BBC Hypumentaries

[N4H]

I love these things. We didn't used to have access to them where I am, but since the online video revolution anybody can see them.

What they do is they organize selected facts, and hype them up to create a theoretical concept which is itself offered up as fact.

Here are links to my three favourites. Tell me if you know of any others I should check out.

The Power of Nightmares (http://www.jonhs.net/freemovies/power_of_nightmares.htm) - Puts forth the theory Mid-East terrorism is actually a fabrication of the American Neo-conservative movement.

The Invisible Machine (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4515534125267138757) - Scares you by telling you about beam weaponry.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://www.jonhs.net/freemovies/great_global_warming_swindle.htm) - My personal favourite. Tells you this Global Warming stuff you hear so much about is nothing more than a gigantic fraud fraud being perpetrated against the world's masses.

[prydain]

How people could say there's no such thing as global warming is beyond me. People seriously think the stuff chugging out of the back of their cars is harmless? Pssh. Gas fumes can cause cancer but they can't hurt the environment?

That reminds me of my grandfather - he's ultra Conservative. My mom and I, we aren't Conservative, or Liberal, for that matter. But we believe in global warming. My grandfather was telling us animals contribute more to global warming than cars or factories - which to me is seriously one of the most idiotic theories I've heard in my entire life. Anyway, he said that everything we believed was from propaganda.

Funny, he never stopped to consider the crap he just spouted out was Republican propaganda.

I swear, politics will be the end of the world. Republicans, Democrats, and every other party. *sigh*

[N4H]

How people could say there's no such thing as global warming is beyond me. People seriously think the stuff chugging out of the back of their cars is harmless? Pssh. Gas fumes can cause cancer but they can't hurt the environment?

Unfortunately that statement is chock full of misconceptions. Not to worry. They're common.

First of all don't confuse Global Warming with pollution. The global warming theory has to do with C02. C02 is an odorless colorless gas natural to the environment, often used by commercial plant growers. Plants love it. 3% of the worlds environmental gas is C02, and 3% of that comes from humans. It is not that black smoke, or haze you see, or smell, and think of as pollution.

Also global warming skeptics do not say man has no affect whatsoever on the environment. They say the current technology does not tell us with any kind of precision exactly how large that affect might be, but it is most likely negligible, and may even be beneficial. The major complaint skeptics have is against the politicizing of the global warming theory, and the hyped up climate of fear the mainstream media is perpetrating on the public. They suggest those things are the real threat.

That reminds me of my grandfather - he's ultra Conservative. My mom and I, we aren't Conservative, or Liberal, for that matter. But we believe in global warming. My grandfather was telling us animals contribute more to global warming than cars or factories - which to me is seriously one of the most idiotic theories I've heard in my entire life. Anyway, he said that everything we believed was from propaganda.

I think what he's referring to is the radical side of global warming activism which suggests because commercial livestock poo, and poo gives off C02, as well as methane, people should be forced to go vegetarian. Believe it or not that's true. They really do say that.

Funny, he never stopped to consider the crap he just spouted out was Republican propaganda.

Strangely enough Republicans are jumping on the global warming bandwagon. If you check out that documentary "The Politics of Fear", you'll get an idea of why that might be. Fear can be used as a political tool.

[teentitan]

Disclaimer: I believe in reducing co2, pollution, smog etc.
Pry I suggest you watch the Great Global Warming Swindle again. They never once said global warming is a fraud they are saying the politicians are using it as a prop for their campaigns. They went after Gore because his science only went back 100 or so years and was heavy on the 'proposed/possible' scenarios for the future. Whereas the science in this documentary goes back 10's of thousands of years measuring carbon in drilled out ice cores from the north/south poles. The man who predicts weather with a 99% accuracy by watching solar flares from the sun was the most stunning.
This documentary was chock full of science that politicians fear as much as vampires bathing in holy water.
To prove this is a political tool I will use Gore as an example. He won an Oscar, his slide show is in demand all around the world, he buys carbon credits from his own company, and he is pandering to the eco-warriors of the world. He is networking with the right people with the overly large check books. I predict that around September/October he will announce he is going to run for President and his war chest will be overflowing.

[prydain]

I think what he's referring to is the radical side of global warming activism which suggests because commercial livestock poo, and poo gives off C02, as well as methane, people should be forced to go vegetarian. Believe it or not that's true. They really do say that.



Strangely enough Republicans are jumping on the global warming bandwagon. If you check out that documentary "The Politics of Fear", you'll get an idea of why that might be. Fear can be used as a political tool.

ha...

I am personally not that concerned with global warming. I don't think that the polar ice caps will be melting any time soon. If they do, I doubt they'll cause as much damage as people say. BUT I think blaming animal crap is silly - animals have been crapping for billions of years, that's the way the world works. We can't stop crapping.

And don't you mean SOME Republicans? Or, maybe most, but not all. I don't know where my grandfather got his info - he watches political stuff all day. Personally, like I said before, I think politics are an unncecessary evil in the world. And yeah, I know they use fear. That's why I try not to listen to politicians - or the president - anymore. This is the only place I really pay attention to political conversations anymore. *shrug*

[goldenboy]

That global warming one was entertaining. Can't imagine seeing something like that on PBS anytime this millenium. The CO2 lag time and the sunspot stuff was the most compelling to me. All the political, anecdotal stuff was interesting though. Who would have thought Margaret Thatcher had a hand in all this?

[N4H]

The show gets a lot of bashing of course. The film's maker Martin Durkin, does controversial stuff, and has been accused of making false claims in the past. Nothing worse than Michael Moore claiming Canadians don't lock their doors at night, but still there have been allegations of false claims against Durkin.

There's a graph he uses that in it's real form only goes to 2000. He extended the graph out past 2000.

There are of course the personal attacks against the experts he uses. You always get that one. "They work for the oil companies" and such bogus claims are always made.

One of the experts claims he was misled by Durkin as to what the film would be about. He claims that although what he told Durkin about the ocean being the main contributor of CO2 is true, it was taken out of context.

I find it interesting though... There are tons more complaints of false claims made against Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, yet you don't hear about those. Only Durkin-bashes make the news. Gore gets an Academy Award.

[goldenboy]

Documentaries and 60 Minutes, etc are maybe not the most reliable source for info. But what is? The IPCC, a UN organization? That's what's so frustrating. The more entertaining a doc is, the more you wonder about the info therein. Everyone has a POV, how can it not shade editorial decisions, which experts are and aren't included for interviews. Seemed like he was throwing in so many attacks, from different angles. The charts and graphs are the most compelling to me...but then I just wonder...whose charts and graphs are those? lol. Are the calculations and measurements of the past in dispute.

Something as basic as higher CO2 levels being an after effect, a collateral product of warming, not the other way around...it's just shocking - if it's true - that the disagreement is that simple and fundamental.

Just seems like Occam's razor to me. The Sun cycle influence seems so elemental, simple, logical. But I could understand the fear there cos it means Man really has almost no influence, if that's the case.

[teentitan]

Here's something to digest...less then 10,000 years ago Chicago was under 10 feet of ice! Where did it go?
When a thunderstorm started a forest fire who put it out? When a 60 ton dinasour had a dump it weighed anywhere form half to 1 ton...pooper scooper that one, lol.
And I believe every 100 years the earth's axis tilts forward towards the sun by 1/2 a degree.
So many scientific points in history that seem to be ignored lately by the eco-warrors. But the two Ice Age cartoons are cute.

[N4H]

Then there's the era called the Holocene Maximum. I'm told it was warmer than it is today for a longer period of time. Apparently it's also the the time advanced human culture began to spread. In other words mankind does better in warm periods. This proposal is further supported by the Medieval Warm period. Neither of these warm periods, nor the Roman warm period harmed mankind as a species. It flourished.

In others words warm periods happen with or without CO2, and from what we've seen of them so far Man does better during periods of warmth.

Here's an interesting little tid-bit. During the Holocene Warm period the Sahara desert contained lakes and forests.

On the graphs...There are graphs, and studies called into question by either side. To me what that really says is neither side has incontrovertible evidence.

[goldenboy]

Speaking of controversial docs, I've been following this other one, Islam vs the Islamists. Apparently depicting the struggle between moderate Muslims and radicals. PBS commissioned the piece (funded in part by US taxpayers), and they now refuse to show it, or even let others see it! I just want to see what all the fuss is about.

A Film Too Hot To Handle
PBS cites bias and alarmism in suspending the airing of a documentary on Islamic moderates and extremists

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070429/7islam.htm

[N4H]

C'mon Internet. Find this one, and post it somewhere. I really want to see it.

You see, this is what I hate about the left wing. They're so arrogant about what the general public should see, hear, and think. God knows, I've seen enough left wing documentaries dishing out one-sided, anti-American propoganda, but heaven forbid anyone should take a shot at radical Islam.

BTW, kudos to whatever British network aired TGGWS. That took guts.

[teentitan]

Did anyone see The Road to 9/11 by ABC?
Talk about guts! The mouse network did it without commercials, sponsor etc. I've been waiting for the dvd release because if even half of what they brought out is true then OMFG!
With watching this show and the fore mentioned Islamic documentary PBS has no choice but NOT to air it. A lot of their funding is government and donations whereas all ABC did was offer up better vacation packages at Mickey Mouse HQ's in Florida and California.
But I'm cheering for the Internet to come thru on this one too.

