think that the transfer of sovereignty was moved up two days to distract people from
.
1
My best comment about Moor's poor excuse for a movie (so far):
Well, the
verdict on the opening weekend of Fahrenheit 9/11 is in. Congratulations to Michael Moore! His fake-umentary, raking in a whopping $23,920,637, just barely managed to beat the awesome opening weekend box office take (in unadjusted dollars) of last year's box-office smash "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" by $145,787. This puts him at a solid #187 for all-time great opening weekends. Better luck next time, Mr. Moore.
Posted by: CavalierX at June 29, 2004 05:25 AM (sA6XT)
2
Dude,
The Addams Family should so be higher than 185...
Posted by: Sarah at June 29, 2004 05:38 AM (F2YAV)
3
People, it opened in 850 theaters and it's a documentary! Top grossing documentary ever in only three days, #1 in per-theater sales this year and #11 in per-theater sales ever.
Why are you so petty?
P.S. Yes, the Addams Family should be higher.
Posted by: Sander at June 29, 2004 06:27 AM (9v8mw)
4
Documentary? B------t, sure it will win an Oscar for it this year, but it is NOT a documentary.
Petty? This is not petty reaction to the success of a filmmaker. This is the defense of our nation. I cannot speak for everyone, but I must say that this movie is NOT helping this country move forward into the future.
We need to look at the hard truths in the world, not stick our heads up our arses and cackle at how much fun it is to slam Bush and company while we ignore the stink of where we are.
The hard truths are that fanatical people are trying to kill you, me, sarah, Bush, even Moore. They are trying to destroy our society, the only one that allows for him to make his movies, and us to discuss them. His movies are NOT helping, they are actually hindering.
If I was petty, I'd have long ago figured out how much money Leni Reifenstahl, or even Goebbels movies made, and compared the two, that would be petty, not to mention dishonest.
Instead what I try to do is point out that some people base their world view on this crap. They don't research for themselves, they don't bother to learn about the world, but eat up Moore's movies as gospel truth. The worst part is, they then vote based on what the likes of Moore say.
An ignorant person with a gun is orders of magnitude more dangerous to themselves and others than a trained person with a gun. Believing this movie to be a good thing, or even half true, is akin to putting a loaded pistol in a childs hands and telling them that it won't hurt if they pull the trigger when they aim it at their head.
Posted by: John at June 29, 2004 06:57 AM (crTpS)
5
Wow, John.
Heard about "Imperial Hubris"? "A new book by a senior CIA analyst who headed the agency's task force on Osama bin Laden sharply attacks the Bush administration's approach to Islamic terrorists...
"The author argues it is not dislike of freedom, democracy and Western culture that led bin Laden to wage war against America, but rather his disdain for U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world, particularly America's relationship with Israel.
"Senior U.S. leaders mistakenly urge Americans to believe that the Islamic world is offended by the nation's philosophical emphasis on personal rights and liberties, and 'that Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than for what we do.'"
http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=33813&page=NB
Also, I notice you use the words "this movie is NOT helping this country move forward". Do you have some connection to the "moveamericaforward.com" crowd, claiming to be a grassroots movement against Moore but the lie was discovered in that the site was set up by GOP lawyers? I have been wondering if they are sending people to post on internet forums.
Posted by: bos at June 29, 2004 07:55 AM (WJFwN)
6
Since I didn't bring up Bin Laden's motivations, just his goals, what does a new book by some purported CIA agent have to do with anything?
I've never heard of move america forward, other than you referencing it twice.
I'm not affiliated with anyone, I do my own research without relying on someone elses talking points.
And it is all well and good to attack Bush's approach to terrorism, but, what is your alternative, a return to appeasement and isolation? That brought us 9/11, next time they'll use nukes.
Also, I don't care if all the arabs in the world blame isreal for their problems, or cite it as the root of their whole deal, that does not mean isreal is the problem. After all, I can crap in my hands and claim it is a puppy, but that won't make me right, just give me stinky hands.
Do you realize that it is their goal to kill all jews, and destroy that country? Of course you do, but you don't seem to think there is anything wrong with that.
Council of American and Islamic Relations? (cair), you need to come up with better references, ones that aren't tainted with the blood of innocents.
You have said nothing I do not already know, and I really doubt you can find anything new, and yet we draw two different conclusions.
No amount of wishful thinking will get me to blame myself, or my country for the acts of others. Every person in this world is responsible for their actions, including the terrorists. There is no need to murder millions to achieve solutions to problems in this world, unless your goal is explicitly the murder of those people. To excuse their violent tactics and murders by saying it is our fault is blindness, nay, madness. I myself would gladly sacrifice my life for my country, and it's people. Is there anything that you would defend with your life?
