reaffirms their own beliefs. Not as many people went to see religulous because they know its not great, and have no interest in seeing a bad movie.
I haven’t seen either, but anticipate seeing both, probably Religulous more than Fireproof.
To be honest I don’t think any of this is a religious matter. I know a large amount of religious people who watch documentaries I have on and read books which I read (mainly anti religion + anti politis stuff).
Someone said before that it is probably due to Fireproof being a movie and Religulous being documentary.
@Kane : I see someone reads /watches Richard Dawkins
@fracaso089
I saw Fireproof and I happen to think its quite good, religion aside. I happened to see it with an atheist friend and he also thought it was good.
Obviously you have some pretty strong opinions, but when they insult others they really dont have a place here.
Can’t we have a civilized discussion about movies without insulting people who disagree with our opinions. Dissenting opinions are not inherently wrong, they are just different.
Btw, I think the word “atheism” may have described decades ago what is currently contained in “atheism” and “agnosticism;” it may have meant both “I don’t believe in G-d” and “I don’t know…” I say this because I read an Ayn Rand essay years ago (and I’m not recalling it well) where she described herself as atheist, but explicitly said she doesn’t believe “G-d doesn’t exist,” just that she doesn’t know either way. I’ve tried to look this up (well, on Wikipedia), and haven’t found anything showing this to be the case or not the case.
@Oren Reich
Let me get this straight,,, you don’t believe in G-d… “because I read an Ayn Rand essay years ago?”
Bro, you need to expand your mind,,, there’s plenty of books on the afterlife.
Check out some of Raymond Moodys work. Ghessh,,,
Ken… I’m not going to get into a debate over your classification of my ideology. Religion was my major at Uni, and I’ve spent many years since then refining my views.
Whether or not you happen to classify me as Agnostic or Atheist is inconsequential to me and a simple matter of semantics (and which dictionary you used). But the point I was making is that my acceptance of a “God” would be dependent on irrefutable evidence, in which case that “God” would simply be part of science, everyday reality and nature. And, as I said, I would then continue investigating this “God’s” origin… and so forth… and so on.
Maybe I’m not saying everything I need to to make my points here… since I go over these circular arguments on a weekly basis and frankly can’t be bothered touching on every detail and every piece of fallacious logic every time… but, in my understanding, an Agnostic simply doesn’t know and simply doesn’t care to investigate the issues. That’s fine… but I consider myself an Atheist in that I do believe strongly that no religion on Earth has the answers they believe they have in their holy books. I believe they are myths and legends, written within certain contexts and in very particular societies, not to be taken literally. And - you’re right - without the world’s religions, there would be no Atheism. But the fundamental search for science would remain, as would the idea that people should be free to govern their own existence without interference by other people’s ideologies, so long as they do no harm to others themselves. Yes, Atheism is a reaction to something else… and it tends to be aggressive… but I liken that to angry African-Americans or women when the otherwise accepted (not to mention hateful, spiteful and antagonistic) status quo says it’s obvious they should be denied a right to vote… or earn an equal income… or commune in the same space.
It’s all part of a process… and, for the time being, Atheists just happen to be the next frustrated minority fighting to have what they see as pure common sense heard.
Oh, and by the way… we’ve agreed Atheism wouldn’t exist without religion… but why does it never come up that the idea of “God” might never have existed in the first place without the earliest neanderthals looking at the Sun and trying to explain the world?
Religious belief has been evident - and ever-evolving - since the dawn of humankind. I’d like to think we’re still evolving to realise the closest thing we may have to “God” is the unconscious nature surrounding us, not some angry and spiteful deity spending his time judging everybody and telling them why otherwise harmless acts are “bad”.
I have a friend who is an atheist.
she has many friends of faith ,
She kind of breaks the stereotype of the angry non believer.
She is actually one of the nicest people I know .
great sense of humor too.
“Learning” politics or religion at a university is about the worst thing to do. I remember University. I got thrown out of a class because I disagreed with a theory the professor was teaching. You get their side of the story and only their side.
Of course neither side is going to convince the other here, so any attempt to do so is really pointless.
