[Politics] In Light of Recent Events, How Do You Feel About "Preachy" Environmentalist Media

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Captain Planet, Ferngully, Avatar (the James Cameron movie not the tv show). For a long time these and many more examples environmentalism-focused media were deemed too "preachy and simplistic". With stuff like the Amazon rainforest burning up and the icebergs melting, do you think so called preachy environmentalist media was needed all along or not?

"Preachy" environmentalist media tends to skimp on actual science, and follow more extremist environmentalism.

Because all we need right now is more extremism! /sarcasm

It does bother me that a lot of people put politics before science. Every place on earth is suffering very visible effects of global warming and pollution. If reality itself cannot change their opinion, I doubt a preachy environmentalist video will.

Who cares about preachy fucking media?

Basically, we're fucked. The people with the money running the show want to burn it all down for $$$. They'll pocket all the money and die in great comfort (like the recently departed David Koch) reclining on their couches made of $100 dollar bills, and it'll be younger generations left to clear the shit up. I guess technically their descendants have to deal with the shit as well, but a few billions will buy a lot of luxury bunkers in disaster-proof parts of the world when everything collapses.

Complaining about preachy environmental media is like mocking the sartorial style of a civilian that tried to stop a tank from trundling along to blow your house up.

A lot of media aspiring to environmentalism could stand to take a page from Princess Mononoke. In things like Ferngully and Captain industry is basically a monster. Princess Mononoke is a good environmentalist movie because it doesn't glorify some kind of imagined way of life 'in harmony with nature'. The old world ruled by the nature gods is shown to be opressive and difficult for the avarage peasant who is pressed into pre-industrial serfdom by the old elites, whereas in Iron Town industrial developement has lead to pushes for greater egalitarianism, a higher standard of living and advances towards curing diseases. It's not perfect by any means, at risk of being corrupted by greed and militarism, but it is in no way implied that humanity would be better off as naked treehuggers, and though the Nature Gods must be respected to some degree to maintain the integrity of the environment, there is no illusion that nature is some kind of benevolent 'mother earth' who can just step in and end the Hobbsian cycle of violence and make life any less short and brutish by having everyone wear loincloths and eat fruit straight off the vine. It's a good message about how even though we need to protect the environment, we also shouldn't condemn the developing countries of the world to have their people languish in opressive pre-industrial agrarianism out of some delusion that it is better for them. Developement has to be sustainable and the more developed have to abandon excess rather than denying the poor the opportunity to develop

The Last Airbender was pretty preachy

Preachy is a stand in for other words like Politically Correct, be civil or stop being offended. It means the don't want to engage with your argument and just pretend they've already won

Anyone who does something in response to someone being 'preachy' is just trying to find an excuse to do what they want. Any excuse will do

Should've preached harder, it didn't work.

I didn't realize Avatar was a "preachy" environmentalist movie, and not "'Dance with Wolves' in spaaaaace".

I think the problem is pretending that taking away straws is going to stop wasteful corporations from being wasteful.

Until the governments of the world force corporations and themselves to do something, it wont actually matter if we use straws or plastic bags.

CaitSeith:
I didn't realize Avatar was a "preachy" environmentalist movie, and not "'Dance with Wolves' in spaaaaace".

It's been a while since I've seen it, but I remember Dances with Wolves being preachy

Also, Avatar is Pocahontas in Space. Which is also preachy. It's almost like movies are DESIGNED to be preachy.

Well to answer the question in a general sense: By the time something can accurately be characterized as "preachy" it has already sacrificed its ability to convince people of its point. Preachiness is more self-congratulatory than it is influential.

To the specifics though...I'd argue that the Lorax (children's book, 1972 animation) did far better than those examples. Heck, environmentalism is so tangential in Dances With Space Wolves Avatar that it might as well not exist. Ferngully, on the other hand...well suffice it to say that the magical framing devices allow it to undercut the tragedy that should be driving its messaging.

Did the definition of "preachy" change at some point along the line?

Fine, whatever.

Agent_Z:
Captain Planet, Ferngully, Avatar (the James Cameron movie not the tv show) and many more.

Captain Planet is the only one of those examples I'd call preachy.

With stuff like the Amazon rainforest burning up and the icebergs melting, do you think so called preachy environmentalist media was needed all along or not?

It's a moot point. The people who've driven Amazon deforestation aren't the people who would have watched stuff like CP and FG in their youth. Maybe consumers though, but as most of Amazon deforestation is driven by ranching, and neither CP nor FG went into the environmental impact of beef that much, then, yeah.