Posted by: John at June 29, 2004 08:54 AM (crTpS)
7
If you want to debate, post on my site, stop wasting Sarah's comments.
Posted by: John at June 29, 2004 08:56 AM (crTpS)
8
@John,
I still can't get my head around the fact that you haven't seen the movie, but are certain that it aides the terrorist or some paranoid crap.
Instead what I try to do is point out that some people base their world view on this crap. They don't research for themselves, they don't bother to learn about the world, but eat up Moore's movies as gospel truth. The worst part is, they then vote based on what the likes of Moore say.Wtf? You're essentially saying that free speech is dangerous to the uninformed public. That, sir, is an affront to everything the United States stands for. <snark>If you don't like it, go live in some country where dissent is illegal, see if you like that better.</snark>
@bos,
yeah, but I don't get why someone who understands the roots of the problem would propose the solution he does.
Posted by: Sander at June 29, 2004 08:59 AM (9v8mw)
9
We shouldn't be surprised that someone is actually saying we did that because of that movie(?). Afterall, we started this war over oil and personal revenge. At least that's what they're trying to tell me (arrggghhhh - sometimes I just get so darn frustrated with it all)
Posted by: Tammi at June 29, 2004 09:47 AM (VGqbE)
10
Free speech is dangerous, no doubt about that. Why do you think that totalitarian governments do not allow it in their countries. An uninformed public is dangerous as well. Perpetuating ignorance by promoting Moore's movie is dangerous. Danger is all around, life is dangerous and leads to death 100% of the time.
Yet you imply that I do not advocate for free speech, and nothing could be further from the truth. Re-read everything I have said, at no point to I advocate muzzling anyone. I have not said that Moore's film aids terrorists, I have said it perpetuates ignorance by distorting reality, which is dangerous to the future of this country.
Michael Moore's film is not the truth, and if I see it a million times that will not change. Debating the nuances of his filming technique is a waste of time, as it means nothing. His point of the movie is understood without having to see the film, just read his website.
BTW, you are free to answer the question I posed to bos as well, I would love to hear both of your responses.
Posted by: John at June 29, 2004 09:59 AM (+Ysxp)
11
The NY Post is a Newspaper.
Fox News is a fair and balanced Cable News Network.
But Fahrenheit 9/11 is not repeat *not* a Documentary!
.......................................right.
Posted by: rfidtag at June 29, 2004 10:04 AM (XxIKf)
12
Also, if you were really interested in correct Box Office math you would read
Box Office Mojo:
Fahrenheit's $27,558 per theater average ranks as the second highest all time for a wide release (adjusting for ticket price inflation knocks it down to No. 11) and the best of 2004, ahead of The Passion of the Christ's $27,554 and Shrek 2's $25,951. However, they were super-saturation releases playing at 3,043 and 4,163 theaters respectively -- the lower the theater count, the easier it is to have a high average as the release isn't diluted by less populous locations with lower ticket prices.
Fahrenheit's performance harkens back to the days when big movies wouldn't play in every nook and cranny of the country, but would bow at around 700 or 1,000 theaters to sell out crowds. Perhaps the greatest example of this, Return of the Jedi debuted to $23 million at 1,002 theaters in 1983, which would adjust to $45 million by today's ticket prices. In terms of raw dollars, Fahrenheit is actually the biggest opening ever for a movie playing at less than 1,000 theaters, topping Rocky III's $12.4 million at 939 venues.
But hell, you guys won't even go see the movie and then judge it...
Posted by: rfidtag at June 29, 2004 10:18 AM (XxIKf)
13
No, I won't see the movie. No, it is not a documentary. It is a documentary like "Waiting for Guffman" or "This is Spinal Tap". "Bowling for Columbine" one an Oscar for documentaries, yet it wasn't one, either.
I won't see it simply because I'm not interested, not because it is a Michael moore movie. I'm not interested in blow-it-up, shoot-it-up, say-f*** a lot movies either. Congratulations to Moore for breaking the record. I doubt the movie will be on top very long because those who are interested will see it the first weekend, and the rest of us will vote with our feet.
Posted by: Mike at June 29, 2004 10:52 AM (MqNKC)
14
rfidtag,
You are the only one to mention he NY Post and Fox News that I can see.
Posted by: John at June 29, 2004 11:10 AM (+Ysxp)
15
Mike, the
definition of documentary is not exactly straight forward. Whether F911 is a documentary is debatable.
