|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,978
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,978 |
Amen BOFH and JaTo 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 36
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 36 |
WOW 5 pages and mostly all negative toward the film. Yet it made numerous top ten lists. See i also interact on other message boards and i would have to say this was the most with negative replies by a long shot that i have seen. What did you all think of the facts that he displayed about what the goverment gave to saddum and taliban and the rest, what are you opinions on that. Solid facts that back that the US has messed up on a lot of things. Granted i wasnt saying we should get rid of the guns, but there should be more restrictions on the type of guns that can be purchased. Are the people that back the "I have a right to bear arms" man that was drawn up so early on in America when there were no police and nothing like todays living. I could see owning a gun back then campared to now.
Do you think there is more negative attitudes toward guns than positive???
Alpha
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
Originally posted by ShinyRedSport:
Thank you but no
doc·u·men·ta·ry
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
--->Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.<---
/pwned
Oh yeah?, how about:
"n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration".
And more importantly,
"[t]he Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences states that documentary films are defined as "those dealing with historical, social, scientific, or economic subjects, either photographed in actual occurrence or re-enacted, and where the emphasis is more on factual content than that on entertainment."
There is therefore no reason why a propaganda film could be characterized as a documentary under the definition of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Last edited by 96RedSE5Sp; 09/03/03 07:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Originally posted by ShinyRedSport:
Thank you but no
doc·u·men·ta·ry
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
--->Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.<---
/pwned
Oh yeah?, how about:
"n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration".
And more importantly,
"[t]he Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences states that documentary films are defined as "those dealing with historical, social, scientific, or economic subjects, either photographed in actual occurrence or re-enacted, and where the emphasis is more on factual content than that on entertainment."
There is therefore no reason why a propaganda film could be characterized as a documentary under the definition of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
The content is barely factual. The statistics Moore states about gun violence are nearly fabricated. For example, he lumps people who have shot and killed in self defense as well as police officers who have shot and killed suspects with the same gang members who gun down innocent children. The speeches given by Heston have been altered, which, IMO negates the factual content portion of the film, as well. If you cannot present the context in which a phrase is uttered because it doesn't suit your purpose, you've already lost the facts.
The problem is the fact that Moore misrepresented Heston's quotes in order to illicit a response. That's not what a documentarian does. Will a documentarian be biased? Sure, but, not if they're a very good one, IMO.
Someone mentioned that the movie got rave reviews, and this is the only forum in which people are bashing it, blah blah blah. Well, this is also the only forum that I've seen where the members are intelligent enough to form their own opinions, popular or not, and back them up. We're not all these "The Right sucks, long live the Left!" whackjobs like what you see with Moore. Simply put, we disagree with what he put out there.
Oh... and a lot of us will agree on one thing- "You can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands."
1998 SVT Contour Silver Frost for sale in Classifieds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127 |
I don't think anybody disputes that we gave Saadam and the Taliban money.
There may be a mis-characterization of what that money was used for. (wasn't the post 9/11 money to Afganistan supposed to be humanitarian aid?)
TB
"Seems like our society is more interested in turning each successive generation into cookie-cutter wankers than anything else." -- Jato 8/24/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Originally posted by ShinyRedSport:
Thank you but no
doc·u·men·ta·ry
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
--->Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.<---
/pwned
Oh yeah?, how about:
"n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration".
And more importantly,
"[t]he Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences states that documentary films are defined as "those dealing with historical, social, scientific, or economic subjects, either photographed in actual occurrence or re-enacted, and where the emphasis is more on factual content than that on entertainment."
There is therefore no reason why a propaganda film could be characterized as a documentary under the definition of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Ok, I'll take a stab at both of them.
Both of your definitions state the FACTS are key to a documentary. Sure re-enactments are acceptable, as long as they DO NOT omit key facts.
However, taking the words of a man and re-arranging them to mean something else is not a fact.
For instance, looking at your posts in this thread, I can construct the following sentance.
"terrorist attacks masterminded by Michael Moore will next focus on the Bush administration." --96RedSE5Sp
Those are all words you wrote, so with some creative editing, I've made them say something completely different.
I limited myself to just thread. Imagine what I could have cut and pasted together if I went searching many other threads for words you used.
To you, this is ok?
It certainly is not ok in my book to pass this off as the intent of your words.
I think there is a defendable argument that this was done to the words of Charleton Heston for one example.
FWIW,
TB
"Seems like our society is more interested in turning each successive generation into cookie-cutter wankers than anything else." -- Jato 8/24/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Originally posted by BOFH:
So are you saying that Michael Moore did not engage in the creative editing that Hardy claims he did?
Michael Moore is not an historian. He is a documentary filmmaker who does not pretend to be neutral on important issues of our time. "Creative editing" is at the essence of any documentary. I don't think his editing detracted from his central thesis one bit.
Originally posted by BOFH:
Instead of calling what Hardy did a "Hatchet Job" why not show us where he is wrong.
...
So why don't you do the same and show where Hardy is wrong, instead of just calling it a hatchet job, without addressing the evidence presented?
TB
It has already been done. Check out
http://fatal.kiwisparks.co.nz/index.php?itemid=4&catid=4
That website doesn't remotely come close to contradicting Hardy. Try again. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Alphatour:
WOW 5 pages and mostly all negative toward the film. Yet it made numerous top ten lists. See i also interact on other message boards and i would have to say this was the most with negative replies by a long shot that i have seen. What did you all think of the facts that he displayed about what the goverment gave to saddum and taliban and the rest, what are you opinions on that. Solid facts that back that the US has messed up on a lot of things...
As much as I would love to, I quite simply don't have the time to go over US foreign policy, Cold War strategic goals (both from a USSR and US point of view), the US and USSR competing for political/military influence of the Middle-East, UN-backed proposals propped up via US cash infusions and the COMPLEX history that the US has had with Iraq, Iran, Eqypt and a number of other Middle-Eastern countries since the 1950's...
Pick up a history book and start reading, then come and ask these questions again if you don't understand the changes that were brought about by the Conference of Yalta at the end of WWII and onwards. I'll admit that certain ethnic issues go MUCH farther back than this, but a lot of the current political issues stem, IMHO, from this singular conference where the US, England and Russia started formulating the post-WWII world.
I constantly hear people whine about how the US has screwed up things over the past 20-30 years, though few of these people ever take note of the end goal behind our "meddling" in foreign affairs. Almost ALL of them lead to a singular event that occured when a certain wall collapsed in Berlin on a Winter night in 1989, signifying the symbolic collapse of Communism and the end of the Cold War, the longest and most expensive military stalemate that this World has ever seen.
Again, it would take me hours to craft a complete response to your questions, so hit the library.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