I think most people are well enough educated on climate change and environental degragation that they don't need to be preached to from cartoons. Certainly CP influenced me as a kid, but that was at a time when global warming was more "a thing that exists but will play out over an extended period of time," not "holy shit, we're at the eleventh hour." Guess I can take some gratification that the "what if?" future Wheeler visits in the future of the 2020s hasn't happened yet, but it still could. :(

Is media that portrays slavery or genocide or murder or paedophilia as a bad thing "preachy" too?

Hawki:
Did the definition of "preachy" change at some point along the line?

Fine, whatever.

Agent_Z:
Captain Planet, Ferngully, Avatar (the James Cameron movie not the tv show) and many more.

Captain Planet is the only one of those examples I'd call preachy.

Same. The others aren't exactly subtle but they're not turning to the audience directly to tell them how bad stuff is. Since Princess Mononoke got a mention earlier, that would simply have a message, while Pom Poko would be preachy

Kwak:
Is media that portrays slavery or genocide or murder or paedophilia as a bad thing "preachy" too?

Anything can be conveyed in a preachy manner. The "preachiness" is based on the nature of its delivery, not its content.

Captain Planet can reasonably be called preachy because, among other things, every episode ended with the characters literally talking to the camera and telling people how they can better help the environment and whatnot. In contrast, even if FernGully is pro-environment, it doesn't have a moment of directly addressing the audience or anything similar.

Not that addressing the audience is the be all and end all of preachiness, granted.

Can't stand it, and I say that as a fairly hard line environmentalist who actually wants shit done. "Bloo bloo bloo! The planet is burning!" is pretty accurate, but it's also whinging nonsense at the center of a polarized debate, and there are three groups that pivot right back to that same, tired argument: A) limo liberals making a quick buck off partisan politics, B) the die-hard Kool-aid chuggers more than happy to let the planet burn just to say "I told you so", and C) fossil fuel lobbyists who rely on the debate staying polarized to continue making raking in those MoronBux on the other side.

"The fossil fuel industry is welfare capitalism at its finest, and they support anti-US terrorism" is damn well what the debate should be -- we have the receipts -- and what environmentalists should be pushing the debate towards. "Sucking the planet dry" doesn't move the debate forward, "in cahoots with those responsible for 9/11" does. Oil's fungible and sold globally, which means US demand for oil advances the economic interests of OPEC and the GCC, which are the real hotbeds for anti-American sentiment that translates to policy and action that harms our foreign interests. And Russia, too, I guess, if you're a blue-shirt McCarthy wannabe.

Reframing that debate nets the same policy outcomes, and carries a preferable cost-benefit profile than the current debate framing. There's absolutely no reason to resist that shift, except reframing the debate is contrary to the vested interests of economic and policy elites on both sides.

trunkage:
The Last Airbender was pretty preachy

The only episode that was preachy is The Painted Lady. Not much happens and felt like a waste time back then I was 17. That, and the whole Aang not wanting to kill Ozai thing that happened out og nowhere in the last few episode. As much as I love Avatar: TLAB, that plot point felt forced.

Legend of Korra is preachy to a worse degree when it involves the Spirits. Humans are supposed to be kind and respectful to them, yet the Spirits don't do the same, and have always been assholes to humans in the flashbacks shown in Season 2. Them running away like bitches in Season 4 when Korra begged them help seal my hatred and opinion of them. Claiming "it's not their problem or their fight". In the sequel comics, their cowardice finally bit them in the ass for once. I just hope the same happens to Suyin Beifong too. God, I hate her even more at times.

trunkage:

CaitSeith:
I didn't realize Avatar was a "preachy" environmentalist movie, and not "'Dance with Wolves' in spaaaaace".

It's been a while since I've seen it, but I remember Dances with Wolves being preachy

Also, Avatar is Pocahontas in Space. Which is also preachy. It's almost like movies are DESIGNED to be preachy.

James Cameron's Avatar (2009) was preachy as fuck! The Navi are glorified space elves that supposed to be seen as better than humanity. What a crock of shit. They're arrogant and not much better, coming off as unsympathetic.

The media that did environmentalism right with nuance and subtly, without dogging on humanity or insulting the audience are:

Sonic CD - Sonic in general has done this well 95% of the time.

