Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

Some scientific organisations are thankfully stepping back from alarmism and accepting scientific doubts:

Science Museum: "There are areas of uncertainty which are perfectly reasonable to raise and we will present those. For example, the extent to which the climate is as sensitive to the CO2-loading that humans have put in or not."

The Royal Society: "Climate change: a summary of the science states that “some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced”. Unlike Climate change controversies, a simple guide  — the document it replaces — it avoids making predictions about the impact of climate change and refrains from advising governments about how they should respond."

It is most welcome that these organisations should take on board the valid scientific arguments put forward against the previous "science is settled" posture.

[size=14]HOWEVER:[/size]

There are some who are starting to get desperate and producing this sort of nastiness:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UHN3zHoYA0[/media]

WARNING: GRAPHIC VIDEO IMAGERY.

Background:
Whippersnapping climate campaign 10:10  teams up with legendary comic screenwriter Richard Curtis – you know, Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill, co-founded Comic Relief – and Age of Stupid director Franny Armstrong to proudly present their explosive new mini-movie “No Pressure”. The film stars X-Files’ Gillian Anderson, together with Spurs players past and present – including Peter Crouch, Ledley King and David Ginola – with music donated by Radiohead. Shot on 35mm by a 40-strong professional film crew led by director Dougal Wilson, “No Pressure” celebrates everybody who is actively tackling climate change… by blowing up those are aren’t.

 

Promoting the idea that children who don’t reduce their carbon footprint should be murdered by their school teachers. 

How low can these sh*ts get?

Ar*eholes all of them. 

UPDATE:
The Guardian's piece on this states: "This film contains scenes that some viewers may find distressing. Not suitable for children"

"The film, directed by top advertising director Dougal Wilson, known for the Always A Woman John Lewis ad, will be shown in cinemas and on television."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film

   

[Banjax]

excellent vid Nickbat - and yes, you're right - it totally is advocating that teachers murder schoolkids!!! 

just like if you drink Tango a fat orange guy pops up and slaps you!
or Gary Lineker is a notorious crisp stealer who should be arrested!
oooh ooh - I want that Carlsberg flat that really really exists! with the hot flatmate and everything!! 
the modern world must seem very confusing sometimes 


I think perhaps the makers of the film are going for shock tactics to get noticed by a few easily offended publications, the Mail, the Express, Fox News, the Nickbat threads, etc 


seems like its worked 





absolutely priceless - your best post in months NB - excellent 

[mantahatch]

BJ I am surprised you cannot see the message in that video.
And it certainly has nothing to do with being offended. 

To me it says, agree or die, is that not what terrorism or nazism is.

[Dishevelled Den]

excellent vid Nickbat - and yes, you're right - it totally is advocating that teachers murder schoolkids!!! 

just like if you drink Tango a fat orange guy pops up and slaps you!
or Gary Lineker is a notorious crisp stealer who should be arrested!
oooh ooh - I want that Carlsberg flat that really really exists! with the hot flatmate and everything!! 
the modern world must seem very confusing sometimes 


I think perhaps the makers of the film are going for shock tactics to get noticed by a few easily offended publications, the Mail, the Express, Fox News, the Nickbat threads, etc 


seems like its worked 





absolutely priceless - your best post in months NB - excellent 

   


I assume that you're in 'Banjax will say anything to bait Nickbat mode' there BJ.

Or, is the indoctrination of people, childern especially, with slick imagery and 'important social information' something you're happy with?

These xxxxx - yes, I'll say that again - these xxxxx will stop at nothing to put their message across.

It's blanking outrageous in the extreme that shit this this can be spewed out in the name of public information when, in reality, the only thing it's likely to do is promote the next stage of climate zealotry within those motivated by such imagery.

I'm surprised that you don't seem to appreciate the danger behind this line of thinking - or does anything go when it comes to climate propaganda.


Self-censored as the filter doesn't seem to catch certain words.

[Banjax]

"Promoting the idea that children who don’t reduce their carbon footprint should be murdered by their school teachers."

aah the righteous indignation, the venom, the loss of perspective.......all in all Vintage Nickbat 

splendid stuff 

continue  8-)

please

[Dishevelled Den]

"Promoting the idea that children who don’t reduce their carbon footprint should be murdered by their school teachers."

aah the righteous indignation, the venom, the loss of perspective.......all in all Vintage Nickbat 

splendid stuff 

continue  8-)

please

Nice try BJ but it's not going to work.  I'll just leave you to expose your thinking to the audience at large.

[mantahatch]

"Promoting the idea that children who don’t reduce their carbon footprint should be murdered by their school teachers."

aah the righteous indignation, the venom, the loss of perspective.......all in all Vintage Nickbat 

splendid stuff 

continue  8-)

please

aah the righteous indignation, or is the possibility that humans are not as important or damaging as some might think, the world will live on with or without humans.  the venom, sorry i did not notice any. the loss of perspective maybe, I am quite able to see the funny side of this video, but when it is such a planet wide scale of changes these people are refering to, more thought was required on there part.

