Disney Block Moore Documentary

He does see it, but wishes not to admit he does.

Denial.

 

I thought the point was that guns are so integral to American small town life that there's even a bank that gives away guns as a premium for opening an account.

The incident is all about its humor value and low key irony. And it's not even in a mean-spirited way since Moore goes out of his way in all his films to play up his own small town roots.

 

Crix,
Where is the good film technique in Roger & Me or BFC? I've said my beef w/ it, I need to know why you like it. Manipulation, distortion, I just don't see that as impressive. We don't honor advertisements in film. Is it really that hard to make a one-sided film? I mean, come on, how is Moore genius? His films border on mockumentary, there is nothing special about them.

WHERE is the technique? What is so great about it? What does he do in organizing his film that makes it any better than others? Besides lying. Piecing together Heston interviews, or getting the gun wearing the same clothes....only 5 days later...yes, it's manipulative, but any idiot can do that. Be honest, is that really something you would study in film class. Absolutely not. Imagine you're a film major writing an essay on Moore, and since I too am a film student, I know there is a certain cliched and perhaps overused body termonology we use...can any of it really apply to Moore? I've yet to find someone who appreciates Moore for technique, not his content! You like his content, that's clear, what about his technique? Just tell me why you think its even above average.

Furthermore, you ignore my point that an artist has a certain moral obligation, don't you agree? Moore is lying and deceiving on purpose. Now it seems liberal are willing to admit this, they just think the ends justify the means and that he gets his point across, then its OK. I don't think that's OK.

If you think he doesnt lie or manipulate, well then we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Really no way of convincing one another.

Jabba -
Truth be told, I think Moore's points in 9-11 are probably all on point. But he's lost credibility w/ me, and I'd rather not watch his films. I don't watch propaganda, even if I agree with the message (Roger and Me I am sympathetic to his message, not really BFC so much). I'm kinda skimming these threads, but unless I've mistaken, you've yet to tell me - what is Moore? Propaganda? Documentary? Blurring the lines? Filming a thesis or theory of his? Do you think he lies? Manipulates? Is that OK? I don't really understand your opinion on him, other than like Criz, you agree w wat he says.

 

"How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine"
by Michael Moore

When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" ? that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 ? and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") ? which I am filling out here for the first time ? the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database?which includes all federally approved gun dealers?lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle "


Why should I believe that from MOore? I've heard multiple accounts from ppl I trust, most of all my film TF, a 25 year old liberal, who have said that this scene was manipulated by him putting on the same clothes on another day. It's one person's word against another...and considering Moore's history, his admitted openness to fabricating or stretching...I'm not buying it.

 

How to expose lies and the lying liar who lies them to cover the lies in his lying lie movie... lie.


"So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Gee, you know, Dad goes off to the factory every day and, you know, he builds missiles. These are weapons of mass destruction.' What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?'"


But Mr. Moore, the littleton facility doesn't make WMD.

That's right! That big honkin' rocket sitting behind the Lockheed spokesman in "Bowling for Columbine"-- the one with "US AIRFORCE" written on it in BIG ASS letters ? well, I admit it, I snuck in and painted that on that Titan IV rocket when Lockheed wasn't looking!

Uh, Mr Moore a titan IV rocket is a space launch vehicle it delivers Satellites into spac.

After all, those rockets were only being used for the Weather Channel! Ha Ha Ha! I sure fooled everyone!!

Not only they were also used for Military and other satellites, but those satellites don't actually have WMD on them.

The Littleton facility has been manufacturing missiles, missile components, and other weapons systems for almost half a century. In the 50s, workers at the Littleton facility constructed the first Titan intercontinental ballistic missile, designed to unleash a nuclear warhead on the Soviet Union...

Unfortunately that was well before either Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold was born, what else do you have?

...in the mid-80s, they were partially assembling MX missiles, instruments for the minuteman ICBM, a space laser weapon called Zenith Star, and a Star Wars program known as Brilliant Pebbles.

In the full, unedited interview I did with the Lockheed spokesman, he told me that Lockheed started building nuclear missiles in Littleton and "played a role in the development of Peacekeeper MX Missiles."

You forgot the past tense. Nothing I've seen and certainly nothing you've presented would indicate that, even if we accepted your connection was plausible, Nuclear weapons had been built there any time recently, say in a few years before the shootings.

As for what's currently manufactured in Littleton, McCollum told me, "They (the rockets sitting behind him) carry mainly very large national security satellites, some we can't talk about."

Since that interview, the Titan IV rockets manufactured in Littleton have been critical to the war effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq. These rockets launched advanced satellites that were "instrumental in providing command-and-control operations over Iraq...for the rapid targeting of Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles involved in Iraqi strikes and clandestine communications with Special Operations Forces."

