Fahrenheit 911

[vidcc]

Fahrenheit 911 broke opening records in New York. The film has caused praise and outrage depending on which side of the fence one sits even by people that haven't seen it.
some want it banned, others say it's free speech at its best. I won't go and watch it personally, but i feel that instead of trying to stop its showing critics should try to concentrate on trying to counter claims depicted.

Do you feel that you could be swayed in the way you vote by seeing films such as this ? Forget the particular subject of this film so it isn't a "Bush issue"

[BigBank_Hank]

Vidcc want to venture a guess as to what I think about the film? :D

I think that it’s not going to have an affect as to which people are going to vote for. People who hate Bush hate him and people who support him will continue to do so.

The city where I live has decided not to show the film, which I think, is wrong. Moore’s film should be available to anyone who wants to see it no matter how factually incorrect it may be. I can’t wait until its released in the US so we can hammer it and prove just how much of a load of crap that it is.

But this is the good old USA and you have the right to say what ever you want no matter how stupid it is.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@24 June 2004 - 16:24


But this is the good old USA and you have the right to say what ever you want no matter how stupid it is.
Apparently not.



The city where I live has decided not to show the film.



If they were free to say what they want it wouldnt be up to "the City", it would be upto the Cinema's... and the public could then have their say with their feet.

No one would be forcing them to go, however they'd have the opportunity to see it.


The very fact that "The City" has decided.... means that there is no "Right to say whatever you want" in that City.

:P

[BigBank_Hank]

I said that I thought that it was wrong that they decided not to carry the film. People should have the opportunity to see the film and make up their own minds about it.

Man this is starting to get scary we’ve agreed on things twice in a week :fear: :P

[Smith]

i started this in movie world <_< <_<

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

Originally posted by TheCanuk@24 June 2004 - 15:55
i started this in movie world <_< <_<
Hi-Jack this Bitch then man.You have to take a stand&#33;

Show these fools that there is other Sections out there and you are not going to take it anymore&#33; :01:



















*Wait.I just realized you are from Canada.Screw you&#33; :P *

[Busyman]

This film will influence people who wouldn&#39;t previously have voted.

These are the people the people that would most likely not vote for Bush.

Filmmaker Michael Wilson hopes to have his documentary "Michael Moore Hates America" in theaters late this summer as a rebuttal to "Fahrenheit."

[clocker]

Busyman,

Say what you will about MM (j2 is particularly eloquent on the subject), but to accuse him of hating America is just plain silly.

I gather that you are a "Love it or Leave it" kinda guy.
To me, this doesn&#39;t show any particular patriotic correctness, just a fundamental misunderstanding of what (potentially) makes America great.

[zapjb]

Follow the (oil) money. :frusty:

[vidcc]

Originally posted by TheCanuk@24 June 2004 - 13:55
i started this in movie world <_< <_<
I saw that...what a flaming session. I posted it here after seeing how well the film was doing at it&#39;s release. was your original post about the film or my original question "Do you feel that you could be swayed in the way you vote by seeing films such as this ? Forget the particular subject of this film so it isn&#39;t a "Bush issue" "

It may not stay on the track that i set but it&#39;s more about reaction to films like it and if you feel you couldn&#39;t be swayed then why would anyone want it banned?

It&#39;s a social question not a film critic question so i feel justified in starting this seprately away from "movieworld"

[BigBank_Hank]

Ahh Vid don’t sweat it he’s just jealous because this topic is owning the one is Movieworld :P

[B.Helto]

this pretty much mirrors my opinion on MM and F9/11:

from slate.com:

Proper Propaganda
Michael Moore&#39;s Fahrenheit 9/11 is unfair and outrageous. You got a problem with that?
By David Edelstein

Back in the &#39;80s—the era of Reagan and Bush 41, when milquetoasts Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis were the ineffectual Democratic candidates and Jimmy Carter was off building houses for poor people, when Anthony Lewis was writing oh-so-temperately in the New York Times, which was then leaning neoconward under the stewardship of Abe Rosenthal, when there was an explosion of dirty Republican tricksters like Lee Atwater and trash-talking right-wingers, from Morton Downey Jr. to the fledgling Rush Limbaugh—I found myself wishing, wishing fervidly, for a blowhard whom the left could call its own. Someone who wouldn&#39;t shrink before the right&#39;s bellicosity. Someone who would bellow back, mock unashamedly, and maybe even recapture the prankster spirit of counterculture figures like Abbie Hoffman.

Yeah, I know: Be careful what you wish for.

In 20 years of writing about film, no movie has ever tied me up in knots the way Michael Moore&#39;s Fahrenheit 9/11 (Lions Gate) has. It delighted me; it disgusted me. I celebrate it; I lament it. I&#39;m sure of only one thing: that I don&#39;t trust anyone—pro or con—who doesn&#39;t feel a twinge of doubt about his or her responses. What follows might be broadly labeled as "waffling," but I hope, at least, that it is bold and decisive waffling.

Needless to say, Fahrenheit 9/11 never waffles. The liberals&#39; The Passion of the Christ, it ascribes only the most venal motives to the other side. There is no sign in the filmmaker of an openness to other interpretations (or worldviews). This is not quite a documentary—which I define, very loosely, as a work in which the director begins by turning on the camera and allowing the reality to speak for itself, aware of its complexities, contradictions, and multitudes. You are with Moore, or you are a war criminal. The film is part prosecutorial brief and part (as A.O. Scott has noted) rabid editorial cartoon: a blend of insight, outrage, and sniggering innuendo, the whole package threaded (and tied in a bow) with cheap shots, some of them voiced by Moore, some created in the editing room by intercutting stilted images from old movies. Moore is largely off-screen (no pun intended), but as narrator he&#39;s always there, sneering and tsk-tsking.

