Do you think the late summer release will influence the election that much? If so, will it have the intended consequences and gain that many more votes for Kerry or will it backfire?

i think that after all is said and done it will have influenced something election-wise (having obviously never seen the film yet). as in, be mentioned in historical summaries of the 2004 election.

it will be interesting. judging by the types of irrefutable evidence and footage that is apparently in the film it could make POW photos and body bags seem mild. and judging by the way the media is attempting to supress anything anti-war, there will be some violent reaction/censorship attempt to this but only in this situation, it's an oscar-winning best-selling popular artist. so it could be a terrific clash for truth that raises media awareness on a big level.

or micheal moore could fuck it up or come across the wrong way and everyone will hate him even more, i dunno.

I would call it more a clash of propaganda than truth. Moore was apparently exposed for presenting a lot of circumstantial and selective evidence in his last film, and when he was in Iraq on the ground with the soliders you gotta expect he skimmed over or edited out those who didn't give the message he was looking for. So as far as that kinda thing goes, I probably will not be persuaded.

I do look forward to seeing what he does with the Saudi aspect.

Originally posted by thrillhouse

oscar-winning best-selling popular artist.

You do realize that Eminem fits under this same definition, don't you? Just a comment in case you thought this definition somehow lends Moore a sense of credibility in the political realm.

That said. I'm sure Moore's new film will probably play it even more fast and loose with the facts than his last one. At least Bowling for Columbine, despite its being rife with distorted facts and exaggerations, was more a comment on American society than anything else. But I think that its obvious that with all of Moore's antics over the past couple of years, this new film will use the same sorts of distortions (because apparently people think its okay for a 'good cause') for the somewhat less lofty and artistic goal, character assassination. It'll get press, sure. But I don't think it'll become a force in the election whatsoever.

i doubt it-people who hate Moore enough already will hate him even more for questioning a touchy subject as Iraq. So i don't think he will sway anyone-he has his fans that stick by him but he won't make any new ones.

wow, i'm glad our president doesn't play fast and loose with the facts! (WMD's, anyone? hahahahahahaahaha)


anyway i think maybe it will get more people to get out and vote democrat.. we better fuckin' hope and pray so. it won't make any hardcore republicans take their head out of their ass, though. nothing can do that.

Originally posted by Corganist


You do realize that Eminem fits under this same definition, don't you? Just a comment in case you thought this definition somehow lends Moore a sense of credibility in the political realm.
Uh, Eminem doesn't make *ahem* "documentaries."

Originally posted by Corganist
At least Bowling for Columbine, despite its being rife with distorted facts and exaggerations, was more a comment on American society than anything else. But I think that its obvious that with all of Moore's antics over the past couple of years, this new film will use the same sorts of distortions (because apparently people think its okay for a 'good cause') for the somewhat less lofty and artistic goal (of) character assassination.

This is essentially what I think.

Anyone else thing it's pretty amazing that this thing he's doing now is being funded by Disney?

:dammit:

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

I guess Disney's involment isn't that bizarre.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3685633.stm

<b>Disney may block anti-Bush film</b>

<i>Reports: Media company attempts to stop Miramax from releasing Michael Moore documentary.</i>

<A HREF="http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/05/news/fortune500/disney_moore/index.htm?cnn=yes">http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/05/news/fortune500/disney_moore/index.htm?cnn=yes</a>

Originally posted by O'Doyle Rules


http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

Haha, wow.

Bowlingfortruth.com is guilty of the same things they acuse Moore of! Hah look what I read there...they were trying to make Marilyn Manson look evil or something....

"FACT: - The Columbine killers were thirsty for fame and recognition that they sought to gain through their murders. Mansons stage name is a combination of the name of Marilyn Monroe and convicted murderer Charles Manson. Other band members are: "Daisy Berkowitz" who's named after the New York "Son-Of-Sam" murderer David Berkowitz; "Olivia Newton Bundy," named after serial murderer Ted Bundy; "Zsa Zsa Speck," named after Richard Speck who murdered several nurses; "Gidget Gein," named after Ed Gein, a Wisconsin murderer who engaged in cannibalism and necrophilia; and "Madonna Wayne Gacy," named after homosexual serial murderer John Wayne Gacy who murdered 33 young boys. "


If you read further you'll see that website is also made up of assumptions and opinions, some but very little fact.

