Jump to content

Change Mode

Farenheit 9/11


moon
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've just seen Michael Moore on TV for the first time. Strikes me as an overweight, arrogant, selfish opportunist. I saw 'Bowling for Columbine', unfortunately, so I'll be giving this one a miss no matter what the Cannes sycophants have to say about it.

 

 

 

:shifty: Seems I have been missing out on stuff. Guess I should rent Bowling for Columbine.

 

I'll just make sure I have lots of :oreo::choco::oreo: and no matter how bad it is, I'll still smile. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jessie was the biggest most pompous jerk to hold office in Minnesota in my lifetime. He was only true blue to himself. The only legislation he really pushed in this state was legislation which personally saved him some money. He was more concerned about lining his own pockets than he ever was about anything else in this state, he was an embarrassment to most of the people in Minnesota.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also saw 'Fahrenheit 451' (1966) , from which Moore plagiarises his title. Why ? The society described in Fahrenheit 451 is closer to a Fundamentalist 'society' than ours.

This is an engrossing futuristic tale of a society where all printed material is banned. In this country of the future, officials believe that people who read and are able to think for themselves are a threat to the nation where individualism is strongly discouraged. The inhabitants of this society all seem to be suffering from sensory deprivation and their only link to news and entertainment is a large television screen on the wall where broadcasts are continually transmitted to the "family". All of the people are members of The Family. Even though they aren't forced to watch the telecasts, they all do.

http://www.destgulch.com/movies/f451/

 

Perhaps Moore's anti-Western reputation has backfired on him.

Incidentally, although I'm a Ray Bradbury fan, and enjoyed the book, the movie was rubbish. Apart from Julie Christie. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, although I'm a Ray Bradbury fan, and enjoyed the book, the movie was rubbish. Apart from Julie Christie.  

 

 

I agree with you 100% moonie :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im Rick James #%^*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rofl:

 

Hold my drink #%^*!!!!!! :beer:

 

lol @ Tankus, that's beautiful. :P

 

One2gamble, that's a pretty harsh thing to say about someone who seems to have only good intentions in mind, even if he sometimes goes too far. What's your beef with Moore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or at least the truth eh

Are you sure you don't mean YOUR truth?

 

moore takes liberties with his editing - after I watched BFC I checked out his website - i also checked out some websites of his detractors and they pointed out (correctly) that he had been a little injudicious with his editing techniques (ages ago now but something to do with Chrlton Hestons ties in the clips from some NRA meeting(s).

 

However his interview with Mr. Heston at the latters home appeared unedited and genuine - and Heston squirmed at some of his questions.

 

Moore makes biased documentaries? Yes sure - ALL such media is biased, and Moore sometimes takes great liberties to make his point - I guess if it don't fit your bias it must be wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure you don't mean YOUR truth?

 

moore takes liberties with his editing - after I watched BFC I checked out his website - i also checked out some websites of his detractors and they pointed out (correctly) that he had been a little injudicious with his editing techniques (ages ago now but something to do with Chrlton Hestons ties in the clips from some NRA meeting(s).

 

However his interview with Mr. Heston at the latters home appeared unedited and genuine - and Heston squirmed at some of his questions.

 

Moore makes biased documentaries? Yes sure - ALL such media is biased, and Moore sometimes takes great liberties to make his point - I guess if it don't fit your bias it must be wrong?

once you edit someones answers to better portray your "truth" it becomes a lie. Remember this "the whole truth and nothing but the truth", Moore doesnt understand this at all and probably never will. Edited by one2gamble
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure you don't mean YOUR truth?

 

moore takes liberties with his editing - after I watched BFC I checked out his website - i also checked out some websites of his detractors and they pointed out (correctly) that he had been a little injudicious with his editing techniques (ages ago now but something to do with Chrlton Hestons ties in the clips from some NRA meeting(s).

 

However his interview with Mr. Heston at the latters home appeared unedited and genuine - and Heston squirmed at some of his questions.

 

Moore makes biased documentaries? Yes sure - ALL such media is biased, and Moore sometimes takes great liberties to make his point - I guess if it don't fit your bias it must be wrong?

its been proved on various sites that every interview he gave was edited, and once you edit someones answers to better portray your "truth" it becomes a lie. Remember this "the whole truth and nothing but the truth", Moore doesnt understand this at all and probably never will.
C'mon now - EVERY interview on documentaries is edited - that's no excuse for assuming bias on everything.

