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.

(Townhall)   2016: Obama's America denied Oscar nomination. Conservatives outraged to learn that actual truth, not simply box office receipts are a requirement for the 'documentary' category   (townhall.com) divider line 175
    More: Interesting, Academy Awards, obama, Davis Guggenheim, documentary, coal mines  
•       •       •

2225 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Dec 2012 at 8:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-07 08:46:37 AM
I'm thinking of doing a documentary of my own. I'm calling it "Butthurt: What Happens When Conservative Crybabies Don't Get What They Want".
 
2012-12-07 08:51:40 AM
It would be a shoe in if there was a Category for failed political propaganda.

It would take home the coveted Whargarbley. Which is a six inch tall potato statue made out of fools gold.
 
2012-12-07 08:56:00 AM
Please, right-wingers, keep reminding people what a bunch of lunatics1 you are. Nothing bad could possibly befall you by continuing to flog the issues that saw you get rejected by the majority of the electorate this year.

1Louis Gohmert says I can still say this
 
2012-12-07 08:56:26 AM
This is satire, right?

Right?
 
2012-12-07 09:01:08 AM
Michael Moore plays loose with the facts, but he was still nominated I believe. It's not that truth itself is a condition for getting a nod, it's plausibility.
 
2012-12-07 09:01:33 AM
Ah yes, the old "If we let things go to hell the voters will blame the President and come rushing back into the GOP fold". That worked so well for them last time.
 
2012-12-07 09:02:18 AM
Somebody get the crying bald eagle in here, because I am just devastated.
 
2012-12-07 09:02:30 AM

SilentStrider: I'm thinking of doing a documentary of my own. I'm calling it "Butthurt: What Happens When Conservative Crybabies Don't Get What They Want".


Set it to yakety sax, run it a few frames per second faster than normal and you have the American Benny Hill. (Unfortunately instead of Hill chasing buxom women it will be wide stances)
 
2012-12-07 09:02:30 AM
Oops, wrong thread.
 
2012-12-07 09:03:36 AM
Maybe they'll get the award in four years.
 
2012-12-07 09:03:51 AM
Propaganda cannot be categorized as a documentary. Though they should be fair since Michael Moore is pretty much propaganda.
 
2012-12-07 09:04:11 AM
Really, Subby? Then why did "Bowling for Columbine" win?

Moore did a lot of "creative reinterpretation of reality" in that one. Hell, he does it in most of his work.
 
2012-12-07 09:04:12 AM
Did anyone here actually see this movie? I assume most democrats didn't, not wanting to add to its box office gross. I know it was a hit piece, I just don't know how bad it really was.
 
2012-12-07 09:04:36 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Michael Moore plays loose with the facts, but he was still nominated I believe. It's not that truth itself is a condition for getting a nod, it's plausibility.


You can believe that, but, no, he didn't "play loose with the facts" (i.e., lie, like the movie in question) as much as he did play loose with the presentation of those facts. And, yes, he was nominated.

At the end of the day, a documentary should actually, well, document something. The only thing "documented" by that movie is the long slide into extremist insanity that many Republicans took as a result of Obama's Presidency.
 
2012-12-07 09:05:01 AM
FTFA The cabal that chooses the 15 nominees for the Academy Award...

Ahh... loaded words from stupid people. I will just use my imagination instead of reading the rest of that.
 
2012-12-07 09:05:19 AM
Remind me why they'd want to be nominated by Hollywood and the libbiest libs that every libbed? Is it because it would lend credibility to their movie? Or is it because they could whip everyone into a frenzy and ship more copies?
 
2012-12-07 09:06:09 AM

SilentStrider: I'm thinking of doing a documentary of my own. I'm calling it "Butthurt: What Happens When Conservative Crybabies Don't Get What They Want".


Alexandra Pelosi already did it. Look for Right America: Feeling Wronged.
 
2012-12-07 09:06:40 AM

SilentStrider: I'm thinking of doing a documentary of my own. I'm calling it "Butthurt: What Happens When Conservative Crybabies Don't Get What They Want".


I'd buy a ticket.
 
2012-12-07 09:07:27 AM
Why do they care what Hollyweird has to say anyways? Make your own conservative Oscars and rent out the big hall in the creationist museum to hand them out.
 
2012-12-07 09:08:54 AM
The documentary category can be pretty tough. I thought Paradise Lost 3 was a shoo-in last year, and even they couldn't win, and that series actually saved someone's life.

Or maybe 2016 just wasn't a very good movie. Say what you will about Michael Moore, but Bowling For Columbine was at least entertaining, even if you didn't agree with the politics.

The Academy might be looking for something more than just someone yelling "OBAMA BAD!" for 90 minutes.
 
2012-12-07 09:09:15 AM

Marcus Aurelius: This is satire, right?

Right?


Townhall and American Thinker are always satire.
It's unintentional satire sure, but still satire.
 
2012-12-07 09:09:19 AM
Quality documentaries are often overlooked by the Academy, as is evident by the absence of any awards given for the 1984 documentary Red Dawn.
 
2012-12-07 09:09:27 AM
Dinesh D'Souza is the emperor of intellectual dishonesty.
 
2012-12-07 09:09:49 AM
 
2012-12-07 09:11:32 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Headso: Why do they care what Hollyweird has to say anyways? Make your own conservative Oscars and rent out the big hall in the creationist museum to hand them out.

Glenn Beck is launching a reality show with Vince Vaughn and Peter Billingsley to find great documentary filmmakers.

Vaughn is one of Hollywood's highest profile conservatives, and a recent Ron Paul supporter. Billingsley, a producer and director who often works with Vaughn, is celebrated this time of year for his childhood role in the classic film "A Christmas Story."

The new reality show, called "Pursuit of Truth," will air on Beck's TheBlazeTV. It will feature documentaries submitted to the show as it seeks "the world's next great documentary filmmaker." Twenty competitors will see the ultimate prize of financing and worldwide distribution.]


Wow. It's Project Derp Light.
 
2012-12-07 09:11:37 AM
Documentaries are non-fiction by definition.
 
2012-12-07 09:11:47 AM
They should have nominated it for some fiction/fantasy film type award just for the added right wing butthurt.

// Que the "Unskewed Oscars" being created in 5.....4......3......
 
2012-12-07 09:13:21 AM

GoodyearPimp: Remind me why they'd want to be nominated by Hollywood and the libbiest libs that every libbed? Is it because it would lend credibility to their movie? Or is it because they could whip everyone into a frenzy and ship more copies?


Yes. Now that the election is over, the market for this movie is evaporating very fast. Same thing happened to Farenheit 9/11, Once the 2004 election was over, that flick took the bullet train into the bargain bin. Political propoganda is useless when the event they were trying to influence is over.

They needed to be able to market it as Oscar nominated or Oscar winning to try to get people to want to watch it.
 
2012-12-07 09:13:38 AM
Liebrul conspiracy!
 
2012-12-07 09:14:14 AM

FormlessOne: You can believe that, but, no, he didn't "play loose with the facts" (i.e., lie, like the movie in question)


Eh, I still don't know what the point was of Bowling for Columbine. It kept building to a point, then losing itself by countering the point. And the most interesting parts of the movie tended to be blatantly false or imply the blatantly false (the instant gun at the bank, the KKK/NRA cartoon, the portrayal of the NRA's Colorado rally after Columbine, the bit about the NRA coming to Flint to talk about the shooting of the little girl, etc).

It tried to argue that guns themselves - or access to the guns - was the problem, then countered that with talk of Canada and Switzerland. It kind of shifted to it just being a violent mentality - that we're exposed to violence throughout our media to an extent not seen elsewhere and that begets more violence, but that was undermined by bringing up Japan (though a lot of Asian media tends towards hyperviolence). It kind of tried to attack the NRA, but none of the points were really based on anything but NRA bad.

I mean, I've seen it probably a half dozen to a dozen times and the best I can figure out is that he really wanted to make one movie and then changed his mind halfway through.
 
2012-12-07 09:14:18 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Headso: Why do they care what Hollyweird has to say anyways? Make your own conservative Oscars and rent out the big hall in the creationist museum to hand them out.

Glenn Beck is launching a reality show with Vince Vaughn and Peter Billingsley to find great documentary filmmakers.

Vaughn is one of Hollywood's highest profile conservatives, and a recent Ron Paul supporter. Billingsley, a producer and director who often works with Vaughn, is celebrated this time of year for his childhood role in the classic film "A Christmas Story."

The new reality show, called "Pursuit of Truth," will air on Beck's TheBlazeTV. It will feature documentaries submitted to the show as it seeks "the world's next great documentary filmmaker." Twenty competitors will see the ultimate prize of financing and worldwide distribution.]


Every award will go to that kid who dressed up like a pimp and tried to sexually assault that CNN reporter.
 
2012-12-07 09:14:28 AM
I personally don't find it too impressive that it's the 4th highest grossing documentary of all time when you have conservatives being bussed to go see the movie in droves.

Also, the top 10 highest grossing documentaries:

1. Fahrenheit 9/11 . . . $119 million
2. March of the Penguins . . . $77 million
3. Justin Bieber: Never Say Never . . . $73 million
4. 2016: Obama's America . . . $33 million
5. Earth . . . $32 million
6. Chimpanzee . . . $~29 million
7. Katy Perry: Part of Me . . . $25 million
8. Sicko . . . $24 million
9. An Inconvenient Truth . . . $24 million
10. Bowling for Columbine . . . $21 million

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm

Also, the Academy has rarely, if ever, given a flying fark about how much a movie grossed in relation to whether or not to nominate.
 
2012-12-07 09:15:23 AM

SilentStrider: I'm thinking of doing a documentary of my own. I'm calling it "Butthurt: What Happens When Conservative Crybabies Don't Get What They Want".


2.bp.blogspot.com

I'm thinking OSCARRRR!
 
2012-12-07 09:15:51 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Every award will go to that kid who dressed up like a pimp and tried to sexually assault that CNN reporter.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-07 09:15:54 AM

stoli n coke: The documentary category can be pretty tough. I thought Paradise Lost 3 was a shoo-in last year, and even they couldn't win, and that series actually saved someone's life.

Or maybe 2016 just wasn't a very good movie. Say what you will about Michael Moore, but Bowling For Columbine was at least entertaining, even if you didn't agree with the politics.

The Academy might be looking for something more than just someone yelling "OBAMA BAD!" for 90 minutes.


Yeah. MM put together visually engaging, well scored documentaries that were cobbled together from a *shiatload* of original footage. A for Effort, at the very least.

Maybe I'll give 2016 a watch just to have a frame of reference, but if it's anything like the quality coming out of the right wing in other avenues, I'm not sure I'll be able to make it through it.
 
2012-12-07 09:18:04 AM

HeartlineTwist: I personally don't find it too impressive that it's the 4th highest grossing documentary of all time when you have conservatives being bussed to go see the movie in droves.


Ah. So, it was Passioned? And, why is it all these rugged individuals can't go anywhere unless they're constantly in the presence of like-minded individuals? Isn't AM radio there to serve as the echo chamber when you can't get it live? Are Hovarounds the first step in assimilation to the Borg?
 
2012-12-07 09:19:27 AM

SilentStrider: I'm thinking of doing a documentary of my own. I'm calling it "Butthurt: What Happens When Conservative Crybabies Don't Get What They Want".


I would watch this. If a film crew had been following Romney around and interviewing cons and then followed them through the humiliating defeat and subsequent butt-hurt as reality set in.

Call it Delicious Tears. Get an Oscar.
 
2012-12-07 09:19:30 AM

cirby: Really, Subby? Then why did "Bowling for Columbine" win?

Moore did a lot of "creative reinterpretation of reality" in that one. Hell, he does it in most of his work.


This. I loathe Michael Moore, because he takes stances that I agree with and then uses his shady techniques to utterly destroy my side's credibility. Shut up already, you're. not. helping!

That being said, at least Moore can be moderately amusing/entertaining. 2016 was the film equivalent of being trapped on the couch by Great Uncle Lenny and having to listen his rants about how Young People Have No Respect and This Country Is Going to Hell: morbidly unfunny, tedious, and even painful.
 
2012-12-07 09:20:33 AM

HeartlineTwist: I personally don't find it too impressive that it's the 4th highest grossing documentary of all time when you have conservatives being bussed to go see the movie in droves.

Also, the top 10 highest grossing documentaries:

1. Fahrenheit 9/11 . . . $119 million
2. March of the Penguins . . . $77 million
3. Justin Bieber: Never Say Never . . . $73 million
4. 2016: Obama's America . . . $33 million
5. Earth . . . $32 million
6. Chimpanzee . . . $~29 million
7. Katy Perry: Part of Me . . . $25 million
8. Sicko . . . $24 million
9. An Inconvenient Truth . . . $24 million
10. Bowling for Columbine . . . $21 million

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm

Also, the Academy has rarely, if ever, given a flying fark about how much a movie grossed in relation to whether or not to nominate.


I don't know what a Justin Bieber is, but at least it's good for kicking Dinesh D'Souza's butt.
 
2012-12-07 09:22:13 AM

SilentStrider: I'm thinking of doing a documentary of my own. I'm calling it "Butthurt: What Happens When Conservative Crybabies Don't Get What They Want".


So you're going to record 2 random hours of Fox News?
 
2012-12-07 09:22:35 AM

Koalaesq: Did anyone here actually see this movie? I assume most democrats didn't, not wanting to add to its box office gross. I know it was a hit piece, I just don't know how bad it really was.


I didn't see it and I believe the odds are in my favor that the strongest opinion against this film are held by people who never saw it. I at least have seen the Moore films I bash.
 
2012-12-07 09:23:21 AM

Yakk: FTFA The cabal that chooses the 15 nominees for the Academy Award...

Ahh... loaded words from stupid people. I will just use my imagination instead of reading the rest of that.


I just want to go on record that I had nothing to do with it.
 
2012-12-07 09:23:27 AM
i.qkme.me
 
2012-12-07 09:23:44 AM
Is the documentary called "The Hacktivists" on the list? That was a pretty good documentary I saw this fall.
 
2012-12-07 09:24:46 AM
Why I am not totally surprised to discover that Vince Vaughn is a tea baggin douche bag?
 
2012-12-07 09:24:54 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Michael Moore plays loose with the facts, but he was still nominated I believe. It's not that truth itself is a condition for getting a nod, it's plausibility.


Either way a Documentary is not intended to future telling. If I made a "documentary" called 2020 about flying cars. Even if I was correct in my predictions, its not a documentary its fortune telling. One could argue Global Warming is also an attempt at fortune telling as well I guess, meh.
 