[goldenboy]

Ooh, I found the trailer at least:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dKYrFQleK6E

It looks good. Whenever do you get a doc that's interviewing the moderates? So, I guess PBS' problem is that it's too mean and unfair to the jihadists?! Or the moderates they interview aren't "real" Muslims? What's the deal PBS?


Glenn Beck's hammy interview style really bugs, but here's a good exchange with the main filmmaker, one of the subjects:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8K_FRhAp10U&mode=related&search=

[N4H]

It's no wonder Glen Beck would be all over this one. Did you ever see the program he did on the radicals of Islam where he interviewed the moderates?

I remember he was complaining about all the trouble he had bringing that one to air.

[teentitan]

One other thing you need to remember about PBS not wanting to air this documentary. About 3 or 4 years ago in Denmark (?) a guy did a documentary on how Islamic woman dress and if they move to a country they should adapt. Well he was shot in the head on main street by an Islamic man who said he should stay out of his religion.
The country is really torn as are the artists of the world about expressing freedom of speech yadda yadda. So maybe PBS is worried about the film makers and consciously they cannot air it in case the same thing happens.

[Gollanth]

....... About 3 or 4 years ago in Denmark (?) a guy did a documentary on how Islamic woman dress and if they move to a country they should adapt. Well he was shot in the head on main street by an Islamic man who said he should stay out of his religion.
I think you'll find that was the Netherlands....possibly a guy called Theo Van Gogh. I was only reading about it again the other day.

[goldenboy]

Yeah, Van Gogh made the film Submission, with Ayaan Hirsi Ali (http://youtube.com/results?search_query=ayaan+hirsi+ali&search=Search). Ali moved to the States, cos of all the death threats she was getting. Now she gets threats in the US...

[Gollanth]

Out of interest - and for those among you who, like me, need to get out more - here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)) a link to the Wiki entry for Van Gogh. I'm not actually sure how much sympathy I have with his OTT views, but I defend his right to state them.

Oddly enough, reading through the entry, reminded me that another poor sod was also assassinated for voicing his views in what is supposed to be a democratic country - Pim Fortuyn.

Dunno what the world's coming to myself......

[N4H]

In the meantime, this is what kids in Palestine are watching.

Palestinian Mickey Mouse (http://www.filecabi.net/video/MickeyMouseClone.html)

[teentitan]

WOW and to think we in the west were worried that one of the Teletubbies was gay!!!

[goldenboy]

Huh. Really curious to see this.

Film Review: "Islam vs. Islamists"

Martyn Burke’s documentary “Islam vs. Islamists” (produced with Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev) was commissioned by PBS for its “American Crossroads” series, but never shown by the network. Quality control or censorship? Pajamas Media CEO and Motion Picture Academy member Roger L. Simon has seen the film and has an answer.

I have to admit the first thing that attracted me to Martyn Burke’s “Islam vs. Islamists” was that PBS had suppressed it. As is now well known, the Public Broadcasting network rejected Burke’s documentary - produced with Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev for the network’s “American Crossroads” series - on the film’s completion. PBS’ initial explanation for this blackballing was that the film was not good enough, aesthetically.

Well, yes, I thought when I heard that; that could be. Most things are. As a filmmaker I know that well. Not to my credit, I am usually especially hard on my fellows’ work – and on my own. Only one of the films I have written – Enemies, A Love Story – can I even watch today. Most PBS documentaries I find so stultifying I would rather read the phone book. The network has yet to produce its own Nanook of the North, to put it mildly.

So I assumed the criticism of Burke’s film was valid. Still, I was curious. I had not been entirely satisfied with previous documentaries I had seen on related subjects – Islam: What the West Needs to Know and Obsession – because, like Al Gore’s global warming film, they were made in the old-fashioned didactic style of the conventional documentary that always teeters on the edge of propaganda or special pleading. I assumed Islam vs. Islamists would be like that.

Boy was I wrong. Burke’s doc is a riveting and creatively made film about the most important subject of our time: what to do about radical Islam? It confronts this dilemma in a sly, novelistic manner, inter-weaving the stories of good, moderate Muslims with the Imams and supposedly “true Muslims” who, not surprisingly, accuse the moderate Muslims of not being Muslims at all. Soon enough we learn these Imams are apologists for terrorism and for the worst kind of medieval religious sadism. (One of them enthusiastically endorses the stoning to death of adulterers by holding up a Koran. “I didn’t make this up,” he says proudly. “It is written here.”) The mostly mild-mannered moderate Muslims are shown to be at risk for the lives, some of them accompanied everywhere by bodyguards.

All this is done with the people talking about themselves and revealing themselves (including the Imam responsible for the bloody Danish Cartoons riots). There are no so-called “terrorism experts” or other talking heads interpreting reality for us. In other words, this is a film, not another one of those didactic docs referred to above.

But it does have a strong point of view – and therein lies the rub. PBS, clearly, does not like what this movie says. And I suspect it likes it less because the film is well made (the reverse of what the network originally claimed).

PBS’ views seem particularly troglodytic today in light of recent events at Fort Dix. But that is the least of it. What is far more important to our country is that our Public Broadcasting network, an organization supported by taxpayer money, is practicing the most obvious censorship. PBS is operating here in the manner of similar institutions in the former Soviet Union and in modern day Iran – financing artists and then withholding distribution of their work when it is not deemed ideologically “correct”. It’s a form of thought-control and it’s unconscionable.

I hereby call on my fellow Motion Picture Academy members, whatever their political leanings, to protest this cowardly and un-American act of censorship. As artists, we should be appalled by such blatant disregard of our First Amendment rights. Public funding of PBS should be reconsidered if such reactionary behavior continues.

ADDENDA –

HOW CAN I SEE THIS FILM?
As of now, you can’t. There have been three public screenings so far, two in Washington and one in New York (standing room only). Another is under discussion for Los Angeles. Pajamas Media will keep you apprised if this happens.

WHAT CAN I DO?
You can sign the petition protesting PBS’ censorship here.

NAMING NAMES
The gentlemen at PBS directly responsible for this censorship are, according to Mr. Burke, Leo Eaton and Jeff Bieber. Bieber perhaps tipped his hand more than he intended when he told Martyn Burke “Don’t you check into the politics of the people you work with?” - evidently referring to Messrs. Alexiev and Gaffney.

As Burke told me about his whole experience, “I’m living the Hollywood Ten in reverse.”

So it seems.
——-
Roger L. Simon received an Academy Award nomination for his screenplay of Enemies, A Love Story. His other screenplays include The Big Fix, Bustin’ Loose, Scenes from a Mall and (with Sheryl Longin) Prague Duet, which he also directed.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/05/film_review_islam_vs_islamism.php

[N4H]

A casual browse at Google suggests this is causing a lot of negative feelings towards PBS.

The replacement film PBS aired—The Muslim Americans—was so shoddy that even the New York Times called it “dull” and “misleading.”

Happily, Islam vs. Islamists is creating public-relations headaches for PBS. On April 25, a bipartisan group of lawmakers organized a private screening for members of the House and Senate. Perhaps they can do something about what Gaffney calls “the pocket of corruption” at PBS.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/peach/404

[goldenboy]

Another one in the news.

Travolta spearheads Scientologists' attack on BBC

By TAHIRA YAQOOB
Last updated at 15:35pm on 14th May 2007

Angry Scientologists are trying to get a BBC documentary about their faith scrapped amid claims of "gross bias" by presenter John Sweeney.

The Panorama programme, to be shown tonight, investigates whether the Church of Scientology has moved away from its past as a brainwashing cult.

But furious church members - including actor John Travolta - say the programme should be ditched because Mr Sweeney showed he was biased by losing his temper and shouting at a top scientologist...


...producers plan to include his outburst in the documentary.

Panorama has also posted its own footage on YouTube, showing a leading American Scientologist threatening Mr Sweeney.

Tom Davis - a friend of fellow follower Tom Cruise and son of actress Anne Archer - says he cannot be responsible for his actions if Mr Sweeney keeps referring to the religion as a "sinister cult".

He says: "For you to repeatedly refer to my faith in these terms is so derogatory, so offensive and so bigoted and the reason you keep repeating it is because you want a reaction like you are getting now."

Mr Sweeney has complained of becoming a victim of intimidation while making the programme. He says he was followed and his wedding was gatecrashed.

Panorama spent six months investigating the religion - which claims humans are descended from a race of aliens called thetans - and interviewed several people who said they had cut off their families after becoming Scientologists.

The documentary also exposes apparent links between Scientology leaders and City of London police officers.

Chief Superintendent Ken Stewart is shown praising the controversial organisation, which supplied hospitality worth £11,000 to the force. Policemen attended scientology dinners and the premiere of Cruise's film Mission Impossible 3.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=454430&in_page_id=1773&in_page_id=1773&expand=true#StartComments


Found some youtube footage:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0HGM8DSnYh0

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WA5VsSF6FZA&mode=related&search=

[N4H]

Don't all these efforts to discredit, or censor documentaries just make you want to see them more though? They do me. The Great Global Warming Swindle got more famous after the GW zealots offered up their sweeping bash campaign. Aren't they shooting themselves in the foot? I really want to see this Scientology documentary now.

BTW, speaking of Glen Beck. Wanna see his Global Warming special?

Exposed: The Climate of Fear (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=exposed+dstraycat)

[prydain]

Glen Beck - I don't really know who that guy is, but I despise him. At work you wouldn't believe how many of the people who come in to get their cars valeted listen to him, so I have to hear a lot of him, and his personality is unbelievably annoying. Also, he's so freaking extreme in his views that it makes me want to vomit, but pretty much all extremists have that effect on me.

EDIT: OK, hang on. I still hate Glenn Beck BUT I was confusing the "extremist" part with another talk show host (I think he's a Republican) who I also hate. Beck, though, still annoys the hell outta me.

[goldenboy]

Glenn Beck is annoying, lol. I just hate his style, his delivery. Over-the-top. But I like following the controversial stuff he gets into.

And Rush Limbaugh is nothing compared to someone like Michael Savage. So, so deeply obnoxious. Hell, all those cable guys...Chris Matthews, Bill Maher, Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, etc...so annoying. I think you just have to have an ego the size of Everest to make it in that biz.

[N4H]

The one who bugs me is Lou Dobbs. At least people like Beck and Limbaugh are kind of self-lampooning. Dobbs gives me the impression he wants respect.

[goldenboy]

Yeah...Beck is constantly sort of self-deprecating, jokey, which helps somewhat. Dobbs used to be more of just a straight financial reporter/pundit, right? Now he's an anti-immigration crusader.

The one AM radio guy I can stand is this guy Dennis Prager. Actually admits errors, and sometimes even changes his mind on a subject - on the air - because of something a guest or caller says. And he gets into really fundamental issues of morality, theology, philosophy, culture.

Actually, the comedian Dennis Miller has a new radio show that's pretty entertaining. He's definitely self-deprecating, in a weird, fun way.

[N4H]

I found the BBC one on Scientology. Jeez, it's no wonder that BBC reporter lost it.

It's HERE (http://www3.alluc.org/alluc/movies.html?action=getviewcategory&category_uid=12635)

[N4H]

HERE'S (http://quicksilverscreen.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=8223) a collection of documentaries available online. There's some BBC stuff.

[goldenboy]

An update.

A documentary billed as "the film PBS doesn't want you to see" will at long last get a national audience.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) announced a joint agreement yesterday to make "Islam vs. Islamists" available to the 354 Public Broadcasting Service member stations across the nation as a "stand-alone" TV program, with a little extra embellishment.

"We plan to distribute the film to any public broadcasting station that wants it. We'll package it and also produce some sort of discussion to accompany the film, and give it some context," OPB President Steve Bass told The Washington Times yesterday.

"There has been a lot of debate on whether this program needed editing. Some said yes, some no. When you're dealing with an object of controversy, it is better to let the audience draw their own conclusions," Mr. Bass said.

"As stewards of the investment in public broadcasting, this fulfills our responsibility to the taxpayer," CPB President Patricia Harrison said yesterday.

The often-disquieting 52-minute film explores the struggles of moderate American Muslims at the hands of their radical brethren and gives details about a "parallel" Islamist society that is slowly but surely developing within the U.S. borders. The film was produced by conservative columnist Frank Gaffney Jr., founder of the Center for Security Policy, filmmaker Martyn Burke and Middle East scholar Alex Alexiev.

Originally made for the six-part PBS series "America at a Crossroads," the film was intended for broadcast in early April. It never made it to the air, however. The producers, who received $675,000 in funding, said their work was shelved in "an ideological vendetta" and stifled on "political grounds."

They offered critical production notes from PBS as evidence. The lengthy notes said, among other things, that the documentary "demonized Islam" and promoted fear of Islamist organizations.

"This is a well-documented, textbook case of the abuse of taxpayer funding by elements in the public broadcasting system to advocate their agenda and ensure that people who have a different agenda don't get on the air," Mr. Gaffney said at the time. "The public ought to be allowed to see a film which PBS doesn't want them to see."

The producers have staged several private screenings for lawmakers and journalists to make their point. After the announcement yesterday, the audience could be considerably larger.

The "Oregon solution" was a gracious resolution to the situation, one broadcast source said.

The details have not been hammered out, but OPB's Mr. Bass anticipates that the documentary -- and its extra taped discussion -- will be made available nationwide in the next few months.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070523-115135-9053r.htm

[N4H]

What a bunch of weasels those PBS lefties at the top are. They just couldn't stand the heat. They thought they'd get away with censoring by ideology, but they didn't, and now they're just trying to talk fast.

"to any public broadcasting station that wants it'. Notice the sly insinuation there that nobody would want it, because it's such crap. What do you want to bet most stations do want it, and if they don't their subscribers will want to know why.

Although this bothers me "We'll package it and also produce some sort of discussion to accompany the film, and give it some context,". I worry when a lefty starts talking about context.

[goldenboy]

If they can get Burke and Gaffney and Alexiev involved in the "discussion", it could be worthwhile.

