930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Rah_From_da_NVA_Hunnies on June 28, 2004, 11:14:00 pm
-
ANYONE GOIN TO SEE IT? :cool: ..I AM FOR SURE
-
I wouldn't waste my money or time watching a film by that loser.
-
Originally posted by Rob_Gee_a.k.a _Guiny:
I wouldn't waste my money or time watching a film by that loser.
In that case, I would recommend the more cerebral film on the war, "Control Room." By the director of startup.com, it's a great film that looks at media coverage of the war inside Iraq, comparing Al Jazeera to US stations. It's far less biased but still leaves a strong impression.
-
thanks for the recommendation... i had no idea what that movie was about and now i want to go check it out.
-
"Control Room" has gotten raves, and it's the next flick I see...it's at both the Bethesda and E Street Landmark theaters.
-
Originally posted by Rob_Gee_a.k.a _Guiny:
I wouldn't waste my money or time watching a film by that loser.
Way to be open minded guiny.
-
"Our Government" in action...
??Fahrenheit 9/11?? ban?
Ads for Moore??s movie could be stopped on July 30
By Alexander Bolton
Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his controversial new movie, ??Fahrenheit 9/11,? on television or radio after July 30 if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) today accepts the legal advice of its general counsel.
At the same time, a Republican-allied 527 soft-money group is preparing to file a complaint against Moore??s film with the FEC for violating campaign-finance law.
In a draft advisory opinion placed on the FEC??s agenda for today??s meeting, the agency??s general counsel states that political documentary filmmakers may not air television or radio ads referring to federal candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.
steve finn/Getty images
Michael Moore
The opinion is generated under the new McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which prohibits corporate-funded ads that identify a federal candidate before a primary or general election.
The proscription is broadly defined. Section 100.29 of the federal election regulations defines restricted corporate-funded ads as those that identify a candidate by his ??name, nickname, photograph or drawing? or make it ??otherwise apparent through an unambiguous reference.?
Should the six members of the FEC vote to approve the counsel??s opinion, it could put a serious crimp on Moore??s promotion efforts. The flavor of the movie was encapsulated by a recent review in The Boston Globe as ??the case against George W. Bush, a fat compendium of previously reported crimes, errors, sins, and grievances delivered in the director??s patented tone of vaudevillian social outrage.?
The FEC ruling may also affect promotion of a slew of other upcoming political documentaries and films, such as ??Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War,? which opens in August, ??The Corporation,? about democratic institutions being subsumed by the corporate agenda, or ??Silver City,? a recently finished film by John Sayles that criticizes the Bush administration.
Another film, ??The Hunting of the President,? which investigates whether Bill Clinton was the victim of a vast conspiracy, could be subject to regulations if it mentions Bush or members of Congress in its ads.
Since the FEC considers the Republican presidential convention scheduled to begin Aug. 30 a national political primary in which Bush is a candidate, Moore and other politically oriented filmmakers could not air any ad mentioning Bush after July 30.
That could make advertising for the film after July difficult since it is all about the Bush administration and what Moore regards as its mishandling of the war on terrorism and the decision to invade Iraq.
After the convention, ads for political films that mention Bush or any other federal candidate would be subject to the restrictions on all corporate communications within 60 days of the Nov. 2 general election.
??Fahrenheit 9/11? opens nationally tomorrow.
The film??s distributor, Lions Gate Films, an incorporated organization, would almost certainly pay for its broadcast promotions.
David Bossie, the president of Citizens United, plans to allege that ??Fahrenheit 9/11? violates federal election law, arguing that ??Moore has publicly indicated his goal is to impact this election season.?
Bossie had planned to file a complaint with the FEC yesterday but postponed action because his lawyers want to review it at the last minute, said Summer Stitz, a spokeswoman for Bossie??s group.
??I don??t think much of Michael Moore or his two-hour political advertisement ?? that??s all it is,? Bossie said. ??He uses all of these words to make it look like he makes documentaries, but it??s the furthest thing from the truth. Documentaries tend to be fact-based.?
Sarah Greenberg, a spokeswoman for Lions Gate Films who is serving as Moore??s spokeswoman, did not return a call for comment.
The FEC counsel??s draft advisory opinion responded to a request for guidance from David Hardy, a documentary film producer with the Bill of Rights Educational Foundation. Hardy asked whether he could air broadcast ads that refer to congressional officeholders who appear in his documentary.
At issue in the FEC??s opinion is whether documentary films qualify for a ??media exemption,? which allows members of the press to discuss political candidates freely in the days before an election.
