|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 271
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 271 |
Originally posted by Alphatour:
Im not saying we are going down hill, we are alredy at the bottom compared to pretty much every other big country. Our crime rate with guns is pretty much unbeleivable compared to other nations, why is that???
Alpha
Well I suggest that anyone who agrees with this should check out what has happened to violent crime rates in England since they decided that their citizenry had no right to own personal firearms any longer.
1996 Zetec MTX
NO Mods it's only a matter of money now though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,397
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,397 |
Anytime this arguement comes up and people think that banning guns will stop people from going to work and snapping and killing a bunch of people I always think of that one episode of the Simpsons. The Monkey Paw one:
Lisa wishes for world peace and she gets it: all weapons disappear then aliens (armed with only a 2x4) come and take over the world because we have no weapons to stop them with. Then one day someone goes after one of the aliens with a 2x4 with a NAIL in it. The aliens run off all scared of the new super weapon that the humans created.
Granted it's very far fetched and a cartoon but there is a very true underlying point to it. No matter what you do we as humans WILL KILL EACH OTHER. Sad but true it's just our nature. Take away guns and people will just use knives, take them away and it will be rocks and so on and so on. Maybe a bunch of rocks can't kill as quickly as a gun but don't worry because we as destructive humans will find a way to mod up a rock cannon so we can kill more efficiently.
Formerly known as Sneaku
I MISS MY BABY!!!
'00 Blk CSVT #1087/2150 built 12/23/99
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307 |
Slingshots do wonderful things with rocks.
You're fighting with my very argument... ban guns, then knives, then rocks, then all silverware, you can't play baseball anymore because bats, balls, and cleats have all been outlawed... no more ice hockey because the skates are sharp. No more track and field because the javelin and discus are potential weapons, too.
Taking away guns will do nothing.
1998 SVT Contour Silver Frost for sale in Classifieds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
As Moore is so concerned about removing ammo from the shelves of certain stores, suing the gun industry and generally creating havoc everywhere he can on this subject, I suggest he get some perspective and cover 9/11, where the largest mass-murder on American soil took place without a single bullet being fired...
...but then given his mind-set, he'd probably come to the conclusion to ban commercial flights, sue the airline industry and talk about the oppression that capitalism has thrust upon those innocent and put-upon Islamic militants.
Michael Moore's got you covered.
"...perhaps the campaign against Moore is really motivated by another reason. His next project has the working title "Fahrenheit 9/11: The temperature at which freedom burns", and he intends to launch it shortly before the next US presidential election. It is unlikely, however, that the unfair attacks against him will have much of an impact. After all, the same kind of PR blitz was started against the previous record-holding documentary: "Roger & Me" by Michael Moore".
(From a website contradicting the Hardy hatchetjob on Bowling for Columbine).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
More on Fahrenheit 9/11.
"Documentarian Michael Moore will next focus on President George W. Bush's response to the terrorist attacks masterminded by Osama bin Laden. As Moore tells Variety, "The primary thrust of the new film is what has happened to the country since Sept. 11, and how the Bush administration used this tragic event to push its agenda."
Criticize Bush in public??? I thought that was illegal under the PATRIOT Act.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127 |
So are you saying that Michael Moore did not engage in the creative editing that Hardy claims he did?
Instead of calling what Hardy did a "Hatchet Job" why not show us where he is wrong.
It seems Hardy did a fair job of backing up his statement and showing how speaches where pasted together in the editing room to change the context of what Charleton Heston said.
Agree with Heston, or disagree, I don't really care, but if the allegation is true that Moore did selectively choose words and clips from different speeches, and put them together in an order that is no where near the context of the original speech, isn't that essentally Michael Moore lying?
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?
That is fair, isn't it?
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: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,978
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,978 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
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.
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.<---
I'm against it winning an award because of the category... by definition it is NOT a documentary... itâ??s a fictional movie and should go against other fictional movies. Like Lord of the Rings or the Matrix. See how well it does then 
/pwned
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127 |
The author of that webpage seems to excuse a lot of the (shall I be polite) mis-direction under the banner of art.
Example such as this:
Quote:
# Canada ammunition purchase. Hardy writes:
Bowling shows Moore casually buying ammunition at an Ontario Walmart. He asks us to "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." He buys several boxes of ammunition without a question being raised. "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada." Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal.
Once again, Hardy fails to distinguish between regular film editing and "faking" (a word which "Canadian officials" have never used; for such a distortion, Moore would have been boiled alive by his critics). If Moore simply chose not to show how he revealed his identification to the salesperson, there is nothing fraudulent about that. He made no claims whatsoever in the film about the need to show or not show identification. His claim that it is possible to purchase ammunition in supermarkets is independent from that claim.
There IS something fraudulent about not showing the ID portion of the transaction if this film is being nominated for an Acadamy Award as a documentary.
In fact, if he does say that a question is not raised, then isn't the request for ID a question? So if Michael Moore is saying no questions were raised, then it is a bald faced lie to omit details of asking for id, period.
I don't see where documentaries should be partisan or take sides. In my opinion, a good documentary shows all aspects of the issue fairly and lets the viewer decide for himself where he sides on the issue.
If a film is slanted in one direction or another, that is propaganda.
Let's see what the definition of a documentary is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary
The salient definition here is:
Quote:
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Now on to propaganda http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=propaganda
Again, a salient definition:
Quote:
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
So given what you indicate above about the selective editing and what the writer at your link present, would you say "Bowling" is a Documentary or Propaganda.
I say it is probably closer to Propaganda than a Documentary.
Details such as explicity giving us time frames, details of transactions, or at the very least if you are not going to show the whole speach, let the view know with citations on the screen as the cuts of various speaches are shown.
So we differ, I believe that documentaries are not about the art, but about a fair presentation of ALL pertinent facts regarding an issue.
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: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
I'm calling BS on the "Defence of Michael Moore" article, at least where it says Moore was being "unintentionally deceptive". Back in my college days I went through a couple semesters of Film & Video Studies classes (one of which was a course on documentary studies) and my younger brother is a budding film editor. To put it bluntly, I can smell a skunk a mile away, and my brother 10 miles given that he breathes film 24x7...
There's not a SINGLE edited frame in that movie (or REAL documentaries, for that matter) that is "unintentional", so for anyone to say that is a half-a$$ed copout by someone who knows NOTHING about film. I'll give the author kudo's for being creative in the way he glassed over and artfully dodged much of the accusations and outright BS that Moore apparently pulled, but it still doesn't change the fact that in places, it's a FABRICATED film. Documentaries aren't fabricated, they are built on a foundation of honest and direct filmmaking and editing, not editing to create or craft perceptions contrary to the reality it is supposed to show. I recall a number of PBS specials that were lambasted due to their fabrication and setups of animal behaviors and the like a number of years back. My memory is fuzzy, but I believe that it did ruin the careers of a couple of directors.
I could care less about the subject-matter, if one edits to CREATE something that didn't exist in the first place to sway opinion, that's NOT a documentary.
That's propaganda.
There's a pretty well-defined line between creative editing and outright fabrication. Forget the political/moral/social commentary and judge the work off of it's honesty, which has rightly been called into question in a number of places...
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
