Slashdot Mirror
March of the Penguins Tops Box Offices
Zinside writes "Yahoo News is running a story stating that March of the Penguins may become the No. 2 documentary of all time at U.S. box offices." From the article: "The film, which follows a pack of Emperor Penguins during an arduous mating season, had grossed $18.4 million by Wednesday and was poised to surpass the $21.6 million for Michael Moore's anti-gun documentary Bowling For Columbine. For 13 months, Jacquet and his crew braved Antarctic temperatures as low as 70 degrees below zero - and winds up to 150 mph - to capture astonishing images of thousands of emperor penguins engaging in a mating and child-rearing ritual that is nothing short of astonishing. The Penguins are a miraculous species, capable of extreme heroism, self-sacrifice, sorrow and unshakable love."
I am fascinated that a nature documentary is garnering this much attention. I'm not sure if it is saying something about the audience, or if it is saying something about the quality of this season's Hollywood crop.
There is a meme in certain circles that G-rated films gross higher than R-rated films. Could this kind of flocking (hehe) to see a documentary about penguins be indicative of a trend towards a silent audience demand for wholesome, informative movies rather than violent and crass fare?
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
Sounds like you'd appreciate the Mr Cranky review, which starts out "I hate penguins. I just fucking hate them.":
. html
http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/marchofthepenguins
http://www.welton.it/davidw/
This film evokes emotions that are hard to put into words.
Simply put, it is truly astonishing and moving -- and leaves you with a feeling that stays with you long after you leave the theater. I guess that feeling is: life.
Pretty good. It makes you forget your problems as the hardships facing penguins just trying to raise their chicks makes your problems seem completely insignificant.
;-)
So, strangely enough, I would not qualify this movie as a nature documentary. For me it is genuine bona fida "escapist entertainment": 90 minutes to gawk at something so alien to your existence that it puts everything else in perspective when you emerge blinking from the theater.
And that is exactly what movies and entertainment are supposed to do. And that explains this movies success.
Bonus item: this movie teaches us that hundreds of thousands of years of evolution in the harshest terrestrial environment on earth has left the penguin with large rolls of belly fat as a major and important adaptation for survival (to protect the chick/ egg from the harsh cold). So eat your popcorn and drink your soda guilt free.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm not sure "Bowling for Columbine" was simply "anti-gun". I seem to remember that it went a little deeper than that. If I remember correctly the movie asked why the per capita gun-related murders in the U.S. were higher than Canada even though the per-capita gun ownership was lower.
Something like that. While it was a gun related documentary I don't think it was imply "anti-gun".
Anyway, no such controversy with the penguin movie - it's pro penguin alright.
When I noticed an article on Slashdot with the title 'March of the Penguins Tops Box Offices' I really did assume that 'March of the Penguins' was a documentary about Linux distributions (and their brave struggle against the elements of er, MS, I guess).
I use the metric system you insensitive clod! Oh... and saw the movie six months ago... it's really nice, really beautiful but the voice-over really sucks !
\u262D = \u5350
Nearly all the good doco's I can recall are made to fit a one hour TV time slot or are in "parts". Some notable exceptions are F.9/11 and "Born Free" (big hit in the 60's). The Penguin stuff was also covered in David Attenborough's "Life in the Freezer", as is normal for an Attenborough doco, the pictures were unique and awsome. Maybe this mixed with a bit of human emotion is what kindled the public's interest in Penguins.
I find the biggest problem with doco's is that interesting subjects often get treated like they do in the classroom, mono-tone presenters, long rambling scripts and pathetic visual aids. They are great if you want to fall asleep on the couch but absolutely useless for engaging the general public's attention.
Something like this that "humanises" a trully remarkable behaviour is bound to do well with the "family" market. The mega-hit "Lion King" was inspired by a very good doco depicting the rivalry between Lions and Hyeina's[sic]. Unfortunately alot of parents won't take thier kids to see Zebra's getting ripped apart by blood soaked Lion's.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I don't know about you, but I think that when I look back on my life many years later, I'll consider it much more important to have spent time watching something emotive and novel than consuming political propaganda. The films I've seen, the art and music I've enjoyed, and the places I've explored either in person or by proxy will be very much valued, when all is said and done. I can't say the same for Fahrenheit 9/11, for example. Perhaps it is important for the number of people it reached for whom its ideas were new, I'll grant that. But to the informed and interested viewer, it was little more than a rehash of world events through the prism of Moore's crazed psyche. I mean, seriously, the argument that seeing one man's inherently biased and un-countered rant rendered on film is prerequisite to making important choices is total bullshit, assuming you bother to read once in a while. Yes, I'm being a bit overzealous with the critique of Fahrenheit, but I can't see how anything like it can be considered truly enlightening and significant on a personly level.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I think you may have your priorities severely confused. Yes, there are important and momentous events and conflicts happening in the world. There always are. They oblige us to become involved and to form our own opinions and to seek truth, but more obsession does not mean more effect. The truly important things are the things that happen in the midst of constant turmoil that make life worth bothering with. Nobody and no philosophy is going to force us to seek these things out and partake in them, and it's up to us to make sure they don't pass us by. That's the uglier truth.
