Slashdot Mirror
Advertisers Co-Opting The Lorax With Half-Truths About Conservation
pigrabbitbear writes with an interesting opinion on the "green" marketing surrounding The Lorax movie adaptation. From the article: "There may be all kinds of reasons to defend the Lorax — Dr. Seuss's wondrous children's fable that's also a seminal book about conservation — from the wrath of Lou Dobbs and Fox News and others to whom the children's book-turned-Disney film is little more than liberal propaganda. ... For adults dealing with the real world of compromise, the Lorax is loved and hated for being such a ridiculously staunch environmentalist. Dude refuses to give an inch, which isn’t realistic, but certainly makes him a compelling character. That character is now being used as a shill for the CX-5, a small SUV that’s being billed as fuel-efficient and eco-friendly. What has the poor Lorax become?"
That character is now being used as a shill for the CX-5, a small SUV that’s being billed as fuel-efficient and eco-friendly.
I'm more concerned about lightning mcqueen from cars and cars2 being used to sell my kid a lunch box and thermos (true story!)
Come on... slow news day?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The Lorax was was of my favorite books by Dr. Seuss. I was a regular participant in "Read Aloud" days at our local elementary school, and when I had a choice of the book this is the one I selected to read. It was a simple story, well illustrated, and enjoyable.
Obviously to stretch the story to a feature length film the writers had to include additional story elements, but it just looks SO busy. I wish they would stop destroying these classics, but I guess Hollywood is grasping for ideas and hoped to trade off nostalgia for this story and lure parents to the theater with their children. Pick up the book instead, read it to your kids, and discuss.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
"To whom."
Early in his career, Geisel drew copy for FLIT (a particularly noxious insect spray) advertising; I wonder if that is what drove him to create such an uncompromising Lorax.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
This movie will be forgotten in five years, whereas the book will remain. Just keep your damn kids away from the movie.
Advertisers Co-Opting The Lorax With Half-Truths About Conservation
So about 50% more truth than usual then?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Disney has nothing to do with The Lorax. Like How the Grinch Stole Christmas and The Cat in the Hat, this is a Universal Pictures film. It is being produced by Universal's Illumination Entertainment, the same studio that did Despicable Me and Hop.
Me too. I am so looking forward to Mickey Mouse as a drug-addicted former child star who beats Minnie Mouse, makes a pornographic movie and ends up choking in his own vomit.
I've been working on the screenplay since 1996. Miramax keeps turning me down for some reason. But as soon as the Mouse is out of copyright, I'm going straight to Searchlight.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Kinda... and kinda not.
The difference is like the difference between butterflies and moths; frogs and toads. Sometimes it is easy to tell the difference- sometimes it isn't- and sometimes the common name "shrimp" or "prawn" for a species is technically incorrect.
Frequently people call larger species "prawn" and smaller species "shrimp". This isn't always true.
Also, shape of gills is sometimes used- but this isn't always accurate. Sometimes which leg has the dominant pinchers is used- again this isn't always accurate.
The only truly accurate way to determine if a species is shrimp or prawn is to look at it's DNA. They are both decapods, (like lobster, crayfish, etc), but they diverged a way back.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
When any version of a truth is used to deceive it is nothing more than a lie.
"Waitress I need two more boat-drinks..."
"Compromise" cannot be a mode of thinking or you never end up with a bottom line. Some things, like nuclear war and avoiding environmental catastrophe, are optional decisions. We need to get them right because the consequences are real and will be absolute. If we define maturity as an intention to "compromise" on important issues, I want no part of maturity.
Fuck those people. You have a propaganda film out now that every conservative dickweed should be able to enjoy. Act of Valor, the one starring real soldiers, using live ammunition, and overseen by the Pentagon. Stop bitching that other people have what you also have.
A corporate sellout....
Previewing comments are for sissies!
Advertisers Co-opting The Lorax
No shit? Beloved character reduced to shill by Hollywood?? You don't say? That really would be news. NOT.
With Half-truths
[clutches heart] Ohmygod. I'm going to faint. Advertisers stretching the truth to market their product. The horror! [beat] This is news?
About Conservation
[pause]
[pause]
I see what you did there.
Tell me, if Mr. Lorax had been shanghai'ed into being a spokesman for toothpaste, toys, or floor wax, would this be a story? No. This story just fans the flames of the culture wars. Whoever started this meme knew that the word "Conservation" and the phrase "liberal propaganda" would propagate the meme with his target audience, who likes to get all a-quiver and indignant and victimized when mass media propagate memes they disagree with.
