Xixax Film Forum

www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com

ya, i seen his web site. great idea! but well....  you know... blah blah blah. let all hate micheal moore..blah blah blah
peace

I love you

let's hope he hasn't sunk to that

Somebody please move this to the Grapevine or something...

holy fuck...i will see this.  i wonder if it will be any good

maybe not

of course not, look at this guy's facial hair.

This reminded me of:

Quote from: in the cannes 2004 thread, matt35mmIt'd be interesting if there was a Republican who made these sorts of politically themed documentaries, and then that person and Michael Moore would duke it out.

Looks like it's happening now. it will be nice to compare the two pictures.
But will he continue with the project? will there be "Michael moore hates america: how he lied in farenheit 911" and "michael moore hates america: how he lied in sicko"?

What is sad is that, instead of making a conservative political film as good as michael moore's films, with different arguments and shit... his main prupose is to attack michael moore. it would be much cooler if he would make it completely independent of what michael moore does.

Quote from: rustinglassThis reminded me of:

Quote from: in the cannes 2004 thread, matt35mmIt'd be interesting if there was a Republican who made these sorts of politically themed documentaries, and then that person and Michael Moore would duke it out.

Looks like it's happening now. it will be nice to compare the two pictures.
But will he continue with the project? will there be "Michael moore hates america: how he lied in farenheit 911" and "michael moore hates america: how he lied in sicko"?

What is sad is that, instead of making a conservative political film as good as michael moore's films, with different arguments and shit... his main prupose is to attack michael moore. it would be much cooler if he would make it completely independent of what michael moore does.

that's because to be a republican you must sell your soul, thus leaving you without creativity.

yeah, well, that really is a trait of the neo-conservaties (again, not conservative--these people are for very different agendas, not that neo-liberals are better)--they attack the watchdogs.  Rarely do you see hatchet jobs on politicians and such, Bill O'reily, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter--they target primarily the critics.

Quote from: SHAFTR

Quote from: rustinglassThis reminded me of:

Quote from: in the cannes 2004 thread, matt35mmIt'd be interesting if there was a Republican who made these sorts of politically themed documentaries, and then that person and Michael Moore would duke it out.

Looks like it's happening now. it will be nice to compare the two pictures.
But will he continue with the project? will there be "Michael moore hates america: how he lied in farenheit 911" and "michael moore hates america: how he lied in sicko"?

What is sad is that, instead of making a conservative political film as good as michael moore's films, with different arguments and shit... his main prupose is to attack michael moore. it would be much cooler if he would make it completely independent of what michael moore does.

that's because to be a republican you must sell your soul, thus leaving you without creativity.

Although I agree with that last statement, I think it's premature to assume this guy is anti-Moore or conservative for that matter.  I think we need to see the film and make a judgement from there.  Keep in mind, I'm an avid Michael Moore fan.  But I also know that documentaries (not excluding Moore) can sometimes show a thin slice of the larger picture.  Maybe this guy simply shows another part of it...

Quote from: coffeebeetle
Although I agree with that last statement, I think it's premature to assume this guy is anti-Moore or conservative for that matter.  I think we need to see the film and make a judgement from there.  Keep in mind, I'm an avid Michael Moore fan.  But I also know that documentaries (not excluding Moore) can sometimes show a thin slice of the larger picture.  Maybe this guy simply shows another part of it...

it's not premature if you take a look at his website

Quote from: SHAFTRWhat is sad is that, instead of making a conservative political film as good as michael moore's films, with different arguments and shit... his main prupose is to attack michael moore. it would be much cooler if he would make it completely independent of what michael moore does.

moore's main purpose of fahrenheit is to attack the president.  so....whats the difference?

What I meant is that, the ideal for a conservative-themed documentary, sould be independent of other filmmakers. There is a difference in the sense that while Moore attacks the President(an authority figure with a substancial power in changing the fate of the world), this guy attacks the guy attacking the President. Now having not seen the film, I'm sure he illustrates his convictions to a further degree, from the trailer I gather that mostly he refutes moore's opinion on poverty and unemployment, but then, it seems that he's simlpy following in moore's footsteps denying everyword that he said, which is hardly the same as what Moore is doing to Bush. So in this sense, I stand by my original statement.

Also, the taglines are pathetic, really. not that the farenheit tags are very good, but...

Once more, I haven't seen the film yet, my regards refer exclusively to the title of the film (stupid) and the trailers.

i dont think this movie will be any good, i was just pointing out that it would be just as good for a conservative movie that was interesting to come out as it would be for moore to make a movie that was more of a examination than an attack.

well, any documentary film that tries to "debunk the myths of documentary filmmaking" and then interviews PENN for soundbites, is pretty stupid.  it's for the people who actually think that documentaries are supposed to present the truth.

I predict this guy will have a great career as a government or corporate propagandist. He's already a marketing writer, after all.

There's absolutely nothing groundbreaking or even substantive in the trailers, except the clip of Michael Moore saying he doesn't appear in other people's movies, which is probably taken out of context (I'm sure he qualifies it afterwards). And I understand why Moore doesn't want to put himself in this guy's movie. I recently heard him say that he wants to stop doing interviews that aren't live, because the most crucial/controversial things are deleted and essential context is manipulated.

