Clayton,
Tell me which is more likely.
A. The average viewer of the film will walk away with a deep understanding of the anti-state message which you've identified.
B. The average viewer of the film will walk away thinking, "That was sweet! You see when the guy ripped the other guy's head off and threw it across the room?!"
What will be the predominant effect on the mass-psyche from this film? Growing anti-state sentiment, or yet more desensitization to violence? Will this film breed more libertarians or more wannabe gladiators?
@Minarchist: I have asserted already that I believe anyone with a 3-digit IQ will see the connection between conscription and the Reaping. I mean, both the book and the movie start out with the Reaping ceremony which is a slap-in-the-face narrative. It's so blatant, I don't see how anyone who isn't mentally challenged could come away with the movie not thinking that it's a moral condemnation of the draft. Of course, I'm not celebrating the fact that it's political art.
As I already said, this movie/book isn't going to change the world or anything but it is a welcome relief from the steady drumbeat of recruiting-ads-sold-as-feature films such as GI Joe, Green Lantern, Immortals, and so on.
As far as desensitization to violence, I don't think that's a real problem - if anything, violent depictions are an substitute for physical violence. In fact, Col. David Grossman argues in his book, On Killing, argues that part of the glamorization of violence can be attributed to the vacuum of violence in which the modern human lives. In the ancestral environment (pre-Agricultural Revolution), the human had daily contact with necessary violence in the hunting and butchering of animals. This was done with a proper sense of respect - after all, the victim of the violence was the very source of life.
Violence can be turned to positive or negative aims - blaming "violence" is like blaming guns. The real problem is not violence but aggression against person and property. In particular, what is evil is the glorification of the orgy of aggression called war. Have you ever read any quotes from General Sherman? Any good story that isn't a soap opera or romance novel will have some violence in it. And Hunger Games surgically applies violence to the deconstruction of the draft, taxes, and a host of other ills of statism.
I doubt that Suzanne Collins is an anti-statist. I doubt she meant Hunger Games to be "anti-State" as such. But I do think that she has accurately identified some of the greatest social ills being brought about by rampant statism and has offered a powerful critique of these ills. Anti-statism is a pretty philosophically difficult position to arrive at, so I don't judge people who are not anti-statist. Collins is definitely one of the good guys.
Clayton -
@Clayton
I'm actually surprised there are people here who think it doesn't matter how something is portrayed, just so long as it is portrayed it will become "propaganda". For example, most cop shows have the cops (who are almost always the good guys in these shows) kicking in doors and doing unjustified searches and seizures. There are a number of shows that even show the cops arresting people (who turn out to be innocent) at least once or twice an episode. Now, in this case, I would consider that propaganda, because the cops are the "good guys" and whenever they arrest someone innocent of the crime (typically murder), it turns out they were a "bad guy" anyway because they have broken some other law.
However, there would be a way to portray kicking in doors and conducting unjustified searches and unjustified arrests in a bad way. It would be easy. Just make the cops the bad guys, or show the negative reprecussions of these immoral actions. If there were shows showing these unjustified acts in a negative way, then I cannot possibly see how someone could call it propaganda:
"OMG, the cops just broke down Jane Smith's door and shot her dog and then arrested her because they got the address wrong! OMG the propaganda! Now our kids will be desensitized to actual unjustified actions by cops in real life now!"
Because that just makes so much sense.
@Clayton I'm actually surprised there are people here who think it doesn't matter how something is portrayed, just so long as it is portrayed it will become "propaganda".
I'm actually surprised there are people here who think it doesn't matter how something is portrayed, just so long as it is portrayed it will become "propaganda".
A few folks on these boards have been lately unmasking their true nature. There can be no doubt that the LvMI (and, by proxy, these forums) is considered a threat by whatever bureaucratic organs of the Establishment are tasked with assessing such things. The go-to Modus Operandi of the FBI or any other secret police when dealing with what they consider to be "political extremists" is infiltrate and agitate. The Establishment has utilized agents provocateur for centuries; they infiltrate peaceful dissenters and incite the least intelligent and mature to mimic their violent behavior and extremist attitudes.
Whenever you see blatant xenophobia, racism, sexism, religious radicalism, and so on, that should be a "red flag" in your mind that you're dealing with an Information Warfare agent provocateur.
For example, most cop shows have the cops (who are almost always the good guys in these shows) kicking in doors and doing unjustified searches and seizures. There are a number of shows that even show the cops arresting people (who turn out to be innocent) at least once or twice an episode. Now, in this case, I would consider that propaganda, because the cops are the "good guys" and whenever they arrest someone innocent of the crime (typically murder), it turns out they were a "bad guy" anyway because they have broken some other law.
