. It's been apparent for years. Our media has covered it too. The military and Michael Bay work together a lot. I remember this being discussed in a thread in this very subforum!Uzique wrote:
i hope you're not implying that's the original music video!
the original article's point was that it's clear there is some business being transacted here between mainstream media companies and the military. something below board in the realms of advertising and pr, the sort of business strategy that most people don't even approve of when it's being used for innocuous items of consumption. this is the military. a career-path where you are trained to fight wars. i have more of a problem seeing it being so gratuitously promoted and celebrated in a music video than i do, say, a conspicuous iphone product placement.
gi joe. captain america. little toy soldiers.
Tu Stultus Es
those are all good examples, yeah. of course there has always been a relationship between childhood toys, for e.g., and the military. the militarisation of society is something that you could probably trace back through the entire history of the deal - and not just in america. i don't know, though, it's just so galling to see a condensed 4 minute pop-video of the highest type - totally vapid, rubbish production, female celebrity of the day in the starring role - be so completely and obviously hijacked by the military. it's jarring. you expect pop to be the most innocuous, disposable trash... but here you see something very strange at work.
it's also of course made way worse by virtue of just how shitty an idea it is.
it's also of course made way worse by virtue of just how shitty an idea it is.
Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-16 17:43:42)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Not directly related, but...
Apocalyps Now and the questionable use of real dead bodies, diverting of military vehicles and soldiers from the insurgency fighting in the south to make the movie, all to fill the pocket of the Marcos Regime.
Apocalyps Now and the questionable use of real dead bodies, diverting of military vehicles and soldiers from the insurgency fighting in the south to make the movie, all to fill the pocket of the Marcos Regime.
elaborate. I know of the whole civil war thing going on at the time but I have never heard of thisIlocano wrote:
Apocalyps Now and the questionable use of real dead bodies,
yeah but apocalypse now was hardly fucking selling the military life to impressionable young kids, was it
think of katy perry's average audience. young girls, mostly.
think of katy perry's average audience. young girls, mostly.
Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-16 18:27:32)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Machete Maidens Unleashed.Macbeth wrote:
elaborate. I know of the whole civil war thing going on at the time but I have never heard of thisIlocano wrote:
Apocalyps Now and the questionable use of real dead bodies,
"Perhaps what comes through most of all is in travelling to the Philippines, Roger Corman and the others were entering into a wild west of filmmaking that was far away from the comforts of union regulated Hollywood. Various of the starlets tell horror stories of the lack of sanitation, of how the women's dressing room was a cave that also used as a latrine, of bugs crawling out of their salads. Especially alarming are some of the stories of the lack of safety where stunt people were being thrown through real glass windows, jumped off buildings and cliffs without safety gear, and were made to hang from a helicopter 100 feet up. Sid Haig recounts the story of the death of one extra during the collapse of a guard tower on a shoot. The film even makes the claims that real corpses were procured to stand in as dead bodies in Apocalypse Now.
All of which brings one to the inevitable discussion of the politics of the Philippines. Many of the shoots took place during the period after Ferdinand Marcos had established military rule in 1972. John Landis notes the irony of how several of these films had themes about overthrowing the corrupt rulers of prisons or banana republics and were being shot in the midst of a real-life fascist dictatorship. The bizarreness of this comes in the blurring of lines between Marcos's military fighting Islamic insurgents in real-life and then being coerced for filming action scenes, with Brian Trenchard-Smith relating a story of how military helicopters were supplied to the production that came fresh from blowing up rebel bases in the south earlier that day, stopping only to change their ammunition from live rounds to blanks.
Well, today I learned..But an over- enthusiastic props manager decided that dummies were no good for this purpose. He wanted actual corpses to lie on the ground and hang in the trees 'to give real atmosphere'.
A man who supplied cadavers to medical schools was hired to supply dead bodies - until horrified senior production staff realised what was happening. The sinister supplier, it turned out, had been creeping out at night and robbing graves.
The local police showed up on set to investigate. The passports of the production team were temporarily confiscated and an army truck arrived to cart the bodies away. After that, authenticity had to rely on the evil- smelling garbage that was strewn everywhere and the very real rats.
By Angus MacSwan
LONDON, April 15 (Reuters) - American revolutionary leader George Washington has been voted the greatest enemy commander to face Britain, lauded for his spirit of endurance against the odds and the enormous impact of his victory.
In a contest organised by the National Army Museum, Washington triumphed over Irish independence hero Michael Collins, France's Napoleon Bonaparte, German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey.
Making the case for Washington, historian Stephen Brumwell said the American War of Independence (1775-83) was "the worst defeat for the British Empire ever."
"His personal leadership was crucial," he said.
Washington was a courageous and inspirational battlefield commander who led from the front but also had the skills to deal with his political counterparts in Congress and with his French allies, Brumwell said. Above all, he never gave up even when the war was going against him.
"His army was always under strength, hungry, badly supplied. He shared the dangers of his men. Anyone other than Washington would have given up the fight. He came to personify the cause, and the scale of his victory was immense."
Almost 8,000 people voted in an online poll which produced a shortlist of five men, whose merits were debated by guest speakers at a weekend event at the museum before a final ballot of attendees.
The main criterion was that each commander must have led an army against British forces in battle - which ruled out foes such as Adolf Hitler - and that they must fall within the National Army Museum's time frame of the 17th century onwards.
Michael Collins was hailed as a great guerrilla tactician who took on and defeated British forces within the state itself. Bonaparte challenged Britain for nearly a quarter of a century across the globe before his defeat at Waterloo.
The legend of Rommel inspired fear and awe among British troops in the North African desert in World War Two, even though his battlefield successes were limited. Ataturk was involved in one of Britain's greatest military humiliations at Gallipoli and later thwarted British designs in the region and created modern Turkey.