2012-12-07 09:25:09 AM
(set ital) primary (end ital)

Way to html, fellas.

protesters of over

Oh, FFS. Hire a god-damned editor. Is this shiat in the print version, too?

As for the whining about not getting an Oscar nod, them's the breaks. Try not releasing the film equivalent of a cheeto-stained manifesto next time.
 
2012-12-07 09:26:16 AM
It's because the film didn't predict Benghazi.
 
2012-12-07 09:26:29 AM
Subject matter, content, factual accuracy and presentation are separate but overlapping elements. Moore's subject matter is usually topical and highly relevant to contemporaneous political and social issues. His content, however, is selective, and there is no doubt but that it comes from his perspective and not an utterly objective view. Factual accuracy and thoroughness is also a legitimate area for criticism, since he does emphasize what supports his viewpoint and suppresses or mischaracterizes some contrary facts. Presentation is probably Moore's strongest area, because even if you find flaws in the content or facts presented, the films are generally highly watchable and border on entertaining at some points.

This "documentary" by Douchesouza is, by all accounts, an utterly unrepentant and irredeemable smear propaganda campaign without any remote connection to factual reality. So, really, there's no comparison.
 
2012-12-07 09:26:59 AM

stoli n coke: The documentary category can be pretty tough. I thought Paradise Lost 3 was a shoo-in last year, and even they couldn't win, and that series actually saved someone's life.

Or maybe 2016 just wasn't a very good movie. Say what you will about Michael Moore, but Bowling For Columbine was at least entertaining, even if you didn't agree with the politics.

The Academy might be looking for something more than just someone yelling "OBAMA BAD!" for 90 minutes.


I watched it with a friend who is more liberal than I and even donated money to handguncontrol.org every time the NRA sent him a mailer. He was almost throwing things in anger after about 30 seconds into Moore's "History" because it was such bullshiat.

Despite Moore's gross distortions and intentional deceptions, he does ask a few good questions, especially his last one asking why Canada, with so many guns, has so little violence.
 
2012-12-07 09:28:37 AM

Mrbogey: odds are in my favor that the strongest opinion against this film are held by people who never saw it.


Guilty. My personal dislike of Dinesh D'Souza and my reading of the wiki summary tell me I'm not going to see this one. It might have been technically perfect, but I don't give a shiat.
 
2012-12-07 09:33:04 AM

Mrbogey: Koalaesq: Did anyone here actually see this movie? I assume most democrats didn't, not wanting to add to its box office gross. I know it was a hit piece, I just don't know how bad it really was.

I didn't see it and I believe the odds are in my favor that the strongest opinion against this film are held by people who never saw it. I at least have seen the Moore films I bash.


I only saw a couple of posts from my Conservative FB friends, and of course, they gave it glowing reviews about how accurate and "truthful" it was and how him winning the election would cause the earth to explode.

One really really nutty right wing friend who has been a paranoid moron about "the new world order" for about twenty five years now, said that after seeing the movie.."it all makes sense now!" I haven't heard from him since the election, but I have a feeling he's barricaded in his basement, behind sand bags, guns drawn, eating reconstituted food rations waiting for "the end".
 
2012-12-07 09:33:46 AM

Headso: Why do they care what Hollyweird has to say anyways? Make your own conservative Oscars and rent out the big hall in the creationist museum to hand them out.


They can even call it the Conserva-Oscars!
 
2012-12-07 09:33:59 AM
Also, the author of TFA really doesn't seem to know how the movie business works. First, he fawns that 2016 was from the Oscar winning producer of Schindler's List, which, while true, is misleading. Spielberg had creative control over that movie and was the main reason for its success. Gerald Molen just made sure the production didn't run out of money.

The author also goes on a rant calling one of the films an HBO documentary. Newsflash, Jethro, that does not matter. As long as a film plays on at least one theater screen in a major market (usually New York or LA) before the end of the year, it can qualify for Academy consideration. The documentaries HBO picks up go around festivals for months before they ever air. HBO just gets it out to a wide audience.
 
2012-12-07 09:34:08 AM

FormlessOne: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Michael Moore plays loose with the facts, but he was still nominated I believe. It's not that truth itself is a condition for getting a nod, it's plausibility.

You can believe that, but, no, he didn't "play loose with the facts" (i.e., lie, like the movie in question) as much as he did play loose with the presentation of those facts. And, yes, he was nominated.

At the end of the day, a documentary should actually, well, document something. The only thing "documented" by that movie is the long slide into extremist insanity that many Republicans took as a result of Obama's Presidency.


I felt it did documented that rather well. If that had been the focus of the film itself, it may have a case but as is, no nod.
 
2012-12-07 09:34:24 AM
Ah, because, according to them, box office receipts = good.

Uh... No
 
2012-12-07 09:34:30 AM

sprawl15: FormlessOne: You can believe that, but, no, he didn't "play loose with the facts" (i.e., lie, like the movie in question)

Eh, I still don't know what the point was of Bowling for Columbine. It kept building to a point, then losing itself by countering the point. And the most interesting parts of the movie tended to be blatantly false or imply the blatantly false (the instant gun at the bank, the KKK/NRA cartoon, the portrayal of the NRA's Colorado rally after Columbine, the bit about the NRA coming to Flint to talk about the shooting of the little girl, etc).

It tried to argue that guns themselves - or access to the guns - was the problem, then countered that with talk of Canada and Switzerland. It kind of shifted to it just being a violent mentality - that we're exposed to violence throughout our media to an extent not seen elsewhere and that begets more violence, but that was undermined by bringing up Japan (though a lot of Asian media tends towards hyperviolence). It kind of tried to attack the NRA, but none of the points were really based on anything but NRA bad.

I mean, I've seen it probably a half dozen to a dozen times and the best I can figure out is that he really wanted to make one movie and then changed his mind halfway through.


My impression as well. I think he started it out with
"guns and access to guns *caused* Columbine"

moved to a less ridiculous
"Gun culture, combined with access to guns and certain other cultural factors *caused* Columbine"

and then moved even further from his original point when he talked about other countries and arrived at
"People are violent monsters sometimes and easy access to guns, which turns out to not be as easy as I originally though, turns a righteous ass kicking or a stabbing into tragedies like Columbine."

I like it because it shows a willingness to learn that is far too often lost in documentaries. Same reason I love Exit through the Gift Shop. Banksy clearly doesn't know what the "point" of all that was, but he wanted to put it on tape. I get the feeling both he and MM made their respective films for themselves as much as for their audience. They wanted to go through the exercise in order to "unpack" a seminal event or series of events in their lives.
 
2012-12-07 09:35:12 AM
Hes a neo colonialist!

neo cons vs neo cols

its on!
 
2012-12-07 09:35:47 AM

vygramul: Despite Moore's gross distortions and intentional deceptions, he does ask a few good questions, especially his last one asking why Canada, with so many guns, has so little violence.


See, I thought the overall crux of "Bowling..." was that violent tragedies in America such as the Columbine shooting are a result of many factors over many years that can't be tackled by addressing one part of it, and some serious introspection is needed before we can improve. The ease of access to guns; our perception of the role of guns (Costas touched on this when touched "gun culture" last weekend) on society; our violent history as a nation; our dependence on the military industrial complex; our "might is right" foreign policy; each of these play a role in our shooting tragedies that we see far too often in America. And yet, to nail down one as the sole cause of such a shooting is just as silly as arguing that bowling influenced Klebold and Harris to the Columbine.

And here's a big pre-emptive "go fark yourself" to the next person who tries to white knight poor, pitiful, Charlton Heston. You wanna be mad at somebody, be mad at the NRA for making a has-been with dementia their president. If your president can't represent you, then he oughtn't be the guy you trot out at every event to be the face of your organization. Or, to put it another way, you can't wear your big-boy pants if you have to put them on over diapers.
 
2012-12-07 09:35:52 AM

Mrbogey: I didn't see it and I believe the odds are in my favor that the strongest opinion against this film are held by people who never saw it.


The majority of the movie was based on a book that was already outright debunked as total and utter bullshiat, like the rest of the media produced by D'Souza. I mean, it's not much of a stretch to call a movie by known liar based on a book full of known lies an inaccurate movie. The criticisms don't really need to get more specific than that - he hasn't earned a thorough review, in terms of factual accuracy.
 
2012-12-07 09:37:27 AM
Kind of ironic considering how much invested both parties are in just making shiat up. You'd think they'd have some sort of kinship.

I guess the threat of incinerating those of them that aren't heterosexual will do that though. Kind of hard to look past it.
 
2012-12-07 09:38:52 AM
I wonder if they're also butthurt that Atlas Shrugged didn't get a Best Picture nom?
 
2012-12-07 09:39:18 AM
Has anyone figured out yet why it would be a bad thing for the President of the United States to be opposed to British colonialism?
 
2012-12-07 09:40:17 AM
I guess I missed the point of Bowling for Columbine when I saw it. I thought it was: "American news and media has created a culture of fear that causes so many Americans to feel they NEED a handgun. This combined with improper training and storage of firearms leads to tragedies."
 
2012-12-07 09:42:47 AM

BeesNuts: I like it because it shows a willingness to learn that is far too often lost in documentaries.


Eh, my problem was more that it didn't seem to really learn anything as a general arc. It went in asking what factors contributed to the Columbine massacre and went out saying "Dunno. But the NRA are douchebags."

I mean, it was good that he brought up some common justifications and threw them away (the Manson interview was interesting, but kind of hilarious since they listened to KMFDM and not Manson), but it seemed like he could have made ten times the documentary by cutting out most of his complaints about the NRA and replacing it with more social commentary about how tragedies like that occur. The attempt to kind of diffuse the blame from "It's because you have guns!" and "It's because violence on the TV!" was negated by constantly pointing and blaming the NRA - it's just as shallow an excuse as the others.
 
2012-12-07 09:45:10 AM

Old enough to know better: I wonder if they're also butthurt that Atlas Shrugged didn't get a Best Picture nom?


You have to admit, that thing sold ticket.
 
2012-12-07 09:49:21 AM

Old enough to know better: I wonder if they're also butthurt that Atlas Shrugged didn't get a Best Picture nom?


Ugh, I watched Part 1 of that on Netflix and I wanted to demand my monthly streaming fee back.

What a horrific abortion of a movie.

"THE STATE SCIENCE INSTITUTE IS TAXING YOUR MAGIC BRIDGE METAL"
"Then I must set fire to my house!"
"RUN AWAY WITH ME"
"We are all John Galt!"
 
2012-12-07 09:49:52 AM

karmaceutical: Why I am not totally surprised to discover that Vince Vaughn is a tea baggin douche bag?


i105.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-07 09:49:53 AM
Aren't the Golden Globe awards the popularity contest? Cry to them.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts is a private organization that can do as they please. Townhall is free to create their own awards and distribute them as they see fit.
 
2012-12-07 09:50:59 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Michael Moore plays loose with the facts, but he was still nominated I believe. It's not that truth itself is a condition for getting a nod, it's plausibility.


The vast majority of people who criticize Moore are under the impression that:

1) Documentaries must basically exist as unedited security footage with no bias, no editing, no editorializing, no perspective, no opinion, no point of view, etc.
2) FOX news is a pinnacle of objective and unbiased journalism, because FOX news is fair and balanced.

Believing #1 is naive, but incorrect. Believing #2 is blatantly delusional. When "Bowling for Columbine" came out, I was amused that same people who were running websites debunking Moore's work as a documentary were also running websites debunking evolution as science, using similar arguments. Just because some guy on the internet calls something a lie doesn't make it so.

Does the Daily Show deserve to win awards in journalism, even though they say things that obviously aren't true? Well, it depends on whether or not the audience is in on the joke. Michael Moore is not unbiased, unedited truth. What most conservatives don't seem to realize is that he doesn't claim to be, and most of his fans don't interpret him as such.
 
2012-12-07 09:51:12 AM

Old enough to know better: I wonder if they're also butthurt that Atlas Shrugged didn't get a Best Picture nom?


I'm still surprised that politicians who treat that trudging snoozefest of literary shiat like it's gospel complained that the ACA bill was too hard to read.
 
2012-12-07 09:52:08 AM

vygramul: Despite Moore's gross distortions and intentional deceptions, he does ask a few good questions, especially his last one asking why Canada, with so many guns, has so little violence.


I'll tell you why- Moore conveniently neglected to mention the type of guns we Canadians have. They're single shot or limited magazine long guns, and they're owned almost exclusively by hunters and people in rural areas. Not exactly the kind of firearms that lend themselves to domestic disputes or holding up a liquor store, and certainly not the sort of thing that would rack up much of a body count in a crowded theatre. This was evident with Columbine- heavily armed, 12 dead, 21 injured. Canada had a copycat school shooting shortly thereafter in Taber Alberta- 1 dead, 1 wounded. Did our shooter just lack ambition and planning? Possibly, but that single shot .22 probably didn't help his cause.

I own 3 guns myself. All 3 are at my dad's place, 300km away. They only come out in the fall when we're hunting. Hell, I'm 45 years old, grew up in rural Alberta, and I've never even seen in person or held a pistol in my life. I know precisely 1 person that owns one for target shooting.

Moore's gun count might be accurate, but it doesn't begin to describe the difference in our gun cultures, which really is driven by legislation. He's right about the fear factor, though. We aren't constantly media whipped into a paranoid frenzy that would feed the need for guns either.
 
2012-12-07 09:52:39 AM

Graffito: Townhall is free to create their own awards and distribute them as they see fit.


Please don't give them any ideas.
 
2012-12-07 09:54:18 AM

unyon: I'll tell you why- Moore conveniently neglected to mention the type of guns we Canadians have.


He could have brought up Switzerland instead - it's pretty clear that simple access to guns doesn't magically create violence. It's simply an enabling factor.
 
2012-12-07 09:55:31 AM
PROTIP: When a guy who couldn't even cut it as a movie critic (Michael Medved) likes your movie, your movie's shiat.

Personally, I think Dinesh D'Souza has milked his 15 minutes of fame and then some. How long has it been since "Chocolate Rain" first appeared on YouTube?
 
2012-12-07 09:55:35 AM

sprawl15: BeesNuts: I like it because it shows a willingness to learn that is far too often lost in documentaries.

Eh, my problem was more that it didn't seem to really learn anything as a general arc. It went in asking what factors contributed to the Columbine massacre and went out saying "Dunno. But the NRA are douchebags."

I mean, it was good that he brought up some common justifications and threw them away (the Manson interview was interesting, but kind of hilarious since they listened to KMFDM and not Manson), but it seemed like he could have made ten times the documentary by cutting out most of his complaints about the NRA and replacing it with more social commentary about how tragedies like that occur. The attempt to kind of diffuse the blame from "It's because you have guns!" and "It's because violence on the TV!" was negated by constantly pointing and blaming the NRA - it's just as shallow an excuse as the others.


