DescentBB

People's Choice awards

"Fahrenheit 9/11" wins out over "The Passion of the Christ" for the favorite movie award.

Moore dedicated his win to the U.S. troops fighting overseas and said he was "amazed" that people voted his film their favorite.

"I love making movies, and I'll take this as an invitation to make more 'Fahrenheit 9/11s,"' Moore said.

Such different worlds they/we live in. (yes I'm trolling)

... and Vince Carter has been fan-voted as an all-star for 3 straight NBA seasons.

This proves that "people" are idiots.

Ah, two movies that are spun by their makers to promote anger and neither with a modicum of cinematic value. One takes favorite movie and the other favorite drama. The people have spoken. Let me guess; 51% voted for the religious zealot and 49% for the liberal wacko.

Sounds like the election a few months ago.

Genghis wrote:Ah, two movies that are spun by their makers to promote anger...

Accepting your premise, if only for the sake of debate, at least Gibson can claim ignorance since he's over 2000 years and a few translations removed from his subject material. What's Moore's excuse?

Dedman wrote:This proves that "people" are idiots.

And you thought differently before?

Curious how prior to this year, awards were determined thru the Gallop Poll. This year it was via the internet. We all know how ballot "stuffing" happens on the net. I here by claim disenfranchisment for all those people who could not vote as they did not have access to a computor. I demand a recount. Jimmy Carter, take charge please.

Michael Moore is a friggin idiot and anyone that believes his chit is a friggin idiot too.

phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=4736&highlight=idiot

didn't we already go through that Ice?

CDN_Merlin wrote:

Dedman wrote:This proves that "people" are idiots.

And you thought differently before?

Nope. I have always said that a person is smart, people are idiots. I am just restating it.

Genghis wrote:movies that are spun by their makers to promote anger...

LOL... the only people angry about The Passion are religion haters who get angry if someone says "God" in their hearing. If you think the movie's intent was to make people angry, though, you really missed it. But hey, nice attempt to create anger through your comment

Will Robinson wrote:Gibson can claim ignorance since he's over 2000 years and a few translations removed...

Only one translation. Almost all modern Bibles (in any language) are translated from original-language manuscripts, and most of those are not too far removed from the originals.

What's Moore's excuse?

Profit?

the only people angry about The Passion are religion haters

Thatâ??s not true, I've seen a lot of religious people on TV who disliked the movie claiming that Gibson took way too many liberties and that his Catholic bias was greatly reflected in the film.

I'm not saying I agree with them, (only seen the movie once, and withen the week it came out), but its never 'only' one side bitchin' with something that successful.

Gooberman wrote:I've seen a lot of religious people on TV who disliked the movie claiming that Gibson took way too many liberties...

Sorry, you're right. My original statement is retracted.

The original sentiment, though, is not -- there was almost certainly no intent to cause anger on the part of Gibson. There was almost certainly intent to cause anger on the part of Moore.

Mobi, I split off a response into a different thread...

Lothar wrote:Only one translation. Almost all modern Bibles (in any language) are translated from original-language manuscripts, and most of those are not too far removed from the originals.

Well I've seen modern day americans have a particularly creative time translating the documents written by first generation americans ie; the constitution. And that is a same language, relatively young document!
It's not how difficult the job is but the agenda of the transcriber that I was thinking of.
So I give Gibson a little leeway in any mistakes he may have made

What's Moore's excuse?

Profit?

May he choke on his own vomit as he sleeps off his victory dinner.

Will Robinson wrote:Accepting your premise, if only for the sake of debate, at least Gibson can claim ignorance since he's over 2000 years and a few translations removed from his subject material. What's Moore's excuse?

Despite Lothar's excellent summary in the other ongoing thread about this, I can't shake your analogy to the Constitution. Plus, wasn't Gibson's primary source John's Gospel, written about 40 years after the events it depicts? I very well could be wrong here, I'm no religious scholar.

On the other hand, I hear that Gibson wasn't entirely true to the source materials he did have. These were not mistakes but changes he made, like shifting blame from the Pilate to the Jews. Once again, heresay I've read and can't defend. Anyway, nobody's going to convince me that Gibson, as writer/director, didn't exercise some degree of creative control over how he portrayed events.

Lothar wrote:LOL... the only people angry about The Passion are religion haters who get angry if someone says "God" in their hearing. If you think the movie's intent was to make people angry, though, you really missed it. But hey, nice attempt to create anger through your comment

Holy hotwater, Batman! Caught trolling in a thread declared by it's author as...a trolling thread!

I'll admit to trying to stir things up a bit on this one. Of course, since every other bash in here is against Moore (including my own) I don't think Mel's in danger of a lynching.

I was of course referring to the comments of anti-semitism in The Passion. I know a lot of Jews who got angry about the film, and if Mel wasn't aiming to anger them he at least knew they'd get angry anyway. But based on what I've read, he did add some spice of his own to villify the Jews. I haven't seen the movie, just in case I'd be guilty of supporting an anti-semite.

By now I'm sure you're hopping in your chair, eager to tear that last paragraph to bits! Have at it!