Oh my God, those CSI, NCIS, etc. shows just make me sick. Anyone who's looked at the reality of American justice understands that - unless you're very wealthy - if you're falsely accused of a crime, the full weight of the State will be brought to bear upon you and your best bet is to just cop a plea. American prosecutors maintain conviction rates (95+%) that would make a medieval Catholic Inquisitor drool with envy.
And yet these shows consistently portray the cops as facing a moral dilemma of whether to break the rules to stop the guy that they just know is a bad guy but just can't prove within the overly restrictive rules and the poor prosecutor who has every law aligned against him for the protection of the snide defendant, laughing in the face of the prosecutor who will never be able to get around the defendant's Constitutional protections... that is, until an over-zealous and clever hero "bends the rules" a little and "gets him to talk."
This kind of plot narrative is the fevered fantasy of sociopathic, Inquisitional personalities. And this is beamed into almost every American home and presented as "normal" entertainment. There's nothing normal about it and the attitudes and beliefs that are being propagated are not neutral, they are definitely sinister.
However, there would be a way to portray kicking in doors and conducting unjustified searches and unjustified arrests in a bad way. It would be easy. Just make the cops the bad guys, or show the negative reprecussions of these immoral actions. If there were shows showing these unjustified acts in a negative way, then I cannot possibly see how someone could call it propaganda: "OMG, the cops just broke down Jane Smith's door and shot her dog and then arrested her because they got the address wrong! OMG the propaganda! Now our kids will be desensitized to actual unjustified actions by cops in real life now!" Because that just makes so much sense.
That's why I asked a mod to change this thread title. I imagine there must be a few frequenters of the forum who simply haven't clicked on the thread and are (mistakenly) thinking to themselves "well, I guess I won't see or recommend that movie to anyone" when this is one of the few redeeming movies that touch on political subjects to come out of Hollywood in quite some time.
No- You're the FBI plant!!!
Just kidding. It is about time the name of this forum was changed and I agree with you one-hundred-percent about cop shows. I find it extremely unlikely that Americans would not be as "surprised" by, for instance, a communist invasion, despite being exposed to it through fiction, and therefore less inclined to react. If anything the fiction would make me more likely to do something about it. WOLVERINES!
If its true that simply being exposed to an idea makes us more likely to tolerate it, it then stands to reason that we should never read or watch any fiction that has anything to do with the abuses of government. Its entirely absurd.
But of course! It can't possibly be propaganda! The bad guys had uniforms. Like in Avatar... Wait...
I stand firm on my belief that as a principle, a movie doesn't get funded and make it to theaters unless its propaganda that serves establishment interests. I find it silly that anyone in here thinks a movie makes it to theaters without being propaganda. At least I've never seen a hardcore anarchist movie in theaters. Even movies like Wag the Dog were pure propaganda.
Clayton, this thread is about the propaganda of the movie. This thread is not about a book or its author. I find it telling that your responses are purely: • explain the story as though you were dismantling the alleged propaganda behind the story. • appeal to the book or its author • pretend I didn't see the movie • ignore what I said or else, if you address it, address it in the context of explaining the story instead of the propaganda
I'm actually beginning to wonder if YOU saw the movie, since you keep appealing to the book. A hollywood movie is not a book by its author.
If you have anything to say about the propaganda of the movie, it would be wise to start by responding to the most obvious thing, which everyone who pretends it isn't propaganda has utterly avoided addressing:
Lionsgate has distributed a laundry list of propaganda, obviously including the standard war, sex, and openly-warp-your-mind propaganda. The producers come from movies like Boys and Girls, Mean Girls, Flirting with 40, and Alexander. The director, also a screenplay writer, is working on another war propaganda movie at the moment. The other screenplay writer comes from movies like The Shooter and Hart's War. So maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the fact that it looked and sounded like war propaganda had nothing to do with the fact it was funded by the heart of hollywood and produced by people with a history of war and sex propaganda. You're right, I was jumping to conclusions...............
So maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the fact that it looked and sounded like war propaganda had nothing to do with the fact it was funded by the heart of hollywood and produced by people with a history of war and sex propaganda. You're right, I was jumping to conclusions...............
So to be clear, this HOLLYWOOD movie is not a book, and its not the book The Hunger Games by SC. It is a Hollywood movie (read: propaganda by definition) written, directed, distributed, and funded by hollywood interests and proffessional propagandists. Your view of the story notwithstanding.
EDIT: However, if you want to stay on topic by discussing the propaganda and you feel compelled to introduce the book, then you would start to point out all of the legitimate and obviously anti-state things that were deliberately left out of the movie. The more I hear about the book (from people who don't think the movie is propaganda) the more I realize they left out anything that would give an explicit anti-state message. That's why all of the anti-state stuff in the movie is implied—the book isn't like that, from what I've heard. I don't claim to remember them at the moment, so don't take this comment as evidence. I will post examples as I re-find them.
POST EDIT EDIT: Also, I've heard that for all its alleged anti-stateness, the "anti-state" people establish a republic in the end anyways! If that's true, then the movie is propaganda alone based on what I will call the RP fallacy: the recognition that government is evil, so the solution is to implement a government.
OP, are you joking or do you live among sociopaths? Everyone in my theatre was silently horrified at the flippant murderousness of these children, and most of the theatregoers were mid-to-late teens. I heard no giggling. When the female tribute in the "strong pack" laughs at the casual violence of the main male, it's not subtle innuendo that it's "okay"--it's sickening and shocking.
Perhaps some backstory might help--the strong hunting pack are composed of the tributes from Districts 1 and 2, the richest of the enslaved districts. They were sent to schools since childhood to teach them to be killers to "make their district proud". I believe that's even touched upon briefly in the movie by Woody Harrelson's character when he's expressing pessimism at either District 12 tribute winning the Games. These children are bred to be sociopathic murderers--and you take this to be something that is condoned by the writer/director? This is clearly from the book and the book really was not changed much when transferred to the screen. At the end where the last male dies, yes there is some empathy from Katniss who kills him so he doesn't suffer a truly hideous death--but wouldn't anyone feel sorry for a child that has been bred from birth to be violent and, frankly, evil?
You are actually making me want to see this movie again just to refute you point-by-point. The murderous actions of these children are not glorified in the movie. Katniss's physical abilities and her power to defend herself are certainly glorified, but not to the extent that the violence she is required to perform is glorified. There are no slow-mo, 300-style scenes where children killing each other is glamorized. Most of the violence and gore is actually not shown. I can't wait until the 2nd and 3rd movies that actually show Katniss and Peeta suffering from PTSD. Woody Harrelson's character, Haymitch, is an impotent drunk who basically lives in alcoholic squalor because he "won" the Games when he was young--also suffering from severe PTSD.
You really blew this one, dude.
are you joking or do you live among sociopaths? If you don't think you live among sociopaths I can't take you seriously. If you live in reality, without exception you are in a world of sociopaths.
When the female tribute in the "strong pack" laughs at the casual violence of the main male, it's not subtle innuendo that it's "okay"--it's sickening and shocking. Lionsgate also makes SAW, which is also sickening and shocking propaganda that people go out of their way to watch.
Perhaps some backstory might help No. This thread is not concerned with the story as people thought they saw and heard it. This thread is about the things people heard and saw that they didn't think about consciously—propaganda. The things which everyone saw and heard, but which bypassed the conscious filter of the vast majority of viewers.
the book really was not changed much when transferred to the screen. Bullshit. The movie is not the book. I can't take you seriously if you think a Hollywood makes movies out of 400 page books without removing content. I've read enough comments about the legitimately anti-state things left out of the book—comments by people who've read the books and still swear the movie isn't propaganda.
You are actually making me want to see this movie again just to refute you point-by-point. Fine. Just don't do what Clayton does and try to explain the story to me. Definitely don't mention the book. And do some research on the people who casted, wrote, directed, produced, and distributed the movie. This is not a book.
The murderous actions of these children are not glorified in the movie. Wrong again. We literally watch the Hunger Games in all their bloody violent glory in the movie.
There are no slow-mo, 300-style scenes where children killing each other is glamorized. Glorified is not synonymous with glamorized. Neither did 300 invent propaganda.
Most of the violence and gore is actually not shown. You are so off topic it hurts. How much violence is or isn't shown has no bearing on the actual propaganda in the movie.
Woody Harrelson's character... Is a military mentor like recruiters are.
Lionsgate has distributed a laundry list of propaganda, obviously including the standard war, sex, and openly-warp-your-mind propaganda. The producers come from movies like Boys and Girls, Mean Girls, Flirting with 40, and Alexander. The director, also a screenplay writer, is working on another war propaganda movie at the moment. The other screenplay writer comes from movies like The Shooter and Hart's War.
The producers come from movies like Boys and Girls, Mean Girls, Flirting with 40, and Alexander. The director, also a screenplay writer, is working on another war propaganda movie at the moment. The other screenplay writer comes from movies like The Shooter and Hart's War.
So what? I don't care what other projects they've worked on - businessmen work for money. What I'm interested in is where does the funding come from? Did it come from the Pentagon? Or was it funded by regular human beings?