Vic
Ken you constantly surprise me…
Anyway, please stop playing the pity card. I’m an agnostic, I believe I’m a minority. I’m also a minority in terms of my race and I was a minority in my political views in my University when I was still in earning my BS. Being a minority doesn’t hurt you unless you’re really concerned about what others think about you. I fought my point of view because they were MY beliefs. I can care less if people agreed with me or not. In fact, I felt being a minority in my opinion was an advantage in keeping persepctive. I don’t have a circle jerk that would eliminate checks and balances and allow for a more objective view on your own opinion so you can learn and adapt if need be.
So seriously, stop playing this whole “we are the frustrated minority” bit. It doesn’t win you any favors.
Not trying to be mean, just saying so the discussion can be more focused.
Well Vic, on the flip side, that curiosity of where we came from has also helped develop religion.
Nothing wrong with curiosity… Well, except when you’re a cat and it kills you…
Wow… I really need to stop illustrating points by making simplified, sweeping statements and utilising the narrative power of exaggeration. I guess I make the mistake of assuming people understand irony/sarcasm and can read between lines.
(By the way… I’m aware the arrogant-sounding me is surfacing, so I’ll bow out soon) ;o)
As for me studying religion at Uni… I don’t know how tertiary education works where you studied, Ken, but where I went they don’t “teach” you their biased opinion… they give you facts and readings from many different perspectives and ask you to discuss them amongst the class (you know… form your own opinions and justify them in writing that is susequently marked by two people). It’s a pretty scary world if - by the time you’re at university age - you can be kicked out of class for disagreeing with someone whose job it is to simply guide critical thinking, no matter which direction it goes in.
And just to throw it out there… Vic… how do we actually know for certain that humans are the only creatures to ponder their existence? Has a method been discovered to tell whether a being is pondering something or not? Or have we just grown up to assume this supposed “common knowledge” is indeed a fact? (The world is flat and cigarettes are harmless, anyone?) We know animals don’t have the means to communicate their thoughts to us… but that’s as far as that goes. I guess the “common knowledge” does affirm that other unique human feature, though: the presumption that we’re “special”.
Oh… and Ken… that bit about irony/sarcasm and exaggeration was in reference to your “pity card” statement.
I don’t pity myself - I’m just aware that the non-religious are one of the most silent minorities at this point. That’s not something I sit home and cry over. It’s a fact.
I really can’t stand Maher. I am an atheist, but I have no interest in seeing his film. I wish that I could say that I would be able to put my views aside and enjoy fireproof, but in all honesty I would probably be rolling my eyes during the entire movie. I’m just not sure I could get beyond the message. Just trying to be honest.
Also I would like to add though I may not believe in God I am still a republican and this makes yet another person voting for Mccain that can use the computer and I make decent money doing it.
LMAO, “silent” minority??? They are the ones that cry about everything. “Oh, they have In God We Trust on the dollar,” “Oh, you say ‘under god’ in the pledge of allegiance,” “Oh, they have a statue of Moses with the ten commandments in front of the court house,” wah wah wah wah wah.
Yah, they are soooo silent…
And if you don’t think your professors are skewing the information they assign as “required readings” so what you get out of it is leaning toward their own personal views on the matter, then you’re either really naive or you simply believe in the same point of view as the professor. You know the only unbiased news source is the one you agree with right?
Do you consider University of Illinois in Chicago and Northwestern University good schools? Of course they are, but they still have William Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dorhn as professors there. Are you going to say that you don’t think they are a bit “biased” (more like extreme) in their teachings? Oh yah, I’m sure they are 100% objective and they let their students decide… Riiiight… haha
So I don’t know about the people you have as professors where you are, but where I am, they are human beings with their own biases and opinions. Everyone is biased and prejudiced in their own way, but maybe they are magically immune to that where you are since you must live in that perfect town you always see on the Walgreens commercials…
@ Daniel
Uh oh, be careful, haven’t you been watching the news? If you vote McCain you must be racist. They might scrutinize your personal history and check if you’ve paid your taxes if you try to question anything.
If you didn’t already when Vic mentioned it before, maybe now is a good time for you to look up the “straw man”.
And with that, I’m off… I can see it getting far too personal shortly and I’m learning self control.
Shlater!
I personally hated Kendrick’s other movie “Facing the Giants”, and I am a Christian. I’d watch “Religulous” long before I’d ever watch “Fireproof”, and every time I hear another one of my Christian friends who say they went and saw “Fireproof”, a little of me dies inside.