Only a moron could watch the movie and think it was anti-semitic. Since you didn't watch it, you're excused. ;)

He did a much better job than I expected of making it clear that the Jews (as a whole) weren't to blame. Since Jews tend to get up in arms about the gospels no matter how you tell them, the outrage was no surprise (though it was not the intent) -- but most of the Jews I talked to who watched the movie were happy with the portrayal there, where most of the Jews in the movie were good people but a few of the leaders weren't. That's why the outrage died out so quickly.

Genghis wrote: On the other hand, I hear that Gibson wasn't entirely true to the source materials he did have. These were not mistakes but changes he made, like shifting blame from the Pilate to the Jews. Once again, heresay I've read and can't defend.

I don't know, there was an odd scene or two--some added dialogue or representation that people didn't like. But on the whole, I found the movie utterly faithful to the book. Better than Fellowship of the Ring was. Way, way, better than the story told in the average Sunday School room is.

As to the Jewish priests being behind Jesus' death, that's entirely Biblical.

Mark chapter 15 wrote:Now, it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested. A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did.

â??Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?â?

The difference being, Drakona, that I'm almost entirely positive that the article you linked to is a spoof. I'm not saying that you don't know this already but in case anyone else was unsure. If it was sincere, though, it's idiotic beyond belief.

Regarding the Passion: I went to see it myself not long after it came out, and I did not get any sense at all of anti-Semitism. In fact, I found it to be a very well-portrayed and ultimately moving film. It is almost completely accurate to the Gospel accounts of Christ's death. Another point of contention against the film that I do not understand is the view, from both Christians and non-Christians, that the film trivializes Christ's life by focusing on the crucifixion without any background as to what it was for. To me, that's rather absurd. The target audience of this film is, obviously enough, Christians, whom I should hope should have some prior knowledge as to the importance of the Crucifixion. Some have said that the film represents a lost teaching opportunity to those curious about Christianity, but I'd disagree here as well. It was not intended to be a portrayal of Christ's entire life and ministry; it is meant as a visual representation of his passion and death. That's something easily understood going into it. If someone who did not know much about Christianity saw the movie and wanted to learn more, there are many outside sources. (For example, see the excellent film Jesus of Nazareth.) Gibson wasn't making a Christian instructional film, and the movie shouldn't be treated as such.

(Another part of the movie I appreciated was the use of the period languages, especially the Latin. It made the scourging scene that much more intense when I realized that the Roman guard was counting out the strokes.)

Top Gun wrote:The difference being, Drakona, that I'm almost entirely positive that the article you linked to is a spoof.

"Almost entirely"? That says a lot about the guy it's spoofing that there's a smidgen of "almost" in your "entirely," now doesn't it?

hehe, that was a good one

Genghis wrote:...Despite Lothar's excellent summary in the other ongoing thread about this, I can't shake your analogy to the Constitution.

I was just trying to say that mistakes made by Gibson, if in fact they are there, may be due to interpretations made by whoever created the documents he was using. It's easy to see how one might change the meaning of the original, not because they have a hard time understanding the original but because they changed the meanings to suit their agenda. ie; the constitution has been interpreted by 20th century english speaking people to suit their agenda and I used that as an example to show that if it can happen in that case then surely it could have happened over a time period roughly 10 times longer and across different languages and dialects. Just a guess on my part and really in the context of this discussion not really very important.

Plus, wasn't Gibson's primary source John's Gospel, written about 40 years after the events it depicts? I very well could be wrong here, I'm no religious scholar.

On the other hand, I hear that Gibson wasn't entirely true to the source materials he did have. These were not mistakes but changes he made, like shifting blame from the Pilate to the Jews.

As I understand it Pilate didn't want to kill Jesus because he thought Jesus might well have been telling the truth about his relationship with god but the local priests (jews) were clamoring for him get rid of Jesus because Jesus was taking over in a sense, leading the people to examine the priests behavior as much as anyone elses. Pilate appealed to his superior (Herod I believe) and got no relief so he reluctantly facilitated Jesus' demise. Thats from a letter I read written by Pilate, (found it on one of the internets a few months ago using google)

Is that the way it went down and is that the way Gibson portrayed it? Because that's the way Gibson described it in an interview where he made it clear he thought the blood of Jesus was on his own hands as much as anyone elses and didn't differentiate between the guilt of the jews or romans.

Back on topic, I believe Moores dishonesty was just that, purely dishonest propoganda! I think if Gibson misled anyone it was based on his own true beliefs not an agenda to try and elect a candidate.

Gen, I'll back Will up on that- the content of the constitution hasn't changed, just the way people choose to interpret it has. Biblical interpretation is a study of it's own, and biblical scholars don't take the task lightly. Anyone is free to interpret the Bible as they wish, just like people are free to interpret the constitution, but some interpretations are more correct than others. My point: it doesn't have any bearing upon the content of the Bible.

Dedman wrote:This proves that "people" are idiots.

That's why we have a Republic instead of a pure democracy.

That's why we have an Electoral College instead of a direct popular election.