Author Topic: michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions  (Read 22915 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10942
  • Respect: +1344
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #105 on: October 07, 2003, 09:53:31 PM »
0
Quote from: Gloria
I don't know why his opinion matters so much (and can fill up books). Then again, I don't know why people concern themselves with any opinion but their own. I think that if people think and educate themselves on issues and politics, they will figure out their own answers without having to listen or read about someone elses.


You might be surprised to find out how journalistic the book is (the part that I've read, at least). He proves things in the first chapter that you can have two responses to... it's okay or it's not okay. He has the "it's not okay" reponse. Nonetheless, he shows exactly what he's drawing on. It's amazing how quickly people forget that Moore's books are filled with facts, and direct references to news reports that have been swept under the rug.

Quote from: NEON MERCURY
HE IS A FAD NOW NOTHOING MORE..AND ALL FADS GO OUT OF STYLE


A fad that's been around for 20 years?

Quote from: NEON MERCURY
dude  if you don't like your country you can always LEAVE..


That's a good formula for killing democracy. If every dissenter left the country, we would have a nation of apathetic idiots.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

snaporaz

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
  • Respect: +1
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #106 on: October 08, 2003, 04:42:44 AM »
0
in my opinion, i think michael moore is a completely useless fat man.

do i bear a fucking hatred for his views? no, not really. i do wish he would get down to some serious, incriminating sources instead of the usual "the november eighth edition of the new york times".

sure, i agree that i can't really trust my government on serious issues - issues that affect the entire frickin' planet - but i seriously don't wanna believe the shit moore spews out just because he says it's true either.

i've read a bunch of crap, saying how moore and his crew edited the film bowling for columbine in a completely subjective way, falsifying truths and whatnot.

but christ, i really don't know what to believe, and alot of times, i find myself refusing to listen to anybody - or at least anybody trying to sound like they're the fucking morality police.

but back to the man - this degenerate, greedy, embellished, pretentious asshole piece of shit - this ugly fuck that won a prestigious award and was embraced with a standing ovation by his peers, [which i'm not saying he deserved or did not deserve] used his time of thanks to embarrass his fellow documentarians, and to basically piss and moan and stir shit just for the sake of it, instead of being a graceful man with class and taking his award with modesty and sincere gratitude.

as someone i know likes to say...fuck that limousine liberal.

7 January 2003
American satirist Michael Moore has stormed out of Britain after a bust up with the London theatre hosting his one-man show. The Bowling For Columbine moviemaker performed Michael Moore - Live! to packed audiences for two months before Christmas at The Roundhouse in Camden, North London. But on the penultimate night he reportedly flew into a rage, verbally attacked everyone associated with the theatre because he thought he wasn't being paid enough. During the performance he complained he was making just $750 a night. A member of the stage crew says, "He completely lost the plot. He stormed around all day screaming at everyone, even the £5-an-hour bar staff, telling them how we were all conmen and useless. Then he went on stage and did it in public." Staff retaliated by refusing to work the following night, which led to the show being held up for an hour. Eventually he made a groveling apology to staff and the angry audience finally took to their seats. A source reports that Moore then packed his bags and flew to New York the next day without saying thank you or goodbye to anyone.

Cecil

  • Guest
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #107 on: October 08, 2003, 07:00:04 AM »
0
Quote from: snaporaz
i've read a bunch of crap, saying how moore and his crew edited the film bowling for columbine in a completely subjective way, falsifying truths and whatnot.


you mean america ISNT that gun crazy? oh thank god. i was beginning to suspect this myself after seeing all those cuts between each word during the interviews. did you know that he actually got the gun a few days later? and that the kids didnt even bowl that day? i mean, cmon... the whole point of the movie doesnt make any sense now. they didnt even bowl that day!

dont you love your guns, god and government? fuck yeah

snaporaz

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
  • Respect: +1
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #108 on: October 08, 2003, 08:00:43 AM »
0
Quote from: Cecil
Quote from: snaporaz
i've read a bunch of crap, saying how moore and his crew edited the film bowling for columbine in a completely subjective way, falsifying truths and whatnot.


you mean america ISNT that gun crazy? oh thank god. i was beginning to suspect this myself after seeing all those cuts between each word during the interviews. did you know that he actually got the gun a few days later? and that the kids didnt even bowl that day? i mean, cmon... the whole point of the movie doesnt make any sense now. they didnt even bowl that day!

dont you love your guns, god and government? fuck yeah


next time you feel like sucking michael moore's cock, try not to be so fucking immature and sarcastic about it.

you want to talk about our different thoughts on the film, talk it like an adult.

also, in case you're fucking blind, i was just mentioning stuff i have read, unlike you who will believe anything this useless fuck says just because he makes a movie.

must i say again?: i do not disagree, nor do i disbelieve what this fat man says, nor vice-versa. for the blind and incompetent, i simply see this queer's methods and behaviours as pathetic and juvenile.

idiot.

