Except Groj, I watched BfC, before I knew the scope of the deception involved, then I learned... It was a very disturbing thing to know that someone who won an Oscar for best documentary, did so for this... I wonder to what standards we could hold the academy then... Then again, at one time, every studio in Hollywood (including the B Movies) could nominate a best musical score entry. That resulted in some bad nominees in that category, including films with no score at all! I find that funny. I find what Moore received, and what Moore did at the Oscars an example of blatant political leaning from the institution, though I'm willing to admit as much that it cinematically floored the other documentaries of 2002, though if it had to go up against Marc Singer's Dark Days, for example, I doubt it could have won.

Answer the damn question, how come gun crimes, not counting posession as a charge, and violent crime, have both gone up after the legislation was enacted, despite the fact that the relative factors were about the same? Being that the only independant variable here happens to be the firearms themselves, I'm inclined to say that criminals were more inclined to prey on unarmed civilians than armed ones. Let's face it, getting shot is hella-messy.

Home invasions are more likely where gun control laws are stricter -- DUH!

That's fine, and you're entitled to not seeing it. I don't even mind the occasional condescending remark or cheap dig at Moore's address - after all, it's what we all do if it concerns something that we're really not interested in for strong personal reasons.
What I *do* mind however, is pretending to give indepth criticism of Moore's movie while purely basing that criticism on the very first bash site you come across, because you couldn't be bothered to see it. I find the person of Ann Coulter detestable, but if I've never read one of her books, I'm not going to bother debating one of those books by listing all of its inconsistencies that I just happened to have read on an anti-Coulter site - in that case you're not even slightly interested in judging the novel for what it's worth, but only in using some Internet site to fuel the fire of your own personal vendetta towards Coulter. Sure, you're entitled to do so - but it simply reflects badly on you, and just doesn't make a very convincing case either way; and with Michael Moore, it's the same thing.
Honestly, if you really wish to debate the movie's details in a decent and most importantly convincing manner, at least have the decency to see it at least once. People probably don't even realise how sheepish they look if they base all of their supposedly "rational" hate on what people like Hardy tell them what the truth is, and while they may feel morally superior to "sheepish Moore followers", theoretically they're just as bad, if not worse. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>While I doubt it's any consolation, my opinion of Michael Moore was not formed based on any "hate" or "bashing" sites. They are formed based on the man's own words and actions. I pointed out numerous times the blantant lies and misleading information he gave in the interview regarding the entire "controversy" over Disney refusing to distribute his film. One example of misleading information was the comment that "no filmmaker wants to have to find a new distributor after the film is already made". That may be true - on the surface - but as <font color=tan>Timber</font> pointed out, finding a new distributor for the film is a very common practice in the film industry. It happens all the time and is not nearly as traumatic or difficult as Moore tried to imply. An example of an outright lie was his comment that he was under the impression that everything was fine with Disney since Miramax funded the film. Wrong! Michael Eisner told Moore's agent AND Miramax that Disney WOULD NOT distribute the film before shooting ever began. Miramax chose to fund the film against Eisner's express wishes. So Moore knew he would have to find a new distributer before shooting ever began - yet he portrayed himself as an "innocent victim" of the mean ole Disney Corporation. Again, nothing but manipulation, misleading and lies. Moore has manipulated facts and skewed the truth with every single film he has made. Now, that is his right to make his films as he sees fit, but do NOT try to turn around and pass it off as "unadulterated truth and unaltered facts". The real truth is that none of his films could stand up to that particular definition.

In regards to BfC, I never visited the "hate site" that listed all the inconsistencies and outright lies in that movie, but a number of members DID reference that site in the long ago thread about BfC. MY opinion of the movie was formed based on the comments of people here. <font color=tan>Timber</font> mentioned that he had noticed several of the same "inconsistencies" mentioned by the site (or by othe critics). He then said later that he had discovered even more misrepresentations made by Moore that he had not noticed. In addition, he found information listing the same type of manipulation in the film "Roger and Me". Because of this, his opinion of Moore and his films very much mirrors my own. On the other hand, <font color=orange>Chewbacca</font> watched BfC and found the inconsistencies to be very minor (in his opinion) and not significant enough to alter the central message of the film.

