1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Fahrenheit 9/11 - US release date June 25

Discussion in 'The OT' started by ypsiguy, Jun 2, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mark Holtz

    Mark Holtz Day Sleeper DBSTalk Club

    10,563
    93
    Mar 23, 2002
    Sacramento, CA
    Well, if that happens, I won't say that I'm a political prisoner, and that I take more responsibility in my actions that he does in any of his films.
     
  2. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    Durring that crack head speech of his at the Oscars where he was booed down, as he was leaving, a bunch of the backstage crew were about ready to kill him. Steve Martin, who was obviously embarrased by Moore's behavior, tried to smooth it over. I loved wha Martin said. "It was so sweet backstage, you should have seen it,The Teamsters were helping Michael Moore into the trunk of his limo." :hurah:
     
  3. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    This is the trap a lot of apologists for Moore and others like him fall into. Nobody is challenging is right to make his "documenteries", but his right of free speech doesn't translate into a right to be heard, which is what so many on the left get confused. He has no right to have his "documentries" released or distributed. A person in this country has every right to say his piece, but people also have the right not to listen. Just because he's speaking, doesn't mean that we have to listen to his rantings. There is no right in this country to be heard. If you're saying something, and nobody wants to listen, tough luck. Moore is excersising his right to speak, and I'm excersising my right to retaining my sanity by not spending money on his tripe.
     
  4. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Technically, Moore has not slandered nor libeled anyone in his movies. Technically, Bradbury DID slander Moore in his interview. While you may think there is no difference, if you look at both objectively you'd see there is a vast difference.

    It is interesting how you and others can toss around words like "dispicable", "sleazy", "slander", etc. and you haven't even seen the film. You're only basing your opinion on the opinion of someone else who most likely based their opinion on that of yet another person, all of whom have not see the film, most likely.

    I have seen a large portion of the film. At no time does Moore show any disrespect to any of the firefighters, police, or other rescue people involved. In fact, he makes a profound and moving homage to them. So, I must ask, since when is being critical of the president and his performance in any way related to FDNY or NYPD or others?

    As to the distribution issue, it is true that there is no guarantee of distribution. However, the political undertones of the denial cannot go unnoticed. Imagine if, say, Hillary Clinton subtly mentioned to the publisher of Limbaugh's next book that, should they go ahead with the publishing and distribution, they may encounter severe difficulties on some legislative matter that concerns them. Can you imagine the bloodcurdling scream that would emanate from the right-wingers? Would the right-wingers just shrug their shoulders and tell themselves it is OK because nobody is guaranteed to be published and distributed? Yet they dismiss out of hand the implication that has been made against one of their own for essentially doing the same thing.

    This is no apology for Moore. Personally I don't much care for him or his style. But what I like even less is the pomposity, faux indignation and deprecation being bandied about in the guise of some righteous cause by people who haven't even seen the film.
     
  5. Mike Moore isn't my favorite guy, but he does bring up some interesting points. I highly doubt the man means any disrespect toward the event [and neither do I. Yay America. Yay for FDNY. Rock on] I think he is trying to correlate certain events after Sept 11 with suspicious activity. I don't think he is trying to bash President Bush outright either. The message I get from it is that he is asking President Bush why he hasn't gotten involved with certain companies trying to profit from the Afghanistan and Iraq war [which I both support] I like President Bush and all, but there are just a few things which concern me. But I don't really like Ashcroft or Chaney. [I have my reasons...I don't want to argue. Arguing is the last thing I want. Yay for peace] But in the end...I dunno. Don't try and make Mike Moore out to be an anti-american monster. He just has done a crapload of investigation and wants to figure out what the poop is going on. He is kind of like Kennith Starr in a way.

    In the end, I don't want to anger anyone, I just want to kind of humanize Mike Moore. He isn't some kind of villan. He does say a lot of good things...I don't agree with everything he says, but then again, I don't think anyone can. In the end, if we just keep bashing and bashing and belittling people for what they say and do, and not actually do anything [at least in a decent way] about it, nothing will get done.

