Flippers Down for "Happy Feet"
Not So Happy
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in Hollywood — Comments (37) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
If you have small children I would highly recommend that you not take them to this movie (if you don't, you surely won't go anyway). First off, the film is often dark, depressing or scary, probably too much so for kids under 8 or 9. Second, the second half of the film is basically an extended diatribe in favor of a UN ban on fishing in the Antarctic. As with so many cartoons today featuring talking animals, carnivores and humans are uniformly evil (well, except for the penguins themselves - the fish they eat are not anthropomorphized). And the anti-human, anti-fishing messages are not subtle but heavy-handed and preachy.
Read On...
Editorial Note by Erick: Remember penguins are best served up with bat and Yeti. Penguins are never the heroes, just the bait.
The film had other weaknesses, of varying degrees of obviousness. The bouts of sexual suggestiveness among the penguins were reasonably subtle enough to sail over smaller kids' heads, and to some extent necessary to a film the first half of which centers on penguin mating rituals. There were Hollywood stereotypes abounding: unfavorable characters were given Southern or Scottish accents, misguided religious superstitions and a bluenosed insistence on tradition and conformity (even though the film's beginning dramatically emphasized the reality that tradition and conformity are essential to the survival of emperor penguins), while favorable ones got Latino accents, rythym, a sense of humor and a lust for females; and the scene in a penguin house in a zoo may turn kids against the joy of watching penguins in the zoo, something my kids love. The movie also never explains why the lead character ends up with blue eyes and a permanent adolescent fuzz, although presumably this is just to let audiences keep him straight from the other penguins.
This is not to say that the movie is all bad. The animated landscapes and action scenes are breathtaking, for example. The voicework is pretty good, notably by Robin Williams in dual roles. But inhuman (or at least, anti-human) environmental propaganda wrapped in the veneer of a kids' movie is not the best way to spend a Saturday afternoon with the family.
« So tell me, Al, what caused all those *other* storms in Earth's history? — Comments (17) | ABC's "Path to 9/11": Pre-Edit Clips... — Comments (121) »
Flippers Down for "Happy Feet" 37 Comments (0 topical, 37 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...is that this is becoming so commonplace in our society. Can't get the adults to listen to your whiny rhetoric? Just brainwash their children.
I first noticed this trend during the 'Beavis & Butthead' debates. Was this just a tasteless, adult oriented cartoon, or calculated menace toward our youngest? Then Hollyweird decided to bring 'Ren & Stimpy' values to our venerated WB universe, with the 'Animaniacs' singing gleefully about 'baloney in our slacks'.
Now, Hollyweird wonders why kids are so disrespectful and destructive? Talk about selective blindness.
I have been railing against Beavis $ Butthead, Ren & Stimpy, Simpsons and the entire Hollywood attack on the American family and the values we hold for years! Everyone keeps telling me, "it's just a cartoon!"
NO IT ISN'T! It is an attack on VALUES! South Park is CR*P! I said it. I am proud. SOUTH PARK IS CR*P!
1-Bugs Bunny
2-Daffy Duck
3-Rocky and Bullwinkle
4-Foghorn Leghorn
5-Pink Panther
6-Road Runner
7-Yogi Bear
8-The Flintstones
9-Droopy
10-Huckleberry Hound
Honorable mention: Howard Dean
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Chuck Jones was a genius.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
my father worked for Acme, Industries. I thought the coyote bought all his gizmos from my dad's company! No joke! It was an easy mistake to make!
roadrunner/coyote cartoons were always my favorite looney tunes. just another thing I had in common with my grandpa :)
I have 2 collections of looney tunes on DVD, and I have to say the Daffy/Porky disc is the best of the 8 (I was always partial to daffy over bugs too)
I must confess to liking South Park too though. that said, the episodes do fall into three groups: the hysterically funny; the boring and unfunny; and the disgusting and/or offensive (and also unfunny).
Duck Dodgers alone seals the deal as far as I'm concerned.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Jerry was always a socialist freeloader. I knew that even when I was little.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
For some reason, your list cuts off with the Carter Administration. Just noting.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
because those shows were the few during the late '70's and early '80's that didn't let sick minds write for them. Also Thundercats. Good messages, if shoddy animation.
funniest cartoon evah! 'Nuff said!
Ah always keep mah feathahs numbahed, foooor just such an emergency!
About South Park at least. They routinely make excellent morality plays out of their shows. Often railing against hollywood elites and the morals they espouse. Just see any show of theirs that involves Babs....
Sure the kids are crude and obnoxious but it IS a show for adults. I would be apalled if someone were to let anyone under 16 watch it.
I do watch South Park regularly. I wouldn't let a younger kid watch it, that's for sure... but, whether or not this is a good or a bad thing, it's also some of the sharpest, most incisive satire on television today, and not the same overly preachy sort of stuff you see from most of the mainstream media. In fact, the creators seem to enjoy going against the MSM grain, which is fine by me. The most effective episodes are the ones that don't rely as much on shock value, as they're often the ones that will make you think the most. They also know most of their audience, though, and will throw them filler to satisfy them (sadly).
Some examples of their sharper satire (episode titles given):
Two Days Before The Day After Tomorrow
Cartoon Wars (two parts)
Up The Down Steroid
Underpants Gnomes
It Hits The Fan (warning, possibly the foulest episode they ever aired, but also makes the case for content control, in a weird way)
And, for those who have the stomach for religious satire:
All About The Mormons?
Trapped In The Closet (parodying Scientology)
"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."
Trapped in the Closet was only superficially an attack on Scientology. The real plot there was a juvenile taunt of Tom Cruise, calling him a homosexual.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to
pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
Got that one wrong, Neil. They hammer Scientology pretty hard in that episode and take the opportunity to slam a few Hollywierd celebs while they're at it. It's always been like that with them.
The Smug Alert episode is like that too. A larger commentary on being Green and taking a shot at George Clooney while they're at it.
------
Ah always keep mah feathahs numbahed, foooor just such an emergency!
I think "Two Days..." is perhaps the funniest episode ever.
But though I do think they have too high a percentage of either the duds or the disgusting/offensive (still outweighed by the percentage of funny though), when they are offensive or dismissive of faith, they usually balance it by being as mocking of the extreme on the other side, such as:
1. the mormon episode with the message that they may be wrong, but inoffensively so, and are often better people than most despite that;
2. the recent evolution episodes that mocked the faithless for being religiously so ("oh my Science!", "Science damn you!");
3. the return of chef ("yes, its way, way more retarded" re: scientology, I mean the super adventure club, compared to religion)
4. and even the episode with kenny in the place of terri schiavo, with the "cartman was right, but for the wrong reason; we were wrong, but for the right reason" moral. though I think they came down on the wrong side there, that admission was pleasing, and the episode itself was funny.
there are some exceptions with unmixed, or far overriding, crassness, but again, I think it is generally outweighed by the number of times they nail it.
The now infamous Mohammed episode. They showed the hypocrisy of the dhimmitude in the Western world.
Comedy Central would not allow a simple, unoffensive scene with Mohammed (though they had in the Super Super Friends episode which is about religons working together in peace) but had no problem showing a scene where GW and Christ were defecating on a flag.
Crude and disgusting? Yes but the message is well worth it.
Has anyone ever watched "American Dad"? The entire point of the show seems to be to paint republicans as ingnorant, obnoxios, overbearing bigots.
Well, I've always said Family Guy is a clone of the WORST of the later years of The Simpsons, and of course American Dad is basically just Family Guy with a racing stripe and moon roof.
And the decline and fall of Ned Flanders from the nicest man in Springfield, to a completely un-funny caricature of the Religious Right from the point of view of the far left, is one of the most disappointing things I've seen happen to a television show.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
...(not that you want it, either) but Animaniacs was a great show. Although my kids won't watch it until they're teenagers.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
as Elrond said, "What usse is a ring, Mr. Bagginsss, if you haven't got any fingersss?"
you can't put a ring on a flipper.
For saving us from renting this on DVD. It looked cute. Let's start a production company where all of the good characters have Scottish and Southern accents and the bad guys sound like Ted Kennedy after 2 drinks (this would be how he typically sounds on the Senate floor.)
MMMM, tastes like chicken.
__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
Although politically aware and (relatively) mature, I am a teenager. I think that qualifies me to reassure you that the "brainwashing" in most of these movies usually go clear over childrens' heads and have no effect.
As for the young generation being "destructive and disrespectful", well... I don't find most of it that bad. I have pretty high hopes for it. The ones that are are certainly not the result of Happy Feet and Animaniacs, but because of a combination of a lack of parent involvement and the more extreme stuff like South Park and talentless crap like gangster rap.