You're making shit up. It did not look or sound like war propaganda. Apparently, you've not watched many war propaganda movies - they're all the same. Go watch Captain America or GI Joe or Green Lantern. Invariably, they have a shitty, boring, predictable plot, 2-dimensional characters that say ridiculous things like "May Peace and Justice Prevail!" and they attempt to make up for their general shittiness through lots of big-budget special effects or big-budget actors. These propaganda films are funded by people who never saw a problem they didn't think they could solve with more cash.
That's total BS. While Hollywood has lots of corruption and incestuous relationships with the Power Elites, it is not true that it is a monolith. There are movies that make it onto the Big Screen that are anti-Establishment, however subtle. And I believe I've even identified a pattern that occurs when a truly anti-Establishment movie makes it to the Big Screen. The Establishment makes a copy-cat that is released soon after that is intended to be confused for the original film and which pushes standard, Establishment tropes. A great example of this is A Bugs' Life. The movie is frankly anti-State. I don't see how you could make a more anti-State movie short of simply re-mastering a Rothbard lecture and releasing that as your "movie".
DreamWorks released a competing movie called Antz at almost exactly the same time. Most people don't even realize that they are two different movies. Guess what Antz is about? Same old, same old, an evil general wants to impose his tyranny and is eventually overthrown by a Colonel who begins to sympathize with "the common Ant", thus saving all of antkind from a thousand years of darkness, blah blah blah.
They can't keep all decent movies from being made. But they can flood the market with shit and that's precisely what they do. The shit gets deepest whenever a really good (or, at least, not really bad) movie is about to be released.
To the extent that there is any conspiracy theory here, it might be that they felt making a movie out of it might be a way to keep people from reading the book where they would be introduced to even more detailed anti-State messages. But even I don't think they're that stupid. JJ has it right this time: they made the movie to make money.
I don't see how anyone can believe Hunger Games is a pro-war movie or war propaganda. Even when the "games" start it supposed to inflict a sense of emotional pain, to have the watcher feel bad and upset that this is happening, not good. As to a reason why they made this film? The next big thing for teens. Harry Potter is done, Twilight will be over this summer, so here's the next series to work on, and guess what? It has substance. We'll get more anti-war themed movies like John Carter of Mars, or blatantly obvious movies like Act of Valor and the upcoming Battleship. To push it further movies like Transformers or Iron Man (even though the premise was anti-war) who work with the military, and now The Avengers (I hope to leave the theater before that comes out.) As Clayton said all the war propaganda movies have obvious plots and cliche lines with a huge budget. In the past year 3 movies have stood out to me: Hanna, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and now Hunger Games (Beginners was great, but bleak and depressing). There should be more movies like this.
Also, in the 2nd and 3rd books the districts starting fight back against the government, I don't see how this is pro-establishment which is pro-war when the districts rise up in spite of the games.
Also, in the 2nd and 3rd books the districts starting fight back against the government
What I find even more important is disillusionment with the "good" government of the rebels, sending a strong "there is no good government" message.
Let me get this straight, you're not just holding up a major Disney release as not propaganda, but using it as a red herring to show that Hunger Games isn't distributed by the uber propaganda machine Lionsgate?! I just can't take you seriously any more. Nope. So I will deconstruct your blither blather distractions which have absolutely nothing to do with the propaganda of the movie. Bert's first statement in the post after yours addresses propaganda. That is interesting and I have an answer, but you sir are completely out there with that Bug's Life BS you just tried to pull.
So what? I don't care what other projects they've worked on - businessmen work for money. What I'm interested in is where does the funding come from? Lionsgate FUNDED the movie. It's amazing that your question is in response to me listing the massive propaganda Lionsgate has funded.
You're making shit up. It did not look or sound like war propaganda. Apparently, you've not watched many war propaganda movies - they're all the same. Go watch Captain America or GI Joe or Green Lantern. lol, so its not propaganda unless it passes the Clayton certification...the same certification which judged a huge Disney movie to be not propaganda.......but for fun lets go even further down the rabbit hole................
There are movies that make it onto the Big Screen that are anti-Establishment, however subtle. So what? That doesn't mean they aren't propaganda. For example, Hunger Games.
They can't keep all decent movies from being made. That's the most ignorant thing I've read today! Of course "they" can! I've never seen any decent hardcore anarchist material come out of Hollywood! I can go on YouTube where everything isn't completely and utterly controlled and restricted, and find decent content for days. They already do what you claim they can't ever do.
Hollywood isn't youtube. Hollywood isn't books. Movies get to Hollywood when there is ridiculous money and power involved. People need funding. People need careers. And so forth. Also, you failed to address an important point, if it holds any truth:
Lionsgate FUNDED the movie. It's amazing that your question is in response to me listing the massive propaganda Lionsgate has funded.
Lion's Gate are businessmen. Who has Lion's Gate bombed? What countries has Lion's Gate invaded? What taxes does Lion's Gate collect? What inflationary economic collapses has Lion's Gate instigated? Show me the money trail - put up or shut up. We can trace Pentagon funding of all sorts of consumer goods and corporate brands - from Starbucks to Mattel. That doesn't mean your Iced Tall Skinny Vanilla Latte is a propaganda tool. Just because there's a connection doesn't mean that Starbucks is a division of the Pentagon. Yet your reasoning is that Lion's Gate has been involved with the production of propaganda movies (a claim you have not substantiated) so, therefore, all movies made by Lion's Gate are propaganda.
Have you watched A Bug's Life? In case you've missed it, one of the quotes in my sig line is straight out of that movie. It's pretty much Anatomy of the State translated into a cute kid's story and 3D animated. Please give me something more than "Disney made it!" to back up your claim that A Bug's Life is not an anti-State movie. The "message" of the movie communicated by Princess Atta is a literal statement of natural order philosophy! "Nature has an order. The ants pick the food, the ants keep the food, and the grasshoppers leave!"
Get with it, man.
Oh my God, those CSI, NCIS, etc. shows just make me sick. Anyone who's looked at the reality of American justice understands that - unless you're very wealthy - if you're falsely accused of a crime, the full weight of the State will be brought to bear upon you and your best bet is to just cop a plea. American prosecutors maintain conviction rates (95+%) that would make a medieval Catholic Inquisitor drool with envy. And yet these shows consistently portray the cops as facing a moral dilemma of whether to break the rules to stop the guy that they just know is a bad guy but just can't prove within the overly restrictive rules and the poor prosecutor who has every law aligned against him for the protection of the snide defendant, laughing in the face of the prosecutor who will never be able to get around the defendant's Constitutional protections... that is, until an over-zealous and clever hero "bends the rules" a little and "gets him to talk."
It's amazing how exactly you echoed my thought on cop shows. I knew someone that was intentionally set up on bogus charges by some cops that had a beef with him. The case was so absurd that conviction was always a long shot. But, they didn't need a conviction. The bogus decision to deny him bail for two months was enough. Take note of how the American system decides who pays trial costs.
Who has Lion's Gate bombed? What countries has Lion's Gate invaded? What taxes does Lion's Gate collect? What inflationary economic collapses has Lion's Gate instigated? Show me the money trail - put up or shut up. Really? It's Lionsgate, not Lion's Gate. And just who the hell do you think you are? If you want answers to a million questions and a money trail go find it. It's Hollywood for Christ's sake, the money trail is the only trail, you just got done explaining that. The fact that you demand answers does nothing to show that Hunger Games isn't war propaganda. Hollywood isn't youtube. The reason nobody has ever seen hardcore anarchist material come out of Hollywood is precisely because Hollywood is controlled.
The fact that powerful interests put out a somewhat libertarian-ish propaganda piece at a time when the establishment is coopting the Tea Party during a major crisis when he who controls the libertarian establishment ideas controls a lot is entirely understandable. But it doesn't mean Hunger Games isn't war propaganda.
Yet your reasoning is that Lion's Gate has been involved with the production of propaganda movies (a claim you have not substantiated) so, therefore, all movies made by Lion's Gate are propaganda. Outright lie. My reasoning was: watch movie and post the propaganda I saw, then defend the idea that Hunger Games is propaganda. The fact that Lionsgate is a major arm of Hollywood with a history of sex and war propaganda is mere support.
Have you watched A Bug's Life? Get over A Bug's Life. It's a Disney movie, case closed. Disney has massive resources at its disposal, theme parks, themes in entire generations of minds, TV channels, movies, they play a huge role in the development of young minds in America, and I'm pretty sure they own news stations. FFS, you quote a damn princess (royalty) from a Disney movie to show that Hunger Games isn't propaganda. That's the height of awesomeness, for lack of a better word.
Get with it, man. You first.
