Recommended Posts
Darius11 12
QuoteNone of his films have been documentaries..... They
are not factually based.
Can you please provide some facts that supports your statement.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
Zennie 0
QuoteThey are not factually based.
So all those video clips are just computer-generated fabrications?
Look, if folks are so bent out of shape about Moore slanting stuff, theyu should go make their own movie telling THEIR side of it.
Sheesh.
- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon
Hey, I'm on Moore's side of the fence in terms of the election. But I still think his films are to documentaries what Bush's fabricated news stories about medicaire are to journalism.
aprilcat 0
None of his films have been documentaries..... They
are not factually based.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Academy seems to think they are documentaries. BFC was the 2002 winner of best DOCUMENTARY according to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.~~April
Camelot II, the Electric Boogaloo!
are not factually based.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Academy seems to think they are documentaries. BFC was the 2002 winner of best DOCUMENTARY according to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.~~April
Camelot II, the Electric Boogaloo!
TheAnvil 0
The Academy was wrong. Moore's fabrications in BFC preclude it from being considered a documentary.
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
billvon 2,998
> The Academy was wrong. Moore's fabrications in BFC preclude
>it from being considered a documentary.
Methinks the Academy is more qualified to judge the genre of a film than politicians who stand to lose from its contents.
I saw a short documentary on a cable channel a while back on how great life was in Prudhoe Bay, how quickly nature recycles all that spilled oil and how oil drilling was ecologically sound. It was funded by the The National Wetlands Coalition, which (suprise!) is funded by oil companies. It was still a documentary. They even made a valid point or two, although their conclusions were clearly self-serving.
>it from being considered a documentary.
Methinks the Academy is more qualified to judge the genre of a film than politicians who stand to lose from its contents.
I saw a short documentary on a cable channel a while back on how great life was in Prudhoe Bay, how quickly nature recycles all that spilled oil and how oil drilling was ecologically sound. It was funded by the The National Wetlands Coalition, which (suprise!) is funded by oil companies. It was still a documentary. They even made a valid point or two, although their conclusions were clearly self-serving.
aprilcat 0
The Academy was wrong. Moore's fabrications in BFC preclude it from being considered a documentary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for clearing that up.~~April
Camelot II, the Electric Boogaloo!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for clearing that up.~~April
Camelot II, the Electric Boogaloo!
The problem with the "facts" presented by Michael Moore is that he doesn't present them in an honest way. For example, he stated in BFC that he was a lifetime NRA member. What he left out is that he signed up for a lifetime NRA member ship ONE WEEK before filming that piece. He then used that to worm his way into getting some time with Charleton Heston so he could ambush him with a bunch of b.s.
Michael Moore has a right to his opinions and he certainly has a right to express them in any format that he likes, but I think a lot of people, including me, group him with the extremely biased liberal media (like CNN, the major US TV networks, the New York Times, etc.) for whom the truth is a very low priority.
His films may be entertaining to some people, but considering them to be documentaries takes a serious stretch of the imagination.
In the spirit of disclosure, I've been an NRA member for years and I've generally got a conservative bias.
Walt
Michael Moore has a right to his opinions and he certainly has a right to express them in any format that he likes, but I think a lot of people, including me, group him with the extremely biased liberal media (like CNN, the major US TV networks, the New York Times, etc.) for whom the truth is a very low priority.
His films may be entertaining to some people, but considering them to be documentaries takes a serious stretch of the imagination.
In the spirit of disclosure, I've been an NRA member for years and I've generally got a conservative bias.
Walt
Michael Moron is a joke. And no, he will not sway the election in the least. Anyone that thinks or proposes that idea is an idiotic moron.
Just who is he going to sway? The only people that believe his garbage and lies are the liberal sheep. And guess what? They're voting for Kerry regardless.
Michael Moron is your typical shock-radio personality. They do crazy and idiotic stunts to get ratings. Michael Moron is no different. Everyone knows his films are ficticious. He attempts to make them so far-fetched and crazy because people will go see movies of that nature.
Forty-two
Just who is he going to sway? The only people that believe his garbage and lies are the liberal sheep. And guess what? They're voting for Kerry regardless.
Michael Moron is your typical shock-radio personality. They do crazy and idiotic stunts to get ratings. Michael Moron is no different. Everyone knows his films are ficticious. He attempts to make them so far-fetched and crazy because people will go see movies of that nature.
Forty-two
No more than the war on Iraq is factually based anyway.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites