23 public posts in this discussion.
Hey, I was jsut wondering what everyone thought of Bowling for Colombine (sp?). If you've seen the movie check this site out, www.bowlingfortruth.com makes for interesting reading.
Personally, after reading both Micheal Moore's web site and that one, I think he's a liar. Opinions?
(Sorry if been posted before)
EDIT: Not sure if this should be in Media or Flame Wars - admin plz move if in wrong forum :).
Well, as far as the 'faked' scenes in his documentary, it was pretty obvious that they werent actual footage. I mean seriously.
But the website that 'defuncts' michael moore is purely opinionated perspective.
Personally, i still think Michael moore is a brilliant documentarian. the only thing that has changed, as far as my personal opinion of him, is that i know see his 'non-bias' approach to things, is somewhat tainted by his personal perspectives, which he claims it not to be.
my god, i hated that site!
reading some of it just showed me how much this guy hates Micheal Moore. It's disgusting, and really pathetic. Espically readin that FAQ. He says that if he can't prove a point, you should do it instead and show him your proof. Pathetic.He can't back up some of his claims, they chances are he'll say we're lieing if we prove it to him.
granted, he may be right about some stuff. But i just can't read something like that when they constant plug words like "lie" and "hypocrosy" and not discussed in a more openly manner.
ick, the site leaves a bad taste in my mouth
I thought the movie was good.
But it defiently had alot of crap in it that could of been cut out and made the movie a tad shorter. i really enjoyed it tho.
Mike Moore is an idiot that does more harm than good to society.
but doing that isnt exactly cool either. but he did it to the country. so what goes around comes around i say.
Quote from Milenko:
Well, as far as the 'faked' scenes in his documentary, it was pretty obvious that they werent actual footage. I mean seriously.
But the website that 'defuncts' michael moore is purely opinionated perspective.
Personally, i still think Michael moore is a brilliant documentarian. the only thing that has changed, as far as my personal opinion of him, is that i know see his 'non-bias' approach to things, is somewhat tainted by his personal perspectives, which he claims it not to be.
Yeah, but he does do some pretty damn biased things. He uses both false and misleading statistics, edits out scenes which would disprove his points, and stages scenes designed to mislead the viewer. I really enjoyed the movie, but I don't think it should be classed as a 'true' documentary.
thats why even michael moore calls them mockumentaries. sheesh
I think he's hypocritical.
Quote from paladin:
thats why even michael moore calls them mockumentaries. sheesh
Quote from Micheal Moore's Oscar acceptance speech:
"We're here because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times"
His site doesn't call it that once. Anyway What does mockumentary mean? That you are allowed to mislead people with non-factual information because it's not a real documentary? If so why does he produce a "Teachers Guide" to a film he knows is not completely factual?
read this
Quote from Cum of some young guy:
'non-bias' approach
is there such a thing
the only documentaries i know of that are non bias is Attenborough
michael moore is a tool with too much money, hay at least he is not bludging off the dole.
hmph
well he got the bullets out of wall mart.... thats better than nothing!!! I liked the movie cause it showed america's stupid history and educated some people on history which is what alot of the population need. I thought the movie was really good. I like the cartoon bit stoopid pilgrims :p
Ps. cant wait for super size me.... show us ur liver failure!
Haha yeah he replaced the bullets with his own books and merchandise. I see what u mean now paly, but does Moore actually intend for his stuff to be interpreted like that? If he does, he has fooled millions of people. He's probly sitting in a room made of solid gold, polishing his palm d'or laughing his ass off :).
Whether Moore is a liar is debatable. For instance, when talking about Columbine, he mentions that Heston held a rally soon afterwards, he spliced in footage of a pre-Columbine speech where Heston says something about 'prying the guns from our hands', which makes it look as if Heston is saying so in response to Columbine. The majority of people who watched that will have never known that it was spliced in from a different, earlier speech with completely different context.
For instance:
"There was a thread about Michael Moore and his documentary, posted on GU. The user with the name DVD said this: 'It's disgusting, and really pathetic." and continued his rant with this: "Pathetic.He can't back up some of his claims, they chances are he'll say we're lieing if we prove it to him."."
Now, am I a liar for writing this? I've obviously tried misleading you, but I didn't actually state that his quotes were about the documentary itself. To make the analogy more accurate, I would have lifted his words from a completely different thread with no bearing on the topic of Moore at all, and spliced it in between comments on his documentary.
That is what Moore does, and why I cannot ascribe any credibility to his claims.
good on him
if he can do it and make money from it. it show's that he aint to stupid cause money talks and our bullshit walks
and it continues to grow deadbeat petty mofos in society
argh
*pulls out gun and splatters em all*
neway i still think he is a tool and that is my right. :)
he might be a tool.. but he gets shit done.. i saw an episode of the awful truth where he got an old guy settlement on a court case because he went to the head office of the bank/insurance company and staged a funeral or wake there (cant remember)
Micheal Moore knows how to edit things to deliver s certain message he wants. Good editors can do that.
If people don't like the message that's being shown, they will critisize the 'how' it is delivered.
I believe his message is good. That countries that are full of fear shouldn't have guns just lying around, and that trying to find the reasons of why the people do the things they do can not, and never can be, blamed on one single thing. The world is too complicated for people to say that only one factor contributed to the action, and what the factors are may surprise you.
So, I, personally, not too bothered by the fact that he may of used ficition in his movie, because, they any other movie, if the message is good, then the fact that Gollum dies with the ring is really weird, because things like Gollums don't exist. :P
Obviously some people hate it when they are lied to, because it's evil and sometimes not in good interests.
But you know, you got to be creul to be kind, as they say :):B
What he said....
Quote from DVD:
Micheal Moore knows how to edit things to deliver s certain message he wants. Good editors can do that.
If people don't like the message that's being shown, they will critisize the 'how' it is delivered.
'How' the message is delivered is not why Moore has so many detractors. He is an obnoxious attention-whore, that's acceptable, since this style helps spread his message. It's the attempts to justify his message that is so rephrehensible; lying and deceiving the audience. One example:
---------------
Even the Canadian government is jumping in. Bowling shows Moore casually buying ammunition at an Ontario Walmart. He asks us to "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." He buys several boxes of ammunition without a question being raised. "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada."
Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal: Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification.
---------------
A documentary by definition is an attempt to present facts, whereas Moore relies on lies, deception, exxageration and rhetoric, yet he markets his films as documentaries. The fact that he won an Oscar for best documentary despite the blatant fiction that it is is even more irritating in that his "documentary" did not even meet the pre-requisites that the Academy required for documentary entries.
You're saying Moore is a 'great editor', justifying his deception. Yet at the same time you're saying how you 'hate' the site that criticises Moore, saying it's 'disgusting and pathetic'. The man behind the site documents his criticisms of Moore as best he can, and cites sources. What more do you expect from him?
You say "chances are he'll say we're lieing if we prove it to him", with absolutely no evidence for this. At least he demonstrates that Moore has repeatedly engaged in spin, and so has a basis for his claims, with no evidence to support this. Yes, he's biased, he's open about it, and so is Moore. You criticise his use of the words 'lie' and 'hypocrisy', yet Moore uses them all the time against his targets of criticsim. So why exactly do you save your vitriol for the critic of Moore, than Moore himself? What exactly is it that the website maintainer does that is worse than Moore?
However, if you want a clearer, less vitriolic documentation of Moore's hypocrisy and deception, this is an excellent resource:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
ok, fine, Jaian, your right. Micheal Moore is a lieing deceiving attetion whore who his sole purpose in the world is to make money from a contriversal issue. i an also sorry that you believe that me saying that Micheal moore is a good editor is me trying to justify is behaviour.
if my opinion pisses you off so much, then i'd just like to say that it was never my intention. I was just trying to stay neutral :)
You're not pissing me off, I'm just pointing out that your vitriol towards the site and it's maintainer is hypocritical.
ok :) noted