So I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 today... [Archive]

Awimoway

Jun 25, 2004, 11:25 PM

And I loved it. It was tonic for the frustration of watching your country get flushed down the toilet by the most inept president since Warren G. Harding.

One of the major criticisms of Moore and his films is that he twists truth or lies outright for effect, so I want to deal with that subject most of all. I don't think this movie is intended to be a journalistic piece. It's not 60 Minutes or (God forbid) Fox News. It's a work of art with a political subject (much of art is political anyway). I think it's nothing more than an emotional reaction to the feckless punk who is running our country into the ground, and taking several others down with him.

Moore expects the viewer to know the details already (there is some reporting about Bush's connections with the Saudis, but it's window dressing to the overall purpose of the film). What Fahrenheit does is give us an outlet for all the pent up anger and dismay. It's from the heart. It pokes fun at the president for being a yokel and a tool. But it's also a dead-serious look at the consequences of putting a yokel and a tool into the White House. It's funny, it's infuriating, it's tragic.

Love it or hate it, it will be remembered as a historic piece of filmwork that captured the political anger of our time for many, many Americans and good people all over the world. And I think it did a damn fine job of it.

carbonmotion

Jun 25, 2004, 11:26 PM

Fahrenheit 9/11 Film Reviewed

Before I start this review, I want to tell your guys a bit about myself. I am a member of the Democratic Party. I am studying to be an International Trade Lawyer. I hated Moore for Bowling because I thought he went out of his way to be sensationalistic and assholish. Now, the review.

The film basically did not tell me anything that I didn't know already being a student of political and international relations. However, I thought it was suprising that Moore much more sensitive in this film, not appearing on screen nearly as much as the movie is mainly the reponses to his questions and not QBAs like the Bowling. Yes, this movie is sensationalistic and over the top in the way it manipulates footage to jeer at the current administation (though much of it not at all undeserving). Moore takes the complicated entanglement of international politics and reduces it in to a 2 hour emotional rollercoaster. I admit, I was impressed, what I had learned in school from the big Ph,Ds with lofy thesis filled with statistics, facts, and analysis were essentially deduced (and quite effectively might I add) very nice peice of docu-drama... yes, moore poofed it up alot, but it gets the general gist of the message across with well supported evidence on his main points. If you truely believe that he is a liar, than you are due to your opinion... however we must all base our judgement of reality on fact. If Moore truely made up the evidence which supported his pillar points in the movie, then he will surely be sued for and convicted of liable. So far (out of all he movies), he never been convicted. So while he is pretty sensationalistic, he doesn't stray far enough to break the law. While this film might not swing any hard-republicans, it will do much damage to bush's attempts to convince middle of the road voters ...yes, that very narrow sliver of undecided people, who will ultimately decide Decision 2004.

Note: Please excuse the typos (there are many), I'm runing on a nearly empty tank

zimv20

Jun 25, 2004, 11:34 PM

thanks for the reports, guys. i hope to see it soon.

Awimoway

Jun 25, 2004, 11:57 PM

carbonmotion posted his background, and I think it's helpful to know where poeple are coming from, so I'll post mine as well.

I grew up a religious, military-brat conservative Republican. I grew up in the Cold War that my dad was on the front line of (literally, flying recon planes and doing week-long alerts where he would sleep next to his plane in case of World War III). The president of my childhood was Ronald Reagan and I adored him. He was like the grandfather of our country—witty, charming, and he didn't take any ************ from the commies.

As I grew older, I was a little off-put by the utter disregard Republicans took toward the poor, the environment, but I trusted them and stuck with them. I thought Bush Sr. was a fundamentally honest man who foolishly made a campaign promise he couldn't keep. Bill Clinton was a weaselly, lying worm who always blamed someone else for his mistakes. (I still feel that way. I saw the 60 Minutes interview, and I'm so glad we're done with him.)

I voted for George W. Bush. Yep. I admit it. To my everlasting shame. I didn't love him (I was a John McCain man). I thought he was under-qualified, but I was still trying to be a good Republican.

I left the Republican party last year. From the start, this war has seemed unjustified and hypocritical (I love how the conservatives, who claim a monopoly on patriotism, so recklessly disavow due process for anyone except themselves: where any non-Americans are concerned it's shoot first and ask questions later). I don't understand why we aren't seeing the same kind of war effort where the terrorists really are (hello? Afghanistan?). I finally stopped trying to convince myself that Republicans were for the little guy and I faced up to the fact that liberalism more fully embraces the Christian principles of charity and tolerance that I try to live by, and I embraced the politics of Howard Dean who was and is the only politician to ever speak forefully, clearly, and correctly on the war (John Kerry is just me-tooing Dean, but I'll vote for him--hell, I'd vote for Willy Wonka if it would get Bush defeated).

So that's where I'm coming from. What a long, narcissistic post. But now you know.

mgargan1

Jun 26, 2004, 12:07 AM

hell, I'd vote for Willy Wonka if it would get Bush defeated).

very well put ;)

IJ Reilly

Jun 26, 2004, 12:10 AM

Awimoway, thanks for the review and the confession. You'd have stopped Diogenes in his tracks.

patrick0brien

Jun 26, 2004, 12:52 AM

Neserk

Jun 26, 2004, 01:02 AM

I faced up to the fact that liberalism more fully embraces the Christian principles of charity and tolerance .

That was how I first became a liberal too!

LaMerVipere

Jun 26, 2004, 03:23 AM

While I personally didn't find Moore's last film, "Bowling for Columbine" all that impressive, I'm going to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" tomorrow even so.

There were so many problems with the way that Moore preseneted so-called "facts" and "stastics" that no one could argue, in his last film, that going in to the theatre tomorrow I will be going in as a skeptic. One doesn't need to go through the littany of "truths" that were displayed in his last movie that were since proved to be false or at least not fully supporting his story. It's been proved that the Columbine shooter's didn't go bowling before their rampage, and the Lockheed Martin plant shown in the film where rockets which supposedly carry "nukes" are built in near proximity to columbine was somehow to have influenced the 2 mentally disturbed teens to go kill their classmates. No mention of the fact that the plant builds rockets to launch T.V. satellites into orbit.("Nukes" is more fun to say than "TV" anyway) No mention of the blatent disproportions between the number of killings by guns in one country as opposed to the U.S. in one year. The sheer population differences and # of guns in the hands of citizens between the US and France alone is staggering, but you didn't see Moore talking about that in his film, he only showed the raw numbers. And since when did 3 Canadian teens coming out of a Taco Bell in the afternoon become experts on american culture, society, and global politics? I rest my case.

All that being said, I can't stand Bush. This is the first election that I will be able to vote in and I can guarantee that I am voting for Kerry.

I have mixed feelings about this documentary however. On the one hand, as most intensely anti-bush americans do, I enjoy almost anything that mocks our primate-in-chief. But on the other hand, I am going to be seeing a supposed "documentary" that tells the "truth" coming from someone who I really don't think is capable of giving the whole picture honestly and without distortion of raw facts to suit his personal opinion.

I do believe that bush is just as big a threat to this country as any terrorist, and his administration's standing on just about every issue is the exact opposite of what this country and the world needs right now from the planet's only remaining super power. I believe that his administration has lied and misled the american people at almost every turn, playing on their fear and ignorance in regards to ths issues. I'm sure I'll be willing to accept a lot of what Moore lays out for us in his doc, but I am definitely not coming out of that theatre assuming everything i've seen is true. I'll research what I've been presented with and pick and choose what I will and won't accept. As we all will, I'm sure.

When it comes to the Iraq War of choice, I think Paul Savoy, writing for my most favourite of all magazines "The Nation" said it best from the May 31, 2004 issue when he wrote:

"The capture of Saddam Hussein, who may have killed as many as 300,000 people, ends a twenty-four-year reign of terror and might finally bring a measure of justice to the Iraqi people. But what would we think of a police chief whose war against crime resulted in killing thousands of innocent bystanders in the course of apprehending a criminal suspect, even a criminal as despicable as Saddam? The officer who breaks the law, who becomes a law unto himself,--is more dangerous than the criminal and, like the American guards who committed the horrific abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, becomes a criminal himself. The false charge that Saddam was reaching for his weapons of mass destruction when US troops attacked bears an uncanny resemblance to the pretexts for the use of deadly force that document a long and shameful history of incidents of police misconduct in cities across America. The evil of this President, once acclaimed for his "moral clarity," is the evil of police violence on a global scale--the evil of the law-enforcement officer who regards himself as above the law and thereby undermines the very foundation of law and morality.

If, in the 2004 presidential election campaign, voters were to compel the candidates to confront the profound moral and legal questions raised by the use of military power that needlessly extinguished the lives of children, of entire families, of great numbers of ordinary Iraqis who had as much of a right to live as we do, there might ultimately emerge a nonpartisan basis for a national consensus about the war, in much the same way that a universal accord has developed in the United States about the immorality and illegality of police conduct in violation of an individual's civil liberties. While there will always be disagreement about the way we should wage the war on terrorism, as there will be about the way we should fight the war on crime, a global form of law enforcement that unnecessarily kills thousands of innocent people to punish or prevent crimes for which they bear no responsibility is plainly and simply wrong."

blackfox

Jun 26, 2004, 04:20 AM

Well, I just returned from the theatre here in Portland...not to start off-topic, but I do not go to the theatre too often these days, and before the film began I had to endure:
1) Advertisement(long) for a New Anti-Terrorism show beginning on TNT...supposedly modeled after current events and techniques in anti-terrorism
2) Another ad for another TNT show, this time a made-for-tv movie...I have already pushed it from my mind...
3) A Volvo ad...
4) A m&ms ad...
5) Two Coke ads (one for a new "low carb" Coke)...
6) An ad for the Military...I think the National Guard...(the crowd loved that one...)
Then there were four previews...

What in the hell is this? Sorry just venting...I just remember fondly the dancing popcorn and soda asking you to go to the concession stand to an annoying (but catchy and ultimately, endearing) tune....oh, the times...

As for myself (for context) I lived in the UK until I was nearly 13...I lived in a small village (600 or so), did not watch TV or listen to the radio much and went to a Boarding School (day-student) which was very much like that of Harry Potter (For US readers) minus the magic. Moving over here (to the Midwest) and starting Junior HIgh was a Culture shock I have never really gotten over, and part of me has always remained somewhat European in thinking, which shows itself in my concern for social programs and diplomacy, in part...

Basically, Since I became Politically Active, during the Senior Bush Administration (yes, I am pretty young), I have voted Democratic, and agree with their policy more often than that of the Republicans, but it depends on the individual. I was never a big fan of Clinton, although I did admire (and think useful) his excellent speaking and persuasive ability as a leader. In 2000, I greatly respected McCain and Bradley...Bradley seemed intelligent and thoughtful, McCain seemed reasonable and Integral...I will vote for Kerry come November, as I lived in Texas under Bush, and even then I knew what he was about...me no likey.

So, the movie...I really enjoyed it. There was nothing in it that I did not know, except for some individual names of players. The first half was particularily enjoyable (although the theatre did get progressively hotter, so that might have been a factor), and I feel that while the movie was obviously propaganda and manipulative considering both the effort of trying to condense a complicated an contentious world of Geo and Domestic Politics into two hours will necessarily be incomplete, and the fact that Moore obviously wants Bush out...

That said, it is very even-handed for Moore, and does imo, an outstanding job of communicating the points it wishes to in a visceral and affecting way...many people were crying in the second-half, which deals with Iraq and casualties of both sides...I was impressed.

My only complaint was imo, the overuse of a woman from Flint, who had lost her son in Iraq...I never like to see grief used to support or preclude an argument...it seems overly manipulative, but it was not a grievous error (no pun)...

I feel this movie may have quite an explosive impact on Election Year Politics, as I feel it should...and should make a fair chunk of change, I am curious about weekend box-office receipts...

BTW, The Scene with John Ashcroft (those who have seen will know) is almost worth the price of admission itself...hilarious.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 26, 2004, 06:04 AM

-It's too bad one must feel compelled to mention one's standing politically before stating one's feelings about a particular subject.

No matter one's background, the opinions' and stated observations' validity is no different person to person.

You are right, but given how Mr. Moore and F911 have been vilified by the right before it was even screened. Being labeled as trash by the White House spokesperson, who admits he has not even seen it. Some people even going as far as threatening to paintball viewers this weekend (a comment on another forum I am on).

I think that it helps understand better knowing a reviewers point of view. Sort of the full disclosure that a media outlet makes when reporting on a news item dealing with their particular owner.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 26, 2004, 06:06 AM

That was how I first became a liberal too!

For some of us that is how we have never truly found a home in the modern Republican Party, especially after the 1980's.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 26, 2004, 06:16 AM

My only complaint was imo, the overuse of a woman from Flint, who had lost her son in Iraq...I never like to see grief used to support or preclude an argument...it seems overly manipulative, but it was not a grievous error (no pun)...

I agree, but...

Is that much different than the "liberal media" providing a cheering section for the war, yet hiding the ugly truth from being seen? A made for TV moment on the USS Lincoln. The rule forbidding images of flag draped coffins coming home. My Dad in my younger years would make the point of watching the news coverage of the fallen coming home for the final time. (As a career military man he felt very strongly that it showed the sacrifices that the men and women had made to try and keep the peace in the world.)

Thomas Veil

Jun 26, 2004, 08:08 AM

As I grew older, I was a little off-put by the utter disregard Republicans took toward the poor, the environment...

I finally stopped trying to convince myself that Republicans were for the little guy and I faced up to the fact that liberalism more fully embraces the Christian principles of charity and tolerance that I try to live by...
That is very heartening to hear.

I, OTOH, came from a Kennedy-liberal family, and when I was a teenager, having been educated by Jesuits and having looked at both sides of the fence, I came to that same conclusion about liberalism and Christian principles myself.

But when I say that liberalism is more "Christian" than conservatism, given my background, it sounds like a more biased conclusion. Coming from you, though, that conclusion has much more credibility.

(And for the critics of liberalism, let me say that I do recognize that not all liberal principles conform to Christian ideals, but they're sure a lot closer than conservatives are.)

LaMerVipere

Jun 26, 2004, 03:01 PM

Well I've seen it, and I must say that it was great! I have to spend some time researching some of the "facts" and conclusions that this movie presents us with, but all in all I'd say that it's an incredibly hard hitting, and an incredibly moving piece of artistic cinema. Documentary, it is not.

I recommend that everyone go see it, even if you aren't anti-Bush. There are certain things in it which simply can't be argued, and I believe that those are the most influencial parts of the movie, like showing the true realities of war, our injured soldiers, the aftermath of it all. You know, the stuff the regular news won't show you. War is brutal and horrible, and most importantly, this movie attempts to express that above all else. It is important that we see the blood, hear the screams and shouts of pain, see it ALL, because that's the reality of what we are doing to the Iraqis and our soldiers.

One comes away with, or at least I did, a true feeling of Michael Moore's great love for America and, even more so, his love for our fighting men and women who have been placed in a needlessly dangerous and ever growing conflict for misleading purposes, and with no end in sight.

Bravo Mr Moore!

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 26, 2004, 04:10 PM

Given the "early numbers" and the "message"; how soon do you think that this film makes it to DVD before November 2004?

I am predicting weekend box-office numbers of $15 to 20 million dollars.