 

 

Moore is an intelligent person - yes he's bias and edits to favour his point of view - so does EVERY other documentary maker. So does EVERYONE here who uses stats and articles to "prove" a point. That's the whole PURPOSE of using those stats/ articles. It's the same process as editing.

 

Anyone who applies a little thought knows you can use stats to lie - and you can find stats that directly contradict each other.

 

This is Moore-baiting dressed up as reasoned argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

see the way you call it a "documentary" is wrong its not, its not even close. You want to see documentarys watch the History channel, or Discovery. What he makes belongs in the opinion section of the newspaper, its nothing more then HIS OPINION. My problem is not really with him or the movie, its the fact that its being sold as a documentary, which it isnt.

 

 

documentary:Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter

Edited by one2gamble
Link to comment
Share on other sites

see the way you call it a "documentary" is wrong its not, its not even close. You want to see documentarys watch the History channel, or Discovery. What he makes belongs in the opinion section of the newspaper, its nothing more then HIS OPINION. My problem is not really with him or the movie, its the fact that its being sold as a documentary, which it isnt.

The History Channel / Discovery ?- you're kidding me, right ?

 

Those documentaries are as riddled with inaccuracy as any.

 

I watched a program about the supposed killer of Tutanhamun recently. The bias in it was amazing. One example: it was stated that Akhenaten (the predecessor pharoah) was his father. There is absolutely NO evidence that that is the case. Akhenaten MAY have been Tuts dad, grandfather, uncle or even been unrelated to him. Bias, pure and simple.

 

Again, ALL documentaries are biased, facts are not thoroughly researched because, generally if they were, the programme would spend half its time arguing FOR and AGAINST the same assertion.

 

So, Moore is simply doing something that is standard practice in the documentary-making business.

you don't like his views? Fair enough. But like it or not he produced a documentary - biased yes - like all documentaries. A documentary about a controversial subject is BOUND to be based upon opinion.

 

but so are all documentaries - you start with an assumption / hypothesis and work your way from there, adding evidence that supports your view, cutting out / ignoring anything that contradicts it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

but so are all documentaries - you start with an assumption / hypothesis and work your way from there, adding evidence that supports your view, cutting out / ignoring anything that contradicts it.

ok fine, but I do not like the way he does it because it he does it with malicious intent which i suppose is my real problem with it. A documentary in my opinion should be educational, maybe we should send a copy of his work to "Myth Busters" ...lol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its anything you want it to be , particularly if your selling it for a lot of money ......

 

Moore needs Bush in charge more than we do ....Its his pension plan ....

 

Bart still gets my vote ..............................

Posted Image

Looking for a new middle east policy .......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

but so are all documentaries - you start with an assumption / hypothesis and work your way from there, adding evidence that supports your view, cutting out / ignoring anything that contradicts it.

ok fine, but I do not like the way he does it because it he does it with malicious intent which i suppose is my real problem with it. A documentary in my opinion should be educational, maybe we should send a copy of his work to "Myth Busters" ...lol.
How do you know it is done with "malicious intent"? Maybe it's anger.

 

BFC seemed to me to be an impassioned plea for Americans to stop killing each other. Biased? Yes - the editing was truly "selective".

 

What's malicious about wanting gun control?

 

As for his anti-Bbush stance - Bush is the most powerful man in the world. does anybody realy think he CARES what Moore says about him?

 

I've heard Jay Leno say more unpleasant things about Bush than Moore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok fine, but I do not like the way he does it because it he does it with malicious intent which i suppose is my real problem with it. A documentary in my opinion should be educational, maybe we should send a copy of his work to "Myth Busters" ...lol.

 

Seen any Bush campaign ads lately. Up here in New Hampshire all you see is malicious, negative ads about Kerry. But thats OK anything the shrub does is moral.

 

I hope there is a cabinet position in the Kerry Administration for Moore. I think he would make a great Secretary of Labor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope there is a cabinet position in the Kerry Administration for Moore. I think he would make a great Secretary of Labor.

did you feel like you needed a shower after you typed that? ewwwwwwww....... nasty.

 

angela

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...