Princess Mononoke - Did every thing better than Avatar (2009) back in 1999. This movie had a message that was not preachy (unless your name is Doug Walker, but he's a dumbass) and the grey areas that Avatar (2009) lacked. Studio Ghibli in general usually gets this right.

Liberation Maiden

The Lorax - The book and the 1972 movie. We don't talk about that other "adaption".

Shaman King (anime version only) - The author and artist got a bug up his own ass, got uppity with how the world "worked". Thinking his boy toy, villain, would be a better person in charge, because he lost his fucking mommy. Keep in mind, this fuck nut has killed over a thousand people, regardless if they were human or shaman. Hao Asakura is nothing more than a petty child taking his anger out on the world. Not some savior of nature or the Earth. It's a good thing the anime portrayed him as the asshole he actually is.

Parasyte - Though that is more of a subversion at the half way point in the manga or anime.

While Captain Planet can get preachy, it was one of the first of its kind at the time to make this in to a TV series. So it should not be hated on that much for what was new at the time. Plus, at least the show and the characters are entertaining. The theme song I consider fun to hear ("You'll pay for this , Captain Planet!"). The show has some great episodes. Ferngully is not as preachy as some people exaggerate the film to be, but I can understand to a degree. Ferngully main problem is that you have characters like Batty (the late Robin Williams) and Hexxus (the awesomeness that is Tim Curry) outshine all of the main characters. Though I do have a soft spot Crysta and Zack. More so the former. I still miss Robin so much. He made me laugh a lot as a child. When I got older, I never realized how much Tim Curry was apart of my childhood.

Well that got heavy. It's all I got right now.

Define "preachy".

Eacaraxe:
Can't stand it, and I say that as a fairly hard line environmentalist who actually wants shit done. "Bloo bloo bloo! The planet is burning!" is pretty accurate, but it's also whinging nonsense at the center of a polarized debate, and there are three groups that pivot right back to that same, tired argument: A) limo liberals making a quick buck off partisan politics, B) the die-hard Kool-aid chuggers more than happy to let the planet burn just to say "I told you so", and C) fossil fuel lobbyists who rely on the debate staying polarized to continue making raking in those MoronBux on the other side.

"The fossil fuel industry is welfare capitalism at its finest, and they support anti-US terrorism" is damn well what the debate should be -- we have the receipts -- and what environmentalists should be pushing the debate towards. "Sucking the planet dry" doesn't move the debate forward, "in cahoots with those responsible for 9/11" does.

You believe the debate should... wilfully shift away from the actual dangers of climate change? To play the blame-game instead?

I can think of nothing worse for making a polarised debate even more polarised.

No amount of preachy television shows will make the rich switch away from their current short term profit strategies.

Silvanus:
You believe the debate should... wilfully shift away from the actual dangers of climate change? To play the blame-game instead?

Already is the blame game, boyo. It's just a blame game half the country -- since this is necessarily a discussion framed around US politics -- doesn't give a shit about, and another goodly portion hear about and think, "Christ, what a prick". And absolutely, the debate should shift away from climate change to economic and security self-interest, because that's what changes minds and gets policy positions enacted. They key policy positions are the exact same, and have the same policy outcomes, so why is the left irrationally wasting its time arguing a point that's never, ever going to be won, when it can reframe the debate around a subject practically no one has ever used and lost?

CoCage:

James Cameron's Avatar (2009) was preachy as fuck! The Navi are glorified space elves that supposed to be seen as better than humanity. What a crock of shit. They're arrogant and not much better, coming off as unsympathetic.

Even if I agreed with that, I wouldn't say that's the same as being preachy.

Sonic CD - Sonic in general has done this well 95% of the time.

Much as I like Sonic, it's never really paid more than lip service to its environmental sub-text. It's like as far from preachy as you can get because it doesn't go beyond "pollution bad, Robotnik bad." Granted, both of them are bad, so it works in that sense.

Eacaraxe:

Already is the blame game, boyo. It's just a blame game half the country -- since this is necessarily a discussion framed around US politics -- doesn't give a shit about, and another goodly portion hear about and think, "Christ, what a prick". And absolutely, the debate should shift away from climate change to economic and security self-interest, because that's what changes minds and gets policy positions enacted. They key policy positions are the exact same, and have the same policy outcomes, so why is the left irrationally wasting its time arguing a point that's never, ever going to be won, when it can reframe the debate around a subject practically no one has ever used and lost?

What argument has nobody used and lost? If it's the "supporting those hostile to us" one, just recall that the US and UK continue to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, and criticism of this falls largely on deaf ears.

