Print

[Odb718]

QUOTE

Doc`u`men´ta`ry Noun 1. documentary - a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event micheal moore presents lies and staged scenes..

You are sooooooooo stupid! Have you seen the movie? Have you ever seen what he's actually done? You got to be extreamly ignorant to think Michale moore could stage George Bush shakeing hands with Al kieda!!

Sniper, wtf are we fighting the war over? besides oil and natural gas?
Remember Operation Iraqie Liberation? I wonder why they changed the name from O.I.L to O.I.F?

----

[gcskate27]

QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ Jun 18 2004, 12:42 PM)

i also am a little pissed that it never came out in the US earlier, it just shows some people didnt have the balls to show it, and some people had somethign to hide for not allowing it to be showed.

well this makes no sense... surely youd want the movie to come out around now or a bit later... closer to election time... if you wanted bush out so badly...

ive seen bowling for columbine and fahrenheit 9/11... and they were both distorted to some degree...

i dont agree that people need/should have guns: as i mostly dont see the point... i also dont think bush is a very effective president... but i can see that moores stuff is swayed, just as peoples critisim of moores stuff is swayed... "hes a lying, liberal nutjob who hates america"    

its not as though he completely fabricates instances, scenes and past relations between people... they do have basis in fact... i find it odd how people only pic on moores stuff as though it and it alone should be completely truthfull and show all sides... some people have touched on rush and other people stuff being equally skewed, and good for them for seeing that... too many people only notice the faults in what they are personally against...

moore doesnt agree with the bush administration and wants them out of power, so he chooses to show the most negative side possible in order to illustate his point to people... i see nothing wrong with that... its his opinion stated through choosen facts... just like everyone else does...

the most annoying thing about the movie is the overheard conversations while leaving the theatre... stupid hot topic and drama club kids talking about how their parents are pissed at them for watching the movie... congrats for rebeling against your parents but not actually standing for anything/understanding what your "side" stands for... stupid fucks...

the "documentary" coming out against michael moore is much worse in my opinion... its made from some stupid opprotunistic college film student who wants to make a name for himself by playing on peoples patriotism and nationalism... at least michael moore confronts what he sees as problems, this guy is just making a movie saying "america is great because its america, no problems here... michael moore is just a stupid fat liberal"...  

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (gcskate27 @ Jun 26 2004, 11:06 AM)

well this makes no sense... surely youd want the movie to come out around now or a bit later... closer to election time... if you wanted bush out so badly... ive seen bowling for columbine and fahrenheit 9/11... and they were both distorted to some degree... i dont agree that people need/should have guns: as i mostly dont see the point... i also dont think bush is a very effective president... but i can see that moores stuff is swayed, just as peoples critisim of moores stuff is swayed... "hes a lying, liberal nutjob who hates america"     its not as though he completely fabricates instances, scenes and past relations between people... they do have basis in fact... i find it odd how people only pic on moores stuff as though it and it alone should be completely truthfull and show all sides... some people have touched on rush and other people stuff being equally skewed, and good for them for seeing that... too many people only notice the faults in what they are personally against... moore doesnt agree with the bush administration and wants them out of power, so he chooses to show the most negative side possible in order to illustate his point to people... i see nothing wrong with that... its his opinion stated through choosen facts... just like everyone else does... the most annoying thing about the movie is the overheard conversations while leaving the theatre... stupid hot topic and drama club kids talking about how their parents are pissed at them for watching the movie... congrats for rebeling against your parents but not actually standing for anything/understanding what your "side" stands for... stupid fucks... the "documentary" coming out against michael moore is much worse in my opinion... its made from some stupid opprotunistic college film student who wants to make a name for himself by playing on peoples patriotism and nationalism... at least michael moore confronts what he sees as problems, this guy is just making a movie saying "america is great because its america, no problems here... michael moore is just a stupid fat liberal"...

good post  

[The unProfessional]

QUOTE

Not you raptor, just the other ignorant pukes who keep calling it a movie. It's a documentary. Get it right. I noticed no one commented on my earlier post in this thread either, maybe people should read the whole thread before posting.

... Maybe you should read the dictionary before making false claims.

I'm impressed though.  There are still people willing to argue that moore's films are documentaries, rather than movies.  And they adamant about it!  

Documentaries aren't editorialized!  Moore's movies are pure editorialism!

Moore can do whatever he wants... but don't glorify his work as the new gospel...
If rush limbaugh made a movie and called it a documentary... simply because it had no plot... would you still be saying the same thing?

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Jun 26 2004, 12:15 PM)

... Maybe you should read the dictionary before making false claims. I'm impressed though.  There are still people willing to argue that moore's films are documentaries, rather than movies.  And they adamant about it!   Documentaries aren't editorialized!  Moore's movies are pure editorialism! Moore can do whatever he wants... but don't glorify his work as the new gospel... If rush limbaugh made a movie and called it a documentary... simply because it had no plot... would you still be saying the same thing?

no, im just praising moore because i like t he way he slanders the president, thats my kind of journalism

[The unProfessional]

Raptorbull... you're better than that.  Screenwriters aren't journalists.  They're entertainers.  If moore praised the president, would you still call him a journalist?  I doubt it.


.. Btw.. my post with the quote is quoting fuzion... not you.

[melon]

All documentaries have some biased. The maker will have strong views on an issue, that is why they make a documentary about it. As objective as they try to be some subjective ideas will slip through.

If I was to watch a documentary about the vietnam war made by the BBC it would portray a diferent view to one you watched made by a Rupert Murdoch owned channel.

Bias is a fact of life. The imagery chosen for each scene will have been chosen for a paticular reason, to portray something. Even if the director thinks they are being impartial, subconsiously they will make decisions without realising.

I have seen documentaries about JFK which have been the biggest pile of propaganda since Tony Blair's 45 minute claim*.  So Moore films do class as documentaries hence his oscar. If Hollywood class them as documentaries then we should.




*Saddam was supposed to be able to attack British citizens with weopens within this time, turned out to be battlefield munitions

[The unProfessional]

QUOTE

As objective as they try to be some subjective ideas will slip through.

You don't really think Moore's ideas "slip through" do you?  Moore knows that documentaries are considered to be very powerful and are taken seriously as a source of news and information.  People find much more "knowledge" today in movies than they do in books.  Moore knows this.

I don't know why I have to keep reiterating.  Moore did nothing wrong.  But referring to his work as a documentary is false.  Just because hollywood does it doesn't mean it's correct.  You're right that "documentaries" in the past have contained massive bias.  By definition they're NOT documentaries.  People often consider hollywood a source of information.  A quick example: Watching U-571 doesn't make you an expert on a slice of WWII history... especially since the British were almost entirely responsible for capturing documents and hardware related to the enigma, not the Americans.  Hollywood is more appropriately related to fiction... not fact.  They entertain... they don't inform.

QUOTE

If Hollywood class them as documentaries then we should.

Uh... why?  don't sell yourself short... you have a brain... you can think on your own.

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Jun 26 2004, 12:57 PM)

Raptorbull... you're better than that.  Screenwriters aren't journalists.  They're entertainers.  If moore praised the president, would you still call him a journalist?  I doubt it. .. Btw.. my post with the quote is quoting fuzion... not you.

no, i didnt mean journalism as in being serious, i just meant since moore is making of fun of the president and making him out as an idiot, thats my kind of journalism (but not necessarily real journalism)

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Jun 26 2004, 03:05 PM)

Since when is hollywood a good judge of objectivity?   Although any production will contain some sort of bias, an editorial film is not a documentary.   You said yourself... You don't really think Moore's ideas "slip through" do you?  Moore knows that documentaries are considered to be very powerful and are taken seriously as a source of news and information.  People find much more "knowledge" today in movies than they do in books.  Moore knows this. I don't know why I have to keep reiterating.  Moore did nothing wrong.  But referring to his work as a documentary is false.  Just because hollywood does it doesn't mean it's correct.  You're right that "documentaries" in the past have contained massive bias.  By definition they're NOT documentaries.  People often consider hollywood a source of information.  A quick example: Watching U-571 doesn't make you an expert on a slice of WWII history... especially since the British were almost entirely responsible for capturing documents and hardware related to the enigma, not the Americans.  Hollywood is more appropriately related to fiction... not fact.  They entertain... they don't inform. Uh... why?  don't sell yourself short... you have a brain... you can think on your own.