South Park, by the way, usually doesn't appeal or get attention by attacking values. It's the fact that the viewers know it's explicit; that's why they watch it, quite aware that things in the show are awful ideas in real life. The shock value is why people watch it; when it stops being shocking (or just goes over one thing again and again) is when it has really taken effect. At that point nobody watches it.
Clearly, people are still watching South Park because they are shocked.
Besides, even if you really think the values are being damaged, is it really something that is entirely unfixable with a little parent/child discussion. A discussion in which you should be prepared to defend these values; you might even learn something in that process.
Due in part to my (extremely) mild form of autism, I'm pretty hard to shock. Needless to say, this is why I do not watch South Park, listen to rap or Howard Stern, or the like. It also has the wonderful effect of making me able to keep an open mind to anything from the music of Yoko Ono to things like foreign cultures, opposite political leanings (the reason I post here and enjoy reading it), or the like while also drawing a line when something is unfairly intrusive.
I can't believe I wrote all that from the top of my head.
And for pointing out the dangers of over-generalization. I am the father of three daughters, ranging in age from 21 to 10. Also a new grandfather, but hopefully have a few years left to fear for his mind.
I didn't mean to imply that children are empty buckets, waiting for their brains to be filled with drivel. However, if the drivel becomes pervasive, or starts to lack the 'shock value', this does say something about the effect of these shows in degrading the parent/child relationship. For example, if I had ever spoken to my parents the way Stan and co. do to theirs, I'd still be in the woodshed.
I appreciate that you seem to be a discerning teen, with a mind of your own. You are posting on Redstate, after all (lol). But look around at your peers. My older two had to leave high school from the destructive attitudes of their classmates. I agree that only some of the societal degradation comes from raunchy cartoons and music, but the effect is there.
I also agree that there are parents who shouldn't be, raising kids who think they are already adults. My point is only this; Hollywood shouldn't be helping the degradation as much as they are.
I like Robin Williams. I thought he was hilarious and poignant in "Jack". But when he starts with his 'stream of consciousness' improv routine, especially for an animated movie made for little kids, he should seriously rethink some of his schtick. When any production company creates a show that they KNOW little kids want to watch (a'la Spongebob), they should keep risque references and disrespectful attitudes out of it.
Or maybe I'm just a crotchety old man.
However, I mean no disrespect when I point out that your temporal window is limited.
My thoughts basically paralleled yours until I became a parent. Culture matters, and ours is going downhill.
The question primary question of the modern nation-state is the feedback between culture and state policy. How do we prevent the two from converging on a least common demoninator? Does the state have the authority to even be involved in that space?
Even if one beleives the state should not be involved, if the opposition believes it should be involved, how do you counter their meddling? By reducing state interference or by using opposing state interference?
The wealth of nations is contained within its cultural apparatus. The modern nation-state is a culture eater, destroying gentle harmonics in a quest to remove that untaxable wealth in favor of a controllable, taxable deconstruction.
We are all poorer for the exercise.
Based upon your thoughtful post, I have hope that you will consider this perspective.
Oh, and when you near 30 years old, get in shape and stay in shape. Things are not always as they appear from your present perspective.
It seems I have invoked a firestorm on this subject, but I really don't think I'm saying anything new. Unfortunately, we who will not support the Hollywood garbage are in the minority. My youngest has friends whose parents allow them to watch shows and movies that I think are inappropriate for people under 21. They believe me to be some backwards bible-thumper for my attitude. But their kids are ill-behaved and rude, perhaps borderline ADHD.
The only way to shut these rude cartoons down is to hit their producers in the pocketbook. Sadly, even Disney seems to be getting into the act.
That happens a lot, seattle-ite; I won't deny that TV has an effect on children, but it's not the one reason they act that way. I believe the final responsibility must always lie with the parents who have to be ready to defend (not just enforce) their values and beliefs in an attempt to help behavior and ultimately raise a high-quality human being. The kids have seen one side of the opinion spectrum (which also does have an appeal to people who aren't actually affected by it, if they're mature enough; this is why I think removing it all off the air would be unfair). A little defending of your beliefs is always good for you; you might even learn something. Chosing the best of two behaviors and ways of live is better than just knowing one exists; maybe the combination of defended beliefs from both television and parents could be a healthy thing for all involved.
I agree Hollywood is being irresponsible, but it's not the root cause (and even if it was, that can be countered.)
