Lights... Camera... ACTION!!: A Hollywood Quest

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
Hi Magoose here one of the guys helping Duke.

So we have some bad news.

The quest has been canceled as duke does not want to write it anymore.

I'm going to ask if I can take over for it, because I like this quest, and it would be a shame to kill it
TBF, Mags, you have been doing a lot of the heavylifting for the quest, so this will be in good hands. :)

To be clear to everyone, this is just me burning out on imagination of the quest, since my muse has been hitting me over the head a lot with so many different ideas that I just can't find myself too interested in this.

I'll still hang out here, though, since this still does have a sepcial place in my heart.

I'd like to thank you all for making this a wonderful experience while it lasted.

I'd also like to thank @Magoose, @Fluffy_serpent, and @Martin Noctis for doing so much to help prepare and write this quest. I couldn't have done it without you all. :D

I'll see you all around.

With so many regards, Duke William Of.
 
Last edited:
Also… I'm going to make bitch slapping Congress a write in..

Because you all should get the joy of bitch slapping Congress with words.

Instead of leaving it to me.

Honestly I would much rather you have done Bruce's speech than leave it up to us. You already proved to be excellent in making dramatic speeches with the recent Mike omake, and I really hate making speeches into complex topics like this that can't be done in simple write-ins and make me think hours for just the right response. We have a 187 for the result and I don't want to tank that due to a bad speech.
 
[X]Write in: Ladies and Gentlemen of Congress,

I stand before you today as a humble storyteller, one who has dared to delve into the rich tapestry of Norse mythology that, to your apparent dismay, features what you so eloquently term "bloodcurdling violence."

But if you would, allow me to marvel at the audacity of this question. Are you genuinely, and with absolute sincerity, asking me to explain why this august body should waive the protections of the First Amendment, and erase the realities of a most fascinating past?

My dear congressional representatives, have you sincerely just asked me to endorse an act so deeply and utterly un-American, that the USSR and CCP would applaud us for joining them in their cruel and authoritarian measures just as they do?

But I digress, allow me to begin by addressing the rather perplexing inquiry as to why I included such elements in my portrayal of Norse mythology. Authenticity, Ladies and Gents, authenticity is paramount. To twist the narrative of Norse mythology, to sanitize it for the delicate sensitivities of a few, would be a disservice to the very essence of storytelling. Can you imagine the absurdity of presenting the tales of Thor and Odin without a hint of the battles they waged, the challenges they faced, and yes, the blood they shed? It would be akin to presenting a watered-down version of American history, void of all its complexities and harsh truths.

And let us not forget the importance of staying true to canon. Norse mythology is not a fairy tale; it is a saga of gods and giants, of honour and betrayal, of life and death. To dilute it for the sake of political expediency would be an insult to the legacy of those ancient storytellers who crafted these tales with such care and reverence.

But perhaps the most absurd notion put forth today is the idea that a little violence on a children's TV show will somehow harm our youth. Have we forgotten the power of imagination? Children are not so fragile that they cannot distinguish between reality and fiction. Moreover, a well-told story can teach valuable lessons about courage, resilience, and the consequences of one's actions. Please, let us not succumb to the misguided notion that censorship is the solution.
 
Honestly I would much rather you have done Bruce's speech than leave it up to us. You already proved to be excellent in making dramatic speeches with the recent Mike omake, and I really hate making speeches into complex topics like this that can't be done in simple write-ins and make me think hours for just the right response. We have a 187 for the result and I don't want to tank that due to a bad speech.
Well here is a pull back of the curtain.

12 hour shifts. I can't muster the energy.
 
[X]Write in: Do your lobbyists have your best interests in mind?

My fellow Americans, I have a question for you. Do your lobbyists have your best interests in mind?

PBS has long been the channel for educating and informing American children.

I have been told that the goal of a good education is not to make your child Ready to face the world but to make it so the world is not ready to face your children.

To do this, we must give our children the hard lessons along with the easy ones.

Conflict is a fact of life. There will be disagreements.

As demonstrated by your work here, some of those disagreements can be solved with words and planning. Accepted rules that are followed and updated as needed for all to benefit. But that does not mean all disputes are solved by words.

Some disagreements can be solved with craft and science as demonstrated in our great centres of learning, in schools and libraries and in the work of the CBS. New thought and discovery building on what was possible for our forefathers, removing the root causes of disagreements. New Mining and farming methods create more resources. Better manufacturing makes goods stronger and cheaper with less effort. However, not all agreements can be solved with more people to share.

Some disagreements can still only be solved with force.



Some of your lobbyists will tell you otherwise. That violence solves nothing other than complete abstinence that hiding the very existence of violence from children is the only solution.

Say you achieve that. Say you succeed. How long will it take a child to reinvent the concept of solving their problems with violence?

From time immemorial, violence solved problems. Hungry? Kill something and eat it. Disagreement? Kill the other party.

