Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Advertisers Co-Opting The Lorax With Half-Truths About Conservation

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the he-who-controls-the-past dept.

Advertising 265

pigrabbitbear writes with an interesting opinion on the "green" marketing surrounding The Lorax movie adaptation. From the article: "There may be all kinds of reasons to defend the Lorax — Dr. Seuss's wondrous children's fable that's also a seminal book about conservation — from the wrath of Lou Dobbs and Fox News and others to whom the children's book-turned-Disney film is little more than liberal propaganda. ... For adults dealing with the real world of compromise, the Lorax is loved and hated for being such a ridiculously staunch environmentalist. Dude refuses to give an inch, which isn’t realistic, but certainly makes him a compelling character. That character is now being used as a shill for the CX-5, a small SUV that’s being billed as fuel-efficient and eco-friendly. What has the poor Lorax become?"

cancel ×

265 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

News for Nerds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184051)

Stuff that Matters? This matters? To who?

Re:News for Nerds (4, Funny)

ryanov (193048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184187)

"To whom."

Re:News for Nerds (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185113)

Yes, pollution is the cause of a lot of chronic ailments, so to answer your question I would say that this certainly matters to the World Health Organization..

Re:News for Nerds (2)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185525)

The link isn't even a legitimate link. It just takes the reader to some idiot's blog. "Lou Dobbs?" "Fox News?" Is there a citation for any of that, or do we now just invoke these boogeymen on sheer pretense and for effect?

no sense of irony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184119)

Everybody needs a thneed - or a CX4 or whatever.

Tragedy (4, Funny)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184121)

That character is now being used as a shill for the CX-5, a small SUV that’s being billed as fuel-efficient and eco-friendly.

I'm more concerned about lightning mcqueen from cars and cars2 being used to sell my kid a lunch box and thermos (true story!)

Come on... slow news day?

Re:Tragedy (0)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184185)

No--there using this story as a metric of how many /. readers are sympathetic to OWS and similar political agendas.  With all the changes since Taco left (flags?), this subtle quantification and increase in slashvertisements has made it ever more clear how /. will sell its users as product.  Damn it.  My post is self-fulfilling prophecy.

Re:Tragedy (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184833)

No--there using this story as a metric of how many /. readers are sympathetic to OWS and similar political agendas. With all the changes since Taco left (flags?), this subtle quantification and increase in slashvertisements has made it ever more clear how /. will sell its users as product. Damn it. My post is self-fulfilling prophecy.

No, you post is unreadable due to the font.

Re:Tragedy (4, Funny)

Yobgod Ababua (68687) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185915)

Also unreadable due to poor grammar and an almost total lack of sense.

Re:Tragedy (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184193)

No it's not. I see those commercials as the new CX-5 is GREEN because it runs on the little furry creatures instead of oil.

Why use oil when we can breed these furry things as a renewable fuel source?

Re:Tragedy (2)

Wild_dog! (98536) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184315)

They need something that runs on stuffed animals. I have thrown away many garbage bags of them and my kids keep getting more somehow. It is quite miraculous how they keep coming into the house.

Re:Tragedy (1)

Loughla (2531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184537)

Worst horror movie ever.

Re:Tragedy (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184729)

I here by claim patent and copyright on the term BioTribbles.

This patent covers Farming of and processes to breakdown and refine them into a environmentally friendly fuel alternative.

Re:Tragedy (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185801)

patenting and copyrighting iTrib, for the adult market. oh it's furry alright.

Re:Tragedy (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185121)

It is quite miraculous how they keep coming into the house.

The same way empty clothes hangers seemingly spontaneously come into being in the closet -- it's the missing socks. Socks are the larvae of coathangers and stuffed animals.

Re:Tragedy (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185061)

Come on... slow news day?

Must be, I didn't see many stories posted yet this morning. But what I thought was more interesting was something I saw on TV news a few days ago. It seems that some grade school kids took on the studios for their lack of environmentalism in the movie's web site, and THE KIDS BEAT HOLLYWOOD!

I wish I had a link, but it was TV.

Re:Tragedy (2)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185199)

Then, when every last cent of their money was spent,
the Fix-It-Up-Chappie packed up and he went.
And he laughed as he drove in his car up the beach,
“They never will learn; no, you can’t teach a Sneetch!”

Re:Tragedy (1)

Yobgod Ababua (68687) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185883)

"Come on... slow news day?"

Hey, it was on The Colbert Show last night, so it *must* be relevant, or at least trending, or something.

I'm not an eco-nut, but I did grow up with the original Lorax (which bears little resemblence to the previews of this movie) and I do think the marketing department went off the rails a bit with the Mazda endorsement and tie-in.

Mind you, I'd probably have to think the same about -any- vehicle tie in that doesn't run on a sustainably grown quantity of truffala fruit.

It's just the business of the entertainment business at some of it's worst.

I cringed when I saw the trailers (5, Insightful)

John3 (85454) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184141)

The Lorax was was of my favorite books by Dr. Seuss. I was a regular participant in "Read Aloud" days at our local elementary school, and when I had a choice of the book this is the one I selected to read. It was a simple story, well illustrated, and enjoyable.

Obviously to stretch the story to a feature length film the writers had to include additional story elements, but it just looks SO busy. I wish they would stop destroying these classics, but I guess Hollywood is grasping for ideas and hoped to trade off nostalgia for this story and lure parents to the theater with their children. Pick up the book instead, read it to your kids, and discuss.

Re:I cringed when I saw the trailers (1)

batquux (323697) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184561)

It looks like they changed the Lorax' character. The previews show him acting more like the Cat in the Hat.

Re:I cringed when I saw the trailers (1)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184651)

Rapping chipmunks will be the order of the day.

Re:I cringed when I saw the trailers (3, Funny)

bughunter (10093) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184831)

I am really not certain at all whether there's a misspelling in your post or not...

Re:I cringed when I saw the trailers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39185863)

Subtle, but brilliant.
So long and thanks for all the lulz.

No surprise (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184159)

This is the lite version of the super-pimping that Santa has had to endure forever. I look forward to Mickey Mouse coming out of copyright protection myself.

As a parent it's pretty offensive to see the ads that get wrapped up with these characters, but TV sucks anyway so it's just a race to the bottom IMO.

Re:No surprise (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184381)

I look forward to Mickey Mouse coming out of copyright protection myself.

Me too. I am so looking forward to Mickey Mouse as a drug-addicted former child star who beats Minnie Mouse, makes a pornographic movie and ends up choking in his own vomit.

I've been working on the screenplay since 1996. Miramax keeps turning me down for some reason. But as soon as the Mouse is out of copyright, I'm going straight to Searchlight.

Meet the Feebles (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184457)

You might like "Meet the Feebles" then. It is a New Zealand made parody based on a very disfunctional muppet-like group.

Your above comment sounds like a story-line from something in Meet the Feebles.

Incidentally- the producer was... ahem... Peter Jackson, the guy behind the Lord Of The Rings film adaptations, The Hobbit, King Kong, The Frighteners, etc. Before he became famous he had some really strange, bizarre and humorous productions. "Dead Alive" is one of my all-time favourite movies.

Re:Meet the Feebles (2)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185399)

The happy cheerful Muppets that we are all familiar with is not what Jim Henson was after. His earlier works were more violent and darker [wikipedia.org] but involved the beloved Muppets.

Re:Meet the Feebles (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185545)

I don't know if that counts as darker. Violent yes, but it's still slapstick. The emotion is still light and happy.

Re:No surprise (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184581)

Why do I see a family guy cut-scene in that idea.....

Re:No surprise (1)

tmarsh86 (896458) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185929)

Do you seriously think Mickey Mouse will ever go out of copyright? Disney won't ever let that happen. They will keep pushing for longer and longer copyright windows until it's forever. They've been pretty successful at it so far.

What's the deal with prawns and shrimps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184163)

Aren't they the same thing?

Re:What's the deal with prawns and shrimps? (4, Interesting)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184509)

Kinda... and kinda not.

The difference is like the difference between butterflies and moths; frogs and toads. Sometimes it is easy to tell the difference- sometimes it isn't- and sometimes the common name "shrimp" or "prawn" for a species is technically incorrect.

Frequently people call larger species "prawn" and smaller species "shrimp". This isn't always true.

Also, shape of gills is sometimes used- but this isn't always accurate. Sometimes which leg has the dominant pinchers is used- again this isn't always accurate.

The only truly accurate way to determine if a species is shrimp or prawn is to look at it's DNA. They are both decapods, (like lobster, crayfish, etc), but they diverged a way back.

Re:What's the deal with prawns and shrimps? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184667)

Prawns are larger, and have shells arranged such that the thorax overlaps the head, like that of a lobster.

Shrimps are smaller and the shell of the head overlaps that of the thorax.

But both are larger than your penis.

Stop looking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39185435)

at my penis.
--
My eyes are up here.

Earlier Suess (4, Interesting)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184215)

Early in his career, Geisel drew copy for FLIT (a particularly noxious insect spray) advertising; I wonder if that is what drove him to create such an uncompromising Lorax.

Re:Earlier Suess (4, Informative)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185485)

A few years ago I saw some of his political cartoons. It was kind of odd seeing cartoons in the style of Suess [google.com] but targeted to adults.

Don't worry about it (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184233)

This movie will be forgotten in five years, whereas the book will remain. Just keep your damn kids away from the movie.

Re:Don't worry about it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184597)

Should be "Just keep your kids away from the DAMNED movie!"

Re:Don't worry about it (1)

bughunter (10093) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184847)

And my lawn...

So... (4, Funny)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184273)

Advertisers Co-Opting The Lorax With Half-Truths About Conservation

So about 50% more truth than usual then?

Re:So... (2)

Chrondeath (757612) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184483)

They normally tell a third of the truth?

Not a Disney film! (4, Informative)

ahecht (567934) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184293)

Disney has nothing to do with The Lorax. Like How the Grinch Stole Christmas and The Cat in the Hat, this is a Universal Pictures film. It is being produced by Universal's Illumination Entertainment, the same studio that did Despicable Me and Hop.

Re:Not a Disney film! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184343)

Apple and Disney have the patent on "rounding the edges of a story".

Re:Not a Disney film! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184507)

You've managed to bring an Apple jab into a non tech story. You have been awarded 4000 forever-alone-bitter-internet-troll points!

Re:Not a Disney film! (2)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184595)

*waits patiently for a car analogy*

Re:Not a Disney film! (4, Funny)

The Moof (859402) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184943)

It's like you've just won a rusted out 1992 Geo Metro with a broken radio.

Re:Not a Disney film! (1)

thejuliano (547734) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184677)

Seriously... they can't even get the facts straight. You're right this is NOT a disney film, it's Universal. I'm a disney geek I'd know, but IMDB will back us up. Oh, and they've butchered the story, but that's another story.

Re:Not a Disney film! (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185169)

It was exciting to see a new animation studio to compete with Pixar and Dreamworks. Sad that after (the excellent) Despicable Me all they've done is garbage.

ETDs run rampant (1)

halfkoreanamerican (2566687) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184325)

I think the Lorax, by no fault of his own, has prostituted himself to the general public in hopes of raising awareness... too bad it is awareness of Environmentally Transmitted Dieses (ETDs).

Define fuel efficient. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184425)

The CX-5 is capable of moving 5 adults comfortably w/ cargo @ 35MPG or .006 gallons (about .7 oz) per person per mile, that seems pretty damn efficient to me....what's the standard for "fuel efficient"

Re:Define fuel efficient. (2)

Defenestrar (1773808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184785)

My commuter van does 15 adults w/ work gear @ 13.2 MPG (and doesn't change much depending on load, lights, A/C, or traffic speed; probably unlike the CX-5). That works out to 192 person-miles per gallon (0.005 gallons per person-mile) at full person load. It's also much closer to passenger capacity than any SUV (or hybrid, electric, or alternate fuel vehicle) than I see on the road during commute or non-commuter times.

35 MPG is pretty awesome for a SUV, but the simple fact is that most purchases of this vehicle type are a mistake if you base the decision on actual vehicle usage (even a typical person's winter driving would be better done in a Subaru hatchback, sedan, or wagon; and wagons and minivans do better MPG and cargo). The main advantage of SUV's are their clearance - even the mass is only a tradeoff between the kinetic advantage in a two car and the high center leading to single car accidents. Now SUV's are awesome for their niche, but they are almost exclusively used outside of that niche when another vehicle would have been a better choice. If someone wants to make an environmentally influenced vehicle decision they should shoot for the lightest mass, most fuel efficient, vehicle which provides for their year round driving needs that does not have a massive battery and has been produced in a zero-landfill facility.

If safety is a concern, one should look at the probability of accident type for their driving environment (single car, rear ending, etc...) and make sure to pick the higher ratings from the crash testing [iihs.org] , while not forgetting that those ratings are for in-class vehicles. For the most part adding mass is the number one safety feature (in the US auto-demographic) and is directly in conflict with environmental considerations.

Re:Define fuel efficient. (4, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184963)

The main advantage of SUV's [sic] are their clearance

Actually, the main advantages of SUVs are that they allow you to buy a station wagon without getting the "I'm a suburban drone" vibe that goes with a station wagon, and that they are classified as light trucks by the federal government, enabling them to bypass many of the environmental regulations imposed on cars.

Re:Define fuel efficient. (1)

AmericanGladiator (848223) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185611)

Interesting. I've noticed that wagons have almost disappeared. I've got a Mazda6 and it's been great, but they aren't being produced any longer and that seems to be a trend among all automakers. They want you to by crossovers.

I live in the upper Midwest and probably will buy as fuel-efficient an AWD crossover as I can find for my next vehicle. I am tall as are the kids, so I need a bigger vehicle with ample legroom in the 2nd row.

Re:Define fuel efficient. (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185665)

While I do agree that most people buy SUVs is because they need a station wagon or mini van but don't want the stigma there are a few people who buy them to actually do things that require that type of vehicle (trucks also work). Granted they don't look pristine but they work great for right tasks. I put about 3,000 miles a year on my beat up Jeep (previously it was a Bronco II) but that is doing stuff like going hunting, camping, fishing, hauling materials, and pulling stumps. There are a number of places where I end up fording a river to continue on the road, and large portion of the "roads" I go down in it are only passable in a vehicle with high clearance and 4 wheel drive. I don't even do off roading or mudding like one of my neighbors does. It doesn't get good gas mileage, has a higher center of gravity than I like, is quite beat up, but 4 wheel drive with posi differentials is great in bad weather and on questionable roads. I even have a tow rope and have pulled people out of ditches a number of times.

A "half-truth" is a whole lie. (3, Insightful)

Coreigh (185150) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184521)

When any version of a truth is used to deceive it is nothing more than a lie.

Re:A "half-truth" is a whole lie. (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184929)

well said.

may i steal that?

Re:A "half-truth" is a whole lie. (1)

GlennC (96879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185605)

If you don't mind, I'd like to use that line as my signature.

Adults need to grow up (2)

concealment (2447304) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184543)

"Compromise" cannot be a mode of thinking or you never end up with a bottom line. Some things, like nuclear war and avoiding environmental catastrophe, are optional decisions. We need to get them right because the consequences are real and will be absolute. If we define maturity as an intention to "compromise" on important issues, I want no part of maturity.

Re:Adults need to grow up (2)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184999)

"Compromise" cannot be a mode of thinking or you never end up with a bottom line. Some things, like nuclear war and avoiding environmental catastrophe, are optional decisions. We need to get them right because the consequences are real and will be absolute. If we define maturity as an intention to "compromise" on important issues, I want no part of maturity.

Spoken like one of our politicians (it matters not which party). Never compromise with the enemy, we are against everything they say! Filibuster, blockade, shut down the government! We can never even hint that the other side might have a valid point in this argument!

Now lets try it with compromise:
You are right, some things can never be compromised on. But to say you must never compromise, or that every belief you hold is paramount is too extreme. Adults need to learn that they are not little children that must get their way no matter what or they will cry and take their ball and go home. I want no part of that immaturity.

I need new rear window sticker (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184579)

Who's gonna make my sticker with Lorax (ala Calvin) pissing on the Mazda logo?

Lou Dobbs and Fox News (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184591)

Fuck those people. You have a propaganda film out now that every conservative dickweed should be able to enjoy. Act of Valor, the one starring real soldiers, using live ammunition, and overseen by the Pentagon. Stop bitching that other people have what you also have.

Re:Lou Dobbs and Fox News (1)

AmericanGladiator (848223) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185679)

This dickweed is hoping to enjoy it. I've gotta wait till it comes out on DVD, though. I'm too tight to pay the $10 to see it in the theater.

