what you said at the end, that i think is the real issue. youve got a documentary crew filming bullying on a bus and yet the officials (whoever that lady was, principal i presume) are in complete denial instead of looking into it further and taking appropriate disciplinary action.



by and large children are products of whoever raises em, whoever their adult influence is. you could take virtually any "bully" look at his parents and find the root cause (most of the time anyway). i know a lot of the boys who bullied me in jr high and high school i later came to find out almost all of them had no father figure. do you really think anti bullying rules or something is gonna stop that? the problem is deeper than that, much deeper. do you think bullying stops after high school? do you think it doesnt take place at work, at college, at a park, at the movies, at anywhere?

i think overall the point im getting at is it really doesnt matter what we do or dont do, we cannot prevent bullying. it will happen, it always has and it always will, and thats not a "swept under the rug" answer to the issue, its the reality. so how can we resolve it? by changing not only our mindset as adults, but positively influencing the mindsets of our children as well.

as a side note, as far as the 24-7 thing is concerned, i was bullied at school and at home almost a full decade before the internet and looooong before myspace and facebook. i had an older sister who was such a tomboy growing up she was practically another older brother. but i mainly got picked on by my older brother who was just a year apart from me. i got shit from him and his friends at school, i got it from him and his friends when we'd play in and around our neighborhood and i got it from him at home. in a way, thats infinitely more invasive and inescapable than e-bullying. i lived with him, and for a number of years i had to share a room with him. so ya, to me, it isnt different at all. and while my testimony may be a special case, its far from being unique and youd be naive to think so.

if teen crime rates are declining and bullying is pretty much a constant, that certainly doesnt suggest bullying is becoming worse or even that its a "huge problem". all that suggests is what ive been saying; bullying isnt anything new, and it will always be with us.

maybe im not articulating myself in a compassionate way. im certainly not advocating turning a blind eye to bullies or bullying. i squash it pretty quick when it happens in class, and whenever appropriate i try to talk to the bully one on one in hopes that i may discern what the issue really is. is he picking on that kid cuz he's just a shitty kid? or is he lashing out over emotional/mental issues he's unprepared to cope with? or is he compensating for severe self esteem issues? those are the things we should be addressing to "prevent" bullying, not creating this bizarre subculture war where its us vs them.
>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^smooman:
>> ^berticus:
what? no comment yet from someone saying how bullying "toughens you up and prepares you for the real world"? COME ON!

ok i'll start. im all for moderate measures to be taken to monitor and disrupt bullying (man, that almost became full alliteration). that being said, the bullying scandal and the myriad documentaries and specials and exposes on the subject are just redundant. as someone who works in the school system bullying really isnt any different than when i was in school, or when my parents went to school, or their parents, etc. bullying isnt anything new. calling it an epidemic is laughable and just plain absurd.
does my heart go out to individuals who have been bullied? absolutely. i myself was constantly bullied growing up (both at school and at home). now berticus, what you said is true even if you were being facetious. being bullied forced me to quickly develop social skills needed to diffuse confrontations among other things. it sharpened my wit, even as an adult. the point isnt that we need bullies to make men out of our children. the point is bullies arent anything new, and they will always be with us. react accordingly

I downvoted your comment and I just wanted to explain why.
First off, while you may technically be correct in that the amount of bullying has not changed over time, technological advances (i.e. the Internet) allow that bullying to continue 24-7 so that there is no refuge from it, even after you get out of school. In other words, while the rate of bullying may not be changing the severity and impact is--it is more invasive, harder to escape, and therefore is NOT the same as when you were a kid.
But even disregarding that, I think the term "epidemic" is appropriate when you look at the fact that over the past 50 years crime among teens has consistently been decreasing in the U.S. (according to FBI statistics a drop of over 44%) and yet the rate of bullying appears to remain the same. To me, that says there is a huge problem that is not being addressed by either our society or our school system. And taking the attitude that "bullies aren't anything new, and they will always be with us" does not seem to me to be the way to go about solving that problem. Rather, it virtually guarantees that in the next 50 years we will see bullying to continue at the same rate as bullies find ways to circumvent the "moderate measures [...] to monitor and disrupt bullying" that you advocate.
Documentaries like this are critically important because they expose just how deep the problems are--you have school officials claiming the bus is perfectly safe while the documentary filmmakers are capturing multiple acts of violence and bullying on the bus. We need more documentaries like this and much more research into how bullying manifests and how to prevent it because we're clearly doing a piss-poor job of it right now.

