Michael Moore to shoot Fahrenheit 911 sequel
- Thread starter heretic888
- Start date
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Yesterday, on 'The O'Reilly Factor' radio program, Bill's guest host (Gibson?) railed about this proclaiming 'Fahrenheit 911 was not art'. He knew, because, you see he went to film school.
Then he let on that he hasn't seen the film ... imagine that.
Someone arguing against something, about which they have no knowledge. Only on FOX.
M
Hell, I even tried to call him to offer him the 10 bucks to see the film ... or to send him my copy of the DVD ... busy signals
Then he let on that he hasn't seen the film ... imagine that.
Someone arguing against something, about which they have no knowledge. Only on FOX.
M
Hell, I even tried to call him to offer him the 10 bucks to see the film ... or to send him my copy of the DVD ... busy signals
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
Well, the first thought that comes to mind is: why?
The first Fahrenheit 9/11 was released prior to the election, with the hopes of convincing more people to vote against Bush, or at least make sure such information was in the people's minds when they voted. But now the election's over, we've got four more wars, I mean four more years. What's the point, other than to add another notch to Moore's cinematic record?
Besides, I have no data to back this up, but I'm inclined to believe that those 51% of voters were sufficiently informed. I think they probably chose to ignore all the information available, and voted for King George II despite it. So releasing another documentary just to inform them would really be pointless: they don't care.
But hey, maybe all 51% of voters who voted for Bush honestly didn't have access to C-SPAN, MSNBC, or CNN, couldn't access any of the numerous articles on the internet, didn't know anyone at all who had an anti-Bush viewpoint, and couldn't at all have known about the first Fahrenheit 9/11 movie. In that case, sure, educate 'em.
The first Fahrenheit 9/11 was released prior to the election, with the hopes of convincing more people to vote against Bush, or at least make sure such information was in the people's minds when they voted. But now the election's over, we've got four more wars, I mean four more years. What's the point, other than to add another notch to Moore's cinematic record?
Besides, I have no data to back this up, but I'm inclined to believe that those 51% of voters were sufficiently informed. I think they probably chose to ignore all the information available, and voted for King George II despite it. So releasing another documentary just to inform them would really be pointless: they don't care.
But hey, maybe all 51% of voters who voted for Bush honestly didn't have access to C-SPAN, MSNBC, or CNN, couldn't access any of the numerous articles on the internet, didn't know anyone at all who had an anti-Bush viewpoint, and couldn't at all have known about the first Fahrenheit 9/11 movie. In that case, sure, educate 'em.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Not pointless RandomPhantom700
Don't forget, Mr. Moore's film earned 100 million dollars. Some of the consumers will take a second helping.
Don't forget, Mr. Moore's film earned 100 million dollars. Some of the consumers will take a second helping.
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
Yeah, that's what I meant by the notch in his record comment. I just didn't want to outright say that he's doing it for the cash.
Flatlander
Grandmaster
I am willing to bet that supporters of the Republican party will not be watching the sequel, nor watched the original. Why would they? The Republicans did a great job of spinning the movie as propaganda in the first place. I can't imagine why a Republican would choose to watch a piece of perceived Liberal propaganda, much less pay for it. So I have to ask, what's really the point? Does Moore think he's changing minds? If anything, he's possibly influencing otherwise undecideds, and perhaps inspiring potential non-voters to get involved.
O
Oak Bo
Guest
Yeah I wish Fat Mike would just shoot himself:mp5:heretic888 said:
I thought he fled the country when bush got Re-elected...
or was that more of HIS version of the truth?
or was that more of HIS version of the truth?
LOL!:lol: He has got to be kidding. He should give it a rest. The first documentary was basically **** and it did nothing to make sure Bush didn't get re-elected. What is he going to do now? Tell the American people that Bush should be impeached? I dare Fat Mike to give it a try.heretic888 said:
Flatlander
Grandmaster
Well, considering that he doesn't plan to have it out for another 2-3 years, impeaching the President isn't likely the motive. I would imagine that he's trying to get people to not vote Republican.Kane said:
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Spoken like someone who actually saw the film. I'm curious, did you?Kane said:
Now, we have gone over this impeachment stuff before. I will repeat it, just in case.
Impeachment of the President of the United States is called upon by the House of Representatives. With the 'Hammer' Delay occupied with his own ethics concerns, I am certain that he and his Republican Brethren aren't in a hurry to call the President to task of violations of Title 18 Section 1001; which reads, in part:
"whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (I) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (4) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fradulent statement or entry ... "
Now, let's see ... how did that go .... Hmmm, or yeah ...
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significatn quantities of uranium from Africa."
I don't need Michael Moore to add up these two facts.
Impeachment is warranted.
Jeff Boler
Blue Belt
michaeledward said:
Interesting choice of words. I think Mr. Moore has had a "second helping" on multiple occassions.
More whiners. Mr. Moore is upset that his slacker uprising tour didn't have the desired impact. Of course it didn't. These people spent all of this time listening to him, that they were too tired to get up and go vote.
In my opinion, Mr. Moore should spend a little more time at Jenny Craig, or Weight Watchers instead of movie making. I think he, as a movie maker, has lost his impact already. As big as Fahrenheit was, it didn't make a difference in the election. What's the point of a second one?
Did you notice that it would take two - three years to make another one? Right around election time.
Go figure.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Allow me to paraphrase this Ad Hominem attack. Michael Moore is fat, therefore, we should give no credibility to his argument.Jeff Boler said:
The facts show that the 18 - 29 age group voted overwhelmingly for Kerry (54% to 45%). In the year 2000, 16 million people of this age bracket voted. Whereas, after the Slacker Uprising Tour some 20.9 million people in this age bracket voted. That is almost 5 million more young voters ... 'desired impact'?Jeff Boler said:
I
Again with the Ad Hominem.Jeff Boler said:
We'll see ...Jeff Boler said:
Here's a concept: What if Moore is trying to get out what he perceives to be the truth? Regardless of elections or movie-goer turnout.
That doesn't seem to be a motive anyone has considered yet.
And the fat comments are just ridiculous. I don't tell people I think Rush Limbaugh's perspective is asnine because he's fat, but because of what he says.
But please, we need to hate more fat people in this country and discount whatever they want to say.
That doesn't seem to be a motive anyone has considered yet.
And the fat comments are just ridiculous. I don't tell people I think Rush Limbaugh's perspective is asnine because he's fat, but because of what he says.
But please, we need to hate more fat people in this country and discount whatever they want to say.
I know several individuals who refused to watch the film, dismissing it as Anti-Bush propaganda.
You know what? If you did not actually watch it for yourselves, you have no idea on what it really says.
Here is a book.
Read it, or Burn it.
But if you never read it, you will never know what it might have told you.
Some people are so afraid of what they might see, that they make excuses, they "Know" it's false.
Watch it, then watch the rebuttle video that is also out.
Then do some research on your own and make up your own mind.
Oh, and 1 important point on the whole fat-thing:
If we discounted peoples abilitys to think/reason/act/etc based on weight, how many leading martial artists, or even just regular artists like ourselves would we then have to stop learning from?
You know what? If you did not actually watch it for yourselves, you have no idea on what it really says.
Here is a book.
Read it, or Burn it.
But if you never read it, you will never know what it might have told you.
Some people are so afraid of what they might see, that they make excuses, they "Know" it's false.
Watch it, then watch the rebuttle video that is also out.
Then do some research on your own and make up your own mind.
Oh, and 1 important point on the whole fat-thing:
If we discounted peoples abilitys to think/reason/act/etc based on weight, how many leading martial artists, or even just regular artists like ourselves would we then have to stop learning from?
Cruentus
Grandmaster
I saw the movie and I thought it was well done.
People complain because its biased...well, I agree. Yet, its no more biased then Bill Marr, Al Franken, Rush Limbough, Mike Savage, Fox News, etc., etc. I would say that Moore is more ethical then guys who are trying to pass their biases off like its unbiased news (O'rielly, Hannity & Colmes, to name a few examples). Moore at least admits freely that his documentaries express only one viewpoint...his.
Anyways, I like different viewpoints. I'll be curious to see the next film.
Paul
People complain because its biased...well, I agree. Yet, its no more biased then Bill Marr, Al Franken, Rush Limbough, Mike Savage, Fox News, etc., etc. I would say that Moore is more ethical then guys who are trying to pass their biases off like its unbiased news (O'rielly, Hannity & Colmes, to name a few examples). Moore at least admits freely that his documentaries express only one viewpoint...his.
Anyways, I like different viewpoints. I'll be curious to see the next film.
Paul
Of all of the folks that have backed F-9/11...I'm curious as to how many of you have seen FarhenHYPE 9/11? I saw both...the second much more enlightening. Looking for thoughts on the film..
And I guess I can play the same trump card as the Moore backers...by saying that if you haven't seen it, don't reply.
And I guess I can play the same trump card as the Moore backers...by saying that if you haven't seen it, don't reply.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Jay Bell said:
I haven't seen it, but I'd like too. If I can rent it I'll see it (I'm not buying it), so I'll have to check blockbuster today. If you can link some info on it, that'd help us.
I will say that I have read a lot of the anti-Moore stuff, and I haven't been impressed yet...instead of making a logical arguement against his films, they usually just stick to ad hominum attacks, coupled with neat catch phrases for the political right to whack off too.
Yes, yes...I am sure the supporters of Moore's critiques will argue "he does the same thing too, he is illogical too." Well, all I have to say is that if he is as illogical as his critiques propose, then why is it difficult for me to find good sound arguements against his film (talking FA911 here) rather then illogical attacks? So far, the only thing his critiques have logically argued is that Moore's films are biased...and my response to that is, "Well, DUUUH."
Anyways, I'll be interested to see the film if I can rent it or pick it up...
Paul
Paul,
I first watched it via Netflix, I'm not sure if BlockBuster has it though. A great deal of it is interviews with Dick Morris, bits with Anne Coulter (hehe), David Hardy, Jason Clarke...they did a great job imo. It isn't the typicaly, "Nuh uh!" arguement, they take it line by line and demonstrate what was left out or altered for Moore's film.
http://www.fahrenhype911.com/
I first watched it via Netflix, I'm not sure if BlockBuster has it though. A great deal of it is interviews with Dick Morris, bits with Anne Coulter (hehe), David Hardy, Jason Clarke...they did a great job imo. It isn't the typicaly, "Nuh uh!" arguement, they take it line by line and demonstrate what was left out or altered for Moore's film.
http://www.fahrenhype911.com/
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Jay Bell said:
Just checked blockbuster, and they have it, which is good. It was checked out though, unfortunatily, so I'll have to rent it when it gets back. I'll post a review when I get the chance to see it.
I always get a good laugh at that republigiz gurgling party queen Ann Coulter, so at least I'll be entertained.
I hope to hear something constructive from the others, though. :supcool: Thanks for the intel, Jay.