In its opinion, the general counsel wrote, ??In McConnell vs. FEC ? (2003) the [Supreme] Court described the media exemption as ??narrow?? and drew a distinction between ??corporations that are part of the media industry?? as opposed to ??other corporations that are not involved in the regular business of imparting news to the public.???
??The radio and television commercials that you describe in your request would be electioneering communications,? the counsel concluded. ??The proposed commercials would refer to at least one presidential candidate. ? They would also be publicly distributed because you intend to pay a radio station and perhaps a television station to air or broadcast your commercials. ? Finally, they would reach 50,000 people within 30 days of a national nominating convention and or the general election.?
However, one commissioner, Michael Toner, has a different view of what restrictions may be placed on political films.
??I think there??s evidence that when Congress created the press exemption they intended for it to cover media in all its forms,? said Toner. ??If a documentary produced by an independent company would be subject to restriction or, equally important, if efforts to promote the documentary would be subject to restriction, I think that is very problematic.?
The Hill (http://www.thehill.com/news/062404/moore.aspx)
-
Please please please let the FEC follow through with this. It won't take effect until the end of July and by that time most people will know what the movie is and its message. Then, Moore can alter the ads that show Bushie's face blacked out, saying "THIS IMAGE BANNED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT".
Like Obi Wan once said, "if you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine".
All these silly right-wingers are playing right into his hands. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
-
honestly, i think the right wingers are all pissed off because they didn't think of it first... putting together a 100 minute attack ad and having people lineup to spend money to see it. :D
the movie from john sayles could be a good one too
edit - with Chris Cooper it's gonna be ace!
http://www.dickiepilager2004.com/ (http://www.dickiepilager2004.com/)
-
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by Rob_Gee_a.k.a _Guiny:
I wouldn't waste my money or time watching a film by that loser.
Way to be open minded guiny. [/b]
He supports his mein fuhrer no matter what, like the good German, I mean American that he is.
Did anyone hear about how the republicans are financially backing Nader so he can drain more votes from the dems? Not that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush or anything.....
:roll:
-
I used to feel like being somewhat sympathetic to Bush and not think he was so bad, but after seeing this movie, I can not speak with any support of him at all...Michael Moore sucked me in...Bush is one motherfucker.
-
Michael Moore at the Oscars 8 months from now as he is accepting the "best documentary" award: "President Kerry, please don't fuck up and force me to make a movie about you too."
-
you went and saw a movie that has a complete bias thats not based on facts...and that changed your mind. wonderful.
-
Bush supporters believe someone who deals in lies and half-truths. Why shouldn't his non-supporters have the same opportunity?
Originally posted by manimtired:
you went and saw a movie that has a complete bias thats not based on facts...and that changed your mind. wonderful.
-
Have you seen the movie? I've been on one too many message boards with folks using nearly the same retorts as you, yet amazingly, they haven't seen the film.
Originally posted by manimtired:
you went and saw a movie that has a complete bias thats not based on facts...and that changed your mind. wonderful.
-
no, i wouldnt give him my money.
here's an interesting article from the new york times of all places...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/opinion/30KRIS.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/opinion/30KRIS.html)
but i have heard many on both sides discredit many of the facts moore uses to drive home his points bashing bush...
-
It figures. :roll:
Originally posted by manimtired:
no, i wouldnt give him my money.
here's an interesting article from the new york times of all places...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/opinion/30KRIS.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/opinion/30KRIS.html)
but i have heard many on both sides discredit many of the facts moore uses to drive home his points bashing bush...
-
that's not an article, it's an editorial...the link even reveals it's directory "Opinion"...of course, each is entitled to theirs...
the biggest take away for me from the movie, and most of Moore's work, is that the working class get screwed royally by leaders like Bush...
-
sorry...its an interesting editorial.
and im sure a lot of leftist would run to see a movie about the clinton administration put out by sean hannity.
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
the biggest take away for me from the movie, and most of Moore's work, is that the working class get screwed royally by leaders like Bush...
actually, working americans were screwed by the framers of the constitution and their contemporaries that decided to give corporations the same rights as individuals without the same responsibilities.
I am a raging lefty. I thought Moore's work was rather sloppy, but it's the best we've got. Did he need to show the soldier saying he's going to work for the Democratic party? Did we need to take the mother to the white house (knowing she wouldn't get anywhere and setting her up for that scene exactly)? And would any Senator really sign their kid up? Come on.
But it's theatre. It's funny, it's compelling, it makes you question. It's a starting point. Anyone who thinks a film-- or for that matter, the news, magazines, newspapers, etc.-- is 100% is a nut. But it does make you wonder, and thus it achieves its goal.
-
Originally posted by eros:
Like Obi Wan once said, "if you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine".
Just ask Eminem.
