Farenheit 9/11

Suncho · Post by **Suncho** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:46 pm

I just saw it tonight. It gave me a lot to think about. Thoughts? Comments?

Nexus_One · Post by **Nexus_One** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 10:01 pm

I see this going to E/C in about a day.

Moore just loves to throw gasoline on a fire that he re-lit.

I do like some of his stuff, but this is just ill-timed and wrong. It's demoralizing to the American people to say the very least.

On a side note... Aceyface does kinda look like the illegitimate son of Michael Moore.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:21 pm

Moore is a good propagandist and capitalist- even if his political slant is quite askew. He knows how to put on a good show. Bush is anything BUT well spoken...even out and out dopey on occasion. It would take little more than alot of patience and a VCR to create a pretty unflattering montage of him. Moore may have a few good points to make...but they're lost in a sea of misinformation and plain fabrication in his movie. Take it as a piece of black comedy in bad taste but don't ever think it's anything more.

Truth? Never moore...never moore.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 12:10 am

have you seen the movie TB? Nexy?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 3:21 am

Very good, was what I thought it would be though.

KompresZor · Post by **KompresZor** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 5:49 am

Not going to see it, what would be the point?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 5:59 am

I think if we took a vote in about a week, there would be more Republicans on this board than liberals that went to see the movie. I might go see it today but the Yankees are on this afternoon. I would like to see the stuff on the so called Bin Laden family - Saudi royal family - Bush family links. True or not? I don't know. Politically slanted? Without a doubt. Entertainment? Possibly. Enough to get Bush out of office? I hope to God so.

Bonz · Post by **Bonz** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 8:53 am

KompresZor wrote:Not going to see it, what would be the point?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 9:28 am

I just noticed on the Drudge Report page they have this headline:

"Mad Cow Disease Suspected in U.S.

and this photo dangerously close...coincidence?

Warlock · Post by **Warlock** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 9:43 am

more like Farenheit 7-11

Suncho · Post by **Suncho** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 11:58 am

I thought it was interesting how he didn't talk at all about America's Army and how the government is using video games to recruit soldiers!

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 1:21 pm

I thought the trailer was pretty funny. I might go see it just to see how it is. It can't be any worse than *bleh* Sky Captain.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 1:45 pm

It's against my code of ethics to support a war profiteer.

Zero! · Post by **Zero!** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 6:35 pm

ive watched moores "blowing for colmbine" it was pretty good, might see this if i gots nothin to do tho =P some ppl said it was funny tho.

Zero! · Post by **Zero!** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 6:36 pm

argh my bad clicked on the back button and it posted it again

Fixed - MD

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 9:13 pm

So then use the Edit button; there's no need to respond to your own double-post, especially when you have the ability to edit and/or delete your posts!

Anyone who has seen Bowling for Columbine should read this to counter the spin attack.

Cuda68-2 · Post by **Cuda68-2** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 9:25 pm

Bonz wrote:
KompresZor wrote:Not going to see it, what would be the point?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 9:50 pm

bash wrote:It's against my code of ethics to support a war profiteer.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 10:09 pm

DC: I haven't seen anything saying you can't get a gun from that bank... anyone who believes you can start any kind of account there and get a gun right after is a fool.

okay Cuda, Lothar.. but you'll miss out... of coruse you're letting others' opinions guide you..

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 10:26 pm

"letting others opinions guide" LOL... just because someone else said what I wanted to doesn't mean it's not my own opinion.

I have very little interest in watching a movie by Michael Moore, just like I have very little interest in reading a long post by Rican. In particular, knowing MM would actually profit from it makes it that much less interesting to me.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 10:32 pm

"just because someone else said what I wanted to doesn't mean it's not my own opinion."

sorry that logic doesn't fly with me. if you have an opinion, state it. don't let others do your work for you. that's just being lazy.

you don't like the idea that someone makes money off a film?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 11:07 pm

I don't like the idea that Michael Moore makes money off of me. I don't care if it's from a film, or if he's on welfare getting my tax dollars.

I have about as much interest in watching his films as I do in reading Rican's posts.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 11:46 pm

so you don't want to support him because of what he believes in?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 11:47 pm

Lothar wrote:I have about as much interest in watching his films as I do in reading Rican's posts.

Think carefully about that for a second.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 11:51 pm

i did.. and i found you equating Rican to Moore quite funny.

Also, if Moore was on the other side, would you see his work? What if Mel Gibson made a documentary in the Style of 9/11?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 11:58 pm

"equating" is too strong a word.

I'm simply comparing the sort of information they both tend to put out. Full of holes, ripped out of context, and generally not worth my time to listen to. There's no way I'd pay to hear either of them, especially when I can hear better political commentary just by reading E&C...

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:04 am

Thing is Lothar.. everyone should be listened to.. even for a little bit. who knows? they may have something interesting to say. but you'll never know that since you like to judge them before you've heard them.

remember when I said that I would read (listen) to what Drakona has said? I have. I read what everyone says, even when i don't like what they stand for.

With that out of the way.. who here has seen Farenheit 9/11?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:44 am

There's a big difference between listening to someone share directly and interactively (like people on this board), and paying money to listen to someone's pre-recorded message that I can't interact with. If I can't interact with it, it better be a darn good story (I've only seen one movie in the theater in the past year.)

Anyway... you keep putting forth this theory that I don't listen to him because I don't like what he stands for. That's bull -- after all, I listen to you, and half the time I don't like what you stand for. I listen to Vander, Sirian, Birdseye, Will, bash, Goob, Tetrad, and plenty of others who I disagree with to varying degrees on varying numbers of issues (apologies to anyone I left out.) Clearly, not liking what you stand for doesn't have a lot to do with not wanting to listen to you.

Here's why I don't want to listen to Michael Moore:
1) No interaction -- I can't ask him questions about what he meant, where he got his information, how exactly he came to his conclusions, etc. (Maybe I can to a very limited degree, by posting something to his website, but I can't really have a conversation with him.)
2) Poor attitude -- I've read some things off of his website (before I decided I didn't like him, just FYI -- I did listen to him a little. So don't give me this "you judge them before you've heard them" crap.) He never seemed like he had any respect for anyone on the "other side", or like he was at all interested in treating people from the "other side" as human. (There are others, from both sides, who have this same problem -- and I don't listen to any of them.)
3) Bling Bling -- I don't want to spend 7 bucks to listen to him. If what he has is worth saying, he can say it for free like the rest of us.
4) Questionable Integrity -- when I've looked up details on things he's said... let's just say, I felt like he should be called Michael MooreCombat.

Seriously... would you go out and spend 7 bucks to listen to Rush Limbaugh? If it was free, and if I could actually discuss things with him, I might go see the movie -- but I'm not spending 7 bucks to let him blabber at me. *Especially* not when I can listen to someone else who's more interesting for free.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 1:16 am

As I said above, this movie was very good, but I liked BowlingFC alot better. BFC wasn't anti-gun, in fact it had very little that was anti-right, the movie was anti-fear, and a lot of people seemed to miss that.

This movie is extremely anti-right. The first half of the movie was showing Bush and Co. oil connections to the region. That got a little lengthy, if not to say a tad bit boring at times. Moore splices in some comedy that kept the interest up. The second part was the Iraqi side, hearing from those who lived in Baghdad, and the soldiers who are there. A lot of shock factor, and this is the section of the film that makes it Rated R. I think he did the shock factor pretty balanced. It wasn't over kill, and it was.

So yeah, this movie the 'right' will hate. The anti-fear message in BFC is one that everyone will take home, there is no message in this one that everyone will take home.

Like Suncho said, it gives you things to think about, but I doubt minds will be changed.

P.S. the movie is about 3 hours too

Edit: yeah, if Rush came to town I would probably go see him. If he put out a movie I would definitely go see it.

Edit2: 7 bucks? dont you get a student discount?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 1:21 am

If Rush did make a movie, I would see it Lothar.. because he just might have something interesting to say.

"I've read some things off of his website (before I decided I didn't like him, just FYI -- I did listen to him a little"

and I was supposed to know this.. how?

