As if Moore wasn't already offensive enough to listen to (or LOOK AT, for that matter--sorry), did anyone else see his absolutely shameless plug at the MTV Movie Awards?!? Disgusting!

And yes, his films are funny, but the majority of the American people perceive them as factual documents!

Perhaps that is why he has become so controversial: people find him so audacious for coming out with the "truth," when in fact, his films are so scandalously edited and mainpulated to fulfill his agenda, that none of it should be taken as fact, but merely as entertainment.

I am not an avid supporter of GW, but to put acts of terrorism from many years past on one family is preposterous. Moore needs to get his head out of his...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Platypus Quest:
As if Moore wasn't already offensive enough to listen to (or LOOK AT, for that matter--sorry), did anyone else see his absolutely shameless plug at the MTV Movie Awards?!? Disgusting!

And yes, his films are funny, but the majority of the American people perceive them as factual documents!

Perhaps that is why he has become so controversial: people find him so audacious for coming out with the "truth," when in fact, his films are so scandalously edited and mainpulated to fulfill his agenda, that none of it should be taken as fact, but merely as entertainment.

I am not an avid supporter of GW, but to put acts of terrorism from many years past on one family is preposterous. Moore needs to get his head out of his...

---

I dont know much about politics, but I do watch the news. Micheal Moore received an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine and the Palm at Cannes. I can not believe that he has edted his films so heavily that a very high percentage is false. Wouldnt this be in the news? Fox News, the most shameless of all news channels, hasnt brought up this story. Theyre to busy striking fear in the hearts of viewers by making a big deal about every damn missing person (something MM points out in Bowling for Columbine). Now I dont agree with every thing Micheal Moore says. I havent even seen all of his movies. But I think he has some good points and his film, Bowling for Columbine, is one of the best films of last year (IMHO). I just cant believe, after winning two major awards (one for best DOCUMENTARY) that there isnt more controversy on TV. Television not websites. Websites are less reliable than a person winning an accolade in a non-fiction category. So, honestly, I dont see your point.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: EccentricSam,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Platypus Quest:
As if Moore wasn't already offensive enough to listen to (or LOOK AT, for that matter--sorry),

---

Doesnt anyone understand why Micheal Moore looks the way he does??? My grandmother calls him fat and ugly and poorly shaven and bad smelling. I just dont get why people attack Mr. Moore in such a derogatory way. He dresses like a regular person because he wants to convey himself as an everyman. This is just his approach. Like it, or not, dont attack it. I mean, "we" dont attack GW on the way he talks, we attack him on what he says.

quote:

---

My grandmother calls him fat and ugly and poorly shaven and bad smelling.

---

You should ask your grandmother when she smelled Michael Moore.

quote:

---

written by KT
You should ask your grandmother when she smelled Michael Moore.

---

HAHAHA!

K-Dog

Volumes have been written about how Moore's "documentaries" are innacurate, but here's one tiny example that resonated with me. He suggested in one clip of "Bowling for Columbine" that he was able to go into a bank, open a new account, and walk away with a new gun. Wow! What a deal! Is that true? Technically yes. But what he did not reveal in the movie was that the process of opening this account, specially the portion dealing with the gun, started weeks earlier, when he actually needed to register for that gun. It was not a same day deal. The picking up of the gun and the opening of the account was the END of a much longer process.

Personally, I thought that was an extremely effective and "funny" (KT) part of the movie, but when I found out how he mislead people in this way, it annoyed me quite a bit. There's enough bad stuff going on, and enough fuel for his films that he doesn't need to deceive in this way. It calls into question his other claims/techniques.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albert:
Volumes have been written about how Moore's "documentaries" are innacurate, but here's one tiny example that resonated with me. He suggested in one clip of "Bowling for Columbine" that he was able to go into a bank, open a new account, and walk away with a new gun. Wow! What a deal! Is that true? Technically yes. But what he did not reveal in the movie was that the process of opening this account, specially the portion dealing with the gun, started weeks earlier, when he actually needed to register for that gun. It was not a same day deal. The picking up of the gun and the opening of the account was the END of a much longer process.

Personally, I thought that was an extremely effective and "funny" (KT) part of the movie, but when I found out how he mislead people in this way, it annoyed me quite a bit. There's enough bad stuff going on, and enough fuel for his films that he doesn't need to deceive in this way. It calls into question his other claims/techniques.