Awimoway

Jun 26, 2004, 04:15 PM

(And for the critics of liberalism, let me say that I do recognize that not all liberal principles conform to Christian ideals, but they're sure a lot closer than conservatives are.)

That's a good point. Having switched, I found myself asking "Well, if these people can be right about so many issues I once disagreed on, maybe they are right about others."

I've had to reevaluate my position on values-oriented subjects like abortion, gay marriage, media censorship, separation of church and state, and drug legalization. I'm still pretty "conservative" on church-state issues, abortion and censorship (and don't ask Neserk about drugs ;) ), but even so, I've taken the time to actually listen to the other side of the argument and respect where they're coming from. I don't hate the ACLU or NARAL, but I don't much agree with them. I appreciate that they are just trying to accomplish what they think is best for the American people.

I'm reminded of the old line about politics and strange bedfellows. You can't expect one party's platform to satisfy you from top to bottom, but you have to make compromises to get anything done. So, for example, there will probably never be a candidate I completely agree with, but that doesn't mean I'll refuse to vote or waste my vote on a longshot--COUGH <<Nader>> COUGH.

I can sleep at night knowing I voted for a candidate who will stock the Supreme Court with pro-abortion justices even if I think abortion is very wrong because it's not the only issue.

bitfactory

Jun 26, 2004, 04:19 PM

saw it. not impressed, but somewhat entertained.

a) Mr. Moore spends a lot of time trying to convince you that the Bush family is in the Saudi's back pocket... then, incredibly - jumps to the Iraq war. the same war the Saudi's vehemently OPPOSED. whoops.

b) spends way too much time on the BL family flights out of the US. Now the man Moore paints as the hero (Clarke) says it was his decision alone, and he made it. whoops.

c) a lot of time spent on minorities in the military - right AFTER showing quite a few dead white soldiers.

d) ohhh... the 7-minutes sitting in the classroom after being informed of the attack. give me a break... even the school principal (a Democrat) says she thinks he handled it perfectly. (http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/florida/article/0,2071,NPDN_14910_2985640,00.html)

e) and everyone knows Democrats don't need to be made up before going on camera. entertaining clips, but entertaining in the same way Kerry's home video of him pretending to be smoking a joint while singing "Puff the Magic Dragon."

overall, he paints the average military serviceman as a barbarian. sad, really. he really shows no respect for the military. his faux sympathy for the dead servicemen/women is transparent while trying to flip back and forth between points.

doesn't matter anyway... he is the MASTER of promotional spin. good for him. he deserves to make money off of this - that's what America is all about. he loves making money off of people he thinks are "possibly the dumbest people on the planet... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks." (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13583626_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-THE-AWKWARD-CONSCIENCE-OF-A-NATION-name_page.html)

carry on!

Dale Sorel

Jun 26, 2004, 04:29 PM

It's a work of art...

Why did I already know that the MacRumors forum was the only place where I would see this POS film put onto a pedestal :rolleyes:

Neserk

Jun 26, 2004, 04:30 PM

he really shows no respect for the military.

So? Why does the military automatically somehow deserve respect? I have to personally meet and know a person in the military before I will show them respect.

bitfactory

Jun 26, 2004, 04:36 PM

Love it or hate it, it will be remembered as a ...

2004 Democratic campaign celluloid pamphlet. the movie itself is WEAK - if you agree with the message "anyone but Bush," you'll eat it up.

if you were hoping for more informative, well rounded op-ed piece about the current global/domestic political climate... look somewhere else. this isn't a documentary.

bitfactory

Jun 26, 2004, 04:39 PM

So? Why does the military automatically somehow deserve respect? I have to personally meet and know a person in the military before I will show them respect.

cause' they are serving their country - and possibly dying for it. those people deserve MY respect. obviously not yours, though.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 26, 2004, 05:00 PM

cause' they are serving their country - and possibly dying for it. those people deserve MY respect. obviously not yours, though.

Amen. They signed up to protect the freedoms that we hold dear. They sometimes die for it. It is our responsibility to make sure that if they do die in protecting us it was not for some lie or corporate benefit.

Plus i though that the conservative ideal was to respect those that put their lives on the line for the rest of us.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 26, 2004, 05:04 PM

Why did I already know that the MacRumors forum was the only place where I would see this POS film put onto a pedestal :rolleyes:

Maybe you underestimated the intelligence of this community. To be able to see through the partisan politics that has been shoved down the throats in the last 12 years and to make an informative opinion on their won.

I can't wait till next week when i hopefully won't have to reserve a seat in order to see the film. Sure there are not that many liberals willing to spend their money on what they already know.

carbonmotion

Jun 26, 2004, 05:51 PM

cause' they are serving their country - and possibly dying for it. those people deserve MY respect. obviously not yours, though.Some men die for their country, some men rape and pillage for their country. Who deserves respect and who doesn't? How do you seperate the bad apple from the good? These are questions we must answer as a nation. In my personal opinion, the few bad apples on the tree of "American Justice" are more than enough to taint the dignity of the entire tree. In fact as I write this, my friend Bobby is home from Iraq, he is a Huey Helicopter pilot in the U.S. Army and he concurs with me on this issue.

LethalWolfe

Jun 26, 2004, 06:21 PM

So? Why does the military automatically somehow deserve respect? I have to personally meet and know a person in the military before I will show them respect.

Obviously this is a completely subjective comment but I think that's a pretty pathetic way to live life.

I don't know any cops, firefighters, or astronauts but I have a respect for them, if for nothing else, than accepting and living with the risks that come with their jobs. I don't know any garbagemen, construction workers, or illegal immigrant workers but I have a respect for them for doing dirty, crummy, physical jobs that no one else wants to do so they can provide for themselves and their families.

I have respect for every man, woman, and child on this planet for no other reason than they exist. Now, the actions of individuals can increase or decrease the amount of respect I have for them, but everyone starts out w/the same amount of respect from me.

Maybe if we all had a little more respect for each other the world would be a bit better place.

Lethal

zimv20

Jun 26, 2004, 06:23 PM

Maybe if we all had a little more respect for each other the world would be a bit better place.

understatement of the year

Neserk

Jun 26, 2004, 06:26 PM

Obviously this is a completely subjective comment but I think that's a pretty pathetic way to live life.

No, what is pathetic is that someone who's primary job is to go out and kill people should automatically be given respect!

Neserk

Jun 26, 2004, 06:28 PM

cause' they are serving their country - and possibly dying for it. those people deserve MY respect. obviously not yours, though.

Ummm.. No one has died for my country since the Civil War. You could make the argument for WWII. Now Iraqi's can make *that* argument. But American's certainly cannot.

The only person they are currently serving is the dictator in charge. Who will be voted out in less than 6 months :p

Neserk

Jun 26, 2004, 06:30 PM

Why did I already know that the MacRumors forum was the only place where I would see this POS film put onto a pedestal :rolleyes:

Not the only place I've seen it. Only die hard conservatives are still supporting Bush. Everyone else has seen the truth of what he is and many have even stated that they regretted voting for them. Perhaps you should talk to more people and visit more forums.

Neserk

Jun 26, 2004, 06:32 PM

I have respect for every man, woman, and child on this planet for no other reason than they exist. Now, the actions of individuals can increase or decrease the amount of respect I have for them, but everyone starts out w/the same amount of respect from me.

Lethal

Then how can you possibly support a war???

I have respect for everyone starting out. But for those who join a group of people who's primary objective is murder? They lose it until I know them.

Voltron

Jun 26, 2004, 06:39 PM

:p wasted post :(where is the delete button?

carbonmotion

Jun 26, 2004, 06:42 PM

My friend bobby who just go back from Iraq went with me to watch fahrenheit 9/11. He said that troop moral was terrible, even more so than what more had depicted on the last week that he was there which was four weeks ago. He told me that the civilian population of iraq from as far as he could tell all hate the american occupiers with a passions. He questions why we are even there as our role as occupiers certainly do not encourage democracy, but instead harbor the seeds of hatred which will later pave the way for a islamic fundamentalist rule like iran or afganastan. Now I've know bobby for a long long time, he's always been a hard line republican --even when we were kids. To see him so shaken from the experience has only added to my conviction against this injust war. Four weeks after leaving Iraq, he still has nightmares about what happened there which in his word ...was "fu*king hell hole on earth." While he still refuses to talk about alot of the things that happened during the war, he did say that he narrowly escaped death way too many times and considers himself very lucky. I asked him to explain how it feels, he said comparable to living thorugh the movie apocolyse now. Before the war, he was a die-hard Bush fan, now he will do every thing in his power to see that the man is taken out of office by voting for Senator John Kerry (D - Mass.)

carbonmotion

Jun 26, 2004, 06:44 PM

Not the only place I've seen it. Only die hard conservatives are still supporting Bush. Everyone else has seen the truth of what he is and many have even stated that they regretted voting for them. Perhaps you should talk to more people and visit more forums. Many of the people who support bush still have been A) so programed by their party propaganda that they cannot see the truth even when it is being blasted in their face and B) are too proud to admit that their party of so many years has picked a disastrous president who is destroying our country as well as the world.

blackfox

Jun 26, 2004, 06:55 PM

Then how can you possibly support a war???

I have respect for everyone starting out. But for those who join a group of people who's primary objective is murder? They lose it until I know them.
Neserk, while I admire your sentiments, of course war and the nature of its' participants is more complicated. While it is a senseless system, it is also intricately tied into our humanity...however, it should (war) not be entered into lightly, and imo, is a policy of last resorts...this is why I raise an eyebrow to any doctrine that features pre-emptiveness. Unfortunately, there are conflicts/differences that can seemingly only be resolved by violent means, as at times it is the only common-denominator that the participants understand. We should feel good that at this point in history, wars between Western Countries are almost unthinkable...there is progress being made.

As for soldiers, they are but pawns of policy, and I do respect them for willing to give the ultimate sacrifice for their country...as to whether if they should pay more attention to the reasons for fighting in the first place, they are often not in a position to know enough to judge the validity of policy. I feel the responsibility for whether or not our men and women should go off and fight falls squarely on our leaders....

I do not know if this makes sense, I have the flu, and medicine has made me a tad loopy...

blackfox

Jun 26, 2004, 07:05 PM

Now, now children....let's play nice

Neserk

Jun 26, 2004, 07:05 PM

Neserk, while I admire your sentiments, of course war and the nature of its' participants is more complicated. While it is a senseless system, it is also intricately tied into our humanity...however, it should (war) not be entered into lightly, and imo, is a policy of last resorts...this is why I raise an eyebrow to any doctrine that features pre-emptiveness. Unfortunately, there are conflicts/differences that can seemingly only be resolved by violent means, as at times it is the only common-denominator that the participants understand. We should feel good that at this point in history, wars between Western Countries are almost unthinkable...there is progress being made.

As for soldiers, they are but pawns of policy, and I do respect them for willing to give the ultimate sacrifice for their country...as to whether if they should pay more attention to the reasons for fighting in the first place, they are often not in a position to know enough to judge the validity of policy. I feel the responsibility for whether or not our men and women should go off and fight falls squarely on our leaders....

I do not know if this makes sense, I have the flu, and medicine has made me a tad loopy...

I disagree. War is rarely the answer. It should always be the last resort and only done as self-defense.

Those in the military aren't giving the ultimate sacrifice *for their own country* not unless you are talking about Iraqi's. They are murdering and dying for Dubya and his vengence. I don't understand why *anyone* would join the military in the first place.

skunk

Jun 26, 2004, 07:09 PM

I don't understand why *anyone* would join the military in the first place.
At least some of them join up to protect their country.

LethalWolfe

Jun 26, 2004, 07:10 PM

Then how can you possibly support a war???

I have respect for everyone starting out. But for those who join a group of people who's primary objective is murder? They lose it until I know them.

Just out of curiousity would your view of the military be different if instead of fighting over seas they were fighting against a forgien invader on American soil?
Also out of curiousity, how do you execpt to get to know someone you hold such contempt, and seeming disdain<sp?>, for? How are you going to start that conversation, "Hey baby killer, how many helpless women and children did you murder in the desert?"

Are you talking about war in general or specifically what's going on in Iraq? I can support war, in general, because I believe there are things worth fighting for and worth dieing for and, yes, worth killing for. I can support a war because there will always be people/groups of people that only respond to force. Do I support the war in Iraq? I did at first but I no longer do. Do I blame the ground pounders? No, I blame the people in charge who sent them there. Do the troops have a choice? No, not realisitcally. Yes, they could all go AWOL but that is as stupid a notion as suggesting alll anti-war people leave the US so their tax dollars will no longer support a war they find unjust (You don't believe in the war but you are willing to finance it? What kind of crap is that? ;)).

Ideally there would never be war or poverty or starvation or oppression but we don't live in an ideal world. We live in an imperfect world. And the reality of this imperfect world is that realistic, not idealist, solutions are needed for the problems we face.

Lethal

EDIT: Awimoway, sorry for taking a leading role in hijacking your thread. :o

blackfox

Jun 26, 2004, 07:11 PM

Neserk, you do know that my post largely agreed w/you, right?

With regards to US soldiers, they have signed a contract w/ the government for service...and are as susceptible to war-propaganda as the rest of us...I think you are giving them too hard a time...I would suppose that often their range of choices ranges from bad to worse, once they find themselves in the "sh**"...

BOSOX78250

Jun 26, 2004, 07:28 PM

I just got back from the movie, and although never been a big Moore fan, I loved it.

The Bush digs got old after a while, but he definately opened the eyes of alot of Americans that have looked at 9/11 and this war.

The biggest thing for me is who do you believe??? The facts in this movie for me are shocking. Half of the information was new to me. There is so much hard evidence to back-up Moore's film but it is Moore's evidence. I feel like I supported the war on the basis of a big fat lie. On the other hand I cation myself on supporting the views in this movie because it too could be a big fat lie! Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.(THAT IS HOW THE LINE GOES BUSH!)

So I lean to my brilliant MACRUMORS MEMBERS for some advice. Fire away!

Thanks!

Neserk

Jun 26, 2004, 07:34 PM

Just out of curiousity would your view of the military be different if instead of fighting over seas they were fighting against a forgien invader on American soil?

Like I stated: self-defense is different.

Also out of curiousity, how do you execpt to get to know someone you hold such contempt, and seeming disdain<sp?>, for? How are you going to start that conversation, "Hey baby killer, how many helpless women and children did you murder in the desert?"

Nothing like sterotyping is there?

I've gotten to know many people who I disagreed with or didn't have respect for because of something did or believed in. For example: when I used to believe homosexuality was a sin and knew people very well who were gay. The people I knew had no idea I was struggling with trying to figure out rather or not what they were doing "between the sheets" was okay.

Treating someone with general respect and having respect for them are two different things. I will *not* have respect for people who go to other countries and kill people just because they do that --which is what someone was suggesting I do! And I have serious questions about why anyone would want to do that, so I'm going to hold back respect until I'm sure an individual actually deserves that respect.

Are you talking about war in general or specifically what's going on in Iraq? I can support war, in general, because I believe there are things worth fighting for and worth dieing for and, yes, worth killing for.

War in general. The only recent war that valid (for the US to be involved in) as far as I can tell was WWII.

Neserk

Jun 26, 2004, 07:37 PM

Neserk, you do know that my post largely agreed w/you, right?

no... :o

With regards to US soldiers, they have signed a contract w/ the government for service...and are as susceptible to war-propaganda as the rest of us...I think you are giving them too hard a time...I would suppose that often their range of choices ranges from bad to worse, once they find themselves in the "sh**"...