I still believe you're doing yourself a disservice by not at least watching it a little.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 1:49 am

Ferno wrote:If Rush did make a movie, I would see it

Have fun, then. It's your 7 bucks; if you think it's worth spending it to hear RushCombat or MooreCombat talk, that's up to you. But, like I said, I've only seen one movie in the theater in the past year (actually I think I've seen two - Passion and RotK.) If I spend 7 bucks to see another one, F911 is not on the top of my list. And I don't want either of those guys getting their hands on my 7 bucks, anyway...

"I've read some things off of his website (before I decided I didn't like him, just FYI -- I did listen to him a little"

and I was supposed to know this.. how?

You weren't (I *think* I wrote about it on this board, but I don't expect you to remember that.) But, you *are* supposed to know better than to accuse me of judging people without hearing them. Had you asked me instead of accusing me, it wouldn't have mattered that you didn't know -- you could've just said "oh, that's cool" instead of having to be like "oops, I just made a false accusation, now I gotta cover" :)

I still believe you're doing yourself a disservice by not at least watching it a little.

How so? I'm saving 7 bucks, and in a week, I can just listen to what everyone's saying about it for free :)

Goob's review is a good start. If I hear enough things about it that they make me curious enough to spend 7 bucks and 3 hours on it, I'll go. But at present, it's not worth 7 bucks for me to listen to an uninteractive rant by a guy with a poor attitude and questionable integrity. I didn't spend 7 bucks to see the end of the Matrix trilogy, so you're going to have to do some serious convincing to make me spend 7 bucks to see a Michael Moore film.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 1:51 am

"oops, I just made a false accusation, now I gotta cover"

yea.. sure.. whatever..

well we can do one of two things now Lothar.. We can continue arguing, or we can discuss the movie. your choice.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 2:06 am

I don't see how it can be "my choice" to discuss the movie, since I clearly haven't seen it. But if you quit asking me questions and/or making statements about me, I'll at least quit arguing so I don't clog up the thread any worse :)

So... Ferno, you haven't actually said whether or not you've seen it. Have you? If so, what did you think of it?

Sage · Post by **Sage** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 2:20 pm

I'm going to see it today...

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 2:27 pm

Not going to waste my money. If I wanted to see that many lies, I'd buy a copy of the New York Times

.

Sage · Post by **Sage** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 6:15 pm

Yay I sawl it. I thought it was good. A very good film indeed. I thought the fat bich (no, not micheal moore) was REAL annoying though. Whining about her boy being killed. Yeh, no ★■◆● you ****ing whore, people die in war. No shut the ★■◆● up and eat you mac donald and get even fatter....
I thought that saying that bush said at the end was real funny though, ahaha.

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 7:33 pm

I saw it and it speaks for itself, there are parts I agree with and don't. It does do a good job of showing some of the horrors of war.

One part I did and did not like was right after the title. The sounds of 9/11 were pretty powerful in the theater especially with no image to look at. The sound of the bodies hitting the ground brought me close to tears.

But he used the second plane crash twice. The first sound was from this video And the second one I presume is from the video of the fire fighters inside the first tower.

No, not a big deal, but the movie is suppose to be about details and facts and this just kind if irked me.

Sage wrote: I thought the fat bich (no, not micheal moore) was REAL annoying though. Whining about her boy being killed. Yeh, no **** you ****ing whore, people die in war. No shut the **** up and eat you mac donald and get even fatter....

Jesus H Christ. Have some respect for the dead and for someone who mourns for a loved one. That's like pissing on their casket while they lower it into the grave in front of everyone. I know you're just a kid and I know you're bullheaded and cantankerous, but let's try to have a certain level of decency about us.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 9:12 pm

Topher wrote:.... but the movie is suppose to be about details and facts...

Well, Moore wants everyone to think that's what it is.
What he does is take little bits of the facts and arrange them in a context so as to paint a picture that is designed to make you think of things in the way he wants you to think of them.

He's exploiting the common presumption that it is a documentary.
He's no less dishonest or devious than a political campain manager...would you pay $7.00 and give up two hours to see something they put out?

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 9:56 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
Topher wrote:.... but the movie is suppose to be about details and facts...
Well, Moore wants everyone to think that's what it is.

For the record, Moore stated without hesitation on the Daily Show that the film is not entirely about facts. The film is part facts and part his opinion. He further admitted that the movie reflected his own personal bias.

I want to say that I am not a MM fan in any sense. I appreciate the aspects of his work that amount to valid criticism, but do not think that his films are great as film goes.

i have just seen the movie. i will say that it is entertaining. it is interesting. the factual information in the film serves well to criticize aspects of the administration.

yet this is not to say there is any new revelation in the film. most of the criticism in the film is already known and either ignored, treated with lame apology, or denied either cynically or delusionally. there are no earth shattering facts presented.

as far as the film as propaganda, i say thats largely BS. The film is one-sided for sure. Yet Moore admits that it is. There were only two short segments of the film that I were even close to being unfair.

The first was the opening 3 minutes where he talked about Bush stealing the election. There I feel he did not do enough to establish his case. Although the election may have been stolen, I wouldn't just take anyone's word for it with only circumstantial evidence being presented. Yet this was a small aspect of the film as a whole.

The second aspect I felt was questionable was that he talked a lot about how the "Bin Laden family" had benefited from their relationship with the Bush family and even benefited from the war. In the course of doing this he did not make a clear distinction between whether the family members who were profiting had any ongoing relationship with Osama. This is also a pretty minor part of the film.

The film is not anti-republican and levels a lot of criticism at democrats. Daschle came off looking pretty bad himself in the film. Kerry is not even mentioned in the film, not once. No Democratic party agenda is ever advanced in the movie. And in fact, if this is addressed at all, the message implied is that the democrats have no agenda at all. What I really took from the film on this point is that all the politicians are the same.

Again, concerning partisanship, propaganda vs facts. The movie has plenty of factual information that really cant be disputed. These facts definitely make the administration look bad. If that bothers the largely conservative republicans here - too f*cking bad.

Even with all the information the film contains about how the Bush family has personally been in bed with the Bin Laden family and Saudi Government - that was not the most damning thing to me about the current President Bush. The thing about him that struck me most is that after he learned the country was under attack he did nothing for 7 full minutes. Now that may not seem like a long time. But he's just sitting there that whole time and never thought to get up and say, "Something important has come up and I have to go right now". I can't imagine a single former president, Democrat or Republican, whose first response would have been so poor.

I don't expect the film to change anybody's mind. I don't expect this post to change anybody's mind. However I think the subject matter itself is important. For me, that makes the film worth seeing.

As far as those in particular here like Bash and Lothar...

Bash has no discernible code of ethics, at least not here. he would assert a position he does not even believe just to support his overall conservative wet dream of a view. While I appreciate his funny commentary he is utterly insincere and would support the administration even if they took turns on his sister. Besides which, half the party and administration that he has defended here tooth and nail here have profited off this war. That's a point worth looking at.

Lothar is a good guy but i think the idea that one wouldn't see the film because Moore is a profiteer is absurd. Bush, his family, and all his cronies are invested in the damn defense industry and tangent industries. wake up dudes. Even if Moore is just a propagandist, which I say he is not, Bush and Chaney, et all really ARE profiteers. They are literally profiting from the war itself. From Bash, i expect this kind of argument - since nearly every word he types is like a turd splashing across my screen. from Lothar i expect better because this is clearly a silly argument. i think the defense and oil industries (not exactly liberal enterprises) obviously have a lot more to gain from war than Moore.

Final word on the film - not propaganda, but not a great film. worth seeing and worth discussing still since it deals with a subject of importance to a us all.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:26 am

Yeah, to add to Palzon's post,

if any of you watched his TV show 'the awful Truth', you know that he quite often hits democrates as well. He seems more anti-politician/corporation influence then anything. While he is very anti-Republican, he isn't by any streatch of the imagination Pro-democrate, (he even voted in the last election for Nader).