Fahrenheit 9/11

quote:

Originally posted by X Prime quote: Originally posted by Sharpshooter005 quote: Down with Hippe French Fags forever! Nah, just the Parisian swine. Alsace > * I can somewhat agree with this.. It's mostly the Paris Frenchies who are really deserving of a solid bullet in the skull.

It's unfair to stereotype the French. I'm sure you wouldn't like someone stereotyping you.

I added a qualifier just before you posted that.

quote:

Originally posted by X Prime I added a qualifier just before you posted that.

Well, Paris is a big place.

So it is. What is your point?

quote:

Originally posted by X Prime So it is. What is your point?

The point is, both of you are going to desist from continuing this banter further.

Getting back on topic, I checked out the trailer, and I think it looks interesting. At the very least, it looks to be a great comedy, even if that isn't what Mr. Moore is intending.

quote:

Originally posted by Xineohp Nellaf Eht quote: Originally posted by X Prime So it is. What is your point? The point is, both of you are going to desist from continuing this banter further. Getting back on topic, I checked out the trailer, and I think it looks interesting. At the very least, it looks to be a great comedy, even if that isn't what Mr. Moore is intending.

You sure on the comedic value? I'll find it sad that people actually like this stuff. That sort of kills the comedy.

I read "Dude, Where's My Country?" Mike's full of as much BS as Rush Limbaugh. Just that they're opposite, but in some ways the same. Everything's a conspiracy theory for them.

Yep, I'm a Republican who doesn't like Rush.

quote:

Originally posted by Hanyou I read "Dude, Where's My Country?" Mike's full of as much BS as Rush Limbaugh. Just that they're opposite, but in some ways the same. Everything's a conspiracy theory for them. Yep, I'm a Republican who doesn't like Rush.

"Where's my Country?" wasn't full of THAT much BS, but I do admit, there were some pretty good deposits of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Seraphim "I call on all nations to stop these terrorist killers. Now, watch this drive."

That was pretty funny. Gotta love the bush.

I've never been to france so I can't really say much about 'em.

Oh and I listened to Rush Limbaugh one time, boy was that guy full of crap.

quote:

It's unfair to stereotype the French.

..Apparently the "Alsace > * " part kind of flew over your head.

Hell, I say the parisians are swine with just as much casual abandon as I would insult Los Angeles or Newark (or the residents therein).

Again, it's very self-defeating for me to insult the nation of France, as I am part French.

...It just so happens my grandfather is from Alsace. So yes, I will continue to hold Alsace in higher esteem than I would Paris.

Infact, let me just clarify my standpoint on "the French".

I don't blame France. Infact, I'll go so far as to hypothesize the bulk of the French people are hard working, level headed individuals, who may have disagreements with us, but aren't as insane as some who act as their figureheads.

Which..leads us back to the Parisians. Now, not to slight Paris, which is a beautiful city, with a rich history, and I'd love to visit there someday. But frankly..the general opinion on Parisians, even among some in other areas OF France, is they are basically the problem

So no, I'm not labeling the French people as enemies. I'm only saying that the bulk of Parisians are greedy, chauvanistic, Gaullist swine.

The same way I would call the bulk of those in Los Angeles delusional, self-aggrandizing hacks.

Again, if you say it's possible to dislike the president without hating the country (which it is), I think you can realize it's very possible for me to DETEST Chirac, and the bulk of his supporters, without hating the nation of France.

quote:

Originally posted by Sharpshooter005 quote: It's unfair to stereotype the French. ..Apparently the "Alsace > * " part kind of flew over your head. Hell, I say the parisians are swine with just as much casual abandon as I would insult Los Angeles or Newark.

The problem with that is that everyone in Los Angeles really does suck.

quote:

Originally posted by Zopwx2 quote: Originally posted by Sharpshooter005 quote: It's unfair to stereotype the French. ..Apparently the "Alsace > * " part kind of flew over your head. Hell, I say the parisians are swine with just as much casual abandon as I would insult Los Angeles or Newark. The problem with that is that everyone in Los Angeles really does suck.

All right guys, let's cut this stuff out. XNE told you to stop, and I'm reminding you to stop. Do you guys want this thread closed? So cease the insults to cities and other places (and everything else).

AS to the topic at hand: My theater doesn't look like its going to show it. (They mention showing Spider-man 2 but not this). That's disappointing because it looks good.

Hey, I rented Bowling For Columbine and have yet to own, but can someone tell me if he has a Bibliography listing on his DVD? I'm just curious. Moore doesn't stretch the truth. He just presents it, quite raw.

As to the American History: well...after taking an A.P. American History course, I must say, his quick bit on American History was quite accurate when put in that perspective.

(BTW: IF you have an AP American or World history course at your school and you think you can handle it: TAKE IT! I recommend it. Those courses are the best and possibly save you money in college )

Later,
Pen1300

quote:

I must say, his quick bit on American History was quite accurate when put in that perspective.

For your consideration

quote:

Moore doesn't stretch the truth. He just presents it, quite raw.

No.

Claiming Moore has no bias, and no agenda is closing your eyes to the entire issue. If you can't even admit he has a specific side of things he wishes to present, then this conversation is pointless.

