-
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.
Well, Michael Moore has finally said something.
- Thread starter enjoy bell woods
- Start date
- Status
jecclr2003
Banned
Sorry kids, a documentarian doesn't need to twist facts and rearrange speechs.
Eat it up sheep, fall right into his little trap.
Read up on Mr. Moore's lies and deceit
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf
Eat it up sheep, fall right into his little trap.
Read up on Mr. Moore's lies and deceit
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf
jecclr2003
Banned
xsarien how is it any different than the 500,000 that hack Moore has been debunked?
Face facts, Moore isn't a documentarian if he keeps twisitng facts to suit his needs.
Face facts, Moore isn't a documentarian if he keeps twisitng facts to suit his needs.
Fact: There is nothing in the commonly accepted definition of what a "documentary" is which requires it to abstain from taking a stance on the subject. In fact, WITHOUT an angle, what the hell would be IN a documentary?jecclr2003 said:
Fact: You can't "twist" a fact. Either something can be verified, or it cannot. Moore presents information and then provides his interpretation of what that information means. You can disagree with the interpretation...but analyzing data to come up with a conclusion isn't "twisting" anything.
Fact: Bush and Cheney repeatedly made misstatements during the election campaign. Are you equally upset with them for "twisting facts?"
jecclr2003
Banned
Sorry you twist things around to serve your agenda and it isnt documenting anything. Go ahead laugh it up, but frankly he's making fiction out of fact.
If you take this guy seriously at any of his MOVIES (because in essence thats what they are, not docementaries) you're as big of a joke as he is.
You want to know what a documentary is? See anything by Ken Burns, you don't see any of his stuff twisiting around facts and rearranging speeches and happening to fit some type of BS, political agenda he might have.
Facts can be twisted around to suit whatever purpose you may have if they are presented out of context.
According to dictionary.com and Websters...
doc·u·men·ta·ry ** (*P*)**Pronunciation Key**(dky-mnt-r)
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Base point is this, he isn't a documentarian of any kind, but he knows how to make a powerful propaganda film.
If you take this guy seriously at any of his MOVIES (because in essence thats what they are, not docementaries) you're as big of a joke as he is.
You want to know what a documentary is? See anything by Ken Burns, you don't see any of his stuff twisiting around facts and rearranging speeches and happening to fit some type of BS, political agenda he might have.
Facts can be twisted around to suit whatever purpose you may have if they are presented out of context.
According to dictionary.com and Websters...
doc·u·men·ta·ry ** (*P*)**Pronunciation Key**(dky-mnt-r)
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Base point is this, he isn't a documentarian of any kind, but he knows how to make a powerful propaganda film.
jecclr2003 said:
I think many film scholars would not agree with that definition. I've mentioned it before and I will say it again--the documentary is broader than most people think. Besides, no documentary is without bias. You don't think Ken Burns hasn't been trying to say something about the problem of race in America with most of his work? Even he has a point of view, he just doesn't wear it on his sleeve like Moore.
Alcibiades
Member
this wasn't O'Reilly's doing, I mean, O'Reilly has Democrat operatives on all the time, doesn't mean he's for or against them, this was a guest...deadlifter said:
This was some media guest that had done a survery (nothing to do with Fox News or The O'Reilly factor) that was invited on. and it wasn't just Moore that was listed, I think they also people like Springsteen, Arnold, or others...
O'Reilly also seemed a little surprised it would be to that extent that Moore would turn more people to Bush than against, and like I told you, I didn't buy it either, just because I thought they might not be surveying the right people (young people w/ cell phones)...
but I also thought the Moore-effect would result in a Kerry decisive win, so I'm saying maybe the guy's survey was moore accurate than I thought...
jecclr2003
Banned
ge-man ok, I can accept that.
I can accept that the term has been broadened, don't like it, but I can accept it.
Just wish the guy would make a valid argument without twisting things around. If you have a story, go with it. You shouldn't need to mess things up to fit what ever point your trying to make.
I can accept that the term has been broadened, don't like it, but I can accept it.
Just wish the guy would make a valid argument without twisting things around. If you have a story, go with it. You shouldn't need to mess things up to fit what ever point your trying to make.
Webster isnt the end all be all here.
There are movements in cinema, and yes documentary films have different types. there are documentaries that dont resemble the "footage\interview" type you see mostly, there are some that are more editorial. these films fall under "Documentary film".
There are movements in cinema, and yes documentary films have different types. there are documentaries that dont resemble the "footage\interview" type you see mostly, there are some that are more editorial. these films fall under "Documentary film".
Duck of Death
Member
There is no one definition to the documentary. It is the oldest form of cinema (beginning with the first actualities) and has taken many forms.
Michael Moore's films are documentaries.
Michael Moore's films are documentaries.
jecclr2003
Banned
The mainquestion is why does he feel a need to manipulate quotes and items to suit HIS viewpoint. It really does nothing to elevate him above the joke status that no one takes seriously. If he were able to prove his point wothout stepping on everyones toes, none of this would be an issue and he could gaing the relevance and attention he desperatly wants.
It's perfectly fine to be upset with your government and then produce a film to protest it. But in doing so misquoting and just flat out lying to prove your point just makes you look bad when the egg is put all over your face.
Call it semantics, but I won't call it a documentary. Not until he can prove a point without lying and bending reality to do so.
It's perfectly fine to be upset with your government and then produce a film to protest it. But in doing so misquoting and just flat out lying to prove your point just makes you look bad when the egg is put all over your face.
Call it semantics, but I won't call it a documentary. Not until he can prove a point without lying and bending reality to do so.
jecclr2003 said:
I love how "bending the truth" is somehow Michael Moore's exclusive domain. I don't recall him ever saying the movie was supposed to be fair; hell, I don't remember any kind of fury over "Supersize Me," which completely ignores the fact that you can get a salad, a plain, grilled chicken sandwich, and/ora bottle of water at McDonald's to prove a broader point.
There were no major, OMGWTF! lies in F9/11. If you don't like his editing, which he freely admits is the manifestation of an agenda, well, no one's forcing you to watch it.
xsarien said:
You can debate that point all day. And nobody said he was being forced to watch it. He said he refuses to recognize it as a documentary. There's nothing wrong with that. A lot of the critics that liked Farenheit 9/11 said it was nothing more than propaganda.
videogamer
Banned
KingV said:
Would you care to explain why?
videogamer
Banned
Zaptruder said:
Australians don't watch wrestling?
jecclr2003
Banned
Hammy apparantly not....
When I find a suitable replacement I'll put it in. Until that point Lesnar stays.
xsarien I haven't seen "Supersize Me" so I can't reall form an opinion..
When I find a suitable replacement I'll put it in. Until that point Lesnar stays.
xsarien I haven't seen "Supersize Me" so I can't reall form an opinion..
videogamer
Banned
jecclr2003 said:
Let's just say it's too flashy and I'm going to get a seizure reading GAF any day now because of that avatar.
jecclr2003
Banned
I could find the seizure enducing Pokemon episode and put it in if it annoys you so bad.
videogamer
Banned
jecclr2003 said:
erm, no. I can provide you with some other avatars instead. A photo will do fine.
jecclr2003
Banned
lol, ok.
I've been menaing to change it for the better part of 6 months, it's just so far back in my mind. 2 jobs, a wife and a backlog of gaming will do that.
I've been menaing to change it for the better part of 6 months, it's just so far back in my mind. 2 jobs, a wife and a backlog of gaming will do that.
Reading some of the posts in this forum (and specifically one post from this thread) has made me realize that the "war on terror" is nothing more than a war by American conservative christians on Islam, at least in the way its viewed by a large number of Americans. The "good vs evil" issue has been at the heart of the Bush administrations policy since day one. A good strategy to get re-elected indeed, not good if you're not a conservative christian.
- Status