Here are the salient points: that Bush stole the presidency from Al Gore (who, in one of the film&#39;s best scenes, must certify his opponent&#39;s election and quell a movement to stall that certification); that Bush and his family had been in bed with the Saudis, which made him less responsive to the danger of al-Qaida terrorism; that a pipeline in Afghanistan promised billions if the Taliban was on board, which was one reason that the threat of Osama Bin Laden (black sheep of a family with whom daddy did business) was swept under the rug. Better to concentrate on Iraq, the administration felt—it had unfinished Saddam business, it was rich in oil, and it was a potential goldmine for U.S. corporations.

Moore ranges far and wide: He apes Apocalypse Now (1979) with footage of bucolic Baghdad before the bombings, then cuts to soldiers explaining the way they hook their iPods to the tank speakers: "You have a good song playing in the background, it gets you really fired up." (I&#39;m surprised he didn&#39;t go ahead and play "Ride of the Valkyries.") Then there&#39;s graphic footage of dead Iraqi women and small children killed in what the Pentagon said were surgically precise bombings. A grieving old woman shrieks curses at the United States, while U.S. soldiers with missing limbs rail at the administration. On the home front, Moore suggests that the Patriot Act was unread by the legislators who passed it and harps on its absurd applications, like the agent who infiltrated a septuagenarian cookie-baking peace collective in Fresno, Calif. Then he chases hawkish congressmen outside the Capitol. Would they send their own sons and daughters to fight in Iraq? he asks—often to their backs, as they flee.

As I watched California Congressman John T. Doolittle take off from Moore&#39;s camera, arms and legs bobbing spastically, I was troubled by the cheapness of Moore&#39;s interviewing techniques. But I laughed my ass off anyway. And I felt better about laughing when I checked the warlike congressman&#39;s Web site, which mentions his graduation from college in 1968 but, predictably, no Vietnam service.

All right, you can make anyone into a goofball with a selection of unflattering shots and out-of-context quotations, but it is so very easy to make George W. Bush—with his near-demonic blend of smugness and vacuity—look bad. Or is this in eye of the beholder? Perhaps when Bush speaks of hunting down terrorists, then gets down to the real, golfing business—"Stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive"—you see an honest, plainspoken leader unfairly ridiculed. But what can even Bush partisans make of those seven minutes in the elementary school classroom after he received the news that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center and the nation was under attack? In one of the few lapses in an otherwise virtuoso rant, Christopher Hitchens argues that Moore would have made sport of a martial, Russell Crowe-like response. Nice try, but that blow wouldn&#39;t have landed, and this one does, spectacularly. It is downright spooky to watch the nominal commander in chief and "leader of the free world" behave, in a moment of crisis, like a superfluous man.

Moore is best when he doesn&#39;t stage dumb pranks (like broadcasting the Patriot Act in D.C. out of an ice-cream truck) but provokes with his mere presence. When he interviews the author of House of Bush, House of Saud in front of the Saudi embassy and the Secret Service shows up to ask what he&#39;s doing, it&#39;s a gotcha moment: What&#39;s the Secret Service doing protecting non-U.S. government officials? He has a light touch there that&#39;s missing from the rest of the Fahrenheit 9/11. In one scene, his camera homes in on a Flint, Mich., woman weeping over a son killed in Iraq, and the effect is vampirish. After the screening, a friend railed that Moore was exploiting a mother&#39;s grief. When I suggested that the scene made moral sense in the context of the director&#39;s universe, that the exploitation is justified if it saves the lives of other mothers&#39; sons, my friend said, "When did you become a relativist?"

I&#39;m troubled by that charge—and by the fact that we nearly came to blows by the end of the conversation. But when it comes to politics in a time of war, I think that relativism is, well, relative. Fahrenheit 9/11 must be viewed in the context of the Iraq occupation and the torrent of misleading claims that got us there. It must be viewed in the context of Rush Limbaugh repeating the charge that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered in Fort Marcy Park, or laughing off the exposure of Valerie Plame when, had this been a Democratic administration, he&#39;d be calling every day for the traitor&#39;s head. It must be viewed in the context of Ann Coulter calling for the execution of people who disagree with her. It must be viewed in the context of another new documentary, the superb The Hunting of the President, that documents—irrefutably—the lengths to which the right went to destroy Bill Clinton. Moore might be a demagogue, but never—not even during Watergate—has a U.S. administration left itself so open to this kind of savaging.

Along with many other polite liberals, I cringed last year when Moore launched into his charmless, pugilistic acceptance speech at the Academy Awards. Oh, how vulgar, I thought—couldn&#39;t he at least have been funny? A year later, I think I might have been too hard on the fat prick. Six months before her death in 1965, the great novelist Dawn Powell wrestled in her diary with the unseemliness of political speech during an "artistic" event: "Lewis Mumford gave jolt to the occasion and I realized I had gotten as chicken as the rest of America because what he said—we had no more right in Vietnam than Russia had in Cuba—was true but I did not think he should use his position to declaim this. Later I saw the only way to accomplish anything is by &#39;abusing&#39; your power." Exactly. Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a documentary for the ages, it is an act of counterpropaganda that has a boorish, bullying force. It is, all in all, a legitimate abuse of power.

