Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 89

Thread: Farenheit 9/11 Opens Frieday

  1. #16
    Skating Diva Kara Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New Brunswick
    Posts
    578
    I cannot wait to see this film

    I still have problems understanding why people say that Moore is spreading lies and misinformation. But then again, I have no idea why there are right wingers still around in this day and age.

  2. #17
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by euterpe
    The sad thing is that the bits and pieces of this film have been taken totally out of context, mashed together and presented in a manner that purports to be "the truth". And yes, many people will think it is telling the truth when it is really edited in a way to present something sometimes 180 degrees away from the truth.

    This guy has a political agenda, and the film is nothing more than propaganda to disseminate his biased ideas as 'truth'.
    I don't know how you can not even see the movie and know it's propaganda. It makes you think that Republicans seem so concerned about this movie. After all, if it's all just BS, then why should they care?

    I saw the trailer and two clips stuck together with Bush praising the "rich" may not have happened in that order, but I don't think they say NOTHING. I think they make an important point.

    www.michaelmoore.com

    You can watch the trailer there.

  3. #18
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    172
    I watched Ron Reagan on Larry King Live last night (now THERE'S a Bush "disliker"). He said he tried to get into the movie yesterday afternoon (opened in New York yesterday), but it had been sold out all day. Cons will hate it; dems will love it. Personally, I'm on the left and I like Michael Moore - he makes you think.

  4. #19
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    7,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Kara Bear
    I cannot wait to see this film

    I still have problems understanding why people say that Moore is spreading lies and misinformation. But then again, I have no idea why there are right wingers still around in this day and age.
    I guess it's because this is a free country, and people are permitted to have different ideas and concepts.

    To me, a 'right winger' is a John Bircher or a Ku Klux Klansman or a Timothy McVeigh. A conservative is a person who is about as far from a right winger as a liberal is from Leon Trotsky. I am somewhere to the right of a liberal and somewhere to the left of a conservative.

    To you, Kara Bear, a 'right winger' is someone who doesn't think exactly the way you do.

    I am a well-educated, highly intelligent individual who has been out in the workforce for a goodly number of years, and do have a grasp on what it means to earn a living and how the different political policies affect me and my family from day to day. I vote every year, and read widely, including liberal, middle-ground and conservative books, newspapers and magazines. My opinions are carefully considered, and not arrived at piecemeal or what looks to be the most popular view among my friends.

    I do not need a 22-year-old who has never held down a permanent job to tell me what my opinion should or should not be, thank you very much.

    Inasmuch as you are not a US citizen and can't vote, what you think about the subject of the film is entirely immaterial anyway.
    Last edited by chuckm; 06-24-2004 at 12:20 PM.

  5. #20
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    an island in Washington State
    Posts
    455
    I'll be right there with you, Kara Bear, (with a big tub of popcorn with way too much yellow grease on it).

  6. #21
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,094
    The problem for Republicans is this is an election year and this film is presenting fiction as truth, specifically about President Bush.

    The intention of the film is to smear the President by presenting him in an unflattering light. Those who see the film do not know what is actually happening in the film clips in their actual context, or in the actual order in which they happened, or even WHY they happened.

    Imagine if someone made a film of you in school peeking at someone else's paper, then showing you getting your exam back with an "A" on it. Someone seeing the film might conclude you got the "A" by cheating, because they couldn't tell that when you were looking at the other person's paper, you weren't taking an exam.

    Moore has used this technique in all of his films to get viewers to draw conclusions from what they are seeing. But what they are seeing is in many cases, not what really happened. Too many people go to see propaganda movies like this and accept what they are seeing as fact without ever questioning it, or doing further investigation or reality check.

    People who lionize Moore are the same people who ran out to buy Clinton's book, and accept every word he says as gospel, and who complained about the Reagan funeral ceremonies. If the liberal media says something is true, they accept it without doing any critical thinking.

  7. #22
    Not the droid you're looking for
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Whine Country
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman
    There was a little news snippet in the paper yesterday that Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451 was thinking of suing Moore for stealing his title.

    MM
    I didn't think you could copyright a book title, but I'll be happy if Mr. Bradbury's complaint, and the attendant publicity involved, introduces new readers to "Fahrenheit 451".
    I'm seeing this movie more than once, it's turning out to be quite the liberal social event around here. My first viewing is with a non-voter, and I'm bringing a blank voter registration card, just in case.
    Rave

  8. #23
    Salchows and Shimmies!!!
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    470
    For those complaining that the movie is "unfair," its no less fair than some of the swipes that the Bush campaign team has taken at Kerry in their political ads. Its a political year, folks, and both sides are going to use facts and "not-so-facts" to their advantage.

    One thing should be pointed out: Moore has been very open in saying this film reflects his opinion and that its not any specific "gospel." There is both a book and a documentary coming out that take shots at Michael Moore, and I have a feeling that those of you who consider Moore's film unfair to the President will think that the books/film critical of Moore are just fine. That's the beauty of living in this country, we're all entitled to our own opinions.

    And the fact that this film is making the Bush team and the Republican party squirm is just part of the democratic process. Long live freedom of speech and a pox on those who try to squash it because they don't like what's being said!!!!

  9. #24
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,094
    There's a big difference between Moore making a movie maligning Bush during an election year (with a political motive, which he freely admits is the case), and some other filmmaker or writer maligning Moore.

    Number one, Moore is not a politician, and he is not up for re-election. Furthermore, a book and/or film about him can only HELP him, because it keeps him in the public eye and will boost sales of DVDs of his previous movies. Moore will be laughing all the way to the bank.

    It's NORMAL for one candidate to attack another--that's quite fair, and the way politics works, whether we like it or not. Any candidate always has the option to answer an attack, or attack back, directly addressing the ad or insinuation made in the original attack. Kerry has certainly done his share of attacking Bush, too--and he has had a huge head start during the primaries and caucases. But there IS no way for the Bush campaign to respond to Moore's film without drawing more attention to it.

    It's just as much a right of free speech for those who disagree with Moore's 'message' to speak out about the fallacies presented as truth in the movie.
    Last edited by euterpe; 06-24-2004 at 01:49 PM.

  10. #25
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by euterpe
    There's a big difference between Moore making a movie maligning Bush during an election year (with a political motive, which he freely admits is the case), and some other filmmaker or writer maligning Moore.

    Number one, Moore is not a politician, and he is not up for re-election. Furthermore, a book and/or film about him can only HELP him, because it keeps him in the public eye and will boost sales of DVDs of his previous movies. Moore will be laughing all the way to the bank.
    And good for him...free enterprise in action. It's the American way!

    There is no doubt that Michael Moore dislikes (at the very least) George Bush. According to a recent interview with Moore, he admitted that he made this movie as a slam to the Bush family. If there is anything libelous in the movie, the Bush family always has recourse to the courts.

  11. #26
    Salchows and Shimmies!!!
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    470
    Which, the last time I checked, Euterpe, is the capitalistic way of life that the Republican party so cherishes. Cha-ching!!!!!!

    I've been sick to death of the frame of mind in this country since 9/11 that you don't DARE criticize the President/Administration, that you are not a "patriot" and that you are supporting terrorism if you do criticize. Maybe its a reflection of my age (mid-forties) but somewhere around elementary school level, I was taught that freedom of speech and expression was one of the principles that this great country was founded on.

    Just as Mel Gibson had the right to interpret the story of Jesus according to his own views, Moore has the right to present his opinion on the Bush presidency. For all the conservative uproar, its going to be a similar situation to Mel's film. Those who believe its a worthwile film will see it, and those who are opposed to it won't. In the long run, Moore's film is unlikely to convert many people to suddenly hating Bush just like Mel's was unlikely to bring a religious epiphany to many non-religious persons. I didn't see Mel's film because I was not comfortable with his interpretation of the story--at the same time I didn't go raging around claiming it shouldn't be on movie screens and should be banned. I plan to see Moore's film because I agree with his opinions about Bush. Apparently, some people fell I shouldn't have the right to express my freedom to see this film. That's not the way of America, that's what we're fighting against the last time I checked.

  12. #27
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,094
    Who said you had no right to see this movie if you want to? I saw no posts to that effect on this board. Go right ahead! If you hate Bush, this movie isn't going to make you hate him any more than you already do.

    BTW, Bush CAN'T sue, because he is a public figure, and nothing is said about him directly. It's the order and content of the film clips--all completely out of context--that are designed for a viewer to draw a certain conclusion.

    Mel Gibson didn't 'interpret' anything. The entire screenplay comes directly from the New Testament. And please don't compare Gibson to Moore. Gibson had no ulterior or political motive in making "The Passion of the Christ", and the movie was not attacking a current political figure. Moore made the film--by his own admission--to hurt the Bush family. And to make loads of money.

  13. #28
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by euterpe
    Moore made the film--by his own admission--to hurt the Bush family. And to make loads of money.
    And I repeat - good for him. Cha-ching! as Yazmeen would say.

  14. #29
    Salchows and Shimmies!!!
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    470
    Euterpe: When Mel's movie was in its early days of release, there was quite a BIT of controversy as to "interpretation" as many felt he was not presenting the bible just as written but was putting his own spin on it. There was also controversy that he was making the movie more to spotlight (and possibly convert people to) his preferred version of Catholicism, namely the far more conservative faith that existed pre-Vatican II. In the end, each man had his own motives for why he made his film, and those motives are being interpreted differently by different people, which is everyone's right to expression.

  15. #30
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Yazmeen
    Which, the last time I checked, Euterpe, is the capitalistic way of life that the Republican party so cherishes. Cha-ching!!!!!!

    I've been sick to death of the frame of mind in this country since 9/11 that you don't DARE criticize the President/Administration, that you are not a "patriot" and that you are supporting terrorism if you do criticize. Maybe its a reflection of my age (mid-forties) but somewhere around elementary school level, I was taught that freedom of speech and expression was one of the principles that this great country was founded on.

    Just as Mel Gibson had the right to interpret the story of Jesus according to his own views, Moore has the right to present his opinion on the Bush presidency. For all the conservative uproar, its going to be a similar situation to Mel's film. Those who believe its a worthwile film will see it, and those who are opposed to it won't. In the long run, Moore's film is unlikely to convert many people to suddenly hating Bush just like Mel's was unlikely to bring a religious epiphany to many non-religious persons. I didn't see Mel's film because I was not comfortable with his interpretation of the story--at the same time I didn't go raging around claiming it shouldn't be on movie screens and should be banned. I plan to see Moore's film because I agree with his opinions about Bush. Apparently, some people fell I shouldn't have the right to express my freedom to see this film. That's not the way of America, that's what we're fighting against the last time I checked.

    Damn Straight!!!! :D

    Furthermore, as for candidates attacking each other.

    75% of Bush's ads have been negative.
    25% of Kerry's ads have been negative.

    In the trailer, there's Bush quoted as saying two things, you see him on video.

    "Some call you the elite, I call you my base."
    "Welcome to the haves and the have mores."

    I don't think you need the context to understand those statements. I really don't. Please give me a reason why I need the whole thing. Those were HIS jokes.
    Last edited by StillBlueLake; 06-24-2004 at 02:32 PM.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •