You make a lot of sense, but I wanted to point out that while period dramas are not often on the top ten box office lists, they still make money – enough money that they keep getting made, anyway, despite being costly. I looked at the current list of box office top earners and yeah, action and thriller films dominate with a romantic comedy and a kids’ film thrown in, though it looks like a comedy-drama has top billing. But quiet period films about families have their audiences too. If we talk about target audiences, theirs is as large as the action film target audience. I’m trying not to say “old people and women go to the movies too”, but… yeah. Besides, this is a film that a) has a hook (Darwin) and b) is getting smashing reviews; you’d think it would be at least as distributable as The Young Victoria, which is actually getting bad reviews – that is, if there really isn’t a controversy.

So, while I agree that if the “controversy” gets enough coverage it will be good for the film, I also wouldn’t be surprised if there’s genuine political resistance to it and that the producer’s frustration is genuine, especially since his words (“I can’t believe this is still a hot potato in America”) resonate with a lot of Europeans.

What you really want in the film are frickin’ IGUANAS with frickin’ laser beams attached to their frickin’ heads. They can swim out to The Beagle and steal it from Darwin. Muuhaahaahaa.

Bravo! Bravo my good man!

Bettany’s previous role in Master and Commander – interested scientist collecting specimens in obscure parts of the world while being intellectual companion to a ship’s captain – was pretty Darwinesque, and (relatively) action-Darwin too.

I expect the claims of “too controverisal!” are just an attempt to create controversy where there is none, and will be none. There’s a place in America for thoughtful, reflective films (or boring ones, to use another formulation), but it isn’t the mass market. John’s suggested scenario with explosions and breasts is right on. A bad movie with them will usually make lots more money than a good movie without.

But the “controversial!!!” tactic reminds me of Oliver Stone’s dyspeptic screed about Alexander not doing well because the religious people, rather than protesting, ignored the film. If the film flops, claim it was too controversial. If your target responds with “Huh? What? Sorry, I wasn’t paying attention,” then maybe you’re barking up the wrong tree.

lol whut

Why didn’t they have the HMS Beagle full of cannons (not canons!) and add pirates and they find an alien who is lovable, but then they feed it and it “evolves” into a killing machine and they have to sort out a way to kill it but then the religious types plant a mole in the headquarters of Evolution, Inc. who will rise up to assassinate Darwin so the Red Chinese can take over the whole evolution story (it REALLY started in China) but then Spartans come and kick their asses , just before losing the whole war to the chinese gremlin lovers. Sort of Master and Commander meets Pirates of the Caribbean meets E.T. meets Gremlins meets the Manchurian Candidate meets 300.

Oh and film it in 3-D. And at the end , when the entire Gallapagos Island chain is a smoking destroyed landscape the camera will pan back to have Al Gore with a feather in his hair gaze across the ruined landscape with a single tear running down his face. FADE OUT.

What is this about Jennifer Connelly’s breasts, anyway? I’m sure they’re very nice, but you can see nice breasts on the Internet for free.