I haven’t seen “Facing the Giants” but I certainly can’t understand your comment about “Fireproof.”
Being married and having my own tendency towards anger I thought the movie was very meaningful in showing that he couldn’t turn himself around on his own and had to reach out to God for help.
Vic
I went on a website that asked you a series of questions to find out which religion you are closest to. After answering all the questions, the software came to the conclusion that I was a member of 27 different religions, including Judaism, Jehovah Witness, Mormon, Baptist, Zen, Buddhist, Sikkhism, etc… I call myself Christian but don’t cling to one denomination over another; I have also been known to read Thich Nhat Hanh, a Buddhist Christian.
Having said that, I tend not to spend money on documentaries so if I did have to choose which movie to see, it would be Fireproof. I have seen movies my pastors would slap me on the wrist for but I tend to enjoy movies more that are less vulgar.
I would get into this conversation you all are having pertaining to the facets of religious belief over non-religious but my experience has been this usually ends up heated with no one side gaining favor over the other. I know Vic is policing the thread but I can see some animosity growing between a few posters. All I can offer is let’s all try to be mindful of each other’s feelings. I, for one, have been shaking my head with saddness because for soo many years this battle has been waged with no one side coming any closer to victory. I just pray that one day a person’s opinion about the metaphysical won’t elicit such string, and at times hostile, behavior. This is a site for movies and TV shows; let’s try to remember that, my fellow humans.
Religulous will find its audience on DVD. At the end of the day its still a documentary. As for Fire proof- The creators did a great job marketing it to churches around the country. Pound for pound it will probably be one of the most profitable films of the year as it cost just $500,000 to produce.
I’m gonna have to agree with CinemaBlend.com (9th post from the top), the two films are completely different.
Religulous is a documentary and Fireproof is a drama.
Religulous is not anti-religion as you’re stating Vic. It’s about understanding why religious extremist are so certain of themselves as to take all the little quotes from the bible literally. You see, you can have faith but to be 100% certain of the accuracy of everything in the bible? That is extremism and that is what this documentary is all about. And that’s what Bill Maher has been trying to explain about his documentary in all of his talk show appearances.
Fireproof is a drama about a firefighter going through a divorce and finding faith to help him find back love.
Two different films. Neither is anti-religion. One questions extremism in faith and uses humour to do so, the other tells a story to promote faith as a solution to your marriage (lol).
Sabin, all Maher is doing is finding an argument that is easier to make fun of in order to make a general statement about religion in general. He knows if he makes fun of “normal” religious people, nobody will want to watch the film and a lot of people will be insulted. By using extremists to mock in the film, it brings the audience and at the same time the general message you get out of it is “those religious people are so crazy.” I’m not saying he’s being anti-religion, I haven’t seen it, but it’s a VERY common tactics in these types of hollywood mockumentaries. Look at Borat, they picked real extreme cases of Americans to make fun of on the big screen, but do people go, “oh, those are only the REALLY dumb ones.” No, they see it and say “oh, look how dumb and racist Americans are.” That’s what these people do.
I thought you wrote a fair comment until you added a “lol” to using faith to save a marriage.
I’d love to see some stats on divorce stats between committed Christians and those with less faith.
I haven’t seen Religulous yet, but I guess I will now once it’s out on DVD. I did hear that Maher’s closing statement in the film is about as anti-religious as you can get, even from atheist websites, so methinks you’re not exactly being objective.
Vic
I’ve seen the first two Kendricks movies. Sure, they are thinly produced on paper thin budgets.
Flywheel started out as an internal project for the church whose members acted in the movie. Demand grew and grew, so they released it more widely.
Facing the Giants has a scene that makes grown men cry with joy. I hear sniffles in men’s groups that this has been shown in. It’s a story close to every man’s hart. A guy who’s been just skating along, is provoked to reach inside to find passion he didn’t know was there. The way this scene unfolds is one of the best scenes of any movie.
If anyone has seen this movie, do you agree with me about the death crawl?
boundingsquirrel(at)yahoo(dot)com
Ok well i admit i haven’t seen Religulous yet but i will on dvd someday.
@Ken
If I understand your point, are you saying Maher’s film may not be anti-religion but he may be using extremism as an excuse to sell his film?
heh Look, i’m of the firm belief that you can criticize religions without actually insulting the actual faith. Every religion hold some form of extremism or another. If you tend to think that extremism is a positive thing that should be enforced in all religions, then that’s your opinion. But i find extremism should be discouraged as it gives all manner of faith a bad name. So Maher, making a documentary trying to expose the bad apples from the bag so to speak, to me is really just helping people of faith to identify the problems so they can stop it before it goes too far.
I’ve seen Maher go on all the talk shows (Daily Show, Letterman, Jay Leno, etc) and he keeps trying very hard to explain to everyone that Religulous isn’t about hating religion at all. It’s about how extremist-organizations are manipulating religious people.
If you watch Maher’s show, you’ll notice how he never insults the beliefs and faith of any guest on his show. He questions them and criticize them, sure. But never insults them. You question what you need to understand. This is not a means to insult, it’s human to do so.
I’m not making any statements about whether or not extremism is a good thing or not. But judging from it being called “extreme” I would assume that would make it a negative thing.
Anyway, my point is that Maher is setting up a straw man. Instead of directly insulting religions in general, he picks an argument that’s easier to win and knocks that one out of the park instead. So instead of simply coming out and saying that he thinks that only dumb people are religious, he picks on extreme cases of seemingly irrational people and then associating those responses to their religious faith.
He knows that if he conducted the same interview with people who are simply religious, like any of you who may be religious, that person will simply give a completely rational response.
No fun in that now is there?
Upon being accused of having an oral fixation, Freud said; Sometimes a cigar is just cigar!
The only thing I’ve seen from Facing the Giants is that football crawl scene on youtube. I didn’t know what it was from at the time but it blew me away as inspirational for ANYONE (it had nothing to do with religion).
Vic
Vic
The online presence of atheists vs christians is merely because the former have a larger internet presence. The latter are alot more common in the real world.
I think a lot of the same issues exist. Agnostics/Atheists make up a small amount of this population. A lot of people do not want to put their beliefs under a microscope and be forced to confront some of the discrepancies between logic and religion.
I think Maher’s movie was not going to do well for a few reasons. Pre-conceived notions of Bill Maher, and those were not proven wrong. He’s liberal. He’s loud. He’s often obnoxious to many. Hard to bring people to the theater to see a movie you don’t want to see strictly because a person is so divisive.
Second, I think the issue at hand, unlike Michael Moore films is incredibly personal. A believer is a believer, regardless of what extent. Many people are aware of the problems religion creates when viewed under a highly skeptical logical framework. People, rightly or wrongly, do not need to have someone they already detest force the issue onto them.
I think those two issues alone make it highly unlikely Maher’s movie was going to do well. I, being an agnostic, enjoyed the secular arguments presented in Maher’s movie. His personality is grating. It was too long in that regard, and I still think his picture of religion was pretty narrow. Judaism did not receive the same level of scrutiny as Protestant Christianity or Radical Islam.
Regardless, Kirk Cameron is just as obnoxious, and because I’ve garnered the aspect of the movie I’m not sure I can sit through another hour and a half of someone who has such an awful personality like I did with Maher’s :\
I haven’t seen Fireproof, but I did see Religulous, and was disappointed.
Not surprising that a scrappy melodrama with a hopeful message would outperform a depressing documentary hosted by a bitter wise guy.
It seems to me that the amount of effort made in putting forth and then fervently defending this point of view vastly outweighs the amount of effort such a pithy observation deserves.
“Vic” clearly is upset about something else. McCain losing perhaps? Maybe some more films by religious nutjobs will help you feel better.
Fireproof was one of the best movies I had ever seen. Very emotional.
Jif
http://www.Privacy-Center.net
Don’t know how Fireproof grossed so much at the box office???
Because the fundamental Christian society that founded the very nation we call home is finally coming back out of the “Lets be quiet and not interfere with society” closet and making a stand against the rising tide of hate, fear, and sin in America.
Look at our nation 200 years ago. There were no shootings in our schools, there wasn’t a nightly homicide to tell about in the news, people didn’t cuss each other out, and our government was prosperous and pure in it’s intentions of protecting freedom. What WAS present 200 years ago was a society of people who loved each other, were kind, forgiving, and did not waver on the fact that there is a clear definition of what is wrong and what is right, and they didn’t turn their eyes or fill their pocketbooks while wrongful injustices were being done in our nation.