Those aren't WMDs, and it's incredibly tenuous at best. You might as well say living near a military base would do the same thing, and atleast they actually do the fighting rather then being one step removed. Furthermore, niether Iraq nor Afgahnistan had occured in 1999. It makes your link tenuous by another degree to suggest that the boosters which would launch satellites which would one day help a conflict somehow had a pervasive influence to help cause a school shooting.

That Lockheed lets the occasional weather or TV satellite hitch a ride on one of its rockets should not distract anyone from Lockheed's main mission and moneymaker in Littleton: to make instruments that help kill people. That two of Littleton's children decided to engineer their own mass killing is what these guys and the Internet crazies don't want to discuss.

To make instruments to launch satellites which help to identify and target structures more accurately? So the people who make MRE's which feed the soldiers in combat so they can fight are guilty too?

Lets go back to your original statment in light of what we've seen.

]"So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Gee, you know, Dad goes off to the factory every day and, you know, he builds missiles. These are weapons of mass destruction.' What's the dif

 

MR44 made the only sensible suggestion when you're trying to assess the credibility of these different versions of what happened - ask the bank. We have Moore's testimony - someone who was there. Someone from the bank should be on record disputing or agreeing with Moore's version.

From Osiris

"you've yet to tell me - what is Moore? Propaganda? Documentary? Blurring the lines? Filming a thesis or theory of his? Do you think he lies? Manipulates? Is that OK? I don't really understand your opinion on him, other than like Criz, you agree w wat he says."

First, I judge each of his works on its own merits. I agree with people who liked Roger and Me but didn't particularly like Columbine. Columbine was pecular for having almost no message, no point. I thought the attack on the seemingly mentally enfeebled Charlton Heston was unwarranted. I remember Heston when he was at the top of his game, adroitly debating nuclear weapons proliferation with Paul Newman on tv, for example [Homer]Celebrities - is there anything they don't know?[/Homer]. Where's the honor in ambushing an Alzheimer's patient?

But that's neither here nor there. Farenheit is a documentary because it's a zeitgeist snapshot. It brilliantly documents the mood of at least half a very divided nation.

 

Fair enough, Jabba, but how do you feel about the true chronology of Roger & Me? Do you really think that is fair to the viewers?

 

You're right, he makes the point that you can get a gun by opening an account at this bank. But you're ignoring that he is obviously implying that you can get a gun that easily and that quickly from a bank. That's the true point he's trying to make. I don't understand how you can't see that.

What the hell are you talking about? Of course I see that, and I said as much. But right now we're SPECULATING, don't say it as it's fact, we don't know if he had to phone ahead to get the gun at the bank or not. Not even Hardy (hehe) found enough information to come to a conclusion on it. All we have is the teller's testimony (which we do not have a transcript for) and Moore's testimony.

So why can't you understand that we're merely speculating and we have no clue what really happened at the bank? I don't understand how you can't see that....

 

Hey guys. I just popped in here to thank Kimball and Fwiffo for giving it their best when I asked for some links. Due to the inordinate number of ill-informed and politically rhetorical posts I've had to scroll through since my absence, I have decided to not argue with anyone on this board...Well, sometimes when I'm in a bad mood I come into the senate and look for somebody to start **** with and ya know what? It doesn't solve anything. Anyway...

I will continue from now on, to do three things:

1. I will enjoy my freedom as an American to think and believe whatever the hell I want, and make a concerted effort to respect others' rights to do the same.
2. I will swallow my pride, no matter how nasty it tastes, and admit that Mike doesn't have all the correct answers, but I will continue to support him as a fan.
3. I will not make too much trouble in the senate, and I will tell you all one thing that matters:

Neither the right nor the left have your answers. Everything in moderation. The world needs Michael Moore as much as it needs Rush Limbaugh. Please view the film, "The Last Supper" if you doubt this line of reasoning.

Enjoy the Senate everybody!

 

What the hell are you talking about? Of course I see that, and I said as much. But right now we're SPECULATING, don't say it as it's fact, we don't know if he had to phone ahead to get the gun at the bank or not.

What, exactly, am I stating as a fact? That Moore is implying that you can get a gun that easily at a bank? And my statement is quite clear. Read it, and you will understand what the hell I'm "talking" about.

Not even Hardy (hehe) found enough information to come to a conclusion on it. All we have is the teller's testimony (which we do not have a transcript for) and Moore's testimony.

So why can't you understand that we're merely speculating and we have no clue what really happened at the bank? I don't understand how you can't see that....

Mr_44, too bad you're completely WRONG...

The bank was a licensed arms dealer and you're given the gun AT THE BANK. No certificate, just a background check and your choice of weapon.

Learn your FACTS before you spew such nonsense.

NEXT!

He walked into the bank, opened up an account, filled out forms, the bank then proceeded to do a background check, he got the gun.

That's how it happened and exactly how it's shown in the movie.

You SPECULATE in a funny way.

 

I haven't read much about the chronology problems of Roger and Me, but the film draws its strength from a highly personal depiction of one man's (Moore's) response to the economic death of the town he grew up in.

Moore is as careful with his facts as Bill O'Reilly, for example. Like O'Reilly, Moore is an "infotainment" specialist, not a journalist. At least in the case of Farenheit, Moore plays to his audience and tells them what they want to hear.

People like O'Reilly and Limbaugh do that every day of the week.

 

Moore is as careful with his facts as Bill O'Reilly, for example. Like O'Reilly, Moore is an "infotainment" specialist, not a journalist. At least in the case of Farenheit, Moore plays to his audience and tells them what they want to hear.

People like O'Reilly and Limbaugh do that every day of the week.

The difference is that Moore somehow gets to label his opinions and views as documentaries, which gives people the impression that everything he shows is factual and accurate.

 

Whether you like Fox News or not (I personally don't care what you think of them) it seems that they are one of the only news organizations that is reporting the lies that Moore is telling in F9/11. All that says to me is that the liberal media is doing what it does best, working with political bias. Fox does the same thing but at least they give the other side of the story. I guess that somewhere between CNN and Fox, the truth can be found.

In any case, Fox News has posted an article that shows some of the "holes" in F9/11. Give it a read if you want to learn some more about the "real" truth.

EDIT:

Two parts that I found particularly interesting were:

"Finally, Moore shows prominent members of the Taliban visiting Texas, implying that they were invited by then-Governor Bush. The Taliban delegation, however, was invited to Houston by UNOCAL, a California energy company.

Moore also doesn't mention that the visit was made with the permission of the Clinton administration, which twice met with Taliban members ? in 1997 and 1998."

and

"The movie also criticizes Bush for staying inside a Florida classroom full of kids for a full seven minutes after he learned that the country was under attack on Sept. 11, 2001.

However, the vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission has said that Bush did the right thing. "Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom," said Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana."

How many lies and half truths does Moore have to tell before some of you left-wing liberals will admit that he is trying to mislead you from the truth?

Another EDIT:

Neither the right nor the left have your answers. Everything in moderation.

I agree with this. Very good and true words.

 

I haven't read much about the chronology problems of Roger and Me, but the film draws its strength from a highly personal depiction of one man's (Moore's) response to the economic death of the town he grew up in.

I found R&M more compelling than his other works if only to illustrate how bad Flint has become. you could sympathize with the message if you've ever driven through Flint.

Moore is as careful with his facts as Bill O'Reilly, for example. Like O'Reilly, Moore is an "infotainment" specialist, not a journalist. At least in the case of Farenheit, Moore plays to his audience and tells them what they want to hear.

People like O'Reilly and Limbaugh do that every day of the week.

My biggest problem with Moore's work is that I regularly meet people who consider his work the truth and the only truth because it is a supposed documentary. In actuality, its not a problem with Moore, but the inability of people to think for themselves and to go beyond what they hear from a single source. With Rush and Bill, most people realize that they are often full of it or that they have an agenda. But thats just been my experience.

 

With Rush and Bill, most people realize that they are often full of it or that they have an agenda.

Exactly.

 

"The movie also criticizes Bush for staying inside a Florida classroom full of kids for a full seven minutes after he learned that the country was under attack on Sept. 11, 2001.

However, the vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission has said that Bush did the right thing. "Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom," said Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana."

That's just one more person's opinion, not an example of Michael Moore's distortion of the truth.

I don't see any difference at all between Bill O'Reilly's constant self-promotion as the voice of truth in the U.S. and Michael Moore's. No one goes into Farenheit thinking it is a balanced look at George Bush's war on terror, just as you would be crazy to watch "The O'Reilly Factor" looking for facts.

 

I thought the point was that guns are so integral to American small town life that there's even a bank that gives away guns as a premium for opening an account.

I think you were spot on with this, Jab. It seems the message gets lost in the muddle!

 

Alright, to be a little more clear on the bin laden family thing.

Several members of his family, most notably his step mother, have been in contact with bin laden. Further, two brothers and a brother in law have been implicated with connections to osama. Of course out of roughly 100 people three is indeed a massive number.

It's also worth pointing out thatnone of them were likely in the US at the time. The step mother is in Syria, a protected guest of the syrian government and she was in syria two days before the attacks. It's posisble she came to America in those two days since I have no information, but I'd count it extremely unlikely.

