Moral kombat

[Grahamr]

Here's our thread for moral kombat.


Anyway, i think that the movie is a novel concept, but that the trailer, for all it's hijinks, kind of made the movie look biased in favor of the anti-gamers.

Just wondering...Will Danny Ledonne get a word in the movie? What about Dennis?:confused:

[GamePolitics]

the movie is already "in the can," so no one else will be included.

I think it wrapped before LeDonne got well known. As for me, I have a great face for radio...

:eek:

[Theory?]

Does he have any distribution or is he going to be shopping it for the next few months?

[Ace_ofspade]

This trailer reminds me of X-Men 2 for some reason.

[Kharne]

Anyway, i think that the movie is a novel concept, but that the trailer, for all it's hijinks, kind of made the movie look biased in favor of the anti-gamers.


In their favor? Maybe. I personally thought the trailor was more attention grabbing than anything else. I wouldn't say it's enough to start screaming "bias!" yet. We should probably wait for the movie itself to be released before we start making any calls like that.

[Cecil475]

In their favor? Maybe. I personally thought the trailor was more attention grabbing than anything else. I wouldn't say it's enough to start screaming "bias!" yet. We should probably wait for the movie itself to be released before we start making any calls like that.

I'm sorry. But to me it became biased the second Jack Thompson appeared.

--You know he'll never talk that way to a major mainstream publication like he did in that recent interview in a gaming publication.

Anyway I might see it. When does it come out in theaters? Or will it be one of those movies that show up at one arthouse independant thearers (The kind that play movies that you probaly never heard of.)

- Warren Lewis

edit - grammar fix

[Grahamr]

Lol, is said the trailer looked biased.

But the movie isn't.

[beemoh]

kind of made the movie look biased in favor of the anti-gamers.

A smart move, as it'l get the anti-gamers watching, and hopefully change their minds, or at least rock their perceptions.

[Shrike]

"Mission Accomplished!"
Anyone remember why that was done?

It was to MAKE THE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY BELIEVED SOMETHING FEEL JUSTIFIED AND STOP PAYING ATTENTION.

Well, that's how I interpreted it.

I strongly disagree with how the trailer was constructed. Even if one is trying to preach to the choir (deceptively), this is a DOCUMENTARY, which should mean an unbiased look at the issue.

Biasing the trailer, then, implies that the other side of the issue (namely, that the charges leveled in the trailer are either out of date or based on emotional appeals that have little basis in reality) doesn't exist.

Now, maybe you're the kind of person who would think, "Hm, I agree with those viewpoints. Maybe I'll spend two hours listening to what I already 'know' is true!"

If so, great. You're deceived into seeing the documentary, and hopefully your mind is changed.

However, why is there even a definition of 'sound bite' in America? It's because image is everything, and attention spans are short. If this trailer is broadcast generally, my money says that it'll get the gamers to watch and then start blasting away while the anti-gamers just go away from the trailer, ASSUMING THEY ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO. They won't watch the documentary because they assume they don't have to.

This is a very serious problem with the trailer's presentation. It's not going to reach the target audience, precisely because it's so sensational.


Oh, and Jack Emmert, the creator of Statesman, who appears in the trailer at the same time as the shootings in columbine are mentioned, has this to say:

I'm extremely disappointed that an image of Statesman would be used in such a way. I know that we designed City of Heroes to appeal to "children of all ages." My proudest accomplishment with the game is that many parents (including my brother) play with their children...sharing, I hope, the same joy for the comic book world that I've had ever since I was 8. I cannot express the shock that I felt seeing that a character created by Cryptic would be used in the same sentence as Columbine.


Posted here. (http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=general&Number=7362674&bodyprev=#Post7362674)

Dang good thing the law wouldn't support suit on any grounds, as the trailer's context is completely inappropriate to the character and game. Send my congratulations to Spencer on creating a documentary that could be completely fair and balanced, but completely whiffing on an appropriate trailer for it.

[Thefremen]

"Mission Accomplished!"
Anyone remember why that was done?

It was to MAKE THE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY BELIEVED SOMETHING FEEL JUSTIFIED AND STOP PAYING ATTENTION.

Well, that's how I interpreted it.

I strongly disagree with how the trailer was constructed. Even if one is trying to preach to the choir (deceptively), this is a DOCUMENTARY, which should mean an unbiased look at the issue.

Biasing the trailer, then, implies that the other side of the issue (namely, that the charges leveled in the trailer are either out of date or based on emotional appeals that have little basis in reality) doesn't exist.

Now, maybe you're the kind of person who would think, "Hm, I agree with those viewpoints. Maybe I'll spend two hours listening to what I already 'know' is true!"

If so, great. You're deceived into seeing the documentary, and hopefully your mind is changed.

However, why is there even a definition of 'sound bite' in America? It's because image is everything, and attention spans are short. If this trailer is broadcast generally, my money says that it'll get the gamers to watch and then start blasting away while the anti-gamers just go away from the trailer, ASSUMING THEY ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO. They won't watch the documentary because they assume they don't have to.