>> ^smooman:

>> ^berticus:
what? no comment yet from someone saying how bullying "toughens you up and prepares you for the real world"? COME ON!

ok i'll start. im all for moderate measures to be taken to monitor and disrupt bullying (man, that almost became full alliteration). that being said, the bullying scandal and the myriad documentaries and specials and exposes on the subject are just redundant. as someone who works in the school system bullying really isnt any different than when i was in school, or when my parents went to school, or their parents, etc. bullying isnt anything new. calling it an epidemic is laughable and just plain absurd.
does my heart go out to individuals who have been bullied? absolutely. i myself was constantly bullied growing up (both at school and at home). now berticus, what you said is true even if you were being facetious. being bullied forced me to quickly develop social skills needed to diffuse confrontations among other things. it sharpened my wit, even as an adult. the point isnt that we need bullies to make men out of our children. the point is bullies arent anything new, and they will always be with us. react accordingly


I downvoted your comment and I just wanted to explain why.

First off, while you may technically be correct in that the amount of bullying has not changed over time, technological advances (i.e. the Internet) allow that bullying to continue 24-7 so that there is no refuge from it, even after you get out of school. In other words, while the rate of bullying may not be changing the severity and impact is--it is more invasive, harder to escape, and therefore is NOT the same as when you were a kid.

But even disregarding that, I think the term "epidemic" is appropriate when you look at the fact that over the past 50 years crime among teens has consistently been decreasing in the U.S. (according to FBI statistics a drop of over 44%) and yet the rate of bullying appears to remain the same. To me, that says there is a huge problem that is not being addressed by either our society or our school system. And taking the attitude that "bullies aren't anything new, and they will always be with us" does not seem to me to be the way to go about solving that problem. Rather, it virtually guarantees that in the next 50 years we will see bullying to continue at the same rate as bullies find ways to circumvent the "moderate measures [...] to monitor and disrupt bullying" that you advocate.

Documentaries like this are critically important because they expose just how deep the problems are--you have school officials claiming the bus is perfectly safe while the documentary filmmakers are capturing multiple acts of violence and bullying on the bus. We need more documentaries like this and much more research into how bullying manifests and how to prevent it because we're clearly doing a piss-poor job of it right now.

I saw a documentary called "Total Recall", starring documentary filmmaker Arnold Schwarzenegger. This guy's explanation is not what happens...

The Zombie Kids Face from DIME FILMMAKERS(HUGO COS) on Vimeo.

I wrote to my Senator (Orrin Hatch-R., Utah, responsible for the Protect IP Act) about SOPA and its problems and gave them a rather "cool" scathing review about its faults and errors and the public demonstrations that have taken place like GoDaddy and the fact that three major companies had pulled out from the SOPA bill (although their political alliance group is still signed into SOPA--so they can still look good in the public eye and still, really, support the bill) and got the "printing press" release as follows (which has nothing to do with what I wrote, really--I know this bill is coming, but really, an auto-send out letter for pissed constituents?):

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act.

On May 12, 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy and I introduced the PROTECT IP Act. If enacted, S. 968 would provide law enforcement with important tools to stop foreign websites “dedicated to infringing activities.” In other words, the bill targets the most egregious offenders of online theft who profit from counterfeit products and pirated content. These goods can range from new movie and music releases to pharmaceuticals and consumer products. With this legislation, we send a strong message to those selling or distributing pirated content or counterfeit goods online that the United States will strongly protect intellectual property rights.

The bill authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign infringing Internet site, or the foreign-registered domain name itself. However, DOJ officials must first seek approval from a federal court before taking any action. In determining whether an Internet site is “dedicated to infringing activities,” a federal judge must weigh all of the facts carefully in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – just like what happens today in shutting down an illegal bricks and mortar storefront.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a common assumption with some online users that illegal downloads and purchases online are free and harmless. This is far from true. Fake pharmaceuticals threaten people’s lives. Stolen movies, music, and other products threaten the jobs and livelihoods of many people, and drive up costs for other consumers. Every year, these online thieves are making hundreds of millions of dollars by stealing American intellectual property, and this undermines legitimate commerce.

This also has a direct impact on Utah. As you may know, Utah is considered a very popular state for film and television production activity. Nothing compares to the red rock of Southern Utah or the sweeping grandeur of the Wasatch Mountains. Utah’s workforce is also a draw to filmmakers who come for one of the most highly educated and hardworking workforces in our country. It is estimated that the motion picture and television industries are responsible for thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in wages in Utah. There is no doubt that intellectual property theft has a direct, negative impact on Utah’s economy and its workforce. This same impact can be seen nationwide.

On July 22, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported S. 968 by unanimous consent. While it is unclear when the bill will be considered by the full Senate, the legislation enjoys strong support with 39 bipartisan cosponsors to date. Please know that my Senate colleagues and I are committed to crafting consensus legislation and welcome suggestions on ways to improve the bill. Unfortunately there has been some misinformation circulated about what the PROTECT IP Act aims to accomplish. In an effort to be of assistance, I have enclosed “Fact vs. Fiction” information about the legislation. I hope this information will be helpful to you.

Again, thank you for writing. I welcome your continued input on issues of concern.



Complete BULLSHIT. I hate my politicians, they're fucking half-wits!

>> ^garmachi:

Kevin Smith should focus on public speaking. He's much better at that than is is at filmmaking.


Boy, you said a fuckin' mouthful. I'm listening to Kevin Smith speak about audiences walking away from the theater with intangible experience and about telling the story and I'm like, "He's talking about another director, right?"

In the great book about filmmaking, Breaking Through, Selling Out, Dropping Dead, author William Bayer writes about RUTHLESSNESS as being as critical a quality to be cultivated for success as a filmmaker as are the qualities of talent and vision...

Nolan is one of those rare filmmakers (like Paul Thomas Anderson or Wes Anderson) who has yet to make a real clunker.

This reminds me of the early days of filmmaking. Plot point is young man takes a young woman to dinner on a date. Early days of film, they would show every single step -- him calling her, going down the road, going to her house, knocking on the door, getting in the car, walking in the restaurant.

It didn't take long for the filmmakers to realize that our minds already know the story (ABCDEFG) and we don't need the whole alphabet -- and they would do BG -- phone call and walking into restaurant.

Humans are good at story. It is instinctive.

I like how positive this video is about human nature.

>> ^mram:

Seriously, really, I recognize the adhoc and chaotic nature of the filming but would it really have been that hard to take a step back and have a clear video? An epileptic kangaroo could've held the camera more steady.
There's almost nothing to see here unless you want to freeze frame at opportune moments.
My apologies to any epileptic kangaroo filmmakers out there I might have offended.


You try pointing an AK, packing an RPG, while trying to figure out how your new Android phone works.

Seriously, really, I recognize the adhoc and chaotic nature of the filming but would it really have been that hard to take a step back and have a clear video? An epileptic kangaroo could've held the camera more steady.

There's almost nothing to see here unless you want to freeze frame at opportune moments.

My apologies to any epileptic kangaroo filmmakers out there I might have offended.

>> ^blankfist:
I'm worried this may be another "British filmmakers come to America to make fun of the simple, small-town folks" kind of video.