Which is why I don't understand why people would do such a thing. I waiver on having sympathy for them and thinking they are all dolts. I could never sign up blindly like that not know what was going to happen. Too many wars have been started in just my life time by people who shouldn't have started them. I guess it is like smoking. People should know better by now.

IJ Reilly

Jun 26, 2004, 07:37 PM

cause' they are serving their country - and possibly dying for it. those people deserve MY respect. obviously not yours, though.

When you talk about "respect for the military," do you mean the men and women in uniform, the top brass, the civilian political leadership, or the defense industry?

Dale Sorel

Jun 26, 2004, 07:50 PM

Perhaps you should talk to more people and visit more forums.

ROTFLMAO :p

LethalWolfe

Jun 26, 2004, 08:22 PM

Like I stated: self-defense is different.
I missed a few exchanges between you and Blackfox as I was writting my last reply otherwise I would have avoided the redundency<sp?>.

Any army's basic function is combat (either offensive or defensive). It's a tool, a weapon. And like any tool or weapon it is subject to whomever wields it. The primary function of each individual in that army varies greatly from combat to fixing vehicles to medicine to logistics.

Nothing like sterotyping is there?

Why do you say that? Twice in this thread alone you've refered to the troops as "murderers." I admit, though, I did put some inflamitory phrases in there. Would this face-to-face opening line be more accurate, "Hello solider. How many people did you murder in Iraq?" What about just, "Hello Murderer." Or would you just call them murders behind their backs, anonymously on the internet?

Speaking of stereotypes... Your calling all the troops "murderers" is pretty stereotypical is it not? If for no other reason than most of the troops never even see combat. They spend their time in the rear w/the gear in support roles for those that are seeing combat.

Lethal

EDIT: Sense I've already got your attention, I love your sig. It reminds me of something my girlfriend would stick on the fridge. :)

blackfox

Jun 26, 2004, 08:33 PM

Lethal...this is so off-topic, but what is your 'tar...it looks like a projection or a large plasma screen...I know from topics outside of the PF, that you do a fair amount of Video work...is that something of yours? At a venue...or just something you like...sorry to not be clearer, as the flu (and subsequently, lots o' medicine) are taking their toll...I ask as I do projection/VJ work (not as much, these days) and it hit a chord...cheers

Neserk

Jun 26, 2004, 09:00 PM

Why do you say that? Twice in this thread alone you've refered to the troops as "murderers." I admit, though, I did put some inflamitory phrases in there. Would this face-to-face opening line be more accurate, "Hello solider. How many people did you murder in Iraq?" What about just, "Hello Murderer." Or would you just call them murders behind their backs, anonymously on the internet?

:rolleyes: That is so ridiculous there is no other appropriate response.

Speaking of stereotypes... Your calling all the troops "murderers" is pretty stereotypical is it not? If for no other reason than most of the troops never even see combat. They spend their time in the rear w/the gear in support roles for those that are seeing combat.

What does the military train people to do? Kill! What do you want me think? It isn't a stereotype. It is the whole purpose of the military. Teach people to feel comfortable killing other human beings.

EDIT: Sense I've already got your attention, I love your sig. It reminds me of something my girlfriend would stick on the fridge. :)

:D I love dark chocolate. Although, too much makes me jittery. Caffeine :eek:

bitfactory

Jun 26, 2004, 09:46 PM

No, what is pathetic is that someone who's primary job is to go out and kill people should automatically be given respect!

spoken like a true liberal. compassionate, indeed.

Voltron

Jun 26, 2004, 09:47 PM

I disagree. War is rarely the answer. It should always be the last resort and only done as self-defense.

Those in the military aren't giving the ultimate sacrifice *for their own country* not unless you are talking about Iraqi's. They are murdering and dying for Dubya and his vengence. I don't understand why *anyone* would join the military in the first place.
I guess we should've just limited our fight in WWII to Japan after all Germany never attacked us.

Neserk

Jun 26, 2004, 09:50 PM

spoken like a true liberal. compassionate, indeed.

:confused: your comment doesn't make sense, I assuming you are being sarcastic.

blackfox

Jun 26, 2004, 11:41 PM

Neserk, while I admire and cannot argue the morality of opposing war (and derivatives such as a trained military), it is an ideological position...and an idealistic one. Your position completely ignores human nature, which has, and will continue to have, much war and death...sad, but true. While human beings are rational beings, and have made great strides in our development, our rationality has both a limit and an occasion to be coldly applied. On a finite surface (the world) and with an ever-expanding populace needing resources, conflict is inevitable, and in many instances when the conflict is based on ideology, perhaps intractable...

As for Voltron, the situation w/ regards to Germany was obviously different than our current one...our allies were being invaded/overrun by Germany...well, you should know by now...
The situation with Iraq, however, did not involve a threat, stated or otherwise, to either the US or any of our European Allies. It is true that Saddam may have upset the balance-of-power in the ME, disturbing US and European interests, but militarily he posed no threats to us...One thing you have to ask yourself, Voltron, is considering the common interests and culture we share with Europe, when we posit a premise (such as why Iraq needs to be invaded) and no-one agrees with our analysis, should that not be a time to reconsider whether we were correct? No-one supported the US w/ relation to Vietnam, and wisely so...people make mistakes, from you and I to policy-makers and heads-of-State, should we not re-examine our assumptions from time to time, to take into account other opinions, to combat this tendency? The Iraq situation is unique. Parallels to WWII are ridiculous, parallels to Vietnam are more illustrative, but not completely applicable...

Bit, Let me remind you that both Democrats and Rebublicans have gone to War, and have opposed it...War often transcends Partisan politics, especially when it has seemed to have been waged recklessly and sloppily...I do not dislike Bush because he is a Republican...I dislike him because of what he has done, and the manner in which he has done it...so, please, no cheap shots on "liberals" because beyond that term, we are all thoughtful, complex, self-interested unique individuals, whose thinking and beliefs do not neatly fit into these terms...It is true that I am more Liberal than not, but that is because they are closer to what I beleive in than any constructive alternative, not because they fit me like a glove...I am conservative on a great many issues too, and between on many more. This does not even take into account the corruption of both Liberal and Conservative by those parties respectively, and their oppostion...

Voltron

Jun 26, 2004, 11:50 PM

As for Voltron, the situation w/ regards to Germany was obviously different than our current one...our allies were being invaded/overrun by Germany...well, you should know by now...
The situation with Iraq, however, did not involve a threat, stated or otherwise, to either the US or any of our European Allies. It is true that Saddam may have upset the balance-of-power in the ME, disturbing US and European interests, but militarily he posed no threats to us...One thing you have to ask yourself, Voltron, is considering the common interests and culture we share with Europe, when we posit a premise (such as why Iraq needs to be invaded) and no-one agrees with our analysis, should that not be a time to reconsider whether we were correct? No-one supported the US w/ relation to Vietnam, and wisely so...people make mistakes, from you and I to policy-makers and heads-of-State, should we not re-examine our assumptions from time to time, to take into account other opinions, to combat this tendency? The Iraq situation is unique. Parallels to WWII are ridiculous, parallels to Vietnam are more illustrative, but not completely applicable...

...
Why did you limit it to our European allies? We have other allies, like Israel and Turkey for example.

zimv20

Jun 27, 2004, 12:05 AM

No, what is pathetic is that someone who's primary job is to go out and kill people should automatically be given respect!
neserk, i think that's a little harsh. soldiering is an honorable profession, imo. some soldiers dishonor their own uniforms, sometimes commanders do it for them, but i think to automatically discount their service is unfair.

IJ Reilly

Jun 27, 2004, 01:25 AM

All I know is I asked a very straight-forward question and haven't got an answer. What's up with that?

blackfox

Jun 27, 2004, 02:06 AM

When you talk about "respect for the military," do you mean the men and women in uniform, the top brass, the civilian political leadership, or the defense industry?
To address this question, IJ (although I do not know if it was meant for me)...this imo...as a generic term, I refer to the phrase "respect for the military" as applying to those in Uniform, which numerically, if nothing else, means the enlisted men, and officers from perhaps as high as colonel on down. Usually, I would say that I have "respect for our soldiers" or "men in uniform", but I can get sloppy w/ language. The civilian political leadership derives any respect from a different set of criteria relevant to the different context that they serve in. As far as the Defense Industry, I have a very abstract (and non-moral based) criteria for them.

In relation to current events, I have a high respect for the lower-to-mid level men in Uniform, as they bear the responsibility of bearing out policy on the ground in a war environment, and it is often poor or irrelevant to the situation, either because it is partially based on politics, not sound-strategy, or it is ill-informed, or just plain incorrect, but in a hiearchal system, it must be followed nontheless.

I also have a tentative respect for most of the military brass, who are trained career soldiers and no how to execute a well-run engagement. The initial success of the US invasion was a case in point for this...I do wonder, however, of potential overzealousness on their parts as related to appropriations and perhaps a fascination w/ US military power. I also wonder about Cold War mentality in some of the older Brass, which is increasingly irrelevant...whether the issues surrounding torture and some Generals, can be attributed directly to them,or civilian or intelligence policy-makers, I do not know, although If a pro-torture policy was developed/advocated by a General in the loop, I feel it is the responsibility of the Civilian Political Leadership for oversight and the final say on Policy.

As far as Civilian Political Leadership now, I have very little respect for any of them, with the possible exception of Colin Powell, who has consistently fought the neo-con agenda. Perhaps he has not done enough, though, and perhaps should have resigned in protest...on the other hand, perhaps he is still a moderating factor. Rumsfeld and Ultimately Bush do not need any introduction, as is the case with Wolfowitz (sp?)...almost criminal in their management of the War...if not actually.

As the Defense Industry goes, it is hard to respect an industry that deals death, much like it is hard to respect tobacco companies. Their lobbying interests/connection to policy, with the net effect of distorting priorities from what they ultimately should be is a further reason to not respect them, as is the policy of selling arms all over the world, making serious armed conflicts all the more prevalent. The only thing I can kind of respect is the sheer sophistication of their products, and their efficiency in killing...not much to respect.

Is this what you were asking IJ?

Mason

Jun 27, 2004, 03:24 AM

I don't understand why people would say that Moore disrespects the military in this movie. Rather, one of the last things he says in this movie is that the members of the armed forces are willing to die for the rest of us and the only thing they ask of us is that we only go to war when it's absolutely necessary. What better way to respect them than by honoring that request?

Neserk

Jun 27, 2004, 10:27 AM

neserk, i think that's a little harsh. soldiering is an honorable profession, imo. some soldiers dishonor their own uniforms, sometimes commanders do it for them, but i think to automatically discount their service is unfair.

And you are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

IJ Reilly

Jun 27, 2004, 11:27 AM

Is this what you were asking IJ?

Yes, thanks for the answer, but the question was really directed at bitfactory, who said that Moore shows no "respect for the military." I haven't seen the film yet, but from what I've heard and read, I understood he's made it pretty clear that it's the civilian leadership that he doesn't respect, for putting American servicemen and women in harm's way in the name a cause he feels is unjust. Of course there's a huge difference, but one of the oldest tricks in the book to paint anyone who doesn't support their civilian leadership as disrespecting men and women in uniform. So I'm curious -- does anyone else who's actually seen the film think Moore portrayed US servicepeople as "barbarians?"

evil

Jun 27, 2004, 11:48 AM

Yes, thanks for the answer, but the question was really directed at bitfactory, who said that Moore shows no "respect for the military." I haven't seen the film yet, but from what I've heard and read, I understood he's made it pretty clear that it's the civilian leadership that he doesn't respect, for putting American servicemen and women in harm's way in the name a cause he feels is unjust. Of course there's a huge difference, but one of the oldest tricks in the book to paint anyone who doesn't support their civilian leadership as disrespecting men and women in uniform. So I'm curious -- does anyone else who's actually seen the film think Moore portrayed US servicepeople as "barbarians?"

actually i saw it yesterday and moore explicitly says that he does not blame the ordinary soldier.
he was showing his anger towards the leaders who put the soldiers in the situation they are in.

moore said that people sign up for the military to help defend the country and not to be sent off for reasons other than that.

IJ Reilly

Jun 27, 2004, 12:17 PM

actually i saw it yesterday and moore explicitly says that he does not blame the ordinary soldier.
he was showing his anger towards the leaders who put the soldiers in the situation they are in.

moore said that people sign up for the military to help defend the country and not to be sent off for reasons other than that.

Ah. Maybe that's why bitfactory didn't respond to my question.

LethalWolfe

Jun 27, 2004, 12:26 PM

:rolleyes: That is so ridiculous there is no other appropriate response.

Why is it so ridiculous? You've refered to the troops twice as murderers in this thread. They are your words. I'm just trying to figure out 2 things.
1. Would you call a soldier a murder to his/her face or would just call them murders anonymously on the internet. 2. If you ever met a soldier would you give him/her a chance or would you constantly be thinking "murderer, murderer, murderer"?

What does the military train people to do? Kill! What do you want me think? It isn't a stereotype. It is the whole purpose of the military. Teach people to feel comfortable killing other human beings.

So catagorizing an entire group based on the actions of a relatively small minority isn't stereotyping? Unless, of course, your only requirement for being a "murderer" is the mere knowledge of how to kill someone. The military also trains doctors and nurses and chemists and firefighters and police and pilots and chefs and mechanics and IT admins, etc.,. For almost every civilian job there is a military counterpart.

You said that as defense it's okay. But how can a country defend itself w/o a military? You could have some sort of civil defense force. But that's even worse because then everyone would be a murderer. What about countries that require a short stint in the military? Is everyone in Switzerland a murderer?

I agree that ideally there shouldn't be a need for army's but this isn't an ideal world.

[[/QUOTE]
:D I love dark chocolate. Although, too much makes me jittery. Caffeine :eek:[/QUOTE]

My g/f loves dark chocolage, too. I'm more of a white chocolate person though. Give me a bag of Hershey's Hugs and I'm good to go. :D Or Hershey's "Cookies 'n Cream" candy bar. Or the white chocolate Kit-Kats... :o Pardon me I think I just drooled on my keyboard.

Lethal

Neserk

Jun 27, 2004, 12:40 PM

:D I love dark chocolate. Although, too much makes me jittery. Caffeine :eek:

My g/f loves dark chocolage, too. I'm more of a white chocolate person though. Give me a bag of Hershey's Hugs and I'm good to go. :D Or Hershey's "Cookies 'n Cream" candy bar. Or the white chocolate Kit-Kats... :o Pardon me I think I just drooled on my keyboard.