I am assuming that your main complaint with the Oscar award winning Bowling for Columbine are the facts presented. After all, according to the Oscar awards rules the main defining attribute of a documentary is that it is non-fiction. But what else is there to it? Here is the full text of the definition:
DEFINITION
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.
A film that is primarily a promotional film, a purely technical instructional film or an essentially unfiltered record of a performance will not be considered eligible for consideration for the Documentary awards.
I think we can all agree that documentaries
all have a point to prove or disprove. So the question is what rules does Bowling for Columbine violate exactly? If the problem is playing fast and loose with the facts, then let's see some well documented specifics. Then we can have a constructive discussion on the merits of the film.
My point is that only by seeing it and proving the illegitimacy of the facts presented can you challenge its classification of documentary film.
My personal view is that it is a documentary.
Posted by: rfidtag at June 29, 2004 11:46 AM (XxIKf)
16
How about cutting two different speaches by Heston to appear as if they were one speach.
Or maybe adding text to a political ad from Bush/Dukakis to falsify what was originally aired.
Or maybe labelling a Nasa booster rocket plant as a missle factory.
Etc etc etc, google is a wonderful tool, use it.
Posted by: John at June 29, 2004 12:54 PM (+Ysxp)
17
Or how about implying that you could get a gun straight from a bank when you open an account?
Why do I bother, you obviously haven't done your homework.
Posted by: John at June 29, 2004 12:56 PM (+Ysxp)
18
or how about implying lemmings commit mass suicide?
Posted by: Sander at June 29, 2004 01:25 PM (9v8mw)
19
I always wanted to jump base jump myself, unlike a lemming, I'll take a chute.
Posted by: John at June 29, 2004 01:41 PM (+Ysxp)
20
The Michael Moore documentary is not only a well done fact filled indictment of the Bush administration it is also one of the most patriotic films ever made.
If you are an American you will not only come away from the film more informed but also a little prouder of our service men and women and the sacrifices they willingly make for us at home.
Posted by: dc at June 29, 2004 01:46 PM (s6c4t)
21
John, google like all tools, can be misused. Why don't you try providing a *link*. I will try to give you links proving otherwise.
For instance, you said:
"Or maybe labelling a Nasa booster rocket plant as a missle factory." and I reply with "gee John, I read it says here on wikipedia that the plant was used as a
missile factory..."
McCollum has later clarified that the plant he works for does not still produce missiles (the plant manufactured parts for intercontinental ballistic missiles with a nuclear warhead in the mid-1980s), but rockets used for launching satellites which Aviation Week & Space Technology describes as being used "for the rapid targeting of Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles involved in Iraqi strikes". (Cruise missiles are, of course, a potential weapon of mass destruction). Indeed, the plant was also used to take former nuclear missiles out of service, converting decommissioned Titan missiles into launch vehicles for these targeting satellites. Since the interview was conducted in the plant, and on the backdrop of these rockets, critics charge that Moore was misleading his viewers by implying (without saying so) that this particular plant still produced missiles. Some critics have also incorrectly claimed that Moore actually makes that statement. However, he does not, which is why McCollum does not balk at his statement in the interview.
The only research you seem to want to do is the kind that supports your arguments, which is fine, but please actually provide some references.
Posted by: rfidtag at June 29, 2004 04:06 PM (XxIKf)
22
What--for 3 years you hear the BS propaganda from one side of the political spectrum and accept it as gospel truth. Now someone spews BS propaganda from the other side and "it must all be lies."
I worry for the future when the skill of critical thinking seems to be in such sad decline.
Posted by: FP at June 29, 2004 04:12 PM (pFyC+)
23
You haven't disproved the one, and you got three more to go. Keep trying.
Posted by: John at June 29, 2004 05:08 PM (+Ysxp)
24
This is a side by side transcript of Columbine and Heston's speeches.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html
Posted by: John at June 29, 2004 05:15 PM (+Ysxp)
25
I challenge any of you who think Moore is an honest filmmaker to read this site, objectively if you are able, and refute it point by point.
I'll be waiting.
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/index.htm
Posted by: John at June 29, 2004 05:18 PM (+Ysxp)
26
I challenge any of you who think Moore is an honest filmmaker to read this site, objectively if you are able, and refute it point by point.
I'll be waiting.
Why should I? Michael Moore already did a point by point on that tired old site. Somewhere between the extremes is the truth. I just happen to think MM is more credible of the two.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/
Posted by: rfidtag at June 29, 2004 07:28 PM (nO9sv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
)
Turkeys? Don't insult animals. 