I can see the fnords!
I know this is probably going to get me flamed, but my biggest problem with the more extremist environmentalists out there (aside for their propensity for wild-eyed, quasi-religious Chicken Little alarmism) is that they often jump up to protest without any real answer to the question "Well, what's a reasonable alternative?" Most of the alternatives that they do have seem more like pipe dreams to me (at least for now). Sure it would be nice to have giant solar and wind farms that could supply all our energy needs. But those things are, even in the best case scenario, decades away. The idea that we're just going to run out and start shutting down coal and nuclear plants now, with no real replacement save some *hope* for a future of wind and solar is just nuts.
If you're going to advocate something radical, you had damn well have a pretty good answer on *how* where going to do it without throwing society into chaos. It's nice to save the environment, but we humans are part of that environment too.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
And normal environmental messages are not coopted by money? Of course they are. Is shilling a fuel-friendly vehicle that much worse than shilling a Prius or carbon credits?
My commuter van does 15 adults w/ work gear @ 13.2 MPG (and doesn't change much depending on load, lights, A/C, or traffic speed; probably unlike the CX-5). That works out to 192 person-miles per gallon (0.005 gallons per person-mile) at full person load. It's also much closer to passenger capacity than any SUV (or hybrid, electric, or alternate fuel vehicle) than I see on the road during commute or non-commuter times.
35 MPG is pretty awesome for a SUV, but the simple fact is that most purchases of this vehicle type are a mistake if you base the decision on actual vehicle usage (even a typical person's winter driving would be better done in a Subaru hatchback, sedan, or wagon; and wagons and minivans do better MPG and cargo). The main advantage of SUV's are their clearance - even the mass is only a tradeoff between the kinetic advantage in a two car and the high center leading to single car accidents. Now SUV's are awesome for their niche, but they are almost exclusively used outside of that niche when another vehicle would have been a better choice. If someone wants to make an environmentally influenced vehicle decision they should shoot for the lightest mass, most fuel efficient, vehicle which provides for their year round driving needs that does not have a massive battery and has been produced in a zero-landfill facility.
If safety is a concern, one should look at the probability of accident type for their driving environment (single car, rear ending, etc...) and make sure to pick the higher ratings from the crash testing, while not forgetting that those ratings are for in-class vehicles. For the most part adding mass is the number one safety feature (in the US auto-demographic) and is directly in conflict with environmental considerations.
This is Hollywood, why is anyone surprised that a beloved character would be whore'd out? This movie wasn't produced to teach environmentalism, this movie was produced to capitalize on a timely theme and the popularity of Dr. Seuss.
But then, the answer here is simple. If you take issue with what they've done don't watch the movie. Don't go to the theater and definitely don't buy or rent the DVD. Once you hand your money over you've effectively told the movie company that they've made the right decision.
It would have been more appropriate to use the Once-Ler to peddle the SUV.
Actually, the main advantages of SUVs are that they allow you to buy a station wagon without getting the "I'm a suburban drone" vibe that goes with a station wagon, and that they are classified as light trucks by the federal government, enabling them to bypass many of the environmental regulations imposed on cars.
brainwashing my kid to want to drive your CX-5. unfortunately by the time he's old enough to drive, it will probably be out of production.
The happy cheerful Muppets that we are all familiar with is not what Jim Henson was after. His earlier works were more violent and darker but involved the beloved Muppets.
Time to offend someone
"Dude refuses to give an inch"
Then he's no liberal. If you look around the stubborn ones are the "my way or no way" republicans. The liberals and the centrists are the ones that have been giving ground the last 18 years. That's why the country is so fucked up with a constitution that's a joke and a dysfunctional regulatory system allowing public to be raped by corporations.
The link isn't even a legitimate link. It just takes the reader to some idiot's blog. "Lou Dobbs?" "Fox News?" Is there a citation for any of that, or do we now just invoke these boogeymen on sheer pretense and for effect?
Yeah usually moths are said to be nocturnal, have clubbed antennae and dull colours. I couldn't remember the exceptions to the rules- but wikipedia comes to the rescue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differences_between_butterflies_and_moths
Explains exceptions to all the rules.
Regarding frogs- and toads- no I don't remember the specifics- although I do recall reading that there is no rule which was 100% unviolate between them that says this is a frog and this is a toad. Toads technically are a subset of frogs.
Most frogs don't actually live in water- although they do prefer damp or humid conditions.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Calm down my little pedantic nerd
His question was addressed to that which Horton heard.