Lethal

lol... *hands lethal a napkin*

zimv20

Jun 27, 2004, 12:53 PM

My g/f loves dark chocolage, too. I'm more of a white chocolate person though. Give me a bag of Hershey's Hugs and I'm good to go. :D Or Hershey's "Cookies 'n Cream" candy bar. Or the white chocolate Kit-Kats... :o Pardon me I think I just drooled on my keyboard.

heh heh, i've got you both beat -- i work at a chocolate place. the owner/chocolatier told me she's never met anyone who likes chocolate as much as i do. :-)

Neserk

Jun 27, 2004, 01:05 PM

heh heh, i've got you both beat -- i work at a chocolate place. the owner/chocolatier told me she's never met anyone who likes chocolate as much as i do. :-)

I'd say I was jealous but it is best I not work at a chocolate place. I also stay away from visuals that make me crave chocolate more than normal :p

ALthough Dark Chocolate is loaded with antioxidants.... so....

zimv20

Jun 27, 2004, 01:08 PM

ALthough Dark Chocolate is loaded with antioxidants....
then so am i :-)

Neserk

Jun 27, 2004, 01:10 PM

then so am i :-)

Good for you :D According to my sister the nurse (who isn't always right, but for what it is worth) the milk in milk-chocolate counteracts the anti-oxidants. I don't know if it is true or not but since I'm allergic to milk I tend to stick with dark chocolate anyhow.

takao

Jun 27, 2004, 01:21 PM

You said that as defense it's okay. But how can a country defend itself w/o a military? You could have some sort of civil defense force. But that's even worse because then everyone would be a murderer. What about countries that require a short stint in the military? Is everyone in Switzerland a murderer?

hm i had a short "stint" in our military (8 months)... to compare a conscript service based system with the professional-system of the USA is a little bit ...way off...

here the army is refered as partial-necessary unwanted evil (similiarites with a regular visit at the dentist come to my mind) ..."bundesheer" is accepted in the public as synonym for "incompetence","inefficence","waste of money","stupidity","bureaucracy"...

voluntary joining the forces is considered "stupid","fanatic"... i haven't heard once that service in a fighting force is honorable...last time the army held a parade there were protests against that on a large scale and complains about the noise ;) (reminds me of the rule that shooting with excercise munition is only allowed untill 8pm...if they want to shoot after that they have to inform the public before)
... here you get refered as "murderer" during your unwanted service _all the time_ (especially by girls)
well i refered to myself as "potentional murderer"....and had no problem with it

from my expierence militarism/flag-patriotism is non-existent here due to the good history education through media/school/government... to_own_ a flag is considered as _freaky_ .....imagine that...

Neserk

Jun 27, 2004, 01:31 PM

voluntary joining the forces is considered "stupid","fanatic"... i haven't heard once that service in a fighting force is honorable...last time the army held a parade there were protests against that on a large scale and complains about the noise ;) (reminds me of the rule that shooting with excercise munition is only allowed untill 8pm...if they want to shoot after that they have to inform the public before)

Maybe I should live in Austria.

I understand people joining up during a war (ie WWII) because their country is being attacked...

... here you get refered as "murderer" during your unwanted service _all the time_ (especially by girls)
well i refered to myself as "potentional murderer"....and had no problem with it

from my expierence militarism/flag-patriotism is non-existent here due to the good history education through media/school/government... to_own_ a flag is considered as _freaky_ .....imagine that...

hmmm.. maybe I'm Austrian at heart ;)

Awimoway

Jun 27, 2004, 03:40 PM

From: Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5523358)

According to studio estimates issued on Sunday, "Fahrenheit 9/11," in which Moore takes aim at President Bush, and the war in Iraq, opened at No. 1 after selling about $21.8 million worth of tickets in the United States and Canada since June 25.

All told, the movie's total stands at $21.96 million, [despite playing at] a relatively modest 868 theaters ... (By contrast, most of the other movies in the top five were playing in more than 2,500 theaters each.)

...

Indeed, "Fahrenheit 9/11" played strongly in big cities and small towns, in Democrat and Republican states, said Tom Ortenberg, the president of distribution at Lions Gate Films, one of the firms that backed the movie.

According to exit surveys in about 15 cities, 91 percent of respondents gave the film an "excellent" rating, while 93 percent said they would "definitely recommend" the film -- tallies that Ortenberg said were the best he had ever seen. The core audience was aged between 25 and 34, he added.

LaMerVipere

Jun 27, 2004, 03:53 PM

From: Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5523358)

Great news! It's also on the Yahoo! front page. :cool:

http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/weekendboxofficer.html

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 27, 2004, 04:11 PM

Great news! It's also on the Yahoo! front page. :cool:

http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/weekendboxofficer.html

Man, if they could have had 2000 theaters F911 could have seen a box office of about $50 million in its opening weekend.

zimv20

Jun 27, 2004, 04:17 PM

Man, if they could have had 2000 theaters F911 could have seen a box office of about $50 million in its opening weekend.
link (http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=67)

i've never heard of this tom flocco guy before, but i found this interesting:

Fahrenheit 9-11 censored in PA Republican voter stronghold?

by Tom Flocco

PHILADELPHIA -- June 26, 2004 8:30 pm -- Tom Flocco.com -- Michael Moore’s controversial new movie Fahrenheit 9-11 was completely blacked out in densely Republican vote-heavy Delaware county and faced near total censorship in the fifth largest U.S. market--Philadelphia and its Delaware Valley suburbs--as the film opened yesterday on just 12 screens out of 377 total* ( 3 % ) in 43 Philadelphia area theaters. Moore wrote, produced and directed the movie documentary critical of President Bush’s war policy and actions during the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The film is appearing on only 4 screens out of 197 ( 2 % ) in the heavily Republican voter strongholds of suburban Delaware ( 0 screens ), Bucks ( 3 ) and Chester ( 1 ) counties. This, as political cognoscenti in the Keystone State are fully aware that sell-outs and public awareness of the explosive picture could ultimately affect the size of the suburban GOP voter turnout this Fall in southeastern Pennsylvania--and ultimately the electoral college.

The Regal Entertainment Group maintains a strong movie theater presence in the suburban marketplace surrounding Philadelphia; but it also keeps close financial ties to President Bush. This, as Regal is showing Moore’s Fahrenheit on just 4 of its 108 movie screens in Philadelphia and its suburbs.

Alternative news website WhatReallyHappened.com (WRH) researched the background of a group launching a campaign to deter theater owners from showing Fahrenheit 9/11. It was reported that some theater owners have received death threats.

The group, Move America Forward, is backed by a public relations firm out of San Francisco named Russo, Marsh & Rogers, which has strong ties to the GOP, as Sal Russo served as an advisor for the "Recall Grey Davis" campaign, indicating that the PR firm may be allegedly involved in the letter-writing campaign, threats, and harassment of theater owners who show Michael Moore’s film.

IJ Reilly

Jun 27, 2004, 06:28 PM

I wonder if Disney is regretting their decision yet?

3rdpath

Jun 27, 2004, 08:16 PM

I wonder if Disney is regretting their decision yet?

i doubt it. i'm sure they'd love the revenue but disney is extremely concerned with their public image...which is quite ironic since their reputation within the industry is horrible. of course, after the stockholders berate eisner at the next shareholder's meeting he might think twice next time a controversial movie comes along. besides, i thought that was the whole reason buena vista pictures was formed...to be the un-disney.

MattG

Jun 27, 2004, 11:28 PM

Just got home from it 15 minutes ago. Great movie.

blackfox

Jun 28, 2004, 07:09 AM

I thought I might post this review of the movie from one of my favorite (at least somewhat amusing) critics...I tend to disagree some, but agree more with his verdict...

here you are :
http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/

perhaps this will make everyone happy (or unhappy)...

jelloshotsrule

Jun 28, 2004, 10:22 AM

neserk- did you see the movie? do you think moore is wrong in giving the troops that have died their respects? do you think nothing of the circumstances under which people are almost *forced* to join the military because of poverty? while i agree that our wars aren't justified, i refuse to condemn someone for joining the military (which will train them to kill) when i don't know the how or why of their enlistment

i encourage you to consider that most people who join probably assume they'll never have to pull a trigger. but rather, they need the education, the job, etc. i would guess that a relatively small % of them are the gun freak type. though admittedly, even good people, when put in positions of power (see prison guards in iraq) can let the power go to their heads..

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 28, 2004, 06:07 PM

Voltron

Jun 28, 2004, 06:23 PM

More the reason to have a draft with no difference between races or economic status. We might see the Republicans less likely to send their children off to war. But hey, wasn't a point in Moore's movie?
Actually if possible it is better to have those who want to be there because they will fight better than those who are forced to be there.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 28, 2004, 06:35 PM

Actually if possible it is better to have those who want to be there because they will fight better than those who are forced to be there.

Yeah lets just send off those to die that have no other real options in the community for good jobs. And this way we don't have to see rich boys and girls come back in body bags.

Oh I forgot this is the conservative version of "socialism".

IJ Reilly

Jun 28, 2004, 10:35 PM

LethalWolfe

Jun 28, 2004, 10:47 PM

Today I had two people two people with whom I have never discussed politics before ask me whether I'd seen Fahrenheit 9-11. One of these folks I'd always assumed was a Republican. I also heard that the film was playing to packed houses all weekend at the largest theater in Santa Barbara -- 1,200 seats. Now, Santa Barbara is a pretty liberal town, but still, this is a pretty major result. Not only is the box office amazing, but so is the buzz.

Love it or hate it, this movie has "phenomenon" written all over it. If I was a Republican, I'd be very concerned about the groundswell that seems to be building behind it.

The only thing that concerns me is how many people are going to turn into sheep and take Moore's self-proclaimed biased op-ed film as fact.

Not a bad return so far on a film that only cost 6 million to make and probably spent next to nothing on marketing. I wouldn't be surprised if it out earned Chronicles of Riddick. :D

Lethal

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 28, 2004, 10:49 PM

Today I had two people two people with whom I have never discussed politics before ask me whether I'd seen Fahrenheit 9-11. One of these folks I'd always assumed was a Republican. I also heard that the film was playing to packed houses all weekend at the largest theater in Santa Barbara -- 1,200 seats. Now, Santa Barbara is a pretty liberal town, but still, this is a pretty major result. Not only is the box office amazing, but so is the buzz.

Love it or hate it, this movie has "phenomenon" written all over it. If I was a Republican, I'd be very concerned about the groundswell that seems to be building behind it.

I had the same thing at my office. Which I thought was a Republican sub-office :D I guess they weren't as die hard Republican as I thought. :)

Some thought that Moore was over the top, a few thought that he really showed what was happening behind the "scenes". I guess some don't read anything other than Michael jackson or Brittany Spears.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 28, 2004, 10:53 PM

LethalWolfe

Jun 28, 2004, 11:19 PM

Is it any less than the RNC wanting us to take the video from the USS Lincoln as total fact? Ot Bush looking in to the American publics face saying that Iraq had WMD, or that Saddam was with al Qeuda? Or the House and Senate passing the Patriot Act BEFORE reading it?

Why do you assume I like the ************ from the far right any more than I like the ************ from the far left? I don't like the ************ from either side. And the fingering pointing justification of "Well they said this" or "They did that" is just as irritating.

Rise above. Don't sink to the level that you belittle your opponent for sinking to. Don't let the other guy pull you down to that level. Stay rational. Stay realistic. Stay critical. Stay open to the possiblity that you might be wrong and someone else might be right. The important part should be finding a solution to the problem, not making sure you find the solution to the problem.

One of the greatest things about this country is that anyone is free to disagree w/anyone else. So don't get so mad just because not every sees things the way you do. Hell, I'd start thinking something was wrong if we all started agreeing on everything.

Lethal

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 28, 2004, 11:26 PM

Why do you assume I like the ************ from the far right any more than I like the ************ from the far left? I don't like the ************ from either side. And the fingering pointing justification of "Well they said this" or "They did that" is just as irritating.

Rise above. Don't sink to the level that you belittle your opponent for sinking to. Don't let the other guy pull you down to that level. Stay rational. Stay realistic. Stay critical. Stay open to the possiblity that you might be wrong and someone else might be right. The important part should be finding a solution to the problem, not making sure you find the solution to the problem.

One of the greatest things about this country is that anyone is free to disagree w/anyone else. So don't get so mad just because not every sees things the way you do. Hell, I'd start thinking something was wrong if we all started agreeing on everything.

Lethal

You and I may be closer than you think.

I took your comments to be very right leaning.

In the end this type of movie is what we may see more of in the future. Many people are not willing to take the time IMO to read what is needed to come up with their own informed opinions. Not just what the RNC or DNC says. Though I will show my partisan in that the RNC seems to do a better job at directing people on how they should feel.Think of Willie Horton, a total distortion of the truth that Democrats trying to take the high road could not over come.

LethalWolfe

Jun 29, 2004, 12:12 AM

You and I may be closer than you think.

I took your comments to be very right leaning.

In the end this type of movie is what we may see more of in the future. Many people are not willing to take the time IMO to read what is needed to come up with their own informed opinions. Not just what the RNC or DNC says. Though I will show my partisan in that the RNC seems to do a better job at directing people on how they should feel.Think of Willie Horton, a total distortion of the truth that Democrats trying to take the high road could not over come.

I think most of us on this board are closer than we think, but for a variety of reasons we focus more on our differences than on our similarities. Maybe everyone here just enjoys "healthy debating" a bit too much. :)

I agree that as a society (at least in America, I can't speak for other parts of the world) we are becoming more dependent on others telling us what is "true" and are less likely to actually do some critical thinking to arrive at our own conclusions. I know that many people (including myself) don't always have time to track down a half dozen independent sources covering the same topic in an effort to get a well-rounded view of what's going on. So, I'm not saying we all have to be news junkies. All I ask is a little less taking things at face value and a little more critial thinking. Is that really so much to ask for? :super-frusterated animated smilie goes here:

F9/11 has only been out one weekend but I've already run into a half dozen people praising the thing as if it was a masterful work of investigative<sp>? journalism. Argh. If this movie strikes a cord w/you that's great. Go learn more about the events and topics it brings up. Educate yourself. Form your own conclusions. THINK DAMNIT THINK! A poll done early this year showed that the majority of people in their late teens/twenties (I don't remember the exact age bracket) get most of their NEWS from latenight talk shows like The Daily Show, Letterman, Leno, and Conan. :eek: :( Skits on SNL shouldn't effect who you vote for.

Before I completely go ranting off into oblivion I'm going to take a few deep breaths, walk away from the computer and go read a book or something...

Lethal

zimv20

Jun 29, 2004, 12:55 AM

Skits on SNL shouldn't effect who you vote for.

satire* is a very effective tool. pen is mightier and all that. if a political sketch can reveal a logical fallacy in a position, draw a relevant parallel or even just show someone/thing for what it really is, i think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to change their opinion on something. the goal of such writing, of course, is to get your audience to think.

* of course, we'll have to determine if SNL does much satire these days, but that's a separate issue. i think the Onion, otoh, is quite good at satire.

LethalWolfe

Jun 29, 2004, 01:57 AM

satire* is a very effective tool. pen is mightier and all that. if a political sketch can reveal a logical fallacy in a position, draw a relevant parallel or even just show someone/thing for what it really is, i think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to change their opinion on something. the goal of such writing, of course, is to get your audience to think.

* of course, we'll have to determine if SNL does much satire these days, but that's a separate issue. i think the Onion, otoh, is quite good at satire.

Oh, I agree. But satire only works if the audience is competent and knowledgeable enough to recognize the satire and what is being satirized. My point before was directed towards people getting their "news" and making decission based almost entirely on late night comedy. There's a big difference between thinking the following snipet is funny and thinking it is real.

Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes
REDMOND, WA—In what CEO Bill Gates called "an unfortunate but necessary step to protect our intellectual property from theft and exploitation by competitors," the Microsoft Corporation patented...

Lethal

zimv20

Jun 29, 2004, 01:59 AM

My point before was directed towards people getting their "news" and making decission based almost entirely on late night comedy.
gotcha

mactastic

Jun 29, 2004, 09:11 AM

My point before was directed towards people getting their "news" and making decission based almost entirely on late night comedy.