Except that the NRA are a bunch of douchebags.

They're not even advocating for gun rights anymore, they're transparently acting as another wing of the GOP. They supported the candidate who signed anti-gun laws in the past as governor over an incumbent president who hasn't. Why? Not because of guns. It's because they're douchebags.
 
2012-12-07 09:56:34 AM

cirby: Really, Subby? Then why did "Bowling for Columbine" win?

Moore did a lot of "creative reinterpretation of reality" in that one. Hell, he does it in most of his work.


I'm sure it has a lot more to do with the quality of the film rather than the validity of the content. 2016 was abject nonsense and the whole world knows it. That a bunch of brain dead morans went to see it doesn't make it worthy of consideration for an award. "Fast and Furious" made 363 million dollars, but didn't sniff a nomination. Get over it, 2016 was a steaming pile of shiat.
 
2012-12-07 09:56:45 AM
FTFA: " Is anyone anywhere prepared to argue that the political agendas in these documentaries didn't play a role in their selection? The (set ital) primary (end ital) role?

That's some great HTML work there, Lou Townhall.
 
2012-12-07 09:59:04 AM

schrodinger: Except that the NRA are a bunch of douchebags.


They absolutely are...just not in the way they were portrayed.

And dishonest attacks, like almost all the attacks throughout BfC, undermine the honest attacks that need to be made on the politicization of that kind of an organization.

You do realize I can defend something I dislike and remain honest, right?
 
2012-12-07 10:04:19 AM
sprawl15: Eh, I still don't know what the point was of Bowling for Columbine

You missing the point is not surprising. He presented what he could and left the conclusions up to the viewer.
 
2012-12-07 10:08:31 AM
Oh Christ on a crutch, could someone please lock Brent Bozell into an outhouse then set it on fire?
 
2012-12-07 10:13:03 AM
[stop-liking-what-i-dont-like.jpg]

You guys upthread that wanted to make a conservative butthurt film - call it "Stop Liking What I Don't Like: The Movie".
 
2012-12-07 10:13:35 AM

Carth: Graffito: Townhall is free to create their own awards and distribute them as they see fit.

Please don't give them any ideas.


I don't know. A gold-plated statue of Breitbart would be hilarious.
 
2012-12-07 10:15:44 AM

kobrakai: He presented what he could


The problem is that what he presented was largely an irrelevant, distorted mess.
 
2012-12-07 10:16:13 AM
The greatest movie ever in the "real world" outside of gay communist hollyfag is undeniably home alone 2. Until this outrage is corrected by taking away Obama's Nobel peace prize and giving it to Justin Beiber I will stop renting VHS tapes at the corner store each week and invest in the ammo required for the coming race war that Nostradomis predicted.
 
2012-12-07 10:16:25 AM

HeartlineTwist: 3. Justin Bieber: Never Say Never . . . $73 million
4. 2016: Obama's America . . . $33 million


And Justin Bieber was also snubbed for an Oscar! Clearly this is a sign of a bias on the part of the nominating cabal against those of Canadian heritage...or something like that.
 
2012-12-07 10:16:50 AM

Fart_Machine: Carth: Graffito: Townhall is free to create their own awards and distribute them as they see fit.

Please don't give them any ideas.

I don't know. A gold-plated statue of Breitbart would be hilarious.


I think a giant white pile accompanied with a razor blade would be a more fitting tribute.
 
2012-12-07 10:19:44 AM

schrodinger: The vast majority of people who criticize Moore are under the impression that:

1) Documentaries must basically exist as unedited security footage with no bias, no editing, no editorializing, no perspective, no opinion, no point of view, etc.
2) FOX news is a pinnacle of objective and unbiased journalism, because FOX news is fair and balanced.

Believing #1 is naive, but incorrect. Believing #2 is blatantly delusional. When "Bowling for Columbine" came out, I was amused that same people who were running websites debunking Moore's work as a documentary were also running websites debunking evolution as science, using similar arguments. Just because some guy on the internet calls something a lie doesn't make it so.

Does the Daily Show deserve to win awards in journalism, even though they say things that obviously aren't true? Well, it depends on whether or not the audience is in on the joke. Michael Moore is not unbiased, unedited truth. What most conservatives don't seem to realize is that he doesn't claim to be, and most of his fans don't interpret him as such.


The problem with Michael Moore is that he uses deceptive techniques to get people to say things they don't agree with and so he can later use clever editing to take quotations out of context or make individuals look stupid. He doesn't have bias, he fundamentally misrepresents people and opinions to strengthen whatever message he's cooked up for his movie.
 
2012-12-07 10:23:02 AM

Epicedion: Michael Moore...doesn't have bias


Nailed it. Give me my Oscar, biatches.
 
2012-12-07 10:23:59 AM

kobrakai: sprawl15: Eh, I still don't know what the point was of Bowling for Columbine

You missing the point is not surprising. He presented what he could and left the conclusions up to the viewer.


Dick Clark shot a little girl in the head....

Flint native, lefty-lib, drive by the school where that shooting happened daily, that movie was crap.
 
2012-12-07 10:26:41 AM

kobrakai: sprawl15: Eh, I still don't know what the point was of Bowling for Columbine

You missing the point is not surprising. He presented what he could and left the conclusions up to the viewer.


Remember, most Americans think Born In the USA is patriotic and Every Breath You Take is a love song. The general public isn't very good at drawing its own conclusions.
 
2012-12-07 10:30:52 AM

HeartlineTwist: Also, the Academy has rarely, if ever, given a flying fark about how much a movie grossed in relation to whether or not to nominate.


Money equals quality. And wealth and success are self-evident proof of superiority and the blessings of God's grace.

This is a core belief. It extends well-beyond their metaphysical economic ideas.
 
2012-12-07 10:32:26 AM

EyeballKid: vygramul: Despite Moore's gross distortions and intentional deceptions, he does ask a few good questions, especially his last one asking why Canada, with so many guns, has so little violence.

See, I thought the overall crux of "Bowling..." was that violent tragedies in America such as the Columbine shooting are a result of many factors over many years that can't be tackled by addressing one part of it, and some serious introspection is needed before we can improve. The ease of access to guns; our perception of the role of guns (Costas touched on this when touched "gun culture" last weekend) on society; our violent history as a nation; our dependence on the military industrial complex; our "might is right" foreign policy; each of these play a role in our shooting tragedies that we see far too often in America. And yet, to nail down one as the sole cause of such a shooting is just as silly as arguing that bowling influenced Klebold and Harris to the Columbine.

And here's a big pre-emptive "go fark yourself" to the next person who tries to white knight poor, pitiful, Charlton Heston. You wanna be mad at somebody, be mad at the NRA for making a has-been with dementia their president. If your president can't represent you, then he oughtn't be the guy you trot out at every event to be the face of your organization. Or, to put it another way, you can't wear your big-boy pants if you have to put them on over diapers.


The problem is less with the core message and more with the continually dishonest rhetoric throughout the film, leaving out context and allowing easily misconstrued statements to remain unexplained. And those are the least of his sins. Splicing together different speeches to seem to be one and moving the context is disingenuous at best.

I'm not a member of the NRA for several reasons, but I don't like intellectual dishonesty, even when my side does it.

Especially when my side does it. It makes an otherwise worthy goal something that moves people who might otherwise be open to being convinced firmly into the opposition's camp.
 
