Michael Moore

[tizz]

He pisses me off too, but still, I find his documentaries fun to watch. He has an interesting sense of humor and he DOES make a FEW good points (though there are always ones I think he misses that might make his case stronger) I cannot say I agree or disagree with him as my feelings go back and forth. (though I still adore Roger and Me and still consider it his best work)

[Kryptonite Man]

Sorry Tizzie, but I consider his "work" utter SHIT. His tactics are unprincipled, sleazy, and unfair. He's a liar among liars. And the bastich royally pisses me off!!!!

[tizz]

Well now here lies the difference between you and I. You are taking it seriously. I myself am just entertained by it (call me a dork or just an idiot if you like but I will actually sit and watch a few of his pieces for the pure entertainment of it) I watched his "TV Nation" religiously and laughed my ass off every time. I don't often take political satire too seriously, except of course for the 400lbs gorilla.

[ToriAllen]

Where do you get your "facts" from?

 

And, as usual (whenever you try to correct me), you're wrong.

 

His films are listed as "factual films" or "documentaries".

 

Generally, a documentary must meet the following five requirements:

(1) it must attempt to tell a true story in a non-dramatic fashion;

(2) it must appear to do so by presenting only factual evidence;

(3) it must not attempt to re-create the truth (though some would defend the validity of this method);

(4) it must claim objectivity;

(5) most importantly, (and perhaps most difficult to ascertain) it must, as closely as possible, present all factual evidence in its original context.

 

And the Academy Awards Guidelines (MM won an Oscar) state the following:

 

1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

 

 

 

Oh really?

 

I have seen the majority of his films, and as someone who can actually claim to have nothing to gain from taking a side (I'm neither Liberal nor Conservative - I'm not even American) I never saw his films as deceitful in any way. He simply chose to include footage that supported his subject matter.

 

He didn't "doctor" his footage at all.

 

And at least he doesn't try and present his opinion as FACT, without ever backing it up.

 

Back your shit up, please.

 

 

 

And don't all controversial documentary film makers? Morgan Spurlock, etc?

 

Everyone who has a problem with Michael Moore is either way too influenced by the desperate, lying, bullshit anti-Moore propaganda, or just plain pissed off about the massive impact he has.

 

He actually manages to sway people's opinions.

 

And so he should.

You are incredibly gullible. The law does not see films in the same way that the Academy Awards views them. Documentaries are still left to the discretion of the film maker on how to present the film.

All of his films are cut and spliced("doctored" if you want to call it that)...

The individuals who did not give consent to be in his film can not sue him because they gave their consent to other programs from which he took the footage. That is the beauty of the American legal system, all the loopholes and technicalities.

Considering the fact that you are such an open minded individual, why don't you watch Fahrenhype 9/11 and see the other side of the story. They have interviews with several of the people who were in the film that did not want to be, and also a more in depth look at some of the actual events.

[snafu]

Biggest looser in the movie industry. How can anybody watch his shit and not get pissed at the blatant bullshit! Call it fiction and maybe it wouldn't be so bad.

The scum of the earth. Capitalizing on others grief without any remorse. I really hope he gets his one day!

[Vander]

Michael Moore is the perfect icon for weak minded individuals who fail to possess opinions of their own.

[Anna Perenna]

I see that, once again, I am the ONLY person who has made an effort to actually back up my statements.

 

And I see that, once again, my very simple questions and requests have gone ignored:

 

WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR "FACTS" FROM?

 

BACK YOUR SHIT UP, PLEASE

 

What a surprise.

 

So, since nobody is heeding the points I am making - only stubbornly trying to shove their opinions down my throat - this is the last thing I am going to say on the subject (until somebody actually bothers to respect my very reasonable requests, that is):

 

My OBJECTIVE feelings about Michael Moore:

 

I do not think he is the Messiah or anything spectacularly wonderful. He is not the God of my ideology. I am not affiliated with the Democratic Party of the United States. I am not employed by the left-wing media (if there even IS one).

 

Therefore, I have no NEED to make Michael Moore look like a saint.

 

However, I don't think he is even an eighth as bad as the few inarticulate and insulting people in this thread would like me to believe.

 

I used to watch his show The Awful Truth. I found him to be a witty, clever, slightly cheeky but still truly egalitarian personality who cared about the way the "big men" were shitting all over the little people of his country, and decided to do something about it. Excellent show, excellent man.

 

I watched his film Bowling for Columbine. Again, I believe that his motives were pure. He doesn't like the way some American kids are fucking crazy and killing one another, so he decided to do something about it. Excellent film, excellent man.

