-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
F/911 having devastating effects on morale overseas.....
- Thread starter The Promised One
- Start date
- Status
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
That press release was about ONE soldier? One? Just one?
maharg said:
That is what I meant by "enough money to cover all costs."
Who said anything about that? Not me...
He has made enough profit for the film companies for them to back him on further projects. He has his niche selling point for his product...just like any other film maker has their own.
Hey, I can't blame Moore for wanting his slice of the pie. I'm just against people thinking that he is some kind of fucking crusader or something. This guy just wants to make money...bottom line.
In the grand scheme of things this is all about money. Do you think the movie industry really cares about the issues Moore is talking about? They only see the dollar sign. And you are right...stand by for many more "documentaries" from Michael Moore. It will be interesting to see how far this guy will go to make a buck, what evelopes he will push, and at what point people will stop caring.
The Promised One
Banned
Zilch said:
Thank you for realizing that.
Now, to be honest, I really wasn't trying to start trouble, but I guess I should've known better.
As for backing up my claims, well, I haven't really made any (nothing big anyway). I just posted the article for the most part. Now, of course I posted the article to make a point, but that was just it, the article was the point. I didn't see any need to back anything up further than that. Frankly, I figured a few would read the article, a few posts in response would be made, and then it would die. I didn't think it would incite an angry mob.
Anywho, I'm too lazy to go through each and every point, so I'll just post some links. Yes, I know these are basically anti-Moore sites, but what do you expect, to find refutations to Moore's arguments on a pro-Moore site?
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
http://www.moorewatch.com/
http://www.moorelies.com/
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
That's pretty much all I'm gonna do, since I refuse to have a 20 to 1 debate.
Oh, and I could give a hoot that Moore made money off the film. I mean, I don't agree with the man's politics, nor his extreme truth bending, but kudos to him for making as much money as he has. It's the people who've lined his pockets with cash who are the suckers.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Lol. Don't thank him, I keep reading what you quoted TPO and can't really find a compliment.
Debunking the 59 Deceits: http://anton-sirius.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/6/1942/00222
The Facts in Fahrenheit 9/11: http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes
The Facts in Fahrenheit 9/11: http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes
HAOHMARU said:
Is it so impossible to imagine a person wanting to make a film for reasons other than money? If it happens that such a film could serve to make heaps of money while doing its job of bringing these issues to light, then would you deny the people that have earnt it, their money? Or would you simply criticize the people that made it because they made money?
Would Moore have given this film away for free? Probably not; given the reality of the film, it was going to make a decent amount of money and that there would be a good deal of interest in the film, it wouldn't make sense to give it away when you can still get paid for it. But if by some chance, if the film couldn't be shown to the public as a direct result of him getting paid (i.e. the only people offering to pay were some right wing company wanted to buy it from moore completely in order to seal it shut), I doubt he'd fly with that.
I don't understand the logic here. That it has made an amazing amount of money by default means that is the primary and *SINGLE* aim of its creator? Can you back this opinion up with something more solid than that? Otherwise this is just post hoc ergo propter hoc, more or less.
And seriously, if he clearly has amazing propagandist skills, and if he's above the regular cut for career documentary filmmakers, wouldn't he be better served to make money as a more traditional filmmaker?
At the very least, the idea that it is his only aim is absolutely absurd. If he now went and directed I, Robot 2, I'd see you have a point. If he keeps making niche political documentaries, well I'd say that at the very least he feels very strongly motivated on the basis of his opinion, not that he is simply using his opinion as a tool.
And for that matter, who on earth is saying that he's some kind of humble crusader? I think even his staunchest supporters would never say he's some kind of Ghandi. He has an opinion, and he wants to yell it as loud as he can, and the fact of the matter is the means to doing so is making bigger and more documentaries. This is, as far as I'm concerned, the simplest and most reasonable explanation of his actions.
And seriously, if he clearly has amazing propagandist skills, and if he's above the regular cut for career documentary filmmakers, wouldn't he be better served to make money as a more traditional filmmaker?
At the very least, the idea that it is his only aim is absolutely absurd. If he now went and directed I, Robot 2, I'd see you have a point. If he keeps making niche political documentaries, well I'd say that at the very least he feels very strongly motivated on the basis of his opinion, not that he is simply using his opinion as a tool.
And for that matter, who on earth is saying that he's some kind of humble crusader? I think even his staunchest supporters would never say he's some kind of Ghandi. He has an opinion, and he wants to yell it as loud as he can, and the fact of the matter is the means to doing so is making bigger and more documentaries. This is, as far as I'm concerned, the simplest and most reasonable explanation of his actions.
But at the end of the day, you haven't done anything to prove this except constantly re-assert your own cynicism. Even after people proved that you really had no idea what you were talking about (the profits going to charities), you continue to ramble on....HAOHMARU said:
I don't think Moore even gets a significant cut of the theatrical gross. You have to be Spielberg to demand something like that.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
there are some scary people out in here.
Look, I can't defend my opinion against everyone. All I am going to say is that Moore pretends to be a "man of the people," yet lives a luxorious lifestyle as a fabously wealthy Manhattanite. He dresses like he is a bum...but he certainly lives like a king. I can't help it if the guy is a slob.
Ok, ok...his primary reason for these films is to outst the Bush Administration. I will yeild to that. However, he is driven to make these "documentaries" (if you can even call them that) just to sell his product. If he released the same movie with out that "Michael Moore" spin on the truth it wouldn't have done anywhere near the box office numbers it is producing right now. What is the best way to sell a product? Create a controversy...
Cash money.
Ok, ok...his primary reason for these films is to outst the Bush Administration. I will yeild to that. However, he is driven to make these "documentaries" (if you can even call them that) just to sell his product. If he released the same movie with out that "Michael Moore" spin on the truth it wouldn't have done anywhere near the box office numbers it is producing right now. What is the best way to sell a product? Create a controversy...
Cash money.
HAOHMARU said:
Moore's documentaries have obvious social agendas to them. They're created to speak to mainstream america, which is woefully undereducated in many things... including critical consumption of media; for the most part it works against americans, allowing people like Ann Coulter to spew her diatribe and continue polarizing and blinding people. In moore's case he manipulates that consumerism in order to push forward his agenda; i.e. make people more aware of what he considers to be evils in his country.
You're just bitter and cynical that you're not making money doing this shit.
border said:
I'll tell you what, tell me how much money the charities are going to get and prove me wrong. 60% of net profit is what the article said. This film made $100 million so far in box office gross. I'm not sure how much the film cost to make. I'm assuming not very much and there was little budgeting for advertising. I doubt very much the 60% of that 100 million will go to charity. But again, I say prove me wrong.
Even still, all this is studio profits. NO where in that article did it say how much Moore raked in. It didn't say that 60% of HIS earnings was being donated to charity. Again, I think it is great that the studio is giving potentially millions of dollars to charity...there is nothing wrong with that.
The movie industry is fueled by the dollar sign. I'm just saying that Micheal Moore is a part of that...he isn't above it.
hah...so much shit to say, so little time to say it all.
There is a staggering problem in the concept of that letter. I would expect soldiers to be devastated family-wise, as some of them are. I understand that and I sympathize. But soldiers are devastated because they feel ashamed because the war "looks" to be unjustified? They should be DAMN ashamed of not following the politics behind what they do, because if they did, then they would know to consider that possibility before enlisting and being sent to Iraq.
Zaptruder said:
So why is he only telling parts of the truth, or bending truth to the limit to fit his needs? Is he preying on the "uneducated Americans" as you call it to be swayed to his side? That is pretty fucking low if that is how it is. Why can't he take is own personal spin off of everything and tell it how it really is. Present the truth as the truth. Real and honest facts, not the "Micheal Moore truth." I'm telling you, he only does this to boost profits.
That is just stupid, I have no reason what so ever to respond to that comment. All I am doing is trying to open the eyes for some people. Take a step back and look at the big picture.
