Moore Movie Blocked

[007]

Originally posted by sponge
I hardly think putting out documentaries portraying a perspective that would never be seen, as "attacking".

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE

Documentary or Fiction?

-David T. Hardy-

Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" won the Oscar for best documentary. Unfortunately, it is not a documentary, by the Academy's own definition.

The injustice here is not so much to the viewer, as to the independent producers of real documentaries. These struggle in a field which receives but a fraction of the recognition and financing of the "entertainment industry." They are protected by Academy rules limiting the documentary competition to nonfiction.

Bowling is fiction. It makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore leads the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which were not sentences he uttered. Bowling uses deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect.

A film which does this may be a commercial success. It may be entertaining. But it is not a documentary. One need only consult Rule 12 of the rules for the Academy Award: a documentary is a non-fictional movie.

The point is not that Bowling is biased. No, the point is that Bowling is deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive.

 

[007]

Originally posted by insein
BTW, Fuck Michael Moore

Well said.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by mattskramer
When was the last time the US government actually censored a media product? Wasn't it a "2 Live Crew" album?

We are free to criticize the government. Ask the Dixie Chicks. It does not mean that the public has to buy their items if it disagrees with their opinion.

If you did ask those bitches, they'd say they were being censored. They don;t get that its the people that buy their albums and its the people that decided to boycott them when they bad mouthed the pres. Freedom of Speech and choice go both ways.

 

[Isaac Brock]

The only point i'd make is that Michael Moore's new movie will draw people whether its factually correct or not. More than likely it will also be fairly entertaining, facts aside, as was the last one. It will most likely draw large audiences just to see what (crap?) he comes up with.

Disney/Miramax not publishing it therefore cannot be an act of business itself, but playing politics. It's the only logical conclusion that I think of. But disney does that have that liberty.

 

[mattskramer]

It comes down to business (cost/benefit) analysis.

If we show the movie what will it cost us:
Bush might try to punish us by removing any tax breaks we may have.
Conservatives might boycott us.
The movie might not be very unpopular.
(Fill in the blank if you can think of more costs)

If we show the movie what will it benefit is:
Liberals will make donations and promote us.
Democrats might try to give us more financial breaks.
The movie might be very popular.

After all things are considered, including politics, MONEY is the bottom line.

 

[nycflasher]

You may dislike him, but you're WAY more fucked up than he is.
He did a service to the memory of those lives lost that day, not the other way around...

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by nycflasher
You may dislike him, but you're WAY more fucked up than he is.
He did a service to the memory of those lives lost that day, not the other way around...

Whom are your pronouns referencing? Who may dislike whom? Who is more fucked up than whom. Who did a service?

 

[nycflasher]

oops...meant to quote this guy, Matt

Originally posted by JohnGalt
Moore is a fucking idiot. Period. My home school is Columbine, but my parents made me open-enroll at Bear Creek (next to columbine). The editing in Bowling is completely bullshit, and his fabricating of almost all evidence is near profound. I hate him and live a happy life knowing that if he ever returns to Littleton he will be shot for making a disgrace of the most tragic incident to ever effect my community. And as for his books, they are also bullshit; now I want to kill myself, they weren't even funny. (Stupid White Men, I really hate him)

You may dislike him, but you're WAY more fucked up than he is.
He did a service to the memory of those lives lost that day, not the other way around...

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by nycflasher
oops...meant to quote this guy, Matt


You may dislike him, but you're WAY more fucked up than he is.
He did a service to the memory of those lives lost that day, not the other way around...

What service was it. I must have missed it. Was it a church service. Did he donate profit to the victims' families? I don't like Moore but I won't use such strong rhetoric.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by mattskramer
What service was it. I must have missed it. Was it a church service. Did he donate profit to the victims' families? I don't like Moore but I won't use such strong rhetoric.

Well, I thought by discussing the ways in which our country promotes guns and violence (in certain instances) he did a service to their memory. I don't hear about shootings such as this in other civilized countries, so I think the exploration of America and guns and violence were worth the focus of this movie and quite relevant.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Well, I thought by discussing the ways in which our country promotes guns and violence (in certain instances) he did a service to their memory. I don't hear about shootings such as this in other civilized countries, so I think the exploration of America and guns and violence were worth the focus of this movie and quite relevant.

Okay. Did he declare his film to be in memory to those who died? If so, what if those who died did not agree with tighter gun control? What of those who think that easier gun access would be good for America? Can it be said that they are providing a service? When I hear "provide a service," I think of charity work. Provide money, food, and shelter to those in need. Build a physical concrete memorial. Giving your opinion on a political issue (whether right or wrong) would be one of the least likely things that I would consider as providing a service to the memory of those lives lost that day.

I wonder what his net profit was from the sell of his movie and how much of the money he gave as a service to the families of the victims.

 

[nycflasher]

I have no idea what he did with the $54 milliuon the movie raked in. Let's find out.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I have no idea what he did with the $54 milliuon the movie raked in. Let's find out.

The final thought was meant to be rhetorical - to imply that the making of the movie was perhaps due to a financial incentive just as much as, if not more than, an incentive to provide a service in memory to those who died.

The beginning questions in my post were not rhetorical. I ask again, do those that support less gun control providing a service?

 

[007]

I'd like to know "who" would actually say Bowling was a service for anyone? What kind of service? How can a complete fabrication of facts and distortions of the truth... (lies), be a "service" for anyone or anything?

mickey moore is a anti-American communist pig rat bastard. He "tries" to pass his garbage off as legitimate, when it's commonly known to be all lies, as I posted PROOF this earlier in this thread and it was ignored.