"Go Green, or We'll Kill Your Kids"

[August1991]

A British environmental organization named 10:10 engages Richard Curtis and Dougal Wilson to produce a global warming video. Mayhem ensues:

BTW, Dougal Wilson makes advertising spots. Here's one of his more famous ones and you'll notice the similarity of tracking shots and light:

The style combined with Curtis script is one source of the problem here.

Edited October 3, 2010 by August1991

[August1991]

Here's a similar scene/technique from Curtis Notting Hill:

----

So, anyway, there are now the expected parodies:

Edited October 3, 2010 by August1991

[August1991]

Or even worse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IrtItfWn1E

Here's a link to the Guardian story that broke the original video:

Our friends at the 10:10 climate change campaign have given us the scoop on this highly explosive short film, written by Britain's top comedy screenwriter Richard Curtis, ahead of its general release.

It's most definitely striking and if you haven't watched it yet – taking into account the warning that it contains scenes some people may find disturbing – do so now, before I give too much away.

The Guardian

The comments to the article are interesting as it dawns on the environmentalists that this video is horribly counterproductive.

Edited October 3, 2010 by August1991

[TimG]

The comments to the article are interesting as it dawns on the environmentalists that this video is horribly counterproductive.

What is most disturbing is the people who spent days creating this film with UK government money never once asked themselves if it was appropriate or even ethical to blow up people who disagree with your political views.

This comment from the maker of the film sheds a lot of light on the mindset of an eco-fanatic:

"We 'killed' five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change," she adds.

IOW - murder in the name the "cause" is perfectly justified.

Incidently, the 300,000 is pure fiction and has no connection with reality.

[Michael Hardner]

The clip is too ironic. I don`t think it`s smart to try to be `hip` and `fun` for these types of campaigns.

[TimG]

The clip is too ironic. I don`t think it`s smart to try to be `hip` and `fun` for these types of campaigns.

There is nothing ironic about it. YOu either agree with the person in authority or you get blown up. This is the kind of stuff I expect from islamic terrorists.

[Michael Hardner]

There is nothing ironic about it. YOu either agree with the person in authority or you get blown up. This is the kind of stuff I expect from islamic terrorists.

Hmmm.. you think they`re actually threatening to kill people who don`t agree with them ? Or is it tongue in cheek ?

[Shady]

Hmmm.. you think they`re actually threatening to kill people who don`t agree with them ? Or is it tongue in cheek ?

I don't know. But how many times to these environmenatlist extremists get the benefit of the doubt?

Director James Cameron Unleashed: Calls for gun fight with global warming skeptics: 'I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads'

[Michael Hardner]

I don't know. But how many times to these environmenatlist extremists get the benefit of the doubt?

You don't know if this video was produced to actually threaten the lives of people who run the lights while they're out of the house ?

Come on, Shady - be serious.

[Shady]

You don't know if this video was produced to actually threaten the lives of people who run the lights while they're out of the house ?

Come on, Shady - be serious.

I'm just asking how many times pro-climate change advocates can "joke" about killing people who disagree or won't go along with their ideas? Is it ok for conservative groups to do the same? Do you think that fosters good discussion? Because that's what you're all about right?

[TimG]

Hmmm.. you think they`re actually threatening to kill people who don`t agree with them ? Or is it tongue in cheek ?

There is nothing in the video to suggest that anything other than a viceral hatred of people who disagree and a desire to "eliminate them".

Do you really think an add with teachers blowing up kids who supported the NDP would be waved aways as "tongue in cheek". The video was vile and says nothing good about the makers and the people that defend it.

Also remember there was an eco-nut who took hostages at the Discovery channel recently. Franny herself justified the murders by saying 300,000 people die from climate change.

Edited October 3, 2010 by TimG

[August1991]

The clip is too ironic. I don`t think it`s smart to try to be `hip` and `fun` for these types of campaigns.

By irony, you would mean that the producers intended the exact opposite of the portrayal - and that would suggest the title "No Pressure". Except that this 10:10 organization wants to pressure governments into passing legislation to control GHG emissions. Where is the irony in that? Absurdity is the appropriate word.

In any event, the "irony" of the message has been lost. No one seems to be getting it.

---

The video cost apparently $400,000 (aside from volunteered time) paid by grants from the UK government and corporations, and involved several hundred people. I am amazed that no one among this group noticed - irony notwithstanding - how stoopid the clip is.

I suspect that this video is ample evidence of what happens when some like-minded people live in an echo chamber.