[Kevin Wood]

aah the righteous indignation, or is the possibility that humans are not as important or damaging as some might think, the world will live on with or without humans.  the venom, sorry i did not notice any. the loss of perspective maybe, I am quite able to see the funny side of this video, but when it is such a planet wide scale of changes these people are refering to, more thought was required on there part.

Yep. We have come and we will go one day, just like any number of other species, and the earth will live on. Hell, no it won't. It'll be gone one day.

This is a certainty we can't alter whatever self-righteous meddling goes on in-between.

Kevin

[Chris_H]

A very unpleasant message portrayed in that film.

Shame you passed it on really.

[mantahatch]

aah the righteous indignation, or is the possibility that humans are not as important or damaging as some might think, the world will live on with or without humans.  the venom, sorry i did not notice any. the loss of perspective maybe, I am quite able to see the funny side of this video, but when it is such a planet wide scale of changes these people are refering to, more thought was required on there part.

Yep. We have come and we will go one day, just like any number of other species, and the earth will live on. Hell, no it won't. It'll be gone one day.
This is a certainty we can't alter whatever self-righteous meddling goes on in-between.

Kevin

Fair point boss. 

[Nickbat]

A very unpleasant message portrayed in that film.

Shame you passed it on really.

Glad you agree. 

I take your point about passing it on, but it is due to be shown widely in cinemas and on TV. 

[Sixstring]

watched this rubbish twice now, to see if i get the same message each time.
Yes, I do.
It appears to definately say "go along with us, do what we want, don't have your own opinion, or you will die by our hand."

That to me, is Nazism, Fascism, and totalitarian, as well as a dictatorship thinking.

Is this what we want to tell/show as an example to our children??


I think not.  My children were always told " have an opinion, but always respect others right to have one too."

The same as me, I may not always agree with a lot of the opinions on here, but I respect your right to have and express one freely, as I hope you respect my right to express mine.

Thankyou.

[Chris_H]

A very unpleasant message portrayed in that film.

Shame you passed it on really.

Glad you agree. 

I take your point about passing it on, but it is due to be shown widely in cinemas and on TV. 

So I may never have seen it!!!!

I try not to hang out in those places.

[HolyCount]

Whatever your take on climate change is and whatever your views on the political motivations of this ad .... it is, frankly, in incredibly poor taste and the perpetrators have had no regard for it's effect on the young and innocent both watching and portrayed.

We all watch this with our "adult" cynical and analysing minds and thought processes, then come up with the thoughts posted above.

A childs mind is far more literal and will not appreciate the symbolism (indeed, BJ, some kids BELIEVE there is an overweight, underdressed orange blob attacking people, and that Lineker is a crisp thief .... the tooth fairy and Santa Claus .... et al). This "do or die" message is pure indoctrination, playing on the fear it can induce in the younger generation.

[jereboam]

That was supposed to be funny? 

All it does is make me wonder about the true nature of eco-fascism.  I've always been a sceptic, which is to say that while I understand what the AGW proponents are saying, I have yet to be convinced by their arguments, or by the science.  On the other hand, I have always taken exception to the climate change "band wagon" effect, and the methods adopted by the AGW lobby to steamroller all opposition to their point of view.

I just can't see the point of this film.  Are they actually advocating suppression of those who don't want to join their movement?  Or are they parodying the attitude of some of the more strident climate change enthusiasts? 

Good Grief, it's even got the Guardian readership confused.

 

[Banjax]

but we all agree that the video isn't actually promoting the murder of schoolkids by teachers, yes? or am I the lone voice of sanity? 

oldest ad trick in the book, create a controversial piece to jump start discussion. throw in a few cheap special effects - I've seen more violent cartoons.....get a grip people - remember that guy spewing the dog up?

besides I think blowing Ginola up deserves further consideration.......lets not throw the baby out with the bath water - who's with me? 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Some scientific organisations are thankfully stepping back from alarmism and accepting scientific doubts:

Science Museum: "There are areas of uncertainty which are perfectly reasonable to raise and we will present those. For example, the extent to which the climate is as sensitive to the CO2-loading that humans have put in or not."

The Royal Society: "Climate change: a summary of the science states that “some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced”. Unlike Climate change controversies, a simple guide  — the document it replaces — it avoids making predictions about the impact of climate change and refrains from advising governments about how they should respond."

It is most welcome that these organisations should take on board the valid scientific arguments put forward against the previous "science is settled" posture.

[size=14]HOWEVER:[/size]

There are some who are starting to get desperate and producing this sort of nastiness:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UHN3zHoYA0[/media]

WARNING: GRAPHIC VIDEO IMAGERY.

Background:
Whippersnapping climate campaign 10:10  teams up with legendary comic screenwriter Richard Curtis – you know, Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill, co-founded Comic Relief – and Age of Stupid director Franny Armstrong to proudly present their explosive new mini-movie “No Pressure”. The film stars X-Files’ Gillian Anderson, together with Spurs players past and present – including Peter Crouch, Ledley King and David Ginola – with music donated by Radiohead. Shot on 35mm by a 40-strong professional film crew led by director Dougal Wilson, “No Pressure” celebrates everybody who is actively tackling climate change… by blowing up those are aren’t.

 

Promoting the idea that children who don’t reduce their carbon footprint should be murdered by their school teachers. 

How low can these sh*ts get?

Ar*eholes all of them. 

UPDATE:
The Guardian's piece on this states: "This film contains scenes that some viewers may find distressing. Not suitable for children"

"The film, directed by top advertising director Dougal Wilson, known for the Always A Woman John Lewis ad, will be shown in cinemas and on television."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film

   

What a brilliant video.......trying to ENCOURAGE people to reduce their carbon footprint by 10% is an excellent idea.......The video is clearly produced in a humourous Pythonesque style..(and very funny it is too.. )Nick ......well done for posting this......but with regard to the part of your thread that I have highlighted....... perhaps your indignant piety has got the better of you this time..

[Banjax]

at last, a voice of sanity from Opti 

[Kevin Wood]

The video is clearly produced in a humourous Pythonesque style..

Not a style recognised by most schoolkids, I'd wager. :-/

Kevin

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

The video is clearly produced in a humourous Pythonesque style..

Not a style recognised by most schoolkids, I'd wager. :-/

Kevin

Any kid over the age of ten would probably find this video hilarious.......but I accept that smaller children...... being very literal...... may become frightened. I imagine it will only be shown in the cinema.......where the audience is (or should be ) a known age and above...

[Nickbat]

I do not recall the Python team "blowing up" kids, nor using children to moralise. It's sick propaganda, pure and simple. Only a fool would find this video "funny".
 

[Chris_H]

I do not recall the Python team "blowing up" kids, nor using children to moralise. It's sick propaganda, pure and simple. Only a fool would find this video "funny".
 

Now I think I know what a tennis ball feels like.

First I'm faced with what I regard as a distasteful video, then I'm told that people who find it funny are fools.

Nickbat you just put yourself in the same class as the video-makers.

[Nickbat]

I do not recall the Python team "blowing up" kids, nor using children to moralise. It's sick propaganda, pure and simple. Only a fool would find this video "funny".
 

Now I think I know what a tennis ball feels like.

First I'm faced with what I regard as a distasteful video, then I'm told that people who find it funny are fools.

Nickbat you just put yourself in the same class as the video-makers.

I see. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion but, to my mind, the graphic representation of young children being blown up by remote control (at a time when, in real life, many are being similarly executed by terrorists) cannot be considered funny by any normal standards of civility. It is sick. How that should place me in the "same class" as the video makers is, frankly, beyond my comprehension. 

[mantahatch]

but we all agree that the video isn't actually promoting the murder of schoolkids by teachers, yes? or am I the lone voice of sanity? 
oldest ad trick in the book, create a controversial piece to jump start discussion. throw in a few cheap special effects - I've seen more violent cartoons.....get a grip people - remember that guy spewing the dog up?

besides I think blowing Ginola up deserves further consideration.......lets not throw the baby out with the bath water - who's with me? 

I would suggest you are the only soldier marching in step.

 

[Banjax]

this thread just keeps getting better, please keep up the good work until the Golf is back on - thanks 

[Banjax]

but we all agree that the video isn't actually promoting the murder of schoolkids by teachers, yes? or am I the lone voice of sanity? 
oldest ad trick in the book, create a controversial piece to jump start discussion. throw in a few cheap special effects - I've seen more violent cartoons.....get a grip people - remember that guy spewing the dog up?

besides I think blowing Ginola up deserves further consideration.......lets not throw the baby out with the bath water - who's with me? 

I would suggest you are the only soldier marching in step.

 

I march to the monkey playing drums in my head 

[unlucky alf]

The figures quoted in this propaganda film are about as true as the supposed deniers in this film being in the minority depicted by the show of hands, how low will these greens stoop to next?.

[Banjax]

they should do a Children in Need version in B&W, slo-mo Sam Peckinpah-esque ballet of blood, or actually get that lot that did the excellent Spartacus: Blood and Sand recently (absolutely stunning violence) 


you could use "Everybody Hurts" by REM on the soundtrack.










or something by The Cars. 

[Mysteryman]

In the end, it's all down to personal choice. To turn your lights on...to turn your lights off..... let me see.....another bar ont leccy fire I think, that should drown a few more foreigners.

[Dishevelled Den]

they should do a Children in Need version in B&W, slo-mo Sam Peckinpah-esque ballet of blood, or actually get that lot that did the excellent Spartacus: Blood and Sand recently (absolutely stunning violence) 


you could use "Everybody Hurts" by REM on the soundtrack.










or something by The Cars. 

Satire is only effective if cleverly used BJ - and I'm afraid that, in my view, this doesn't make it. [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

[Banjax]

they should do a Children in Need version in B&W, slo-mo Sam Peckinpah-esque ballet of blood, or actually get that lot that did the excellent Spartacus: Blood and Sand recently (absolutely stunning violence) 


you could use "Everybody Hurts" by REM on the soundtrack.










or something by The Cars. 

Satire is only effective if cleverly used BJ - and I'm afraid that, in my view, this doesn't make it. [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

tsk - everyones a critic 

it's not satire if I'm serious tho, surely? 

[Dishevelled Den]

they should do a Children in Need version in B&W, slo-mo Sam Peckinpah-esque ballet of blood, or actually get that lot that did the excellent Spartacus: Blood and Sand recently (absolutely stunning violence) 


you could use "Everybody Hurts" by REM on the soundtrack.










or something by The Cars. 

Satire is only effective if cleverly used BJ - and I'm afraid that, in my view, this doesn't make it. [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

tsk - everyones a critic 

it's not satire if I'm serious tho, surely? 

Nah, still not making it. [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

[Nickbat]

The video has been pulled by YouTube and the 10:10 website.

Perhaps they failed to realise the degree of public disgust.

[unlucky alf]

The video has been pulled by YouTube and the 10:10 website.

Perhaps they failed to realise the degree of public disgust.

well lets see how long this one lasts with the u-tube police,,,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSTLDel-G9k&feature=player_embedded

[jereboam]

but we all agree that the video isn't actually promoting the murder of schoolkids by teachers, yes? or am I the lone voice of sanity? 

oldest ad trick in the book, create a controversial piece to jump start discussion. throw in a few cheap special effects - I've seen more violent cartoons.....get a grip people - remember that guy spewing the dog up?

besides I think blowing Ginola up deserves further consideration.......lets not throw the baby out with the bath water - who's with me? 

I accept that the video is not advocating the murder of schoolchildren.

What exactly is it trying to say?  Is it suggesting that those in authority in any particular situation should impose sanctions on those who do not wish to participate in what appears to be a voluntary scheme?  Is it supposed to induce fear in those who do not wish to participate? 

Perhaps it is just reinforcing social exclusion amongst those who are either ignorant of, or disagree with, a particular point of view.  Not all children are going to be in a position to do anything at all to reduce their carbon footprint (parents won't let them walk to school, don't wish to reduce the temperature in the house, or would rather spend money on fags and booze than loft insulation).  Obviously, it's necessary to draw attention to these reprobates by emphasising how wrong their attitudes are! 

AGW considerations aside, this film is just sick.  Tasteless.  Pointless.  Offensive.

[Nickbat]

10:10 have pulled it from their website and said "Sorry" (not "We're sorry", just "Sorry"). 

I bet they are very sorry now the offending item has gone viral and is returning to YouTube as fast as its taken down.

[Banjax]

hmmmmm.....it's like they planned some kind of a stunt to get publicity for their cause........nah - it relies on otherwise smart people getting their knickers in a twist over nothing - couldn't happen

[Dishevelled Den]

hmmmmm.....it's like they planned some kind of a stunt to get publicity for their cause........nah - it relies on otherwise smart people getting their knickers in a twist over nothing - couldn't happen

You're still not making it BJ [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

[Nickbat]

hmmmmm.....it's like they planned some kind of a stunt to get publicity for their cause........nah - it relies on otherwise smart people getting their knickers in a twist over nothing - couldn't happen

The only thing they got was BAD publicity. I've already read of a company withdrawing its support.
They shot themselves in the foot.

[Banjax]

hmmmmm.....it's like they planned some kind of a stunt to get publicity for their cause........nah - it relies on otherwise smart people getting their knickers in a twist over nothing - couldn't happen

The only thing they got was BAD publicity. I've already read of a company withdrawing its support.
They shot themselves in the foot.

yep, well how many people had heard of 10:10 before this video, and how many are aware of it now? more or less? thats how PR works 


ever watch the weigh in at world title fight? ooooo those guys hate each other - this fights gonna be good (ka-chinggg!!)

oldest trick in the book i'm afraid  8-)

[Nickbat]

hmmmmm.....it's like they planned some kind of a stunt to get publicity for their cause........nah - it relies on otherwise smart people getting their knickers in a twist over nothing - couldn't happen

This comment at the Guardian reflects, i believe, how the majority of "warmists" have received the video:

As an keen environmentalist I wish to disassociate myself from this film.

10:10 are idiots -- not because of what they stand for but because they allowed some celebrity film makers to talk them into agreeing to this film. It has put the environmental movement back by more than the deniaiists could have hoped for in their wildest dreams. I'm appalled and angry.

This film -- and the stupidity of the client that permitted it -- will be talked of in advertising circles for all time. Words fail me.

Don't think it was Banjax that posted it though.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

hmmmmm.....it's like they planned some kind of a stunt to get publicity for their cause........nah - it relies on otherwise smart people getting their knickers in a twist over nothing - couldn't happen

This comment at the Guardian reflects, i believe, how the majority of "warmists" have received the video:

As an keen environmentalist I wish to disassociate myself from this film.

10:10 are idiots -- not because of what they stand for but because they allowed some celebrity film makers to talk them into agreeing to this film. It has put the environmental movement back by more than the deniaiists could have hoped for in their wildest dreams. I'm appalled and angry.

This film -- and the stupidity of the client that permitted it -- will be talked of in advertising circles for all time. Words fail me.

Don't think it was Banjax that posted it though.

Nick ......You are always appalled and angry over one thing or other......It's your OOF trademark..

Seriously though......I found this video entertaining and thoroughly enjoyed it....as a bit of gory fun...... nothing to hyperventilate over really.. ..........a lot of hysteria over nothing in my view.....

[Nickbat]

hmmmmm.....it's like they planned some kind of a stunt to get publicity for their cause........nah - it relies on otherwise smart people getting their knickers in a twist over nothing - couldn't happen

This comment at the Guardian reflects, i believe, how the majority of "warmists" have received the video:

As an keen environmentalist I wish to disassociate myself from this film.

10:10 are idiots -- not because of what they stand for but because they allowed some celebrity film makers to talk them into agreeing to this film. It has put the environmental movement back by more than the deniaiists could have hoped for in their wildest dreams. I'm appalled and angry.

This film -- and the stupidity of the client that permitted it -- will be talked of in advertising circles for all time. Words fail me.

Don't think it was Banjax that posted it though.

Nick ......You are always appalled and angry over one thing or other......It's your OOF trademark..

Seriously though......I found this video entertaining and thoroughly enjoyed it....as a bit of gory fun...... nothing to hyperventilate over really.. ..........a lot of hysteria over nothing in my view.....

It was not me that was appalled and angry.....if you bothered to read my post.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

hmmmmm.....it's like they planned some kind of a stunt to get publicity for their cause........nah - it relies on otherwise smart people getting their knickers in a twist over nothing - couldn't happen

This comment at the Guardian reflects, i believe, how the majority of "warmists" have received the video:

As an keen environmentalist I wish to disassociate myself from this film.

10:10 are idiots -- not because of what they stand for but because they allowed some celebrity film makers to talk them into agreeing to this film. It has put the environmental movement back by more than the deniaiists could have hoped for in their wildest dreams. I'm appalled and angry.

This film -- and the stupidity of the client that permitted it -- will be talked of in advertising circles for all time. Words fail me.

Don't think it was Banjax that posted it though.

Nick ......You are always appalled and angry over one thing or other......It's your OOF trademark..

Seriously though......I found this video entertaining and thoroughly enjoyed it....as a bit of gory fun...... nothing to hyperventilate over really.. ..........a lot of hysteria over nothing in my view.....

It was not me that was appalled and angry.....if you bothered to read my post.

I did bother to read it......so I know it was not you...

[Dishevelled Den]

Nick ......You are always appalled and angry over one thing or other......It's your OOF trademark..

Seriously though......I found this video entertaining and thoroughly enjoyed it....as a bit of gory fun...... nothing to hyperventilate over really.. ..........a lot of hysteria over nothing in my view.....

I found this video entertaining and thoroughly enjoyed it....as a bit of gory fun...... nothing to hyperventilate over really

I'm surprised and disappointed that you have found this so Opti - I would have expected it in Banjax but not you.

For those of you (including Banjax) who consider this to be a bit of harmless fun let me tell you how much fun explosions involving humans are.

I have been involved in, and have investigated the scenes of, many explosions in which people have been either killed or injured.

On the occasions where I was at a scene when the incident occurred there is little available in one's personal coping mechanism to help prepare for the immediate aftermath.

Confusion, chaos, devastation and carnage are generally the range of experiences felt after the initial effects of the blinding light, pressure wave and deafening sound that knocks you to the ground.

The realisation that people have died or have been injured is difficult to suppress when certain procedures must be carried out, but the sweet odour of burning flesh, the heavy aroma of blood and the offensive sourness of visceral matter is something that I will remember to my last breath.

There is nothing inconsequential about real-world explosions and it angers me that images like those depicted in this video, can be so casually dreamt up by individuals most of whom haven't been in the presence of violent death, other than that resident in their tortured ‘creative’ minds.

Is this the only way they feel open to them to get a message across?  If it is, it appears that we, as a society, are inured to violence to such a degree that we must be presented with ever increasing levels of graphic imagery before we are able to register the purpose of any given message.

That can't be right, furthermore, the fact that certain people seem to shrug this inclination off as unworthy of concern saddens me.

There was nothing clever about that piece, it was sorded and opportunistic and held little journalistic or artistic merit.  It was designed for one purpose - to push a single-minded mendacious message dressed up in a ‘clever’ package.

Those who choose not to see it for what it really is are, I'm afraid, making a fundamental mistake.

[Nickbat]

Nick ......You are always appalled and angry over one thing or other......It's your OOF trademark..

Seriously though......I found this video entertaining and thoroughly enjoyed it....as a bit of gory fun...... nothing to hyperventilate over really.. ..........a lot of hysteria over nothing in my view.....

I found this video entertaining and thoroughly enjoyed it....as a bit of gory fun...... nothing to hyperventilate over really

I'm surprised and disappointed that you have found this so Opti - I would have expected it in Banjax but not you.

For those of you (including Banjax) who consider this to be a bit of harmless fun let me tell you how much fun explosions involving humans are.

I have been involved in, and have investigated the scenes of, many explosions in which people have been either killed or injured.

On the occasions where I was at a scene when the incident occurred there is little available in one's personal coping mechanism to help prepare for the immediate aftermath.

Confusion, chaos, devastation and carnage are generally the range of experiences felt after the initial effects of the blinding light, pressure wave and deafening sound that knocks you to the ground.

The realisation that people have died or have been injured is difficult to suppress when certain procedures must be carried out, but the sweet odour of burning flesh, the heavy aroma of blood and the offensive sourness of visceral matter is something that I will remember to my last breath.

There is nothing inconsequential about real-world explosions and it angers me that images like those depicted in this video, can be so casually dreamt up by individuals most of whom haven't been in the presence of violent death, other than that resident in their tortured ‘creative’ minds.

Is this the only way they feel open to them to get a message across?  If it is, it appears that we, as a society, are inured to violence to such a degree that we must be presented with ever increasing levels of graphic imagery before we are able to register the purpose of any given message.

That can't be right, furthermore, the fact that certain people seem to shrug this inclination off as unworthy of concern saddens me.

There was nothing clever about that piece, it was sorded and opportunistic and held little journalistic or artistic merit.  It was designed for one purpose - to push a single-minded mendacious message dressed up in a ‘clever’ package.

Those who choose not to see it for what it really is are, I'm afraid, making a fundamental mistake.

A sobering and incisive comment, Zulu. 

[Banjax]

Zulu - come off it, it's cartoon violence. I know you don't agree with the message on the video, but do you really feel like that when you watch any film where someone is killed?

I really think you're blowing this up out of all proportion 

[Dishevelled Den]

Zulu - come off it, it's cartoon violence. I know you don't agree with the message on the video, but do you really feel like that when you watch any film where someone is killed?

I really think you're blowing this up out of all proportion 

Is that all you have BJ? - will you ever be able to admit that your analysis is flawed or just plain contrary for the sake of it?  Do not try to play me like you do Nick.

If you care to consider my remarks perhaps you will see that I'm concerned with the casual nature of the decision to use graphic violence in this way.

Are you so hardened or ambivalent to the way violence is used for entertainment, or to titillate those who can only experience it vicariously, that you can't see the danger in accepting everything that's displayed in a violent manner for advertising or leisure pursuits without pausing for thought?

It's about time people started speaking out about this worrying trend of ‘anything goes’, at a time in our social history where many people seem to accept the first thing they see on a screen as being acceptable.

Furthermore it's far from cartoon violence and, if you consider it to be so, then I'm afraid to tell you that you're very much mistaken.

[Banjax]

nah, sorry Zulu - I'm definitely not buying it.

In my opinion, I think that you and Nick have actually taken this too far and are now so far down the end of a logical cul-de-sac that theres no going back.

If you truly are the Mary Whitehouse of our generation....it's the first I've heard of it. It's a short film using comedic graphic violence to get attention - I think you and Nick, if you were honest with yourselves, find the message more distasteful than a bucket of fake blood and some chicken livers - would Nick have posted his outrage if it was an advert shooting Al Gore in the face? Of course he wouldn't. Which is fine by the way, but please don't make it out to be any deeper or more meaningful than it is.

[Nickbat]

nah, sorry Zulu - I'm definitely not buying it.

In my opinion, I think that you and Nick have actually taken this too far and are now so far down the end of a logical cul-de-sac that theres no going back.

If you truly are the Mary Whitehouse of our generation....it's the first I've heard of it. It's a short film using comedic graphic violence to get attention - I think you and Nick, if you were honest with yourselves, find the message more distasteful than a bucket of fake blood and some chicken livers - would Nick have posted his outrage if it was an advert shooting Al Gore in the face? Of course he wouldn't. Which is fine by the way, but please don't make it out to be any deeper or more meaningful than it is.

It was NOT comedic graphic violence.

The message was clear - if you do not accept what someone says then you have no right to hold your own opinions or thought. The way that right is removed is depicted through an act of gross violence.

And don't even start suggest that I am not being honest with myself.

Furthermore, I do not understand why you and Optimist feel it necessary to personlise this discussion with attacks on me by name. There are clearly many, many, other people throughout the world who have expressed similar outrage. Hence the withdrawal of this piece of cinematic sh*t.   

[Dishevelled Den]

nah, sorry Zulu - I'm definitely not buying it.

In my opinion, I think that you and Nick have actually taken this too far and are now so far down the end of a logical cul-de-sac that theres no going back.

If you truly are the Mary Whitehouse of our generation....it's the first I've heard of it. It's a short film using comedic graphic violence to get attention - I think you and Nick, if you were honest with yourselves, find the message more distasteful than a bucket of fake blood and some chicken livers - would Nick have posted his outrage if it was an advert shooting Al Gore in the face? Of course he wouldn't. Which is fine by the way, but please don't make it out to be any deeper or more meaningful than it is.

I don't particurlarly care whether you buy it or not BJ.

Again, do not bring Nick into this, I'm a big boy and can decide for myself what I find objectionable.

The message contained within the video is secondary to the means used to convey it - if you think it's acceptable, I do not and no amount of mock outrage or sage concern about my view of it will deflect me from that opinion.

Finally, far from being a Mary Whitehouse I've actually had a uniform on my back so am no shrinking violet - I (with others) have had to clear up the mess left by violence in an environment where people didn't care about it as it had become commonplace and nothing to be questioned.