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #109 on: October 08, 2003, 09:43:57 AM »
0
Quote from: snaporaz


next time you feel like sucking michael moore's cock, try not to be so fucking immature and sarcastic about it.

you want to talk about our different thoughts on the film, talk it like an adult.

must i say again?: i do not disagree, nor do i disbelieve what this fat man says, nor vice-versa. for the blind and incompetent, i simply see this queer's methods and behaviours as pathetic and juvenile.

idiot.


I think it's pathetic and juvenile to sort of quasi-homophobically throw around the idea of cocksucking and the word "queer" as insults (you presumably mean "fat" as some sort of incrimination, too), and it degenerates the tone of this discussion much further than anything anyone else has said.

You truly and thoroughly failed to "talk it like an adult." You talked it like a drunken, incoherent meathead!
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

©brad

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4516
  • Respect: +227
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #110 on: October 08, 2003, 01:02:38 PM »
0
Quote from: godardian

I think it's pathetic and juvenile to sort of quasi-homophobically throw around the idea of cocksucking and the word "queer" as insults (you presumably mean "fat" as some sort of incrimination, too), and it degenerates the tone of this discussion much further than anything anyone else has said.

You truly and thoroughly failed to "talk it like an adult." You talked it like a drunken, incoherent meathead!


agreed. snaporaz, think about what you say before you hit that submit button. either that or don't hit it at all.

Fernando

  • satan's little helper
  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2234
  • Respect: +230
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #111 on: October 08, 2003, 01:10:11 PM »
0
FWIW, Moore will be on Conan today.

Cecil

  • Guest
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #112 on: October 08, 2003, 07:02:42 PM »
0
snaporaz, i agree that moore, the individual, can be an annoying jerk (its called the human race, ive somewhat gotten used to it). but i find that the  complaints made against his films or "method of filmmaking" completely ridiculous. ive stated why somewhere in the previous pages

Gamblour.

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3465
  • Respect: +12
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #113 on: October 08, 2003, 07:20:52 PM »
0
Alright, I hate Michael Moore. But he can make a damn good convincing piece of cinema. I've only seen Bowling for Columbine, and I liked it when I first saw it. But when you step back, there are very big problems with what he did. The section of the film in which he compares the amount of murders (I'm unsure if they were only gun murders or not) to other nations is complete bullshit, simply because he uses the actual statistic, not the gun murder rate per however many people in the country.

Secondly, he blames the media for manipulating the public by using fear, which is almost exactly what he's doing to persuade the audience that we have a gun problem. He seems to have a double standard. One more thing, what kind of psycho/sociological reasoning did he use to come up with the shitty argument that the production of nukes at Lockheed could somehow make a kid think that it's ok to massacre other kids because of it? It sounded like a lame excuse to make the Lockheed representative start stuttering, and then the audience thinks, "Look at that, he must be lying/incorrect. Kick his ass, Michael."

Now, I'm not disagreeing with him, there is a gun problem, but the film is pretty shaky in that way that it tries to use humor or 'powerful' moments to counterbalance, I guess, "clever" editing or the way he blends his images (the Heston interview comes to mind with the picture of the girl, I recall a website that proved he had to have used another camera a different time, and then later pieced it together to make it seem real-time) so that people don't get suspicious. There are many right-wing idiots out there, but I'll be damned if Moore doesn't even it out on the left side. He should have included his film in his rant of "fictious" things at the Oscars.
WWPTAD?

Reinhold

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
  • Respect: +3
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #114 on: October 08, 2003, 09:41:15 PM »
0
anybody catch Michael Moore on the daily show last night? He said he was the first american elected after the voting age was changed to 18 in the 70's. he also said that he beat a recall election. it was one of the first interviews that, while he still came off as pompous and generally useless, he appeared human.  he's not the boogie man that a large part of the right wing seems to want to make him, but i still personally have no use for him.

i also have to say, to keep my conscience clean, that i haven't seen most of his major work. i'm working on it, but i'm trying not to spend any money at all on the effort. i did, however, encounter Stupid White Men on the double-solid yellow line on a normally busy road while on a 3AM walk on a cold, rainy night last year or the year before. i didn't pick it up because there was something on it that i really didn't want to touch.
Obviously what you are doing right now is called (in my upcoming book of psychology at least) validation. I think it's a normal thing to do. People will reply, say anything, and then you're gonna do what you were subconsciently thinking of doing all along.

ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5894
  • :boxing:
  • Respect: +20
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #115 on: October 08, 2003, 09:47:36 PM »
0
Quote from: Reinhold Messner
i didn't pick it up because there was something on it that i really didn't want to touch.


You didn't want to touch the gushing amount of liberal that spewed out of his book or was it covered in mud?
"As a matter of fact I only work with the feeling of something magical, something seemingly significant. And to keep it magical I don't want to know the story involved, I just want the hypnotic effect of it somehow seeming significant without knowing why." - Len Lye

Reinhold

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
  • Respect: +3
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #116 on: October 08, 2003, 09:49:58 PM »
0
not sure what it was, but it was shinier than the water in the street light... and a car was coming. i just left it there without too much inspection.
Obviously what you are doing right now is called (in my upcoming book of psychology at least) validation. I think it's a normal thing to do. People will reply, say anything, and then you're gonna do what you were subconsciently thinking of doing all along.

Pedro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1863
  • Respect: +68
    • Facebook:  Aaron Green
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #117 on: October 09, 2003, 12:20:50 AM »
0
Quote from: Gamblor
Alright, I hate Michael Moore. But he can make a damn good convincing piece of cinema. I've only seen Bowling for Columbine, and I liked it when I first saw it. But when you step back, there are very big problems with what he did. The section of the film in which he compares the amount of murders (I'm unsure if they were only gun murders or not) to other nations is complete bullshit, simply because he uses the actual statistic, not the gun murder rate per however many people in the country.

Secondly, he blames the media for manipulating the public by using fear, which is almost exactly what he's doing to persuade the audience that we have a gun problem. He seems to have a double standard. One more thing, what kind of psycho/sociological reasoning did he use to come up with the shitty argument that the production of nukes at Lockheed could somehow make a kid think that it's ok to massacre other kids because of it? It sounded like a lame excuse to make the Lockheed representative start stuttering, and then the audience thinks, "Look at that, he must be lying/incorrect. Kick his ass, Michael."

Now, I'm not disagreeing with him, there is a gun problem, but the film is pretty shaky in that way that it tries to use humor or 'powerful' moments to counterbalance, I guess, "clever" editing or the way he blends his images (the Heston interview comes to mind with the picture of the girl, I recall a website that proved he had to have used another camera a different time, and then later pieced it together to make it seem real-time) so that people don't get suspicious. There are many right-wing idiots out there, but I'll be damned if Moore doesn't even it out on the left side. He should have included his film in his rant of "fictious" things at the Oscars.

I'm gonna let Jeremy handle most of this...but i wouldn't really trust the websites like moorelies.com or something run by an NRA lawyer as a source of information about his films...

snaporaz

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
  • Respect: +1
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #118 on: October 09, 2003, 01:52:15 AM »
0
Quote from: Cecil
snaporaz, i agree that moore, the individual, can be an annoying jerk (its called the human race, ive somewhat gotten used to it). but i find that the  complaints made against his films or "method of filmmaking" completely ridiculous. ive stated why somewhere in the previous pages


i never said i thought his filmmaking sucked.

and not to sound self-serving, i think i articulated myself well enough to say the occassional homophobic or fat remark without invalidating my argument. fucking cheap shots, i swear.

also, i think that the "sucking dick" remark was an obvious metaphor for the better-known metaphor - "kissing ass".

if you guys want to argue, let's do it, and on good topics, not nitpicking several individual words out of a reply.

i'll ask you guys...what makes you think moore has all the right answers? did you ever think about how reliable his sources are, or do you just believe it because he says it's true?

i'd rather see people doing their own research than just listening to this assclown. surely it can't be too hard, considering all his sources are publickly available, aren't they?

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10942
  • Respect: +1344
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #119 on: October 09, 2003, 08:19:17 AM »
0
Quote from: snaporaz
i'll ask you guys...what makes you think moore has all the right answers? did you ever think about how reliable his sources are, or do you just believe it because he says it's true?

i'd rather see people doing their own research than just listening to this assclown. surely it can't be too hard, considering all his sources are publickly available, aren't they?


Have you read his books? He backs up every single thing he says with a news source that you can personally check if you want to.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy