PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: GigaShadow on June 28, 2004, 08:28:14 AM
-
I know some of you must have seen it... hint hint wink wink...
:)
-
Writing this review is a big job. I\'m not finished yet. Actually, I\'ve been writing it in my mind for a couple days, I just need to put my fingers to a keyboard.
-
I\'ve been watching it the past 4 years.
It\'s called the news. There is only one person who can chop up bytes and misslead information better than the news organizations. Michael Moore is the king of misinfo.
Did any of you watch Daily Show last week when he was on? He point blank said this was his slant and his view on things. He made no bones about it. The movie is completely skewed.
I have to say at least he didn\'t try to pretend to be a journalist.
-
A documentary has no responsibility to presenting BOTH sides of the story. It can be as skewed as you want it to be. If you have a problem with it, the only recourse is to make a skewed documentary of your own. The important thing about them is that you present your side, however skewed you want, but make sure the facts are completely accurate. Bowling for Columbine was criticized heavily for not doing just that and Moore went ahead and made sure that this particular movie actually was as accurate as possible -- only he made sure to include half the story rather then changing it around to make a more interesting film.
A subtle difference and still a lie when you get down to it, but a far better lie then what he did in BfC.
-
Originally posted by Ryu
A documentary has no responsibility to presenting BOTH sides of the story. It can be as skewed as you want it to be. If you have a problem with it, the only recourse is to make a skewed documentary of your own. The important thing about them is that you present your side, however skewed you want, but make sure the facts are completely accurate. Bowling for Columbine was criticized heavily for not doing just that and Moore went ahead and made sure that this particular movie actually was as accurate as possible -- only he made sure to include half the story rather then changing it around to make a more interesting film.
A subtle difference and still a lie when you get down to it, but a far better lie then what he did in BfC.
doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Sorry, his movies are not documentaries. Filming a documentary with an agenda is not a documentary.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
Sorry, his movies are not documentaries. Filming a documentary with an agenda is not a documentary.
You\'re quoting the adjectival form of the word. It\'s used in this sense as a noun. The definition from a dictionary is thus:NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.
Here\'s a better definition from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences:I. DEFINITION
1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.
2. A film that is primarily a promotional film, a purely technical instructional film or an essentially unfiltered record of a performance will not be considered eligible for consideration for the Documentary awards.
-
Muddeling through definitions isn\'t going to solve things. I would consider Roger Ebert, easily the most highly regarded film critic of our time bar none despite what you may think of him, to be a pretty good authority on the subject on what genre a film is. He and I see eye to eye on this one. Here, read for yourself as this article explains entirely what a documentary is even if you don\'t agree with his critiques on films.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html
-
Even Michael the Hutt doesn\'t claim his work is a documentary - its an "op/ed piece" - a terrible one at that as most editorials use facts to back up the authors opinions. I find it amusing he won\'t confront any of his critics who find inaccuracies in his work.
-
Originally posted by Ryu
Muddeling through definitions isn\'t going to solve things. I would consider Roger Ebert, easily the most highly regarded film critic of our time bar none despite what you may think of him, to be a pretty good authority on the subject on what genre a film is. He and I see eye to eye on this one. Here, read for yourself as this article explains entirely what a documentary is even if you don\'t agree with his critiques on films.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html
No offense - but he shares the same opinions as Moore so why wouldn\'t he think that Moore\'s fact checking is accurate especially when he states "I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America."?
In the case of BFC Ebert probably didn\'t feel passionately about the subject so he could be more objective, though he first gave it a "glowing" review. Other reviews on other websites have already pointed out wrong, twisted and skewed facts in F911 and the real danger is him passing off his opinion as fact. There is a word for it - propaganda.
-
When it comes to films -- the people who make them, produce them, critique them professionaly, write about them professionaly, star in them, or any other of the hundreds of diversified film positions out there all agree that his film is to be considered a documentary, who am I to argue? The point with Ebert\'s article, other then your obvious dissaproval of him agreeing with Michael Moore on the views presented in the film, is that a documentary film has no obligation to present both sides of the story. Whether his points appear skewed or not is irelevant. You want straight facts all the way through which present both sides of the story objectively, you watch CNN -- but don\'t watch this movie. That\'s the point.
-
I beg to differ - the point is if you are going to present your opinion, back it up with legitimate facts. Don\'t alter facts to support already weak arguments. What matters is his portrayal of the facts, which are wrong. To assert we invaded Afghanistan for the sole purpose of building a gas pipeline? :rolleyes: Yeah, Roger Ebert knows the truth!
I also don\'t agree with the "because they are in the industry so they should know" point of view. I don\'t need to be a Five Star Chef to know what tastes good.
-
[EDIT]Hmmm, I guess this post is irrelevant. The post it referred to is gone now. Oh well
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I beg to differ - the point is if you are going to present your opinion, back it up with legitimate facts. Don\'t alter facts to support already weak arguments. What matters is his portrayal of the facts, which are wrong. To assert we invaded Afghanistan for the sole purpose of building a gas pipeline? :rolleyes: Yeah, Roger Ebert knows the truth!
I also don\'t agree with the "because they are in the industry so they should know" point of view. I don\'t need to be a Five Star Chef to know what tastes good.
You don\'t understand what I\'m trying to say, but it\'s kinda moot at this point, but I\'ll try to reiterate. I don\'t care what Moore has to say. I\'ve not even seen the film. The point that I\'m trying to make is that this IS indeed a documentary, nothing more, nothing less. If it\'s a shitty documentary, that\'s for you to decide based on whatever arguements you may have. I could care less what you think of Moore or his slant or lack thereof on the situation as it\'s not my place to decide as I have not seen it. I just know that this film is a documentary. You can even call it a documentary that has propaganda like overtones, that\'s fine, but it\'s still a documentary.
If I go and make a film about the benefits of organized crime in New York, I can do that. I can create a film that shows how it employs people, keeps them taken care of, and, at times, is a totaly legitimate business while leaving out the crime and violence and the gritty ideals behind the scenes. That\'s my prerogative and it indeed would be a documentary. If you disagree with the facts presented and know that I left portions out and lied through omitance, that\'s your prerogative and if you felt so strongly about it, you too could make an opposing movie showcasing exactly what I left out. Just like mine though, your movie, just as well even if you left out the portion I highlighted, would be a documentary.
That\'s all I\'m trying to say.
-
Well I missed a few parts, bad sou.. I mean, I was not paying attention. ;)
Very good, maybe not as good as Bowling for Columbine.
Very touching towards the end.
I recommend it to everyone (well, a few extre.. mm, people should perhaps not see it ;) ), I\'m planning to see it again.
-
I\'ll rent it but I don\'t wanna give Moore more money (teehehehehehehe)
His legs are ginormous btw.
-
You could always buy a ticket to White Chicks and walk into Fahrenheit 9/11. :)
-
that\'s what the radio DJ did in our market.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
No offense - but he shares the same opinions as Moore so why wouldn\'t he think that Moore\'s fact checking is accurate especially when he states "I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America."?
So only people who disagree with an opinionated documentary can have valid opinions on it?
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
You could always buy a ticket to White Chicks and walk into Fahrenheit 9/11. :)
I tihnk that would be even worse, good idea though. ;)
Nice sig btw haha. ...Like it\'s never soared beforrrrrrreeee. Dumb prick finally got on Letterman and didn\'t sing the damn song!
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
So only people who disagree with an opinionated documentary can have valid opinions on it?
Not if the movie was based on the credible facts. F911 isn\'t.
-
^^^Thats ridiculous.
If a supporter says "I love this movie", that holds no less weight than an opposer saying "I hate this movie". To think otherwise is idiotic.
Bush did not give credible facts during the build up to Iraq. Does that mean only the liberal opinion is valid on the subject?
BTW, Have YOU seen the movie? Doesn\'t the fact that you have NOT make your opinion invalid?
-
I even watched a special on NBC that cut the movie down. I\'ll find the time to waste my money on it but I already have a pretty good idea what I\'m getting myself into.
-
Originally posted by Ryu
A documentary has no responsibility to presenting BOTH sides of the story. It can be as skewed as you want it to be. If you have a problem with it, the only recourse is to make a skewed documentary of your own. The important thing about them is that you present your side, however skewed you want, but make sure the facts are completely accurate. Bowling for Columbine was criticized heavily for not doing just that and Moore went ahead and made sure that this particular movie actually was as accurate as possible -- only he made sure to include half the story rather then changing it around to make a more interesting film.
A subtle difference and still a lie when you get down to it, but a far better lie then what he did in BfC.
Thank God someone has a clue around here.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Thank God someone has a clue around here.
Thank God you\'re here to point out who has a clue. ;)
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
^^^Thats ridiculous.
If a supporter says "I love this movie", that holds no less weight than an opposer saying "I hate this movie". To think otherwise is idiotic.
Bush did not give credible facts during the build up to Iraq. Does that mean only the liberal opinion is valid on the subject?
BTW, Have YOU seen the movie? Doesn\'t the fact that you have NOT make your opinion invalid?
As a matter of fact I did see the movie last night - I won\'t go into detail on how I did though. BTW have YOU seen the movie? Thankfully I didn\'t pay to see the POS. It really is bad if you are looking for something insightful and truthful, especially after reading numerous reviews from several different sources this film just doesn\'t cut it. I don\'t care about the slant as long as the author uses the truth. If Moore had revealed anything that was groundbreaking and earth shattering I would have been the first to concede that he had done so.
If Moore had used credible facts I would be unable to deny that he made a good film, but in this case he clearly didn\'t. Do you usually pay someone to lie to you BS? If you don\'t, then I suggest finding another way to see this movie. As I have stated many times before and as "Roger Ebert says" if you are going to attack someone use facts to back it up. For example, Moore\'s assertion that because James Baker worked for a company related to Saudi Royal Family and George Sr. went to work for that same company years later, somehow Bush Jr. has a direct connection to the Saudi Royal Family and shows them preferential treatment. We aren\'t playing 8 degrees of separation here.
Anyone who thinks Moore is insightful or brilliant when it comes to politics is quite frankly an idiot. On that note I will give Moore credit for one thing - great editing. I thought the editing for reality shows was good, but this guy has a real talent for making everyone look like a fool and promoting his agenda.
Finally when it comes to Moore\'s character vs. Bush\'s... there is no comparison. Even though Bush has made mistakes he is no where near the sack of shit Moore is and I am not judging him by his films... take a look at his lifestyle and his public statements if you disagree. The man has an identity crisis.
-
Didn\'t I say something about agendas and documentaries? Yes. Yes I did.
Moore is a "stupid fat white man". :p
-
I saw the film and loved it. Not completely for its political message, but for the filmmaking and some of the greatest laughs I\'ve had this year. There are some really clever pokes at the Bush administration and Moore does have some really convincing arguments that I\'d love to see someone attempt to refute them. It was definitely absurd when we see the Iraqi\'s playing in the streets and the wedding making it look like a normal place but atleast I got a reaction from it much like the entire film.
I\'m never going to get over watching that guy spit in his hand to smooth out his hair.
-
Name an argument in the film that you find convincing.
-
The war in Iraq being unnecessary?
-
I wouldn\'t call that irrefutable - after all his little panorama of the peaceful Iraqi\'s flying kites, etc prior to the Defense Ministry blowing up wasn\'t exactly truthful - even you admitted that.
Try again.
-
The war wasn\'t 100% necessary where all wars the USA decides to engage in should be. Its convincing. I\'ve heard a lot from both sides prior to this movie but he tells it in a unique and clever way.
Have you seen the movie yet? I\'m reading a lot of your past posts and it seems you have already made your mind about this movie before it was even released.
"Moore is a peice of crap, but the reason I won\'t see the movie is not because I hate him - it is because it is propaganda nothing more."
It would help if you saw the movie I think. :p
I can\'t remember the exact number, but often was the president on vacation before 9/11 again? He took a month long vacation right before September that year...what kind of President does that? A good one?
-
Obviously you didn\'t read all the posts... I saw it a few days ago. A month long vacation? That is vintage Michael Moore twisting the truth. The President does take vacations - working vacations. There is rarely a time when the President isn\'t working. You are Canadian aren\'t you?
I do feel it was 100 percent necessary that we invade Iraq as do other Americans. Moore lied when he stated Iraq had never attacked the US or threatened to attack the US and then claimed never murdered ONE US CITIZEN. Tell me... do you believe that is a true statement?
Also Moore starts with his lies almost immediately into the film - who does Moore assert won the election for Bush? Fox News of course! :laughing:
-
No one knows the answer to the "slacking on the job" part besides the people working with him. Let\'s say it\'s not true, like everything else in the film, it doesn\'t deter from how convincing he presents his arguments which is extremely strong. I saw him on that morning show with Katie Curec and he\'s discussing how great of an influence the media is and eventually blasts them for not revealing more of the "truth" since they can say anything they want. He\'s very good at presenting a clear message which he does throughout this film.
I am Canadian, which is why I won\'t get into this too much. I thought his arguments were convincing but much like Columbine could be completely false. In order for someone to do that though, they\'ll have to be refuted and again I love to see people do that since this film was made in such a great way that it left me extremely interested in every subject involved.
-
Originally posted by Jumpman
He\'s very good at presenting a clear message which he does throughout this film.
I am Canadian, which is why I won\'t get into this too much. I thought his arguments were convincing but much like Columbine could be completely false. In order for someone to do that though, they\'ll have to be refuted and again I love to see people do that since this film was made in such a great way that it left me extremely interested in every subject involved.
He presented a clear message? A clear message that he hates his own country maybe... a clear message that he hates GWB definitely, but clear about the facts hardly. I am sorry, but the movie is trash. I especially loved the part where he talks about the "Coalition of the Willing" and he mentions every little country that decided to help and leaves out the major ones like Britain, Italy, Spain and even Pakistan. On the other hand he mentions Morrocco and states that they were sending 2000 monkeys to disarm bombs. :rolleyes: He also mentioned Afghanistan - I will concede that argument to Moore - but once again he focuses on the Netherlands, Romania, Iceland, etc...
You obviously know most of what you saw were lies, yet you were convinced. :stick: Any reasonably intelligent person would have to see the irony in that and view the film as fiction rather than fact.
-
Wasn\'t that hilarious when he showed Nosferatu rising from the casket as the background image for Romania? :laughing:
-
You obviously know most of what you saw were lies, yet you were convinced. Any reasonably intelligent person would have to see the irony in that and view the film as fiction rather than fact.
I said convincing. :(
I saw the film for what it was. Moore\'s political agenda against the Bush administration. Right or wrong I could and have cared less since I loved the film anyway.
he was right btw raar go nuts
-
Logan wants to go see this and Spiderman 2. Looks like we\'ll be in for a super double feature.