[vidcc]

Ok forget 911 and imagine the film was about Saddam Hussain, Hu Jintao (the chinese president) or Fidel Castro and was made in the same way. I use the last two examples because their political systems are opposite to ours.

Would there be the outcry that we hear from some ? or would it be taken as just and factual ? and would it be shown in the cities where 911 won&#39;t be played.

@ Clocker, I think Busyman was just pointing out that a rebuttal documentary is being made with that title and the Filmmaker Michael Wilson is the one accusing moore of "hating America"...not busy. I&#39;m sure he will make that point himself if he returns to this thread :)

[GepperRankins]

i feel that instead of trying to stop its showing, critics should try to concentrate on trying to counter claims depicted.



the wondeful thing about micheal moore films is they cant counter it, just sit there embarrassed.


the best thing for bush and allies would have been to STFU aand it wouldnt have got half the ammount of attention

[clocker]

Originally posted by vidcc@25 June 2004 - 12:33


@ Clocker, I think Busyman was just pointing out that a rebuttal documentary is being made with that title and the Filmmaker Michael Wilson is the one accusing moore of "hating America"...not busy. I&#39;m sure he will make that point himself if he returns to this thread :)
Oh.

Oooopsie.

Apologies in advance if that is the case.

[brenda]

I wouldn&#39;t be swayed politcally by a film because a film is a construction, a way of looking at something, even factual films are presented in a particular way to portray a certain aspect of the truth. Scepticism is always a good advisable when reading any form of media.

[Biggles]

I have just finished "Dude where is my country" which would appear to be the book of the film or vice versa.

It was quite interesting. MM&#39;s style is a little brash for my taste and the diatribes were predictable. However the biggest revelation to me (and I guess it should have been obvious really) is that the US is a very Liberal country (in the sense that J2 is none too keen on). That the right although holding the reins of power do so with about 24% of the voting population. 24% (and a little bit) vote Democrat and the remaining 50+% are busy getting on with their very liberal lives and are not in the least interested in politics. This is why the right wing talk show people are so angry all the time. They are spitting against the wind. The people of the US have voted with their feet and tolerate liberalism because they essentially are liberal people.

If the Democrats could tap into this in a postive way the Republicans might never see power again. MM suggests that the current Democratic leadership is too lacklustre to grasp the opportunity. The book is as much a wake up call to Liberals as it is an attack on Bush. Indeed, where he speaks to the reader directly, there is an assumption that they are already in that church and converted. In other words, he does not anticipate many sales to right wing talk show hosts (who probably have people to read it for them anyway.)

Having read the book I think I should be excused the movie - as I don&#39;t much care for the door-stepping style of documentary. :ph34r:

The idea that MM hates the US is silly. That is like saying right wingers who hate the Democratic liberals hate the US. One cannot assume the mantle of a nation in one poltical wing.

[Gemby!]

i keep thinking this is a thread about a guys perfume :lol:

but on topic- i wont see this film unless i get to see it for free cos things like that dont interest me as its just not my type of film ...

[lee551]

i posted this also in the topic about Fh911 in movieworld, but i thought it deserves to be in both related topics:

got this in my e-mail today. its from michael moore&#39;s mailing list. i thought it was pretty interesting to read (they usually are). it lists some astonishing facts about the movie&#39;s opening etc.. so read on&#33;



July 4th, 2004




Friends,

Where do I begin? This past week has knocked me for a loop. "Fahrenheit 9/11," the #1 movie in the country, the largest grossing documentary ever. My head is spinning. Didn&#39;t we just lose our distributor 8 weeks ago? Did Karl Rove really fail to stop this? Is Bush packing?

Each day this week I was given a new piece of information from the press that covers Hollywood, and I barely had time to recover from the last tidbit before the next one smacked me upside the head:



** More people saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" in one weekend than all the people who saw "Bowling for Columbine" in 9 months.

** "Fahrenheit 9/11" broke "Rocky III’s" record for the biggest box office opening weekend ever for any film that opened in less than a thousand theaters.

** "Fahrenheit 9/11" beat the opening weekend of "Return of the Jedi."

** "Fahrenheit 9/11" instantly went to #2 on the all-time list for largest per-theater average ever for a film that opened in wide-release.

How can I ever thank all of you who went to see it? These records are mind-blowing. They have sent shock waves through Hollywood – and, more importantly, through the White House.

But it didn&#39;t just stop there. The response to the movie then went into the Twilight Zone. Surfing through the dial I landed on the Fox broadcasting network which was airing the NASCAR race live last Sunday to an audience of millions of Americans -- and suddenly the announcers were talking about how NASCAR champ Dale Earnhardt, Jr. took his crew to see “Fahrenheit 9/11” the night before. FOX sportscaster Chris Myers delivered Earnhardt’s review straight out of his mouth and into the heartland of America: “He said hey, it&#39;ll be a good bonding experience no matter what your political belief. It&#39;s a good thing as an American to go see.”&nbsp; Whoa&#33; NASCAR fans – you can’t go deeper into George Bush territory than that&#33; White House moving vans – START YOUR ENGINES&#33;


Then there was Roger Friedman from the Fox News Channel giving our film an absolutely glowing review, calling it “a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.” Richard Goldstein of the Village Voice surmised that Bush is already considered a goner so Rupert Murdoch might be starting to curry favor with the new administration. I don&#39;t know about that, but I’ve never heard a decent word toward me from Fox. So, after I was revived, I wondered if a love note to me from Sean Hannity was next.



How about Letterman’s Top Ten List: “Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11":



10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing



9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election



8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words



7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported



6. Didn&#39;t have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger



5. Of all Michael Moore&#39;s accusations, only 97% are true



4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe



3. Where the hell was Spider-man?



2. Couldn&#39;t hear most of the movie over Cheney&#39;s foul mouth



1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball

But it was the reactions and reports we received from theaters around the country that really sent me over the edge. One theatre manager after another phoned in to say that the movie was getting standing ovations as the credits rolled – in places like Greensboro, NC and Oklahoma City -- and that they were having a hard time clearing the theater afterwards because people were either too stunned or they wanted to sit and talk to their neighbors about what they had just seen. In Trumbull, CT, one woman got up on her seat after the movie and shouted "Let&#39;s go have a meeting&#33;" A man in San Francisco took his shoe off and threw it at the screen when Bush appeared at the end. Ladies’ church groups in Tulsa were going to see it, and weeping afterwards.

It was this last group that gave lie to all the yakking pundits who, before the movie opened, declared that only the hard-core "choir" would go to see "Fahrenheit 9/11." They couldn&#39;t have been more wrong. Theaters in the Deep South and the Midwest set house records for any film they’d ever shown. Yes, it even sold out in Peoria. And Lubbock, Texas. And Anchorage, Alaska&#33;

Newspaper after newspaper wrote stories in tones of breathless disbelief about people who called themselves “Independents” and “Republicans” walking out of the movie theater shaken and in tears, proclaiming that they could not, in good conscience, vote for George W. Bush. The New York Times wrote of a conservative Republican woman in her 20s in Pensacola, Florida who cried through the film, and told the reporter: “It really makes me question what I feel about the president... it makes me question his motives…”



Newsday reported on a self-described “ardent Bush/Cheney supporter” who went to see the film on Long Island, and his quiet reaction afterwards. He said, "It&#39;s really given me pause to think about what&#39;s really going on. There was just too much - too much to discount." The man then bought three more tickets for another showing of the film.



The Los Angeles Times found a mother who had “supported [Bush] fiercely” at a theater in Des Peres, Missouri: “Emerging from Michael Moore&#39;s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11,’ her eyes wet, Leslie Hanser said she at last understood…. ‘My emotions are just....’ She trailed off, waving her hands to show confusion. ‘I feel like we haven&#39;t seen the whole truth before.’"

All of this had to be the absolute worst news for the White House to wake up to on Monday morning. I guess they were in such a stupor, they "gave" Iraq back to, um, Iraq two days early&#33;

News editors told us that they were being "bombarded" with e-mails and calls from the White House (read: Karl Rove), trying to spin their way out of this mess by attacking it and attacking me. Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett had told the White House press corps that the movie was "outrageously false" -- even though he said he hadn&#39;t seen the movie. He later told CNN that "This is a film that doesn&#39;t require us to actually view it to know that it&#39;s filled with factual inaccuracies." At least they&#39;re consistent. They never needed to see a single weapon of mass destruction before sending our kids off to die.

Many news shows were more than eager to buy the White House spin.&nbsp; After all, that is a big part of what "Fahrenheit" is about -- how the lazy, compliant media bought all the lies from the Bush administration about the need to invade Iraq. They took the Kool-Aid offered by the White House and rarely, if ever, did our media ask the hard questions that needed to be asked before the war started.

Because the movie "outs" the mainstream media for their failures and their complicity with the Bush administration -- who can ever forget their incessant, embarrassing cheerleading as the troops went off to war, as though it was all just a game -- the media was not about to let me get away with anything now resembling a cultural phenomenon. On show after show, they went after me with the kind of viciousness you would have hoped they had had for those who were lying about the necessity for invading a sovereign nation that was no threat to us. I don&#39;t blame our well-paid celebrity journalists -- they look like a bunch of ass-kissing dopes in my movie, and I guess I&#39;d be pretty mad at me, too. After all, once the NASCAR fans see "Fahrenheit 9/11," will they ever believe a single thing they see on ABC/NBC/CBS news again?

In the next week or so, I will recount my adventures through the media this past month (I will also be posting a full FAQ on my website soon so that you can have all the necessary backup and evidence from the film when you find yourself in heated debate with your conservative brother-in-law&#33;). For now, please know the following: Every single fact I state in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the absolute and irrefutable truth. This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time. No fewer than a dozen people, including three teams of lawyers and the venerable one-time fact-checkers from The New Yorker went through this movie with a fine-tooth comb so that we can make this guarantee to you. Do not let anyone say this or that isn&#39;t true. If they say that, they are lying. Let them know that the OPINIONS in the film are mine, and anyone certainly has a right to disagree with them. And the questions I pose in the movie, based on these irrefutable facts, are also mine. And I have a right to ask them. And I will continue to ask them until they are answered.