 

I have read his book "Stupid White Men". It is a clever, mocking, sarcastic, yet well researched and very powerful book. He doesn't go into rabidly angry and stupid rants like many of his desperate and dubious opponents. He simply tears people apart with his razor wit, and shows his readers - mostly through backing up his statements with reference after reference after reference - that he is a rational, intelligent, and funny author.

 

I watched Farenheit 9/11. He made this film because he could see (like any sane, aware person can see) that George Bush is a retarded, reckless piece of shit totally unworthy of the Presidency - and he decided to do something about it. So, he collated all of the footage he could find of Bush making an arse of himself, he gathered rather damning information that most people have never heard, threw in a grieving mother for substance, and released it. Perfectly legal, absolutely warranted, totally necessary. If you don't like the film and its impact, complain to GB for being such a dick, and for letting it be filmed/found out. It's not Michael Moore's fault that George Bush is an arse. It's GB's.

 

Now, I believe MM over you because:

 

• 
  [ ]He very convincingly derails all of his detractors -

see here and and here for some good examples. In fact, he puts forward a very rational, eloquent, and intelligent argument each and every time he tries. He certainly shits all over insane right wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter - see here for a very good example
 
 
[ ]Also, he is not a member of a political party. He has no NEED to make Bush look bad - he just wants to. On the other hand, the Bush Administration and the right wing media DO have a need to make MM look bad, hence the copious amounts of Anti-Moore propaganda floating about.
 
 
[ ]He actually has no duty to the public, unlike politicians and the media. He makes tv and films. Yes, they are controversial factual films, but ultimately he can create whatever he wants to create, and you can just eat shit, really. Yet, he shows more duty of responsibility and takes care to back up everything he says (unlike politicians and the media) because he knows there is going to be a dirty, sneaky smear campaign waged against him whenever he releases something controversial.
 
 
AND YET EVERYONE ACTS LIKE A GOOD LITTLE SHEEP AND ATTACKS MICHAEL MOORE, JUST LIKE YOUR RIGHT WING MEDIA AND YOUR PRESIDENT WANT YOU TO - EVEN THOUGH HE IS ONLY AN INDEPENDENT FILM MAKER - AND NOBODY PROTESTS AGAINST THE BLATANT BIAS THAT FOX NEWS FLAUNTS DAY IN AND DAY OUT.
 
 
[ ]I don't believe it when people tell me that MM is only doing it for the money, either. He was making films and his television show, and writing books before he made a fortune. He has ALWAYS felt this way, and been pro-active about getting his opinions heard. I'm sorry that he is more successful than most (especially you) at getting a point across. Perhaps you should try taking a leaf out of his book? You'd certainly have more luck swaying people's opinions if you did.

 

Now, looking at the big picture is called having perspective, and taking all of these sideline facts into account is truly being objective. I don't think that any of the Anti-Moore contributors in this thread have considered these GLARINGLY OBVIOUS (yet obviously overlooked) details, otherwise they wouldn't be regurgitating the aforementioned propaganda and presenting it to me as factual evidence (without any references, too!).

 

Which brings me to:

 

My OBJECTIVE feelings about the Anti-MM contributors in this thread:

 

Firstly, back your shit up. Back your shit up. Back your shit up.

 

Tell me where you get your "information" from. Even then, don't assume that your sources are correct or at least not not completely skewed with bias - check them out. Try not to be influenced too much by your media because they have rather unorthodox motives for turning you against certain people. All I ask is that you read as much as you can, from all different sources (and I don't mean just CNN, MSNBC and FOX. There are far better and more reliable news sources than the main Yankee ones).

 

I'm certainly not going to seriously consider your statements unless you do as I have asked (repeatedly).

 

Because, children, the whole point of debating is to share ideas, to learn from others, and to ultimately figure out what the truth of the matter is. However, all I seem to see on this forum is people trying to show me that they alone are correct, and that I should just take their piss-weak posts as gospel.

 

Quite frankly, I am never going to be swayed by some idiot on an internet forum (who I don't respect) telling me I am gullible and naive, then spewing a whole bunch of what is most probably baloney at me.

 

I am more than willing to concede a point, but ONLY if I am thoroughly convinced.

 

Which is something that none of you have done.

 

Oh well, better luck next time.

[Pinky]

snip

 

A well thought-out post, and I agree with your comments about George Bush being a total fool, as well as hammaring home the need for people to back-up their opinions with sources.

 

That said, I still can't concede my position that I find Moore to be rather underhanded at times. I find it irritating that his later films were pushed as being documentaries, rather than opinion pieces.

[builder]

I agree with Anna's post.

 

I don't particularly like MM, or his films. I used to watch his show, for laughs.

 

There is undoubtedly a need for the information that MM supplies. Call it whatever you like, but if there is to be freedom of speech, and freedom of the media, then where are all the other naysayers?

 

If you want to blindly follow what is told to you and shown to you, without question, without cross-referencing, then without a shadow of a doubt, you are a numbskull. You are exactly what your govt. wants you to be; a believer.

 

How many times do you have to witness your govt. bungling simple issues, overlooking the FACTS, and denying knowledge of corruption and misinformation, before you stop being a simpleton sympathiser?

 

Bush and his VP Cheney are the funniest pair of comedians I have ever witnessed. Trouble is, they are trying to run a country, and trying to run many other countries. Pity they aren't on speaking terms right about now.

 

Michael Moore is a necessary component of open and honest government.

 

What the ridiculous right wants, is for his ilk to dissappear, so they can go on fucking everyone over, without the slightest resistance.

 

Is that what you all want too? Is that the America you wish for your kids to grow up in?

 

I hope not.

[snafu]

What do you want as proof?

I admit. I haven

[eisanbt]

He actually has no duty to the public, unlike politicians and the media. He makes tv and films. Yes, they are controversial factual films, but ultimately he can create whatever he wants to create, and you can just eat shit, really. Yet, he shows more duty of responsibility and takes care to back up everything he says (unlike politicians and the media) because he knows there is going to be a dirty, sneaky smear campaign waged against him whenever he releases something controversial.

 

 

That is a good point that is seldom used, well said.

[ToriAllen]

Blah Blah Blah

90% of that post is your opinion. There are references, but they lead straight back to Moore. All of your

[snafu]

Thanks for the links ToriAllen.

You saved me from killing myself if I actually sat down and watched this trash. I owe you my life!

 

Well anna I guess that

[tizz]

Of course he has an agenda... Who diesn't? Hell even Dr. Suess is really just really good political satire.

[snafu]

Dr. Suess didn

[phreakwars]

My honest LIBERAL THAT I AM opinion of MM, he butchered and spliced the film FH 911 to give it more drama, there are many inconsistancys in his work, however, the point to be made is very clear to me (once you sort out the info), and the point is, that BUSH is probably the most idiotic irresponsible President to ever be elected. I really didn't need Michael Moore's DRAUMATIC SPIN of an opinion to come to that conclusion. George Bin Laden has shown me that for himself, and he showed me his evil and stupidity on the totally BIASED stations that love him.

 

 

I didn't really care for MM's film, I think it was a total ripoff of Alex Jones, who goes into more in depth details on important subjects when not using the NWO spin.

 

I do believe however, that MM gives LIBERALS such as myself a bad misrepresentation and classification.

.

.

[tizz]

OK snafu so where would you place Bush and his use of the exact same tactics (or most any politician for that matter)

[Anna Perenna]

Here is an unbiased article that reviews Fahrenhype 9/11 and tells a few of the points made, while also pointing out that it does not address everything Moore had in his film:

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/564/564458p1.html

 

Here is another website that separated the truth and the lies out of the film, while not really defending the President:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

 

Here is one about Bowling for Columbine that praises his wit:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp

 

A breakdown of the Fahrenheit 911 deception:

http://www.mooreexposed.com/911.html

 

A breakdown of the Bowling for Columbine deception:

http://www.mooreexposed.com/bfc.html

 

Finally, thank you, I can see where you are getting your 'information' from.

 

But why not include them beforehand?

 

You made a point of saying that I made no mention of Farenhype 9/11. Um, NEITHER DID YOU, and the onus was upon YOU to mention it, not me. I was listing all of Michael Moore's work that I had seen/read.

 

In fact, for all I know you just went on google and searched for anything that would support your previous statements.

 

My links were provided because they were relevant to the statements I was making - ie, that Michael Moore puts forward a very convincing point. That is all.

 

And as for those last 2 links ("Moore Exposed"), the author of that site is some quack lawyer with an obvious bias:

 

"I'm not registered Republican, although I suspect I'll re-register that way when I get time. Someday they'll wake up and run Colin Powell, or my old boss Gale Norton.

 

I'm a member of the NRA, and of the ACLU. President of Tucson Rod and Gun Club, holder of a provisional patent on bullet design (you can't break the laws of physics, but if you really know them, you can bend them pretty far. In the supersonic regime, some realities are counter-intuitive."

 

As for this link:

 

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/564/564458p1.html

 

How do you know it's not biased? It's just a review for a movie I admit I have never seen. There are no links to sources here. There are only descriptions, and the reviewers opinion. And while it sounds convincing, I'll have to see the movie myself before I can comment on it. But honestly, thank you. I like this link, and it has made me interested in seeing the film

 

This link - http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm - does not actually separate the truth and the lies in the film, it is simple Dave Kopel's opinion. Like I said, I am going to have to see this film, and read the indubitable subsequent de-railings of it.

