good reply.

[Squeaky Bunny]

Let's not forget the mob who thinks "The Da Vinci Code" NOVEL is actually "historical" fact.

Or the book of Herschel.

[T.s.a.o]

maybe our education system could help-if they would allow more stimulus on the Right side of the brain-[which mostly does art] than pounding the left all the time people would be less reactive to what they saw because they could observe and assess better the situtation-well it worked for a lefty like me. The Disney theme parks arn't origionall either someone told me. My father suggested adding some rides that came out of the ZANTH novels-like a handbasket into hell ride...he's weird, but for the ZANTH fans you might laugh at that. I'be been trying to get him to read this comic but the library labs arn't too responsive to this server

[Squeaky Bunny]

maybe our education system could help-if they would allow more stimulus on the Right side of the brain-[which mostly does art] than pounding the left all the time people would be less reactive to what they saw because they could observe and assess better the situtation-well it worked for a lefty like me. The Disney theme parks arn't origionall either someone told me. My father suggested adding some rides that came out of the ZANTH novels-like a handbasket into hell ride...he's weird, but for the ZANTH fans you might laugh at that. I'be been trying to get him to read this comic but the library labs arn't too responsive to this server

I would love to see a monument in every Disney properties that would acknowledge the real creators of the stories that they have 'adapted' over the years.

As far as the rides are concerned, they have been putting fresh paint jobs on some of the older attractions and calling them 'new'. (Mission to Mars was changed to "Alien Encounter", then changed again to "Stitch's Great Escape" It is pretty much unchanged except for the animatronics and a few effects.

[Shyal_malkes]

I've never been much for liking horror films or scary rides (even most roller coasters are a bit fast for my taste) but one day (while visiting D.W.) my brothers and our friend talked me into joining them in the ride alien encounter.

then a year or so later we went back and found it changed to stitches great escape(I think that's what it was)

despite my usual distaste with scary stuff like the alien encounter ride, I felt dissappointed with the change.

maybe it was that while the ride was scary it felt hard on the system waiting in line and then getting scared out of you wits.

8 hours of boredom followed by 8 minutes of sheer terror cannot be good for the human body

but with the change it turns into 8 hours of boredom followed by 8 minuites of a fart joke.

[Blitz]

Artists do not need to be responsible for their audience.

[Wayfarer]

Artists do not need to be responsible for their audience.

But that's not the entire point. They may not be responsible for audience reaction. It's true that each person is responsible for what they do. Fine and good.

The artist is doing something. The artist is making a statement. The artist is responsible for that statement - whether it's true or false, helpful or harmful, etc.

[Sharuuk]

Who was it that said: "The two most abundant substances in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity."

VERY astute observation.......and VERY ACCURATE!!

S'aaruuk

[Squeaky Bunny]

Who was it that said: "The two most abundant substances in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity."

VERY astute observation.......and VERY ACCURATE!!

S'aaruuk

Combine the two with a flame and watch what happens.

[UncleMonty]

One example of the topic under discussion (factual details in entertainment) that comes to mind: In one of the Mel Gibson "Lethal Weapon" movies, I don't recall which one, the theme could have been simply described as "The gun-control movie"...

A 9mm machine pistol was shown blowing holes through the blade of a bulldozer. The reason given for this miracle? Teflon-coated "cop-killer" bullets.
The viewers won't walk away believing that Mel Gibson is a police officer, or that the story was true, or any of that silliness. However, around that time all of the papers and TV news media were pushing for a ban of... "Teflon-coated cop killer bullets". The ban was successful. Thus, we see a cooperative effort - a media blitz - with both our entertainment and news media sources working together to deliberately mislead the public, including those members of the public who happen to be elected officials or their staff.

That sort of thing happens quite a lot.

[Sharuuk]

Lethal Weapon III......that's when I stopped watching the LW movies...and the opening to LW IV was just as bad when a body armored nutcase with a flamethrower was referred to as "the poster boy for the NRA".....that and an NRA sign with the banned symbol over it seen just out of focus between Gibson and Glover at the police station.