Matthew Hughes of London's Brunel University said that Rommel and Napoleon were both great operational commanders but they ultimately achieved nothing on the political level.
"The other three are more interesting because they all achieved a political objective, something concrete that is still with us."
None of the five is particularly pleasant ideologically," Hughes added, saying that even Washington was a slave owner whose newly forged country then went on to try to destroy its native population.
LONDON, April 15 (Reuters) - American revolutionary leader George Washington has been voted the greatest enemy commander to face Britain, lauded for his spirit of endurance against the odds and the enormous impact of his victory.
In a contest organised by the National Army Museum, Washington triumphed over Irish independence hero Michael Collins, France's Napoleon Bonaparte, German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey.
Making the case for Washington, historian Stephen Brumwell said the American War of Independence (1775-83) was "the worst defeat for the British Empire ever."
"His personal leadership was crucial," he said.
Washington was a courageous and inspirational battlefield commander who led from the front but also had the skills to deal with his political counterparts in Congress and with his French allies, Brumwell said. Above all, he never gave up even when the war was going against him.
"His army was always under strength, hungry, badly supplied. He shared the dangers of his men. Anyone other than Washington would have given up the fight. He came to personify the cause, and the scale of his victory was immense."
Almost 8,000 people voted in an online poll which produced a shortlist of five men, whose merits were debated by guest speakers at a weekend event at the museum before a final ballot of attendees.
The main criterion was that each commander must have led an army against British forces in battle - which ruled out foes such as Adolf Hitler - and that they must fall within the National Army Museum's time frame of the 17th century onwards.
Michael Collins was hailed as a great guerrilla tactician who took on and defeated British forces within the state itself. Bonaparte challenged Britain for nearly a quarter of a century across the globe before his defeat at Waterloo.
The legend of Rommel inspired fear and awe among British troops in the North African desert in World War Two, even though his battlefield successes were limited. Ataturk was involved in one of Britain's greatest military humiliations at Gallipoli and later thwarted British designs in the region and created modern Turkey.
Matthew Hughes of London's Brunel University said that Rommel and Napoleon were both great operational commanders but they ultimately achieved nothing on the political level.
"The other three are more interesting because they all achieved a political objective, something concrete that is still with us."
None of the five is particularly pleasant ideologically," Hughes added, saying that even Washington was a slave owner whose newly forged country then went on to try to destroy its native population.
Tu Stultus Es
Matthew Hughes of London's Brunel University said that Rommel and Napoleon were both great operational commanders but they ultimately achieved nothing on the political level.
>_<Napoleon were both great operational commanders but they ultimately achieved nothing on the political level.
yeah thats dumb
Tu Stultus Es
The really dumb part is that those two people individually posed more of a threat to the existence of the U.K. than all of the others combined. Washington, Collins, and Ataturk never had the motivation or means to invade the island like the Nazi's or Napoleon. Stupid poll
it's annoying when Brunel University associates itself in any way with London because Brunel is a shit university and not part of the UoL
the guy has no credibility
the guy has no credibility
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
The video would be fine with me if she actually completed Marine boot camp. Except Michael Jackson is still the prince of pop.Uzique wrote:
it's also of course made way worse by virtue of just how shitty an idea it is.
I doubt Katy Perry's music video really even helped recruiting in the Marines... Shit they're even cutting down their numbers. I bet shit like COD and TV series like Gen Kill got more people to sign up than anything.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The video would be fine with me if she actually completed Marine boot camp. Except Michael Jackson is still the prince of pop.Uzique wrote:
it's also of course made way worse by virtue of just how shitty an idea it is.
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6334|Graz, Austria
Its about as annoying as Royal Holloway claiming to be part of UL, check a map idiots.Uzique wrote:
it's annoying when Brunel University associates itself in any way with London because Brunel is a shit university and not part of the UoL
the guy has no credibility
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Taliban sure has been reduced to nothing but complete idiots.Spark wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/taliban-commander-turns-self-in-for-reward-on-wanted-poster/2012/04/17/gIQAbVjqNT_blog.html?aaaaaahhhhhh
should totally get the reward imo
Last edited by War Man (2012-04-17 18:50:59)
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
except we've been a part of the UoL since like 1900, and have the academic strength to merit the name-tagDilbert_X wrote:
Its about as annoying as Royal Holloway claiming to be part of UL, check a map idiots.Uzique wrote:
it's annoying when Brunel University associates itself in any way with London because Brunel is a shit university and not part of the UoL
the guy has no credibility
brunel and other non-UoL unis will constantly in their brochures and sites use 'london' as an advertisement, clearly playing off the suggestiveness of the UoL's strengths. it's a weird sycophantic relationship they have. they actually get loads of students who sign-up mistakenly thinking they convey some of the prestige of UoL. just look at brunel, kingston, metropolitan... for easy examples.
nice try though dumbert. it's pretty funny we shared the same university for a while.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
welfare is a transfer payment. might as well call every government employee a welfare queen using that shitty logic of taxpayer money = welfare.AussieReaper wrote:
Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2012-04-17 19:08:32)
They at least offer a valued service.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
welfare is a transfer payment. might as well call every government employee a welfare queen using that shitty logic of taxpayer money = welfare.AussieReaper wrote:
Why would you even respond to him? He spends all day stealing from his employers (that pay him minimum wage), fucking around on reddit, and stealing every piece of Intellectual Property that he can get his hands on. You think he cares where tax money goes? Fuck no, because he undoubtedly pays none. Just ignore the little troll and let him be a badass from behind his keyboard. Lord knows he wouldn't share that opinion in public.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
welfare is a transfer payment. might as well call every government employee a welfare queen using that shitty logic of taxpayer money = welfare.AussieReaper wrote:
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay abused a government program designed for the poor.