I too was “forced’ to watch it by my wife, and went with another couple. Both my wifes friends husband and me were making wise cracks all night. We both ended up enjoying the movie actually and were very surprised that it was much better than expected.
I’ve never heard of Fireproof, but Religulous was flawless. Perhaps the best movie I’ve seen all year, and I’ve seen a lot of movies this year.
Ok, Vic…
Fireproof is an entertainment film, “FICTION”.
Religulous is a documentary “NONFICTION”.
Documentaries NEVER make as much box office clearing as entertainment films. Its a known movie industry standard.
Only recently have documentaries approached the level of box office clearing as entertainment films. This is a specious argument.
Just so you have your facts straight EVERYONE.
Fireproof @ boxofficemojo (they keep track of EVERYTHING)
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fireproof.htm
Religulous @ @ boxofficemojo
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=religulous.htm
And as an added bonus: For documentary proof. Jesus Camp was a documentary for atheists about Christians… it barely grossed $900k (domestic) what does that say about your theories?
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jesuscamp.htm
The truth is Christians ARE a larger pool of potential movie goers, but its more than that. Christians are ALL part of a “built-in” network, that meets… um… once a week. You don’t think word of mouth is an effective marketing campaign anymore?
Honestly, a lot of atheists/agnostics knew about Religulous, and from my meanderings online… they all know or have the inkling Larry Charles will most likely release it free online, eventually. Yes, I just stereotyped my own peeps, online tech-savvy atheists/agnostics, as cheapskates. I still love ‘em though!
I thought Religulous was hilarious, but it wasn’t supposed to be a comedy. It was supposed to make you think about religion in this country, and to ask questions.
Then again, I’m a militant atheist who knows science is the candle in the dark, not primitive mysticism. Maybe that taints my views.
@Johnathan Tate
Please review history. This country was founded by a group of men, many of whom despised religion, especially Christianity.
As such, by a similar line of reasoning, if we went BACK to having more people in power who despise religion (esp. Christianity), we’ll have less school shootings.
Logic was never the religious person’s strong point, though.
You are compairing a anti-religious documentary with a christian themed action-y film. One had a much wider distribution, etc.
The author is obviously trying to say religious movies do much better than non-religious ones. While this may be true (all evidence to the contrary) these two movies weren’t the best examples.
Generally I think people will see good movies, even if they have a pro or anti religious pretext. You can point to the Narnia and Golden Compass, but they didn’t do poorly because of message, they did poorly because the movies weren’t any good.
Generally I think a better indicator is gross/screens. I think by that metric Fireproof might still have beat Religulous. Generally people like entertainment more than polemics. Religulous preaches to the converted, Fireproof is entertaining, and doesn’t try TOO hard to shoehorn the message in.
It’s all about entertainment folks, get off your high horses and enjoy the movie.
Also, you may want to note that Beverly Hills Chihuahua earn way more than either film.
What does this mean? Is the belief system of the Chihuahua superior the others due higher box office gross?
No.
They are different films with different audiences.
If you really want make comparisons then wouldn’t it be Expelled vs Religulous?
Expelled: Opening Weekend: $2,970,848 in 1,052 theaters
Religulous: Opening Weekend: $3,409,643 in 502 theaters
I’m not upset about anything - in fact I’m pleased. I was just surprised is all. When you spend a lot of time online you start think that that folks with your point of view vastly outnumber people with mine.
Until you step outside your front door and actually go interact with people.
Have a nice day.
Vic
All that talk is there because it is right. Chihuahua and Body of lies are entertainment, just like Fireproof. Religulous is a documentary. It’s much easier to find an audience for entertainment (drama/comedy/etc) than it is for a documentary. The former are movies, the latter isn’t. Taking a large room of people it’s easy to say a large proportion wouldn’t mind watching/hearing a story versus watching interviews for 2 hours.
In any case I haven’t, nor do I intend to see either movie. Bill Maher’s is probably just the same old entry level discussion on religion like you get here or in all comment threads.