That's fair enough. But as you pointed out yourself, we are ALL more inclined to agree with those whose views are similar to our own. We are also more likely to "overlook" any skewing of the facts that person may do and to consider such manipulation to be "minor" in the overall scheme of things. So <font color=orange>Chewbacca</font> didn't take issue with BfC the way others have, because he agreed with the overall message it presented and felt that any deviations within the film itself did not take away or alter the central truth the film presented.

I freely admit I am guilty of this "overlooking" as anybody else. I enjoy listening to Bill O'Reilly even though I realize that he is often a pompous and arrogant jerk and acts like a crybaby when opponents level the same type of criticism towards him that he heartily dishes out on his "No Spin Zone" show. I ignore the spin and concentrate on the facts he presents (much like I did with two article presented about the discovery of WMD components by U.N. Inspectors). However, when I DIS-agree strongly with somebody (such as Moore), I admit I pay more attention to the spin and less to the central core message.

I personally despise Rush Limbaugh. I'm fairly hardcore right wing, but even *I* can't stand to listen to the vitriol he spouts on a daily basis. I don't read Ann Coulter myself, but from what I've seen of her articles, she is only about a half-step below Limbaugh on the Repulsive Scale. I can still see the central message (sometimes) like I do with O'Reilly, but the amount of hateful spin she applies is nearly equivalent to Limbaugh, so I have a much harder time giving any weight or consideration to anything she says or writes.</font>

Oh, it gets better. Apparently the new film has its issues as well.

A preview of what's to come: In making a big hullabaloo about Congressmen's relatives *not* being in Iraq, the big frumpy fatass actually LEFT OUT interviews where the Congressmen said "Well, actually, I *do* have relatives in Iraq." Apparently, as always, Moore liked the spin he thunked up (that our Congressmen's relatives don't get touched by their decisions) more than he liked the TRUTH, so he altered reality accordingly.

And, that, my friends, is why he's so dangerous. Combine falsity with a faux image of veracity and you are in for trouble. It should not be allowed to be called a documentary. Maybe a "reality OpEd" or a "mockumentary" but not a "documentary."

[ 06-17-2004, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

<font color=deepskyblue>LOLOLOLOL! [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] Early in this thread, another member called Moore's films "shock-umentaries", but I like "mock-umentary" better - although both are equally applicable. He is "mocking" the truth in order to achieve maximum "shock" value.

Also very early in this thread, I claimed to have "psychic powers" because I knew what Michael Moore was going to say before he said it (actually, it was just an educated guess based on his past performance, but it still looked impressive). And now I will give another prediction regarding the film.

Moore makes a big deal out of the "dealings" between the family of President Bush and Osama Bin Laden. These "dealings" will take one of two forms (and perhaps both). He will undoubtedly point out that Osama Bin Laden was supported by the U.S. Administration when he led the rebels against Russia in the invasion of Afghanistan. There is no denying that. I also expect that he will "tie" George W. Bush to Osama Bin Laden through dealings and accounts that occured when Bush was the head of one of the Savings and Loan institutes back in the late 80's - yeah, one of the ones that went "belly-up" during the Great S&L Scandal of the late 80's. Chances are, Osama had deposits at Bush's S&L or he funneled money through there. I'm sure Moore will make a big issue of how "nicey-nice" Dubya was to Osama at that time. Well, DUH! Show me ANY bank president that ISN'T "nicey nice" to someone depositing that kind of money in their bank.

The ONLY reason I'm stating this now is as a future defense against those that are critical of people that slam a film without seeing it. If my prognostications are correct, that will prove that I don't have to see Moore's film to know what he is going to say. If I'm wrong, then I guess I'll have egg on my face.

But the point I'm trying to make is that (a) the cooperation of past Administrations with Bin Laden is well known and documented, and (b) any dealings between Bin Laden and Dubya when he was the head of an S&L may be less known, but certainly is not as "secretive" as Moore is portraying it to be before the film comes out.

We will see how accurate my predictions are once the film comes out.</font>

Source???

Preferably one with exact quotes from the film and with statistics of how many relatives of congressmen are serving or have served in the armed forces, specificallly in combat zones in recent times.


I recall from an earlier piece on the film that Moore's inquiry was if any congressmen had sons and/or daughters not "relatives".

I also recall leading up the war that calls for the draft were made by congressmen simply because only one of the bunch had a son or daughter serving in the armed forces.

So an actually credible nuetral source to back the oft repeated opinion "Moore twists the truth" would be nice for a change. Making such an opinion based on the flimsy evidence offered through-out this thread makes me wonder who exactly is twisting the truth and to what degree....

I am unsure what makes you think I agree with BFC's "overall message" and 'central truth. For one thing I am unclear what BFC's "overall message" or "central truth" actually are and I have actually seen the film.

Another thing is this accusation that I have "overlooked" falsehood out of some sort of sympathy with M. Moore.

My objection is that Moore's alleged 'falsehoods' are unproven, though I have seen some heavily biased, hyperbole filled attempts. Just because folks repeat the opinion "Moore is a Liar" doesn't make it true or a fact. It is lack of credible, objective, critically skeptical, evidence- not sympathy- that has formed my opinion of the film.

There are numerous sites that compile lots of credible sources to argue against Moore's previous movies, both the big issues and the small nit-picky ones. Do we have to link them all in every thread? Anyway, some are linked in this thread. If you haven't seen them, you're blind. Or maybe you're just using the Moore style of argument. ;)

I'm still looking for backup for the statement I made about the new flick. Here's what I have so far:

http://www.moveamericaforward.com/NewsMax/

I know you won't like the source. Fine -- refute the alleged facts.

It is impossible to take a completely logical look at Moore and not realize he puts a mighty spin on things. He gets too busy frothing at the mouth and trying to make a strong point -- the absolute truth would lead him to weaker points that are more valid and still support his political position. All a newsman/documentarian has to sell us is his credibility -- one should not take it lightly.

[ 06-17-2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Just imagine all the wrong things we'll find in the movie once it actually opens. :D

I'm going to set up a stand selling freedom fries and Moore Lies banners outside the theater.

For all the faulting you levy against people who haven't seen BfC, you obviously haven't visited the websites refuting it. Facts are facts. 2 interviews with Heston spliced and presented as one. 2 annual meetings of the NRA spliced and presented as one. The list is long, the points are both large and small.

And, yes, I saw the film -- and liked it. Until I learned the truth. He didn't have to lie to me to get me to see his points.

And there is a central theme -- it's about the American attitude and persona that causes certain phenomena here.

[ 06-17-2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Exactly why refuting the allegded 'facts' in your previous post would be a pointless exercise at this time.


As far as the links posted earlier about MM, I have seen neither an objective nor a compelling argument that Moore is a liar or skews facts. I have seen a whole bunch of nit-picking hyperbole that doesnt stand up to critical analysis when weighed by the questions "Is Moore a liar? Does Moore skew facts?"

Telling me the NRA came to Columbine right after the shooting to hold a pro-gun rally incenses me. When I find out that the NRA had an annual meeting that had been scheduled for several months, that 2 separate annual meetings were spliced together to show me a speech from the previous year's meeting, and that the annual meeting following Columbine was drastically cut down because of the tragedy, I am more angry at Moore than I ever was at the NRA. That's not hyperbole, which is a word I think you have been using incorrectly.

But, hey, if you don't see it, that's fine. I can walk you up the ladder, but you got to make the leap to the roof on your own.

I have been using hyperbole quite well.


hyperbole

\Hy*per"bo*le\, n. [L., fr. Gr?, prop., an overshooting, excess, fr. Gr. ? to throw over or beyond; "ype`r over + ? to throw. See Hyper-, Parable, and cf. Hyperbola.] (Rhet.) A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by which things are represented as much greater or less, better or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated fancifully, through excitement, or for effect.


Curious, I have read the critism's of the Denver speech scene in BFC, I have read Moore's rebuttal to the critism. I watched the movie again. I dont feel mislead. Its seems to me that your accusations of Moore being a liar about that scene is but an opinion, not a fact.

True two different peices of rally footage were used, one after the other. One, a stock piece shown during an introductory narration, the next peice intertwined with citizens protesting outside that gun rally. I'm still not feeling mislead. Two different peices of footage used one after the other for different reasons. My opinion-NON-ISSUE!

So what if they scaled down thier meeting, they still had one. So what if was planned in advanced or required by law in another state. I fail to see how ommitting this in the film constitutes deception. Another NON-ISSUE.


None of these things seem to matter to the citizens protesting (who Moores critics always conviently omit from their critism of the film-takes on to know one?) outside the rally, it didnt matter the Mayor if Denver who asked the NRA to cancel their meeting, so why should it matter to me, whether it was in the film or not?

Well, I ain't gonna keep beating the same dead horse.

So, I'll skip to a new one.

It doesn't bother you any at all that Moore took a year-old contractual understanding that Disney would not distribute the film and spun it as a Miramax/Disney war to masterfully pander to the press and garner support for his film?

And it doesn't bother you the way he acted like a big baby at the Oscars?

And, do you find it interesting at all that Moore refuses to give an interview to the documentary-in-progress "Michael Moore Hates America" when he spent 30 minutes of "Roger & Me" whining and moaning and trashing Roger for not meeting with him?

Oh, and I love it when people post definitions. I bet www.dictionary.com gets more traffic from IWF'ers than it does from newspaper and book editors. :D

[ 06-17-2004, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Oh, I promised to link the article earlier:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=39004

Here's an interesting read -- Moore faked an interview for his book "Stupid White Men." Completely made up an interview with a guy he'd never met.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38632

There are a lot of other interesting articles linked at the bottom of the article on worldnetdaily, if you're open-minded enough to ferret out facts from a source that is politically aligned against you.

Probably because everyone and their one toothed grandmother has been trying to interview Moore for bash projects of their own... I posted one a few pages back, you might want to dig it up.
Been watching the trailers on that site btw, and it amuses me that the guy has a "mission" to point out that Moore's documentary is stretching the truth too far - a mission that he seems to take up by making a potentially skewed documentary of his own. ;) Ah well. If I was Moore, I'd be flattered; apparently he's deemed important enough - or too much of a threat - to have his "dangerous political agenda" featured in his own documentary. Of course it's going to have its flaws just the same, but heck - it's pretty much guaranteeing plenty of hard-ons for Moore bashers, so I suppose there's quite a lot of public interest for it either way. And this Wilson guy's got Penn Jilette in it! How cool is that? http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon10.gif

[ 06-17-2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Well, to be fair, that's just one guy's word against another. I don't know, it just seems to be a bit far-fetched a thing to "just" make up (though on the other hand it's hard to believe someone isn't familiar with the Iliad and the Oddyssey just the same - perhaps Moore accidently (?) talked to someone else?), and I have no doubts that the same legal team who thoroughly screened Bowling for Columbine for any potential allegations of falsehood have doublechecked Stupid White Men for any as well. Has Moore responded to those allegations, by the way?

Anyway, got a copy of Stupid White Men for my birthday a while back. Even though I'm somewhat skeptical, I'll give it a try as soon as my exams are over. Will get back to you about it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

As I've mentioned before, you can disemminate a lot of misinformation without fear of slander or libel. As a documentary producer usually trashing famous or political people, the legal limits on the things Moore can say are the same as those applicable to The National Enquirer. Just making a note of it, because no one seems to get that there's not a big threat of litigation hanging over his head -- not really.

The thing with Moore is that he is treated as this great journalist or bringer of truth, when really he is producing opinion pieces. That doesn't mean the pieces aren't good and thought provoking, but it also doesn't mean they are fair or balanced.

Moore has a point to make, he has a medium at his disposal, and he takes advantage of it. The right has Rush, the left has Mike. Both make some good points, both have ready made audiences who would believe them if they said the sky was falling, and both are a bit too full of their own self righteousness.

I believe the hyperbole(since I've seen the definition, I'd thought I'd try it out) of Disney's 'forbidden distribution' my have brought out helpers Mike may not be interested in...

[ 06-17-2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

As I've mentioned before, you can disemminate a lot of misinformation without fear of slander or libel. As a documentary producer usually trashing famous or political people, the legal limits on the things Moore can say are the same as those applicable to The National Enquirer. Just making a note of it, because no one seems to get that there's not a big threat of litigation hanging over his head -- not really. </font>[/QUOTE]True, but in this case it supposedly concerns an actual 100% lie, not a distortion or manipulation of the truth. If this guy had complained that Moore ripped his words out of context, I could understand that; he wouldn't be the first one to claim as such. But Fred Barnes actually claims he's never even spoken to Moore in the first place, which somehow strikes me as very peculiar. Either Moore has acted strangely out of character despite his usual care to word his claims - be they distorted or not - or Barnes isn't entirely truthful himself here.

Else what we have here is (as far as I know) the first black and white lie Moore has ever been caught telling in one of his books or documentaries; all of the others still seem to be mostly in a grey area, closer to opinion and biased perspective than actual fact.

[ 06-17-2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Yorick come on down to Bama where we pass out bullets like candy and every day in the fall there are 10,000's of guns being shot and carried around, (execpt on Saturday for 3 hours when the Crimson Tide is playing football) We got 10 year olds that can shoot the eye out of a buzzard from 250 yards. ;)

<font color=deepskyblue>Well, there has been plenty of evidence provided that Moore used editing techniques to create misleading scenes in the movie. You don't feel bothered or misled by these "creative editing" techniques (which is basically what I said in my previous response). That's fine. I don't feel "misled" when I watch Bill O'Reilly either - but at least I do recognize the spin he is putting on his stories.

As for the accusation that "Moore is a Liar" is nothing more than opinion...that's just being blind to the facts. Forget Bfc. Forget F 9/11. I have repeatedly pointed out where Moore told an outright LIE in his interview regarding the "controversy" of Disney refusing to distribute the film. Moore claims he thought everything was "OK" and he had no idea Disney didn't want to distribute the film. That's just utter bullshit because Moore's agent was told a YEAR in advance that Disney WOULD NOT distribute the film under any circumstances. Yes, Miramax chose to fund the film anyway - despite Eisner's explicit directive that they NOT fund it. And Miramax exec's said they would try to change Eisner's mind and "hoped" they could reach an agreement. But Moore doesn't mention ANY of that. In the interview, he presents it as if he had NO IDEA there was ANY controversy about his film whatsoever. That is fact, not opinion. I provided a link to the interview and cut-n-pasted the relevant statements in my response. You keep asking for "unbiased" sources that Moore lies. Well I've used his own words...that's about as "unbiased" as you can get. The documentation and the spin Moore put on this upcoming film is right there for you to see in black and white (or whatever font color you choose to use). You told me I should put my dislike for Moore aside and view BfC on my own. I'm asking you to do the same thing. Put your agreement with Moore aside and look at the interview and the words he uses, then contrast that with the fact that he knew well in advance this was going to happen.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>If it is a NON-ISSUE, then why did Moore even bother to put it in his film? What reason did he have to even mention the NRA having a meeting in Denver just a few days after the Columbine Tragedy. As you said yourself, it is a NON-ISSUE because the timing of the meeting in relation to the shooting at the school was nothing more than a very unfortunate circumstance. But Moore does make it a point to highlight the NRA Annual Meeting in Denver (which had been planned a year in advance as required by law - a fact that is highly relevant to the time and location of the meeting), and he splices footage from two separate meetings and combine it as one. Again, why bother to do that? If the meeting in Denver really WAS an example of gross callousness by the NRA, surely that point could have stood on it's own without any editing or splicing. But if he is going to mention the meeting in Denver in relation to the Columbine Shooting - and he is presenting his film as a documentary or representative of the truth - then he should have also mentioned that the meeting had been planned a year ahead of time and that NRA is required by law to hold such a meeting every year.

I agree that - due to the special circumstances - the NRA should have at least tried to delay the meeting for a month or two and schedule it in a different city - but you are talking about a HUGE conference that requires a great deal of planning ahead of time (which is why the location is chosen a year in advance). It may have simply been logistically impossible for them to move the meeting to different venue or delay the date of the meeting. I agree wholeheartedly that they should have tried to do both of these...but I also acknowledge that it simply may not have been possible.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>What makes you think the protesting citizens had any knowledge that the meeting was planned a year in advance and was required by law? I didn't know it until I read the earlier thread about BfC. I agree that it wouldn't have mattered to them even if they had known those facts, but I think it is highly unlikely that more than a few of them were actually aware of the facts to begin with.

The mayor, on the other hand, probably DID know the meeting was booked a year ahead of time and was required by law. But I agree with his plea to the NRA to cancel the meeting due to the special circumstances involved. As I said before, if EVER there was a time for the NRA to try to bend the rules, THAT was it. And I DO fault them for not at least TRYING to exhaust every possible avenue of delaying and moving the meeting.</font>

Thread is getting way too big, start a new one please ;) .


PS: Michael Moore is a one-sided WILD Liberal. I believe his lies and spin as much as I believe Rush Limbaugh. Spin is spin, and does NO ONE good. It's extremely sad any human is that one sided. Becoming BLIND because of party belief.

When one lies enough, they begin to believe their lies. (and make a movie about them) [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]