2012-12-07 10:34:05 AM

EyeballKid: The general public isn't very good at drawing its own conclusions.


Oh, hilarious irony.
 
2012-12-07 10:34:21 AM
Vaughn is one of Hollywood's highest profile conservatives, and a recent Ron Paul supporter.

Now I understand why Eraser Nipples dumped his worthless ass.
 
2012-12-07 10:34:35 AM
onpointpolitics.com

Makes you feel any better, Laura, this guy wasn't invited to the White House, and I bet he would have had some great things to say.
 
2012-12-07 10:34:40 AM
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter was equally factual and historically accurate.
 
2012-12-07 10:35:10 AM
Goddamit, wrong thread.
 
2012-12-07 10:37:50 AM
They announced the Oscars already? But I haven't seen the Oogieloves yet!!!!
 
2012-12-07 10:40:24 AM

unyon: vygramul: Despite Moore's gross distortions and intentional deceptions, he does ask a few good questions, especially his last one asking why Canada, with so many guns, has so little violence.

I'll tell you why- Moore conveniently neglected to mention the type of guns we Canadians have. They're single shot or limited magazine long guns, and they're owned almost exclusively by hunters and people in rural areas. Not exactly the kind of firearms that lend themselves to domestic disputes or holding up a liquor store, and certainly not the sort of thing that would rack up much of a body count in a crowded theatre. This was evident with Columbine- heavily armed, 12 dead, 21 injured. Canada had a copycat school shooting shortly thereafter in Taber Alberta- 1 dead, 1 wounded. Did our shooter just lack ambition and planning? Possibly, but that single shot .22 probably didn't help his cause.

I own 3 guns myself. All 3 are at my dad's place, 300km away. They only come out in the fall when we're hunting. Hell, I'm 45 years old, grew up in rural Alberta, and I've never even seen in person or held a pistol in my life. I know precisely 1 person that owns one for target shooting.

Moore's gun count might be accurate, but it doesn't begin to describe the difference in our gun cultures, which really is driven by legislation. He's right about the fear factor, though. We aren't constantly media whipped into a paranoid frenzy that would feed the need for guns either.


The guns used at Columbine are largely irrelevant. Even Canada has pump-action shotguns, which were some of the guns used. Most firearms homicides are not the victims of assault rifles, and about half of firearms deaths are suicides, so the semi-automatic nature of the weapon is pretty irrelevant. A man angry at his wife (domestic murder being high on the list) can go and get his rifle just as easily as his handgun. Drug dealers (the majority of violence - 84% of the homicides the year DC was "murder capital of the world") will get their automatic and semi-automatic weapons smuggled in with their bales of marijuana.

Access to glamorous and terrifying weapons is usually highly-overrated. Klebold's primary gun at Columbine was the scary-looking tec-9, a virtually isotropic bullet source. He would probably have done more damage using a single-shot rifle with the barrel sawed-off.
 
2012-12-07 10:42:00 AM
Entitlement Class
 
2012-12-07 10:46:09 AM

vygramul: Drug dealers (the majority of violence - 84% of the homicides the year DC was "murder capital of the world") will get their automatic and semi-automatic weapons smuggled in with their bales of marijuana.


Which was probably the biggest inexcusable omission from the movie - when talking about gun violence in general, the criminal drug culture (and the war on drugs) is paramount.

I've long argued that the fastest way to drastically reduce gun violence is to legalize drugs.
 
2012-12-07 11:00:34 AM
The academy should've nominated it just to troll the living shiat out of them
 
2012-12-07 11:02:34 AM
Then explain this fat fark
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-07 11:03:02 AM

sprawl15: Old enough to know better: I wonder if they're also butthurt that Atlas Shrugged didn't get a Best Picture nom?

Ugh, I watched Part 1 of that on Netflix and I wanted to demand my monthly streaming fee back.

What a horrific abortion of a movie.

"THE STATE SCIENCE INSTITUTE IS TAXING YOUR MAGIC BRIDGE METAL"
"Then I must set fire to my house!"
"RUN AWAY WITH ME"
"We are all John Galt!"


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-07 11:04:07 AM

SilentStrider: I'm thinking of doing a documentary of my own. I'm calling it "Butthurt: What Happens When Conservative Crybabies Don't Get What They Want".


I look forward to Volumes 1-90.
 
2012-12-07 11:06:00 AM

sprawl15: (the Manson interview was interesting, but kind of hilarious since they listened to KMFDM and not Manson)


The media just said they were Manson fans at the time because everyone in the country knew who he was, and only industrial and metal fans had heard of KMFDM and Rammstein.

It reminds me of The Simpsons episode where Kent Brockman can't pronounc Kuala Lumpur so he just crosses it out and writes in "France".
 
2012-12-07 11:06:20 AM

Britney Spear's Speculum: The academy should've nominated it just to troll the living shiat out of them


Have it be collectively booed during it's mention.....that would have been great.
 
2012-12-07 11:07:25 AM

Lane83: SilentStrider: I'm thinking of doing a documentary of my own. I'm calling it "Butthurt: What Happens When Conservative Crybabies Don't Get What They Want".

I look forward to Volumes 1-90.


They already have documentaries about what caused the U.S.'s economic collapse.
 
2012-12-07 11:10:41 AM

kobrakai: sprawl15: Eh, I still don't know what the point was of Bowling for Columbine

You missing the point is not surprising. He presented what he could and left the conclusions up to the viewer.


That's a bit of a stretch. There was a conspicuous focus on the NRA that I agree felt out of place in what was ostensibly an attempt to understand Columbine and other (at the time) fresh tragedies from a sociological perspective. He clearly made the movie with the intention of going a little Brady Campaign, but I'm sure that making this movie led to many a confrontation with the NRA. I think he got confused part way through about why he was making that movie. It's a convenient vehicle to show what the NRA was about at the time, and I'm kind of glad it's in there, but it doesn't entirely fit with the rest of the film.

All the same, I think we can agree that it was a visually compelling and often emotionally stirring (again particularly at the time of its release) documentary that made a lot of people start thinking more critically about where this country should stand on gun rights/gun control.
 
2012-12-07 11:16:08 AM
upload.wikimedia.org

Oh haigaizwusgngoninthread?
 
2012-12-07 11:17:19 AM
i50.tinypic.com

And after such high critical acclaim. Grass root astroturf campaigns; how do they work?
 
2012-12-07 11:17:20 AM

sprawl15: vygramul: Drug dealers (the majority of violence - 84% of the homicides the year DC was "murder capital of the world") will get their automatic and semi-automatic weapons smuggled in with their bales of marijuana.

Which was probably the biggest inexcusable omission from the movie - when talking about gun violence in general, the criminal drug culture (and the war on drugs) is paramount.

I've long argued that the fastest way to drastically reduce gun violence is to legalize drugs.


That sounds like a whole different film.
 
2012-12-07 11:17:29 AM

Byno: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x318]

Oh haigaizwusgngoninthread?


I see a celebration of life, like Hoop Dreams or Finding Forrester! Maybe they're going to find Forrester!

...In Poland.
 
2012-12-07 11:18:38 AM

whistleridge: This. I loathe Michael Moore, because he takes stances that I agree with and then uses his shady techniques to utterly destroy my side's credibility. Shut up already, you're. not. helping!


^^^
 
2012-12-07 11:20:23 AM

Fart_Machine: That sounds like a whole different film.


Yes, and a much more relevant one.
 
2012-12-07 11:21:09 AM

hbk72777: Then explain this fat fark


It's not his fault that 2016 sucked.
 
2012-12-07 11:26:04 AM

sprawl15: Fart_Machine: That sounds like a whole different film.

Yes, and a much more relevant one.


There's got to be a decent documentary about the War on Drugs.
 
2012-12-07 11:26:22 AM

sprawl15: vygramul: Drug dealers (the majority of violence - 84% of the homicides the year DC was "murder capital of the world") will get their automatic and semi-automatic weapons smuggled in with their bales of marijuana.

Which was probably the biggest inexcusable omission from the movie - when talking about gun violence in general, the criminal drug culture (and the war on drugs) is paramount.

I've long argued that the fastest way to drastically reduce gun violence is to legalize drugs.


In the 90s the mentality was that gun violence was limited to urban communities and resultant from drug industry.

Columbine was iconic. We hadn't really seen a high school student plan and execute a mass killing of his peers before. Let alone in the middle of Colorado. It opened our eyes to many things we had been purposely blind to. The importance and impacts of bullying. The obvious question of how a 17 year old managed to acquire a Tec-9. And of course there's the case study in our national reaction to the tragedy. The question we asked as a country wasn't "how were bullies allowed to push their classmates to this point?" or "how was the support not provided to these clearly troubles kids who were being bullied?" no.

The first questions out of our lips were about the guns. "How can we limit access to guns like those?" and "How can you even discuss violating the second amendment."

That case study, interestingly enough, answers the question of why Columbine happened in the first place.

We farking LOVE violence. We farking LOVE bullies. And we farking LOVE guns.

Why? Because if we didn't, then we'd have to confront the ugly truth that we are Violent, Gun toting Bullies in international politics. And we wouldn't want to shatter our illusion of American Exceptionalism.
 
2012-12-07 11:27:23 AM

Koalaesq: Did anyone here actually see this movie? I assume most democrats didn't, not wanting to add to its box office gross. I know it was a hit piece, I just don't know how bad it really was.


I saw it. From a technical standpoint, it was very well done. The problem with it was its inherent dishonesty and ridiculous speculation.
 
2012-12-07 11:32:29 AM
You know, as an English major, I'd like to say something to you farkwits. Sure, I might have started off a psych major; sure, I might spend my time analyzing books; but at the end of the day, you are in an academic setting you f**king morons, just like anyone else who publishes a work in the media. Believe it or not, putting your shiat on film? Does not change that. In fact, it moves it into the arena of English majors. I'm even doing a paper for my final that's going to be using movies for almost two-thirds of the sourcing, because that's what we English majors study. You might be fooled by the shiatty journalism, but you are actually being judged by people who know what the fark they're doing.

You weren't nominated because your work was a steaming pile of shiat. You have no right whatsoever, once you've entered the game, to whine that you lost because you're too delusional to connect to reality. The Oscars exist to honor film works that actually manage to contribute something to the country, and hopefully the world. You did not do that. Shut up, take some damn personal responsibility for once in your life, and try and learn something, you bigoted freaks of nature.

/...Wow. I am so pleasant this morning.
 
2012-12-07 11:35:07 AM

BeesNuts: The question we asked as a country wasn't "how were bullies allowed to push their classmates to this point?" or "how was the support not provided to these clearly troubles kids who were being bullied?" no.


In fact, it was worse than that. As a nation, we decided what was needed was NOT punishing or giving counseling to the abusers, but that the bullied need counseling so that they can cope with their abuse. It was (and still is) appalling.
 
2012-12-07 11:35:11 AM

PsiChick: /...Wow. I am so pleasant this morning.


Coffee can be bitter. But it still perks me up in the morning ;-)
 
2012-12-07 11:37:30 AM
I was flipping through Netflix newly-added last night, and ran across "O.B.A.M. Nude".

Synopsis is: "A cocaine-addled Occidental College student makes a deal with the devil to allow him to transfer to Columbia then Harvard, become President, and destroy the country and the Constitution"

I thought, you know, this could actually be a HILARIOUS satire of the actual beliefs of the nutty right.. So I looked it up. Yeaaaah, it's pretty much some guy's actual beliefs. He even stars.

/I have to admit though, in interviews he gave Obama props for being a great American success story
//And seems to not make a big deal about race.
 
2012-12-07 11:44:19 AM
Has anyone said Michale Moore is fat?
 
2012-12-07 11:45:20 AM

EyeballKid: You wanna be mad at somebody, be mad at the NRA for making a has-been with dementia their president.


You are correct; allowing Mr. Heston, who announced his diagnosis of Alzheimer's in 2002 and who left the NRA in 2003, President in 1998 was a substantial error by the National Rifle Association.
 
2012-12-07 11:48:35 AM

BeesNuts: That case study, interestingly enough, answers the question of why Columbine happened in the first place.

We farking LOVE violence. We farking LOVE bullies. And we farking LOVE guns.


Except it didn't address bullies significantly (unless you equate their discussion of the NRA to discussion of bullies, which is a HUGE stretch), and it came out and said that a love of guns or violence alone isn't enough to be causal with the examples of Canada and Japan.

It spend more time with the Unabomber's relatives than talking about bullies.
 
2012-12-07 11:49:30 AM

neenerist: [i50.tinypic.com image 687x325]

And after such high critical acclaim. Grass root astroturf campaigns; how do they work?


The Rotten Tomatoes rating is not the final unskewed rating.
 
2012-12-07 11:54:06 AM

Dimensio: EyeballKid: You wanna be mad at somebody, be mad at the NRA for making a has-been with dementia their president.

You are correct; allowing Mr. Heston, who announced his diagnosis of Alzheimer's in 2002 and who left the NRA in 2003, President in 1998 was a substantial error by the National Rifle Association.


Wayne LaPierre is far more batshait crazy than Heston was and far more vocal as a VP.
 
2012-12-07 11:55:21 AM

Diogenes: PsiChick: /...Wow. I am so pleasant this morning.

Coffee can be bitter. But it still perks me up in the morning ;-)


:)
 
2012-12-07 11:57:00 AM

sprawl15: BeesNuts: That case study, interestingly enough, answers the question of why Columbine happened in the first place.

We farking LOVE violence. We farking LOVE bullies. And we farking LOVE guns.

Except it didn't address bullies significantly (unless you equate their discussion of the NRA to discussion of bullies, which is a HUGE stretch), and it came out and said that a love of guns or violence alone isn't enough to be causal with the examples of Canada and Japan.

It spend more time with the Unabomber's relatives than talking about bullies.


Everything I've read post-Columbine has stated that the bully angle was BS. One was a psychotic and the other was easily led.
 
2012-12-07 12:00:23 PM

Fart_Machine: sprawl15: Fart_Machine: That sounds like a whole different film.

Yes, and a much more relevant one.

There's got to be a decent documentary about the War on Drugs.


"Grass" and "The Union" are both quite well done.
 
2012-12-07 12:00:48 PM

Headso: Why do they care what Hollyweird has to say anyways? Make your own conservative Oscars and rent out the big hall in the creationist museum to hand them out.


heavymetal: They should have nominated it for some fiction/fantasy film type award just for the added right wing butthurt.

// Que the "Unskewed Oscars" being created in 5.....4......3......


Well, I see I'm already here, I'll just show myself out.
 
2012-12-07 12:04:16 PM

basham: The problem with it was its inherent dishonesty and ridiculous speculation.


