Fahrenheit 9/11

So I finally saw the actual commercial for it.
The Bin-Ladens and the Bushes connected?
...not really that surprising, considering they're both wealthy, influential families.
And as far as I know, the rest of the Bin-Laden family treats Osama like that crazy uncle you don't want to talk about.

quote:

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 was about to say that, but there wasn't anything I could find corroborating it so I let it slide (I lost the article that mentioned it). I think...one of the panelists was French? Tarentino even made a big deal that he (and, by association, the panel) voted for it on merit, and that he basically didn't give a damn about the debate it accompanies (which I'm willing to believe, as I've said again, Moore is good at what he does. I might not agree with him, just as I don't agree with the views D.W. Griffith held, but still admit Birth of a Nation was a cinematic masterpiece for its time).

If he would use his clout (which is considerable) to raise awareness about these charities (and he is in a position to do ALOT for them), I think many of his detractors would aknowledge it (I definately would).

quote:

He makes mostt of his points through footage like the golf clip as opposed to the heavy-handed Q&A he's famous for.

Again, while I'm glad he's deviating from "PUBLIC SPECTACLE! LOOK AT IT! LOOOOOOOOK!", I still know he's made a few questionable edits in the past. However, since I wasn't at cannes, nor have I read or heard anything from anyone who was, I'm not going to begin saying he's done that again. I'm still going to take this with a large dose of salt, but if he's really moving away from some of his past acts, then I'm very glad.

quote:

No one is suppressing anything...Disney funded the film, but didn't want to touch the end result with a 10' pole.

This isn't getting the press it should. With all you hear about Eisner and Disney, and the troubles there, you'd really expect this to get more play.

Recently, one of the major networks (I believe it was fox), decided to hold off on a reality show called "seriously dude, I'm gay" (no clue what it was about, but since creating a reality show is akin to some game of mad libs, I can assume the words "marriage" "prize money" and "deception" are somehow involved). Nobody began saying they were censoring anything, they were simply pulling away from a horrible buisness move. Just like they will be when they cancel "method and red" (If I may play creskin for a moment, I give it the three episodes they probably paid for, and then it gets axed), that isn't censorship either.

People are VERY quick to label things as censorship these days. Even semi-organized boycotts are called censorship. If someone chooses not to produce or consume something, it isn't censorship, as nobody is swaying their hand except the consumers/their own taste.

(Massively off-topic, whoops)

quote:

Originally posted by GAT-X105 So I finally saw the actual commercial for it. The Bin-Ladens and the Bushes connected? ...not really that surprising, considering they're both wealthy, influential families. And as far as I know, the rest of the Bin-Laden family treats Osama like that crazy uncle you don't want to talk about.

Well, there was I believe a construction company named Bush-Laden, formed by said families. I know this from a friend.

Although, flying the bin Laden's out of the country could have been a security measure, because I'm sure no one would have been too happy when they heard what their son or brother or what have you had done. They'd have been lynched had they not been secured.

quote:

there was I believe a construction company named Bush-Laden

The mere name of this company lends me to believe it's a crock ("Bush-Laden"? This does sound more along the lines of something one would write on a piece of cardboard for a street protest. Also if the Bush family were mere investors, I doubt they'd basically be running the company jointly). The house of Saud is one thing, but the Bin-Laden family (or rather, their not-so-prodigal son) has been known to be involved in shady dealings for a good amount of time.

I'll admit, if provided with evidence, I will certainly take it into account. But for now I'm just going by my own intuition.

Call it a hunch, if you must.

quote:

Although, flying the bin Laden's out of the country could have been a security measure, because I'm sure no one would have been too happy when they heard what their son or brother or what have you had done. They'd have been lynched had they not been secured.

This is another issue, Richard Clarke has shed some light on this recently, disputing claims about the departure of those family members. Going by what he said (and this is the man who wrote "against all enemies", mind you) they were vetted by the FBI, who were quite happy to have these potential links in the case basically handed to them on a silver platter (which stands to reason, in the aftermath of such an event, I for one would WANT anyone with ties like that handled in a manner differently than a run of the mill civillian attempting to move through the borders.)

As with everything, alot of these claims are going to wind up being open to conjecture, since usually theres a logical explanation.

I know the company exists. A friend of mine's father invested in it, and was heavily investigated after 9/11. I'm not sure of the name, but it is a company.

quote:

Originally posted by GummiBear289 Well I'll give Micheal Moore some credit in that he is brilliant at making opinion seem like fact

Especially when he supports his opinion with facts. Which is pretty much every time.

Correction: He supports his opinion with more opinions which are backed by twisted facts to support his opinions. He twists everything a bit beyond the truth. Not much, but still enough that it perverts the truth.

I saw this woman on CNN's crossfire who wanted to stop them from distributing this movie (Stop people form seeing it) even though she herself hadn't seen it.

She said she knew what it was about from the commericals and from the internet......

quote:

She said she knew what it was about from the commericals and from the internet......

Commercials and the internet are HANDY.


This was possibly the MOST pointless issue they've ever discussed on that show.

quote:

who wanted to stop them from distributing this movie (Stop people form seeing it)

From what I heard, she just wanted to get people to boycott it once it was released.

Guess what, she has the right to basically say any damn thing she WANTS about the movie. If she wants to have theatres reconsider showing it, great. If she wants to have people reconsider going to see it, fine again.

Nobodys getting hurt, nobodys being stifled by any regulatory body. I don't see the problem here.

Granted, she didn't really wow me in how she presented her arguments. The point is, they devoted 20 minutes to a firey debate over something thats completely legal and acceptable.

Oh, then they ate cookies at the end (really, I'm not kidding here).

quote:

Originally posted by Sharpshooter005 Oh, then they ate cookies at the end (really, I'm not kidding here).

Even though I'm no bush fan, laura's cookies did look better.

quote:

Originally posted by Zopwx2 quote: Originally posted by Sharpshooter005 Oh, then they ate cookies at the end (really, I'm not kidding here). Even though I'm no bush fan, laura's cookies did look better.

Yeah, really.

"Pumpkin Spice"? They had a donut like that at dunkin donuts once as a seasonal thing, it was terrible.

Chocolate chunk oatmeal cookies > *

OK! I SAW IT.

I saw it in a packed theatre sunday night, the atmosphere was really tense people lauged outloud, some cried, but I don't think anyone went to the bathroom once......

Let me preface this by saying that all content aside... Micheal Moore is a damn good filmmaker. Although his message might be a bit vague, he managed to keep everyone at the edge of their seats.

Anti Bush? Definately
Anti America? No

Although there are a few ironically comedic moments in the film, he takes this subject matter much more seriously than in coulumbine.

You could argue that Moore used alot of clever editing and such in Coulumbine, but here yo use him visually alot less, its mostly him just narrating over while presenting paper work and showing footage of what he is trying to say. And But there are some facts in the movie that can only be refuted by accusing moore of completly fabricating the whole thing. Which would get his ass sued, so if you saw somthing false get your lawyers.

It was a movie designed to amplify the feeling some already have that Bush is possibly a moron who allows him to be manipulated into letting the Saudis and other Big investors and bussiness take advantage of 9/11 in order to make money.

That the world is just one giant bussiness oppourtunity for these people.

Even though its overwhemingly an anti bush administration movie he does make a few remarks several times about how the democrats were weak and disorginized.

Overall all Moore did was expose the centuries old system that the rich people will always try to find a way to maximize profits, which would include screwing over the poor guy.

I suggest you see it and make up your own mind.

Hm. My philosophy instructor said that if we see and evaluate this movie, than he might give us extra credit, but even then, I wouldn't pay to see this though I've seen segments in class). It's not because I have love for Bush, not do I think that America is flawless, but because, to tell you the truth, I don't have much love for Michael Moore, or any of his movies. I see him as a very manipulative - if very clever - extreme-left propagandist who relies more on rhetorical stradegies than actual support of his claims. I understand that his intention is to provoke, but honestly, once you see past his speech and heavily edited scenes, you see that most of his documentaries are at least 60-70% rhetoric, and from what I hear and see, I have no reason to believe that this one is any different. I will comment, though that I'm glad that he's less visual in this documentary.

My instructor said it all comes down to how you view Bush personally, and your political stance: If you like Bush and is politically independent or uninvolved, you probably won't like the movie; of you have the same political views and don't like Bush, than you might like the movie; if you don't like Bush and is opposed to his ideologies, than you'll find the movie amusing, but not very informative; and if you support Bush both personally and politically, than you'll probably wish for Moore to be burned at the stake. But that's just my opinion, so don't hold me to it .