It’s plain to me that you seem to have a mindset where matters such as these are concerned and will take any position - as long as it’s to the contrary in the hope of creating some measure of controversy.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Calm down chaps.......it's just a car forum.

How about this for a bit of comedic blood and guts.

Apparently...... it is a parody of the ultra violent Sam Peckinpah  films of the time.....such as The Wild Bunch.....and Straw Dogs. (Susan George ) Enjoy

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1-NpyaOWV0[/media]

[Banjax]

I'll continue to differentiate between reality and special effects chaps 

Nickbat, you posted the video with your forthright opinions on it, so why you're complaining about me commenting on your post I don't understand  :-?

Zulu - I respect you and Nickbats position, but really I'm not just trying to wind you up - I just have a different perspective - we've been playing violent games since we were kids - whether its fake guns playing soldiers, cops and robbers or cowboys and indians through to killing space invaders or mowing down pedestrians in GTA.

I just can't understand what's so objectionable about this compared to 1000's of video games, cartoons, horror films....hell take a look at the end scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark when the SS general is melted....now I'm pretty sure being burned alive is horrific but that was a mainstream movie enjoyed by millions as pure entertainment - are you suggesting that depicting death or violence should be outlawed?  :-?

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, Z -- I have no wish to get into the whole censorship debate   :-/

[Dishevelled Den]

I'll continue to differentiate between reality and special effects chaps 

Nickbat, you posted the video with your forthright opinions on it, so why you're complaining about me commenting on your post I don't understand  :-?

Zulu - I respect you and Nickbats position, but really I'm not just trying to wind you up - I just have a different perspective - we've been playing violent games since we were kids - whether its fake guns playing soldiers, cops and robbers or cowboys and indians through to killing space invaders or mowing down pedestrians in GTA.

I just can't understand what's so objectionable about this compared to 1000's of video games, cartoons, horror films....hell take a look at the end scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark when the SS general is melted....now I'm pretty sure being burned alive is horrific but that was a mainstream movie enjoyed by millions as pure entertainment - are you suggesting that depicting death or violence should be outlawed?  :-?

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, Z -- I have no wish to get into the whole censorship debate   :-/

Yes, that's fair enough BJ, I'll happily disagree with you on this.

The acceptance of violence as being tolerable (and indeed desirable) by virtue of it's commonplace application in the way you've mentioned above, is part of the problem that concerns me.

This intensity of media delivery systems now ensures that more and more people can enjoy (if that's their thing) scenes of violence many times more graphic than available a few years ago.

In an increasingly violent, de-humanised society can these graphic images not promote the use of physical acts of violence through a disconnection with reality in the individuals who are prone to view such images as 'acceptable' entertainment?

The full ramifications of this rapid expansion in entertainment technology has yet to be realized in terms of how it motivates - or otherwise - the people using it. 

Make violence commonplace in the way we are discussing, numb people to the reality of it and society risks having susceptible individuals believe that they can apply the same methods to settle their affairs.

I'm wary of censorship for many reasons - but the question of it does not concern me in this matter.  What does is an unnecessary depiction of graphic violence being used to illustrate a point of view in a matter where violence should be irrelevant.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I'll continue to differentiate between reality and special effects chaps 

Nickbat, you posted the video with your forthright opinions on it, so why you're complaining about me commenting on your post I don't understand  :-?

Zulu - I respect you and Nickbats position, but really I'm not just trying to wind you up - I just have a different perspective - we've been playing violent games since we were kids - whether its fake guns playing soldiers, cops and robbers or cowboys and indians through to killing space invaders or mowing down pedestrians in GTA.

I just can't understand what's so objectionable about this compared to 1000's of video games, cartoons, horror films....hell take a look at the end scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark when the SS general is melted....now I'm pretty sure being burned alive is horrific but that was a mainstream movie enjoyed by millions as pure entertainment - are you suggesting that depicting death or violence should be outlawed?  :-?

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, Z -- I have no wish to get into the whole censorship debate   :-/

Yes, that's fair enough BJ, I'll happily disagree with you on this.

The acceptance of violence as being tolerable (and indeed desirable) by virtue of it's commonplace application in the way you've mentioned above, is part of the problem that concerns me.

This intensity of media delivery systems now ensures that more and more people can enjoy (if that's their thing) scenes of violence many times more graphic than available a few years ago.

In an increasingly violent, de-humanised society can these graphic images not promote the use of physical acts of violence through a disconnection with reality in the individuals who are prone to view such images as 'acceptable' entertainment?

The full ramifications of this rapid expansion in entertainment technology has yet to be realized in terms of how it motivates - or otherwise - the people using it. 

Make violence commonplace in the way we are discussing, numb people to the reality of it and society risks having susceptible individuals believe that they can apply the same methods to settle their affairs.

I'm wary of censorship for many reasons - but the question of it does not concern me in this matter.  What does is an unnecessary depiction of graphic violence being used to illustrate a point of view in a matter where violence should be irrelevant.

I'm not totally convinced that Jack the Ripper watched a video nasty or two before his killing spree in 1888 Zulu. There have always been horrendous acts of violence since the dawn of time. I put it down to the darker side of human nature.