Nahh, I'm British and I can tell you we're a bit more subtle than that

I'm worried this may be another "British filmmakers come to America to make fun of the simple, small-town folks" kind of video.

Okay, I just past the half way point of this documentary, and I am beginning to get the feeling that the original filmmaker, Erin, REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY wants this issue to stay alive, despite the fact that it's been naturally dwindling down drastically after the 1st week.

Restoring the vandalized sign? Really???? I mean that was just weird. And the roadtrip and the stickers, I can see that to someone else it wouldn't make sense. It seems like a personal thing than actually trying to solve the problem. She's tackling the problem in her own way, but to someone else it may look inefficient. Getting as much media coverage and exposure of this matters is good (for example, THIS DOCUMENTARY), but yet she is also doing a lot of extra things that are actually counter-productive. Erin is angry, and rightly so, but it's preventing her from thinking things through to become more effective. She's already lost some of her close friends because of her confusing acts, and I wouldn't blame them.

Take a look at 00:36:55 when the woman being interviewed thinks your car had been vandalized because of the car's license plate. Trying to change the licence plate to 'Fag Bug' would make it look like you are actually like the term, yet the very point of this trip is to speak against calling gays/lesbians 'ur a fag'. It's just confusing as fuck.

Obviously she didn't plan this trip months ahead, and it was a spur of the moment thing. And I am starting to get the sense of her personality, someone who reacts emotionally and fatalistically and dive into the cause. at 00:42:00 she talks of how her lease is ending and her girlfriend won't be there when she comes back from the trip. She's putting everything on the line, meaning that she took this trip without resolving these matters before hand. A lot of loose ends that creates all these problems for her. She suggests that this is the kinds of sacrifice she's making for this trip, but I personally think these 'sacrifices' could've easily been avoided had she though things through a bit. A different person could have gone on this trip and things may have been a lot more organized.

Starting from 00:45:50, She also mentions that 99% of negative feedback came from the gay community. Now she never gets into why that's happening. That's probably because she doesn't understand the phenomenon herself. I may have a wild guess as to say that the gay community may have the same issue I am having with Erin. Her whole trip and this 'movement' is very self centered and unorganized, and even though the goal of this project may be clear to Erin, the portrayal of the message is unclear and confusing for others. Again, this is another case where a bit of organization and less complication would have eased the tension between her and the gay community.

I commend her for putting all the efforts to fight for what she is passionate about. But frankly, she's doing some weird shit to try to keep this thing alive, nor is she making it easy for people to understand it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Well how about the free pass that Bay gets to make the same rock-m-sock-em robot movie over and over. God, if I never see another Transformer again in my life I'll be happy.

I've *at least* mildly enjoyed every Shymalan flick I've seen. (although I have not seen the Airbender movie) My point is that a lot of Directors get a free ride. I wouldn't say that Shymalan is one of them. In fact he seems to be mercilessly mocked and ridiculed. Probably because he puts himself out there - and comparing himself to Hitchcock doesn't help. He's eccentric - and I like him.
>> ^smooman:

>> ^dag:
I'm with you on this one. I would prefer to watch the worst Shymalan movie over the best Michael Bay flick. Somehow Bay gets a free-ride for his CGI splooge fests. At least M. Night's movies focus on story over special effects. And also - Sixth Sense was a sensational movie - he gets a lot of credit from me for that one. >> ^shponglefan:
I don't get all the Shyamalan hate. I've seen almost everything he's made (starting with Sixth Sense up to and including The Happening), and imho he hasn't really made a bad movie. The problem seems to be he made a really good one (Sixth Sense) and has been living in its shadow ever since.


while i dont contest your points on michael bay (but really tho, someone has to make the dumbed down, cgi porn, movies that will appease the average movie goer) couldnt one argue that shyalaman was more or less given a free pass to shill out essentially the same movie in a different package over and over and over again. he makes sixth sense, its a smashing success, he's hailed as among the best new filmmakers at the time, everyone and their mom wants to finance his next movie....i dont see a difference