What has the poor Lorax become? (3, Informative)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184609)

A corporate sellout....

Furor about the conservation... not the co-opt (3, Insightful)

bughunter (10093) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184611)

Advertisers Co-opting The Lorax

No shit? Beloved character reduced to shill by Hollywood?? You don't say? That really would be news. NOT.

With Half-truths

[clutches heart] Ohmygod. I'm going to faint. Advertisers stretching the truth to market their product. The horror! [beat] This is news?

About Conservation

[pause]

[pause]

I see what you did there.

Tell me, if Mr. Lorax had been shanghai'ed into being a spokesman for toothpaste, toys, or floor wax, would this be a story? No. This story just fans the flames of the culture wars. Whoever started this meme knew that the word "Conservation" and the phrase "liberal propaganda" would propagate the meme with his target audience, who likes to get all a-quiver and indignant and victimized when mass media propagate memes they disagree with.

Re:Furor about the conservation... not the co-opt (2)

elgo (1751690) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185541)

OK, you are right on the money. It is still worth pointing out that this abomination of a movie is not even trying to pretend to be environmentally aware in its associated marketing deals. Floor wax, etc. might be equallu environmentally unfriendly, but as you said, the shilling for an SUV gets the liberal "target audience" mad. There's nothing wrong with that, though. Advertisers and movie studios have become increasingly brazen, not even pretending to respect the ideas behind the intellectual properties they exploit. It is worthwhile to send them a message by posting about it on ./ (?)

Liberal propaganda? No. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184623)

Marxist propaganda? Without a doubt.

It's a thneed! (1)

ukemike (956477) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184643)

The CX-5 (and every car for that matter) is a THNEED!

My problem with extremist environmentalists (3, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184645)

I know this is probably going to get me flamed, but my biggest problem with the more extremist environmentalists out there (aside for their propensity for wild-eyed, quasi-religious Chicken Little alarmism) is that they often jump up to protest without any real answer to the question "Well, what's a reasonable alternative?" Most of the alternatives that they do have seem more like pipe dreams to me (at least for now). Sure it would be nice to have giant solar and wind farms that could supply all our energy needs. But those things are, even in the best case scenario, decades away. The idea that we're just going to run out and start shutting down coal and nuclear plants now, with no real replacement save some *hope* for a future of wind and solar is just nuts.

If you're going to advocate something radical, you had damn well have a pretty good answer on *how* where going to do it without throwing society into chaos. It's nice to save the environment, but we humans are part of that environment too.

Re:My problem with extremist environmentalists (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184675)

If you're going to advocate something radical, you had damn well have a pretty good answer on *how* where going to do it without throwing society into chaos. It's nice to save the environment, but we humans are part of that environment too.

If you're going to advocate something environmentally harmful, you had damn well better have a pretty good answer on how we're going to live that way without destroying our ecosystem. It's nice to have shiny things, but we humans can't live without the environment.

Re:My problem with extremist environmentalists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39185107)

If you're going to advocate something environmentally harmful, you had damn well better have a pretty good answer on how we're going to live that way without destroying our ecosystem. It's nice to have shiny things, but we humans can't live without the environment.

I dunno, keep doing what we're doing? The forests are coming back [dsisd.net] , wolves are returning [wikipedia.org] , acid rain has been significantly decreased [wikipedia.org] , and even the Brazilian rainforest is relatively stable [spiegel.de] (growth is keeping up with cutting, although with some loss of diversity and the nutrients leach out of the soil due to high rainfall).

So, yes, the wild eyed quasi religious environmentalists DO sound like Chicken Little to a lot of us. So now they don't like CO2, great. We've managed to address a lot of other problems pretty successfully, so we're not gonna panic. Other than throwing all of civilization into chaos, what do they suggest?

(captcha - existing . Not making that up)

Re:My problem with extremist environmentalists (1, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185257)

So, yes, the wild eyed quasi religious environmentalists DO sound like Chicken Little to a lot of us. So now they don't like CO2, great. We've managed to address a lot of other problems pretty successfully, so we're not gonna panic. Other than throwing all of civilization into chaos, what do they suggest?

I'll take this one, even though I don't know the name of the logical fallacy that you're perpetrating, and you're just an anonymous, cowardly troll. Pointing out a problem is a perfectly valid thing to do even if you don't have the solution. The forests are not coming back, although tree farms with dramatically reduced biodiversity have taken their place. Wolves are returning because of the efforts of conservationists. Acid rain has been decreased because of the efforts of conservationists. The brazilian rainforest is probably not stable, odds are that it will lose too much soil before it's recovered by vegetation, but I guess we could agree to differ on that one since the jury is still out. In essence, though, everything you said is either false or besides the point.

When you come up with a view worthy of being less anonymous and cowardly, please return and share it.

Re:My problem with extremist environmentalists (1)

elgo (1751690) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185553)

Wolves are returning????? Oh shit. Looks like I am turning in my environmentalist card; I don't need to be chased by wolves again!

Re:My problem with extremist environmentalists (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185727)

Wolves are returning because of the efforts of conservationists.

I really wish they wouldn't

Re:My problem with extremist environmentalists (1)

AmericanGladiator (848223) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185857)

"If you're going to advocate something environmentally harmful, you had damn well better have a pretty good answer on how we're going to live that way without destroying our ecosystem"

That's the thing. The extreme environmentalists are now claiming that CO2 is a pollutant [1] (nevermind that plants consume it while producing oxygen). That means the very act of breathing is now considered polluting the environment. So according to your statement I now have to have a damn good reason as to why I breath?

[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124001537515830975.html [wsj.com]

Re:My problem with extremist environmentalists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39185321)

We'll always have an environment. Maybe the one we are moving towards allows for the monetization of oxygen, but you know someone will come defend that fast enough.

Re:My problem with extremist environmentalists (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184703)

STRAWMAN SPOTTED.

Look, "environmentalists" are on a pretty wide spectrum. You've got your nuts, and then you've got the people who think "you know, it's probably bad that we pollute so much, let's look for cleaner and more efficient alternatives".

Your post sounds like you fixate on the nuts so you can ignore the sane people.

Re:My problem with extremist environmentalists (1)

tmarsh86 (896458) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185877)

The nuts are who the media focuses on and they spread their message much easier and faster than the sane people.

And... (2)

Jiro (131519) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184653)

And normal environmental messages are not coopted by money? Of course they are. Is shilling a fuel-friendly vehicle that much worse than shilling a Prius or carbon credits?

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184807)

And normal environmental messages are not coopted by money? Of course they are. Is shilling a fuel-friendly vehicle that much worse than shilling a Prius or carbon credits?

Of course it is.

Al Gore only gets gobs of money from carbon credits. Not from the sale of a Prius or any other less-eco-damaging* car.

* - No car is "eco-friendly". None. Get over that asinine fallacy.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184969)

* - No *human* is "eco-friendly". None. Get over that asinine fallacy.

FTFY

I apologize for this in advance, soon to be on Fox (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185527)

Actually, even the worst SUV is carbon-neutral given a broad enough time-frame when you think about it. It's those damn dinosaurs and ancient forests sequestering carbon from the environment that threw everything out of whack.

Re:And... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185035)

The most "eco-friendly" (as in less environmentally damaging, of course no car actually *improves* the environment) car is a used one that gets good MPG. The Prius can't touch a CRX Si, used VW Golf, '90s Civic, '90s Corolla or '90s Suzuki Swift (latter two also branded as Geo Metro in the US).

Conservatives are complaining about no compromise? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184657)

Quite ironic coming from the party that counts "no compromise" religious absolutists and TEA party politicians as their base.

Clue: Hollywood is commercial (1)

binkless (131541) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184725)

To be in a feature film is to volunteer for commercial use. Don't expect Hollywood to change its stripes to save the purity of the Lorax.

Whenever you want a childhood memory destroyed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39184731)

Get Disney to make a film out of it.

Or Lucas

What "The Lorax" Shared With His WW2 Cartooning (1)

Scareduck (177470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184781)

Theodor Seuss Geisel was good at condensing something to a caricature of reality, and environmentalism was no exception. Like his World War 2 cartoons [ucsd.edu] , which in the case of the Japanese were unremittingly racist, the Lorax's enemy became unrecognizable. Who, really, needs a "thneed"? This was obvious to me even as a child. I knew that people built houses and published newspapers from forest products. By eliding those things, Seuss managed to condense an entire string of arguments down to one easy-to-digest -- but wholly false -- narrative. For that reason, I have always rated The Lorax as the least of his children's books.

Simple answer. (2)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184865)

This is Hollywood, why is anyone surprised that a beloved character would be whore'd out? This movie wasn't produced to teach environmentalism, this movie was produced to capitalize on a timely theme and the popularity of Dr. Seuss.

But then, the answer here is simple. If you take issue with what they've done don't watch the movie. Don't go to the theater and definitely don't buy or rent the DVD. Once you hand your money over you've effectively told the movie company that they've made the right decision.

It would have been more appropriate to use the Once-Ler to peddle the SUV.

Fox News???? Really??? (-1, Troll)

guitardood (934630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39184959)

Soooo sick of you liberals getting angry at Fox for presenting reality as opposed to what you see through your PINKo colored glasses.

Please get some intelligence and go FOX yourself.

Re:Fox News???? Really??? (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185029)

If you shove your head further up your arse and do a little flip through the 4th dimension, you might end up in a Klein bottle configuration.

Re:Fox News???? Really??? (1)

guitardood (934630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185153)

The fact that my post was demoted to '0' and yours was modded a '2' does more to prove my original point than any words. Have a nice day.

Re:Fox News???? Really??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39185183)

He wasn't modded up, he has a +1 karma bonus for past, positively-modded contributions. You can toggle-off bonuses in your settings.

Re:Fox News???? Really??? (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185353)

Don't let reality get in the way of his narrative that conservatives are victims.

Re:Fox News???? Really??? (0)

guitardood (934630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185633)

from the wrath of Lou Dobbs and Fox News and others to whom the children's book-turned-Disney film is little more than liberal propaganda. ...

How is my comment rated a '0'. It was directly related to the OP as noted above. Lumping all of Fox News "and others" together was just a slam at Fox News and has nothing to do with real news, especially on SlashDot. Even worse was the comment about having my head in my 'arse', karmic points or not should have been modded down for being the flame-bait that it is.

If you don't like Fox News, fine. Being someone who appreciates complete stories rather than sound bites to help me form my opinions, I rather like Fox News and have never heard the entire network slam "The Lorax" and felt the generalizing of the OP was unfair and warranted a critical comment to that effect.

The 'mod' points, as I understand them, are not supposed to be applied based on whether you agree or disagree with the poster but rather the relevance to the topic at hand.

Pretty typical liberal baloney,

Can't defend your position......

resort to personal attacks

more personal attacks=karma points

Now I understand the rules

Thanks for nothing

Re:Fox News???? Really??? (1)

guitardood (934630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185805)

Now modded down to troll? Read my other posts. I post with a real handle, never anonymously and feel that the OP was flame bait. I am not a troll and don't have the time to wast with this childish nonsense. I won't be wasting my time on slashdot anymore.

Capitalism (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185099)

...doesn't understand "classy" or "tactful." If you're a celebrity your digitally reanimated self will be used to sell shit long after you're dead, and who knows what else. I fully expect to see Marilyn Monroe in a commercially released porno before I have any trouble getting a hardon.

Sad (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185119)

I was already put off by the previews, which make it seem likely they intend to throw out the ending of the original (things are bad, but maybe, just maybe, they can get better) to replace it with a traditional happy ending.

I love my Mazda, but I'm almost ashamed of that commercial. Sure a hybrid is "better" than a traditional car of the same size (depending on construction and disposal of the battery...), but I still doubt the Lorax would "speak for the trees" and advocate cars of any kind.

Nicely done Mazda! (2)

Krau Ming (1620473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185191)

brainwashing my kid to want to drive your CX-5. unfortunately by the time he's old enough to drive, it will probably be out of production.

liberal propaganda (5, Insightful)

celle (906675) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185497)

"Dude refuses to give an inch"

    Then he's no liberal. If you look around the stubborn ones are the "my way or no way" republicans. The liberals and the centrists are the ones that have been giving ground the last 18 years. That's why the country is so fucked up with a constitution that's a joke and a dysfunctional regulatory system allowing public to be raped by corporations.

Canyonero, heya, crack whip (1)

IwantToKeepAnon (411424) | more than 2 years ago | (#39185797)

Disney's Lorax = Crusty?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>