About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 6:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is a good, solid, concise articulation of the shortcomings of a popular film.

Sanction!


Post 1

Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 7:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Get over it man!

This is a movie. It is a children's movie. To say that this movie is propaganda is like saying Atlas Shrugged is propaganda. Is everything we disagree with that makes it into a movie or book propaganda?

I cannot believe that you used the word unrealistic to describe an animated children's movie. It's unrealistic to imagine a world filled with garbage creating an environment that is unsuitable for human life but the floating robots who fall in love, that's realistic. Give me a break. If you are looking for something 'realistic' I would suggest you read almost anything by Sinclair Lewis or Joseph Conrad or Earnest Hemingway or Upton Sinclair or JD Salinger.

Some of you on here need to get a life.

Post 2

Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 7:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steven!

Are you saying children require no proper intellectual nutrition? Shame on you!


Post 3

Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 7:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My wife and I happened to watch this movie last night.

We both have chosen to see past the shortcomings of the film to appreciate its merits.

However, I can understand why others would object to the content of a children's movie that seems loaded with the same kinds of misinformation found in Captain Planet and other juvenile fare.

While Mary Poppins and Harry Potter both obviously represent pure fantasy, science fiction owes obligation to science and thus deserves judgment against higher standards.

Unlike my thoughts of the makers of Captain Planet, however, I never got the impression that the creators of this film aimed to indoctrinate children in environmentalism.  They just wanted a clever backdrop against which to set a love story.  I could appreciate their message about the dangers of passivity, though, and that came to me much more loudly than anything to do with "saving Earth" per se.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/12, 9:49am)


Post 4

Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 7:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is the second time you have shamed me in the last two weeks Teresa. I'll try to set things right again.

Stolyarov thinks this movie is trash, much like the trash that seems to be filling up the world (I had to get that in there). He doesn't like the message of environmentalism in it. He doesn't seem to like cute little robots sending what he views as an anti-capitalist message. I think Stolyarov should make a children's movie to counter the radical anti-human Wall-E.

Maybe then we could all go see his realistic animated feature.

Post 5

Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 7:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke hits the nail on the head!

Andrew Stanton was interviewed the other day on Fresh Air (NPR) and I never once heard him say anything about environmentalism or saving the Earth or hating man. I did hear him explain his process for creating the characters and setting the scene. He wanted to do a movie with robots and had to come up with some way of making the robots the focus. I found him to be a really interesting person of great creative ability. He did write Toy Story, Monsters, Inc., and Finding Nemo.

Post 6

Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 8:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Art -- such as popular movies -- mostly reflects the culture. But it reinforces and partially leads it too. What a shame that this charmer of a film evidently has a highly irrational, illiberal, philosophical base!
 
I think it's very much worthwhile for a movie to get its intellectual theories right. Every little bit helps educate, advance, and uplift the culture.
 
But ultimately the fight for the fate of the world is a case of Bad/False Philosopher vs. Good/True Philosopher -- with artists only playing a modest moderate role, in my judgment. 


Post 7

Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 12:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Stolyarov that was an excellent article! Very very well written!

I sanctioned it as well.

Although I haven't seen the movie, I do think children are inundated with anti-capitalist messages in their movies and television shows. It's subtle, it's not alway overt, but trust me, this nation is breeding an army of environmentalists. We're already suffering from environmentalism a great deal right now. Think of how worse it will get when children are indoctrinated with this crap. To give a similar example, I feel I was cheated out of a proper history education from my public shools, as it was told purely from a liberal perspective that contained outright omissions of what Socialists had accomplished in the 20th century. It made me in my youth a liberal Democrat, it took years to shake away the brainwashing and realize the horrors of what liberalism has wrought.

Post 8

Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 7:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with John and Kyrel.

This movie seems like an example right out of Rand's Romantic Manifesto, where an artist's art can be appreciated for the displayed skill but -- at the same time -- devalued on the basis of the terribly ugly message it sends. Rand gave, as an example of this kind of skill-gone-awry, Rembrandt's Side of Beef -- a wonderful re-creation of a part of reality that, itself, isn't wonderful at all.

Ed


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 8:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have not seen WALL-E, but I felt that the same criticisms could be leveled against Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. ... or, for that matter, Tomb Raider.

In the "Probability Broach" science fiction yarns of L. Neil Smith, inhabitants of the libertarian universe work much less than we do and enjoy a much higher standard of living. On the other hand, in the dystopian Past Master by R. A. Lafferty, Sir Thomas More is brought to the present-future because the leaders find people abandoning lives of leisure to create and work in steel mills.  Similarly, in Walter Tevis's Mockingbird, people are so well cared for that they commit suicide by self-immolation, just to feel something before they die.  Of course, we all remember John Savage.  I read Brave New World when I was 15 and I saw nothing wrong with that society and never understood why John Savage killed himself.  I felt the same about Ira Levin's This Perfect Day: no society is perfect, perhaps, but that one worked pretty good.

Of course, science fiction is always just a selective recreation of reality.

There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin. -- John F. Kennedy. http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/

 


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 8:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Think of how worse it will get when children are indoctrinated with this crap.
Look to Australia for an example...

I thought it had to be hyperbole until I clicked on the links at the bottom and played the Planet Slayer game for myself.


Post 11

Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 9:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You should die at age 9.3

I clicked on the link Jonathan provided above -- to my own horror:

Greena, Worrier Princess
To assist in their "fun and games" and answer all their alleged enviro-dilemmas, children are guided by the protagonist cartoon character, "Greena, the Worrier Princess." Greena is of course the archetypal image of bohemian environmentalist virtue — a spunky green-eyed red head with funky glasses and a nose ring, a khaki T-Shirt with a peace sign, green pants with eclectic colored patches, and sandals.

Greena invites children to use the website's Greenhouse Calculator[6] to "find out what age you should die at so you don't use more than your fair share of Earth's resources." This calculator helps children to determine how much of a "greenhouse pig" a person is by answering questions about how much the person spends and consumes. On the basis of these answers the calculator determines the person's CO2 consumption, which is depicted by making the cartoon "greenhouse pig" look bigger, fatter, dirtier and angrier.

When the child has answered the questions they are instructed to click on a skull and cross-bones symbol to find out when the person should die, depicted by having the pig explode in a bloody cartoon mess leaving only a pool of blood and a curly tail. For example, according to the calculator, the consumption of an "average Aussie pig" is 24.6 tonnes of CO2 per year. At this level, the calculator states:
Based on the emissions from your greenhouse usage, you used up your share of the planet by the time you were 9.3 years old! … You should die at age 9.3.

This reminds of that man who champions engineering a virus that is 90% lethal to all humans, everywhere. At speeches he gets applause. A real-life Ellsworth Toohey (though I forget his real name). It's what Rand foresaw and warned about.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/12, 9:42pm)


Post 12

Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 9:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Excellent - I agree completely.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 10:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The psychopath Eric R Pianka is the genocidal lizard specialist who wants to kill 90% of humanity in order to save biodiversity. I bought his well received book on lizards a few months before his name came out in the news as in favor of biological terrorism.

Post 14

Sunday, July 13, 2008 - 1:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

Thanks for identifying him and putting up this thug's mug.

:-)

Ed


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Sunday, July 13, 2008 - 2:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My wife and I watched Wall-E in the theater. We walked out of the theater with a wonderful feeling, a feeling that no didactic protheletizing objectivist can extract from my arteries. The theme of the movie is that love leads to rebirth. The environmental implications served as merely the setting for a plot primarily concerned with a love story. Even so, there are valid points being made here:

1) Visceral contact with nature and with the process of growth is important for our human psyche (a la psychological visibility). This is why the people are so excited to see and help plants grow, to play a part in the process.

2) Humans are the only form of life on Earth that generates "waste" and this is not a valid long-term strategy. Although the dystopic vision of an Earth filled with waste is pessimistic, it is important to realize that we are now working hard to develop bio-friendly materials that can be recycled and reabsorbed in the human or natural ecosystem.

Although the environmental message is giving the story a little boost from the critics, I believe this movie truly deserves to be nominated for best picture, which would make it the third such animated film-- after "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Incredibles."

I encourage everyone to go see it with an open mind and heart. I am reminded of Howard Roark submitting pictures of the Temple of the Human Spirit and saying: "the defense rests, your honor."

best,

Brett
(Edited by Brett Holverstott on 7/13, 2:54am)


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Sunday, July 13, 2008 - 3:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Waste" is a misnomer...... there is really no such thing, only a temporarily displaced usefulness.... note the emphasis on temporary.....  the use of the word is in the same class as the phrase "distructing the enviroment", instead of what really is the case - altering the enviroment... indeed, the terms involve a psycho-manipulation of "hating humans for being human", imparting the false notion that humans really are not a natural part of the enviroment and that thus what they do is not a real naturalness....

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Sunday, July 13, 2008 - 5:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Robert,

Recognizing environmental degradation or destruction, in the exact meaning of those words, is not equivalent to "hating humans for being human." Objectivism is supposed to be a philosophy for living on Earth, in the metaphysical-- and dare I say-- the actual meaning of those words. Every species on Earth survives by integrating itself with the surrounding ecosystem. One example of this is that every waste product from an organism is integrated in some way into the ecosystem and converted into new biomass. This is not true, yet, with the human species. But it is important for the long-term preservation of our species that we correct this.

I find it a blatant act of obfuscation to say that there is essentially no such thing as environmental degradation, destruction, or human waste. Species do go extinct at the hands of man. Landfills are created. For some reason, objectivists have it in their head that concern for nature = evil. Not all forms of concern for nature need be anti-capitalist or anti-human. Just because this dominates (some parts of) the field now does not mean that it is the only solution. Rather, we should see concern for nature as concern for ourselves and our long-term prosperity-- a self-interest motive.

Brett

Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Sunday, July 13, 2008 - 6:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Species do go extinct at the hands of man.
They go extinct without us, too, and have for millions and millions and millions of years. Are we not also part of  "nature?"

Humans couldn't even kill Chernobyl.  I watched this documentary about nature's immediate spring back a couple of weeks ago. Extremely revealing.




 Rather, we should see concern for nature as concern for ourselves and our long-term prosperity-- a self-interest motive.
Do I exist for the Earth, or does the Earth exist for me?



Exploit the Earth or Die™



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Sunday, July 13, 2008 - 8:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brett Holverstott liked Wall-E (which I haven't see yet) and I liked part of his explanation: "The theme of the movie is that love leads to rebirth. The environmental implications served as merely the setting for a plot primarily concerned with a love story."

So many times I've felt the same way:  That different people focus on different aspects of a movie or TV show and end up with very different reactions.  And I think that it IS the theme that matters and the background details of story-line should be given less focus (unless they are the a secret theme, where someone is trying to smuggle in their viewpoint).

I remember really liking most of the episodes of West Wing and some friends of mine, knowing me to be an Objectivist were astounded given the liberal nature of the actors in real life and the fact that liberal political positions sometimes played a part in the storyline.

But to me, those writers were intelligent enough to never (rarely?) use the story-line's background details to sneak a political position into my mind.  Instead they sought to create characters and conflicts and resolutions that celebrated a theme of intelligence and good will in energetic pursuit of a better world.  Intelligence above all shone forth in that show.  I would say that a benevolent view of intelligence dominated the writing.  But I know that many people on this forum would not be able to enjoy that show because of the storyline background. 

We sometimes have mixed art, as we have a mixed economy.  Given that art's purpose (and my purpose in participating) is the emotional celebration of values I'm glad when one my values is in the prime position of theme and that I'm able to let go of the annoyance at background details.

I like that point of Mr. Holverstott's, but I sanctioned Robert's following post, and Teresa's post after that.  In the context of today's world, "Green" is becoming one of our greatest threats to liberty.

I hope that the green rhetoric is just background for a storyline and that it is an uplifting movie with ideals as the central theme that I do agree with.  Too few of those movies today.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.