---

When I read your post I wasnt affected. That segment was one of the funniest in the film, but who cares if he sped up the process. It's still effective, even if it isnt a one-day deal. A gun dealership/bank hybrid----you cant even think something up that good! Now, see, if he made it up Id lose every ounce of respect for him. But, he didnt--he just conmbined days to gain time.

Has Michael Moore ever actually claimed that his films were factually accurate? Do his films have a statement in the beginning saying "the events, facts, and situations in this film are all true and accurate blah blah blah..."? Just wondering.

Anyway, doesn't the art of film itself require a large portion of deception? Films are all about tricking the audience right? They try to convince us, the audience, as best they can that the situations, characters and etc are all real. And to add to that, it seems that we tend to like the movies that decieve us the MOST. We hand out awards to those who are most convincing as a specific character and to those who create the most convincing special effects. Really, it's all about deception.

K-Dog

I, too, voted yay for Moore. I think he makes entertaining films about subjects that nobody else, in America, at least, will touch. He's also notably left-wing and a provocateur, sorta like me apparently. Now, I spent a great discussion in the back of a theatre with Ray Bradbury about how great a film, "Close Encounters" was, so if Bradbury is pissed at Moore, then I am, too. Does that mean I won't watch his movie? Hell, no! Does that mean that Bradbury should have control over Moore's head? Absolutely!

quote:

---

Originally posted by K-Dog:
Has Michael Moore ever actually claimed that his films were factually accurate? Do his films have a statement in the beginning saying "the events, facts, and situations in this film are all true and accurate blah blah blah..."? Just wondering.

Anyway, doesn't the art of film itself require a large portion of deception? Films are all about tricking the audience right? They try to convince us, the audience, as best they can that the situations, characters and etc are all real. And to add to that, it seems that we tend to like the movies that decieve us the MOST. We hand out awards to those who are most convincing as a specific character and to those who create the most convincing special effects. Really, it's all about deception.

_K-Dog_

---

at no point in this documentary does he claim this is fiction. that is why this is a documentary. deception in fiction is called a mystery. deception in documentaries is called pathetic desperation.

he obviously makes no claim to being fair-minded, which is fine, but the extent to which he manipulates certain factoids and exploits people who are in severe distress or who are just plain immature (and ripe for exploitation by any unscrupulous type, i.e. moore) is troubling.

there are also stretches in the doc where he traps people (i.e. congressmen) to score a few points with the audience. he's pandering to the converted and he does so shamelessly. that is not to say he does not bring important issues to the table. its jsut that he stitches everything together in a ham-handed way just to express his hatred for bush. i found this doc to be a soft-core hate film.

quote:

---

Originally posted by syzygy:
there are also stretches in the doc where he traps people (i.e. congressmen) to score a few points with the audience.

---

No kidding!! Did you notice that in that sequence other than the first politician with whom he exchanges basic pleantries, he does not allow any of the politians to speak? Not one single word of response. And those first two Congressmen looked like they were going to say something. I'd like to know what their response is...obviously, Moore doesn't want you to know. What's he hiding?

And I'm sorry, but this whole sequence is just ridiculous. (to see the congressmen clip click here...and yes they're all men. I'm sure Moore talked to the congresswomen--at least I believe that he did--but I'm sure he didn't show them because it's harder to portray a group of people as evil if you show a repectable-looking nice lady.)

Only ADULTS can serve in the military. Would any of you want your parents "sending" you to Iraq...or any war for that matter? Parents cannot tell their adult children what to do. Just imagine your parents coming home and saying, "Hey, guess what I did today. I met someone on the street and I signed you up to go fight in a war." Even if I agreed with the war I'd tell my parents to go to h--- and mind their own business.

Are there people who actually buy into this crap?

I must admit, though. Moore certainly knows his craft and knows how to use film pull heart strings. He has a gift...I wish he'd use it for truth-telling instead of this selective truth stuff.