Again, agree with him, disagree with him, just don't think he's completely impartial in all matters.

quote:

Originally posted by Sharpshooter005 quote: I must say, his quick bit on American History was quite accurate when put in that perspective. I didn't see this little comedic farce, could you please enlighten me as to how this sophmoric cartoon was the next schoolhouse rock? quote: Moore doesn't stretch the truth. He just presents it, quite raw. ...No, sorry. If he was just "presenting" the truth, all you would have is a list of statistics and quotes, with absolutely no inflammatory statements or opinions from Moore. All you have to do is watch Roger & Me (this was made back when he was still operating slightly above board. I'd say...mid to early '90s) to see this isn't the case. To claim Moore has no slant is shutting your eyes completely, it's possible to agree with someone and admit they have a bias. Everyone does to some extent.

There is a definite slant, but it's based on truth.

quote:

There is a definite slant, but it's based on truth.

Yes, but at what point does the truth become buried by opinion?

quote:

Originally posted by pen1300 (BTW: IF you have an AP American or World history course at your school and you think you can handle it: TAKE IT! I recommend it. Those courses are the best and possibly save you money in college ) Later, Pen1300

Done and Done. It was a pretty good class, I learned alot.

Too bad that goddamed AP test DBQ was on the f***ing french and indian war.... French and indian war? WTF!

besides that I think i did well on it, as well as the SAT-II us history.

I've taken an A.P. History EXAM. My school has no class, however. (HA...ha...theres a pun there, it's not intended but still apt)

My two friends and I are basically treated as AP history students though. Call it a big fish in a little pond kind of arrangement.

quote:

Originally posted by Sharpshooter005 quote: There is a definite slant, but it's based on truth. Yes, but at what point does the truth become buried by opinion?

Well, he presents a fact and then presents his opinion. And usually his opinion is sound, although he can get a bit crazy sometimes.

quote:

usually his opinion is sound, although he can get a bit crazy sometimes.

I think that some of his more..."colorful" statements have REALLY obscured any of the more level-headed views he's presented.

His following eats it up no matter WHAT it is, and then his detractors find fault with it.

They, in turn, are labeled as either sheep, or malevolent agents of some DARK CONSPIRACY.

End result: His latest book/movie/what have you gains noteriety and sells bigtime.

Marketing at work.

What I'd love to see, is somebody kind of graph his progression. Because heres how it seems to have gone.

First you had Moore circa "Roger & Me", "T.V. Nation", and "Downsize THIS". At this point, he was basically palatable to the bulk of people, though he still made statements that just seemed to dive off the board into vitriol territory ("the dark days of Reagan and Bush", for one). But he overall had this aura of a populist from Flint (apparently they aren't that big on him there, or so I've heard) who wanted to help "the little guy".

Then....I have no clue what happened. Maybe the "shift" occured when his show "The Awful Truth" was on, I didn't get bravo at that point, so I wouldn't know...maybe it was as he grew out the beard. But then he EXPLODED back onto the scene with bowling for columbine, dude wheres my country, and numerous interviews/press conferences/et al.

Now...I guess this could be because of the election. You had the socio-political playing field torn in half even more than during the clinton administration, and so Moore had more angry mouths to feed (now...I'll admit Moore is a talented filmmaker, and possibly even writer, though I haven't read any of his books. But comeon, he sells to anger, he does it effectively. Thats just a fact).

I'm not saying he CHANGED, so much as his persona changed. Or maybe it didn't, and maybe he just got alot more airtime recently. (Keep in mind I was 7 or so when t.v. nation was on, and all of 2 years olf when Roger & Me was released, so if my memory is a bit fuzzy or non existant you'll have to forgive me).

quote:

Originally posted by Sharpshooter005 quote: usually his opinion is sound, although he can get a bit crazy sometimes. I think that some of his more..."colorful" statements have REALLY obscured any of the more level-headed views he's presented. His following eats it up no matter WHAT it is, and then his detractors find fault with it. They, in turn, are labeled as either sheep, or malevolent agents of some DARK CONSPIRACY. End result: His latest book/movie/what have you gains noteriety and sells bigtime. Marketing at work.

He's definitely doing a fine job of pulling a Mel Gibson on the marketing front. No one is suppressing anything...Disney funded the film, but didn't want to touch the end result with a 10' pole. The lag time between post-production and now was what it took to find a new distributor, not some massive conspiracy.

Meanwhile, while it did win at the Cannes Festival, lumping that into a series of French stereotypes is unkind and untrue. The majority of the panel was American (Hollywood, but American) and was, I think, chaired by Quentin Tarantino.

I haven't seen the film (and odds are it is going to be quite hard to find) but the one review I saw of it said the reason it won was precisely because it deviated someone from his usual schtick. He makes mostt of his points through footage like the golf clip as opposed to the heavy-handed Q&A he's famous for.

It also spends a fair amount of time devoted to Support Our Troops which, like I said before, is something I really appreciate. If you consider that he is about as far left as you can go, the fact that he's endorsing charities for deployed guardsmen and reservists as a way to vent frustration seems amazingly constructive for him.