The Muppets - Communist Puppets?

Well, it's just typical FOX people talking out of their butts rather than their mouth. However, I will say this regarding one of the comments but the columnist:

I haven't seen the movie, but the "problem" (if you want to call it that, and is no doubt one of the things FOX is latching on to), is, why pick an "oil tycoon" if for no other reason than he's an oil tycoon? Why not a real estate developer (which would make more sense)? Or a store owner? Or the Humane Society? The reason is pretty clear - the oil industry is an easy target, and so pinko commies can attack with impunity.

 

No, the muppets aren't communists. Just like Avatar isn't anti-military, Tinky Winky isn't gay, and no one is waging a war on Christmas. It's stupid Fox News culture war button pushing nonsense meant to drive ratings among the gullible and the hyper-partisan perpetual victimization junkies that make up much of the conservative base these days. Like most things with Fox, consider the source.

The makers of Happy Feet 1 and 2, however, are clearly pushing an agenda on kids, imo.

 

Ah, yes, Fox News and the persecution complex they so caringly try to nurture among their viewers. Everyone is against them, all the institutions, all the media, all the world. See, everyone is envious of the one true idea that they are offering. Everyone is scheming, plotting, trying to seduce their viewers from the TRUTH. Every other news outlet is trying to deceive them, every other opinion is malicious, even the smurfing muppets are plotting against them. And of course, everything that ever goes wrong can be blamed on the others. It probably feels quite affirming when the entire world tries to take you down, when your news are the only fair and balanced (TM) ones, and everything else is a figment of the liberal media's propaganda.

While I do agree that perhaps a real estate agent (or a foreclosing bank) would make more sense, I imagine then Fox talking heads would be even more livid because it so obviously makes an allusion to the events of the last few years. Apparently now even the Muppets are planning to destroy their viewers' livelyhoods, their pride, the world they worked so hard to build. Twenty-one years after the Cold War ended, you'd think Communism has all but won in the US! Hey, has anyone been following the polls on how many Americans think their president was born in Kenya or is a Muslim?

If I may paraphrase, it’s amazing how far the right will go just to manipulate your elders, to convince them, give the anti-liberal message.

 

Let's be honest here. The only way this wouldn't have garnered criticisms from those mouthpieces is if the villain was an evil hippie who was buying up all the land in the city to turn it into a massive cannabis farm.

 

Hey, stop knocking the cannibals, they gotta eat to ya know!

 

I know dmc, it was a...... ummm..... play on words... and...... umm... that's my story and I'm sticking to it.... I'm outta here....

 

This thread raises an interesting question. Why is it the villian more often than not has to be a corporation, a bank, a rich guy, or a government and the hero has to be someone poor, a minority, someone who communes with Gaia, etc. ?

Why is it acceptable that the media villifies success? Isn't this sending a terrible message to children?

 

Its just a consequence of the fact that underdogs are popular protagonists in this country. Don't view it as punishing success so much as excess.

 

No. The hero succeeds, doesn't he?

It's partly what Daisuke says. Stories like that are, essentially, meant to inspire. The hero must do something extraordinary and great. He or she is meant to face an uphill battle, to dig deep, to accomplish what others would have considered impossible. Their success is meant to uphold the values the heroes represent, to show how they can make otherwise normal people (us, the audience) into heroes if we act the right way. That's the message children (and adults) are meant to get - that if we give it our best and devote ourselves fully, we can accomplish what appears impossible.

The protagonist gets to prove all that in their struggle with the villain. The villain must be stronger - if your protagonist defeats some loser, what does that prove? We see that every day. A fair fight isn't "special" enough to make a good story either. No, a hero needs to have it hard, ergo the opposition - the villain - must not only be a challenge, but an overwhelming one. The idea is that if it weren't for a real hero, the villain's success would be assured.Thus, the villain should have an advantage. Personal skills are good, but is usually not enough - the villain must have power, ideally something that the hero doesn't have equal access to (otherwise it's a bit too fair and might mean the villain has been working just as hard as the hero).

It isn't that the media villify success, it's that the villain must have been somehow successful so that they can be a proper villain and thus establish the hero. What else are they meant to have? If it is authority, then (at least if the movie is set in the US) it is the system (democracy) that is vilified. Status or birthright? Maybe, for a historical film, but to most westerners it doesn't feel so relevant anymore (and that dead horse has been beaten quite thoroughly). Money works great because it gives a lot of impersonal power and is available to all kinds of people - officials, foreigners, criminals, minority members, what have you. It is impersonal and (in our current society) implies the least about personal qualities*. It is also something present in our society and easy for the public to relate to.

*: Yeah, we might ***** about politicians, but success there isn't so easy, either.

 

This is an astonishingly narrow view.

Success is not synonymous with good, and how you become successful matters. Some who are successful are good, ethical, and beneficial for others as well as themselves. And, some who are successful are decidedly not-so-good, unethical and driven by self interest at the expense of others. Most of those considered highly successful are a bit of both (example: a chemical plant who provides jobs for an entire town but leverages that power to escape accountability for polluting the local river). Villains are villains because they've become successful at the expense of someone else and willfully abused whatever power they've been given. Whether it's the wicked witch of the west, a vindictive school teacher, GloboComCorp Chemical, Inc. or J. R. McDrillsalot the oil tycoon. As in life, the bad guys accumulate power through their success, and, as we all know, power usually corrupts.

Most stories have good guys and bad guys. If the good guys in a story had power and success and the bad guys were, say, homeless men who bothered no one, I can't imagine anyone would find that a compelling story or the good guys easy to root for. Since time immemorial, people have loved stories where the underdog triumphs over the powerful, especially when the powerful escape judgment.

You can't possibly think that there are no corporations, banks, rich guys or governments who behave unethically and do great harm to others in the name of accumulating and/or maintaining their power. So I guess I'm amazed you even pose such a question. The fact is, very few successful (and therefore, powerful) entities throughout history have ever gotten to where they are without at least some blood on their hands. I challenge you to name one, in fact.

 

Snook's got a point. Normally (in modern trope-filled media) protagonists who are in search of some payout* don't end up getting it, but they have something much better in the end - a 'valuable lesson;' e.g., it's better to give than to receive, etc. Why can't the hero just get paid?

*going way back, a good example of this phenomenon in TV is Lee Majors as 'The Fall Guy.' He was a part-time bounty hunter who almost never got paid, even though he caught everyone he was chasing (circumstances always intervened to f*ck him over come pay time), but he and his gang learned lots of valuable lessons along the way. Valuable lessons are great, but if you never get paid you won't stay open for long.

 

Offhand I would say Quaker Oats. Chick Fil A is another one that comes to mind. I would also pick Life is Good.

On a more local level I ahve many small corporations that are fantastic employers and neighborhood assets to their communities.

You cannot deny that the left inheritantly looks at business as evil.

 

@ Gaer,

I don't quite agree with that. Arguably one of the most popular figures in popular culture today is Batman. Bruce Wayne, insanely wealthy and powerful, working behind the scenes for good and expecting nothing but safe streets in return (ok, and vengful satisfaction). Those he fights? Specifically, "the powerful and the corrupt." As did his late father, Thomas Wayne, though all of his good was done legitimately in the light of day. See also: Stark, Tony. Realizing his wealth and power had become a destructive force in the world, aims to right all the wrong his efforts have caused when he could just has easily have turned a blind eye.

There are many examples of this dynamic at work. The successful aren't always the villains, but, villains are always successful. Otherwise they'd cease to be a threat to anyone.

@ Snook,

Quaker Oats is owned by Pepsico. Hardly an ethical company when you do a little research on them. Leaving aside the fact that Pepsi is gross. Chick Fil A has been the subject of multiple animal cruelty investigations and their food is hardly good for you. I don't know much of anything about Life is Good, but I'll look them up later.

I categorically deny this. It's completely absurd and you know it.

 

And the crazy. The Joker was neither conventionally powerful nor corrupt, moreso just a lunatic who wanted to destroy things and bring chaos to Gotham! In a way he was a protagonist - little guy who's had enough of what he sees as oppression and a bunch of other status quo BS and is determined to upset the applecart - vs. Batman's antagonist - rich powerful hypocrite guy who wants to keep everyone tamely in a box (while fighting for "justice and good," yes). That may be why everyone loved and identified with him so much. Plus he never got paid.

Tony Stark / Ironman was just a rich guy who predictably realized the 'error of his ways' (because rich = evil ... evil TO THE COAR!).

(I'm mainly just bullsh*tting around here. Even base level modern media is too complex and disorganized to assign any standard theme or motivation, IMO. From any political foothold. e.g., I doubt that there are any late-night meetings where the MPAA discusses ways to promote villains as successful Republicans, any more than there are successful Republicans who have late-night meetings to discuss screwing over the little guy and conspiring with big business and the cops to destroy OWS ... though that says nothing about individual instances or 'organic' trends.)

 

Actively trying to do harm isn't the only definition of evil. Not giving a sh*t that they screw over the little guy and conspiring with big business and the cops to avoid having to answer for screwing over the little guy also makes them evil - I would say moreso than a mindless criminal bent on destruction.

Corporations who do harm are aware of it and have the power to change their ways, but will in almost all cases avoid doing so if there's no profit in it, and there's no denying that CEOs answer to the shareholders first and the angel on one's shoulder a distant second, if at all. And whether we like to admit it or not, MOST large corporations behave this way. They don't employ armies of cutthroat attorneys because they like inflating their expense accounts... they do it to avoid responsibility and accountability whenever it is expedient and profitable to do so.

Again, not all powerful entities behave this way, and we can all site examples of those we are aware of who don't. But most do. Cysco, Enron, AIG, GoldmanSachs... I could go all day. And these are just American companies. Let's not even get started on Chinese and Russion ones - that'll really turn your stomach. It's 2011 for Pete's sake, this is the reality. To deny this is the very height of naivety.

 

[groan ...] Can we go back to discussing the Joker? That was more fun.

 

I hear ya. Start a Batman topic in the Sensorium and I'll join you there all day. This one is serious - or at least it became so.

 

There was a news story not that long ago where they were discussing how well informed people were about the news and current events by asking them a series of questions concerning news and recent events. They then asked people where they got most of their news from. There were more people who listed FOX News as their main source of news than any other source. The people who watched Fox News were the least informed of all the groups. More disturbingly, the people who watched Fox News were actually less informed than the people who claimed to not watch any news at all.

It's got to the point when one could argue that Fox News is actually spreading misinformation.