If you've seen Fahrenheit 9/11, ask & discuss it here.

[Galahad]

At one time, something like 50% of the country thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11,

That's true.

largely due to the fact that the administration continuously mentioned the two in the same sentence for months leading up to the invasion

That's both exageration and conjecture, IMO.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Here we go again...

I keep hearing this argument over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, (and that's just from dmadman) but, for all intents and purposes, the movie still fits the definition of a documentary.

Unless, of course, dmadman is now the sole authority on what get called a documentary as Galahad seems to be the sole authority on what is called "art."

Man..you are really a lot of fun. Baiting you is just becoming WAY too easy.

let's see...

doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. (okay, possibly)
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. (Nope, sorry. Doesn't qualify)

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.

(nope, sorry. in my book, based on other MM films I've seen, it does not qualify. But you bar for facts might be much lower than mine)

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Galahad
That's both exageration and conjecture, IMO.

Ok, so give me another reason. Give me ANY plausible reason why, in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, the American people were under the mistaken impression that Iraq was involved in 9/11. For someone decrying Michael Moore as being misleading, isn't it hypocritical not to accuse the white house of the same thing when they are so obviously misleading the public ?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy
At one time, something like 50% of the country thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11, largely due to the fact that the administration continuously mentioned the two in the same sentence for months leading up to the invasion.....


....so yeah, I know what you mean about "gullible people"

Because 50% of gullible people believe something that makes it true? No wonder MM's films do comparitively well.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Because 50% of gullible people believe something that makes it true? No wonder MM's films do comparitively well.

Umm....I don't have a clue what you're trying to say, here, but...er..good point.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Ok, so give me another reason. Give me ANY plausible reason why, in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, the American people were under the mistaken impression that Iraq was involved in 9/11. For someone decrying Michael Moore as being misleading, isn't it hypocritical not to accuse the white house of the same thing when they are so obviously misleading the public ?

"Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public"

At one time more than 50% of the people believed the world was flat. In fact there are still some that believe that.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy


Umm....I don't have a clue what you're trying to say, here, but...er..good point.

Did you see "F9/11"? If so, then I rest my case

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by dmadman43
And, you cannot be serious about Slate. Far-right winged? Believe me, working for the company that funds Slate, and knowing people that work in that division, I can tell you for SURE it is not far-right winged.

So "Slate" isn't right-wing because of the company that funds it? Sorry, that doesn't hold water. [I'm not arguing that Slate is or isn't right-winged, I never read it, just that you're argument is flawed.] Why not? News Corp. owns both FOX and the New York Post. Funding or ownership doesn't mean political direction is going to be taken from that funding source or parent company.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Did you see "F9/11"? If so, then I rest my case

Is that supposed to be an insult ? That I saw a movie before making up my mind about it ? Ouch...gee...that really hurts

I'd think someone that supports an administration that claims that WMD's still exist (despite all evidence to the contrary) should probably be careful about throwing that "gullible" word around

But that's ok...Just keep buying everything that Dubya and Dick tell you....Don't bother thinking about it...Might hurt something

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Man..you are really a lot of fun. Baiting you is just becoming WAY too easy.

let's see...

doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. (okay, possibly)
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. (Nope, sorry. Doesn't qualify)

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.

(nope, sorry. in my book, based on other MM films I've seen, it does not qualify. But you bar for facts might be much lower than mine)

Oh, of course you're entitled to your opinion that it's not a documentary. But, it seems that most in the film industy have disagreed with you.

Oh, but wait! Who could possibly know more about the industy and be more familiar with it? Yeah, that's a hard one!

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Joeblack
I thought you were of the idea that 9-11 was one of the main reasons for the Iraq war. If you bother to watch the movie, you will see the link between the two scenarios. One of the director's motives for the film (watch his acceptance speech) was to make people aware of the dark times the world has fallen into because of repeating the same mistakes.

Do watch the movie. I guarantee you will like it. It is not a "lib" movie.

the point of my post was that after almost three years the first movie we have made about 9/11 is a politcal hatchet job. Very sad given how tragic that day was. I don't remember many (in fact, any) political hatchet jobs done on Pearl Harbor. Most Pearl Harbor movies (the Disney one except, what a laugher that was) paid homage to those that lost their lives and those that fought. Oh well. Like I said, if "F9/11" does anything, it disrespects those the lost their lives and those that tried to save them.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Joeblack
Wrong Oliver. You mean Oliver Stone right? Oliver North was someone else.

The big difference between JFK and F911 is that the first is a movie with actors. The second one is composed of documented footage of the real people. Hence: Documentary. At least it fulfills the requisites of the Academy or Cannes festival to participate under that category (what do those bleeding heart ignorants know, right?)

Does the fact that MM includes his own commentary and opinions to the footage make it less of a documentary? To some, it may. He has said himself that it is more of a Op-Ed piece. The difference is that in this piece, images speak a thousand words and stay in people's minds longer than a regular editorial. This is a powerful movie and can change people's minds, and that is why so many people on the other side of the fence are so angry and trying to bring it down.

Yes, my bad. Stone.

Just because something has footage of real people doesn't make it a documentary. By that definition "CrankYankers" "*******:The Movie" and even "Candid Camera" are documentaries.

I don't really care how the French define documentaries.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by dmadman43
the point of my post was that after almost three years the first movie we have made about 9/11 is a politcal hatchet job. Very sad given how tragic that day was. I don't remember many (in fact, any) political hatchet jobs done on Pearl Harbor. Most Pearl Harbor movies (the Disney one except, what a laugher that was) paid homage to those that lost their lives and those that fought. Oh well. Like I said, if "F9/11" does anything, it disrespects those the lost their lives and those that tried to save them.

Oh, and using their dead bodies in a campaign commercial DOESN'T disrespect them ?!?

Give me a friggin' break.

 

[dmadman43]

Moore's an Eagle Scout.

So was Charles Whitman and Arthur Gary Bishop. What's your point?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Oh, and using their dead bodies in a campaign commercial DOESN'T disrespect them ?!?

Give me a friggin' break.

We aren't discussing that. But, you have a point. Still doesn't make it right. So, is the the "everyone is doing it" argument we all used when we were kids?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by dmadman43
We aren't discussing that. But, you have a point. Still doesn't make it right. So, is the the "everyone is doing it" argument we all used when we were kids?

Of course not...but Moore is a filmmaker, and he made a film detailing the failures of this president surrounding that attack. The president, on the other hand, used a picture of a flag-draped corpse in an effort to make himself look good. I'm sorry you can't seem to see the difference there.

 

[Galahad]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moore's an Eagle Scout.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So was Charles Whitman and Arthur Gary Bishop. What's your point?

So was flkhou wasn't he? Wonder how he's doing?

 

[Joeblack]

Originally posted by dmadman43
the point of my post was that after almost three years the first movie we have made about 9/11 is a politcal hatchet job. Very sad given how tragic that day was. I don't remember many (in fact, any) political hatchet jobs done on Pearl Harbor. Most Pearl Harbor movies (the Disney one except, what a laugher that was) paid homage to those that lost their lives and those that fought. Oh well. Like I said, if "F9/11" does anything, it disrespects those the lost their lives and those that tried to save them.

About a month ago or so I watched a tv movie (I think it was one of the big 3 networks) about the lives of the 911 terrorists comprising the years before the attack and the attack itself. It was not Oscar worthy but it was pretty good and gave some insight on how they became ingrained in AMerican life and culture. Scary stuff. There is also a documentary called 9-11 by Jules and Gedeon Nadet which is also incredibly well done:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312318/

See? Stuff about it has been made and will continue to be made as events unfold. The key is not to look for the Armaggeddon/Pearl Harbor/The Alamo formulaic Hollywood stuff.

 

[Joeblack]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Yes, my bad. Stone.

Just because something has footage of real people doesn't make it a documentary. By that definition "CrankYankers" "*******:The Movie" and even "Candid Camera" are documentaries.

I don't really care how the French define documentaries.

The French? How about The American Film Institute or the Academy? You don't care either? Who defines it?....You?

And come on...don't compare F911 with *******. The first one is made up of images that are DOCUMENTED in other sources (newspapers, newsreels, interviews, etc) as well as words of real senators, mothers, sons acting as themselves. ******* is more of a stunt show, comparable maybe to a sports event or a circus performance. I do believe you can tell the difference beyond wanting to win the argument.

 

[Joeblack]

Ah...and there is also the Showtime production "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis" made last year about President Bush's reaction to the attacks.
I did not see this one, so I can't comment.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0353042/


And how about the dozens of books written about 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, Bush at war, etc.