It is as effective as it is brutal. Sufficient violence will solve nearly every immediate problem the winner has. But what of the next issue and the next? What happens when you have robbed, stolen and killed, and there is no one and nothing to take from?

Violence is not the best solution for every circumstance. It is a truth as old as civilisation when cooperation to achieve mutually better goals began to elevate man's behaviour above an animal red in tooth and claw. Violence solves the immediate problems but not the future. Violence allows me to take what I want at my neighbour's expense but leaves no neighbour to help me.

Cooperation is hard. It requires me to think about what my fellow man might need. I want to do things that may not benefit me now or only potentially in the future if my fellow chooses to assist me in return. I need to consider and work with a model of thought that is not mine from someone who does not have the same past as me and may not have learned all the lessons I have.

But violence is easy, simple and solves my problem right now. Why shouldn't I use it to solve my problem today? I am strong. I could take what I want. I could crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentation of their women. Why don't I?

Because the long-term cost of violence is too high. Because two together can do what one cannot do alone. That cooperation makes civilisation. I know this, you know this. Do our children know this?

I am a father. I have small children, and I can say with certainty that they do not know this. They need to learn it. For those that don't believe me, go watch small children squabble. Watch children in school pick on each other for petty reasons.

Most of us will be taught as we grow that the cost of violence is too high and that spilling blood does not solve all your problems.

However, we also know that some never learn that lesson. Some never learn to cooperate that violence or fear of violence will get them what they want. Then, it is the role of the police, the correctional system and the military to educate these people that it is not so.

But there is a cost in those late lessons both in money for the military and police in judges and jails, in lives lost and lives ruined. All because a lesson was not learned.



PBS aims to reach out and teach lessons that our children need to learn to supplement and fill in the cracks in our educational system. How are they to do that when some lessons are banned?

Another old saying is that a pinch of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The existence of these sayings and the fact that we live in an environment where they can be passed on is a mark of civilisation's success, that cooperation is better than violence, and that civilisation works.

If your moral guardian lobbyists have their way, the lessons on why violence is bad and why we moved away from Violence to cooperation will not be passed on. And our children will have to learn again, in lessons of blood and violence, why we do things this way. The ones about violence and why it doesn't work as a long-term solution, the lessons history and mythology taught us, and the ones we have tried to share on PBS.

The choice is yours when we are old, will we have scientists and doctors building on the wisdom of their elders or warlords and warriors learning in lessons of blood and ruin what you and I already know and chose to hide from them.

Do your lobbyists have your long-term interests in mind? Or only their short-term gains? Do they wish to help you or leave you holding the bag? Do they have the children's best wishes in mind or only avoiding uncomfortable questions they don't want to answer? Your lobbyist's names will not be the ones whose names are cursed if you make the wrong choices or fall into their temptations.

So, rather than use my fists to demand your co operation by violence, I use my voice to ask you to think because I have been taught a better way . What is the future we want? Do our children have to learn what you and I know again because we did not want to teach them a lesson that makes us uncomfortable? Leaving them unready for a world where the lesson is still needed and vulnerable to those who already know it. Or do we want to do the hard, uncomfortable thing and make it so that the lessons that history and mythology teach us are learned? So that our children have learned from history and are not doomed to repeat it. So that we as parents do not have to go through the hardship of Watching our children learn from the school of life what we could have learned from PBS.

Thankyou


Having a go at a speech in hindsight []Write in: Ladies and Gentlemen of Congress, is better

TLDR

If you don't teach a lesson then don't be surprised if people have not learned the answer.

Fund PBS so lessons are not hidden

Watch your lobbyists Closely
 
Last edited:
[X] Do your lobbyists have your best interests in mind?

Children do not need to be told that monsters are real. They already know that. Children are told stories so they know monsters can be beaten. Fear and violence two of the oldest monsters there are.
 
@Xsplora
... A nice speech, but a tad disingenuous with the reason Bruce was called before the senate.
It is too antiviolence, too pacifistic whereas some of the violence within the myths that were displayed in our show was definitely displayed in quite positive connotations.
Maybe add something about that while violence is always evil, there are times and places where the path of violence is the least possible ill that can be accomplished? Or something?
 
[X]Write in: Ladies and Gentlemen of Congress,

I stand before you today as a humble storyteller, one who has dared to delve into the rich tapestry of Norse mythology that, to your apparent dismay, features what you so eloquently term "bloodcurdling violence."

But if you would, allow me to marvel at the audacity of this question. Are you genuinely, and with absolute sincerity, asking me to explain why this august body should waive the protections of the First Amendment, and erase the realities of a most fascinating past?

My dear congressional representatives, have you sincerely just asked me to endorse an act so deeply and utterly un-American, that the USSR and CCP would applaud us for joining them in their cruel and authoritarian measures just as they do?

But I digress, allow me to begin by addressing the rather perplexing inquiry as to why I included such elements in my portrayal of Norse mythology. Authenticity, Ladies and Gents, authenticity is paramount. To twist the narrative of Norse mythology, to sanitize it for the delicate sensitivities of a few, would be a disservice to the very essence of storytelling. Can you imagine the absurdity of presenting the tales of Thor and Odin without a hint of the battles they waged, the challenges they faced, and yes, the blood they shed? It would be akin to presenting a watered-down version of American history, void of all its complexities and harsh truths.

And let us not forget the importance of staying true to canon. Norse mythology is not a fairy tale; it is a saga of gods and giants, of honour and betrayal, of life and death. To dilute it for the sake of political expediency would be an insult to the legacy of those ancient storytellers who crafted these tales with such care and reverence.

But perhaps the most absurd notion put forth today is the idea that a little violence on a children's TV show will somehow harm our youth. Have we forgotten the power of imagination? Children are not so fragile that they cannot distinguish between reality and fiction. Moreover, a well-told story can teach valuable lessons about courage, resilience, and the consequences of one's actions. Please, let us not succumb to the misguided notion that censorship is the solution.



Both speech options thus far are good, but I'll go with this.
 
[X] Defending History and Animation
-[X] "Ladies and gentleman of Congress, I have been called here today to answer the fears and hysteria of reactionary crowd to one of our television shows that was met with heavy popular reception and support. Now, I can understand and sympathize with some of the base fears of our critics, as a father of three I want what's best for my children and for them to grow up into upstanding people. However, the response to such concerns should never be blanket authoritarian censorship with the erasure of the past and disregard for other nation's cultures.
-[X] When Classical Tale was created, it was created with the goal of educating children about the diversity and rich culture and tradition that is spread across our world but so many children will never come into contact with in person. It's a saga of storytelling and the human experience throughout the ages that is meant to inspire the creativity and imagination of those watching and grow as more educated experienced people, mindful of the many different viewpoints and beliefs they may come into contact with as they venture into the greater world.
-[X] In adapting the second season of Classical Tale, our storytellers tried to be as respectful and faithful to the Norse mythology of old to share what generations past were told for a modern audience. If we had sanitized the Canon then it would have lost all its complexities, themes and narrative impact just for the delicate sensitivities of a few.
-[X] The violence present is not meant for shock value or to celebrate in the existence of conflict. It's to deliver important messages on heroism, the cycle of life, the nature of good and evil, flaws of humanity, the question of what is right and how to live. Through this, the audience learns of how a culture received such lessons and lived their lives, and can take their personal experiences and grow and learn as people. The violence provides context to the morals and a vehicle for the stories to deliver their impact.
-[X] Some may be uncomfortable at such a presentation and it is their right to dislike or not watch the program. However, their personal objections should not be forced as wholesale censorship in defense of a fantasy that children will never know hardship or experience nuance and complications. The most popular faith in our nation teaches in its most important and sacred belief that the son of God suffered and died on the cross for our sins. Are we to censor Bibles because of such violence? Should children be banned from Churches until they are 18 because the Passion is a violent passage in spite of it being about redemption, sacrifice, and love?
-[X] The themes presented are more complex than traditional animation to be sure, but the reason we tell such stories is because at Dreamworks we recognized that children are intelligent and curious people who deserve to be treated with respect in their entertainment instead of talking down to them as if they have no mind or character of their own or tricking them. The traditional belief in animation from a layman's perspective is that it's kiddy art and not deserving of effort or complexity. Is it not the fact that they are children, the future of our nation, our beloved sons and daughters, that we should endeavor to create and share with them impactful stories of high quality and creativity that will stick with them as they grow older and help them to become wonderful and outstanding individuals?
-[X] Does that mean that we should try and speak about anything and everything to a child? No, there are understandable limits, but it does mean that neither should we treat them as small idiots who cannot understand the difference between reality and fiction. Furthermore, that is something a parent should do, to make them understand what they are watching and which behaviors should be imitated and emulated and what they should abstain and recognize as wrong. Keep the government out of the family home and let parents and children communicate with one another, understand and grow through shared experiences."



Not entirely happy with this, but I just wanted to get my own thougts on a response. Okay if Poke's wins, but I just had differing takes in what I would focus on.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm going with this one:

[X] Defending History and Animation

It has the tone of Bruce in my opinion, how he would respond and how he would speak as well. It makes sense that he focus more in artistic creativity and how it impactsss the stories told.
 
[X] Defending History and Animation

Edit: Got it. Thanks, yannoshka.
 
Last edited:
Children do not need to be told that monsters are real. They already know that. Children are told stories so they know monsters can be beaten.
Another hard line, I love it.

[X] Defending History and Animation
I'll go with this, but I kind of hate having to vote for these speeches whenever we do them because I find that I can never really jive with any of them.
 
Back
Top