In closing, let me say that the most heartening response to the film has come from our soldiers and their families. Theaters in military towns across the country reported packed houses. Our troops know the truth. They have seen it first-hand. And many of them could not believe that here was a movie that was TRULY on their side -- the side of bringing them home alive and never sending them into harms way again unless it&#39;s the absolute last resort. Please take a moment to read this wonderful story from the daily paper in Fayetteville, NC, where Fort Bragg is located. It broke my heart to read this, the reactions of military families and the comments of an infantryman’s wife publicly backing my movie -- and it gave me the resolve to make sure as many Americans as possible see this film in the coming weeks.

Thank you again, all of you, for your support. Together we did something for the history books. My apologies to "Return of the Jedi." We&#39;ll make it up by producing "Return of the Texan to Crawford" in November.

May the farce be with you, but not for long,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
[email protected]



P.S. You can read letters from people around the country recounting their own experiences at the theater, and their reactions to the film by going here.



P.P.S. Also, I’m going to start blogging&#33; Tonight&#33; Come on over and check it out.

[j2k4]

Astonishing&#33;

[Biggles]

It would seem Mr Moore is a tad chuffed with things. I would have thought Disney executives must be a trifle sorry they sold it off so cheap. Not the soundest business decision ever.

[Rat Faced]

Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett had told the White House press corps that the movie was "outrageously false" -- even though he said he hadn&#39;t seen the movie. He later told CNN that "This is a film that doesn&#39;t require us to actually view it to know that it&#39;s filled with factual inaccuracies." At least they&#39;re consistent. They never needed to see a single weapon of mass destruction before sending our kids off to die.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


And of course...the reason there has been no Lawsuit..


For now, please know the following: Every single fact I state in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the absolute and irrefutable truth. This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time. No fewer than a dozen people, including three teams of lawyers and the venerable one-time fact-checkers from The New Yorker went through this movie with a fine-tooth comb so that we can make this guarantee to you. Do not let anyone say this or that isn&#39;t true. If they say that, they are lying. Let them know that the OPINIONS in the film are mine, and anyone certainly has a right to disagree with them. And the questions I pose in the movie, based on these irrefutable facts, are also mine. And I have a right to ask them. And I will continue to ask them until they are answered.


And h&#39;s even leaving still promoting it as:


This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time.

ie: A Documentary... not a work of fiction or satire....

So where are the Law Suits?


I have no doubt I will disagree with a number of Mr Moores opinions (except the basics or "We should not have gone into Iraq").....

He is as big a propaganda machine and spin Doctor as the politicians he attacks.

However, he is still promoting it as a Documentary, and is now claiming that all the Facts have been gone over by Teams of Solicitors etc...

I say again.... If they are not Facts...

Why is there not a court case pending already from Bush and Co?

Or anyone else he "Libels" in the Movie...?

[Hexen4]

but on topic- i wont see this film unless i get to see it for free cos things like that dont interest me as its just not my type of film ...

Then you are in luck&#33; Moore said it was OK with him to pirate his movie, as long as his message got out to the farest possible audience. So, pirate away i guess...

[Hexen4]

Libel is the stupidest lawsuit ever. Has anyone ever won a lawsuit for slander...ever?

[GepperRankins]

:sleeping: could do better

cant even be bothered to watch the second disk :(

i really wanted this to be good to tell americans a few things, but its just so boring. if i paid i&#39;d have walked out. pity cos bowling for columbine was brilliant <_<

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@4 July 2004 - 14:20

Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett had told the White House press corps that the movie was "outrageously false" -- even though he said he hadn&#39;t seen the movie. He later told CNN that "This is a film that doesn&#39;t require us to actually view it to know that it&#39;s filled with factual inaccuracies." At least they&#39;re consistent. They never needed to see a single weapon of mass destruction before sending our kids off to die.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


And of course...the reason there has been no Lawsuit..


For now, please know the following: Every single fact I state in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the absolute and irrefutable truth. This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time. No fewer than a dozen people, including three teams of lawyers and the venerable one-time fact-checkers from The New Yorker went through this movie with a fine-tooth comb so that we can make this guarantee to you. Do not let anyone say this or that isn&#39;t true. If they say that, they are lying. Let them know that the OPINIONS in the film are mine, and anyone certainly has a right to disagree with them. And the questions I pose in the movie, based on these irrefutable facts, are also mine. And I have a right to ask them. And I will continue to ask them until they are answered.


And h&#39;s even leaving still promoting it as:


This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time.

ie: A Documentary... not a work of fiction or satire....

So where are the Law Suits?


I have no doubt I will disagree with a number of Mr Moores opinions (except the basics or "We should not have gone into Iraq").....

He is as big a propaganda machine and spin Doctor as the politicians he attacks.

However, he is still promoting it as a Documentary, and is now claiming that all the Facts have been gone over by Teams of Solicitors etc...

I say again.... If they are not Facts...

Why is there not a court case pending already from Bush and Co?

Or anyone else he "Libels" in the Movie...?
Rat one thing that Mr. Moore doesn’t explain is why he has armed himself to the teeth with attorneys and said that if anyone comes after him he’ll file suit. Why?

Another question is why won’t he appear on or be interviewed by someone who has an opposed viewpoint of this movie and defend its credibility?

Regarding why the Bush administration hasn’t filed a lawsuit of its own: I thought that J2 explained this quite well to you already. But from what I gather you think that the article that I found that tears this movie a new one is false because the Bush hasn’t sued. Have you read the entire article? Also why should the Bush administration sue Moore? What do they have to gain from this? Bush isn’t going to lower himself to Moore’s level and sue every time someone makes wild accusations against him. If that were the case he could sue you, Busyman, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and the list goes on and on.