This is a very serious problem with the trailer's presentation. It's not going to reach the target audience, precisely because it's so sensational.


Oh, and Jack Emmert, the creator of Statesman, who appears in the trailer at the same time as the shootings in columbine are mentioned, has this to say:


Posted here. (http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=general&Number=7362674&bodyprev=#Post7362674)

Dang good thing the law wouldn't support suit on any grounds, as the trailer's context is completely inappropriate to the character and game. Send my congratulations to Spencer on creating a documentary that could be completely fair and balanced, but completely whiffing on an appropriate trailer for it.

Advertising, have you seen it? Being the brother of none other than the Notorious H.A.L. (Hal Halpin). He will have to prove that he is not biased, and go to quite a lot of effort to prove to people that he isn't one sided. about the sane amount of effort that Mel Gibson would have to go to in order to prove to people that his documentary on the holocaust is unbiased.

By the way, documentaries don't have to be unbiased. Have you seen the entire body of Micheal Moore's work? Or the right's "retort" to it (namely the Ann Coulter vehicle that is non-stop personal attacks)?

I feel that trailers are seperate entirely from the movies they advertise, little more than a way to fill the seats and a little something to fill up the dvd. Besides, he'll probably make a pro-gaming ad later, usually films have several trailers each catered to a different audience (like with passion how they made a torture/gore focused commercial for sadists, a peaceful Christ died for our sins commercial for Christians and a "Jews did it" commercial for white supremecists).

[KN]

By the way, documentaries don't have to be unbiased. Have you seen the entire body of Micheal Moore's work? Or the right's "retort" to it (namely the Ann Coulter vehicle that is non-stop personal attacks)?


Have you seen FahrenHype 9/11? I think that made sure Moore never had to make a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11, because he realized that if you give Republicans a camera, they will do more damage to themselves than he could ever inflict.

[Shrike]

True enough on the documentary issue.

I understand that it's advertising. I despise that it's sensationalizing the issue in what seems a particularly ham-fisted manner.

But even as advertising... It's not going to work as well as Mr. Halpin would want, as it's grabbing publicity in a way that will not benefit his message.

Take a look at the comments on youtube. Sure, they're likely to be biased, but they're also going to be the ones paying attention and jumping on every little thing they don't like. And it's because they're biased,(more tech-savvy and younger than the best demographic of parents) that there's a problem. We're not seeing much action from those who SUPPORT the message. That means they'll find out about the film itself when the trailer is shown elsewhere, or advertised by people talking about it in the media.

Here's the scenario I've got in my head:

Jack Thompson sees it and backs the message. Thusly, he was able to discount the other side, and those people who were influenced by the trailer to be more anti-game will agree.

Or,

He doesn't like what he sees, and those who think he's on to something will agree with him, feel misled by the trailer, and use that to justify discounting the other side even more. The message gets buried in the emotional outcry, and there's no progress made.


There's also the optimal and hoped-for "This generates constructive controversy and money!" outcome. I'm not the sort to assume best-case.

Constructive controversy isn't America's strongest suit. When 'debate' on TV consists of who can yell louder with a greater emotional appeal, hoping that people will be moved to think independently after a biased lead-in is naive. My opinion, of course. My cynical, twenty-something opinion.

Considering further that the people who will advocate/denounce to the greatest effect are the people who are the 'moral leaders' (Limbaugh, O'Rielly, Robertson, Thompson (if he can manage it)) of the nation, it looks pretty bleak indeed. And they won't even see it themselves, just use soundbites... and stuff from the trailer.

Think O'Rielly will say "Moral Combat" convinced him that video games aren't the cause of all the problems with today's youth?

Think Thompson WON'T get more airtime because he'll decline interviews about the documentary, which will lead in to his own crusade?

As you said, it's advertising, and by sensationalization, it's going to become just another lever against the developers.

It would have been better to pose it socratically, to get parents in particular curious about the safety of their children with regards to games and the industry. That way, it would be more interesting to the most vital target group and less likely to draw fire from those people who can do the most to undermine it.

[Shrike]

No further thoughts? I don't think my argument here is flawless, and I'd like to see someone continue to debate this...

[ZippyDSMlee]

the trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIu3JMGxk3Q
is HEAVILY ONE SIDED,however films tend to put either the best or worst foot forward on trailers,so I for once cant draw a conclusion from it (yes zippy is tung tied mostly tired of getting hit in th head with news papers :D )

Ok now that I said that let my share with you a thought,the trailer is to lure in anti gamers and then try and show them a bit o fact with information leaning somewhere near the middle of it all,at least this is how it "should" be.

Oh well I'll watch it when it hits the net *yawns and wanoders off to poo in the yard*

Oh wait...I am a cat...under the bed or some out of the way spot will do :P