Quote from: themodernage02

Quote from: SHAFTRhis main purpose is to attack michael moore

moore's main purpose of fahrenheit is to attack the president.  so....whats the difference?

Well, they're on opposite ends of the spectrum. Like I said in the Fahrenheit 9/11 thread, it confounds me how activism is called "attacking" and "bullying." And like pete said:

Quote from: petethey attack the watchdogs.

They always do. Every one in power has been (and will be) pummeling Fahrenheit 9/11 into the ground. Especially when they found out it would be successful.

They will inherently attack the person, but NEVER respond on a matter of ideas. Their response is character assassination. Moore is on Charlie Rose right now so I'm signing off.

Quote from: mutinycoThey will inherently attack the person, but NEVER respond on a matter of ideas. Their response is character assassination.

Exactly. It's usually "this is why you shouldn't listen to him" instead of "this is why his ideas are wrong."

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: mutinycoThey will inherently attack the person, but NEVER respond on a matter of ideas. Their response is character assassination.

Exactly. It's usually "this is why you shouldn't listen to him" instead of "this is why his ideas are wrong."

i think it's usually "don't listen to him, he's fat" and things along that line.

Quote from: xerxesi think it's usually "don't listen to him, he's fat" and things along that line.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0060763957.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=18de83d1e542df47b3554c1687cff688dc9fc342)

And amazingly, the title lacks all the satirical value of "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" and "Stupid White Men."

That guy, Mike Wilson, sounds like a whiney fool with nothing to say. I saw something in a technology class once about how the moon landing wasn't real, we had some crazy teacher, and the biggest point was that the flag was waving while the guy was holding it... so the flag was waving because he was waving it/holding it. This sounds like it's going to be full of junk like that, except about Michael Moore.

It's easier to attack Michael Moore than to defend George W. Bush.

Quote from: RaviIt's easier to attack Michael Moore than to defend George W. Bush.

:yabbse-thumbup:

Quote from: RaviIt's easier to attack Michael Moore than to defend George W. Bush.

So simply, beautifully put.  That needs to go on a marquee.

So, this joker was on Daily Show tonight.  What kind of documentarian agrees to be the subject of a Daily Show story?  Is he retarded?  Did he not realize he would be made a fool?

and he did...

funny how he can't get an interview with Moore, but Moore shows up in the story twice.

Please some one find the video!

Quote from: RegularKarateSo, this joker was on Daily Show tonight.  What kind of documentarian agrees to be the subject of a Daily Show story?  Is he retarded?  Did he not realize he would be made a fool?

and he did...

funny how he can't get an interview with Moore, but Moore shows up in the story twice.

Yeah, that was hilarious.  They made the man look real bad and completely unqualified; especially when he had to call directory assistance to locate Michael Moore's production company and then he got lost...only to get to a Mail Boxes etc.

Quote from: classical gasYeah, that was hilarious.  They made the man look real bad and completely unqualified; especially when he had to call directory assistance to locate Michael Moore's production company and then he got lost...only to get to a Mail Boxes etc.

Yeah, this guy mentioned the Daily Show spot and the Mailboxes, Etc thing on his website a couple of weeks ago.  Apparently, he sent a bouquet of flowers to Moore saying something like, "Congratulations on a $23 million opening weekend.  Now, can I have that interview?"  So after this Daily Show package, he's used up about 4 of his 15 minutes.  I don't know... I'd be a little bit more interested in this guy if it didn't seem like his only reason for making this film is to say, "Michael Moore is full of shit."  

Also, I read on disinfopedia a couple of weeks ago that one of the backers for Michael Moore Hates America is a Bush supporter that was involved in internet porn somehow.  Can't seem to find that tidbit anymore on the site.  Glad I printed it out.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanPlease some one find the video!

here you go.

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/bee/bee_9002.html

edit: aw shoit, I just saw that pete had already posted this on the farenheit 911 thread, anyway.....

Quote from: hacksparrow

Also, I read on disinfopedia a couple of weeks ago that one of the backers for Michael Moore Hates America is a Bush supporter that was involved in internet porn somehow.  Can't seem to find that tidbit anymore on the site.  Glad I printed it out.

The guy's name is Brian Cartmell. And he's not just a pormographer, he's a psychopath:

Quote from: The Asshole
In my opinion, if anything should be sacrificed, it should be the entire Middle East. Our government tells us that we're at war against the terrorists, and though we were willing to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan and firebomb the city of Dresden to bring an end to World War 2, we as a civilian population have essentially tied the hands of the U.S. Military this time around, condemning hundreds (if not future thousands) of our soldiers to death because Wall Street brokers and Suburban Soccer-Moms can't stomach the thought of dropping another atom bomb to bring this conflict to a swift and necessary close.

Quote from: rustinglass

Quote from: The Asshole
In my opinion, if anything should be sacrificed, it should be the entire Middle East. Our government tells us that we're at war against the terrorists, and though we were willing to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan and firebomb the city of Dresden to bring an end to World War 2, we as a civilian population have essentially tied the hands of the U.S. Military this time around, condemning hundreds (if not future thousands) of our soldiers to death because Wall Street brokers and Suburban Soccer-Moms can't stomach the thought of dropping another atom bomb to bring this conflict to a swift and necessary close.

Well... glad to see this guy REALLY thought it through before saying that.   :roll:

I thought Churchill was dead.