Maybe because 100 million is gross income and not net profit? =\ You are forgetting the fact that a big slice of the pie goes to the theatres that are showing the film.....after which point they would factor out production and marketing costs, the distributor's cut, producer's cut, investor's cut, etc.HAOHMARU said:
Moore never claimed to be completely above capitalism, and I really don't think many people see him as some kind of altruistic crusader. I don't understand why you think that the fact that he makes money off this stuff means that he is totally and completely insincere....and motivated only by cash. By that mentality, how can anyone be considered to have a sincere concern about their country? Everybody is on a payroll of some sort. Are Senators, Congressmen, Supreme Court Justices, and the President all in it for money too?
HAOHMARU said:
Because the real honest facts just don't sell. Blame it on the american media... they've created a culture that just thrives of this kinda stuff. Real honest facts are documented all over the place... even collections of them; but that's not what people want to read. Hell even well educated people would have trouble going through alot of the stuff; because getting the point across in an honest fashion means going through all the information thoroughly to disseminate fact from fancy.
And that just doesn't fly with mainstream america.
The essence of Moore's agenda is to peak a persons interests in these things, so that they will go and research this kinda stuff themselves. Is that really such an evil goal?
And what of the big picture? you keep reasserting the fact that MM is gonna make heaps of cash of it! HOW is that the big picture? It's not even relevant.
Zaptruder said:
Exactly. And if he were to do that, then there would be no movie. There would be no huge profit. There would be no huge controversy.
That isn't an evil goal. I just think people need to realize that he has another agenda besides "informing" the public.
I'm just trying to say that making money is one of his motives for making these so called "documentaries." That is the big picture I am talking about. In the end, I don't think he cares about you and I.
The Promised One said:
Humurous, coming from you. You're quick to blurt 'lies' but haven't given a single one. And what is the 'other side' exactly? Moore's job isn't to give the fucking 'other side'.
Stop grasping at straws. Nothing you have said in this thread makes any sense whatsoever.
It's the same reason why people watch Fox News (or any cable news station for that matter). Simple facts and information can't get through to most Americans. They won't watch it and they won't care. Fox News sells the "Fox News truth," and Michael Moore sells the "Michael Moore truth."
It's entertainment either way you slice it. I personally don't look to a movie theater for reliable factual information about the world, but maybe that is just me.
Moore doesn't claim to make balanced documentaries. He has stated from the start that F/9-11 is his view of the situation facing our nation. What some of you seem to be missing is that this vaunted "big-picture" that Moore fails to present is what is presented to Americans on a daily basis by the mainstream media, that is newspapers, network news, cable news channels, etc. A large tenet of Moore's argument is that if the mainstream media had actually done a decent job of presenting a "big-picture" to the American public, his film would not be necessary. To argue that Moore's film isn't relevant or is deceptive because it fails to mention all sides of every conceivable argument or situation seems silly to me. Should we, as a nation, excise all editorials in every form because they are not balanced?
As for this bit about Moore being a typical capitalist pig or whatever, who cares? This seems awfully similar to trying to discredit Moore because he's overweight. I don't see how this particular point has any relevance to any aspect of Moore's worth as a film-maker or political commentator.
As for this bit about Moore being a typical capitalist pig or whatever, who cares? This seems awfully similar to trying to discredit Moore because he's overweight. I don't see how this particular point has any relevance to any aspect of Moore's worth as a film-maker or political commentator.
Fusebox said:
No. That avenue of debate isn't blocked so much as most Americans just can't get to it; It's kinda wrong to say they're not educated enough to inform themselves... but at the same time, most are too apathetic and couldn't be bothered making the effort to inform themselves with the rather dryer truth.
If the culture were different... that misleading media just wouldn't work.
Hi spangler, a few of my thoughts on your post:
>>Moore doesn't claim to make balanced documentaries
So why does he spend so much time defending his fact-finding on his website?
>>Should we, as a nation, excise all editorials in every form because they are not balanced?
No, just presenting it as unbalanced in the first place instead of a definitive account of events would be enough.
>>As for this bit about Moore being a typical capitalist pig or whatever, who cares?
Well it matters if he's criticising other people for being typical capitalist pigs.
>>Moore doesn't claim to make balanced documentaries
So why does he spend so much time defending his fact-finding on his website?
>>Should we, as a nation, excise all editorials in every form because they are not balanced?
No, just presenting it as unbalanced in the first place instead of a definitive account of events would be enough.
>>As for this bit about Moore being a typical capitalist pig or whatever, who cares?
Well it matters if he's criticising other people for being typical capitalist pigs.
Can an unbalanced documentary even exist? A documentary is supposed to be an objective presentation of fact, without editorializing or inserting fictional matter. If this is true, then clearly MM has not created a documentary. I don't know what you should call it? Somebody in the media is claiming this to be a documentary, but I don't think it should be. Has MM even come out and said, "I make documentaries?"
I'm not sure where you are coming from about my opinions about MM and him being over weight...?
mjq jazz bar
Banned
Yes, he has said he makes documentaries. And if you think you're the first person to assert that Moore doesn't make documentaries, well, you're brain damaged.
No one cares. It's a dead issue.
No one cares. It's a dead issue.
Ok.
Moore uses facts to support his opinions. He has been accused of using falsehoods in his film to support these opinions, thus rendering his opinions moot. In order to validate his logic, he presents to the public rebuttals of his critics' accusations. Wouldn't you agree that his opinion is more persuasive when it is supported by true facts? Moore thinks so and goes to great lengths to show where his arguments come from.
Moore has been accused in this thread of being "a capitalist pig" in the sense of making money on his films. Even if you feel Moore is somehow in the wrong for making a profit on his efforts, this strikes me as being much, much different than the accusations Moore makes against Bush etc. in his film. As was stated previously in this thread, no one has been killed as a result of Moore making money on his film.
Haohmaru,
The overweight thing was not directly related to anything you said. I meant that your argument of Moore being nothing more than a money-hungry opportunist struck me as being reminiscent of swipes at Moore because of his physical appearance. Both of these issues move the discussion away from the larger issues at hand and into areas of little or no value.
Moore uses facts to support his opinions. He has been accused of using falsehoods in his film to support these opinions, thus rendering his opinions moot. In order to validate his logic, he presents to the public rebuttals of his critics' accusations. Wouldn't you agree that his opinion is more persuasive when it is supported by true facts? Moore thinks so and goes to great lengths to show where his arguments come from.
Moore has been accused in this thread of being "a capitalist pig" in the sense of making money on his films. Even if you feel Moore is somehow in the wrong for making a profit on his efforts, this strikes me as being much, much different than the accusations Moore makes against Bush etc. in his film. As was stated previously in this thread, no one has been killed as a result of Moore making money on his film.
Haohmaru,
The overweight thing was not directly related to anything you said. I meant that your argument of Moore being nothing more than a money-hungry opportunist struck me as being reminiscent of swipes at Moore because of his physical appearance. Both of these issues move the discussion away from the larger issues at hand and into areas of little or no value.
Because people claim that those are not facts. Simple concept really.
It has nothing to do with being balanced.
The funny thing is...you support a President that not only was one-sided (not fair about the situation), he wasn't even telling the truth to begin with.
The American media didn't question what he said. While the rest of the World knew the Bush was lying through his teeth (or if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, is a dumbass and didn't realize that what he was saying was so incredibly far-fetched) because their media was balanced, Americans believed Bush because no one in the media questioned what he did (to the extent where time spent talking about going to war was equal to the time spent talking about the reasons why the US shouldn't).
Anyways, what I've just said has been said millions of times before, I'll end it here.
Fight for Freeform said:
Wow. That's one hell of a circular argument.
You seem to be projecting your need to be on one side or the other onto me, but like I've already said, for me this debate is all about balance.
Somewhere in between Moore and Bush lies the truth and neither side seems particularly interested in promoting it.
Seriously, I fried a couple of hundred brain cells reading this thread. The one idiot is giving incoherent arguments about how harmful is Michael Moore for the nation and the other idiot is trying to proove that a guy who doesn't even care if his movie is gonna be pirated as long as people watch it, and gives most of the profits to charity is just a greedy movie maker. Idiocy runs wild in this thread and someone must pay for these fried brain cells.
I never said that. Secondly, why are you concerned about balance, when the media isn't balanced? The media is supposed to inform people. The Bush Administration used the media to push lies.
As I pointed out, the reason why Moore defended his facts is because he was accused of lying.
If this debate is about balance...why don't you post ways how F9/11 could have been more balanced? What were they supposed to show? That Saddam was a bad person? But this isn't relevant to the matter at all, the case for invasion was WMDs, NOT Saddam's actions. Bush didn't spend months and months talking about his human rights abuses. He spent months and months telling Americans he was a threat. He even said that he could hit Tel Aviv with a WMD, freaking the hell out of Israelis.
So if you want to talk about balanced, tell us how. Moore presented facts and issues that can't really be debated. He DOES insinuate motives, and that can be debated as he can't read people's minds. We can debate that, but what else can he show to be balanced on the issue of money and oil in Iraq?
The whole reason for contraversy is because these issues haven't been brought up in American media before. If I was making a documentary on how the sky is blue...how can I make it "balanced" (ie. also showing that it possibly isn't)?
It depends on the issue. When it comes to WMDs, Bush is 100% wrong, and Moore is 100% right. Perhaps in other issues, neither one is right, and the truth lies in the middle, but we are taking about Iraq, and on all accounts Bush is wrong.
I think anybody involved in film-making or film theory can tell you that objectivity is a complete myth. From the angle of your shots to the way you cut to the juxtaposition of various snippets, it is truly impossible to remove all slant or bias. Everything you do either lends authority to a subject or subverts authority to a subject. This isn't to say that all documentaries are on equal footing in terms of considering alternative arguments, but the idea that a true documentary is 100% objective is a total fallacy.
The Promised One said:
And this is different to the Bush's adminstration's reasons for war...how?
KilledByBill said:
Booyah...this coupled with Bush's "Bring it on!" shit talking just over a year ago, as if to promote the latest cheerleading movie. Well, they brought it on alright...
HAOHMARU said:
Truth be told, he would've made a lot more money making a documentry that was pro-Bush...well, at least in the US anyway. Or better yet, he could make a documentry showing both sides and grab money in two hats instead of one.
Besides, I think you forget that the previous highest gross for a documentry was something like $20 million. It wasn't long ago that some people figured F 9/11 wouldn't even make that much, and I doubt anyone reasonably expected it to hit the $30 million mark. But now that it's not only hit that mark but oblierated it, suddenly the money factor is some sort of big issue. That seems a little too conveniant for my liking.
The saddest thing in my view is how the Democrats have latched onto this thing like white on rice. Well where the fuck were these pussies two years ago, when the same bullshit that was being churned out then was going unchecked? Now that some fat fuck has taken that bullshit to task in a critically and commercially successful film, it's now brave to lend the stamp of approval on it? As much as I loathe the Republicans, at least they've been consistent (well, relatively speaking).
(I'm going to use this as a base for my point, if you don't mind)Shinobi said:
This is the amazing thing. People like TPO will read posts like these [another example would be that F9/11 does a lot of good and does not outright lie], but ignore them. Yet, they return even more ardent than before. NOTHING is getting through. They don't want it to get through. Everyone does this to some extent, but it seems like Republicans are generally far more stubborn. Is it inherent? That the nature of the conservative must also be rigidly opposed to changing a perspective?
I'm learning to be more discernable in selecting my arguments with people such as Ripclawe or TPO, but at least they provide a check against my own tendency to only affirm what I think I know. I guess it's not so unhealthy for me, with that in mind.
fart said:
That's so rich coming from you.
Maybe you should take a look at your last few posts on the forum. All you ever do is weakly and childishly criticise other peoples posts and you never actually offer anything to the discussion at hand.
Congrats btw, you're the first member I've ever added to my ignore list.
shuri said:Distorsion? I dont know; because you know every fucking single fact or statistic in F911 are documented on his website. They are all from various newspapers, books, and so on.
All available to the public. BUT I GUESS ITS DISTORSION RIGHT
Moore's 6-page defense has been addressed and for the most part, has been shot down:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Oh and read the 9/11 commision report - it pretty much owns the movies "findings".
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
- Status