My friends and I all went to the manager and demanded our money back after the first 15min of the movie and we told him why. We gathered about 25 of us and went to another theatre playing LW IV and did the same thing......think of what 25 ticket refunds at one showing means to a manager.

S'aaruuk

[Sharuuk]

Actually the ban wasn't all that successful and the teflon coating had nothing to do with the KTW bullets armor piercing capability. The bullets themselves were made of hardend tool steel and encased in a teflon sabot to protect the gunbarrel....the teflon had no effect on the bullet performance and was actually shed almost immediately when the bullet left the barrel. Chucky Schumer demonstrated his vast knowledge of chemistry and ballistics when he attempted to introduce a ban on teflon.....f***ing moron. He'd be laughable if he weren't so dangerous.

BTW....."Cop Killer Bullet" is a media generated term given to a cartridge that the police themselves had asked for. They wanted a pistol round that could get at barricaded suspects and asked KTW to make some. They were never meant for public use and when NBC News became aware of their existance, did a 'special report' on them. Compounding their arrogance, at the time it was not generally know that cops wore soft body armor.

So in the name of "the people have a right to know" these geniuses not only revealed to every idiot with a TV....and we ALL know that criminals don't watch TV....that not only do cops wears "bullet proof vests", but here's a bullet that can defeat it!!

What monumental arrogance.....the NRA and every police group in hte country begged...BEGGED NBC not to air the show......so they aired it again 4 months later.

A$$holes..one and all.

S'aaruuk

[Blitz]

weren't we talking about art?

wayfarer: Even still, either everyone has a right to this freedom, or no one does. It is a necessary evil. RH's explanation that people "can't help themselves" does not mean the weight falls on the artist. That's seems like a copout to me, as it dodges responsibility. The burden naturally falls on those that should have been teaching these qualities, which counteract such naivety, to others. We know that the burden of destilling values and forging wit are left to parents, teachers, and the community. If these values are not to be found, we can only blame ourselves.

As for responsibility, the only responsibility the artist takes is the responsibility of it's accuracy as it pertains to him or herself.

Propaganda (which I don't consider to be art, no matter the aesthetic) can be harmful when it is used as a tool of deception or perversion. But to rid ourselves of it at the expense of true artists, would be too big a sacrifice. It would be very much like giving away economic freedom to ensure equal portions for everyone in society, regardless of creed, culture, or class. It's just not a feasible idea. To put shackles on artistic freedom in our present culture and economy, is also not a feasible idea.

On the otherhand, if all you are talking about is people taking personal responsibility for simply making the product, and not trying to deliberately mislead people... well, their profits SHOULD indicate your dissatisfaction.

Also, please be respectful. This isn't a playground argument, it's a discussion. Be civil.

[Wayfarer]

wayfarer: Even still, either everyone has a right to this freedom, or no one does.

Yes. But I don't think anyone has said anything to the effect that freedom of speech should be limited. There's a big difference between saying, "What some people do with art and media is wrong," and "We should regulate what people are allowed to do with art and media." I've looked back, and I don't see anywhere where someone suggested laws being passed on the matter. (The closest might have been the Disney discussion, but still things didn't go so far as suggesting legislation.) The real point is that even within freedom, there are right and wrong things one can do. And one's freedom does not protect one from being criticized for doing something wrong in its name. That's what I see happening. People seem to be saying (and I am definitely saying), "Some artists/people involved in media operate with flagrant disregard for (or even outright abuse of) the way they are able to influence people. This is wrong. They should not do this. They should think about the influence they have and be very careful because of it."

RH's explanation that people "can't help themselves" does not mean the weight falls on the artist. That's seems like a copout to me, as it dodges responsibility. The burden naturally falls on those that should have been teaching these qualities, which counteract such naivety, to others. We know that the burden of destilling values and forging wit are left to parents, teachers, and the community. If these values are not to be found, we can only blame ourselves.

Thing is, the discussion hasn't been, "The artist is the only one to blame." You'll note that I said earlier in the discussion that people should show discernment, and others have discussed the failings of education in equipping people to discern. But I would argue that on this issue, a very large weight of responsibility rests on both sides. People do have a responsiblity for how they react to what they see/read/look at/ listen to. They have a responsibility for how they choose these things, and they have a responsibility for how they let them influence them. All very true. But the artists who make what a people will see/read/look at/listen also have a responsibility for the messages they send. This is why I said earlier that you weren't addressing the entire point; it has never been that just one side has responsibility. I don't think has for the others, and I know it never has been for mine. Within own argument, the point has been, from my first post, that both sides have responsibility. I may have stressed the artist's responsibility there, in part because that was the topic, and in part because I was thinking from the perspective of one who one day wants to write books, and will therefore need to take this responsibility, but the responsibility of both was there, and has remained there every time I've spoken up.

On the otherhand, if all you are talking about is people taking personal responsibility for simply making the product, and not trying to deliberately mislead people... well, their profits SHOULD indicate your dissatisfaction.

Yes, when I talk about the artist's responsibility, I'm talking about a personal responsibility. And yes, I realize that the best way to deal with irresponsible art is not to support it. And again, I've never advocated a different way of dealing with it (and I don't think others have). But it is still a legitimate position to simply say, "Some artists/media folk are wrong in what they do, and they should take responsibility for their actions."

Also, please be respectful. This isn't a playground argument, it's a discussion. Be civil.

If this is addressed to me, I'm sorry if I worded anything in such a way that it could be taken as insulting. That wasn't the intent. I always try to keep what I say respectful.

[UncleMonty]

weren't we talking about art?

Where did you get that idea?
This discussion began with a deliberate and propagandistic falsehood found in a script, to be played by a character in the comic for which this forum is named. Inserting a discussion of "Art" (an indefinable value) came later.

[Zjon]

heh heh heh.. I like that line, almost worth getting another knife scar just so I can use it. :-p

I say Bravo on the NRA strip, I just read it. RH can be a little preachey at times. But sometimes I was wondering if I was one of the only people on earth to know facts like the founding of the NRA, Grant being one of their Pres', what he did to ensure equal rights, things like that.

The NRA is pretty misunderstood, every group has it's wackos, but like everything else, it is the wackos that the puublic remembers.

Signed: A proud gun owner who will not give up his property to man nor beast.

**EDIT**

I should of read the rest of the thread before posting. I REALLY disagree with how many movies show 'facts'. One of the ones that really gets to me is how the Army/SWAT/Police Force/anyone with Authority and a gun is just an idiot who will die becasue they stand there and will not even use anything remotely like squad tactics. (that last part was an add on and doesn't really go with the rest of the statement unlike the first parts.

That is why I like the movies Alone In the Dark (The first two thirds anyway) and Dog Soldiers.

If you have not seen Dog Soldiers, and like monster/soldier movies at all. Run, do not walk, to your local vodeo store and rent it, you will love it. It is one of the best movies to be made in the last 20 years.

Yes. But I don't think anyone has said anything to the effect that freedom of speech should be limited.

So long as you don't count Ann Coulter*. She seemed to think it was a good idea.

There are few people in this world I think I really do hate, and she is one of them.

*Said during a Q&A session at the University of Gainesville(sp)

Please forgive spelling, it is late and I am tired.

[T.s.a.o]

Disney, however, did redeem itself twice with 'Narnia' looking really good, but I still can't see it. Then there was Jungle Book, excluding the sequel, that at least removed the something-ism that the writer had [I forgot his name, the WMB guy]. Inf fact Walt plainly told his crew not to read the book because of really pathetic nature it had. I kinda get that reading other books written in the same era. I want to do a similar approach to animating W.H. Hudsons' Green Mansions. The book is horrible, but it already has a wonderful soundtrack, so I want to give it a better chance, and ending as well.

[The JAM]

Pathetic? I read The Jungle Book, and it seemed fine to me...

[T.s.a.o]

I admit I've never read the book, and I loved Rikki-Tikki-Tavi, but of coarse all of my activist classes had to use 'White Man's Burden' as one of their key refrences to Western Society. 'Green Mansions,' however, is a really bad book, but I loved the music to it, so I think it sould be remade with a better perspective to it. I would of course notify the viewers of that as well.