Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

[Oblivion437]

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.

You need to visit the place. So that's two on your list. Australia and New York. Surely you can come and visit New York. It's only a few hours away right? Then you could see for yourself how ineffective those gun laws are.

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.

[Timber Loftis]

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

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Grojlach: quote: Originally posted by Oblivion437: As for F 9/11, it's a "documentary", which means several things: It won't be as good as Once Upon a Time In America, or William Wyler's Ben Hur, nor will it be as humane (and brilliantly made) as a Martin Scorsese film (like Gangs of New York, or Raging Bull) and it won't have the raw edge of my favorite type of film, so I'm not too interested in it. Considering Moore's record at keeping the facts straight, I'm not going to take it too seriously, if I do see it ever.

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. [/QUOTE]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 Timber 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. Timber 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, Chewbacca 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 Chewbacca 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.

[Timber Loftis]

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 ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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."

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.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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."

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....

[Chewbacca]

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 Chewbacca 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 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.

[Timber Loftis]

an actually credible nuetral source to back the oft repeated opinion "Moore twists the truth" would be nice for a change

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:

Move America Forward has viewed footage of the movie and reviewed transcripts from portions of the films. The group claims the movie contains several misleading and inaccurate assertions: Moore asserts that in the days immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks President Bush whisked Osama bin Laden’s family out of the country because of a secret alliance. Actually, the group points out, terrorism czar Richard Clarke, a strong critic of President Bush, took full responsibility for the unilateral action and said he "would do it again." Moore, the group says, tried to paint congressmen who voted for the war as hypocrites because their own family members were not being sent to fight in the war on terrorism. Rep. Mark Kennedy, R-Minn., explained to Moore on camera that he has two nephews in the military, one who has just been deployed in the Army National Guard and would be headed to Afghanistan in the next month. Moore cut Kennedy’s response from the film and instead packaged the segment to suggest that Kennedy and other Members of Congress were unwilling to have their own family members serve in the war on terrorism, according to the congressman. Kennedy told the Minneapolis Star Tribune: "It's representative of the fact that Michael Moore doesn't always give the whole story, and he's a master of the misleading." Moore says his film supports the troops, but then boasted to the London-based newspaper the Guardian that he had sneaked film crews into Iraq to document improper acts committed by soldiers. He then gushed: "Half the movie is about Iraq – we were able to get film crews embedded with American troops without them knowing it was Michael Moore. They are totally f---ed." Last week Moore told the San Francisco Chronicle he was proud of the fact that his film showed our troops as "dazed and confused" and paralyzed with a Vietnam-like syndrome.

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 ]

[Timber Loftis]

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

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

[Timber Loftis]

My objection is that Moore's alleged 'falsehoods' are unproven, though I have seen some heavily biased, hyperbole filled attempts.

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 ]