As long as people think the question worth raising and debating, then no, it isn't settled, at least within that group and those who choose to engage with them.
Why is this so? Because the only authority we have to appeal to is ourselves. There is no authority above our own interests and understandings. We are the ones wondering, so the "settled" bit is comment about us, not reality.
Now, suppose no one cared enough to see the movie, thinking it frank nonsense. The question generated no interest because no one thought it worth the trouble. Then you'd have a case for "settled." You could also say that among a certain group the issue was sterile and hence, settled. I expect, that in the scientific community, that's just what the response would be toward geocentrism.
But - and what an important "but" it is - the scientific community is not the sole arbiter of value in questions of epistemology. It cannot be that a scientific judgement binds all humans for all time, and without regard for other's concerns. This is especially so when an entire academic discipline (maybe two if you count religious studies) holds the question as not-yet-settled. To not acknowledge this is to just restate the claim that science, and hence materialism, is the sole arbiter of what we should take to be real - the sole way to understand the world around us. And what hubris it is to assert that bit, say the matter is settled, pack your bags and catch the next bus back home.
I hope I've made the distinction clear enough. So clear, in fact, that we can mark it down as settled, at least between us.