[Rat Faced]

The very fact that Mr Moore is willing to file suite, shows that he is more than happy to go to court, and have everyone hear both sides of the argument.

He is very upfront in saying the opinions expressed are his own, however the facts refered to in the Movie have been checked again and again.

I have told you before Hank, I aint a big fan of Michael Moore, and I said why above...

He is responsible for as much Propaganda and Spin for his own beliefs as he attributes to the Politians.

In the case of the facts of the movie though... well, action speaks louder than words. It appears he wants this to go before a court... hardly the actions of a man telling lies ;)


As I said to J2K4, there is nothing stopping Bush & Co suing for libel. They merely have to prove that it was maliciously done, in addition to the actual lies.

In Mr Moores case, he freely admits to being maliciouse against Bush every time he opens his mouth... so its hardly a hard thing to Prove.


As to the truth of the opinions expressed in the film, based on the facts that Bush is by his inaction, admitting... I cant comment, as I havent seen it.

To say that its all crap without watching it is a little hypocritical, as is saying that its all wonderful and you agree with everything in there.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Hexen4@5 July 2004 - 04:05
Libel is the stupidest lawsuit ever. Has anyone ever won a lawsuit for slander...ever?
Er...



Yes, I think is probably the simplest answer.


:helpsmile:

[clocker]

Another question is why won’t he appear on or be interviewed by someone who has an opposed viewpoint of this movie and defend its credibility?

Why should he?

What has MM to gain by subjecting himself to the likes of a "fair and balanced"
blowhard like Bill O&#39;Reilly, or the smarmy smugness of Rush Limbaugh?

Tho I&#39;d bet he would agree to such a scenario given the opportunity to get an in-person whack at Dick Cheney or even Bushette himself.

[Rat Faced]

I just watched this.

The most sickening part for me was the last 1/6 or so of the film.....

The American Companies deciding how they&#39;re gonna divie up the country between them, on camera..... happy as hell that it was a no lose profit maker coz hey, things go wrong and we still make a profit from the Government (Taxpayer)



Still cant stand the man.

However, the "Contradictions" reported...werent.

He freely admits to being against going into Afganistan, as an example....but when we were in, the USA had sent less troops than there are police in Manhattin, to pacify a country.

If your gonna do it, do it properly, appears to be the message...not send in just enough troops so that most of the Taliban and Al Queda escape.


Half of the film was wasted.... some was shocking, and some was downright boring.

Not something to get if you fancy enjoying a flick, but something to make you question not just the Government, but the media and Corporations too... which is probably why a lot f the media is against it

:)

[Biggles]

Originally posted by clocker@5 July 2004 - 23:02

Another question is why won’t he appear on or be interviewed by someone who has an opposed viewpoint of this movie and defend its credibility?

Why should he?

What has MM to gain by subjecting himself to the likes of a "fair and balanced"
blowhard like Bill O&#39;Reilly, or the smarmy smugness of Rush Limbaugh?

Tho I&#39;d bet he would agree to such a scenario given the opportunity to get an in-person whack at Dick Cheney or even Bushette himself.
I saw a few minutes of FOX tonight (today over there)

It said "Coming up next" Kerry - More Waffling&#33; "We give a fair and balanced view"

A classic "have you stopped beating your wife - yes or no?" question, I chuckled and then changed channel.

[clocker]

You can afford to chuckle, given your geographical remove.

Most folks over here don&#39;t yet realize that FoxNews is just a very subversive sit-com...kind of like The Daily Show without Jon Stewart.

[MicroScreen2]

Originally posted by clocker@6 July 2004 - 02:04
You can afford to chuckle, given your geographical remove.

Most folks over here don&#39;t yet realize that FoxNews is just a very subversive sit-com...kind of like The Daily Show without Jon Stewart.
yeah. i liked the beggining then it kind of drifted off

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@5 July 2004 - 18:28
I just watched this.

The most sickening part for me was the last 1/6 or so of the film.....

The American Companies deciding how they&#39;re gonna divie up the country between them, on camera..... happy as hell that it was a no lose profit maker coz hey, things go wrong and we still make a profit from the Government (Taxpayer)



Still cant stand the man.

However, the "Contradictions" reported...werent.

He freely admits to being against going into Afganistan, as an example....but when we were in, the USA had sent less troops than there are police in Manhattin, to pacify a country.

If your gonna do it, do it properly, appears to be the message...not send in just enough troops so that most of the Taliban and Al Queda escape.


Half of the film was wasted.... some was shocking, and some was downright boring.

Not something to get if you fancy enjoying a flick, but something to make you question not just the Government, but the media and Corporations too... which is probably why a lot f the media is against it

:)
So it’s hypocritical of me to judge this movie even though I haven’t seen it. But its not hypocritical of Moore to be against the Afghanistan war and then complain that things aren’t going the way he likes? You are right there aren’t any contradictions in this at all.

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@6 July 2004 - 10:40

So it’s hypocritical of me to judge this movie even though I haven’t seen it. But its not hypocritical of Moore to be against the Afghanistan war and then complain that things aren’t going the way he likes? You are right there aren’t any contradictions in this at all.
Yes.

No.

Yes.

[Rat Faced]

There is no contradiction Hank...

Dont go into Afganistan.... This happens.

Its a done thing, cant turn time back...so what is his new position:

Make sure that there are enough troops so that the job gets done.