IOW not at any of the people on this board. Rant away, but realize that your rants aren't reaching those whom you are ranting about.

As to the number of sheeple who will think Moore's movie is pure fact, I'm sure that number is roughly equal to the number of people who think Rush, Hannity, Ingrahm, Coulter et al. speak the unvarnished truth. Before you bust a vein condeming Moore (which you've done consistently here without any cooresponding reaction to 'theliberalmedia' rants) you might want to consider blasting both ways if you want to be considered a 'middle of the road' kind of guy.

And be careful calling them 'skits' around zim. He's touchy about that. ;)

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 29, 2004, 10:00 AM

zimv20

Jun 29, 2004, 12:33 PM

And be careful calling them 'skits' around zim. He's touchy about that. ;)
righto! they're sketches!

LethalWolfe

Jun 29, 2004, 11:16 PM

IOW not at any of the people on this board. Rant away, but realize that your rants aren't reaching those whom you are ranting about.

As to the number of sheeple who will think Moore's movie is pure fact, I'm sure that number is roughly equal to the number of people who think Rush, Hannity, Ingrahm, Coulter et al. speak the unvarnished truth. Before you bust a vein condeming Moore (which you've done consistently here without any cooresponding reaction to 'theliberalmedia' rants) you might want to consider blasting both ways if you want to be considered a 'middle of the road' kind of guy.

And be careful calling them 'skits' around zim. He's touchy about that. ;)

Yeah I realize I'm preaching to the chior, but sometimes you just gotta rant.

I agree about the "sheeple." There are plenty of them to go around. :) Regarding Moore... I've gotten into one or two back-and-forths about BfC, but I haven't said anything about F9/11 beyond "remember it's an op-ed piece so don't take it as 'gospel.'" If Rush, or anyone else, came out w/something like BfC (same stir created, same mainstream media coverage) and peddle it as a documentary I'd be on all over it as much as I was all over BfC. I typically try to stay away from content created by people who make their living doing "infotainment" because I find it neither informative nor entertaining. When I was driving thru New Mexico a few months back the only thing I could get on the radio was either bible-thumping christians or this republican jack-@ss (I don't remember his name but I'd heard it before so he was probably pretty popular). I chose to drive in silence for a few hours until my phone had charged up so I could unplug it and plug my CD player back in.

I guess my long-winded point is you've seen me giving Moore Flak and not people like Hannity, Coulter because Moore has done things that have made huge splashes that you just can't miss. Same as Rush did years back (which is I why I usually use the Rush/Moore example because they seem to be the two most recognizible opposing forces). Geez, even my non-long winded explination is getting long-winded.

I really need to get a bit more sleep. If want I said rambles into nonsense I apologize.

Lethal

EDIT: Sry bout the "skit"/"sketches" thing. It was odd. As I was typing out "skit" I was like, "that is wrong. I don't know why, and I don't know what the correct term is, but I know I'm using 'skit' incorrectly." :)

zimv20

Jun 30, 2004, 12:16 AM

Dont let Micheal Moore do your thinking for you.
have you seen it?

mactastic

Jun 30, 2004, 09:01 AM

Well I can certainly agree with the need to sustain one big lie with 'dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims.'

But I doubt we're thinking of the same lies... :D

Voltron

Jun 30, 2004, 09:34 AM

The only thing that concerns me is how many people are going to turn into sheep and take Moore's self-proclaimed biased op-ed film as fact.

Not a bad return so far on a film that only cost 6 million to make and probably spent next to nothing on marketing. I wouldn't be surprised if it out earned Chronicles of Riddick. :D

Lethal
I worry about this as well. He twists the truth to mean what he wants it to mean and the more gullible will follow this movie as gospel. One example I've seen from a review done by Fox is Bush's statement on a golf course that is published in the movie in a way to make it seem he's talking about all terrorist or al-qaeda terrorist but in reality his words were edited and he was talking about a specific incident in Israel.

Those who think that those who havn't watched the movie and have no intention of watching the movie should not criticize the movie are wrong. By watching the movie I would be contributing to the profits of the movie, and money talks louder than words, he is not going to get any of my money. I see enough reviews and enough pieces of his movie to get the gist. Besides with Bowling for columbine in his repetoire I doubt very much it has any more truth in it than his previous film.

mactastic

Jun 30, 2004, 10:58 AM

By all means continue to base your evaluation of things on your politics rather than its merits.

IJ Reilly

Jun 30, 2004, 11:10 AM

The "Michael Moore community?" Sometimes you can smell desperation from miles away, and this is one of those times it can be whiffed from coast to coast.

Voltron

Jun 30, 2004, 11:12 AM

By all means continue to base your evaluation of things on your politics rather than its merits.
One short sentence doesn't make an entire philosophy.

LeeTom

Jun 30, 2004, 11:27 AM

One short sentence doesn't make an entire philosophy.

But your words do. You really can't make a very good judgement of a movie you haven't seen. Case in point, the clip you are talking about on the golf course. It was not edited, and the context of Israel/Palestine vs. all terrorists makes no difference to the point of the clip. You are making an argument that is meaningless, and you would know that if you had seen the film.

Keep on closin' those eyes, the sun is pretty bright.

Oh wait, you saw the review on Fox News? Ohhhh, I just saw that!... well then, I'm very sorry. Please continue to tell us where the movie stretches the truth.

Lee Tom

skunk

Jun 30, 2004, 04:25 PM

One short sentence doesn't make an entire philosophy.
One small sentence betrays a whole philosophy.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 30, 2004, 04:41 PM

Those who think that those who havn't watched the movie and have no intention of watching the movie should not criticize the movie are wrong. By watching the movie I would be contributing to the profits of the movie, and money talks louder than words, he is not going to get any of my money. I see enough reviews and enough pieces of his movie to get the gist. Besides with Bowling for columbine in his repetoire I doubt very much it has any more truth in it than his previous film.

I understand your feelings. I regularly vote with my money. Yet I know that for myself if there were a similar "conservative" film in the theaters, I would probably go just to have an informed opinion in talking about the film.

Chip NoVaMac

Jun 30, 2004, 04:42 PM

Evidently the big $'s last week spurred a number of theaters to add the film this coming weekend. The theater a few blocks away just added it, so it looks like it will be a must see this weekend.

Voltron

Jun 30, 2004, 08:14 PM

Evidently the big $'s last week spurred a number of theaters to add the film this coming weekend. The theater a few blocks away just added it, so it looks like it will be a must see this weekend.
Maybe I'll just go watch Spiderman. I hear its pretty good.

Stelliform

Jun 30, 2004, 08:19 PM

Maybe I'll just go watch Spiderman. I hear its pretty good.

It will be interesting to see how Moore's movie will compete against Spiderman. We all have to admit that last weekend didn't have very many good movie choices.

IJ Reilly

Jun 30, 2004, 09:06 PM

It looks like Republicans are pinning some of their hopes these days on Spiderman.

blackfox

Jun 30, 2004, 09:24 PM

It looks like Republicans are pinning some of their hopes these days on Spiderman.
wasn't the tagline (for lack of better wording) for the first Spiderman something like: " With great power comes great responsibility..." Does this sound like the Republicans? The Bush Administration?...

zimv20

Jun 30, 2004, 09:28 PM

wasn't the tagline (for lack of better wording) for the first Spiderman something like: " With great power comes great responsibility..."
it also had a scene where spiderman builds a big web between the north and south WTC towers

carbonmotion

Jun 30, 2004, 09:33 PM

wasn't the tagline (for lack of better wording) for the first Spiderman something like: " With great power comes great responsibility..." Does this sound like the Republicans? The Bush Administration?... Sounds like the Bush administration can learn a thing or two from Peter Parker. Sometimes I think we're letting a five year old kid run our country. Someone needs to tell him that the men and women and our armed forces are not G.I. Joe dolls and neither are the iraqi people. When bombs from American supersonic figherbombers tear through the living room of a unsuspecting family, it is not like a video game where after hitting the reset button the virtual world goes back to normal. The bomb explodes, shreding through the flesh of real living people, mutilating their bodies with uncaring savagery. The administration needs a reality check, or better yet the entire nation needs a reality check; we need to realize the kind of failure we have elected to office and correct our mistake before it is too late. Without a vigiliant populace, one day the greatness our democracy may not fall from the attacks upon our walls, but rather from an infection within. Many thousands of years ago, another nation which our country was modeled after collapsed from the inside out, let us not make the same mistake. I think that is all that Moore seeks to do; to awaken the population from their apathetic stupor and make them see past the fog of propaganda that had been blown into their faces.

blackfox

Jun 30, 2004, 09:53 PM

Well, in fairness to my above post, it applies to the Democrats too...although they have had less power proportionately...as far as the War goes( as related to responsibility), I think it was a bad idea...I also think, however, that the responsible course of action now is to see this thing through properly...not that I will forgive Bush for some of his actions or the way he went about them, but I do know that foreign policy should not always reflect domestic opinion, as we (as an aggregate) often lack the facts, analytical skills or empirical experience of life overseas to make sound judgement(s). What I mean by this is, as much as I dislike Bush's taking us into this war and all the surrounding missteps, it would be a crime imo, to hamstring the administration in such a way as to limit them doing what needs to be done now, only because domestic opinion of his actions and the war are so low...did I expalin myself adequately?

LethalWolfe

Jun 30, 2004, 10:02 PM

it also had a scene where spiderman builds a big web between the north and south WTC towers

No it didn't. That footage was from a very early teaser trailer that shared no footage w/the movie.

Lethal

patrick0brien

Jun 30, 2004, 10:06 PM

I understand your feelings. I regularly vote with my money. Yet I know that for myself if there were a similar "conservative" film in the theaters, I would probably go just to have an informed opinion in talking about the film.

-Chip NoVaMac

Well said. Criticizing something not experienced is the root of armchair politics and borders on hypocrisy.

zimv20

Jun 30, 2004, 10:08 PM

No it didn't. That footage was from a very early teaser trailer that shared no footage w/the movie.

didn't know. thanks.

LethalWolfe

Jun 30, 2004, 10:29 PM

didn't know. thanks.

No problem. Sorry if my last post came off as short, I didn't mean to snap at you.

Lethal

pseudobrit

Jun 30, 2004, 10:29 PM

It will be interesting to see how Moore's movie will compete against Spiderman. We all have to admit that last weekend didn't have very many good movie choices.

The big theatre in my (very conservative) county just added the film today.

My parents went to see it at 4 PM and it was a packed house that applauded at the end. The 7.00 show was already sold out.

So it appears to be relatively holding its own against Spiderman.

I saw it on Saturday about 50 miles away, at 5 PM in the biggest autitorium of a megaplex and it was a packed house that applauded at the end.

I've been to maybe 2 other films in my life that have recieved applause at the close, and one of them was the nerd-packed midnight showing of Phantom Menace. The other, I think, was Bowling for Columbine.

blackfox

Jun 30, 2004, 10:32 PM

Sayhey

Jun 30, 2004, 10:37 PM

coopdog

Jun 30, 2004, 10:38 PM

This movie seems like a college movie project, not a major motion picture. This movie was poorly edited, biased, and really showed NO tallet on More's part.

The only reason why it won that Cam film festival or whatever it is called is because the majority of people there were democrats and/or anti-bush. On what basis would this movie win? Almost NONE of the footage was More's, it showed no good cinamatography, no editing skills and no plot/flow. Why did it win? Because it was anti-bush. If a movie can win without all thoes things sounds like a pretty ****ty festival to me.

WTF is up with 20 min total of Bush and his staff getting ready and getting make up put on? Many clips were used up to five times.

I love how More goes on about the media being biased, when he himself edited many clips that make him and his message bad. For instance on CNN they showed a clip that More edited out where he is tring to recruit congressmen's kids for the military. The congressman goes off on him about how is son is in the military and how his cousin was just injured and so on.

This movie could have easily been half the length.

It did have some good information, however poorly organized. He listed so many Saudi links that it was hard to keep track of them all. The movie shifted around a lot from one topic to another.

Don't get me wrong I don't like Bush as much as anyother guy. I just think it is bad when More can get a ton of video clips that he didn't even film, edit them poorly and win awards and have the biggest grossing movie right now.

After seeing this movie, do you think Bush really knew for a fact what would happen on 9/11? Do you think he planed and/or let 9/11 happen to stage a war in Iraq?

I don't think it was that direct. I don't see how his staff, the CIA and FBI agents would allow that to happen, even if Bush had another agenda. It's pretty far fetched to think that Bush would allow 3000 Americans to die, then blame Saddam just so he would have the chance to go to Iraq. It's a pretty hard plan to pull off. Especialy if you think what it would do to the economy. There would be a very good chance that the economy would never recover even if Bush was successful in getting oil from Iraq which is proving VERY hard to do.

LethalWolfe

Jun 30, 2004, 10:51 PM

To Lethal and Zim: File this under "hearsay", but I was under the impression the WTC scene was edited out of the final product because of 9/11, not that it made a difference to the movie...I just remember hearing some commotion back in the day...also, do not teasers usually include footage intended for final release? Regardless, FWIW...

There was commotion because people thought that footage actually appeared in the movie (which it didn't) and was cut out due to 9/11. Trailers typically are made w/footage from the movie, but it is a common practice to shoot/create footage for specifically for a teaser/trailer. The Spider-man teaser w/the two towers was a completely stand alone creation (nothing even remotely similar happens in the film) that was released 9 or 10 months before the film hit theaters. That's one reason why I really didn't like that teaser because it had nothing to do w/the movie. One thing they did do, though, is in some of the early movie posters the twin towers were reflected in Spider-man's eyes but the posters were re-issued w/the towers removed.

Spider-man 2 is gonna hammer F9/11 (and everything else). Chronicles of Riddick, which was a huge flop, had a slightly bigger opening weekend than F9/11 did. Opening weekend for the original Spider-man was $114.8 million. I am in no way trying to discount F9/11's monitary success, but this is like comparing an all-state HS Quaterback to an NFL Pro Bowl QB.

Lethal

zimv20

Jun 30, 2004, 10:57 PM

Sorry if my last post came off as short, I didn't mean to snap at you.

my crying was short-lived

:-)

Neserk

Jun 30, 2004, 11:09 PM

Spider-man 2 is gonna hammer F9/11 (and everything else). Lethal

I know I'm going to go see it. I have no desire to see f9/11. I watch movies to escape not to be aggravated.

IJ Reilly

Jun 30, 2004, 11:12 PM

Boy, people really are into this Spiderman thing. I've never seen it.

In any event, these two movies aren't in competition. No doubt, classic summertime escapist fare will in the long run outsell a political nonfiction movie (especially if it opens in 3,000 theaters instead of the 900 for Fahrenheit 9-11). The interesting thing to me is that we're even talking about Moore's movie in this context. Spiderman might be an entertainment blockbuster, but Fahrenheit 9-11 is a phenomenon.

Sayhey

Jun 30, 2004, 11:19 PM

Spider-man 2 is gonna hammer F9/11 (and everything else).

Of course, but what is the point of comparing the receipts of two totally different types of movies? When was the last time you saw lines and packed theaters for a documentary? If Spiderman comes out with great box office figures, just what does that have to do with Fahrenheit 9/11? Heck, I'm taking my kids to both.

blackfox

Jun 30, 2004, 11:26 PM

Sayhey, how old are your kids? Depending on your answer might F911 (a) go over their heads (b) be boring to them (c) be disturbing to them (especially the second-half) (e) end up giving you a headache from the barrage of questions afterwards?