That may be true, but that doesn't obscure the larger point that a lot of it is relevant to Moore and exposes a lot of the errors and spinning of facts his last film is guilty of. The part on the "Wonderful World" segment alone makes the site worth checking out.

This isn't the only website to point out a lot of this, ya know--it just seems to be the most extensive.

Originally posted by tweedyburd
That may be true, but that doesn't obscure the larger point that a lot of it is relevant to Moore and exposes a lot of the errors and spinning of facts his last film is guilty of. The part on the "Wonderful World" segment alone makes the site worth checking out.

This isn't the only website to point out a lot of this, ya know--it just seems to be the most extensive.

But its all mostly opinion and conjecture so how does it make it true? I think its probably one of the most ridiculous websites i've looked at the Marilyn Manson section specifically, especially the Back to Clinton part, its all manipulative language and opinion, none of it contains any insight. The fact that the writer presumes what two dead boys would have said (two boys they have never met) is absolutely ridiculous.

If you've read any of Michael Moore's books you will see his extensive amounts of citations to news articles and other documentation, I feel that his ethic carries over into his documentaries as well.

I think Moore tries to get a message across, that the american media didn't really try and figure out why these boys were so voilent, that they didn't assess why the United States has the most gun related violence and homicides out of any other country. He tried to show how the media has severly twisted the perception of the american people (which any half intelligenter person should realize) and instead of looking at our government actions over the last half century of killing thousands of innocent people the media without any evidence said Marilyn Manson was to blame (a person who has never killed anyone or condoned killiking anyone)...

With anything, film, publication or otherwise, it is completely possible to scrutinize and pick apart every last detail to where it validity could be dismantled.

Hopefully Farenheit 911 will get some sort of major release like bowling for columbine did, I think there are alot of issues that the american public are just not aware about that need to be discussed. Sadly people get more wrapped up in Michael Moore than the issues he brings forth, but thats the american way, ignore the message, attack the messenger.

Truth and Lies of 9/11 is a great documentary by a former 18 year LAPD narcotics officer. his name is Mike Ruppert. Great lecture he presents and of course all his information is cited and documented. He shows alot of the history with the bush and bin ladens (and other saudi higher ups).... just a simple question to ask anyone, why were the only people allowed to fly immeadiately after 911 comprised of passengers of Air Force One and the Saudi Royal family??? there are alot of things that just dont make sense... check out www.fromthewilderness.com

It's really easy to get wrapped up in Moore's particular type of seductive propaganda--just be careful. I'm not saying his films and his books are complete wastes of time, they are just obviously one-sided and it is undeniable that most of his "facts" are left unqualified or remain absent of a broader context. I have to say the only part of that site I really looked at was the part which ripped the "Wonderful World" segment, and from what I saw, the guy was for the most part correct in his assessment of how Moore distorted and spinned those events toward his own agenda.

the wonderful world assessment is also full of lies... especially pretty much everything revolving around Noriega and Panama... its contradicted everything i've ever read about the subject... I'm just saying I think the author(s) of this site propegate more lies than Moore does...

If you are interested in hearing more about the invasion of Panama... (drugs, natural [manmade in this case] resources, and non cooperatives) then you should check out this documentary

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6302779545/qid=1083854831/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-1021019-6305702?v=glance&s=video&n=507846

Originally posted by tweedyburd
they are just obviously one-sided and it is undeniable that most of his "facts" are left unqualified or remain absent of a broader context.


Sadly enough this is the way everyone argues today. Here on netphoria, in congress, on tv, in movies...almost everywhere. Noone likes to look at the other side of an argument anymore. People just like to get as much info that proves their point and bombard people with it hoping they will influence a few ignorant minds. Its impossible to get the full story from anyone these days and its quite sad that most individuals do not seek out information from both sides.

