CIA buys movie rights to Animal Farm
Changes the ending so the animals revolt against the pigs in the ending
It's almost as poetic as the story itself.
CIA buys movie rights to Animal Farm
I mean, that is pretty much where the actual novel was leading to with its ending. The pigs just become the new oppressor class and the cycle begins again. Either way it shows the folly of autocratic rule as a concept: sooner or later a bigger fish will come along and take over
The Henson production with Patrick Stewart and Kelsey Grammer played it straight, didn't it?
What was the original ending?
I haven't read the novel since high school, but I seem to remember its ending being much more bleak, with the corrupt and brutally violent system firmly entrenched.
The movie's ending is more optimistic that the failures of authoritarian systems are self-correcting through counter-revolution, where the book thinks the masses will just accept a boot stomping on their neck forever.
the masses will just accept a boot stomping on their neck forever
Hell, the flyover states clearly get off on it.
But the ending hints that the cycle COULD start up again, maybe years from now or even generations from now alluding that history likes to rhyme. You could walk away from the book thinking that they just accept their fate and live in total complacency until they die.
The book ends with the pigs, who originally led the farm animal revolution against the abusive humans, taking residence in the house and using all the human stuff and slowly morphing into humans themselves. The farm animals look inside the house, that they're all forbidden from entering, and see the pigs engaged in trade with other humans and realize they can't tell them apart. It just sort of ends with that thought, then the movie adds a scene where they all burst through the windows and hint that they want to revolt against the pigs.
It was a bit more bleak with how Orwell ended things, but there was the implicit indication that since pretty much nothing was learned, the pigs are doomed to repeat what got the farmer overthrown, ad infinitum. Its a self-correcting system only in that it inevitably destroys itself once it becomes unsustainable.
The final scene has the pigs, having increasingly adopted human behaviors throughout the story such as walking on two legs, drinking alcohol, wearing clothes, and engaging in commerce with humans host a dinner with neighboring farmers, during which they toast to mutual interests and express shared disdain for the working class. The other animals observe this gathering through a window and realize they can no longer distinguish between pig and man.
But there's no indication of an imminent uprising, and prior to that there were scenes that showed the horse (allegory for urban labor that was instrumental to the revolution) worked to death, puppies which had been taken from their mother and raised to be guards for the pigs no longer recognize their mother and attack her, and the sheep which of course represent the masses have are told by the now bipedal pigs "we know we always told you that any animal that walks on 2 legs is evil, but actually bipedal animals are better than quadrupedal ones" and they're totally ok with this, even chanting slogans about how great bipedal animals are.
The movie ending is better imo.
Why was Orwell such a whiny bitch?
WAAAH BIG BROTHER BAD I HATE AUTHORITY!!!!!!
Here's your (you). Spend it wisely, now.
Until the ending, anyway. Reflecting the eventual fall of the Soviet Union, Napoleon's empire collapses under its own weight over time, and the few surviving animals deciding to work together with the new family that moves in to see things get done the right way.
I liked the cartoon better than the book.
The movie ending is better imo.
Both endings are futile, but the animated one feels futile in an American way. "Let's just keep revolting but this time get rid of <these guys>, and then it'll work for sure!" when the reality is that nothing ever changes while the workers keep thinking they have the power to change something.
Soviets killed children and oppressed millions, but homosexuals in 2025 still support them because they think the point of communism is to create an anti-work society and outlaw racism or some bizarre nonsense. These degenerates are going to have to be annihilated.
It really is amazing how communism hasn't been completely discredited by the communist states of the 20th Century. Hitler and Mussolini were sufficient to discredit fascism, but despite Stalin, Mao, Kim, and Pol Pot, it's still possible to call yourself a communist in polite company. I don't get it.
Because the URSS was part of the Allies in WW2
Because Communism is somewhat hopefully if you're a lower class worker dealing with a 1% that would rather work you to death for barely any pay while they reap every single benefit.