    If you want to get mad at me or anything, you can contact me on:
    AIM: DCKantel
    E-mail: DC_Kantel@hotmail.com
     
  6. James_F

    James_F Damn you woman! DBSTalk Gold Club

    5,205
    1
    Apr 23, 2002
    I don't care for the guy, but in his book, "Dude, that's my country" one of the chapter titles is Jesus W. Christ.

    I still laugh my ass off with that one.
     
  7. lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,023
    2
    Apr 17, 2002
    Well said and I'm feeling a bit embaressed that it took a non registered poster to bring this back to a reasonable footing. I'll take my kids out to McD's for dinner tonight as my punishment/atonement. ;)
     
  8. Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    Moore tried to get a PG-13 rating but the motion pictures censor boards are runed by republicans. They gave this movie an R rating :lol: .HaHaHa!!! Nice try mr moore. :lol:
     
  9. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    So now you are implying that Republican's are willing to give false ratings just to further their own agenda? How is that any different from what Moore does?

    The move has an R rating because it features true wartime violence (as opposed to simulated violence as found in action films). Its a fair rating in my opinion. Implying the Republicans had anything to do with this is just silly.
     
  10. Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    Well how come the passion of the christ had a PG-13 Rating? think about it.
     
  11. toenail

    toenail Hall Of Fame

    1,085
    0
    Oct 15, 2002
    It was rated R.
     
  12. Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    Yeah, youre right i checked it out.
     
  13. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    And a very hard R at that.
     
  14. TedKaz

    TedKaz Mentor

    32
    0
    Mar 1, 2004
    If Bush Jr and Powell Jr (with the FCC) get their way, you can kiss message boards like this goodbye.
     
  15. TedKaz

    TedKaz Mentor

    32
    0
    Mar 1, 2004
    "And, having said that, we have all fallen into a nice, clever trap. Take a look at all the free publicity he is receiving because of this film."



    The American way
     
  16. TedKaz

    TedKaz Mentor

    32
    0
    Mar 1, 2004
    Not have any people killed? Where are you getting your news from?
     
  17. TedKaz

    TedKaz Mentor

    32
    0
    Mar 1, 2004
    I'm so disgusted on how the 911 funds were handled... I would have never donated if I knew how it would all be handled.
     
  18. Trelbee

    Trelbee New Member

    1
    0
    Jun 26, 2004
    Though you have used the words "sincere," and "thoughful" quite a bit in your last few comments, you fail to recognize that these are judements that you can never know about a person for certain. You have NO WAY of knowing if your Choamsky is sincere or thoughtful at all, no matter how much you want to think he is. As much as Moore is putting on an act to sway opinion, so is Choamsky. Obviously Choamsky is someone you like, while Moore is liked by someone else. These facts have nothing to do with their actual sincerety or thoughfulness. You cannot prove that Choamsky is anymore or less sincere than Moore, nor vice versa. You are simply stating your opinions of these people. It is one thing to say someone is an "well spoken"," but it is another thing entirely to proclaim them to be "sincere." I think it's important that you understand that no matter how much someone annoys you, or, likewise, how much someone impresses you, you still have no clear idea about their motives. To that end, I don't think anyone should avoid this movie simply because they are worried they will be shown images designed to ellicite specific emotions. OF COURSE THEY WILL BE. That's what movies are about. Even the news is all about that. There is nothing reported to us that is not influences by someone or something and therefore distorted. What is important is that we can understand these influences in what we see and learn about and draw our own conclusions. It is also important to understand that any conclusion you draw based on information that has been reported to you, as well as your own feelings, and should not be concrete. I just got back from the movie. I am glad I saw it because I learned a few things I did not previously know, but I do not hate anyone any more or less now because I saw this movie. I knew what I was watching and I knew what I would be watching when I went in. You should do the same when you read about and watch the reports YOU value.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page