Caution: This "funny" advert is gorier than a slasher film.
It's by Richard Curtis; the man behind Four Weddings and a Funeral, Bridget Jones' Diary, and other fluffy chick flicks as well as the unwatchable Vicar of Dibley. Who knew that Curtisland was located in a corner of Auschwitz?
Update: If you're a British taxpayer, you paid for this.
And here's a nasty little one they made earlier. How to get your message across? Use a child to threaten people.
Where have I seen this sort of mindset before? Oh, yes.
Update: Maybe they hired this advertising firm by mistake.
Update: Maybe they hired this advertising firm by mistake.
Update: Anthony Watts updates his reactions to the video. His assessment is strong, but mild in comparison with mine. Frankly, I regard the makers of this as knowing exactly what they were doing and every one of them is culpable. I have made a note of their names and I will never place a penny in the pocket of any of them. Furthermore, since the government put money into this and I understand that Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg gave their support to this campaign, I expect them to either explicitly condemn the views expressed and demand a return of taxpayers money or I shall regard them as accessories.
This shall not stand nor shall it be forgotten.
5 comments:
I just wanted to slap that hoodied punk.
Get an education.
Get a job.
You tell the generation after yours to suck it.
PS:
Suck it.
Thanks to our friend, the atom,
we can have global cooling at the drop of a hat.
Agreed. On the plus side, we now know that when a deep-eco says "no pressure", he really means, "or else".
cheers
eon
FFFF-
What. WHAT? What were these people thinking? Who the flip were they trying to convince with this?
I mean, I'm technically on their side with all of this stuff. And I would like to say that not everyone who believes in AGW suffers from such bouts of sociopathic, authoritarian pique. We're not all berks, honest.
Really, 10:10? A message of "conform, or be messily exterminated"? WHO IS THAT GOING TO CONVINCE. Anyone who's undecided or skeptical about AGW or the benefits of reducing carbon emissions is certainly not going to be persuaded; on the contrary, this has probably set such a goal back by some distance. And anyone who IS on their side (still), like me, is going to be slightly sickened and embarrassed to be associated with them.
I just... it... ugh.
AND ANOTHER THING! 10:10: it's all well and good you trying to get people to reduce their carbon emissions, it can't hurt, but really; if you want to make some substantial difference, target industries or major polluters in other countries.
(Although the fact that they've not brought to attention one of the main outputs of carbon emissions from people is having kids. I imagine they don't want to bring that up though, because people aren't really going to listen to "Don't have any kids if you want to reduce your carbon emissions")
10:10 - Stop being so passive-aggressive. If you want to murder people who don't reduce their carbon emissions, fine; but say it explicitly rather than using a glib remark like "no pressure". You want people to reduce carbon? Fine! But don't pussy-foot around with "turn off the lights in rooms you're not using" or "share baths"; tell people "don't have that baby".
I, like Wunderbear, find myself wondering who the target audience for this can possibly be. Seeing this makes me want to go fire up the grill and roast something that was, when it was alive, unfashionably gassy. Fly, little carbon atoms! Combine with oxygen and be free!
Post a Comment