EDIT: WHAT DISNEY OWNS aka HOW DISNEY DISTRIBUTES PROPAGANDA
2009 revenues: $36.1 billion The Walt Disney Company owns the ABC Television Network, cable networks including ESPN, the Disney Channel, SOAPnet, A&E and Lifetime, 277 radio stations, music and book publishing companies, production companies Touchstone, Miramax and Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios, the cellular service Disney Mobile, and theme parks around the world. Disney Media Networks, a company whose holdings include: The ABC Television Network: ABC Entertainment, ABC Daytime, ABC News, ESPN on ABC, ABC Television, ABC Kids, and Touchstone Television. Production & Distribution Companies: Walt Disney Television, Walt Disney Television Animation, BVS entertainment, ABC Studios, Walt Disney Television, Disney-ABC Domestic Television. Cable Networks: ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Classic, ESPNEWS, ESPN PPV, ESPN Deportes, ESPNU, ESPNHD, ESPN2 HD, ESPNEWSHD and ESPNUHD, Disney Channel HD, Toon Disney, SOAPnet, ABC Family Channel, A&E Television Networks (42% equity; includes A&E, the History Channel, the Biography Channel, History en español, Military History Channel, Crime & Investigation Network, A&E HD, The History Channel HD), Lifetime Entertainment Services (50% equity; includes Lifetime Television, Lifetime Movie Network, Lifetime Real Women). International Channels: ESPN International, ESPN America, ESPN Latin America, ESPN Asia, ESPN Classic Sport Europe, Jetix Europe, Jetix Latin America, Jetix Canada, Jetix Israel, International Disney Channels, History International. The ABC Television Network has 226 affiliated stations reaching 99 percent of all U.S. television households. The company owns and operates ten ABC television stations in the nation’s top markets. Programming: Good Morning America, World News with Charles Gibson, World News Now, 20/20, Primetime, This Week With George Stephanopoulos, Sportscenter/Monday Night Football, ESPNplus, Playhouse Disney, Jetix, ABC Kids.
Through its majority ownership stake in Citadel Broadcasting Corporation, Disney owns 277 radio stations in the United States. Programming: ESPN Radio, ESPN Deportes Radio, Radio Disney, Lifetime Radio for women (50% equity), ABC Music Radio, ABC Radio Networks: Imus in the Morning, The Mark Levin Show, Morning Joe, The Tom Joyner Show.
Magazines: Family Fun, ESPN the Magazine, Jetix Magazine, Wondertime Magazine, Bassmaster Magazine and Disney Adventures Music: Disney Music Group distributes music and motion picture soundtracks under its four labels: Walt Disney Records, Hollywood Records, Buena Vista Records, Lyric Street Records, Disney Music Publishing Worldwide. Books: Disney Publishing, a subsidiary of the Company, owns Hyperion Books, Hyperion Books for Children, Disney Press, Disney Editions, Disney Adventures, Disney Fairies, Disney Digital Books, Mirimax, ESPN books, ABC Daytime Press, Hyperion East, Hyperion Audiobooks, Volo, Jump at the Sun, Disney Libri (Italy), Disney Hachette JV (France). Other: Marvel Comics.
Production and Distribution: Walt Disney Pictures (includes Walt Disney Feature Animation and DisneyToon Studios), Touchstone Pictures, Miramax Films, Pixar Animation Studios, Hollywood Pictures, Buena Vista International, Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Buena Vista Home Entertainment International, Disney Theatrical Group, Marvel Studios, A&E IndieFilms (42% equity).
Parks and Resorts: Disneyland (CA), Walt Disney World Resort (FL), Disneyland Resort Paris, Hong Kong Disneyland, Disney Cruise Line, and DisneyVacation Club, Euro Disney, Walt Disney World (separate from Resort), Magic Kingdom, EPCOT, WD Studio Park, WD Tokyo, Sea Disney-MGM Studios, Disney Animal Kingdom, and ESPNZone. Consumer Products: Disney Hardlines, Disney Softlines, Disney Toys, the Baby Einstein Company, Muppets Holding Company, Disney Direct Marketing’s catalog and website (DisneyShopping.com), Disney Stores, Disney Princess, Disney Interactive Studios, AETN Consumer products (37.5% equity). Disney also owns Mobile ESPN and has launched the cellular service Disney Mobile.
In case it hasn't been said, I think we've found another for Bert's list.
It's been said. Invoking Bert's List seems to be the prevailing method for distracting from the fact that someone just has no argument whatsoever around here. I guess that way you don't get disciplined for trolling.
Anyways Bert's list is a boring name. If the rules don't matter, it's now Your Mom's list. Your name is first.
No, I'm pretty sure you are just an idiot.
gotlucky:No, I'm pretty sure you are just an idiot.
You don't just troll and derail someone's thread with absolutely no argument and utter disregard for the topic. The best thing you can do at this point is walk away in shame because you just look like a complete douchebag.
Really. Go away.
People have made very good cases for why The Hunger Games is not statist war propaganda. You ignore what they say and go blah blah blag. You are a troll. Go away.
gotlucky:People have made very good cases for why The Hunger Games is not statist war propaganda. You ignore what they say and go blah blah blag.
"Blah blah blag" would be a more respectable argument than anything you have to say right now. Your behavior is sad and embarassing.
What's the point of listing Disney's holdings?? What country has ever been bombed by any of Disney's holdings?? Blaming the guy that printed up the propaganda posters is inane - it's the people who are perpetrating the propaganda and the sinister ends to which they are perptrating it that is odious. The guy printing posters or doing artwork is just trying to put food on the table. But please, tell me, what are Disney's sinister ends? How is Disney moving to take over the world and force inflationary fiat dollar hegemony on the world? Or Lion's Gate. Or just about any private corporation you could care to name. I'd really like to see this.
I'm terribly embarassed.
Disney's holdings were an edit to my post. I will address you when you address my post.
Until then, up tot his point you've offered nothing except to say that DIsney and this mythical "Lion's Gate" don't produce proaganda, which is patently simple to put it nicely unlike that other clown bouncing around in here.
DIsney and this mythical "Lion's Gate" don't produce proaganda
I said no such thing - I simply asserted that I see no reason to believe your assertion that they exclusively produce propaganda. The fact that HG was produced by Lions Gate (excuse me for adding the apostrophe) is only relevant if Lions Gate only and exclusively produces propaganda. Otherwise, the fact that HG was produced by LG is irrelevant to the question of whether HG is propaganda, as you assert.
hashem: Until then, up tot his point you've offered nothing except to say that DIsney and this mythical "Lion's Gate" don't produce proaganda, which is patently simple to put it nicely unlike that other clown bouncing around in here.
No. Clayton has not said that Lionsgate has never produced propaganda. He said that this particular film was not propaganda. What a troll.
Clayton:DIsney and this mythical "Lion's Gate" don't produce proaganda I said no such thing - I simply asserted that I see no reason to believe your assertion that they exclusively produce propaganda. The fact that HG was produced by Lions Gate (excuse me for adding the apostrophe) is only relevant if Lions Gate only and exclusively produces propaganda. Otherwise, the fact that HG was produced by LG is irrelevant to the question of whether HG is propaganda, as you assert. Clayton -
Cool story bro. Now back to my response to you which you two have made a fine effort to completely blow past like intellectually honest gods. Here, I'll recall it for you, once you respond I'll clarify the purpose of posting Disney's holdings:
hashem: Who has Lion's Gate bombed? What countries has Lion's Gate invaded? What taxes does Lion's Gate collect? What inflationary economic collapses has Lion's Gate instigated? Show me the money trail - put up or shut up. Really? It's Lionsgate, not Lion's Gate. And just who the hell do you think you are? If you want answers to a million questions and a money trail go find it. It's Hollywood for Christ's sake, the money trail is the only trail, you just got done explaining that. The fact that you demand answers does nothing to show that Hunger Games isn't war propaganda. Hollywood isn't youtube. The reason nobody has ever seen hardcore anarchist material come out of Hollywood is precisely because Hollywood is controlled. The fact that powerful interests put out a somewhat libertarian-ish propaganda piece at a time when the establishment is coopting the Tea Party during a major crisis when he who controls the libertarian establishment ideas controls a lot is entirely understandable. But it doesn't mean Hunger Games isn't war propaganda. Yet your reasoning is that Lion's Gate has been involved with the production of propaganda movies (a claim you have not substantiated) so, therefore, all movies made by Lion's Gate are propaganda. Outright lie. My reasoning was: watch movie and post the propaganda I saw, then defend the idea that Hunger Games is propaganda. The fact that Lionsgate is a major arm of Hollywood with a history of sex and war propaganda is mere support. Have you watched A Bug's Life? Get over A Bug's Life. It's a Disney movie, case closed. Disney has massive resources at its disposal, theme parks, themes in entire generations of minds, TV channels, movies, they play a huge role in the development of young minds in America, and I'm pretty sure they own news stations. FFS, you quote a damn princess (royalty) from a Disney movie to show that Hunger Games isn't propaganda. That's the height of awesomeness, for lack of a better word. Get with it, man. You first.
You've invoked my self and my list. The list does have alternate names, but none of which you can decide, such as: The List of Forum Disutility, The List of Undesirables, The List of Shame, The List of WTF Users, The List of Constant Facepalms, and many more. I don't know why the list would be called Your Mom's list, unless your mother wants to add to some forum disutility as well.
@Andris Birkmanis
The fact that the government of the rebels turns out to be just as bad in many respects as the Capitol is very important (I tried to make the point earlier before this Lionsgate thing started).
In this respect, the Hunger Games are superior to Star Wars, which makes a point to point out within the extended universe that the rebels are NOT anarchists, but they are still beyond doubt the good guys. In the Hunger Games, not only do you have to take a step back and question whether or not the news order will be as bad as the old but the protagonist herself desides that it would be no better and takes action against it.
I really can't stand the "every movie ever made is pure propaganda" hypothesis. We can't assume that every bit of culture not created by libertarians was propaganda. If it is, than we're all still cogs in the machine because I can guarantee that there are very few people who were not influenced by the external culture.
Clayton I patiently await your response.
James, Hollywood is controlled. Period. Which is why nobody has ever seen any decent content come out of Hollywood whereas anyone can go on youtube and find honest attempts at legitimate anarchist material within seconds. Two forms of media distribution, one has never had honest content ever, and that isn't an accident. That is an empirical truth. Hollywood = controlled, or else you would see honest content at least once ever. But no. No amount of citing royalty from Disney (who also owns the propaganda conglomerate ABC) movies will end that.
The analogy that pops into my head immediately is dirt and rocks through grades of filters/sifters. While the fine sand will make it through all the levels no problem, the rocks will not, ever, no matter what. It's how the system is designed. You can't just stand in the sand pile at the bottom proclaiming that some of them are rocks, or that rocks occasionally get through, or that one day a rock will get through.
Everything which flows from controlled Hollywood is necessarily de facto propaganda. There is no situation where honest anarchist content will make it through the system. The Hunger Games is no magical exception, simply because you can't fathom propaganda.
I see nothing to respond to. Perhaps you can phrase your challenge in the form of a specific question.
Which is why nobody has ever seen any decent content come out of Hollywood whereas anyone can go on youtube and find honest attempts at legitimate anarchist material within seconds.
For the record, turning on a webcam and spewing stuff is a bit different than writing and producing a screenplay.
Caley Mckibbin:For the record, turning on a webcam and spewing stuff is a bit different than writing and producing a screenplay.
Amen, dammit. Precisely. The difference, then, is money and power. One system has never produced honest content and by all objective, empirical standards is a well oiled filter to block honest content while promoting mindnumbing propaganda.
In defense of Hashem, He converted me to An-cap from the campaign for liberty forums years ago. Or someone by the same name... :)
To say he is involved in damage control is short sighted. Many movies can be interpreted in many different ways. Someone interpreted Avatar as pro-libertarian. Was that what the director intended? Who knows, probably not likely.
I have not seen Hunger Games to comment on any interpretations as having more merit.
Just watch it accusing people of misinformation. Humans are good at pattern recognition.
Ya Wibee that was me :D
If I remember I fought a pretty good fight there for almost a year. I was starting to make a solid impact on the regulars (always minarchists).
I remember commenting on a few main-page posts; a ginormous raucus always followed. I'll never forget that Tom Woods himself actually called me a "drone" for calling him out on his non-anarchist inconsistencies. Then recently in an interview with Lew Rockwell he mentioned that very recently Lew helped him overcome statist beliefs he hardly even realized he had. I was right then, and Tom was sort of a tool for saying what he said publicly.
I got into some other stuff for awhile and when I tried to go back to the C4L forums, I wasn't able to log in. The only method for changing or finding your account information is a stupid "request form" that literally doesn't work. I'm pretty sure I've tried to rejoin the community several times and have been utterly unsuccessful trying to make a new account.
Anyways its refreshing and reminiscent of the "small world" of the internet to hear you remember and to hear words of appreciation years after the fact. Thanks :)
It was because of you I listened to the audiobooks of ethics of liberty and for a new liberty. I had the same problem with the C4L forums. I think I did get somewhere with the request forum though because I was able to log back in. I had private messaged you on there about some finicky issues I had on abortion you had offered advice on. I usually go by Hyrax on other places.
I should be thanking you for unplugging me from the matrix. :)
Do you respond to private messages on here?
There were about 5 active users when I joined (which was pretty much around when the site started), and maybe 10ish by the time I was gone. I wonder how big that place is now, and what kind of impact anarchists, if there are any, are having there.
Ya I'll respond to PMs. I usually check the forums at least once a day on days when I work, and several times when I'm off.
EDIT: Not to toot my own horn, but some of the minarchists there accused me of wasting my time and said things like I'm not doing the best job I could be doing of converting people (implying that was my intent) by arguing aggressively against the constitution on a website allegedly in support of such.
But the awesome thing is, is that I don't know anyone in real life who has converted someone to an anarchist, on the internet or in person, no less 5 people. According to their own testimonies I was somewhat instrumental in the conversion process for at least 3 people on that site during just a year there. That's not including the people I've had an impact on in person over the last few years.
I don't know if I could really convert anyone any more, so I would like to read my posts from then to see what I was doing differently (better, I presume) and to remind myself not to let the "haters" get to me because I presume it was their attitudes which were instrumental in whatever psychological changes I implemented which lead me to a different arguing style.
The difference, then, is money and power.
The difference is competence and motivation.