-
Who is Sean Hannity?
Does he have an equally impressive moviemaking resume as Michael Moore?
If he put out a movie as good as Fahrenheit 9/11 that was about the Clinton administration, sure I'd see it.
Though if it's main emphasis was the Lewinsky affair, I think I'd have to pass and watch porn instead.
Originally posted by manimtired:
sorry...its an interesting editorial.
and im sure a lot of leftist would run to see a movie about the clinton administration put out by sean hannity.
-
He's a conservative talking head with a show on Fox News Channel, a radio show and has published a couple of books.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Who is Sean Hannity?
-
Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
[/b]
In that case, I would recommend the more cerebral film on the war, "Control Room." By the director of startup.com, it's a great film that looks at media coverage of the war inside Iraq, comparing Al Jazeera to US stations. It's far less biased but still leaves a strong impression. [/QB]
I had read about this in the paper and forgot all about it. Thanks for the reminder......Sorry this post was about four hours late but some of us got busy at work.
-
im sure you'd find nazi propaganda films equally as impressive and thought provoking...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
you went and saw a movie that has a complete bias thats not based on facts...and that changed your mind. wonderful.
This claim contends that there are no facts in the movie at all. Every movie/documentary/article/news program has some bias. And while there may be debates over a handful of facts included in Moore's film, you cannot claim that there is no truth in it.
By the way, I haven't seen the movie, and am making no claims either way, but have read enough to know that there are facts, both verified and in dispute. Moore is making a point with his film.
From the editorial you cite:
In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth. The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies.
[The administration] deceived themselves along with the public ?? a more common problem in government than flat-out lying.
The writer doesn't like the *way* Moore makes his point (he is, after all, aping tactics perfected by conservatives over the past 15 years).
Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots. How sad that many liberals now seem intent on making the same mistakes.
-
Quite frankly, I was getting bored by the end of this movie. I'm on Moore's side, but the movie is SO biased, it's hard to know what to take as fact and what to take as him manipulating the facts to make his point.
A good example of this is the montage of the happy-go-lucky Iraqis before the US invaded...I mean liberated them. Children playing...happily riding bicycles...women walking around town...going out to dinner, etc. You'd think they were all on holiday or something. Look how cheery and happy the Iraqi people were before the US arrived. I'm on his side, and even I rolled my eyes at that.
The best thing this movie does is make people think and ask questions. I find it hard to believe that even Republicans are going to walk out of this movie without questioning at least some of the administration's actions or relationships. But I would also hope most people on the left don't take everything Moore presents as irrefutable truth.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
you went and saw a movie that has a complete bias thats not based on facts...and that changed your mind. wonderful.
Could you please talk about one or two facts that were invalid? I'm curious to hear them, in a non-partisan way.
-
Like Skeeter said...
I find it hard to believe that the Iraqi people were all so happy under the Saddam regime, as depicted by Moore. That wasn't really an accurate protrayal.
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by manimtired:
you went and saw a movie that has a complete bias thats not based on facts...and that changed your mind. wonderful.
Could you please talk about one or two facts that were invalid? I'm curious to hear them, in a non-partisan way. [/b]
-
i havent seen the movie but from what ive heard on the news and in the papers...
moore claimes:
bush gave the orders to allow for members of bin ladens family and other saudies to leave the country after 9/11 when planes werent allowed to fly..
his body weight on the promo poster...
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Like Skeeter said...
I find it hard to believe that the Iraqi people were all so happy under the Saddam regime, as depicted by Moore. That wasn't really an accurate protrayal.
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by manimtired:
you went and saw a movie that has a complete bias thats not based on facts...and that changed your mind. wonderful.
Could you please talk about one or two facts that were invalid? I'm curious to hear them, in a non-partisan way. [/b]
[/b]
Except that's hardly a fact. He showed us a lot of burned out houses in Flint, doesn't mean every house looks like that. Obviously those images were not telling the whole story, but anyone with enough intellgience to want to see this movie should be understanding of that. I'm assuming our republican comrade has some real information to disprove some of the facts Moore presented us with. As in No, the Saudis were not allowed to fly out of the country while everyone else was frozen, and here's some facts to back it up....
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i havent seen the movie but from what ive heard on the news and in the papers...
moore claimes:
bush gave the orders to allow for members of bin ladens family and other saudies to leave the country after 9/11 when planes werent allowed to fly..
his body weight on the promo poster...
No, Moore has a member of congress, I think, saying that the order to have those people flown out had to come from someone very high up in the administration. He never said it was Bush.
-
but didnt the saudies haul ass after the plane freeze was over...the 14th i believe.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
but didnt the saudies haul ass after the plane freeze was over...the 14th i believe.
