Uh, WHAT?!

[ironphoenix]

Who the ____ thought that this could possibly be a good idea?!

(The film clip doesn't play automatically, which is a Good Thing; take the warning about it being disturbing seriously before deciding to play it.)

Comments

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Well, that's a...thing. Eew.

On the other hand, I'm glad the movement has extremists. Movements don't really seem to go anywhere without them. It doesn't mean that you do what they want, but they set a flag far out in one direction and keep people from muddling up the middle.

I think the only bit I like is the ending, where they pop frames out to the recording session. Because the point is to motivate people to take action even after the YouTube clip has ended. Yes, you. That sort of thing.

And maybe by shocking people and getting more conversation going that might happen, though I suspect not so much.

[blinkus2000.livejournal.com]

I guess I am a terrible person for finding it hilarious in a very Monty Pythonesque way.

Indeed I did laugh.

[gaynip.livejournal.com]

I think the intent was humour but it makes me a bit squeamish to be honest.

I have nothing against ads that use some less sugar coated tactics to get the point across. A few years ago an SCPA ad in Scotland (which I can't find) had a kids Christmas play going on staring a guy in a horse costume. And when a man crept up behind the horse, the kids would shout "he's behind you" or some such. The man ended up beating the horse with a crowbar.

Gets the point across. It happens. People ignore it.

However, I'm not sure how exploding people who aren't willing to do 10:10 is really using the violence to prove a point. Seems...sensational.

And you know what? It worked. You posted it. We're talking about it. Mission accomplished.

[metawidget]

We're talking about it, that's for sure — it reminds me of Monty Python trying too hard. I sort of get the attempted joke after a few minutes of reflection, but that's not how jokes are supposed to work.

The rule for good propaganda (as opposed to PSAs) is to energize the base without regard to the feelings of the non-base. I suspect much of the base is more depressed than energized at this ad.

[jagash.livejournal.com]

It does point out a few aspects that people aren't quite aware of. Chiefly the fact that ignoring greenhouse gas emissions and doing nothing is (indirectly) killing people.

Beyond that, yeah... It has _an_ effect but I am uncertain if it is more positive or negative in the balance.

[con-girl.livejournal.com]

One of the commentors noticed that one of the film makers said: "Because we have got about four years to stabilise global emissions and we are not anywhere near doing that. All our lives are at threat and if that's not worth jumping up and down about, I don't know what is. 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.

As he said, "This should have been said in the clip. It wasn't. That is a major flaw."

I think it would have worked then. They have pulled the ad - why I don't know. They knew people would be upset. That was the POINT, wasn't it?

[maltesewarrior.livejournal.com]

I laughed my ass off. Especially at the kids exploding - mainly because the looks of horror on the other kids' faces were by far the most genuine.

I also laughed my ass off because, whether they meant to or not, they've concisely demonstrated the danger of any line of thinking that claims the end of the world is coming (which I seem to hear more and more from climate change advocates, lately).

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

What, you didn't laugh? Perfectly fine. No pressure.

(Reaches for button. . . .)