When watching a Michael Moore film, I would hope that most of the people here would have the intelligence to discern between opinions and facts. Moore presents many of his facts wrapped in his opinions, that is the point of having the voice-over narrative. I have no problem telling his opinions apart from the facts in his films, but it seems many people wish he would treat them like they were idiots or remain impartial and let them figure it out themselves. Other directors already do that, I knew most of the facts from Bowling For Columbine from legitimate news sources previous to seeing the film and I did not go to see it for that. I went to see a humorous opinion piece on a factual subject, like reading a political cartoonist in a newspaper. I went to hear his opinions, not to see some political facts that as a responsible citizen of the world I am already familiar with! I absolutely hate discussing Michael Moore with people, especially Americans, but I had to throw my opinion on here. Get over it people, he does not owe you or anyone else anything, you should be thankful that there are some Americans out there still willing to defy the establishment and voice their constitutional right to free speech. Are you afraid of change, of revolution? Some of you seem like you'd rather know what Michael Moore is hiding, as opposed to what the politicians are hiding! Movies are entertainment and documentaries are part of that too, they are not required to be absolutely factual. Lots of criticism for Michael Moore because he's political, but take a look at the documentary Capturing the Friedman's. There is absolutely nothing mysterious or unconfirmed about the case documented in that movie about two CONFESSED pedophiles, but the director twisted everything enough to get naive filmgoers to think his movie was a triumph, and very few people complained that it was completely designed to stir opinions regardless of the facts. Deal with it, I did, even though I hated the movie! If the majority of Americans perceive Michael Moore's or any movies for that matter, as factual documents, they are the ones who need to get their heads out of their asses. The majority of Americans don't even vote! I have no sympathy for morons, and complaining that Michael Moore misled you is as stupid as claiming you were misled to believe the Blair Witch Project was real.

quote:

---

written by Smenkharon
I have no sympathy for morons, and complaining that Michael Moore misled you is as stupid as claiming you were misled to believe the Blair Witch Project was real.

---

I agree.

K-Dog

Yeah,

Anything to get that nitwit out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

I interpreted the scene with the congress in a completely different way. In my mind, that scene served to illustrate the point not that the congressmen and women should send their children to war, but that no one should go to war, declare a war, sanction a war, etc. unless the cause is SO important that they are willing to sacrifice not only themselves, but their families to that war.

Once there was a time when kings or leaders of countries had to lead their countrymen into war, so that those countrymen would believe that it was worth fighting. Now these people are allowed to make decisions like this knowing that themselves and their children will not have to be the ones who are injured and killed. I am not convinced that this war was necessary enough for people to have to sacrifice themselves, their children, or their relatives for and I think pointing out the fact that it's much easier to make that decision when neither you nor yours have to face that sacrifice is a very valid point to be made.

I take no issue with how he chose to do it, because part of what democracy is all about is that representatives of the people should be prepared to answer for the decisions that they make on behalf of the people at any time. I feel free to call or write my representatives' offices if I want something addressed, I would hope that I could also ask them questions if I saw them in person as well. All of those people were free to not answer if they chose, in fact they were free to get away as quick as possible when they say Moore and the cameras, as at least one did. They were also free to answer as someone here did, that their children were grown adults who made their own decisions about whether to join the military or not. But none of them did, instead they stammered and hemmed and hawed. A good politician should be able to speak extemporaneously. Unfortunately these days most don't know how to say anything that's not written for them by their staff.

It's simple:

In a democratic society, no group should be privileged or exempt from service or duty, including military service. George and Laura would think twice were their 2 daughters manning the supply convoy to Baghdad, or if they face that prospect in a premeditated act of war to invade and occupy another country.

Hell, if George had actually flown a combat mission against enemy anti-aircraft fire, he might not be so inclined to say "Bring 'em on."

When an elite is insulated from the consequences of their policies, I think you end up with bad policies. It makes for bad governance.

In any political economy, the fundamental question is "Who decides?" In a democracy, the people does. Since we're in a republic, we decide thru our elected representatives. When they don't do our will, we kick 'em out of office.

November, we'll send that nitwit back to Crawford.

I say yay. I think that the things he's done, that I've seen, have been awesome. I thought they were very interesting and pretty funny to boot, although they are about serious events.

Michael Moore has made a couple of great movies. His most recent, about as factual as the two presidential candidates, they just stretch the truth, I don't see anybody complaining about either of them doing so, so why crucify Moore for it?

Michael Moore is a flat-out liar and uses creative editing misrepresent virtually all of the facts in his "films."

I think he's great for bringing up important issues and showing his perspective, but...

I think he does poor research and only shows one side of all issues. I think he is a self promoter and I don't know if he is in it for the right reasons. I think there should be more people out there - on both sides of all issues - that raise awareness the way he does.