There were flight listings that show flights on the 13th from Kennedy to Saudi Arabia. Now, no way of me verifying what he was showing on camera was true, but has anyone from the administration actually come out and said those are false? And no, Fox News doesn't count...
-
i actually heard it disclaimed on MSNBC...but that might be too right wing as well.
-
Acutally, the Saudis flew out on 9/13, I think...and air travel HAD resumed for most folks by then. This is a fact clarified in a USA Today article, even by Moore's co-producer. They admitted the facts were blurred a bit here. This, to me, is not the issue, though, that they were allowed to fly before other people, but that they were allowed to fly AT ALL without being questioned by the FBI.
The Bush family's ties to Saudis and oil interests and the fact that dumb, desperate working class people are actively recruited for the military are the most compelling things in the film that I saw, and those ARE facts.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i actually heard it disclaimed on MSNBC...but that might be too right wing as well.
Might be. What did they say about it?
-
Riiight, because the media isn't biased at all. But that's free, so you accept it, right?
Originally posted by manimtired:
i havent seen the movie but from what ive heard on the news and in the papers...
-
You want to get into the music business? Join the Marines. You've heard of Shaggy, right? Shaggy was a US Marine.
-
there is a definate bias both ways....
but the comparison that the news is as biased as moore is a stretch.
-
Even better..."Let me just get your name and information so I can cross you off my list noting that I've already talked to you."
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
You want to get into the music business? Join the Marines. You've heard of Shaggy, right? Shaggy was a US Marine.
-
Look....nobody needs a movie to realize what a war mongering, lying, misleading stupid moron who's surrounded himself with big business, money grabbing at the cost of innocent lives fuckheads Bush is?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
there is a definate bias both ways....
but the comparison that the news is as biased as moore is a stretch.
You know what's really biased? Someone who takes a position on a film without seeing it and weighing the facts... and then goes so far as to try to debate its merits and validity.
-
i dont think i need to see the film to know its a biased film which stretches the truth. sorry.
-
This reminds me of the time that a friend of a friend of mine walked out of "Dogma." To this day, she says that she was completely "open-minded" about the film. There is a lot in this world that I'm fairly biased about, but at least give something a chance. No harm in that, is there? Sure you might line his pockets some, but at least then your criticism doesn't sound so desperate and simple-minded. Hell, all this and I don't even like Moore.
Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
Originally posted by manimtired:
there is a definate bias both ways....
but the comparison that the news is as biased as moore is a stretch.
You know what's really biased? Someone who takes a position on a film without seeing it and weighing the facts... and then goes so far as to try to debate its merits and validity. [/b]
-
A quote from Moore:
"I would like to see Mr. Bush removed from the White House."
"It's an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."
OF COURSE IT'S BIASED. You have your Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc...giving out their bias on a daily basis. We have Moore, Franken, et al..
If you have such a problem with Moore, do your part and vote for your guy. If you make over $250K a year and donate to the RNC it's probably in your best interest anyway.
-
Originally posted by eros:
OF COURSE IT'S BIASED. You have your Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc...giving out their bias on a daily basis. We have Moore, Franken, et al..
The difference is the righties have untrue propaganda and the lefties have left-leaning opinions.
Disclaimer......I was a complete independent, but this wanker has made me (and many others I'm sure) lean much more to the left than before he stole the whitehouse. If that's the right you can shove it up your arse.
-
Originally posted by eros:
OF COURSE IT'S BIASED. You have your Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc...giving out their bias on a daily basis. We have Moore, Franken, et al..
A fabulous point. Course, Moore does call his work documentaries (which on the whole they mostly are), while the others call their shit Fox News. Or MSNBC.
-
Originally posted by redsock:
Moore does call his work documentaries[/QB]
More like fiction.....LOL :D
-
interesting article even though its not about the film..
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040630/323/ex1bt.html (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040630/323/ex1bt.html)
note the last two paragraphs...i think it says something for the administrations plan in iraq.
It said the US plan was "to build an Iraqi state as conceived by the United States...and enslave Saudi Arabia politically, fight against Islamic proselytism as a salafist and jihadic movement."
"This would be (for the US) the first step toward the eradication of hardline Islam in the entire world," it said.
-
i didn't read most of the posts because there are 49 of them but hopefully you don't take the FILM for fact. He has even said it his his opinion portrayed in the FILM. don't think the FILM wasn't edited in some scenes...you don't get an even point of view just that of one trying(succedeing) to make bush look bad.
i didn't see the whole thing because i saw spiderman and dodgeball. i snuck into the end of 911. i will eventually go see 911 butdon't feel like paying to see a political film.