Re: Has anyone seen this? (Greenpeace video)
wow... I dislike propaganda, it lies and uses invalid arguments.
Note: These days, community activity has largely moved to the BiM Discord. Join us!
Bricks in Motion
Bricks in Motion
We are a friendly filmmaking community devoted to the art of stop-motion animation using LEGO® and similar construction toys. Here, you can share your work, join our community of other brickfilmers, and participate in periodic animation contests!
A place to discuss, share, and create stop motion films.
Ad
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
wow... I dislike propaganda, it lies and uses invalid arguments.
The vid is easy to source elsewhere.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news … go-3833637
I don't think the song breaches copyright - its a cover - or a remake. It was probably the likeness of Emmet and WildStyle used without permission (and by likeness, I mean it IS Emmet and Wildstyle).
Seeing as how viral the video went, and that LEGO owns the rights to the video, and the the video was made in bad taste to the original, I think it's a case by case copyright that's been put onto it.
EDIT: Are Greenpeace taking this out on LEGO or Megablocks?
Last edited by Kieren Barnett (July 11, 2014 (12:23am))
The vid is easy to source elsewhere.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news … go-3833637
I don't think the song breaches copyright - its a cover - or a remake. It was probably the likeness of Emmet and WildStyle used without permission (and by likeness, I mean it IS Emmet and Wildstyle).
Emmet and Wildstyle aren't the copyright problem. It's the song. Covers and remakes still breach copyright unless you have permission.
In the 80s, Men At Work got sued for the song Down Under because there was a short riff that was taken from the tune of Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree, which someone owned the copyright for.
So it's the song.
What do we have here? (mod edit: not here, Carousel)
To get things straight, I think the video itself was powerfully executed, but built upon a flawed and illogical foundation. The concept behind Greenpeace's objection is nitpicky and confused. I support what they stand for as a group, but their focus and direction here is certainly skewed. Honestly if they really intend to address the pressing issue here, why not just attack the entirety of Lego's inherent operation as a company? The reality is that beloved Lego is a benefactor to the fossil fuel industry, widely proliferating petroleum-based products and actively supporting the continued use/obtainment of such in a way that is of detriment to our planet.
Greenpeace has sensationalised a non-issue and thereby distracted from the real problemo. They treat Lego like some environmentally-sound golden child that, by way of the inclusion of some benign and highly obscure oil company branding on a very select few construction playsets, is just starting to turn to the 'dark side'. Yet they ignore the very nature of the toy and the company itself, that of oil.
The video is severely off the mark and a bit daft, but I don't think it is a worthy justification to hate on Greenpeace and its overall values.
LEGO's ABS plastic is made out of oil. So LEGO supporting oil companies is unavoidable in some fashion.
Is exactly the first thing that came to my mind when watching it.
Putting politics/enviromental issues aside, I don't like this video.
I just kind of wish that companies and organizations didn't have to make everything an advertisement/piece of propaganda for something. I don't care what your cause is and whether or not I support it or whether or not its right. LEGO should be one of those things kids can use to see the world the way they want it. Imagination can be used as a way to escape the real world and live in your own. What Shell and other companies does with their oil may be a controversial issues, but they aren't hurting much by partnering with LEGO, so.... I mean, if anyone is polluting kids imagination, its the people who try to shove their political opinions into toys and stuff.
This way a very well-done video though. I thought the use of the song was clever. The megablocks made me gag, they are never gonna get LEGO to end their partnership by using 3rd party brands.
The last sentence of your first paragraph hit the spot. I'm reminded of the mid-90s "Happy To Be me Doll" that has a political agenda behind it and nothing else. It was a flop. Girls just want to play.
FlyingMinifig wrote:when that Muslim group tried to claim that LEGO's Jabba's Palace set was racist...
Wha? They did that? Ha, that's hilarious! People can get so worked up over nothing sometimes...
I remember that!
To be fair on the Muslims, a child's playset that looks exactly like a mosque but inside is a group of hideous, violent criminals might be percieved as slightly xenophobic. But the characters are modelled on the movie (which, depite other flaws, isn't racist. The prequels on the other hand...) and I'm pretty sure the guys who designed the sets just weren't thinking.
To be fair on the Muslims, a child's playset that looks exactly like a mosque but inside is a group of hideous, violent criminals might be percieved as slightly xenophobic.
Haha, yes, Jabba's palace is supposed to be an ancient monastery that he took over, so it looks like a mosque. It seems fair to me that people would take offense when it's taken out of that context and made into a toy.
I think it's sad that LEGO has been pressured into this. Surely Shell itself should be one's that are scrutinised?!
I agree. If Greenpeace were really annoyed with Shell, then why not bring it up with them, instead of Lego? It will create quite a negative image for Greenpeace.
Mega lame.
Greenpeace has been pretty anti-Shell since forever. This was just another way of trying to stab them in the gut. I'm honestly not sure how much this really does in the long run, though. I wasn't even aware that LEGO was sold at Shell Gas Stations until it was pointed out to me by the campaign. If a big LEGO person like me doesn't know, then how is some little kid gonna know or be affected? Again, the only real victory is that Greenpeace has just gotten another moral victory at Shell.
The Greenpeace campaign is valid provided it's honest and truthful. If Shell is ruining the arctic region and profiting from it then Lego and all other commercial partners need to consider the morality of that. All Greenpeace has done is raised our awareness of this commercial relationship. As consumers, we also need to question the morality (and facts). There doesn't appear to be a bio-degradable, clean energy-efficient alternative available to consumers however.
Whether or not SHELL is doing all that Greenpeace claims is not my expertise and I suggest this is the wrong website to discuss the matter.
It's an interesting video, but I think it's a fair point that this is turning into a political discussion. I'm going to lock it on account of it not really being suitable material for this forum.
Posts [ 21 to 35 of 35 ]