not trying to be mean or anything, but who gives a shit what the film is classified as.....it doesnt mean anything and it doesnt take away from the film no less

[The unProfessional]

Basically I can't help but let it affect my temper a little bit.  I'm laid back about most issues.  But, I know how much stock people put into movies.  People often see the word documentary and assume it's true.  Fact is, it's supposed to be true... or at least make an attempt at truth.

So if a propagandist, right or left, releases heavily opinionated material, marks it as Information, and people take it as gospel, there is a problem.

The films classification doesn't matter do you, raptor, because you're thinking for yourself.  You understand what Fahrenheit is about, and you're aware of it's purpose.  Anyone in LA can attest to the fact that the local media won't shut up about moore's "documentary".  It reminds me how many people (how few) aren't thinking for themselves.

What happens if the KKK produces a "documentary"?  Classification would matter a great deal.  Extreme example, I admit.

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Jun 26 2004, 03:25 PM)

Basically I can't help but let it affect my temper a little bit.  I'm laid back about most issues.  But, I know how much stock people put into movies.  People often see the word documentary and assume it's true.  Fact is, it's supposed to be true... or at least make an attempt at truth. So if a propagandist, right or left, releases heavily opinionated material, marks it as Information, and people take it as gospel, there is a problem. The films classification doesn't matter do you, raptor, because you're thinking for yourself.  You understand what Fahrenheit is about, and you're aware of it's purpose.  Anyone in LA can attest to the fact that the local media won't shut up about moore's "documentary".  It reminds me how many people (how few) aren't thinking for themselves. What happens if the KKK produces a "documentary"?  Classification would matter a great deal.  Extreme example, I admit.

i see the point your making, that many americans wont be able to judge fact from fiction, and they'll go see this movie thinking its all 100% true (which, it techinically is, but its a very warped truth)

alot of the time, this would bother me to, but the two issues Moore has picked to create this warped truth (Columbine = guns, and 9/11 + bush) i want him to make the movie very extreme against those issues, as i dont care for guns  (not saying im some sort of hippy, just dont see why there needed) and i certainly dont care for Bush, who cant even talk clearly.

but like i said, i know what your getting at, and if it were any other movie, i would be very angry or upset if people kept calling it a documentary and taking it as truth.

[melon]

[67thRaptorBull]

i wanna go see it, but the times keep getting sold out here, i have to wait during the weekday when people are at work (hopefully)

[HeLiuM]

What do you all think journalism is?  Anyone remember sensationalism? They were never unbiased, I don't know where that idea came from.  The documentary isn't made up, it shows fact.  It shows them in a manner to inspire emotion, but any good jounalist appeals to emotion as well (any English major can tell you that). Nothing in there was just made up, and most things were shown in a very complete form (as to not be taken out of context).  There were some (very very few) cheapshots, but they still served a purpose, they showed the irony of what was being said and what was being done.  The only part I didn't quite like was the senators being asked to have their children sent over (not because of the ones nephew that was being shipped over at the time, it's impossible to tell his relationship (I'm not talking about biological) with the senator).
The main attacks on the documentary were far more spun than it was (Moore thinks 9/11 happened because there weren't enough black people on the planes?  Yes, I realize it was just a humorous attack, with no substance whatsoever.  Never was it implied.)  He never attacked the soldiers before defending them, he simply showed what THEY had to say.  They said it was pretty much shoot anything that moved in the early war, well I wonder where that came from.  Orders, or lack thereof.  A fault of the administration, not the soldiers.
Before you burn it, at least see it, so you'll have a shred of knowledge about what it is you're trying to bury.