 

However, your links so far aren't actually that convincing. But I stand by my statement that I am willing to concede a point, so once I have seen Farenhype 9/11 and read some unbiased (or as close to unbiased as possible) commentary on the film, I will give you my new opinion - if it changes.

 

Even though Moore may claim no political affiliation, he is obviously against the conservatives of this country, as his films so obviously depict. Just because Moore does not have a 'political affiliation' does not mean he does not have an agenda.

 

I never said he didn't, so what's your point here?

 

That he has an opinion, just like everyone else on this site, including you?

 

You are free to go ahead and make a film depicting Michael Moore in a negative light. Just like he is perfectly free to go ahead and make a film depicting George Bush in a bad light.

 

My main point (which I guess you missed, again) was that you shouldn't expect me to take your word as gospel. I am allowed to think that Michael Moore is not as bad as you think he is. If you want to convince me otherwise, you are going to have to put some effort in.

 

Calling me names and using a derisive tone isn't going to make your points look any stronger.

[Anna Perenna]

I agree with Anna's post.

 

I don't particularly like MM, or his films. I used to watch his show, for laughs.

 

There is undoubtedly a need for the information that MM supplies. Call it whatever you like, but if there is to be freedom of speech, and freedom of the media, then where are all the other naysayers?

 

If you want to blindly follow what is told to you and shown to you, without question, without cross-referencing, then without a shadow of a doubt, you are a numbskull. You are exactly what your govt. wants you to be; a believer.

 

How many times do you have to witness your govt. bungling simple issues, overlooking the FACTS, and denying knowledge of corruption and misinformation, before you stop being a simpleton sympathiser?

 

Bush and his VP Cheney are the funniest pair of comedians I have ever witnessed. Trouble is, they are trying to run a country, and trying to run many other countries. Pity they aren't on speaking terms right about now.

 

Michael Moore is a necessary component of open and honest government.

 

What the ridiculous right wants, is for his ilk to dissappear, so they can go on fucking everyone over, without the slightest resistance.

 

Is that what you all want too? Is that the America you wish for your kids to grow up in?

 

I hope not.

 

Thank you!

 

You actually understood the point I was making.

 

Everyone else seems intent on deliberately misinterpreting my statements.

[ImWithStupid]

I find Moore's "Psudo-documentaries" entertaining, he makes you wonder about the topic of the film and he does a good job of convincingly portraying his view. I believe that what Moore portrays is definitely based on fact but I think the facts are pretty obviously biased toward his way of thought.

 

I think that Moore's film are base in fact in the same way that Oliver Stone based his movies The Doors, JFK, Nixon and Alexander on historical fact. I think we can all agree that he also takes alot of artistic freedom to get you to see history the way he wants you to see it.

 

Both directors are telling history in a way to be contravertial and entertaining to make money.

[Kryptonite Man]

I find Moore's "Psudo-documentaries" entertaining, he makes you wonder about the topic of the film and he does a good job of convincingly portraying his view. I believe that what Moore portrays is definitely based on fact but I think the facts are pretty obviously biased toward his way of thought.

 

I think that Moore's film are based in fact in the same way that Oliver Stone based his movies The Doors, JFK, Nixon and Alexander on historical fact. I think we can all agree that he also takes alot of artistic freedom to get you to see history the way he wants you to see it.

 

Both directors are telling history in a way to be controversial and entertaining to make money.

Moore just lies like a rug. Frippin' bastard. Hope he burns in the same Hell as Pol Pot.

[builder]

Thank you!

 

You actually understood the point I was making.

 

Everyone else seems intent on deliberately misinterpreting my statements.

 

Yeah, that's why I called them the ridiculous right. Reading doesn't help them at all. They feel justified in their fixated point of view. They may, or may not realise that their opinions have been given to them.

 

.

 

This pic is a good indication of that mentality.

 

.

[ToriAllen]

Finally, thank you, I can see where you are getting your 'information' from.

 

But why not include them beforehand?

 

You made a point of saying that I made no mention of Farenhype 9/11. Um, NEITHER DID YOU, and the onus was upon YOU to mention it, not me. I was listing all of Michael Moore's work that I had seen/read.

Actually, I did mention it two pages ago

[wolvesslasher]

Moore just lies like a rug. Frippin' bastard. Hope he burns in the same Hell as Pol Pot.

 

All Hail Master Bush.

All Hail Master Bush.

 

Feel better now?

[tizz]

I wouls still love to know exactly how Pol Pot has anything to do with it. I would think that would be a whole different topic