I don't know whether this documentary is really any good or not, or whether it warrants this sleep-deprived, starry-eyed rant at all. But to rank works like this to be *by definition* of lesser importance than political discourse reveals a very narrow point of view.
(And please stop with the mouth-frothing. It's very unsanitary.)
Sadly, idiots then write description of the film without ever having watched it (Or paid attention). Idiot begats idiot.
While it's clear the movie was more of a comment on the nature of violence in America, anyone who watched it (and paid attention) could easily see that Moore used a pretty skewed approach, replete with sinsationalism, deception and lies to make his point.
I saw it, I even agree with him. But it's not an objective documentary, and shouldn't really be taken seriously as a tool to understand the problem.
The Internet is generally stupid
The incorrect statement was NOT that the movie was anti-gun. Obviously it was. You're delusional if you really believe otherwise.
...A complete distortion of reality.
/.
The incorrect statement was that it was a documentary. Whole sections of the movie were scripted and edited to create falsehoods.
In the famous scene where he gets a gun as a free gift from a bank for opening an account, not only does he NOT SHOW in the movie that he had to produce identification and pass an FBI background check (to exercise a constitutionally protected right) but the kicker is that he set the bank up...
The way the offer worked, if you opened a CD you could get your interest paid up front in the form of a gift certificate to a local sporting goods store where, yes, you could select a gun as your free give. (and in fairness the bank advertised it this way)
Moore had the bank go get a gun from the sporting goods store and bring it to the bank so he could take it out on camera. The hopeless sap at the bank thought they were doing Moore a favor and would be in holloywood movie so they agreed.
Moore in the movie cut the FBI background check and specifically made it look like the bank was just handing out guns to everyone who walked in.
Even the title of the movie (Bowling for Columbine) was based on a lie. Moore claimed that the title was based on the "little known fact" that the killers skipped school and went bowling before the murders. The police said it was flatly false. Moore then changed his story that they were supposed to go bowling before the murders. If he lied to create the title, how truthful do you think he was in the rest of the movie?
I wasn't going to post this screed but when as saw your ridiculous post, I just had to. You can BS your friends in a barroom but like the man said last night, Ya can't BS on
Instead of blindly following a politcal hack, why not use that watermelon on top your shoulders for something -eh?
Farenheit 911 was political propaganda, and not a documentary. It is as much of a "documentary" as the nazis made back in the 30's and 40's.
I agree. I saw the movie and thought it was great entertainment, but found the anthropomorphism excessive. In fact, at times it raised unanswered questions. For example, we are told how much the penguins love their young chick and would go to great lengths to protect it. Yet there is an entire sequence where young chicks are attacked by a predatory bird and no adult penguin makes any effort at all to protect them. The chicks are left to fend for themselves and some fail to survive the attack.
There's lots of things to quibble about in the movie, but it is still worth seeing. I think its success is due to a combination of folks' desire to see someting different from the usual fare and the glowing reviews it has been getting.
I always find it quite humorous that this is used as an argument for accepting homosexual behavior. Animals do it so it should be okay for us to do it, too? Animals!?!
There are animals who also eat their own feces and animals who eat their own young. Are these, then, behaviors we should celebrate in humanity? What about animals who engage in sexual behavior with sexually immature members of their own species? Is it okay to say "homosexuality is good because animals do it" but not "pedophilia is good because animals do it"?
We are supposed to be above all other forms of life on this earth. We are supposed to be able to control our baser instincts and not behave as animals do. That's the point. We are at the stage in evolution where the next step is spiritual, not physical. We should not degrade ourselves by giving in and returning back to animalistic behavior.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
There's a male bird that acts as a bottom so he can get the girls. Wish I could remember the species. When they're not showing off the colorful parts, they look like the females. So they imitate the body language, the male nails them and leaves, and then they get the real female nearby. Oh the sacrifices guys make.
Pengiumns will stay together for a lot longer than that as long as they can find each other the following year. Stuff happens, and penguins die. When they regroup for next winter a percentage of the population would have lost their mate and have to find new ones.
:) last longer than humans'. That is, in proportion to their lifespans.
On agerage, pengiun's unions (I dare not call it marriage!!!
Is this where we are filing the Michael Moore rants?
Bowling for Columbine is not an "anti-gun" movie!
I know it is popular to bash his movies as hippie/commie crap but at least watch the friggin movie first. He specifically mentions that Canada has similar per-capita gun ownership and less strict gun control laws yet mysteriously does not suffer from the same gun-crime rates the US does.
As a numbed member of the US who has relatives from sane countries, I hope to visit your country someday. Cheers.