Nobody is going to win a fundamentally moral argument by throwing ever more shit.

Hawki:

CoCage:

James Cameron's Avatar (2009) was preachy as fuck! The Navi are glorified space elves that supposed to be seen as better than humanity. What a crock of shit. They're arrogant and not much better, coming off as unsympathetic.

Even if I agreed with that, I wouldn't say that's the same as being preachy.

Sonic CD - Sonic in general has done this well 95% of the time.

Much as I like Sonic, it's never really paid more than lip service to its environmental sub-text. It's like as far from preachy as you can get because it doesn't go beyond "pollution bad, Robotnik bad." Granted, both of them are bad, so it works in that sense.

In Avatar's case, it's pretentious and preachy. I know the former word gets thrown out a lot, but when your movie boils down to a simple black and white my space elves are better than humanity cuz they are in "harmony with nature". To me it comes off as preachy, pretentious, and self absorbent. like I said before, Princess Mononoke did everything better than Avatar did back in the late nineties. Because being in harmony with nature doesn't stop persons or people from being dicks.

As for Sonic, Sonic CD in this case, does not get as much credit as it should for its subtle use of the green aesop. You see the reverse of destroying Robotnik's machines in the past. The environments are brighter in the good future, and you see and some stages that the machines are helping nature grow or working with it. See the background for good future palm tree panic for example. It does not beat you over the head thinking all machines are bad for nature, or machinery can't be used to help nature or plant life. Environmental stories did have this problem a lot in the 90s.

I understand the point of the message but I don't care for when they shove the message down our throats (see Captain Planet).

The only examples I can think of that did it right were Princess Mononoke and the Rocko's Modern Life episode "Zanzibar".

And maybe that episode of Ok Ko: Let's be Heroes that crossed over with Captain Planet, though that one was rather tongue-in-cheek about it.

Eacaraxe:
so why is the left irrationally wasting its time arguing a point that's never, ever going to be won, when it can reframe the debate around a subject practically no one has ever used and lost?

Because the point is to fight it in perpetuity.

Kind of like how the GOP really *really* doesn't want to actually overturn Roe v Wade and actually made abortion illegal nationwide, because if they were actually to succeed, they couldn't use "stopping the Democrats from killing babies" as a means to gather support and funding beyond maybe the next set of elections afterward. They want to be able to fight baby killing Democrats forever, because it's an easy sell to their base.

This is just the Democrats version of that. It gives them an easy issue to garner funding and support over that allows them to paint the other side as simply evil.

Most of the other big "wedge" issues that tend to get single issue voters are much the same - neither side wants to "win" them and it's easy to frame the opponent as simply "evil", so they want to keep fighting them forever because the fight is where they get their support and funding.

Eacaraxe:
Can't stand it, and I say that as a fairly hard line environmentalist who actually wants shit done.

Specifically, what shit do you want done?

We are at the point now where the total collapse of most ecosystems, the displacement of a significant proportion of earth's population and massive global famine is inevitable within the century. At this point, the question is how bad will it be. How many billions (and it is billions) will be displaced or starve, and what form of civilization (if any) will be left at the end.

You've conveniently left out, of course, by far the largest group of people who are opposed to "doing shit" about climate change. People who are ideologically or personally invested in the idea of an economic system with minimal state intervention, who believe (or want to believe) that "the market" will sort everything out. These people are bad, sure, but they are not literal villains who are witholding environmental legislation out of spite (which ironically is the most Captain Planet view of this debate I've seen). They have ideological biases which make them susceptible to bad arguments, as indeed we all do to some degree or another, but ultimately for the most part opposition to tackling climate change is based in an ideological commitment to a laissez faire model of liberal capitalism and suspicion that efforts to tackle climate change are a front for pushing greater intervention in the economy.

And they are right, because we are at the point where tackling climate change will require some quite fundamental reorganisation of how the economy works. It is now not just a question of passing the legislation and breathing a sigh of relief because all the nasty climate change has been averted, it's going to happen and it's going to be extremely bad. It's also not something that can be tackled at the national level. So sure, you can frame this as some patriotic duty to STOP THE BAD BROWN PEOPLE FROM MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN 9/11 SUPPORT THE TROOPS but ultimately those OPEC countries also need to stop burning fossil fuels, and impoverishing their economies is not actually productive to reducing their reliance on fossil fuels. These countries, of course, have their own conservatives and climate change deniers.