Reading some of the comments here…maybe Maher is building a straw man, like I said I haven’t seen it, but I could easily see it as being something along the lines of ‘look, extremism of any sort is silly, and it’s up to the normally quiet people who aren’t extremists but might be part of the greater whole to start speaking up and making it known that they are reasonable and far more normal than they are being made out to be in the media because extremists get all the attention. It’s just like how I always tell people that it is beyond silly to blame religion for all bad things, but it’s agnostics/atheists like that that get all the attention. The reason the internet is amazing is that the normals can talk to each other now instead of letting blowhards represent them in some way.
Well I’m an athiest and I hadn’t heard of either of these movies.
Your warning about the middle of the movie might apply to me. I didn’t find that modern-day Noah movie entirely reprehensible. I was also raised roman catholic so I would know what they’re talking about. I suppose a community made movie might be alright but paying box-office prices to see it might be a bit much.
I think in the end, the people who might share the same POV as Bill might not even care to see it in movie form. Either they don’t like belittling or they think it’s a moot point.
For me religion was something I was never really sure about. I’m still not and that’s why I’m an athiest. I can’t say for sure whether a diety exists or not because I can’t provide empirical proof either way. Because of this I choose not to trouble myself in my daily life about it and rather choose to live a just and productive life.
In the end, if there were a diety who is truly benhevolent and wise, that’s probably all they would want.
I forgot to post the follow-on comparison to Jesus Camp.
Expelled did quite well, considering it was an Intelligent Design (Christians) advocacy movie about atheism (”Darwinists”).
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm
Jesus Camp was nominated for an Oscar… Is Expelled even in the running for a documentary Oscar nomination?
I can’t imagine why this film would do so good in America either!
God is an attractive subject for a lot of people in this country, and I’m sure most people in this country would rather look at kirk for an hour and a half than watch maher talk about religion.
Oh please tell me you guys don’t actually believe these so-called “documentaries” that are released in theaters are “non-fiction.” Sure they are not typical movie productions, but they are FAR from non-fiction. I hate when they are called “documentaries.” History Channel’s show about the USS Enterprise (WWII battleship, not Star Trek) was a documentary. Discovery’s Atlas series is a documentary. All of this garbage you see in the theaters by people like Maher, Moore, and anyone else releasing so-called “documentaries” in the theaters, those are called documentary style movies. Or what I like to call “mockumentaries.” Seriously guys, they are movie productions like everything else. Sure they use some real people in there, but sorry to tell you this, a lot of the people in these mockumentaries are actually paid actors, or simply normal people paid to say a certain thing that supports their point. And even the people who were not paid, their comments are cut and rearranged in a way so their message is different than they originally intended.
I’m not talking specifically about Religulous, I haven’t seen it, but it’s true with everyone mockumentary I’ve seen so far.
If you don’t believe me, go watch Fahrenheit 9/11 again. I know it’s torture, but just look for these things. One of his first “experts” claims to have been in some “joint” operation between the FBI and CIA investigating something to do with terrorism prior to 9/11. Well, I’m sure if Moore would have done some research, he would have realized that before the creation of The Department of Homeland Security which was a RESULT of 9/11, the sharing of information pertaining to terrorism between the FBI and CIA was ILLEGAL and thus, IMPOSSIBLE for this so-called “joint operation” to have occurred prior to 9/11. Sorry to tell you, but that guy was paid to say that.
Then look at the scene with the family talking about their son that was killed in Iraq. Moore cut the interview to turn their praise of their son into a sob story that had an anti-war flavor. That same family angrily protested the movie afterward when they saw that their words were twisted so he can use them in his documentary to prove his own point of view. They have said that they are proud of their son and that they DON’T feel that he died in vain. They are not idiots like so many other people are and realize if you talk down about the conflict they fought and died in after they voluntarily joined the military in a time of conflict, you are talking down the efforts and sacrifice of that person. I HATE it when these people pretend to be fighting for our troops. They are not, they are fighting for their own political agenda and are using our troops as a sympathetic argument. We in the military do not WANT these morons using us for their cause. But anyway, sorry again, that was an example where he took real people’s statements and twisted their meaning for his mockumentary.
So please, I don’t care if you like them. I don’t care if you agree with them, but just at least stop trying to convince everyone that they are “non-fiction” or are “documentaries.” I watch documentaries all the time, yes I’m a dork, but I love all of those Battle for Midway shows, or the shows talking about how modern weaponry came to be, or whatever. Those are documentaries. The stuff you see in the theaters are entertainment, nothing more.