It's impossible to destroy things like the South Park people and the like with boycotting if we're not the ones buying it in the first place. However, I am glad to inform you that my generation itself is already in the process of slowly tearing down the entertainment industry through the magic of piracy. It's not a pretty sight, but one day nobody will be in movies or records for the money; just because they want to be good. Expect a resulting upswing in quality of art (and a downswing in the number of camera angles).
Thanks to everyone for listening to me with an open mind.
...Television was the sole degrader of family values. If I gave that impression, I apologize.
However, your point about parental involvement is a bit naive as well. I was (as much as possible) involved with the learning curve of my daughters. Between peers, society, an uncaring school administration and other parents with differing beliefs, I was outvoted a lot of the time. Mostly, I wasn't even given a ballot. Other parents would take my kids to see movies, without checking our position on them. Thus, my oldest saw a movie that she knew I objected to, with the excuse that 'I didn't know we were going to that one'. Her fault for using that old saw, but her friend's parents fault for not checking.
There is no 'one' cause for societal degradation; in that we are in agreement. But the flip side of that is, there is no 'one' solution, either. I get the impression that some of the same parents who didn't check with us about movie content, would be greatly offended if I took their child to a church sponsored hayride without their permission.
Therefore, the problem lies first with parents, then with society, then with disingenuous kids, and finally with the one group that can be made to suffer through low box-office... Hollywood. Not the perfect line-up, but the best I can do.
I would like it better if the other parents would afford me the same courtesy they demand; not that other parts of society shouldn't also hold to that standard, but let's keep it on the neighborhood level for now.
I would also like it if the school system would help to reinforce a few simple standards of behavior, instead of just passing the buck back to parents, of either the 'good' or 'bad' variety. Kids' behavior affects all of society, including the school environment. When one or two kids act up, and get away with it cold, it causes the group attitude to suffer. In my parents' day, the class clown was the disruptive influence, and was dealt with rather harshly. Now, if one kid is a bully, if they are dealt with, usually their victim is suspended too, in the name of 'fairness'. Probably not this bad in most districts, but in mine is prevalent.
Thus, Hollywood takes the rap, perhaps unfairly; but one cannot deny the not-so-subtle degradation of family values in what appears onscreen. Lucy and Desi slept in seperate beds (this is possibly an obscure pop-culture reference for a younger person like you; you'll have to trust me on this). Now, we're lucky not to have full-blown group sex in prime time broadcast T.V. Is this a reaction to reality, or a cause and effect? Opinions differ, of course. Probably a bit of both. Television tends to represent what they believe is actually going on, unintentionally promoting more of the behavior which society at large is shocked by. Those who are not shocked (or find the shock to be tittillating), demand more of the 'envelope to be pushed', which is where stuff like South Park comes from.
Also, I don't want to give the impression that I'm totally anti-entertainment. I do see some value in quite a lot of movies and T.V. As hokey as it was, the old Battlestar series was chock full of morality plays. But my issue in this thread is with people who specifically market shows to little kids, with questionable content or messages that maybe the kids will understand, or maybe not; who cares, as long as the message is out there?
I care. If you don't think the message will get through to your TARGET AUDIENCE (ie: little kids), why include it at all? If the message is so important that it MUST be out there, why hide it in a kids movie? The answer to both questions seems to be:
Because we know middle America will object.
Your points, and those of other posters, about South Park being an adult cartoon, played late on a cable channel, are valid, but miss the point that some broadcast prime time stations are picking it up, in a very lightly edited format. There isn't much that can be edited, without ruining the message and humor of the episode in question. Therefore, the ep with the "s" word being constantly used will be bleeped, but that's about it. My issue isn't really with South Park anyway, though some parents are irresponsible enough to let little kids watch it. My problem is with the evermore pervasive attitude that 'this is what society wants, so we provide it'.
Pardon me, but I'm part of society, and nobody asked my opinion before putting it on the air. Now we have a bunch of foul-mouthed little hooligans running around, with everyone complaining about a lack of parenting?????
Ironic, huh?
I always enjoy a spirited, civil debate with open minded people. I'll try to see your point of view, if you afford me the same courtesy. Sadly, my friend, you are one of the few who actually seem to keep an open mind, without your brain falling out (lol). I hope my explanation has made things clearer.
and Mark Kilmer spending his BIRTHDAY watching the Sunday morning gabfest, Redstate editors are sacrificially saving me from all manner of trouble.
I refuse to see any movie with Robin Williams in it. I used to like his work, but any more it's uniformly preachy and predictable.
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.