Of course, I am sure they are great kids, with such an intellectual like you as their dad :D

LethalWolfe

Jun 30, 2004, 11:34 PM

Of course, but what is the point of comparing the receipts of two totally different types of movies? When was the last time you saw lines and packed theaters for a documentary? If Spiderman comes out with great box office figures, just what does that have to do with Fahrenheit 9/11? Heck, I'm taking my kids to both.

Why ask me? I didn't make the inital comparison. I just threw my 2 cents into the already going "how is F/911 going to do compared to Spider-man 2" conversation. Like I was trying to ellude<sp?> to in my post the movies are in completely different leagues and it's pointless to compare them.

Lethal

Sayhey

Jul 1, 2004, 12:12 AM

Sayhey, how old are your kids? Depending on your answer might F911 (a) go over their heads (b) be boring to them (c) be disturbing to them (especially the second-half) (e) end up giving you a headache from the barrage of questions afterwards?

My daughter is 18 in three weeks and my son is 15, so they are old enough to see the movie. We talk about politics and they are interested in seeing the movie. I have found it does no good to try and force them to see anything. While I get headaches from when they like to fight with one another, I've never had a problem trying to deal with their questions. Well, except for the sex ed questions in the middle of dinner (usually while in the midst of a crowded restaurant,) but I think they just like embarrassing their old man.

Sayhey

Jul 1, 2004, 12:21 AM

Why ask me? I didn't make the inital comparison. I just threw my 2 cents into the already going "how is F/911 going to do compared to Spider-man 2" conversation. Like I was trying to ellude<sp?> to in my post the movies are in completely different leagues and it's pointless to compare them.

Lethal

My apologies, my reading of your post led me to think you were comparing them, only saying one was in different leagues in terms of quality not type. Sorry, my second reading and your post above clarifies your position for me.

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 1, 2004, 04:31 AM

It looks like Republicans are pinning some of their hopes these days on Spiderman.

LOL. Now that is a candidate from the Republicans that I would vote for in November.

Depending on how many screens are added for F911, I think the numbers will be:

Spiderman $35 million

F911 $15 million

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 1, 2004, 04:33 AM

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 1, 2004, 04:55 AM

After seeing this movie, do you think Bush really knew for a fact what would happen on 9/11? Do you think he planed and/or let 9/11 happen to stage a war in Iraq?

I don't think it was that direct. I don't see how his staff, the CIA and FBI agents would allow that to happen, even if Bush had another agenda. It's pretty far fetched to think that Bush would allow 3000 Americans to die, then blame Saddam just so he would have the chance to go to Iraq. It's a pretty hard plan to pull off. Especialy if you think what it would do to the economy. There would be a very good chance that the economy would never recover even if Bush was successful in getting oil from Iraq which is proving VERY hard to do.

I'll have a better idea maybe after seeing the film.

My view point in that the government is more or less controlled by the Military-Industrial Complex. That our economy is geared more towards building for war, than one of working in peace.

That being said, the loss of life on 9-11 was due to the collapse of the WTC towers. It was that collapse that led to the massive loss of life. Bin Laden was shown on video stating surprise that the towers collapsed. So it is conceivable that fewer lives were anticipated lost by al Qeuda. It does not lessen the feeling that terrorism is wrong of course.

Now, do I think that Bush and his administration knew that attacks were set for 9/11? I don't think that they had a firm date. I do feel that they knew an attack was planned. They probably did not know the scope of the attack. But I don't doubt that they looked at as a possibility to achieve military motives. And let me say that I do feel that even a Gore administration could or would have fallen to desires of the Military-Industrial Complex. All with the same results.

Remember the economy was slowing. And no clear indications on how to come back. Since we had a decade of great growth, with some "unreal" jobs.

Whether we or the administration wants to admit, the boost to the economy is in part due to the war in Iraq. The jobs that reservists left behind in many cases need to be filled at least temporally. Given the level of private contractors being used in the logistical end of the war, that adds jobs to the economy.

I do believe that if the war in Iraq ended today, and all troops and contractors were home tomorrow; that we would see a recession within 6 to 12 months.

blackfox

Jul 1, 2004, 05:05 AM

Geez, Chip...and I thought I was cynical.

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 1, 2004, 05:15 AM

Geez, Chip...and I thought I was cynical.

Call it lessons learned from the early 60's and the Cuban missile crisis. Had we had someone other than Kennedy in office at the time, in particular had Johnson been President (as witnessed by his Vietnam policies led by the Military-Industrial Complex) there might be a number of places in the US and the world that we might just now be able to venture into.

blackfox

Jul 1, 2004, 05:44 AM

Call it lessons learned from the early 60's and the Cuban missile crisis. Had we had someone other than Kennedy in office at the time, in particular had Johnson been President (as witnessed by his Vietnam policies led by the Military-Industrial Complex) there might be a number of places in the US and the world that we might just now be able to venture into.
You know Chip, I am afraid I am too young to remember such a time, and must rely on books and the occasional documentary. One such documentary was "The fog of War" featuring McNamara...he discusses the Cuban missle crisis, and how close we were to mutual annihilation...the saving grace coming from someone who had met Kruschev many years earlier and knew enough about him and Soviet Domestic politics to defuse the situation...The Chiefs of Staff were quite candid about their desire to bomb Cuba back to the stone age. Strangely, so was Cuba...basically meaning mutually assured destruction, which is better represented by it's acronym...MAD. That was a different time, however, and I do not see nukes being used anytime soon.

I do think the MIC does control Government in the sense of constantly pushing for the development and expansion of weapons programs and development, to keep the US the most sophisticated militarily (and make a bunch of coin for themselves), but I tend not to look at it quite as conspiritorally<sp?> as you...still, not outside of the question, but FWIW, I do think the Gore administration would've handled things differently...it is all a question of civilian staffing from the Pres. on down...makes all the difference, as you said with Kennedy, and I said with the one guy in the war room one September afternoon...

Ugg

Jul 1, 2004, 09:25 AM

Not sure which one of the F911 threads this fits into best but here goes.

Der Spiegel has an article (http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,306033,00.html) in German, that discusses the rise of documentary, real life movies.

Ein anderes Motiv für die neue Dokumentarfilm-Begeisterung: Zumindest in den USA trauen viele Zuschauer dem Fernsehen nicht mehr. Seit die Anschläge vom 11. September 2001 die Nation erschütterten und viele Gesetze verschärft wurden, fühlen sie sich unzureichend und einseitig informiert.

Roughly translated it says: Another motive for the new enthusiasm for documentaries, at least in the US, many viewers don't trust the TV anymore. Since the attacks of 9.11 shook people up and many laws have been strengthened, many feel they are insufficiently from one side informed only.

The article doesn't give any source for this information but I do think that this is the reason so many people are going to see the movie. The embedded reporters were a total failure as far as the public was concerned and the refusal of the WH to release even the most basic information as to what is happening in Iraq, other than that the Iraqis are now "free". People want more than Faux News and embedded reporters and over the top nationalistic sentiments.

For what it's worth, F911 had the highest grossing day of any film at Arcata, CA's Minor theatre. The line was around the block and many people were turned away. Not surprising though in that Arcata was one of the first cities to pass a law repudiating the Patriot Act.

Lyle

Jul 1, 2004, 10:01 AM

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 1, 2004, 10:44 AM

Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie yet, although I'll probably rent it someday (as I did "Bowling for Columbine"). As Neserk said it so well earlier in this thread, I watch movies to escape not to be aggravated.

It does seem that the fog is starting to lift, and some pretty well-respected (and yes, non-FOX-employed) journalists are writing about the distortions in the movie. Two of the more recent good ones I've seen were this one (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251769/site/newsweek) from Monday, and this follow-up (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/) from Wednesday (both Newsweek articles by Michael Isikoff).

Very interesting read. Though even Isikoff should probably be with Fox too.

The comment about Bush in the classroom and the 9-11 commission, was priceless since Bush refused to testify under oath. Not too mention it ranks up there being out cheating on your wife IMO. Would one tell the truth from the start?

Some of the other comments seemed valid on the surface. That is if you want to believe everything the government says. The truth many times rests in the middle.

Voltron

Jul 1, 2004, 11:58 AM

Apparently those in charge of China loves Moore's movie.

Michael Moore's provocative anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" is likely to become the first imported documentary in China.

Sources indicate there's a strong possibility some of the violent scenes will be cut if "Fahrenheit 9/11" is screened in China.

The film, which is currently playing in cinemas around North America, was the top ticket-seller last weekend.

http://english1.peopledaily.com.cn/200407/01/eng20040701_148176.html

Isn't it wierd how our enemies seem to try to ally themselves with Democrats?

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 1, 2004, 12:00 PM

Apparently those in charge of China loves Moore's movie.

http://english1.peopledaily.com.cn/200407/01/eng20040701_148176.html

Isn't it wierd how our enemies seem to try to ally themselves with Democrats?

Enemy?

zimv20

Jul 1, 2004, 12:02 PM

Isn't it wierd how our enemies seem to try to ally themselves with Democrats?
by what stretch of imagination is china the US' enemy?

being anti-US is very popular these days. would you attribute that to moore's films moreso than bush's foreign policy?

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 1, 2004, 12:04 PM

by what stretch of imagination is china the US' enemy?

being anti-US is very popular these days. would you attribute that to moore's films moreso than bush's foreign policy?

I guess that makes Germany and France an enemy also :D

mouchoir

Jul 1, 2004, 12:12 PM

being anti-US is very popular these days. would you attribute that to moore's films moreso than bush's foreign policy?

I certainly wouldn't give moore the credit – bush does a great job of it on his own.

I also don't think moore's films or writings are anti-US. I get the impression he loves his country but is disgusted at who runs it and what it has become.

Which is how I feel, though I have no hatred of the american public at large. I am still lucid enough to be aware that america is made up of individuals, just as any other country.

Lyle

Jul 1, 2004, 12:49 PM

Very interesting read. Though even Isikoff should probably be with Fox too.Ah. Just out of curiosity, is there any conservative journalist who you consider to be credible? Or is a journalist credible only if he waves the Michael Moore flag?

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 1, 2004, 01:24 PM

Ah. Just out of curiosity, is there any conservative journalist who you consider to be credible? Or is a journalist credible only if he waves the Michael Moore flag?

Isikoff has shown his true colors long ago. I much prefer when I am left guessing who they vote for in private life.

The problem with journalists is that they don't ask the hard questions any more. The articles you linked to were OK. But note that he did not question or offer supporting evidence to Bush's delay in leaving the children. In this case he is no better than Moore in trying to paint a different view, even after the lie from Card.

I guess if the 9/11 commission says something, then it must be totally true. How many military transports flew out of country, and with what passengers. 3 days after 9/11 there was enough time to determine that 22 of the bin Laden flight needed to be interviewed and cleared to leave the country.

But I guess it is a no win situation. All I know is that the budget surplus is now gone. That my paycheck is slightly larger, but that is eaten up with "user fees" (another word for taxes). That $100 to $200 billion tax dollars that could have helped our schools and roads is going to Iraq in no-bid contracts.

IJ Reilly

Jul 1, 2004, 01:39 PM

by what stretch of imagination is china the US' enemy?

being anti-US is very popular these days. would you attribute that to moore's films moreso than bush's foreign policy?

You just fell for trolling technique no. 2. Resist!

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 1, 2004, 01:41 PM

You just fell for trolling technique no. 2. Resist!

"But the lights so pretty..." ZZZZTTT! said a moth approaching a bug zapper.

Lyle

Jul 1, 2004, 02:12 PM

You just fell for trolling technique no. 2. Resist!To quote the Political forum ground rules (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=77413&page=1&pp=25):
I. Show respect for your fellow posters

1. Name-calling, eye-rolling, use of deprecating smilies, generalizations/stereotypes, etc. will be viewed as a display of disrespect and will fall under the heading of "trolling."It's fun to watch how the rules are selectively enforced.

Taft

Jul 1, 2004, 02:32 PM

To quote the Political forum ground rules (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=77413&page=1&pp=25):
It's fun to watch how the rules are selectively enforced.

So let me get this straight. Calling out another member for trolling is now considered trolling?

Oh, what a world, what a world, what a world...

Taft

Taft

Jul 1, 2004, 02:35 PM

To quote the Political forum ground rules (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=77413&page=1&pp=25):
It's fun to watch how the rules are selectively enforced.

BTW, you know what I think is fun to watch? People complaining about how the world (mods, media, etc., etc.) is biased against them.

There are a lot of big nasty adjectives I could use to describe this behavior, but to respect the rules, I'll refrain.

Taft

zimv20

Jul 1, 2004, 02:38 PM

persecution complex

Lyle

Jul 1, 2004, 03:15 PM

So let me get this straight. Calling out another member for trolling is now considered trolling?I don't know, I don't make the rules. Is there some scenario where calling someone a troll isn't "name calling" and a sign of disrespect?

Rower_CPU

Jul 1, 2004, 03:24 PM

The guidelines are still being drafted - calls to enforce them at this point are premature and a distraction from the topic at hand.

IJ Reilly

Jul 1, 2004, 03:29 PM

I don't know, I don't make the rules. Is there some scenario where calling someone a troll isn't "name calling" and a sign of disrespect?

What you're doing here is creating a paradox: Trolling is against the rules, but identifying trolling behavior is also against the rules.

Taft

Jul 1, 2004, 03:33 PM

What you're doing here is creating a paradox: Trolling is against the rules, but identifying trolling behavior is also against the rules.

Maybe this discussion should move to the rules thread. Despite that...

Maybe the identification step should only be addressed to the mods? I don't know though, sometimes I think trollish behavior should be called out in public. If someone isn't willing to engage in honest debate, that behavior should be called out for all to see.

Taft

IJ Reilly

Jul 1, 2004, 03:44 PM

I'll defer to the mods on this question. If Rower (sorry, I still think of you as our forum moderator) says I'm out of line, then I'm out of line.

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 1, 2004, 03:48 PM

Maybe we should get Mr. Moore to come in and do a movie on the PC Police of forums. :)

That being said I found that IJ's post was making light that some say things that just seem to goad people on. With all respect to Voltron, it was an amazing post to some of us that he made the China reference in.

But where will this madness end? I have seen postings in other threads that the rules being looked at for the political forums, that the new rules could well apply to. Thicker skin is needed in forums.

Just as in another thread, where I used an analogy that another member took offense to, I went back and edited it out. And I made an apology in that thread. Much like IJ's post, mine was a attempt at humor, but attempting to make a point. Sometimes it does not play out the way we want. Does that mean that we become humorless drones? I hope not.

Lyle

Jul 1, 2004, 04:03 PM

Maybe this discussion should move to the rules thread...Yes, you're right of course. Apologies for the temporary detour.

LethalWolfe

Jul 1, 2004, 11:16 PM

My apologies, my reading of your post led me to think you were comparing them, only saying one was in different leagues in terms of quality not type. Sorry, my second reading and your post above clarifies your position for me.

No sweat. Rereading my post I should have made it a bit more clear.

Anyway, Spider-Man 2 did $40.5 million on Wednesday. It's gonna be a huge weekend for the web-crawler. :)

Lethal

Neserk

Jul 1, 2004, 11:20 PM

No sweat. Rereading my post I should have made it a bit more clear.

Anyway, Spider-Man 2 did $40.5 million on Wednesday. It's gonna be a huge weekend for the web-crawler. :)

Lethal

I go tomorrow :D

Sayhey

Jul 1, 2004, 11:24 PM

No sweat. Rereading my post I should have made it a bit more clear.

Anyway, Spider-Man 2 did $40.5 million on Wednesday. It's gonna be a huge weekend for the web-crawler. :)

Lethal

My kids an I will contribute a few more bucks this weekend. :) My son still likes it that I can tell him about the stories from the sixties, but I haven't keeped up with the comic for many years. I'm sure I'll like it - I enjoyed the first one. Great cast.

Awimoway

Jul 2, 2004, 06:32 AM

No sweat. Rereading my post I should have made it a bit more clear.

Anyway, Spider-Man 2 did $40.5 million on Wednesday. It's gonna be a huge weekend for the web-crawler. :)

Lethal

You gotta love the fact that the biggest blockbuster of the year is playing simultaneous to 9/11. I bet a lot of people who wouldn't have seen 9/11 will see it now because they couldn't get into Spiderman. :D

Anyway, I had no interest to see Spiderman any sooner than whenever it shows up on TV in several years until I learned that Michael Chabon wrote the script. I read his novel 'Kavalier & Clay' and was much impressed. So I think I'm gonna check this out sooner. You never know, I might die tomorrow. ;)

evoluzione

Jul 2, 2004, 07:17 PM

well, i haven't read all the pages in this thread, but I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 the other day, and was mightily impressed with it. I knew a lot of what it covered as I read Moore's book "Stupid White Men". I'm an Englishman Living in NYC and it just amazes me how one of the most amazing countries on the planet can be run into the ground so easily. Yes I realise the F911 is biased, but it appears I'm in the minority that can actually make up my own mind on things I see and hear on the news. It's refreshing to see something that isn't up Bush's butt (well, not in the usual way anyways ;) )

As some of you know, I am applying for my Australian Visa so I can get out of this country before it gets even worse. Soooo many people here in NYC have had enough, it's quite amazing. A Cuban friend of mine tells me how it is in Cuba, and how she can no longer go back as frequently (Bush's restrictions on this are pathetic and pointless). And you know what? It makes me realise that America is being run by the biggest Dictator out there. Cuba sounds better than America to me right now. How can America be the greatest when we have no health insurance, third world standards, beaurocracy up the ass, and the rest of the world hating us??? (I say us as I consider myself a New Yorker as much as anyone else here, and as an "outsider" I see things differently than most I think...people hate America because of it's ways, and attitude, and foreign policies, and hipocrisy etc etc etc, NOT because they're jealous)

Anyway, feel free to pick apart what I've said, I'm sure some of you will. Hopefully I've provided something small to think about. There's so many better alternatives out there these days, and I think people are finally realising that. And I think F911 is helping, thank goodness.

:)

Neserk

Jul 2, 2004, 07:33 PM

I go tomorrow :D

I went today! It was good :)

~Shard~

Jul 2, 2004, 11:25 PM

Just saw it this afternoon and was very impressed with it. Grant it, you can say the movie is one-sided, yet, guess what - the facts are the facts and that's all Moore was displaying - Bush's speeches, the facts, that meeting where all they were talking about was making money off Iraq, the list goes on and on - all of it was real and actually happened, so I don't know how anyone can call this movie "staged" or "full of lies"... It definitely does an excellent job of making Bush look incompetent (not that that's hard to pull off...) I found all the ties and connections interestsing too, from the election results in Florida, to Halliburton, to the Saudi's stake in the American economy, to - well, the list goes on and on. As my brother said, what a bunch of crooks...

It was an excellent film, and I would also recommend seeing "Control Room" as well, to complement this film - it is another amazing film and a true eye-opener. I think everyone here should see it if you haven't already.

Sayhey

Jul 2, 2004, 11:46 PM

Excellent film! I highly recommend it. Of course it has a bias, but the difference is that everyone knows Moore's bias going in. It is a very, very effective work to show his view of the war and Bush's lies and distortions. I can see why the GOP is trying to stop people form seeing it. Most people in this country don't know about the close relationship the Bush family has with the Saudi royals. Most people haven't seen an effective run down of the lies told by this administration in the build up to this war. Most people don't know about the real face of this war and what it is doing to our sons and daughters to be placed in the shooting gallery of Iraq as occupiers. Does Moore give the other side of the argument? Of course not, but that is what we have been fed since the day after Sept. 11th. It about time that a coherent argument against this war got as much attention as this movie is now getting.

~Shard~

Jul 2, 2004, 11:55 PM

Sayhey

Jul 3, 2004, 12:03 AM

Well put - we have been getting such a biased, one-sided view from the US media and US government, that it's nice to see Moore's "biased" view to level things out. Have you seen "Control Room"? I think you would find it fascinating...

No, haven't heard of it, but I will check it out based on your recommendation. I'm also interested in seeing the new movie, based on the book of the same title, "The Hunting of the President." I don't know if that is available or of interest in Canada, but it details the right wing's campaign to bring down Clinton's presidency. I've heard one of the authors of the book, Joe Conason (sp?), interviewed a few times and it sounds very interesting.

blackfox

Jul 3, 2004, 12:03 AM

Shard, in regards to "Control Room", I too have heard many good things about it. It has, like many smaller-run movies been playing at different dates in different cities...I know it opened in Austin TX a few months ago (I moved from there, I keep tabs), where as it just opened in Portland OR (where I now live) today. I plan on seeing it next week, and may post a review as it is a related movie (in terms of subject matter).

pseudobrit

Jul 3, 2004, 12:29 AM

The irony of the attacks against Moore's film as being "biased" and "propaganda" and "lies" is that the film largely relies on footage from Bush and his administration to prove its point.

Bush dug his own grave and Moore pushed him in. Moore could have made a film exclusively with Bush administration-footage and had almost the same effect.

I mean, seriously, is not Bush saying "some people call you the elite; I call you my base" one of the most truthful (yet creepy because of the truth in it) things you've ever heard?

~Shard~

Jul 3, 2004, 01:04 AM

No, haven't heard of it, but I will check it out based on your recommendation. I'm also interested in seeing the new movie, based on the book of the same title, "The Hunting of the President." I don't know if that is available or of interest in Canada, but it details the right wing's campaign to bring down Clinton's presidency. I've heard one of the authors of the book, Joe Conason (sp?), interviewed a few times and it sounds very interesting.

Interesting, I will definitely look for it!

~Shard~

Jul 3, 2004, 01:04 AM

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 3, 2004, 05:59 AM

Well put - we have been getting such a biased, one-sided view from the US media and US government, that it's nice to see Moore's "biased" view to level things out. Have you seen "Control Room"? I think you would find it fascinating...

I saw it yesterday. And I agree with you, the other comments were every well put. I find it hard to add much.

Some have posted links to places that discredit some of the movie. Even these have stretched the truth to fit their own goals. But even if only 10% is true, then Bush and company should be held accountable and charged with treason and/or war crimes themselves.

blackfox

Jul 3, 2004, 06:24 AM

Some other (Political) Movies to keep an eye out for:
WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception (2004)

There were two wars in Iraq--a military assault and a media war. The former was well-covered; the latter was not. Until now... Independent filmmaker, Emmy-award winningTV journalist, author and media critic, Danny Schechter turns the cameras on the role of the media. His new film, WMD, is an outspoken assessment of how Pentagon propaganda and media complicity misled the American people, while selling the war to influence international public opinion. Schechter compares and contrasts coverage on a global basis, including exclusive material and insider interviews. WMD is a serious film that exposes the media role--the biggest scandal of our time.
It is currently in post-production...
A New Documentary About How the Truth Became the First American Casualty in Iraq.

"Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War," premiering on November 3rd, includes an A-team of experts who have exposed the Bush administration lies that deceived the nation. The Executive Producer is Robert Greenwald, who also served in the same role for "Unprecedented," which documented the theft of the presidency in 2000.

This is the description of the film from the TruthUncovered.com website: "This controversial and arresting film takes you behind the walls of government, as CIA, Pentagon and foreign service experts speak out, many for the first time, detailing the lies, misstatements and exaggerations that served as the reasons to fight a "preemptive" war that wasn't necessary. The war with Iraq brought about unparalleled resistance, both in the streets and in the chambers of government. This documentary offers an in-depth look at the unsettling distortion of intelligence and the "spin and hype" presented to the American people, the Congress and the press. Fighting wars to bring about regime change is in breach of international law. Yet, throughout the fall of 2002, and into the weeks preceding the war in Iraq, the Bush administration systematically distorted intelligence evidence and misled the public in order to turn opinion favor of "regime change" in Iraq."
Appears to be out on DVD...

Opening in September is filmmaker John Sayles's "Silver City," a fictional tale about a corrupt, grammatically challenged gubernatorial candidate.
As it says, opening in Sept.

This is in addition to "Control Room" and "The Hunting of the President" previously mentioned in the thread...the former is already out in most markets, I am not sure of the release date for the latter...

As far as the movies/documentaries I've listed, I cannot comment on their quality, accuracy or whether they're "any good", but keep an eye out, if they pique your interest.

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 3, 2004, 06:41 AM

Did anyone see the trailer for "Silver City"? Remind you of anyone? :)

~Shard~

Jul 3, 2004, 10:39 AM

Chip NoVaMac - just realized we both have Aristotle quotes in our sigs. Just thought I'd point this out, as I don't see many people with quotes like that... Kay, anyway, back on topic.... ;)

Thomas Veil

Jul 3, 2004, 04:01 PM

Some other (Political) Movies to keep an eye out for...

And yet another one: "The Corporation". (http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/the_corporation.html) (And look who has a guest appearance in it. ;) )

Looks like it's going to be a banner year for documentaries. :cool:

IJ Reilly

Jul 3, 2004, 05:10 PM

And yet another one: "The Corporation". (http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/the_corporation.html) (And look who has a guest appearance in it. ;) )

Looks like it's going to be a banner year for documentaries. :cool:

An excellent topic for a documentary. I look forward to hearing more about it.

Stelliform

Jul 9, 2004, 01:02 PM

But you can't see it at some chains...

CNN Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/09/film.fahrenheit.reut/index.html)

I agree that movie chains have the right to refuse showing it.

"It has always been and will continue to be our policy to refuse to play what we feel are propaganda films, no matter the source. It was and is our feeling that 'Fahrenheit 9/11' falls into that category," he said.

"We believe in Michael Moore's freedom to make this movie," Karasotes told the Michigan-based Mining Journal. "We trust that our customers will recognize and respect our own freedom to choose not to show it. During a time of war, the American troops in Iraq need and deserve our undivided support."

I notice the article doesn't call it a documentary. "you'll have to drive to at least the next town to view Moore's critique of the Bush administration" I am gad someone finally stopped calling it a documentary. That just makes people believe that it is 100% truthful and contains no opinion, but as we all know that in the words of Moore "it is an op-ed peice".

zimv20

Jul 9, 2004, 01:06 PM

I am gad someone finally stopped calling it a documentary.
from what i've seen, most of the people calling it a documentary are the ones who want to discredit it for not being a documentary.

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 9, 2004, 01:53 PM

from what i've seen, most of the people calling it a documentary are the ones who want to discredit it for not being a documentary.

Has Moore ever described it himself as a documentary?

In photography it accepted that the documentary style is designed to evoke emotions and perhaps a response from the viewer. So what is wrong with a documentary film doing the same?

IJ Reilly

Jul 9, 2004, 03:37 PM

Has Moore ever described it himself as a documentary?

No, he doesn't call it a documentary, so I guess some people never started. FWIW, I've always called his films editorials.

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 9, 2004, 03:51 PM

No, he doesn't call it a documentary, so I guess some people never started. FWIW, I've always called his films editorials.

But using photo documentaries as a reference, why not consider his a documentary also?

patrick0brien

Jul 9, 2004, 06:12 PM

But using photo documentaries as a reference, why not consider his a documentary also?

-Chip NoVaMac

Well, I'm in agreement with IJ Reilly in that it should be called an editorial. Actually, that's an excellent way to look at it.

Documentaries are supposed to be based on cold fact without opinion.

skunk

Jul 9, 2004, 06:19 PM

Documentaries are supposed to be based on cold fact without opinion.
Is there such a thing?

OldManJimbo

Jul 9, 2004, 06:39 PM

-It's too bad one must feel compelled to mention one's standing politically before stating one's feelings about a particular subject.

No matter one's background, the opinions' and stated observations' validity is no different person to person.

Not sure I agree - although I would like to.

Seems as though there are far too many who want to do more than share their opinion - they want me to change mine and so I would rather know where they are coming from so I can decide if theirs is a personal opinion or the regurgitation of a political dogma they neither understand nor fully accept themselves.

patrick0brien

Jul 9, 2004, 06:50 PM

Not sure I agree - although I would like to.

Seems as though there are far too many who want to do more than share their opinion - they want me to change mine and so I would rather know where they are coming from so I can decide if theirs is a personal opinion or the regurgitation of a political dogma they neither understand nor fully accept themselves.

-OldManJimbo

You make a good point here. To clarify mine, I was referring to the practice that some employ to seemingly defend themselves against repraisal for saying a thing - Almost using it as a shield to prevent assault upon their opinion from those 'on the same side'.

We seem to believe that there is an us vs. them attitude in politics. Though some politicians do use that method to futher their own agendas, we should, as their bosses, take care to remain with open mind on any issue and not take sides merely on political affiliations.

Stupidity knows no creed, party, geographic or economic boundary.

Neserk

Jul 9, 2004, 08:44 PM

Is there such a thing?

Nope. There is also no such thing as not having personal bias ;)

OldManJimbo

Jul 9, 2004, 10:01 PM

I was referring to the practice that some employ to seemingly defend themselves against repraisal for saying a thing - Almost using it as a shield to prevent assault upon their opinion from those 'on the same side'.

As in "I'm a [blank] so I have a right to say something stupid, hateful, untrue . . " I agree -

zimv20

Jul 9, 2004, 10:19 PM

Documentaries are supposed to be based on cold fact without opinion.
that's not true. documentarians tell a story -- the one they want to tell. i've worked on documentaries and have several documentarian friends. if i said to them what you said, i think the response would be, "i'm not a journalist."

opinion is fine. story is fine. asking leading questions to get the subject to say what you want them to say is fine.

staging a scene is not fine (unless it's labeled as a re-enactment), nor is editing to change a meaning.

it is, however, okay to put someone into a setting (e.g. in front of the factory that laid them off) and tell them to talk about the day they got notice. it's not okay to lead them into a room and -- surprise! -- "document" what happened when their high school sweetheart "showed up".

patrick0brien

Jul 10, 2004, 12:13 AM

that's not true.

-zimv20

Then I'll consider myself corrected.

However, my opinion of the relevance of a given documentary becomes highly stressed when drama is incited (Jerry Springer) or facts blurred by how they are presented.

Case and point: how Mr. Moore led the audience to believe that the Bin Ladens were allowed to leave via air while the U.S. airspace was closed. The reality was that the Bin Laden flight was after the airspace was reopened.

I found this misleading, and insulting. And also caused me to close my mind to anything he had so say - and I don't like closing my mind.

It's too bad too, with Bush around, all Mr. Moore had to do was stick to the facts - Mr. Bush has given him plenty.

zimv20

Jul 10, 2004, 12:27 AM

my opinion of the relevance of a given documentary becomes highly stressed when drama is incited (Jerry Springer) or facts blurred by how they are presented.
setting up confrontation is staging and, thus, a no-no. blurring facts definitely puts one into that grey area.

Case and point: how Mr. Moore led the audience to believe that the Bin Ladens were allowed to leave via air while the U.S. airspace was closed. The reality was that the Bin Laden flight was after the airspace was reopened.
if mr. moore got that factually wrong, then he is being disingenuous and i, too, would be disappointed. i've heard the post-reopening claim, but i've also heard the pre-reopening claim, as mr. moore is asserting. at this point, i do not know which is correct and i welcome some evidence.

patrick0brien

Jul 10, 2004, 12:40 AM

setting up confrontation is staging and, thus, a no-no. blurring facts definitely puts one into that grey area.

if mr. moore got that factually wrong, then he is being disingenuous and i, too, would be disappointed. i've heard the post-reopening claim, but i've also heard the pre-reopening claim, as mr. moore is asserting. at this point, i do not know which is correct and i welcome some evidence.

-zimv20

Well, according to my sources this is actually easy to prove, as Air Traffic Control has the Radar logs (and the fact that Air Traffic Control was not running during the shutdown) But I don't know how I would be able to get my hands on such logs.

Besides, now I'm reaching the point where I have to ask myself if expending the energy is really worth it :D

sorryiwasdreami

Jul 10, 2004, 12:54 AM

I don't understand why we aren't seeing the same kind of war effort where the terrorists really are (hello? Afghanistan?).

Well, I'll tell you. The Capitalist American Empire doesn't have a vested interest in Afghanistan. Afghanistan doesn't have nearly the oil supply Iraq does. This war is about money; and, how much we (the men at the top) can make.

patrick0brien

Jul 10, 2004, 01:30 AM

Well, I'll tell you. The Capitalist American Empire doesn't have a vested interest in Afghanistan. Afghanistan doesn't have nearly the oil supply Iraq does. This war is about money; and, how much we (the men at the top) can make.

-sorryiwasdreami

True, but the greed goes farther up than that... to us and our voracious appetite for gasoline - without which "the men at the top" would have no profit center.

And don't forget the communist Chinese who's demand for it will soon surpass the U.S.'s.

Blame is not so easily cast.

IJ Reilly

Jul 10, 2004, 01:41 AM

-zimv20

Well, according to my sources this is actually easy to prove, as Air Traffic Control has the Radar logs (and the fact that Air Traffic Control was not running during the shutdown) But I don't know how I would be able to get my hands on such logs.

Besides, now I'm reaching the point where I have to ask myself if expending the energy is really worth it :D

ATC was operational, whether the air traffic system was on a full ground stop or otherwise. All non-commercial aircraft were grounded for about three weeks after 9-11 and non-commercial flying was tightly restricted for about a month thereafter. If the Saudi flight was in the commercial carrier system, they'd have been able to file within days of 9-11. This seems to be the technical question surrounding the flight. It was a charter, is all I've heard, which makes it ambiguous.

An interesting issue related to this flight was whether the Saudis got special treatment from the government, and whether the people who were on that airplane were asked the appropriate questions before they were allowed to leave the country. I personally suspect that they pulled strings to get that flight, for a couple of reasons. The most important of which is that the airspace was a gawdawful mess for weeks and weeks after 9-11, and a lot of people went absolutely nowhere in their airplanes for literally months, and the White House absolutely did not care about any of those people.

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 10, 2004, 02:42 AM

ATC was operational, whether the air traffic system was on a full ground stop or otherwise. All non-commercial aircraft were grounded for about three weeks after 9-11 and non-commercial flying was tightly restricted for about a month thereafter. If the Saudi flight was in the commercial carrier system, they'd have been able to file within days of 9-11. This seems to be the technical question surrounding the flight. It was a charter, is all I've heard, which makes it ambiguous.

An interesting issue related to this flight was whether the Saudis got special treatment from the government, and whether the people who were on that airplane were asked the appropriate questions before they were allowed to leave the country. I personally suspect that they pulled strings to get that flight, for a couple of reasons. The most important of which is that the airspace was a gawdawful mess for weeks and weeks after 9-11, and a lot of people went absolutely nowhere in their airplanes for literally months, and the White House absolutely did not care about any of those people.

I had a friend flying back to the US on 9-11 from a weeks vacation in the UK. He and his companions flights was sent to Toronto then to Mexico City then to Barbados (I know poor soul - but remember at that time most people wanted to be home with their loved ones.

sorryiwasdreami

Jul 10, 2004, 11:18 AM

-sorryiwasdreami

True, but the greed goes farther up than that... to us and our voracious appetite for gasoline - without which "the men at the top" would have no profit center.

And don't forget the communist Chinese who's demand for it will soon surpass the U.S.'s.

Blame is not so easily cast.

Well, I can't really blame myself or anyone else for their "appetite" for gasoline. I wouldn’t call it an appetite; I’d call it an economic choice. America is really one of the only countries where buying gasoline is cheaper, and by a good margin, than taking public transportation.

When I was in Rome, Italy months ago, gasoline was over 2 euros per liter. That would make gasoline over $8 a gallon! Who would pay that much for it in the US unless it was an absolute necessity? Not me.

Italy’s (and many other countrys') Socialist government works for the citizens in that you can ride the bus, take a train, or ride the subway from anywhere in the country to anywhere else in the country. I've done it. I've gone from the biggest cities, to the smallest specks not even on maps, on public transportation. What’s more, you can do it faster, more efficient, and much cheaper than you can do it in a car buying gasoline.

The reason for the price difference is the taxes a nation's government places upon it. While many may think gas is ultra-expensive right now, the American government doesn’t tax gasoline the way most countries do. Right now, the American government doesn’t care about pollution, the environment, or making transportation efficient and easy for people without a motor vehicle.

Why? Cheap gas equals a high demand. High demand equals a supply which can be regulated and manipulated any which-way the government wants. Our economy, whether we believe it or not, runs on gasoline. No other country uses the magnitude of diesel-hogging eighteen wheelers around the clock to transport goods the way we do.

Gas is cheap so cost is our driving force to keep buying it. That's why I explain it as an economic choice rather than an "appetite." However, with the sheer volume of gasoline Americans buy, our capitalist regime still makes an astronomical amount of money.

All this a is gigantic part of our occupation(s) (at different points in history) of the mid-east. War on terrorism is the superfical reason, the reason Americans accept and support being there. In fact, little do they know, America is the biggest Terror in the world.

If we can destroy cities and kill people there (at the cost of our own troops's lives), rebuild, and occupy them, we can plant oil drilling rigs right in the heart of the Earth's most plentiful oil supply. Cheap.

IJ Reilly

Jul 10, 2004, 11:40 AM

I had a friend flying back to the US on 9-11 from a weeks vacation in the UK. He and his companions flights was sent to Toronto then to Mexico City then to Barbados (I know poor soul - but remember at that time most people wanted to be home with their loved ones.

Private pilots were exposed to an even worse set of circumstances. If you were unlucky enough to be away from home with your own airplane on 9-11, you'd be forced to abandon it wherever you happened to be at the time and find another way home, of which there basically weren't any. But that was only the half of it. Most people don't know this, but all general aviation was prohibited for several weeks after 9-11, and even when private airplanes were allowed to fly again, they were placed under some of the most illogical and pointless restrictions imaginable. Some of them are in effect to this day.

pseudobrit

Jul 10, 2004, 12:11 PM

Private pilots were exposed to an even worse set of circumstances. If you were unlucky enough to be away from home with your own airplane on 9-11, you'd be forced to abandon it wherever you happened to be at the time and find another way home, of which there basically weren't any. But that was only the half of it. Most people don't know this, but all general aviation was prohibited for several weeks after 9-11, and even when private airplanes were allowed to fly again, they were placed under some of the most illogical and pointless restrictions imaginable. Some of them are in effect to this day.

There's a small airport a few miles from me (Maytown) that deals in small private plane traffic and has quite a number of them hangared and sitting in their field.

It also happens to be within 10 miles of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant.

The airport was closed and all the planes grounded for months after 9/11 because of this proximity, depsite the fact that TMI's reactor shells are designed to survive a direct hit from a loaded 747.

IJ Reilly

Jul 10, 2004, 12:41 PM

There's a small airport a few miles from me (Maytown) that deals in small private plane traffic and has quite a number of them hangared and sitting in their field.

It also happens to be within 10 miles of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant.

The airport was closed and all the planes grounded for months after 9/11 because of this proximity, depsite the fact that TMI's reactor shells are designed to survive a direct hit from a loaded 747.

Yes, that sort of thing. The organization that represents the interests of private pilots (AOPA) pleaded with the Bush administration to introduce some semblance of sanity to these rules, but got absolutely nowhere for many months. They were simply not listening. All many airplane owners wanted was permission to ferry their aircraft out of the effectively closed airports, but even that request was ignored for a long time. All of this provided a window on the Bush administration's decision-making capacity. They appeared to be operating in full panic mode and were apparently totally disinterested in hearing outside information. Even the FAA administrator seemed to be cut out of the loop.

Many of the TFRs (temporary flight restrictions) put into effect after 9-11 are still in place. Some of them can only be described as ludicrous.

Voltron

Jul 10, 2004, 01:24 PM

solvs

Jul 11, 2004, 07:47 PM

Micheal Moore will not come out of this smelling like a rose.
Those flocking around him will end up looking pretty stupid.

Take the time to read the whole article.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723

Dont let Micheal Moore do your thinking for you. That is unless you like the anti-american image he portrays.
No wonder this film got a 25 minute standing ovation in Cannes.

You do realize that while you're telling us not to let someone else think for us, you're letting someone think for you right? Have you seen the movie, or are you just reading about it?

I guess the part that bugs me, though, is when you say anti-American. If Rush, or Hannity, or Coulter said something that railed against Clinton, would they be anti-American, cuz they did it all the time. And still do. Yet Bush can do no wrong in their eyes. Most of us realize this is Moore's opinion, he will say so himself in interviews. Even "liberals" roll their eyes at moments in the film. Propaganda goes both ways, but I wouldn't call it any more unAmerica than anything that comes from any political analysts.

The smart liberals will be trying to put some distance between them and this film.

And the smart conservatives should be distancing themselves from Bush instead of defending even the stupid things. Failing to criticize Bush is just as bad as failing to criticize Clinton or Kerry, which I also do on a regular basis.

That's why I like getting my news from things like the Daily Show. Jon Stewart has no problem making fun of both sides. Most people seem to get their news from shows like that and funny news sites on the net. It would be sad if it weren't so funny. :p

IJ Reilly

Jul 11, 2004, 08:47 PM

I finally saw the film yesterday. Portions of it can be picked on with some justification. I found myself saying a couple of time, "Well, yes, but..."

Still, to claim that Moore is trying to do our thinking for us is just plain roasted nuts. Quite to the contrary, in fact. In this movie, just like all of his movies, he's really, mainly, pleading with us to think and ask questions about what we're being told by the government and the media. And not being told. Isn't this a message that should be embraced equally by liberals and conservatives? One would think so, provided one was thinking for one's self...

Wardofsky

Jul 16, 2004, 06:54 AM

The airport was closed and all the planes grounded for months after 9/11 because of this proximity, depsite the fact that TMI's reactor shells are designed to survive a direct hit from a loaded 747.

I can remember when they did a test to the walls of some nuclear reactor somewhere (Gee, so much information) the did a relative crash of a 747 into the walls.

The plane did not breach the wall, but the slice of concrete moved back several metres.

Anyways I just saw the film and I liked it.

bitfactory

Jul 16, 2004, 10:22 PM

Wardofsky

Jul 16, 2004, 10:35 PM

an excerpt:
*****************
snip
*****************

Despite everything about how Moore told the story, I still cannot get over stuff that Bush has said in the pre, present, and post Iraq invasion.

My favourite line was during the financial meeting between businesses:
"There are a lot of companies out there that can benefit from the invasion.. I mean liberation of Iraq" :rolleyes: Oh well.

~Shard~

Jul 16, 2004, 11:47 PM

Despite everything about how Moore told the story, I still cannot get over stuff that Bush has said in the pre, present, and post Iraq invasion.

My favourite line was during the financial meeting between businesses:
"There are a lot of companies out there that can benefit from the invasion.. I mean liberation of Iraq" :rolleyes: Oh well.

I agree - Bush is an idiot and a criminal. Plain and simple, I'm not going to sugar-coat it. :cool:

takao

Jul 17, 2004, 07:43 AM

http://www.larryelder.com/911/debunking911.html

that paper was written by a 17 year old girl.

she seems more interested in finding the factual aspects of the movie than most critics (and most of you).

an excerpt:
*****************
If I were to present an award to the slimiest element in Farenheit, it would have to go to Moore’s depiction of Saddam Hussein and his regime before the invasion of Iraq. Oh it was a wonderful place. We see children flying kites, a woman getting married and Saddam holding a child. I can’t even express the outrage that causes me, having known someone whose family was slaughtered by Saddam Hussein’s henchmen during the invasion of Kuwait. This crossed the boundary between an anti-Bush documentary and a new form of Leni Riefenstahl-like propaganda. The way Moore portrayed Saddam Hussein was exactly the way that she portrayed Adolf Hitler, in order to gain support for the Nazi agenda. By claiming that Saddam Hussein “never took the life of any American or threatened any American,” Moore fails to acknowledge the 148 American soldiers killed (in combat) by Saddam Hussein’s regime during the Gulf War,16 his attacks on American planes patrolling no-fly zones for a consecutive ten years after the Gulf War15 and his attempt to assassinate George H.W. Bush; but I guess military personnel and Republican presidents don’t count.
*****************

yawn not again comparing leni riefenstahl to moore...
1. leni riefenstahls propaganda movies (she made others too) were made during the time the NSDAP were already in the government...last time i checked Moore is _not_ sponsered by the republicans

2. when did leni riefenstahl protray hitler ?
just a hint:
hitler invaded poland and called it "a police action because they attacked first"..in german media it was never mentioned as a war...and of course the scapegoating is still present :rolleyes:

3. sadly the part is missed out that FOX (what a surprise) made _hundreds_ of nazi propaganda movies (FOX was one of the personal favourite companies from goebbels)....guess why FOX has only small influence here...

perhaps this 17 year old girl should look deeper in her history books ...and perhaps ask those people where "propaganda" fueled a war machine (which in fact Moore is definatly not doing) for years.... to simplify the process in which the NsDAP gained power on 3-4 leni riefenstahl movies is not only ignorance and lack of historic knowledge but dangerous as well... this alone disqualifies the whole article for me...

i recommend her going through history classes in an austrian or german school..we had one whole year on the topic how the nsdap came to power alone and 4 years later we had another year on the topic ww1 untill ww2... after that

</rant>

no offense against you bitfactory ... (this 'letting steam off' is more target at this girl)
but i have a personal problem with people who try to spin the history of the third reich to put the political opponent into bad light.. or calling them "unpatriotic","they hate our germany/US/etc","they cooperate with communists/terrorists/the french" "they want to destroy our country with their 'giving in' " ...that is NSDAP rethoric..
my personal "propaganda/history repeating warning siren" goes off at max. volume when i here such sentences...