| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
 Posted - 04/17/2007 : 13:17:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Sean, I agree with you, but I think the point is that unless someone told you beforehand, there wasn't any way you'd know that this movie had an agenda before you saw it.
But doesn't anything other than the most vacuous fiction have some kind of moralising or philosophising? I recall most books I read while growing up had some sort of 'message'. The point being to stimulate brain function from an early age; a good thing IMO. Remove all substance from kids' stories and you end up with adults who can't think. 
Anyway, how exactly are movie makers supposed to disclose a movie's "philosophical" issues in a trailer or movie poster as a warning to certain segments of the population? Actually, someone has tried to warn some segments of society about Happy Feet, right here. I'll sum it up:-
- repeated action violence
- flatulence
- conceit
- sexual innuendo
- subliminal 'promotion' of homosexuality
- repeated mockery of faith and biblical discipline
etc.
So, for some people, the above is terminal; they will not allow Happy Feet to be shown to their children. But what use is that to someone who doesn't care about the above issues, but does NOT want to hear that humanity's plunder of fish stocks endangers penguins? None, obviously, so a different source will be required. I'd guess some Chamber of Commerce with a strong fishing industry somewhere has a warning to avoid it. Not to mention that the 'greenie' message in Happy Feet was mentioned repeatedly before it hit the screens, e.g., here. I certainly knew about it from an early stage, and Tori also knew about it so she chose not to see it. Naturally some will miss the 'warning'.
It simply isn't possible to cater for every potential viewer's social/moral/political agenda. Those who want heavy censorship in their home are welcome to do their research on the net prior to viewing; movie-based web resources are immense. |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 13:52:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
- subliminal 'promotion' of homosexuality
LOL at "two instances of a smaller penguin making what could be viewed as doglike mating motions on the leg of a larger penguin, both male". I wonder if this would be problematic if it were a dog making doglike mating motions! And ROTFLMAO at "cleverly masked overtones and phrases made well known by protagonists of the homosexual movement". 
And gotta love "Storm peril". So that rules out telling children about Jonah and the whale, then. And I would think Moses parting the waves would be a bit of a no-go too. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 04/17/2007 13:54:18 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 13:59:16
|
Well... one could interpret a one minute short of a person drinking a cup of coffee as any number of horrid things, no matter how innocent you or I would see it. People will read what they want into things and there's no way to prevent it. You are right that those people who worry about such things should check before they take their kids to see any movies, and it isn't the responsibility of the moviemakers or the trailers to do this for them.
I have no problem with it myself, however, and I would be glad if more kids films would subliminally teach my kids good things like this. However, you must admit that the environmental side of Happy Feet was pretty obvious, and if someone objects to that bit being shown to their kids, but didn't know about it before hand, I can see that they might be upset by it.
(Coin, two sides, and all that jazz.)
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 14:01:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I would think Moses parting the waves would be a bit of a no-go too.
Oh, you nasty man, you!
(Insert appropriate joking smilie here.)
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 14:12:59
|
LOL, that is the funniest site I have ever seen. Here is an extract from the Brokeback Mountain page:
"... one of the most sly and cunning anti-Christian films ever produced... Not once is there a mention of any of the dangers associated with the practice of homosexuality:... the hundreds[!] of partners typically encountered in a homosexual practitioner's shortened lifetime;... the tendency to practice pedophilia (ref: the North American Man-boy Love Association..."
I had no idea that NAMBLA was real - I thought it was just on South Park! Anyway, it's telling enough that this person is using such an obscure organisation as evidence for a 'tendency'. The hypocrisy is also delicious - would he be happier with the film if it did contain paedophilia?! |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 04/17/2007 14:13:53 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 14:19:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
However, you must admit that the environmental side of Happy Feet was pretty obvious, and if someone objects to that bit being shown to their kids, but didn't know about it before hand, I can see that they might be upset by it.
It was certainly obvious, but I didn't find it heavy-handed in the way that you did. And to be frank, I just don't find it valid to object to a child seeing that. For me, it would be equivalent to objecting to a children's film in which bullying is shown to be wrong. If that were a big but unpublicised part of the film, that would be fine too (so long as the bullying itself did not make traumatic viewing, which would be more of a risk than with Happy Feet). Children will be told sadder things about the world in school and on nature programmes on television. |
|
|
|
Rovark
"Luck-pushing, rule-bending, chance-taking reviewer"
|
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 19:16:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
[quote] Children will be told sadder things about the world in school and on nature programmes on television.
When I saw Bambi 40 or so years ago, no one, I repeat NO ONE, warned me they were going to shoot Bambi's mum.
THEY SHOT BAMBI'S MUM fercrissake.   |
|
|
|
silly 
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 22:05:31
|
Warning!! SPOILER!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Rovark
[quote]Originally posted by Salopian
THEY SHOT BAMBI'S MUM fercrissake.
Okay, I'm taking that one off my Netflix queue.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 23:51:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
However, you must admit that the environmental side of Happy Feet was pretty obvious, and if someone objects to that bit being shown to their kids, but didn't know about it before hand, I can see that they might be upset by it.
A "Warning: Contains Greenie Philosophy" disclosure perhaps? The difficulty of course would be catering for everyone's philosophy/censorship requirements. E.g., "Warning: Contains Capitalist Philosophy" would apply to a lot of movies. And Finding Nemo would need a "Warning: Contains Insensitivity Towards Addicts" etc. Not to mention that The Village would need a "Warning: Not A Horror Movie" warning. Etc etc.
Movies sometimes contain surprises, but a quick look around the web before watching can eliminate surprises. Which of course is why I wouldn't do it.
Salopian, I'm glad you had fun at that site. Part of the reason for providing that link was for people's entertainment.  |
Edited by - Sean on 04/17/2007 23:54:22 |
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 18:18:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
No, no I meant that they should have done it accurately and if they had done so you would have known what to expect and then chosen whether your child should have seen it or not. Versus taking them to see Happy Feet without expecting a political environmental message.
Why is "don't destroy the Earth" such a "political" message???
The more I try to understand this objection - and the more people try to explain it - the more confused I get.
Can someone please just tell me - in simple, plain English - why entertaining little kids while teaching them to respect the world God gave us is bad? Where are the objections stemming from? |
|
|
|
Tori
"I don't get it...."
|
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 19:57:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
No, no I meant that they should have done it accurately and if they had done so you would have known what to expect and then chosen whether your child should have seen it or not. Versus taking them to see Happy Feet without expecting a political environmental message.
Why is "don't destroy the Earth" such a "political" message???
The more I try to understand this objection - and the more people try to explain it - the more confused I get.
Can someone please just tell me - in simple, plain English - why entertaining little kids while teaching them to respect the world God gave us is bad? Where are the objections stemming from?
I was led to believe that it was a stronger message than "Don't destroy the Earth" can anyone confirm?
When it all comes down to it I want to teach my children and let their movies be fun. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 00:14:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
No, no I meant that they should have done it accurately and if they had done so you would have known what to expect and then chosen whether your child should have seen it or not. Versus taking them to see Happy Feet without expecting a political environmental message.
Why is "don't destroy the Earth" such a "political" message???
The more I try to understand this objection - and the more people try to explain it - the more confused I get.
Can someone please just tell me - in simple, plain English - why entertaining little kids while teaching them to respect the world God gave us is bad? Where are the objections stemming from?
I'm the wrong person to be talking about this issue (as a devout atheist) but I've heard it postulated by various people over the years that looking after the planet isn't necessary. Some reasons given by various people I've met include:-
- We don't need to look after the planet as the purpose of existence of the universe is for we humans to create as many human souls for heaven as is possible, so what happens to the planet in the meantime doesn't matter. <this was my uncle>
- The planet was created for the use of we humans, and everything else on the planet is ours to use as we see fit, so if there is competition between humans and another species for a resource then humans get priority. So if humans and penguins compete for fish then that's just tough for the penguins.
- Humanity's destruction of the planet isn't part of the creator's plan, so it couldn't possibly happen, hence we don't need to worry about it. So it isn't possible for humans to wipe out fish through over-fishing, or wipe out penguin species through taking their fish, or change the climate through CO2 emissions etc, as this clearly wasn't part of god's plan for the planet so it can't happen.
There is some kind of logic in all of the above, once one makes certain assumptions. My opinion is that penguins have as much right to fish as humans. In fact they have more right to fish than humans as they will die without fish, whereas humans can simply eat something else (or a better idea; eat less fish and leave enough for other species to survive and be healthy). As logical as it sounds, some people simply don't agree that penguins have birthrights. |
|
|
|
redPen
"Because I said so!"
|
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 07:15:08
|
Haven't seen "Happy Feet." Nor "March of the Penguins." It's penguins . . . walking.
 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 09:42:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
I was led to believe that it was a stronger message than "Don't destroy the Earth" can anyone confirm?
Like Sean says, it is not even such a general message as that. The message is just that huge trawlers take too many fish, meaning that there aren't enough left for the penguins. The conclusion is extremely positive, i.e. that human beings and penguins can live in harmony. In other words, the film just says that greed has bad consequences.
You could think of it this way (and I promise that I don't mean this as a personal judgement - it's just what I think in general) - showing children only films with falsely cleansed versions of the world equates to lying to them. Further, I reiterate that the message in this film does not in any way take away from children's fun. I would simply suggest that you view the film first yourself, and then you can decide whether they ought to be allowed to see it. |
|
|
|
silly
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 14:59:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by redPen
Haven't seen "Happy Feet." Nor "March of the Penguins." It's penguins . . . walking.
Sometimes they swim!
But they never fly. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Happy Feet - Hidden Agenda?