I personally enjoyed Religulous. And judging by the reaction in the theatre, so did most people there.
Really, it’s hilarious. Maybe not so much if you’re religious since the film does have some of the most ridiculous bunch out of the religious crowd. Like people who believe in end times and all that.
I hadn’t heard of Fireproof. Sounds like it could be a good movie?
I’m sure I’ll be downloading Religulous. Maybe Fireproof too if I like the trailer.
Well, speaking as one of those spiteful atheist types, I was wavering on whether I wanted to see it or not. Frankly, there’s a sort of a fish-in-a-barrel aspect to these kinds of films: in any creed, it’s too easy to find a crop of over-the-top true believers to poke fun at, and the previews I saw seemed to indicate the movie was going to go in that direction.
Unfortunately, I didn’t get to decide on my own because (as some have touched on here) no theater in my area would carry it–I think I looked and the nearest one was St Louis, 3 hours away :/. So that’s definitely a factor.
Religulous was hilarious. Of course, if you believe in magic, you might think otherwise, as it does insult the intelligence of believers.
An exercise in intellectual superiority? Yup. And I don’t care.
“Granted, Fireproof opened on 60% more screens”
Logic does not apply???
Religilous hasn’t been showing at any theater in the Myrtle Beach, SC area.
I imagine there are probably other backwards areas of the country that also refuse to air it.
I suspect this might explain the difference in box office numbers…
I think one problem is that Religulous did not open anywhere…..
When the movie released the advertising went away and for a week after it was in theaters not one theater in my state would air it.
On monday of this week my local theater started playing it, and I went and saw it.
I dug around online and found that their were alot of people who wanted to see it, but did not want to drive an hour and a half to do it.
I thought Religulous was really funny, It was more slapstick and random funny rather than an attempt to smear religion with humor. The funny parts were not the religious parts, it was the odd quirks everywhere in the movie that made it enjoyable.
Using the internet to gauge public opinion is a bad idea. If the internet were real life, Ron Paul would be winning a landslide right now.
Sigh. My point is that I thought it might have done much better considering the current (apparent) social climate in the US.
Vic
I rarely get involved in these sorts of discussions, but it seems like the answer is very obvious:
Fireproof - # of Theaters: 898
Religulous - # of Theaters: 452
This ratio has stayed pretty consistent over a three week period. This is about the number of theaters showing the movie, not some social endorsement.
Religulous is also a documentary. Many theaters don’t play them, and audiences by and large steer clear from the big screen and wait for the small screen.
Wait for the ancillary markets to come into play in a year from now. Maher doc will have outearned Fireproof in gross — but most likely not net profits.
quoth ken:
I hate when they are called “documentaries.”
Feelings don’t change the reality. Documentaries are meant to inform, or provide information on a specific topic of interest.
The history channel “documentaries” on specific topics or places are just historical films or docu-drama (reenactments). That’s a whole other category in the film industry.
For example:
ALAMO: THE PRICE OF FREEDOM
is a docu-drama (reenactment historical film)
KILIMANJARO: TO THE ROOF OF AFRICA
is an expedition documentary
Both are in IMAX theaters (a commercial theater).
Expelled, Jesus Camp, Super Size Me, Fahrenheit 9/11 AND Religulous all have a point they explore to inform the masses… albeit a controversial one that people may not agree with. I might believe that Everest is a much more interesting mountain than Kilimanjaro, or that the Alamo “went down” completely different… but you don’t see me writing up a blog post on the box office take for each film or b!tching about inaccurate comparisons to other films with a message that I personally agree/disagree with… like Vic.
I find it amazing how many people who openly say they haven’t seen Religulous are ready to call it “senseless.” If you actually sit down and watch the movie, you may find that even though you don’t agree with Maher or many of his arguments at least they are thought provoking if you are open minded enough to think. I thought the movie was funny. Not great, but it had some moments.
PS Ken J, you are a closed minded putz…sorry. Religulous is first and foremost a comedy, because it stars…wait for it…a comedian. It is also a documentary insofar as it documents Maher exploration of a topic. Documentaries can NEVER be objective unless it is pure surveillance footage. Everything on film is presenting a side of an argument, consciously