Furthermore, the number of bin ladens that left the country 2 days after 9-11 was 24. This does nto just include his siblings, but their children. How many in fact were children? Were in college? Who were the other ones? I don't know the answer and neither has it been reported as far as I've seen. The FBI however does and did. No one is worried about it except the poliical rabble rousers who need only shout bin laden to scare their people into following them in their partisan attacks.

 

No one goes into Farenheit thinking it is a balanced look at George Bush's war on terror, just as you would be crazy to watch "The O'Reilly Factor" looking for facts.

That's BS. Most people who are going to this thing have been claiming how accurate and reliable this piece of "propaganda" is. Moore tries to pass himself off as some pinnacle of truth and integrity and most of his supporters try to support him in this.

The truth is Moore is no more reliable for the truth than radical right wingers like Savage.

 

That may be true. But if Rush Limbaugh is a legitimate voice for a big chunk of America, then certainly Moore is as well, and his documentary can stand firm on those grounds, particularly since so little of his film can really be contested on a factual basis.

If someone says "Moore overstated his case in his description of the bin laden exodus from the U.S." then that's a legitimate complaint if true, but it's still pretty marginal to the main thrust of the film, namely that Bush played on our fear of terrorism to win public support for a war that had nothing to do with terrorism. And the real winners of the conflict are companies like Halliburton with close ties to the Bush administration.

If someone were going to ask me, am I bothered that Bush let the bin Laden family go? or am I bothered that the Bush family has ties to Saudi leaders, then my answer is "no." I was completely unmoved by that part of Moore's film.

The Saudi's have a special relationship with the highest levels of our government because our economy is fueled by their oil. As long as they have oil that we can't do without, it's always going to be that way. Democrats drive cars too.

 

That's BS. Most people who are going to this thing have been claiming how accurate and reliable this piece of "propaganda" is. Moore tries to pass himself off as some pinnacle of truth and integrity and most of his supporters try to support him in this.

currently, most people in this country are subject to a constant barrage of right-wing, pro-Administration propaganda, from the radical right (FOX News) to the moderate right (CNN, MSNBC, and the major networks). while Moore is completely and unashamedly an ideologue, by bringing up facts that are studiously ignored by the tame press, and presenting the case for the left, which has no other voice of comparable magnitude right now, he's functioning to make the overall picture of the issues more accurate and balanced, even if you debate his own personal accuracy and/or balance.

 

Overstated is a bit of an understatement considering he's been harping on that for years now despite continued and mounting evidence he's completely and totally wrong.

If indeed the point of this movie is as you suggest, then one must wonder why the technique moore uses to tothrow anything onto the screen even remotely connected rather then focusing his documentary. Instead he decides that allowing 24 bin ladens of varying ages to fly out of the country is a good starting area for his film, the audio selection is a particularly nice touch. It's strange then that this
film about the use of fear to get Americans to support war in Iraq and afgahnistan starts itself with a paranoid audio visual rant about the connection of the Bush family to the Saudis and bin Ladens.

Jabba I'd love to see the film you want this to be rather then the film moore made.

 

to the moderate right (CNN, MSNBC, and the major networks).

LOL, "moderate right"



I consider myself moderate right, I agree with 25-30% of what the dems say, 35-40% of what the republicans say, and the rest I don't agree with either party. The major networks are definitely left of me, from Katie Couric calling the president a liar on her National Morning show, to the antics of Brokaw, etc, it is definitely not moderate right.

Instead he decides that allowing 24 bin ladens of varying ages to fly out of the country is a good starting area for his film, the audio selection is a particularly nice touch. It's strange then that this
film about the use of fear to get Americans to support war in Iraq and afgahnistan starts itself with a paranoid audio visual rant about the connection of the Bush family to the Saudis and bin Ladens.

The 9/11 commission has said that there was nothing wrong with letting the people leave, and also said that all the correct exit interviews were taken.

 

I consider myself moderate right, I agree with 25-30% of what the dems say, 35-40% of what the republicans say

then you're not moderate right. you're pretty far right. the Republican center is the far right, the Democrats are center to center-right. we don't have a major left-wing party in this country the same way most of the democratic world does.

 

farraday wrote: "Jabba I'd love to see the film you want this to be rather then the film moore made."

I don't have any problem with the fact that I thought the first half of the film was weak. If Moore had made a documentary about one mother's experience losing a child to an immoral war, then it would have been nearly perfect in my view.

My criticism of the film is that it splits itself into two almost completely unrelated parts, probably because events overtook Moore and changed his film out from under him as he was making it. It's hard to imagine what a pointless and half-assed film this would have been without the intervening phenomenon of the absolute catastrophe of Iraq.