[August1991]

Another parody:

Edited October 3, 2010 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

I'm just asking how many times pro-climate change advocates can "joke" about killing people who disagree or won't go along with their ideas? Is it ok for conservative groups to do the same? Do you think that fosters good discussion? Because that's what you're all about right?

No, I already said that I didn't think it was a good idea.

And you're not just asking that - I asked YOU if you thought they were serious and you said "I don't know". I don't think it's a good ad, and I don't like the dismissive tone of certain people when they dictate lifestyle changes to everyone - using the term "we" - when they're actually not planning to change their own lifestyles at all.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you really think an add with teachers blowing up kids who supported the NDP would be waved aways as "tongue in cheek". The video was vile and says nothing good about the makers and the people that defend it.

I'm not waving it away - it's a bad ad, and inappropriate - but it is "tongue in cheek" ... unless it's real.

[Michael Hardner]

By irony, you would mean that the producers intended the exact opposite of the portrayal - and that would suggest the title "No Pressure". Except that this 10:10 organization wants to pressure governments into passing legislation to control GHG emissions. Where is the irony in that? Absurdity is the appropriate word.

In any event, the "irony" of the message has been lost. No one seems to be getting it.

Ironic humour... as in sarcastic, but you're right - maybe absurd is a better description.

The video cost apparently $400,000 (aside from volunteered time) paid by grants from the UK government and corporations, and involved several hundred people. I am amazed that no one among this group noticed - irony notwithstanding - how stoopid the clip is.

I suspect that this video is ample evidence of what happens when some like-minded people live in an echo chamber.

Advertising comes up with some epic failures, especially in the hands of government.

[Shady]

but it is "tongue in cheek"

Cool. I'll look forward to your defense of the "tongue in cheek" commentary from folks like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

[Michael Hardner]

Cool. I'll look forward to your defense of the "tongue in cheek" commentary from folks like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

You're really the king of double standards.

I actually criticized the stupid video above, did you see that ? I'm really not sure what your problem is, but after awhile it's hard not to see this as willful ignorance on your part.

And furthermore - do you really think a commercial, and purported news commentators and journalists can be compared side-by-side ?

They can`t.

It`s annoying debating with you because sometimes you decide to bring facts and reality to the table, and other times you will say anything just to try to win your point. With posters (like Jerry Seinfeld) I learn to skim over their posts so that they don`t rob my precious attention, but with you I have to read it because there`s occasionally something substantive to discuss.

So please pick up your socks, or go all the way over the edge and just start posting inane opinions like you don`t know if this was intended as a real threat to kill children or not.

[TimG]

I actually criticized the stupid video above, did you see that ? I'm really not sure what your problem is, but after awhile it's hard not to see this as willful ignorance on your part.

Let's say Beck aired a video where the Muslim kids were blown up? Would you be as mild in your criticism as you have been with this video? Or would be condemning it as hate speech and calling for legal action? If you can honestly say that you would equally mild in your criticism if Muslim kids were blown up then Shady is wrong. That said, you can hardly blame him for suspecting you would react differently.

[Michael Hardner]

Let's say Beck aired a video where the Muslim kids were blown up? Would you be as mild in your criticism as you have been with this video? Or would be condemning it as hate speech and calling for legal action?

I wouldn`t call for legal action. I`d be surprised if he did something that stupid, but then probably annoyed with my self for being surprised at Beck`s stupidity.

That would also depend on the context of the piece; if was a similar idea, say a dark piece showing the US carpet bombing some Middle East country then I`d probably criticize him. It would be stronger if he were not being absurd and sarcastic.

If you can honestly say that you would equally mild in your criticism if Muslim kids were blown up then Shady is wrong. That said, you can hardly blame him for suspecting you would react differently.

Shady is wrong because he answered a direct question with an absurd answer just to not play into my question.

I might indeed react differently - I`m not a robot, and I bring my biases here like everyone else. But I do try to answer honestly, and I debate in good faith, at least.

[August1991]

Ironic humour... as in sarcastic, but you're right - maybe absurd is a better description.

It has been suggested that the ads are sophisticated satire. So I guess I get your point, MH. No one is suggesting that teachers should have red buttons to explode recalcitrant pupils.

But to be honest, even if I try to see this in a sympathetic light, I'm not certain what the point of the ad was other than to imply that if we don't take reducing CO2 emissions seriously, people will die. I suppose that the ad succeeded too in attracting alot of attention but then, not all publicity is good publicity.

I wonder if the CBC will report this.