[Banjax]

Fair enough Zulu - in my experience every generation worries about what the kids are watching/listening to or doing......most of us end up turning out OK as I'm sure most kids nowadays will too - the only difference being the widespread availability of violent and/or adult material on the internet...but time will tell 

[Mysteryman]

I'll continue to differentiate between reality and special effects chaps 

Nickbat, you posted the video with your forthright opinions on it, so why you're complaining about me commenting on your post I don't understand  :-?

Zulu - I respect you and Nickbats position, but really I'm not just trying to wind you up - I just have a different perspective - we've been playing violent games since we were kids - whether its fake guns playing soldiers, cops and robbers or cowboys and indians through to killing space invaders or mowing down pedestrians in GTA.

I just can't understand what's so objectionable about this compared to 1000's of video games, cartoons, horror films....hell take a look at the end scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark when the SS general is melted....now I'm pretty sure being burned alive is horrific but that was a mainstream movie enjoyed by millions as pure entertainment - are you suggesting that depicting death or violence should be outlawed?  :-?

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, Z -- I have no wish to get into the whole censorship debate   :-/

That's why the world is such a wonderful place to exist.

[Dishevelled Den]

I'm not totally convinced that Jack the Ripper watched a video nasty or two before his killing spree in 1888 Zulu. There have always been horrendous acts of violence since the dawn of time. I put it down to the darker side of human nature.

I agree Opti although in this context, historical violence is largely irrelevant.

The concern we all should have now is how this unknown factor of having immediate access to the type of material BJ was talking about - at any time desired and by a multiplicity of means - will shape peoples view of violence as a common factor in everyday life and how they have no need to worry about it.

I have seen the undesirable result of people using violence as a means of primary expression simply because they had little concept of how wrong it was, even though it was being manifest in a society where violence was a given, the consequences of living in that place at that particular time.

[Dishevelled Den]

Fair enough Zulu - in my experience every generation worries about what the kids are watching/listening to or doing......most of us end up turning out OK as I'm sure most kids nowadays will too - the only difference being the widespread availability of violent and/or adult material on the internet...but time will tell 

the only difference being the widespread availability of violent and/or adult material on the internet...but time will tell

That is the thing we should be concerned about as we are presently in uncharted territory.

[Banjax]

Fair enough Zulu - in my experience every generation worries about what the kids are watching/listening to or doing......most of us end up turning out OK as I'm sure most kids nowadays will too - the only difference being the widespread availability of violent and/or adult material on the internet...but time will tell 

the only difference being the widespread availability of violent and/or adult material on the internet...but time will tell

That is the thing we should be concerned about as we are presently in uncharted territory.

if I had a laptop with access to the internet when I was 14 I doubt I'd have left my room to be fair 

[tidla]

remember them?

[Banjax]

remember them?

yes - sadly, but I'm not sure of the point 

[tidla]

there was a link to these young boys being allowed to watch horror movies such as childs play 12&3.

this was dismissed that it had any bearing on the case.

as always theres the bit "you dont see" which in this case, if the kids were allowed to watch such stuff, what other  unsavoury elements in there childhood did they absorb?

[Banjax]

there was a link to these young boys being allowed to watch horror movies such as childs play 12&3.

this was dismissed that it had any bearing on the case.

as always theres the bit "you dont see" which in this case, if the kids were allowed to watch such stuff, what other  unsavoury elements in there childhood did they absorb?

my argument to that Tapper would be that millions of people watched those films/had access to violent video games or other horror films and didnt become psychos - i think society as a whole seeks out a scapegoat to explain pure evil behaviour - i'm afraid some people are just bad 

[tidla]

do you remember a time when on tv the "f" word regardless of channel was not exceptable. as time went on, if the program wasnt pulled, it was beeped.

programs as "griity" as the sweeney at the time never ventured that way.

today, even the blooper programs dont edit the "f" word.

whats changed?

values that were once upheld are no longer.

at which point does a violent episode become the "norm".

[Banjax]

do you remember a time when on tv the "f" word regardless of channel was not exceptable. as time went on, if the program wasnt pulled, it was beeped.

programs as "griity" as the sweeney at the time never ventured that way.

today, even the blooper programs dont edit the "f" word.

whats changed?

values that were once upheld are no longer.

at which point does a violent episode become the "norm".

i think society swings from one extreme to the other - from the buttoned up repression of the victorian era to the anything goes hedonism of the 20's, from the late 60's and 70's drugs sex and rock and roll to the moral constraints fuelled by Aids in the 80's and 90's - i think we're always in a state of moral panic as to what is and isn't acceptable - look at the USA here and now - you cant say so much as s**t, c**p or a** on MTV without it being dubbed and thats a supposedly cutting edge channel in the 21st century where i seriously doubt any viewers would complain - yet they're afraid of even the mildest swearing/sex or violence :-?

[tidla]

valid point. usa (two and a half men ,comedy channel)bleep words we find exceptable.

maybe as they say, they are in front of the uk (moral decline especially) . what happens there, turns up here?

[Martin_1962]

I have seen some yanks wet their nappies over damn