As far as I can see, he has merely moved in tune with events.... He could not stop the Troops going in. So, now that they are in...why so few?

If you have to do something, do it properly.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by clocker@6 July 2004 - 02:04
You can afford to chuckle, given your geographical remove.

Most folks over here don&#39;t yet realize that FoxNews is just a very subversive sit-com...kind of like The Daily Show without Jon Stewart.
:lol:

Yes. it would be fair to say we have nothing like it.










Thankfully :ph34r:

[clocker]

A report from the front.

Today I saw the film.
It was not nearly as incendiary or provocative as hearsay would have lead me to believe.
All in all I would say that it is no doubt agenda driven, but very effective nonetheless.

Of much more interest to me was the audience and their reaction.
I saw a 1:00PM showing and the theatre was at least 2/3 full.
I would place the median age of the crowd at maybe 60, give or take 5 years.
At film&#39;s end there was a standing ovation and some cheering.
Many of the women ( and, I would suspect, some of the men) had tears in their eyes ( the Michigan mother&#39;s scene at the White House comes right at the end) and appeared visibly shaken.

We walked out of the theater and down the hallway ( we were in a mega-plex) to find that outside a full-blown tropical storm was lashing the Denver area ( score another for the "SuperDuperDoubleDoppler Radar Weathermen," as not one of them called for rain today, much less a downpour of Biblical proportions with a healthy dose of hail thrown in...), so many of us chose to wait it out rather than brave the elements.
I heard not one negative comment about the film, indeed the general feeling was that to vote for Bush again would be an act of sheer lunacy.
There was a passion about the knots of conversation that I found striking.
An attendant said that cheering and applause was pretty much normal at the film&#39;s end.

Keep in mind...not only has Colorado been a staunchly Republican state for quite a while, but this was in an upper middleclass neighborhood-= precisely the type of place/people one would automatically class as rock-ribbed Republican.

I&#39;ve got news for you, j2 & Hank.
Despite the polls that show the race as too close to call, right now I wil predict that Bush is not only going to lose, he will lose BIG.
There will be no need of a recount or an "activist" judiciary...it simply won&#39;t be necessary.


The popcorn was terrible BTW, a sure sign that we as a nation have fallen from grace.
How can a country which can&#39;t properly apply heat to a vegetable kernel hope to sucessfully engineer a "regime change"?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@9 July 2004 - 19:12
A report from the front.

Today I saw the film.
It was not nearly as incendiary or provocative as hearsay would have lead me to believe.
All in all I would say that it is no doubt agenda driven, but very effective nonetheless.

Of much more interest to me was the audience and their reaction.
I saw a 1:00PM showing and the theatre was at least 2/3 full.
I would place the median age of the crowd at maybe 60, give or take 5 years.
At film&#39;s end there was a standing ovation and some cheering.
Many of the women ( and, I would suspect, some of the men) had tears in their eyes ( the Michigan mother&#39;s scene at the White House comes right at the end) and appeared visibly shaken.

We walked out of the theater and down the hallway ( we were in a mega-plex) to find that outside a full-blown tropical storm was lashing the Denver area ( score another for the "SuperDuperDoubleDoppler Radar Weathermen," as not one of them called for rain today, much less a downpour of Biblical proportions with a healthy dose of hail thrown in...), so many of us chose to wait it out rather than brave the elements.
I heard not one negative comment about the film, indeed the general feeling was that to vote for Bush again would be an act of sheer lunacy.
There was a passion about the knots of conversation that I found striking.
An attendant said that cheering and applause was pretty much normal at the film&#39;s end.

Keep in mind...not only has Colorado been a staunchly Republican state for quite a while, but this was in an upper middleclass neighborhood-= precisely the type of place/people one would automatically class as rock-ribbed Republican.

I&#39;ve got news for you, j2 & Hank.
Despite the polls that show the race as too close to call, right now I wil predict that Bush is not only going to lose, he will lose BIG.
There will be no need of a recount or an "activist" judiciary...it simply won&#39;t be necessary.


The popcorn was terrible BTW, a sure sign that we as a nation have fallen from grace.
How can a country which can&#39;t properly apply heat to a vegetable kernel hope to sucessfully engineer a "regime change"?
I think you take license, sir.

You reported from a theatre, wherein were to be found the latest frothings of a certain Mr. Moore.

While Colorado can generally be regarded as Republican, to characterize the state as "staunchly" so is to overlook the fact of it&#39;s elitist and moneyed nature; it&#39;s denizens can frequently be swayed by trends of the type represented by Mr. Moore and his movie.

I have said before-Mr. Moore knows where to hang out in order that he may receive the laudatory paeans he has come to expect, and the reaction(s) you witnessed in the theatre are nothing but the cheers of the choir who sought him out.

Moore couldn&#39;t sit down with any reasonably well-equipped debator and hold a prayer of coming out on top.

BTW-while O&#39;Reilly is popular, I wouldn&#39;t call him a debator, and, in any case, Moore&#39;s saying that he "slashed O&#39;Reilly to ribbons" when he was on the show is typical Moore hyperbole; nothing even remotely resembling a "blood-letting" occurred, and there was certainly no debate going on.

EDIT: Congratulations on re-gaining your star-you deserved it; that, and the lousy popcorn, too. :)

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@10 July 2004 - 07:37


While Colorado can generally be regarded as Republican, to characterize the state as "staunchly" so is to overlook the fact of it&#39;s elitist and moneyed nature; it&#39;s denizens can frequently be swayed by trends of the type represented by Mr. Moore and his movie.


Your characterization of Colorado as "elite and moneyed" is a bit misleading.
In fact, Colorado is not that much more moneyed than your fine state, j2 (source (http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income02/statemhi.html))
Furthermore, in the last two Presidential elections ( didn&#39;t look any further back) the state has voted for the Republican candidate both times, we have a Republican controlled Senate and a Republican Governor.

To me that would be pretty staunch.

Of course, it is easy and convenient to simply dismiss my audience as "elistist and easily swayed" and granted, many were predisposed to agree with MM, but I would bet that a significant percentage of them voted for Bush last time and have come to rue the decision.

Time shall tell...I stand by my prediction.

[j2k4]

I apologize for the characterization of Colorado and it&#39;s citizens, it&#39;s just....well....
there are far too many skiers in Colorado, and far too much hot chocolate and hot-buttered rum consumed; just all sorts of altitude-related problems in general.

Sorry-

I can&#39;t find a balance between serious and silly in this "Talk Club" thingie.

To insist that one stay "serious" and "on-topic"-balderdash&#33; :angry:











:lol: :D :P :)

[hobbes]

I don&#39;t watch propoganda that disguises itself as a documentary, it insults my intelligence. A documentary brings to mind "National Geopgraphic" and the like attempting to inform and educate and implies a sense of balance.

Agenda driven films, as is this one, create a black and white world in which our hero tells us how it is and the villian is gagged. A true documentary should contain perspectives from both sides.

It reminds me of :

Beirut, Lebanon (AP) - (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=80798&view=findpost&p=652757) - A TV channel run by the Hezbollah guerrilla group is offering viewers something special during the Muslim holy month: a miniseries about Israel&#39;s founding

I can hear the cheers now from people people told exactly what they want to hear.

I truly doubt any "neutral" people went to the movie and found themselves awash in unexpected tears and applauding the conclusion. People were attracted like a moth to flame, like a cheer-leader to a pep rally, nothing more. No Hank and J2&#39;s in the audience as they would feel a bit sickened that their cash was going to Mr. Moore.

Create a movie which glorifies Bush you will find theatres of cheering "patriots".

As for his contention of honesty and threats to sue. This is movie hype 101. Regardless of the outcome Moore wins financially. The mere act of filing a lawsuit gives this film the credit that it "matters", that it is a "factor" in the next election, and a huge number of intrigued viewers.

Any trial would drag out until well past the next election. Moore would win financially and politically. Psychology 101.

I laud Mr. Moore for taking advantage of his citizenship in a free country to create a "documentary" that vilifies the current leaders to promote his political agenda. He is doing what he can.

I also commend him on capitalizing on Disneys&#39; hestitancy to give his film wide exposure and create an aura of censorship and controversy. The consummate capitalist. I was kind of hoping Moore would buy the rights to his film and release it free via P2P. :lol: You know he could have afforded to do that, right?

I just see the film for what it is, a bleat-a-thon for sheep. Not a documentary, but a piece of political propaganda.

The neat thing about "one sided documentaries" is that I could take any forum member, chop up his posts, neglect context, and make vague suggestions of conspiracy, to make any of you look racist, stupid, and evil. It is all in the art of presentation and obfuscation.

BTW, I won&#39;t be voting for Bush.


Addendum: I forgot to add that Moore&#39;s refusal for engaging in debate is much Moore telling than his threat of legal action when it comes to the accuracy of his film.

The legal threat is a merely PR thing as I described above.

A "debate" of his movie has the power to expose the tenuos nature of his "facts" and make him look the fool, live. It will show the other side and the specious nature of his accusations and the context he forgot to add. Any man telling the truth should invite debate. A man attempting to conceal his manipulation is like a man with a toupe fearing even the slightest breeze.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by hobbes@10 July 2004 - 12:19
BTW, I won&#39;t be voting for Bush.
Are you sure about that?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+10 July 2004 - 12:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 10 July 2004 - 12:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@10 July 2004 - 12:19
BTW, I won&#39;t be voting for Bush.
Are you sure about that? [/b][/quote]
Yes, he&#39;s sure. ;)

Of course, he may not vote for Kerry, either. :D

Hobbes continues to thrash silliness with judicious sprinklings of logic; he is truly indispensable to this forum; a rudder, of sorts.

[MicroScreen2]

bush doesn&#39;t get my vote either :angry:

[Biggles]

Just as a matter of interest, why doesn&#39;t Fox doorstep Moore?


That would be funny.


Moore&#39;s biggest contribution will not be to win any debates but rather to galvanise Democrats to go out and vote that otherwise might have stayed at home. If the race is tight it might actualy make a difference.

[j2k4]

I wonder if anyone here will feel at all compelled to see this movie when it is released? :huh:

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

EDIT: BTW-Biggles:

Just as a matter of interest, why doesn&#39;t Fox doorstep Moore?

Wouldn&#39;t work, he&#39;d know what was up-he&#39;s not totally stupid.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 10:25
I wonder if anyone here will feel at all compelled to see this movie when it is released? :huh:

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/


What watch that bush funded republican propoganda piece of rubbish ????????? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: (read the sarcastic humour and don&#39;t take that seriously)

Actually i have to say that i have just about as much intention of watching this as i did with 911....absolutely none...so i won&#39;t be able to pass judgement on this one either