|By Dmar (Dmar) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 12:24 am: Edit|
Wow. I know trailer's don't really mean much, but i am impressed. Quite hilarious (but kind of disturbing) too.
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 02:17 am: Edit|
i've been waiting for this movie for a year.
|By Everet (Everet) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 02:25 am: Edit|
omg did you see the ending of the trailer? With bushing saying that comment then playing golf? I can't wait to watch this film
|By Chasgoose (Chasgoose) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 02:42 am: Edit|
Ugh, Michael Moore really gets on my nerves. He and Bill O'Reilly use left and right wing politics, respectively, to stroke their own egos. Their works are never about their "messages" or their "politics" but always invariably end up being about them. They are like comedians masquerading as politcal superheroes protecting America from the evils of Bush (Moore) and the commie pinko liberals (O'Reilly).
That said, I will still see the movie to watch Moore make an ass of himself.
|By Originaloog (Originaloog) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 06:34 pm: Edit|
Chasgoose, did you see Bowling for Columbine? I thought Moore made a good case for why there is so much gun related violence in the USA. The only qualms I had with it was barging into Hestons home for that inpromptu interview. That was in bad taste.
|By Confetti1234 (Confetti1234) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 08:49 pm: Edit|
Did not “barge in,” he got permission. It was Heston’s fault for letting him in. That was the surprising part of it all.
|By Matt_2005 (Matt_2005) on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 06:52 pm: Edit|
I will not see any movie that is being marketed as "the most controversial movie of the year"
True controversy is not manufactured.Controversy is a response (a biproduct of new actions and ideas)not a creation.
|By Gidget (Gidget) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 10:22 am: Edit|
It is controversial because it is about facts that people don't want to face. I think micheal Moore might be one of the few voices in the world that speaks the truth and shows us how things are without the media bull- and I am a journalsim students- i know about the media bull.
|By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 10:59 am: Edit|
Gidget- facts? MM is nothing but a politically-active, self-aggrandizing, story-telling, video clip editor. I won't see the movie because I don't like being manipulated and told half truths.
|By Neo (Neo) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 11:10 am: Edit|
You shouldn't watch television, listen to news radio, or read a newspaper if you don't want to be manipulated or told half-truths.
|By Philntex (Philntex) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 01:25 pm: Edit|
Truer words were never spoken, Neo. If you CAN find the truth somewhere, let ME know, please. I've been looking for the last five years.
That said, I can't wait to go see this movie with my friends. Let the mind manipulation begin
|By Gidget (Gidget) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 02:11 pm: Edit|
Thanks for the back up Philntex and Neo..Well said Neo.. I think if anything is "politically-active" and munipulative it's CNN that fills peoples mind with what they think is the truth of the world and then when they step out of their little bubble and are affronted by the truth- they call it 'half truths" and deny it's validity.
The news is rarely accurate- I should know I write it.. i have articles cut or silenced all the time because they tell the truth about a company or person but that company buys ad space in the paper so no one knows anything.
It s refreshing to hear another voice.-
_ I agree Philntex- Let the 'mind manipulation begin"
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 04:04 pm: Edit|
michael moore is very deceptive. He claims to make documentaries, but they are far from it. In bowling for columbine, many of the scences were staged and he omitted many important facts. He is just a publicity hog. They are just pure propaganda to make liberals feel good about themselves and their out of touch opinions.
|By Voronwe (Voronwe) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 05:00 pm: Edit|
I will see it- I have always liked Michael Moore - but I saw a clip on tv the other night where he confronted a congressman with that thing about "Would you sign up your kid for the military...." then the tv show cut to the congressman himself who said the truth wasn't shown in the movie: he had a son in the Navy and another in the National Guard!!!
Again - I like Michael Moore - but I am taking this one with a grain of salt.....
|By Feuler (Feuler) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 05:12 pm: Edit|
I am interested to see this movie due to all the hype and potentially useful information, but I'm not sure I like Michael Moore that much... I saw Bowling for Columbine, and I was very frustrated. He had good points to make, but the way he chose to make them was just childish.
|By Chocoman (Chocoman) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 06:20 pm: Edit|
Bowling for Columbine was not really biased. It had multiple arguments and never outright said guns are bad, it wanted you, the viewer, to make the decision.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 06:21 pm: Edit|
Michael Moore's films are far from documentaries and so many scenes are staged and planned, so they are not really documentaries but rather tricky dishonest propaganda pieces. Any critical thinking person would do research and not accept the stuff moore tries to blind you with. For example, that scene in bowling for columbine when he went into the bank was totally staged and left out a lot of information about waiting periods and such. Here is a link to other fallacies you might not of known existed in his "documentaries".
|By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 07:25 pm: Edit|
Veronwe, I too am like you. I like Michael Moore for the fact that he tackles the tough questions. I do part with him on some of his tactics and even some of the parallels he tries to draw, especially with cause and effect. In bowling for Columbine, he tried to tie the awful violent act at Columbine High to the fact that a major component of the economic base of the town was a corporation in the defense industry. My husband has been in the defense industry for over two decades. We don't own a gun. Never have. Defense plays prominently around here, too, and I just can't conceive of that being the cause of something so awful. With all of that said, I will probably be in the first lines to see the movie, and I will take several of those big grains of salt with me!
|By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 07:46 pm: Edit|
Michael Moore is a shameless self-promoter; I mean, he makes it a point to put his picture EVERYWHERE - book covers, posters, etc. Whether or not his arguments are valid is of course a different matter.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 08:04 pm: Edit|
alongfortheride, you just mentioned another one of his lies in that "documentry". He claimed that the reason for the shooting was because there was a defence company in the town that somehow added to the culture of violence and that weapons were made at that facility. Of coarse he did not point out that no weapons were made there and that they manufactured rockets for telivison space sattilites. He is a shameless dishonest person trying to brainwash impressionable angry liberals.
|By Over30 (Over30) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 08:47 pm: Edit|
If you're interested in this film you may want to watch the Vietnam documentary "Hearts and Minds," which has been released on DVD. This film won the 1974 Best Documentary Academy Award.
|By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 09:58 pm: Edit|
Over30, I have seen parts of this film, but I would like to see it again. I very well may seek out this DVD. Thanks for the heads up.
Jlq3d3, I'm sorry you feel so angry at those that would disagree with you. I am not an impressionable angry liberal. I am a college educated adult with the ability to decide for myself what I believe. Thus, I am able to debate issues with those who think differently than I do. It's what keeps peace in the world. As I sign off from this thread, peace to all.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 02:00 am: Edit|
I never said I disagreed with him. And it is kind of hard even for educated people to decide what you believe when you are presented something as fact when in truth it is not. I bet you did not know about the staged scenes and lies in columbine. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of honesty.
|By Gidget (Gidget) on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 09:52 am: Edit|
I think the reason it is so popular is because it gives a different view to the staged scenes and lies that we are fed daily by turning on the news. This movie may not be the exact truth but it is closer than a lot of the other things we see. I think that being presented with multpile points views that people can make up their own minds.
|By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 11:48 am: Edit|
There is a difference between Moore and the "evil corporate news media":
Michael Moore has a clear agenda to push, and he does so in a sloppy and self-promoting way.
The media at least tries to be objective, sure they may have an agenda, but there's more than one side presented. If you're a Repub, watch FoxNews, if you're a Demo, watch Rather or CNN. Sticking to one source is never good, but if you...say read an online publication, your local paper, and say FoxNews and Brokaw, you're in good shape.
As someone pointed out, Moore likes to manufacture controversy...ie the whole Miramax/Disney fiasco that he knew about well in advance but twists it into "they don't want you to see my movie."
I don't agree with Moore at all, but he made some legitimate and humorous points (although manipulative) in the first third of "Bowling," but then he shifted the focus to himself. He makes himself the story, as the final "dramatic" scene in Bowling showed as he placed the photo of the girl in front of Heston's home.
I just can't subscribe to the conspiracy theories of Moore, Gidget, etc. that everyone in the media is out to get us and manipulate us. Believe it or not, there is validity in the mainstream media, just because more than 10 people read/watch/listen to a news source doesn't mean it's an evil corporation. Maybe slanderous attacks based on sources less than credible are what get you censored. Also, there is a real world aspect to journalism, you can't go blindly attacking the people who pay you and expect no action.
|By Garland (Garland) on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 11:48 am: Edit|
I just heard the Fox gave it a good review, said every politician, R and D, should see it. That was a surprise!
|By Kluge (Kluge) on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 12:53 pm: Edit|
It's important not to confuse style with substance. I've never seen "Bowling" but I would expect it to be "over the top" - that is, I wouldn't consider it to be a "documentary" in the classic sense of the word, and wouldn't fault it for that - I don't think it's been sold as an impartial discussion of events. On the other hand, we're not alerted to the more subtle persuasive techniques which shape public opinion. I'll repeat here: about half of the American public has been convinced since 2001 that Iraq was somehow "behind" 9/11 even though all informed parties (including GWB) have acknowledged all along that there was no evidence to support that.
Ask yourself: Why did that belief become so widespread? When you get the answer to that question you'll be tuned in to the real "propaganda" issue of our day.
|By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 04:39 pm: Edit|
It is different for a politician (clinton, bush) to believe something such as al queda involvment in iraq and for a news report to report that he/she believes something, than for moore to outright lie and state something as fact when it is not.
|By Gottagetout (Gottagetout) on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 04:57 pm: Edit|
Back to the topic at hand, just today I saw no less than 2 F911 commercials on TV in under an hour. It was on cable. Comedy Central maybe? I can't remember. Anyway, I expect the media saturation to be high and box-office sales to be good.
Whether this helps or hurts our country, we have yet to see. Certainly, however, people need to see the film with an open mind and remember all sides to the issues (not believing solely the media spin or Moore's "expose").
|By Neo (Neo) on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 06:03 pm: Edit|
I read on Yahoo it's opening in around 700 theaters. That's decent, but it's less than a fifth of the # of theaters "Shrek 2" opened in.
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|