That and there's no better alternatives.
Western sanctions keep communist regimes going. They are great scapegoats and barely hurt the commie elites, only regular citizens.
it's still possible to call yourself a communist in polite company
in polite company people will think you're a fool for calling yourself a communist
the tricksy thing they did is the communists fought the fascists, which, just like when Coke made "TAB Clear" so that everyone would assume Crystal Pepsi is also diet, managed to just get everyone into a dichotomous mindset. It must be communism against fascism, nevermind there has never in history been communism without fascism
so they changed it to against nationalism, making nationalism the bad guy.. which.. good luck having a country without it.
alls I know is, my favorite version of Animal Farm was the one with puppets and Patrick Stewart.
nevermind there has never in history been communism without fascism
Only on the national level. The state of Kerala in India has had a democratically elected communist party in and out of power over the last 4 decades, and now other than Goa it's the richest state in India.
Its not nationalism that's the boogeyman, its settler-colonialism. I've literally seen people on the far left talking about how we need to disband the US and give the land back to the natives to create their own native ethnostates. They never quite explain what happens then.
I don't get it, I voted for the Boots Stomping on Necks Forever Party. Why are they stomping on MY face? Are they gonna do it forever?
The cartoon doesn't even deserve to call itself "Animal Farm."
Because
1. Most of the communist governments were objective improvements on the autocratic regimes they replaced. They also tended to face counterrevolutions and outside invasions to overthrow them, something most western libdem governments never had to contend with (or if they did, they often handed the keys over to fascists)
2. Death counts are grossly overinflated and tend to include just about anybody who ever had an unnatural death under a communist government. You can do the same trick with anyone who ever died under colonialism/neocolonialism and blame it on capitalism
3. The core idea of "workers controlling the workplace" isn't some inevitable road to despotism just because you elect your own bosses.
That's literally what happened in real life though.
Because the communists won WWII then successfully subvert America via a combination of espionage, demoralization and the long march through the institutions, not to mention domestic terrorism like what weather underground and antifa got up to.
Most of the communist governments were objective improvements on the autocratic regimes they replaced.
Khemer Rouge and North Korea were not objective improvements.
This is so retarded. Economically, the only thing that actually matters, private capital and liberalized markets reign supreme and the world is the least "leftist" it's ever been since the start of the great depression.
Korea was, (not because Noth Korea is good, pre-cold war Korea was just unfathomably shitty and still is pretty shitty on both sides of the parallel in their own way really) and Khmer Rouge were literally backed by the US and brought down by the Vietnamese communists.
Man these threads are just a big Anon Babble circlejerk, why are people talking about politics on Anon Babble huh? Where's the jannies?
Khmer Rouge were literally backed by the US
@grok is this true?
well it is a cartoon about communism and revolution
And therefore off-topic political discussion that jannies should remove. I know they won't, that's the hypocrisy they can't be held to, but speaking about it directly highlights the bullshit and makes sure I can come back and link to this when someone tells me I can't have a sinfest thread again.
Because Stalin and them never actually achieved communism. Communism is a predicted final stage of societal development that’s supposed to arise on its own after the certain stages have run their course.
You know it is really hard to take Orwell's book seriously when he has been an informant, he just informed on communists more radical than he was.
I doubt the US supported them in any official capacity, but I wouldn't put anything past the CIA.
The CIA trained them because they knew they could use them against the Vietnamese, the Khmer Rogue were violently nationalistic and hated the Vietnamese. They actually invaded Cambodia over the abuses of it's vietnamese ethnics, but yeah, they were nothing much beyond another tool against Vietnam.
Either way it shows the folly of autocratic rule as a concept: sooner or later a bigger fish will come along and take over
That's why you need to become the biggest fish there is. You're either the most powerful person in the world or you're nothing.
1984 might as well be Lord Moloch's Bible because that's exactly the kind of world He desires.