They offered critical production notes from PBS as evidence. The lengthy notes said, among other things, that the documentary "demonized Islam" and promoted fear of Islamist organizations.

Shouldn't one "fear Islamist organizations"? Isn't that a given? Wouldn't depicting real live moderate Muslims be helpful, even inspiring? Go a ways towards allaying fears?

To me, the weaselly, craven media are as important a topic of discussion as the Islamist movement itself. Like when the Danish cartoons fiasco broke. Virtually no American newspapers ran any of the cartoons (even for purposes of discussion, informing the public). Pathetic.

[goldenboy]

In the meantime, this is what kids in Palestine are watching.

Palestinian Mickey Mouse (http://www.filecabi.net/video/MickeyMouseClone.html)

They killed Mickey! (aka Farfour):
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2357.html

[N4H]

Oh no. Farfour's dead! I've seen Mickey Mouse, end of season, cliffhangers before, but this is taking it to another level.

Well, he didn't actually die he was martyred, so it's OK. He's off in rat heaven pumping little mouse virgins. Cheer up kids.

You could tell it wasn't a real Jew though, because there were no horns. They needed some western style CGI.

It's pretty sad, that stuff like that exists, but it's hard not to laugh, isn't it?

[teentitan]

WOW! I know one thing I sure wouldn't want to have a sip from that little girls juice box...I bet it's more powerful then the Jim Jones grape punch.
One question...do you think maybe Disney has a copyright infringement case against Farfour?

[goldenboy]

Yeah, for sure Mickey's trademarked. Should they sue Hamas?

Disney CEO Robert Iger said he and other executives considered ways to react to the recent Hamas show for children that featured someone dressed in what appeared to be a Mickey Mouse costume, railing against Israel and the United States in a high-pitched cartoonish voice.

"We didn't mobilize our forces and seek to either have the clip taken down or to make any broad public statement about it," Iger told a gathering of the Society of Business Editors and Writers at the Disneyland Hotel.

"We were appalled by the use of our character to disseminate that kind of message," he said "I think anytime any group seeks to exploit children in that manner, it's despicable."

Still, Iger said it didn't seem to make any sense for Disney to make any loud public statement at the time.

"I just didn't think it would have any effect," he said. 'I think it should have been obvious how the company felt about the subject."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P8V2FO1&show_article=1

[teentitan]

WHAT A F'N COPOUT!!!
Disney just didn't want a jihaad thrown down on them which would have meant tighter security at the parks!
What's next Mr. Iger bow down to Hamas by adding Farfour to the Hall of Presidents?
The cartoon characters roaming your parks have more balls then you! Didn't your main network air a 5 hour commercial free show last year called The Road to 911?

[Miffed67]

HOW do y'all have this much time to watch TV? You're killin' me. n4h, every time you post a link, there goes my whole evening, LOL! Oh, ok, I GUESS I could give up Will & Grace for one night, ha! I'm going to have to watch all of this stuff, but since I'm a major conspiracy theorist.....I may never leave the house again. It'll be on y'all's heads!

[teentitan]

OK I know a pipe bomb went off in a garbage can in the parking lot at Orlando's Disneyworld. BUT I was only kidding about the jihaad thing. Honestly the last place on earth I want to see shut down is the happiest place in the world.
I am not trying to start a war or anything like that between Hamas and Disney.

[goldenboy]

This one strikes me as kinda funny.

Oliver Stone: The Great Satan?

by Josh Grossberg

Tue, 3 Jul 2007 01:18:23 PM PDT

Oliver Stone's had to deal with some pretty harsh reviews in his polarizing career, but we're guessing this stings more than a thumbs-down.

The filmmaker's plans to shoot a documentary on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be shelved after the country refused him permission to make the movie.

"I sent a negative answer by Ahmadinejad to Oliver Stone," the Fars News Agency quoted government media advisor Mehdi Kalhor as saying earlier this week. "It is true that this person is considered part of the opposition in the U.S., but he is still part of the Great Satan."

(The "Great Satan," of course, is how Iran's leaders have charmingly referred to the U.S. ever since the country's late supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, overthrew the U.S-backed shah in the 1979 Islamic Revolution.)

A number of high-profile Iranian filmmakers revealed last week that they had backed the proposal Stone submitted a month ago and urged officials to acquiesce to a sitdown to build stronger cultural ties between Washington and Tehran during the ongoing standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

But despite Stone's reputation as a left-leaning rabble rouser and vocal critic of American policy in both his films (Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, JFK and Nixon) and his 2003 Fidel Castro documentary, Commandante, Ahmadinejad and his cronies balked.

"We believe that the American cinema industry lacks culture and art," he said. (Maybe they caught a screening of Alexander.)

