F 9-11

[JasonXE]

I can't spell ferinheight (degrees) correctly so i put an F. So has anybody seen this movie yet?? It was about what the president was doing before 9-11 and whatever.

[TeMpEsT]

Fahrenheit

I haven't seen any of Michael Moore's films, I heard they were good but I have no interest in politics what-so-ever.

[LavisBlade]

Oh man I saw a trailer on this the other day...

It had Bush outside talking serious about the War on Terror and then right after he said, "Now watch me hit this drive" obviously he was on a golf course. Alot of people find it sad that the president who is supposed to be all serious acts goofy, but damn I think its funny.

[JasonXE]

he should win best actor of the year.

[slimscane]

Who, bush? I saw Bowling for Colimbine(sp?) and i really liked it, I would have seen Fahrenheit 9/11 friday, but i got a migrane so i didn't go. It looks really good, Micheal Moore is really biased, but at least he backs everything up with facts.

[8 Ball]

I worship Michael Moore. Michael Moore > Everyone. lol

[TuckerXE]

Seems like we've had the Michael Moore discussion before... or was that somewhere else? Anyway, even if I agree with something he says, I wouldn't watch his movies because he presents the truth in such a lying way. He manipulates true things to make them fit his agenda and say untruthful things.

[slimscane]

but he doesn't lie, the only thing he does is present it in a baised way, but when you are trying to convence someone that your opinion is right, you aren't really supposed to show both sides of the issue

[TuckerXE]

Yeah, but it undermines your position to be so completely and obviously biased and to manipulate things like he does. I wouldn't believe anything he showed, because I know how much he's cut out from what he's showing.

To give an example from Bowling for Columbine, Moore goes to a bank and opens an account to get a gun (like some banks used to give away toasters). All he presents is himself going into the bank, handing over some paperwork, and getting a gun. He cuts out the fact that bank staff ran him through 90 minutes of discussions and procedures, the fact that he had to deposit something in the five-figure range to qualify for the gun, the background check paperwork that he submitted 2 weeks prior to shooting, and the fact that the guns are stored in a vault 150 (or was it 100?) miles away. Because he had contacted the bank about filming ahead of time, they'd done his background check and had a gun brought in for him that day.

Would seeing all of that process be entertaining? No. But the way it was presented, he made it look like anybody could just walk in off the street, hand the teller a form to open a new checking account, and walk out with a gun, without any of the legally required background checks. In reality, it would be FAR easier and cheaper for Joe Public to just go to a gun shop and buy a gun than it would be to get one through that bank.

So did he present anything that didn't actually happen? No. But did he present the facts? Not in my opinion.

Are his movies entertaining? Many people consider them to be. But are they documentaries? I don't think so. Whether or not you agree with his point of view, his films are propaganda, and that's all. Carefully edited clips of real footage are just as much propaganda as clips of scripted material would be.

Of course, this is all just my opinion. :D

[JasonXE]

I wish i could go up to his face and tell him that but I miss my shot when he was at the Konan o brian show.

[slimscane]

Yeah, but it undermines your position to be so completely and obviously biased and to manipulate things like he does. I wouldn't believe anything he showed, because I know how much he's cut out from what he's showing.

To give an example from Bowling for Columbine, Moore goes to a bank and opens an account to get a gun (like some banks used to give away toasters). All he presents is himself going into the bank, handing over some paperwork, and getting a gun. He cuts out the fact that bank staff ran him through 90 minutes of discussions and procedures, the fact that he had to deposit something in the five-figure range to qualify for the gun, the background check paperwork that he submitted 2 weeks prior to shooting, and the fact that the guns are stored in a vault 150 (or was it 100?) miles away. Because he had contacted the bank about filming ahead of time, they'd done his background check and had a gun brought in for him that day.

Would seeing all of that process be entertaining? No. But the way it was presented, he made it look like anybody could just walk in off the street, hand the teller a form to open a new checking account, and walk out with a gun, without any of the legally required background checks. In reality, it would be FAR easier and cheaper for Joe Public to just go to a gun shop and buy a gun than it would be to get one through that bank.

So did he present anything that didn't actually happen? No. But did he present the facts? Not in my opinion.

Are his movies entertaining? Many people consider them to be. But are they documentaries? I don't think so. Whether or not you agree with his point of view, his films are propaganda, and that's all. Carefully edited clips of real footage are just as much propaganda as clips of scripted material would be.

Of course, this is all just my opinion. :D
Exactley, and he is just presenting HIS opinion, and just like how he leaves out things to make his point seem less valid, so do you. That is how you persuade people =) I think they are documenteries, because they document things =D

[WolfmanNCSU]

His documenteries are not informative, they are entertainment. Thats my only beef with him.

But either way, I may go see this, I have not decided yet. I really dont have time to see movies right now. :D

[8 Ball]

Tucker, that may be true but still, a bank is giving away free ****ing guns if you open an acount with them lol.

[TuckerXE]

Exactley, and he is just presenting HIS opinion, and just like how he leaves out things to make his point seem less valid, so do you.

What did I leave out? I presented what was actually in the film as well as what actually happened, and even conceded that although I felt like he misrepresented what happened, he couldn't reasonably show the entire process he went through in a movie. I honestly tried to give all of the details, and then use persuasive arguments to make my point rather than trying to make the point through leaving out details.

Tucker, that may be true but still, a bank is giving away free ****ing guns if you open an acount with them lol.

Yeah, I agree - that's pretty bizarre. I don't think I'd bank at a place that gives away guns when you open an account, even one that makes you put in at least $10,000 to get the gun like that one does. That's just weird. But see, that's what I was saying earlier. Even if I agree with one of his points, the way he makes them undermines his credibility.


BTW, kudos to everyone in this discussion - you don't often see discussions about this kind of stuff on an online forum stay rational like this one has. :2thumbs: