Michael Moore -- Bowling for Iraq??

[Timber Loftis]

I'm sure Mr. Moore has a good talking point or two. I object as follows:

1. As I've said before, his thoughts are the war are about as meaningful as Donald Rumsfeld's thoughts regarding how well Nicole Kidman did in The Hours.

2. I object to his use of the Oscars as a forum. First, an Oscar acceptance speech is about the award and the film industry, not a pullpit for war diatribe any more than it is for a dissertation on pollution, auto safety, global warming, or the evils of corporate America. Second, I'm sure there are plenty of anti-war rallies going on in this country that would *love* to have him as a guest speaker. He can espouse his views there. He might even get a little press and documentary footage that way, too.

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I'm sure Mr. Moore has a good talking point or two. I object as follows: 1. As I've said before, his thoughts are the war are about as meaningful as Donald Rumsfeld's thoughts regarding how well Nicole Kidman did in The Hours. 2. I object to his use of the Oscars as a forum. First, an Oscar acceptance speech is about the award and the film industry, not a pullpit for war diatribe any more than it is for a dissertation on pollution, auto safety, global warming, or the evils of corporate America. Second, I'm sure there are plenty of anti-war rallies going on in this country that would *love* to have him as a guest speaker. He can espouse his views there. He might even get a little press and documentary footage that way, too.

I object to his use of the Oscars as a forum as well. It was definitely inappropriate using the Oscars to espouse his political views. A simple gesture, or in my thoughs statement like most actors did would have been fine.

I did like Steve Martins line afterwards about him being placed in the trunk of his car. It was somewhat witty to relieve some tension that may have been caused.

[Ronn_Bman]

Obviously he never learned that it's not what you say, but how you say it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The Oscars weren't the place for pro or anti-war statements. I'd say talking about motion pictures would have been more appropriate.

Shame on you Mr. Hollywood Dude, shame on you for your fictional assessment of the American public's backing of Mr. Bush. Shame on you for ignoring the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Americans, and pretending your's was more important. Shame on you for telling reporters not to report the booing of your statement.

[ 03-24-2003, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Quote: Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: My personal take on Micheal Moore is that the only reason he critizes the US is because it makes him money. He really has no popularity here in the States. Most of his popularity comes from other parts of the world, who haven't been real happy with the US anyway. He's just catering to his audience. Sad that's how he makes his money; critizing his own country.

Well his book has been on the NY Times best sellers list for 48 weeks and counting (number 3 this week number 1 last).

Just curious, are you equally sad with the right-wing commentators that have criticized the country in the past? Thankfully we live in a country where people like Michael can speak their minds and not be 'disappeared'.[/QUOTE]I stand by what I say. I really don't think he gives a damn what happens to this country as long as he makes a buck or two off of it. Of course that's just my opinion. He may be a best selling author, but I believe most people still haven't heard of him. An after last night many won't go buy his book now either. And yes I have been sad when People like Rush Limbaugh have critized our country. Which he started doing during GW1's tenure. I think he is out to make a buck or two as well. I see no difference in either of them. I'd like to see them both fade away into obsurity.

[Iron_Ranger]

Oh good I was waiting for a subject to pop up on Michael Moron,er, wait, its just Moore isnt it.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[Yorick]

And now he has billions worth of free publicity. Nothing like sensationalism.

[Davros]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: My personal take on Micheal Moore is that the only reason he critizes the US is because it makes him money. He really has no popularity here in the States. Most of his popularity comes from other parts of the world, who haven't been real happy with the US anyway. He's just catering to his audience. Sad that's how he makes his money; critizing his own country.

So you are saying the man has no principles and that he does what he does to chase the almighty dollar. That's odd, because I thought most of his stances were based on principles that he would prefer that a few more people would embrace. Just seems to me to be an inappropriate and simplistic assumption to want to categorise him as nothing but a US basher.

[Masklinn]

My personal take on Micheal Moore is that the only reason he critizes the US is because it makes him money.

Bah, there are so many easier ways to make money for a film maker...like making documentaries on platypus (works very well)...why did he choose to bash his own country...
That doesn't fit Sir Taliesin, that just doesn't fit at all.

[pritchke]

His film should at least cause Americans to ask some questions about its culture of guns and violence, and WMD. I would not by any means classify it either a documentary, or fiction. So I was a little surprised when he won but the other films I don't think I have even heard of. It could have one based on publicity alone.

[ 03-24-2003, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Timber Loftis]

Sure, pritchke, I'll go take on the NRA any minute now.... Just as soon as I've been this new First-Person Shooter [img]graemlins/arcadefreak.gif[/img]