Yeah, the movie can probably be boiled down to a few facts here and there, but its mostly just a really smart episode of the daily show type thing, (besides the last parts where it gets really serious, although the seriousness just goes to show you that ... well war sucks... and I knew that, its moore who tries to connect that to "well bush is responsible for the war, so blame him".)

what with the spoilers?

I'm not too concerned with MM getting my money, he entertained me for two hours, (more than some other movies have), plus there are so many other people taking money from me in so many other ways it drives you crazy.

quote:

Originally posted by Zopwx2 what with the spoilers? I'm not too concerned with MM getting my money, he entertained me for two hours, (more than some other movies have), plus there are so many other people taking money from me in so many other ways it drives you crazy.

Oh the WH was a typo...and the spoiler...have no idea why I did that.^^ Please don't take my opinions to heart anyone. I just can't stand the guy so that makes me bias against him I guess so really Im just as bad as ol' MM. ^^

quote:

His sense of truth is clouded by all the money he's making.

Clouded? The man knows good schtick. He's taking everyone and making cash by the truckload off it.

And yes, I say "everyone. Not just the most enamored of his supporters (I'm talking the ones who believe everything he says and does is infallible, and cannot be questioned. Ironically, this group is also the "newer" fans. Most of the ones I've met think he began the minute bowling for columbine was released, which makes me laugh). His detractors often don't see how any debate over his films is basically free advertising.

Moore is an industry, and he's growing.

Now I'm not saying his films arent memorable or well made. I doubt I'll ever forget "Roger & Me" (which I respect more than ANYTHING else the man has done, as with that..well..I can't blame him for making it personal. The whole thing WAS about flint after all). And "Canadian Bacon" (I could make a crack like "his only outwardly ficticious film, well, aside from all the others", but I won't) was and still is hysterical. That was well done (also...wasn't it john candy's last film, or one of them?).

Again, moore isn't a documentarian. If he was, then I suppose leni reifenshtal was as well (no I'm not calling him a nazi. Nor am I saying his films were as effective as triumph of the will, which is probably, bar none, the most effective piece of propaganda ever produced. Albeit for one of the darkest motivations we've seen in the last century). Moore is a buisnessman, and he's a very good one.

It's probably because of this rather cynical view of him, that when I hear him defame the nation, then wrap himself in the flag, it means nothing to me. The same way I don't feel anything when a PR rep touts a faulty product. When he called the Iraqi insurgents "the minutemen", I basically laughed, and mentally attempted to calculate how much MORE press he'd get from it.

He got a bit more than even I anticipated.

If you look at the history of F911, you'll see what I mean. EVERY element of it's production was done to full PR effect. When mirimax (was it mirimax? I forget, something Eisner was connected to) didn't want to release his films for monetary reasons..well..that turned from a buisness move to a "dark conspiracy" to stifle his voice.

There was even talk of him distributing it free, just so he could play up his populist facade even more. (Still doing that one Michael? Or are you going to cry foul when it's distributed as all movies are, on the internet).

But, big shock, when the marketability appeared surefire, it's released. What a shock.

That MAY (and I say may, as I could be wrong) why it's done so well with such a limited distribution. Playing up this "the film THE MAN dosen't want you to see" line has incredible resonance among people, especially his entrenched fanbase.

quote:

than you'll find the movie amusing, but not very informative; and if you support Bush both personally and politically, than you'll probably wish for Moore to be burned at the stake. But that's just my opinion, so don't hold me to it .

When you hear people say "this movie will sway the undecideds" don't even listen. It won't.

Those supporting Moore will only be riled up. Those supporting the opposition will also be riled up. Those in the middle probably will not care.

Above all things, we can agree on one thing. Regardless of what you think about Moore, you have to admit he's a shrewd buisnessman. Is he doing it for pure ideology, for pure profit, or for a mixture of both? Dosen't matter, either way he's not exactly doing poorly for himself.

The man has made discourse into a cottage industry. Frankly, I think some part of him wants, if not NEEDS another Bush administration.

Because thats easy money, if he had to go after Kerry, his target demographic might faulter.

And we can't have that, right?

Moore's success is directly proportional to how true his statements are. If Bush was the most well-liked President in US History, and everyone absolutely loved him, nobody would go see a movie trashing him. His success will always be based on how well he can speak the public's voice.