Originally posted by Quiet CD

www.fromthewilderness.com

wow.

you share my views on this. micheal moore may be propaganda, but exposing yourself to a balanced amount of propogranda from multiple sources is healthier than not doing that. so i applaud micheal moore for representing sources and opinions that many people are otherwise just plain oblivious of or wouldn't care about. for every webpage deconstructing BFC there are countless sources deconstructing just about any issue being addressed or not addressed by the media. the finger can point in all directions.

again, regarding FTW and reading about micheal ruppert: wow.

Originally posted by Quiet CD
the wonderful world assessment is also full of lies... especially pretty much everything revolving around Noriega and Panama... its contradicted everything i've ever read about the subject... I'm just saying I think the author(s) of this site propegate more lies than Moore does...



Wow, easy on the specifics, bro--my head is spinning!

It seems to me there's just no way you can get around the double standard of criticizing the sanctions on Iraq in one breath and then criticizing similar aid packages to Afghans in the next.

Also, the part about the shah being "installed" is exposed for the out-of-context distortion it is and makes Moore look like a blatant propagandist trying to shape the minds of impressionable young college kids who do not yet have a firm grasp of history.

The same goes for the amount of U.S. arms to Saddam, sanctions being the sole reason for Iraqi starvation rather than mismangagment and greed, etc.

I'm not saying the site doesn't participate in some of the things it rails against, but the site is a response to Moore's work, not a work of its own. Plus, the resentment toward things like this seems to be more in the partisan tone of the site than the actual information it presents. It just qualifies a lot of things Moore did not go out of his way to put into context for the viewer, which I don't expect him to since he's a propagandist.

Hah, as if there needed to be any further example of Moore's distortion practices. Directly fibbing to his supporters, you guys must be proud.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901

Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban'

By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles

07 May 2004

Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.

Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001.

In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.

But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

Nobody in Hollywood doubts Fahrenheit 911 will find a US distributor. His last documentary, Bowling for Columbine , made for $3m (£1.7m), pulled in $22m at the US box office.

But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working. A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free expression.

Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]" but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract. And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for financing, not for distribution.

am i reading that right? they're actually saying, in the paper, that promoting your film and talking about it in a pre-scheduled interview like anyone else is a stunt? is it just because he's micheal moore that they're calling it a stunt?

Excuse me, but are you fucking blind? He deliberately lied about his knowledge of Miramax not wanting to distribute and then admitted (slipped?) what actually happened in another interview, claiming he had known about it for a year. The stunt is that he wanted to create this heigthened sense of phony "censorship" just before the film was to play at Cannes. In other words, he made himself out to be a victim by saying he found this out just the other day, when in fact he'd know about it for a year. What's worse, he actually lied about it to his little minions in the letter he sent out, trying to egg 'em on when in fact it was total bullshit.

This is why Moore is easily characterized as a propagandist, and obviously why his fans have bought into a lot of his bullshit if he knowingly lies to his supporters. Granted, this is not a political or historical example in regards to his work, but if he's willing to fib on something like this in order to gain momentary "liberal free-speech victim" status it's pretty obvious you have to take his overall work with a grain of salt.

It's rather obvious Michael Moore's biggest proponent and No. 1 concern is Michael Moore, and in that respect, he's doing rather well for himself.

Not that I should talk. I fully plan on seeing the film, though I doubt I'll believe most of what I see.

Al Franken should make "Stewart Saves Iraq."

Originally posted by tweedyburd
Do you think the late summer release will influence the election that much? If so, will it have the intended consequences and gain that many more votes for Kerry or will it backfire?

I don't think it will have any influence on the election at all. The regular everyday voter is not going to go see a Michael Moore film. The film will not be near big enough to have any sort of influencial affect on the election. However, it could, obviously, generate a lot of media attention. But again, even with a lot of media focus, I don't think it'll have any affect.

Originally posted by Nimrod
Al Franken should make "Stewart Saves Iraq."

You're so obsessed with him. Give it a rest.

His film will be good, I'm sure. His film will hit home, I'm sure. His film will exaggerate facts, I'm sure.

It, like Samantha says, won't make a damn difference because the fringe voters won't really see it. The liberals will watch it and love it and the conservatives will watch it and hate it.

it got picked up again. miramax worked out a deal

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040512/film_nm/media_disney_moore_dc_4

itll be as interesting seeing the film as it will the controversy