You've been ruining everybody's lives and eating all our seitan!

Jul 16, 2006 23:08

I glanced over IMDBs info for Napoleon Dynamite and found this bit of trivia ( Read more... )

movies

Leave a comment

Comments 12

ushitomo July 17 2006, 08:57:36 UTC
bear in mind that documentary footage is probably worst-case footage, and that there are probably factory farms out there that aren't quite that bad.

but yeah...why the fuck couldn't they use seitan or something...

Reply

foreverquatre July 17 2006, 09:04:00 UTC
'there are probably factory farms out there that aren't quite that bad.'

Um, yes. But documentary footage is certainly not necessarily 'worst-case.' It's simply what is documented. I've seen varying amounts of disgustingness on factory farms through documentaries and material put out by the animal farming industries. Though, I figured that for the movie they put effort into making the chicken confinement nicer, since it's a movie and not a documentary.

Reply

ushitomo July 17 2006, 09:06:47 UTC
That may well be the case (for the movie), but AR videos do have an agenda. It doesn't mean that they're lying, but it does mean that they probably handpick the footage they show in order to present the most compelling case against modern animal husbandry that they can.

Reply

foreverquatre July 17 2006, 09:15:27 UTC
If they go into a chicken confinement and they document that it's gross and there are chickens dying inside and all the other disgusting things that happen inside the confinement, that doesn't mean they're 'handpicking for an agenda' they're simply showing what's going on in there.

Though, for films with clips from various documentaries, they do show the most compelling footage, since the point of the film would be to point out how bad the confinements can be/generally are. But, as I said, they will show varying degrees of abuse in various films. Sometimes they will just show the crowding in cages, as was generally depicted in Napoleon Dynamite.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

foreverquatre July 17 2006, 12:32:18 UTC
Hm, okay. Yeah in his bio it says 'Does not drink milk or eat red meat.' I guess some people equate that with being vegetarian... I guess that makes more sense that he would chew meat, but not eat it. I doubt many vegetarians could stomach that...

Reply


doja July 17 2006, 13:09:21 UTC
i don't see how chewing on or chewing on and swallowing would be much different if he were actually a vegetarian. because a vegetarian isn't goign to chew beef chewing gum because it is not vegetarian.

i think if i put a bite of steak in my mouth i would immediately vomit.

but seeing the last few comments stating that he is not actually veg makes more sense. it almost seems more wasteful to chew it and spit it out than to chew it and swallow it. that is killing an animal just for entertainment purposes.

Reply


silver_elephant July 17 2006, 13:14:08 UTC
They didn't even have to use a fake meat, even a piece of rubber could have worked - the taste isn't important.
I still don't get it

Reply


saucy_coconut July 18 2006, 02:41:40 UTC
mmm...beef chewing gum

*vomit*

What a weirdo. Oh, I'm sorry, I guess he's a great "actor" to go to such lengths for his craft.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up