So anyway, let's go back to the original question. What shit do you want done?

Because the shit that needs to be done is to prepare people for the radical political action and sacrifices, real sacrifices, which will be required to ensure the civilisation we live in and everything we have worked to build in our lives can survive the next few centuries. That is the harsh reality of it. We can lie to people and tell them the market will fix it and our leaders have everything in hand and you can't rush these things and anyway some Elon Musk type tech billionaire will invent a perpetual motion machine or something and it will all be okay. Sure, that's going to be a persuasive and effective argument. It'll probably be the argument that wins the political debate, at least for the next decade or two. But that's a bad thing, because it's a lie, and it's a lie we have to oppose, because even opposing the argument is laying the groundwork.

I'm sure preachy environmental(ist) movies may have influenced a handful of irrelevant consumer choices, and maybe even ticked awareness of the issue up a notch, but I can't say they were necessary and they certainly were not sufficient.

CoCage:

In Avatar's case, it's pretentious and preachy. I know the former word gets thrown out a lot, but when your movie boils down to a simple black and white my space elves are better than humanity cuz they are in "harmony with nature". To me it comes off as preachy, pretentious, and self absorbent.

Avatar is hardly as black and white as you claim. Sonic is far more black and white than almost anything mentioned here.

The humans in the film aren't monsters. They've degraded their own world, and have come to Pandora to find a mineral that'll keep their civilization going. If they WERE monsters they could simply wipe out the na'vi without much fuss, except they try to find diplomatic solutions, even if they don't go about it the right way. Selfridge is open to negotiation. Quaritch is open to negotiation, and even when the hammer comes down, the RDA tries to minimize casualties. There's a period of 25 years between humans arriving at Pandora and the shit hitting the fan.

Before you get the wrong idea, this isn't to say that the RDA has the moral high ground. It doesn't. Humanity doesn't. In the context of the film, humanity's fucked up Earth, and has come to Pandora to screw things over in the process. But it would be easy to portray the humans as monsters in the film and it doesn't. And while the na'vi are space elves, they're not exactly peace loving. This is established from the outset, that they have bows, they completely outclass humans physically, have killed humans, and are hard to be killed themselves. One can't fault the na'vi for this at all (they're fighting off an alien invasion after all), but it's a false binary to claim Avatar is a case of "warlike humans, peace-loving natives." Part of why I love Avatar is it's basically a subversion of the entire idea of alien invasion. That here, not only are humans the invaders, but it's an invasion that doesn't go from arrival to "kill everyone" at the drop of the hat. Compare this to War of the Worlds for instance where, much as I respect the work, the Martians' first course of action is to still kill everyone in sight.

As for Sonic, Sonic CD in this case, does not get as much credit as it should for its subtle use of the green aesop. You see the reverse of destroying Robotnik's machines in the past. The environments are brighter in the good future, and you see and some stages that the machines are helping nature grow or working with it. See the background for good future palm tree panic for example. It does not beat you over the head thinking all machines are bad for nature, or machinery can't be used to help nature or plant life. Environmental stories did have this problem a lot in the 90s.

Except who's the machinery actually benefitting?

I'm aware of Sonic CD's time travel mechanic (I beat the game but never bothered with it), so yes, I'm aware that the "good future" is where tech and nature co-exist, while the "bad future" is where Robotnik's turned Little Planet into an industrial wasteland. But at best, these are allusions to the idea of sustainable development, and in the games, Sonic CD wasn't even the first game to do it. The first game to do it was, well, the first game, where we start off in Green Hill (verdant, unspoilt), and finish in Scrap Brain (industrial nightmare). But even in Little Planet, who's the machinery actually used for? The mobini? They're too small to even use the damn stuff.

Sonic's had an environmentalist theme, sure, but it's never fully engaged with it. I'd say the most in-depth it got was in SatAM, where we have Robotropolis (industrial hellscape), Knothole (verdant forest), and Mobotropolis (in-between), but even then, it's more Robotnik pollutes, and likes to pollute. Certainly a lot more sub-text than, say, Mario, but not exactly deep.

Here is the thing, most people are stupid, and stupid people do not understand the concept of subtly.

Hawki:

Avatar is hardly as black and white as you claim. Sonic is far more black and white than almost anything mentioned here.

The humans in the film aren't monsters. They've degraded their own world, and have come to Pandora to find a mineral that'll keep their civilization going. If they WERE monsters they could simply wipe out the na'vi without much fuss, except they try to find diplomatic solutions, even if they don't go about it the right way. Selfridge is open to negotiation. Quaritch is open to negotiation, and even when the hammer comes down, the RDA tries to minimize casualties. There's a period of 25 years between humans arriving at Pandora and the shit hitting the fan.

It's also worth noting that the state of the earth is almost an afterthought. I think the only time it's mentioned in film (the theatrical release, at least) is when Jake's trying to appeal to the spirit of Pandora for help. Most of the environmental stuff? Backstory that you need to independently track down because it never made it to the film, and that which remained was more a facilitator than a focus, and the film comes off more as anti-imperialist than pro-environmentalist.

I suspect passion for a concept is mistaken by those who haven't got that passion as preachiness. Fuck em.

I always disliked Captain Planet.

While it does mention the environmental problems of its time, it has villains who waht to increase pollution just for the sake of it. And most of the series is fighting against those villains as if fighting people does help.

It completely ignores the reasons for pollution and why it is hard to stop it. It is a cheap copout and one that harms the overall message by makig the plot an excersize in absurdity.

And no, the small end lecture things don't really save it. They only lead to those choosen kids being portayed as especially dense and negligiant, not as some kind of role model.

Satinavian:
I always disliked Captain Planet.

While it does mention the environmental problems of its time, it has villains who waht to increase pollution just for the sake of it. And most of the series is fighting against those villains as if fighting people does help.

It completely ignores the reasons for pollution and why it is hard to stop it. It is a cheap copout and one that harms the overall message by makig the plot an excersize in absurdity.

And no, the small end lecture things don't really save it. They only lead to those choosen kids being portayed as especially dense and negligiant, not as some kind of role model.

It's a kid show. In the 80s, villains did villain stuff because villain. Polluting for polluting sake fits perfectly consistent with 80s television.

Not that your wrong. There was no nuance back then.

But then, I'm rewatching Young Justice with my kid. The Light's plan seems like utter nonsense basically amount to "rule the world" and relies on chance way to much. (Haven't seen season three, so I don't know if Savage miraculously make more sense then conqueror.) It's... no much better than Captain Planet's villians

The thing is, i was a kid when i have seen it first. And i still felt that way at the age of around 11.

But then again, i do think that a lot of shows aimed at children and teenagers seem to presume that their audience is incredibly stupid. Ok, it is now better than in the 80s but mostly because we have more options nowadays.

Asita:

It's also worth noting that the state of the earth is almost an afterthought. I think the only time it's mentioned in film (the theatrical release, at least) is when Jake's trying to appeal to the spirit of Pandora for help. Most of the environmental stuff? Backstory that you need to independently track down because it never made it to the film, and that which remained was more a facilitator than a focus, and the film comes off more as anti-imperialist than pro-environmentalist.

Saying Avatar is anti-imperialist isn't a stretch - it's outright stated to have anti-imperialist themes (though also pro-environment ones). That said, for me, it was very much pro-environment, with any anti-imperialist message being very tangental. Yes, in the theatrical version, the status of Earth is mentioned twice - Jake's plea to Eywa, and his monologue at the end ("the aliens went back to their dying world"). But even that aside, when you see that the RDA is there with an open-cut mine, when bulldozers carve a path through the rainforest, when the Omaticaya home tree is destroyed, when we consider Jake's arc and his feeling that Pandora is more "real" to him now than his old life, Avatar is seeping with environmental themes. In contrast, the anti-imperialist stuff is tangental. The RDA may be an "imperialist" force in a sense, but it's imperialism that stems from environmental degradation of Earth. If we define imperialism as "a state exerting control over another state's territory," then the RDA isn't really fitting the bill 100%. The RDA is there to make money, not to conquer the planet, even if the methods are similar at the end of the day.

Satinavian:
I always disliked Captain Planet.

While it does mention the environmental problems of its time, it has villains who waht to increase pollution just for the sake of it. And most of the series is fighting against those villains as if fighting people does help.

And also our time. :(

But that aside, the CP villains can be divided into two groups - those who actively seek to cause pollution (Dr. Blight, Duke Nukem, Verminous Skumm), and those who want to get rich and don't care about pollution (Looten Plunder, Hoggish Greedly, Sly Sludge). I'm not calling this subtle, but it's a simplification to say that every villain in the show actively seeks to cause pollution. And even then, it does engage in other issues as well at times, such as the one where Looten sparks a war so that he can sell arms to both sides.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here