“Expelled” Available in Bankruptcy Court

We just spotted this at the website of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE): Expelled on the block? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed — the 2008 creationist propaganda movie fronted by Ben Stein — is scheduled to be auctioned, lock, stock, and barrel, pursuant to the bankruptcy proceeding of Premise Media Holdings LP.

That company may not be the actual producer of Expelled! We thought the producer was something called Premise Media Corporation, and that may still be solvent; we don’t know. From the similarity of names, the entity in bankruptcy proceedings appears to be part of the same operation. It owns the film and the court is selling it free and clear of all debts and liens.

We’ll give you one more excerpt, then we know you’re going to click over to NCSE to read their entire article:

[T]he trustee of the bankruptcy estate is seeking to auction “[t]hat certain feature-length motion picture (‘Picture’) ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ and all collateral, allied, ancillary, subsidiary and merchandising rights therein and thereto, and all properties and things of value pertaining thereto.” The auction is scheduled to take place on-line from June 23 to June 28, 2011.

For the briefest of moments we imagined bidding on the film, but we swiftly came to our senses. Even if our bid of $1 (we certainly wouldn’t pay more) were successful, then what? We don’t want anything to do with that sleaze.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to ““Expelled” Available in Bankruptcy Court

  1. How ironic! It there was any doubt that creationism and intelligent design were intellectually bankrupt this is the proof. Ha! Ha! Ha!

  2. Nice to know that someone connected to that ignorant travesty paid the price for intellectual fraud. So there is some accountability left in Hollywood after all.

    BTW, purchasing the rights isn’t a terrible idea. As the new copyright owner you could reissue an official, annotated version that tells the truth. You could include straightforward interviews that aren’t deceptive or “creatively edited”, add real evidence in place of trumped-up “insinuendo”, or add a running commentary that answers, point-for-point, all the deliberate distortions and willful misinformation in the film.

    That would be like fighting fire with fire, because it’s more or less the same tactic that the two “Banana Boys” did with their willfully bogus and slanderous “150th anniversary” edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species.

  3. Spot on, magpie61.

    Of course under fair use, you can do some of that already, to a limited extent, but if you owned the rights, you could go whole hog and re-release the updated and “corrected” movie without fear of legal action, because you would be the legal copyright owner.

    Maybe there’s a rich pro-science philanthropist out there who could buy the rights and team up with some pro-science movie makers to “fix” Ben Stein’s little turd of a movie.

  4. Buy the rights and re-release? That was exactly what I was thinking!

    “EXPELLED: SPECIAL EDITION – With enhanced special effects, never before seen full length interviews, pop up lie correction footnotes, unedited running commentary by PZ Myers, and Michael Egnor riding a duback. Loook for it in theaters this fall!”

  5. Biokid: “How ironic! It there was any doubt that creationism and intelligent design were intellectually bankrupt this is the proof. Ha! Ha! Ha!”

    With all the hoopla over “cdegign proponentsists” (itself way back in 1987) everyone seems to miss how “scientific” creationism all but admitted its own failure no later than the mid ’80s by adopting a “don’t ask, don’t tell what happened when” policy. When the “don’t ask, don’t tell whodunit” was added, it officially became ID, which I dub the “central pseudoscience,” because it can accommodate virtually everything, and rests solely on pretending that there’s a “conspiracy” in mainstream science to a gullible, scinece-challenged public.

    The “natural” endpoint of that sleazy “evolution” is the unavoidable “Hitler” card. Thus “Expelled” was the Triple Crown of (1) avoiding any reference to an alternate testable “theory,” (2) whining about a nonexistent “conspiracy,” and (3) the Hitler card.

    As magpie61 recommeds, I do hope that a pro-science group, preferably not one with a liberal or atheist agenda, buys the rights, and publishes “the rest of the story.” The hard part is to get public interest. I fear that “Expelled” did poorly not because it’s sleazy paranoid propaganda, but because the public just has minimal interest that kind of documentary, whether or not it’s truthful.

    Whether or not “the rest of the story” comes out in film, it’s already there online in “Expelled Exposed.” BTW, for the heck of it I emailed Ben Stein twice 2-3 years ago, and “asked around” if anyone heard of his responses to “Set Ben Straight” (In “Expelled Exposed”). From what I can tell he is in hiding on this issue. That’s not what one would expect from someone with the confidence he displayed in “Expelled.” But it is what one expects from someone who’d rather eat worms than say “I was fooled.”

  6. Absolutely, magpie61! Another frequent commenter at Panda’s Thumb, just posted your most insightful comments:

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/06/total-agreement.html#comment-259135

    Maybe a rich “Darwinist” like Richard Dawkins – who was in the film BTW – might purchase it and collaborate with a first-rate documentary filmmaker to transform this pathetic example of cinematic mendacious intellectual pornography into something that could become an excellent educational tool.

  7. @ magpie61 –

    It was actually eric, not the person, I linked to at PT, who opted to post your comment. Sorry about that!

  8. Same as others here, I had the idea of someone buying the film and re-releasing it.

    Likw Richard Dawkins, like John Kwok says, and others who were also interviewed under false pretenses, ostensibly for a documentary called “Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion,” and whose remarks were butchered to fit the “Expelled” agenda.

  9. Any version that inlcudes “the rest of the story” must include an interview of Ken Miller, who was “expelled” from the original because, in the producer’s opinion, he “complicated” their message.

  10. Frank, what’s wrong with a liberal atheist correcting the film? PZ Myers, a notorious left wing atheist, was expelled from a showing of the film and both he and Dawkins were in the film and had their messages corrupted.

    If anyone should have the opportunity to redress the crap in the film, those two should, and since it was basically an anti-atheist film, who better to correct it than an atheist?

  11. @b_sharp:

    If I’m reading him right, I don’t think Frank is saying no liberal atheists. Just not one with an agenda. In other words, no one with a political, social or philosophical axe to grind. The only agenda should be one of scientific and historical accuracy. Why stoop to the level of the film?

  12. SC: “For the briefest of moments we imagined bidding on the film, but we swiftly came to our senses. Even if our bid of $1 (we certainly wouldn’t pay more) were successful, then what? We don’t want anything to do with that sleaze.”

    Even if you didn’t wish to go to the trouble suggested by magpie61, just buying it so you could bury that piece of $hit wouldn’t be a bad idea. Not as good of an idea as magpie’s, but not bad.

  13. @magpie61

    Thanks. That’s what I mean. Even Myers and Dawkins would probably handle themselves well. But we all know that anti-evolution activists will mine any “rest of the story” film to spin it like the original.

  14. I’m with RetiredScienceGuy* – I would happily pay $1 just to know it would never be seen again. I’d go as high as $10.

    * So maybe he is not working, but can you really “retire” from science? I don’t think so.