If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Loopy politician tries to play the terrorist card on a filmmaker who filmed suicides on the Golden Gate Bridge. (Last sentence of article)   (sfgate.com) divider line 99
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

19503 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2005 at 4:39 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-01-19 12:15:45 PM
Fear makes the world go 'round.
 
2005-01-19 12:16:11 PM
Few things make me angry. This does. Out of left field he makes a hyperbolic accusation like this... Moran.
 
2005-01-19 12:22:07 PM
Still, "we are a public facility," bridge spokeswoman Currie said. "So his request will be handled accordingly. But now there's the question of what else might he be misrepresenting.''

"What else did he film?'' added board member Brown. "The underside of the bridge? The security patrols?"


Anyone else think this is a way to get the film back? If they stop the movie so the Board memebers don't look like uncaring asses for not putting up a barrier? Crying terror will get you through all that legal hassle now a days.
 
2005-01-19 12:25:55 PM
Um. Where is the "terrorist card" being pulled? What am I missing?
 
2005-01-19 12:32:56 PM
mikemir

"What else did he film?'' added board member Brown. "The underside of the bridge? The security patrols?"

Perhaps those who don't live near bridges can't read "terrorist" into this comment as easily, but they're always paranoid about people filming bridges and landmarks. Theoretically a terrorist might film one to determine structural flaws and security flaws they could take advantage of.

Completely inappropriate in this context.
 
2005-01-19 12:35:32 PM
Useless w/o pics

/just sayin'
 
2005-01-19 12:36:03 PM
Dude, this so makes me want to watch Faces of Death now.

That, and declare jihad on all bridges.
 
2005-01-19 12:36:07 PM
 
2005-01-19 12:38:14 PM
Thanks, Aeonite
 
2005-01-19 12:39:27 PM
mikemir Um. Where is the "terrorist card" being pulled? What am I missing?

The last line of the article. "What else did he film?" added board member Brown. "The underside of the bridge? The security patrols?"

Or in other words, he has concerns about this man filming a bridge, because he may film specific parts of it.
 
2005-01-19 01:11:03 PM
splishsplashfark:

Ha ha! I just got that after staring at it for two minutes.

Kriss Kross'll make ya...
 
2005-01-19 01:50:15 PM
LarsThorwald: Ha ha! I just got that after staring at it for two minutes.



*blushes*
 
2005-01-19 02:20:22 PM
JUMP, JUMP!
 
2005-01-19 02:35:58 PM
Thanks for the part but I don't want to be tyyyyyyypecassssssstsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst!
 
2005-01-19 04:44:13 PM
GIS for "loopy":

 
2005-01-19 04:44:25 PM
"He's a witch!!!!"

/sounds familiar
 
2005-01-19 04:46:28 PM
"It's creepy," agreed San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano, also a member of the district board. "Whatever the intention of the film, you can't help but think of a snuff film."

I could help it. Didn't occur to me at all, you sick farker.
 
2005-01-19 04:47:13 PM



no disponible para comentario
 
2005-01-19 04:47:27 PM
I don't see the problem here. Michael Moore does it, he gets a million sheeple and their money.

A no-namer does it and people get pissed.
 
2005-01-19 04:48:08 PM
farkin' Cowards.
 
2005-01-19 04:48:25 PM
Ban all eyes, they could be used to see flaws in the bridge.
 
2005-01-19 04:48:35 PM
I can understand needing permission from the park officials (since he had his camera set up on park land, directed at the bridge) but why all the talk about 'Bridge District Officials'? Except in NY (where taking pictures of bridges or tunnels apparently equals terrorism) authorities would have absolutely no say as to what this guy could and couldn't do with a camera. Bridges are, like everything else that isn't private property, fair game. Right?
 
2005-01-19 04:49:43 PM
It could be a tasteful insight to what goes through people's minds when they commit suicide, or it could be tactless. Either way, let him make his damn movie. What exactly is offensive about taping killing themselves? He's not exactly throwing people off the bridge.
 
2005-01-19 04:50:49 PM

What's even worse is that6 after the people jumped off the bridge, they were immediately set upon my a massive great white shark.


 
2005-01-19 04:50:52 PM
Fair Game...?



Boioioioioioioioioioioioing!!!!
 
2005-01-19 04:51:03 PM
/Snooze.
Blue state frenzy. A nice name for a band.
 
2005-01-19 04:52:02 PM
Worst part: his thumb was in front of the lens the whole time!
 
2005-01-19 04:54:32 PM
hahah Cael, another farker from New York. Yeah around here if you have a camera near any large structure, you'll get shiat from any local authorities.

Omega, you are funny (in the way that your stupid) Way to make this political, and retarted. Although i will resist my overwhelming urge to flame you into the neather-regions of republican hick-ville, I'll just leave it at that:)
 
2005-01-19 04:54:35 PM
"This could unfortunately add to people's interest to use the bridge as a final step," she said. "It seems the more you talk about this, the more there's a chance of copycat (suicides), and that would be extremely unfortunate if that was the case with this movie."

You know, I'm actually quite happy, but now I'm going to throw myself off the Golden Gate Bridge, 'cause I saw someone do it in a movie.

/not really
//can't afford tickets
 
2005-01-19 04:58:10 PM
 
2005-01-19 04:58:17 PM
"A guy this duplicitous -- there must be a way to yank that stuff away from him,'' said Marin County Supervisor Hal Brown, a member of the bridge district's board. "It's just a horrible thing to be taking pictures of."

He later added, "Maybe if we pretend that suicides don't exist, they'll just disappear."

The filmmaker was obviously very smart to lie about his intentions. Personally, I hope he does very well with is film; t's a difficult subject and one that deserves more public attention.
 
2005-01-19 04:58:22 PM
Omega Ohm: Michael Moore does it, he gets a million sheeple and their money

thats because michael moore is fat, and fat people are loveable...
 
2005-01-19 04:59:09 PM
Clavis wins!
 
2005-01-19 04:59:36 PM
My buddies and I were in NYC for New Years last year for a few days running around being drunk and whatnot. Cameras were involved and we never once got any shiat from anyone. Hell, some firemen fired up their truck and turned the lights on and let us take our picture on it. Cool dudes. I don't recall being anywhere near the Brooklyn bridge or any tunnels that I remember however. Course, I don't remember a whole lot from that trip aside from what was documented with said cameras so it's probably a good thing we brought em.

/threadjack
 
2005-01-19 05:00:34 PM
So gay. So very gay. I cannot believe the morans who eat up this fearmongering. Pussies. If you're so scared of the terrorists, why don't you get a gun you weeners? Start shooting anything that remotely looks like a terrorist. Who cares if we have to live in constant fear?
 
2005-01-19 05:01:56 PM
AHH! So THAT'S what Eric Steel has been up to lately.

This guy was awesome back in the 80's:




/actually own this vinyl LP - 9 cent bin rules
 
2005-01-19 05:02:38 PM
The sheer amount of stupidity that this country is diplaying right now really frightens me.
 
2005-01-19 05:03:44 PM
wox

WTF? Where are the Boobies these days? We need some different mods.

You want boobies? I got yer bobbies right here, pal!

/sorry, but I'm mesmerized.....

 
2005-01-19 05:04:01 PM
I wonder if the filmmaker showed the (suicides') families the film he shot, then filmed their reactions. Way, way creepy.
 
2005-01-19 05:04:10 PM
Farkin' suiciders ought to be shot anyhow.
 
2005-01-19 05:08:26 PM
It's nothing like a snuff film. Snuff films are when you MURDER someone and film it. If this is a snuff film, then a lot of journalists should be arrested for making snuff films. (Think of journalists on the front lines. Think of anyone who filmed people jumping out of the World Trade Center. Think of Zapruder, who filmed the Kennedy assassination!)

This is a clear case of "if we refuse to look at a problem, then the problem doesn't exist."

As for the terrorism spin... If the mere observation of security measures is a threat to those security measures, then we have a big problem. With the compact size of digital cameras, and with cameras being built-in to cellphones, it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep people from photographing things that are right out in the open.

If your only weapon in preventing things from being photographed is to hassle people for taking photographs, I really don't see how that is going to stop terrorists...
"No, Generic-Terrorist-Name-Here, we cannot photograph this bridge so that we may learn of the security measures employed and thus plant a bomb on it and blow it up. There is a small chance the authorities would become suspicious and ask us a few questions and possibly demand that we turn over our camera. And then we would have to go out and buy a new camera and try again another day! So instead we will have to settle for flying a 747 into it which will accomplish the exact same thing. Damn those Americans and their restrictions of public photography!"

Instead of trying to prevent something that cannot be prevented, it would obviously be much better to design all security measures with the expectation that those security measures will be observed. So instead of changing the guard at the exact same time every day, change the guard at random times. Instead of one secret knock, design a system so that the knock cannot be predicted. Instead of one secret handshake... Etc., etc., etc.
 
2005-01-19 05:09:36 PM
Now there's a goul for ya
 
2005-01-19 05:09:57 PM
i'm with the loopy politician on this one (although the security thing was over the top). it was just a comparison about what else people could be doing with surveilance(sp?) equipment if they saw a need to lie about what they were filming in the first place.

"powerful and spectacular interaction between the monument and nature" and that his work was to be the first in a series of documentaries about national monuments such as the St. Louis Arch and the Statue of Liberty."
-eric steel, describing bullshiat initial project to officials

(his goal is to) "allow us to see into the most impenetrable corners of the human mind and challenge us to think and talk about suicide in profoundly different ways."

-eric steel, describing bullshiat project now that he is trying to market it.

the bottom line is this guy is an asshole who films people killing themselves because people will buy it and watch it. he has no problem bullshiatting his objectives to make it sound like he's a legitimate film maker but in reality he's selling "faces of death sf bridge" to a morbid niche who are willing to pay money to see these people committing suicide. i don't think he's doing anything illegal, and people can certainly choose to kill themselves in the privacy of their own homes; but the documentarian is the real douchebag in this story.
 
2005-01-19 05:11:54 PM
This is just sick....who would want to watch a film of people jumping to their deaths?
 
2005-01-19 05:11:56 PM
Look, if 19 people jumped to their deaths last year and many more tried it why the hell is it not important to show this to the world? Take the camera to the water and show the splattered bodies! It is called deterrent! I don't agree with the 911 jumpers being filmed because they had no choice. If more people knew exactly what happens when you hit the water at 90 MPH they might think twice or more before doing it! It is not romantic to take your partners hand and jump into the valcano! It hurts and it is lack of love that would cause you to do it!
signed
Wiley Coyote
 
2005-01-19 05:13:30 PM
Why did this kookoo expose his own lie? All he had to do is say that he was exploring that angle of his film.

 
2005-01-19 05:17:02 PM
Cael, I don't think the Golden Gate bridge is public property. It's owned by some special corporation set up between San Francisco and Marin Counties, or something like that. It's the reason it costs $5 to drive across it, rather then the $3 the publicly owned bridges in the area set you back.

The idea that people taking pictures of it would be looking for weaknesses or places to attack it makes me laugh though. There are enough pictures of the damned thing around to make anyone happy. It wouldn't suprise me if you could find blueprints from the construction online, too.

And filming people jumping is just sick.

Just saying.
 
2005-01-19 05:19:56 PM
Anthony Kedis/Chili Peppers picture in 5,4,3...
 
2005-01-19 05:20:18 PM
I think he probably could have got the permit without lying about the film, but it would have taken longer. I also think the SF politicians are having a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of the film, and are acting ridiculous.

As for the film itself, I would be interested in seeing it. Suicide is pretty difficult for most of us to understand, and I imagine that a movie like this could be a very powerful educational device.
 
2005-01-19 05:24:03 PM
In a related story, wanna be suicide jumper does not stretch before his jump, and pulls his Rectus femoris.

******Note to self******

Stretch before jumping off the golden gate bridge
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report