Kalhour said that the only way Ahmadinejad would allow himself to be profiled by an American would be if President Bush gave an Iranian director similar leeway.

Stone's camp says he has not been formally apprised of Ahmadinejad's rejection, but the filmmaker did release a statement in response to the Fars report.

"I have been called a lot of things, but never a Great Satan," Stone said. "I wish the Iranian people well, and only hope their experience with an inept, rigid ideologue president goes better than ours."
http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=d6a1a365-cb85-4be2-a1fd-c2328c326761

[goldenboy]

Hey, do you guys remember The Merchants of Cool? Thought it was really interesting, depressing. So often, those two things coincide, heh:

frontline: merchants of cool: watch the full program | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/view/)

[N4H]

Kind of fascinating. They're talking about stuff from years ago but the idea of the importance of the youth demographic, and how it's marketed to is still relevant.

I still say there's a noticeable movement to market to the male youth who would otherwise be playing video games with shows like Reaper, Sarah Connors, and Chuck this year. Everything they're talking about in that Doc is happening within that movement.

[goldenboy]

I'm sure you're right. I still think at least part of the reason Drive tanked so very badly was cos the male 18-24 demo just didn't show up to watch it.

[Vilandra]

Hmm I feel like all of those are going to skew to the higher end of the age spectrum.

[N4H]

Not at all. The way I see it it's like what they showed in that documentary. The entertainment companies want the demographic that's in their rooms playing video games rather than watching TV. They conduct focus groups. They discover what they need to connect to these kids are stories about nerdy, or socially isolated guys and a hot babe. Thus Reaper, Chuck, Sarah Connors Chronicles. In a broader sense it's Genre, and thus the larger movement to genre we've seen over past few years in spite of the fact there's more failures than successes.

Here's another one. One of the baffling things about the cancellation of the Series Angel was in a year the much sought after demographic of 16 to 35 was fading from TV, Angel was actually gaining viewers in that demographic. And this year we have Moonlight, and New Amersterdam. Last year we had Blood ties and the Dresden Files. Coincidence?

[goldenboy]

Reaper in particular feels like it's going after teen boys, to me. The premise, the promos, even the look of the logo for the show. It's treated like skateboard art or something.

[Vilandra]

See I think it's targeting the 25 year-old living with their parents. (That's not a judgement, just from the standpoint that those are who will relate to the main character imo.)

[prydain]

One of the baffling things about the cancellation of the Series Angel was in a year the much sought after demographic of 16 to 35 was fading from TV, Angel was actually gaining viewers in that demographic. And this year we have Moonlight, and New Amersterdam. Last year we had Blood ties and the Dresden Files. Coincidence?

Yes, I think so. Especially Blood Ties, which is aimed towards older women.

And Moonlight is obviously geared towards older females too, based on those ads CBS is running. Well, CBS might want YOUNG women, but they're gonna get older ones mostly.

I really don't think the execs at CBS, NBC, FOX, and ABC are trying to get a new "Angel". I really doubt that show ever comes up in discussions. Maybe "Buffy", but that's probably it when it comes to The WB/CW/UPN. I could be wrong though.

[teentitan]

Actually to me those Blood Ties commercials are targeting ALL women. Why else would they cast the show right after Ghost Whisperer. To me CBS wants to lock up Friday night as a chick night. Set them up with the weepy doe-eyed GW then hit them with the hot guy vampire.

[N4H]

There was another interesting thing in that documentary about how market researchers go after the young male demographic.

They were talking about the era around 2002, and how they were always playing up what they called "the mook". The mook is this off-the-wall, do anything, say anything, goofy, nothing's sacred kind of character. They mentioned people like Howard Stern, Tom Greene, or Johnny Knox. They also mentioned how popular TV wrestling was with young males at the time. OK those may not be the cool thing right now, but the Documentary also makes the point cool changes rapidly.

Here's my point. All those guys were older than the demographic they played to, so if you're thinking the only way to go after the young male demographic is with shows where a male teenager plays the lead you're mistaken. As I said before Angel season 5 was the most rapidly improving show in the ratings at the time with the young, male, demographic. I think it was also gaining in the young female demographic.

It isn't that the female demographic isn't saught after, it's that they also want the young male one. They don't have it now.

As far as Angel goes, if they're looking at DVD sales, and they're noticing a continuing interest among young males, you're going to see more shows about a cursed, supernatural being with an unattainable, crushy, connection to a female co-star.

[goldenboy]

They mentioned that the guy who produced "Cruel Intentions" got in hot water cos they were actually doing screenings, focus groups with 11, 12-year-olds.

They want to snag them as young as they can. Horror filmmakers that make R rated flicks have to know that a large part of their audience are young teens, even preteens sometimes.

Although, there has been the more recent explosion of PG-13 horror flicks. That was pretty much unheard of in the 80s.

[goldenboy]

Sorta on topic here, so I wanted to post:

University of Arizona:

What These Students Are Watching on TV

Well, folks, I am home. And I am jet-lagged after two extraordinary days of guest lecturing for the Media Arts Department at the University of Arizona. I spoke at two of Dr. Kevin Sandler’s classes about my favorite subject, television, and did my annual fall prime-time presentation to about 150 students. Needless to say, I learned a great deal about the viewing habits of today’s college student. If there is a lesson to be learned, it is this: never expect the expected.

To my surprise, the typical college viewer is not necessarily a fan of non-scripted programming. They don’t watch Survivor, The Amazing Race, The Bachelor or Big Brother, and they shook their heads in dismay when I talked about the recent network summer landscape. Other than NBC’s The Office or Scrubs, they are not big fans of network sitcoms, and they show a tremendous preference for shows on cable -- FX and HBO, in particular. Some of the common responses to what shows they do enjoy included FX’s Nip/Tuck and Rescue Me; HBO’s Entourage and Flight of the Conchords; and Showtime’s Weeds. When I reminisced about some of my favorite shows from yesteryear -- thirtysomething, St. Elsewhere and The White Shadow -- they looked at me like I had two heads!

As to what new network shows, if any, they are excited about next season, I can tell you one show they definitely will not be watching: ABC’s Cavemen. But they were more optimistic about the alphabet net’s Pushing Daisies, which was of the three shows they screened for my class. The others were Cavemen and Fox sitcom Back to You, which they were mixed on. Regarding the one show the majority said they loved, and still miss, that is Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. “They don’t make shows like they used to,” said one disgruntled student.
Television Ratings - TV Show News - Nielsen Ratings (http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/newsletters/proginsider/index.jsp)


The White Shadow? OK, it's from the 70s, but...never heard of it.

[teentitan]

Former white NBA player injured forced to retire so he coaches at an inner-city highschool that is mainly composed of black kids. He turns them from the pressure of joining gangs to city champs.

[goldenboy]

Aah, I do recognize the coach now...

http://media.movieweb.com/news/dvd_boxart/hi/14/1314.jpg

[goldenboy]

OK, back to docs. When I went to college, there were a few things that I found appalling on a very deep level.

• Speech codes
• Free speech zones
• Students stealing, destroying conservative student newspapers in mass quantities.

All pretty much in the service of "tolerance", I guess? Thing is, I actually agreed with the thought police types on a lot of political, social issues. But there was that pesky little 1st Amendment they kept forgetting about...

Anyways, I'm curious about this doc:

Indoctrinate U Trailer

Indoctrinate U is a feature-length documentary film written by, directed by and starring Evan Coyne Maloney, on ideological conformism and political correctness in American higher education. Among other things, the film examines the use of institutional mechanisms such as speech codes, which it claims are used to punish students who express political views that are unpopular within academia.

The film covers anti-military protests at UC Santa Cruz and San Francisco State University, treatment of conservative students at Cal Poly and the University of Tennessee, racial and ethnic politics at the University of Michigan and Yale, teaching at Duke and Columbia, among other subjects. It also includes interviews with David French and Greg Lukianoff, (then respectively president and director of legal and public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), Glenn Reynolds, Daniel Pipes and others.

Maloney spent two and a half years making the documentary by conducting interviews on various college campuses and with various thinkers. The film was preceded by two shorter versions, Brainwashing 101 and Brainwashing 201: The Second Semester. The two shorts led the 2004 American Film Renaissance festival to select Indoctrinate U as its "most anticipated documentary."
Indoctrinate U - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrinate_U)


Some of it looks like Michael Moore-style, "gotcha" sneak attack filmmaking...but I'm intrigued.

[N4H]

Indoctrination is even uglier when they target young kids. For example there's this business of scaring the Hell out of Kids in school by showing the Al Gore shockumentary, and preaching catastrophic global warming theory as fact. The copyright lobby goes into the school. If they can't get em there they hit the internet. Ever heard of Captain Copyright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Copyright)?

[goldenboy]

Captain Copyright, heh. That's funny—in a disturbing sort of way. Maybe not up there with Farfour the Mouse, but...

[N4H]

This one's not BBC. It's ITV, but it's relatively short, and pretty watchable. It's about this journalist who goes undercover into the world of Scientology. It's not bad.

I thought I knew about this kind of stuff, but they get into the nuts and bolts of exactly how the brain is washed by these guys.

YouTube - Scientology: Inside the Cult

Makes me wonder about all those big names that get their brains washed by Scientologists. How do they make contact I wonder. How do you convince someone like Tom Cruise, of John Travolta to have a 1 hour stare down with you if you're a scientology recruiter?