Not really a turn around. I’m demonstrating how the details of the first 2 minutes are inconsequential to the rest of the film.
If those 2 minutes offend you, skip them, invent your own opening and enjoy a hilarious comedy that makes no further comment on the fact that richer, better educated couples statistically have less children.
so, what, the movie was not edited? if it didn’t have anything to do with the movie they could just remove it. of course it’s consequential; it’s the basic premise of the movie.
again, no one is disputing the FACT itself so you don’t need to emphasize it. my whole point is that the FACT is completely irrelevant to what drives intelligence in a community.
love that you added the richness aspect though. yeah if all these fucking poors didn’t have too many children we’d be in much better shape. don’t think about systemic issues, it’s all about individuals!
they didn’t believe in the movie, doesn’t mean they were afraid of the message. it means they thought it’s not going to do well. they don’t give a shit about the message. if it makes them money, any message is fine. that’s capitalism.
According to Crews, the film’s satirical depiction of corporations made the film financially unviable, while Judge attributed 20th Century Fox’s decision to negative test screenings
my bet is that Judge knows more than Crews on this.
the fact that NPR didn’t in this case get into why the world is idiotic doesn’t mean it isn’t there. again, they could’ve easily just not mention it at all if it weren’t important.
you know you can just make a movie and say “here’s a movie 500 years into the future. everyone’s dumb now”, right? i doubt anyone would even question it. there are so many reasons why you would just say “oh yeah, lol makes sense”. defunding public education, rise of anti-intellectualism, capitalism in general… you could just not say anything (you know, since it’s “irrelevant”).
yet they chose to say why. and they chose dysgenics for why. which is again factually wrong. that’s not how intelligence works. so the movie itself is idiotic in including that.
they didn’t believe in the movie, doesn’t mean they were afraid of the message.
A trailer costs next to nothing to make. There was no trailer because of the anti capitalist theme. Fox actively hid the movie to avoid jeopardising their corporate advertising revenue.
they could’ve easily just not mention it at all if it weren’t important.
Exactly why your eugenics crusade is not mentioned.
yet they chose to say why.
Because it was presented in a comedic fashion. It was funny, without any Nazi overtones.
they chose dysgenics
They chose fertility. Not dysgenics. Not eugenics.
Or, you know, skip the first 2 minutes and just enjoy the comedy.
Not really a turn around. I’m demonstrating how the details of the first 2 minutes are inconsequential to the rest of the film.
If those 2 minutes offend you, skip them, invent your own opening and enjoy a hilarious comedy that makes no further comment on the fact that richer, better educated couples statistically have less children.
so, what, the movie was not edited? if it didn’t have anything to do with the movie they could just remove it. of course it’s consequential; it’s the basic premise of the movie.
again, no one is disputing the FACT itself so you don’t need to emphasize it. my whole point is that the FACT is completely irrelevant to what drives intelligence in a community.
love that you added the richness aspect though. yeah if all these fucking poors didn’t have too many children we’d be in much better shape. don’t think about systemic issues, it’s all about individuals!
Eugenics is not the basic premise of the movie. It is anti capitalist.
You are white knighting. If I were a corporation I would pay for people to bad mouth the movie to avoid the negative PR of:-
Starbucks gives hand jobs
Fuddruckers changes its name to "Buttfuckers
Carl’s Jr. changes its slogan from “Don’t bother me, I’m eating” to “F**k you! I’m eating.”
oh no, capitalism is devastated by the … wordplay??? that’s not even anti corporate it’s just swear words.
you’re right though; capitalists didn’t want this movie made… which is why it was released by a small indie studio called 20th century fox.
Idiocracy satirizes American consumer culture and many prominent corporations … Fox this time didn’t evena circulate a trailer for Idiocracy. It’s never happened in his 40 plus years in movie marketing
Also, note the complete lack of eugenics discussion in the summary, because it isn’t relevant.
they didn’t believe in the movie, doesn’t mean they were afraid of the message. it means they thought it’s not going to do well. they don’t give a shit about the message. if it makes them money, any message is fine. that’s capitalism.
my bet is that Judge knows more than Crews on this.
the fact that NPR didn’t in this case get into why the world is idiotic doesn’t mean it isn’t there. again, they could’ve easily just not mention it at all if it weren’t important.
you know you can just make a movie and say “here’s a movie 500 years into the future. everyone’s dumb now”, right? i doubt anyone would even question it. there are so many reasons why you would just say “oh yeah, lol makes sense”. defunding public education, rise of anti-intellectualism, capitalism in general… you could just not say anything (you know, since it’s “irrelevant”).
yet they chose to say why. and they chose dysgenics for why. which is again factually wrong. that’s not how intelligence works. so the movie itself is idiotic in including that.
A trailer costs next to nothing to make. There was no trailer because of the anti capitalist theme. Fox actively hid the movie to avoid jeopardising their corporate advertising revenue.
Exactly why your eugenics crusade is not mentioned.
Because it was presented in a comedic fashion. It was funny, without any Nazi overtones.
They chose fertility. Not dysgenics. Not eugenics.
Or, you know, skip the first 2 minutes and just enjoy the comedy.