I lasted less than 20 minutes. DD'S begins a film based on the premise Obama's colonial life molded his view of American democracy with an autobiographical detour into his childhood in .... India. When he talked about busting the balls of fellow students naively commenting positively on his country of birth I punted. As did his books I tossed in disgust decades ago, DD'S continues to demonstrate himself a whiny sycophant clinger to power brokers. His personality type is the raw material of fervent totalitarianism throughout history. No wonder the Right find him a useful stooge.
 
2012-12-07 12:09:10 PM
For your consideration:

www.movieposterdb.com
 
2012-12-07 12:17:02 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Glenn Beck is launching a reality show with Vince Vaughn and Peter Billingsley to find great documentary filmmakers.

 

www.flicklives.com

Oh, ffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudge.
 
2012-12-07 12:31:13 PM

CPennypacker: Dinesh D'Souza is the emperor of intellectual dishonesty.


This is the guy who pretended to be gay, joined Dartmouth's gay and lesbian support group, then outed everyone in the school newspaper as "sodomites amongst us."

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." - Ezk 16:49

I'm not so encumbered by feelings that I'd feel bad if he got dragged out into the street and shot.
 
2012-12-07 12:35:46 PM

vygramul: The guns used at Columbine are largely irrelevant. Even Canada has pump-action shotguns, which were some of the guns used. Most firearms homicides are not the victims of assault rifles, and about half of firearms deaths are suicides, so the semi-automatic nature of the weapon is pretty irrelevant. A man angry at his wife (domestic murder being high on the list) can go and get his rifle just as easily as his handgun. Drug dealers (the majority of violence - 84% of the homicides the year DC was "murde ...


All of those things are true, in theory. But in practice, use of long guns in crimes (in Canada) is exceedingly rare. Yes, you can saw them off and so on, but that's rarely the case. It may be true that auto and semiauto weapons aren't often used in crimes (high profile ones like the theatre and congressperson shootings excepted), but there's no question that they up the carnage factor.

My point remains- the type of weapon matters, because long guns, particularly single shot rifles, which account for the lion's share of Canadian guns, are impractical for the purpose. I'm not suggesting any particular path of gun control to Americans, I'm just saying that Moore's comparison is inaccurate, as is yours.
 
2012-12-07 12:54:20 PM
The only avowedly conservative documentary i can ever recall being nominated for an Oscar was one about Waco and the Branch Davidians. But that not only presented previously unknown facts it also kept the derp factor to a minimum.
 
2012-12-07 12:59:56 PM

Fart_Machine: Dimensio: EyeballKid: You wanna be mad at somebody, be mad at the NRA for making a has-been with dementia their president.

You are correct; allowing Mr. Heston, who announced his diagnosis of Alzheimer's in 2002 and who left the NRA in 2003, President in 1998 was a substantial error by the National Rifle Association.

Wayne LaPierre is far more batshait crazy than Heston was and far more vocal as a VP.


I do not deny that.

One of the greatest risks to our civilian firearm ownership rights today is advocates for those rights appealing to fantasy and to fiction rather than presenting the actual reasons why an "assault weapons ban" is an irrational proposal and demonstrating that "shall issue" based concealed weapons permit systems do not increase rates of violent crime. Their hyperbolic rhetoric, when seen as being divorced from reality, is likely to cause otherwise rational individuals to accept as valid the demonstrably dishonest arguments of the Brady Center and the Violence Policy Center.
 
2012-12-07 01:09:54 PM

unyon: vygramul: The guns used at Columbine are largely irrelevant. Even Canada has pump-action shotguns, which were some of the guns used. Most firearms homicides are not the victims of assault rifles, and about half of firearms deaths are suicides, so the semi-automatic nature of the weapon is pretty irrelevant. A man angry at his wife (domestic murder being high on the list) can go and get his rifle just as easily as his handgun. Drug dealers (the majority of violence - 84% of the homicides the year DC was "murde ...

All of those things are true, in theory. But in practice, use of long guns in crimes (in Canada) is exceedingly rare. Yes, you can saw them off and so on, but that's rarely the case. It may be true that auto and semiauto weapons aren't often used in crimes (high profile ones like the theatre and congressperson shootings excepted), but there's no question that they up the carnage factor.

My point remains- the type of weapon matters, because long guns, particularly single shot rifles, which account for the lion's share of Canadian guns, are impractical for the purpose. I'm not suggesting any particular path of gun control to Americans, I'm just saying that Moore's comparison is inaccurate, as is yours.


And we return to exactly the question, why is crime rare. I bet even the rate of single-shot murder is lowed in Canada.
 
2012-12-07 01:19:40 PM
How can you have a 'documentary' about the future?
 
2012-12-07 01:25:09 PM

maudibjr: How can you have a 'documentary' about the future?


In the same way Al Gore had a documentary about global warming.

The content of the documentary is based on past and present trends, and draws a warning conclusion about the future based on said content.
 
2012-12-07 01:31:51 PM

Hickory-smoked: Fart_Machine: sprawl15: Fart_Machine: That sounds like a whole different film.

Yes, and a much more relevant one.

There's got to be a decent documentary about the War on Drugs.

"Grass" and "The Union" are both quite well done.


Thanks.
 
2012-12-07 02:01:14 PM

Dimensio: neenerist: [i50.tinypic.com image 687x325]

And after such high critical acclaim. Grass root astroturf campaigns; how do they work?

The Rotten Tomatoes rating is not the final unskewed rating.


Rotten Tomatoes is clearly slurping on OBIGOT's gigantic Kenyan penis.

We need to start an unbiased movie review site. Conserva-Tomatoes, perhaps.
 
2012-12-07 02:03:43 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: Dimensio: neenerist: [i50.tinypic.com image 687x325]

And after such high critical acclaim. Grass root astroturf campaigns; how do they work?

The Rotten Tomatoes rating is not the final unskewed rating.

Rotten Tomatoes is clearly slurping on OBIGOT's gigantic Kenyan penis.

We need to start an unbiased movie review site. Conserva-Tomatoes, perhaps.


RottenPotatoes.com
 
2012-12-07 02:10:48 PM

Dimensio: Quality documentaries are often overlooked by the Academy, as is evident by the absence of any awards given for the 1984 documentary Red Dawn.


Ok, you got me. Lulz.
 
2012-12-07 02:10:48 PM

Carth: I guess I missed the point of Bowling for Columbine when I saw it. I thought it was: "American news and media has created a culture of fear that causes so many Americans to feel they NEED a handgun. This combined with improper training and storage of firearms leads to tragedies."


That's what I got out of it also.
 
2012-12-07 02:14:17 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Headso: Why do they care what Hollyweird has to say anyways? Make your own conservative Oscars and rent out the big hall in the creationist museum to hand them out.

Glenn Beck is launching a reality show with Vince Vaughn and Peter Billingsley to find great documentary filmmakers.

Vaughn is one of Hollywood's highest profile conservatives, and a recent Ron Paul supporter. Billingsley, a producer and director who often works with Vaughn, is celebrated this time of year for his childhood role in the classic film "A Christmas Story."

The new reality show, called "Pursuit of Truth," will air on Beck's TheBlazeTV. It will feature documentaries submitted to the show as it seeks "the world's next great documentary filmmaker." Twenty competitors will see the ultimate prize of financing and worldwide distribution.]


wat
 
2012-12-07 02:21:06 PM

Dr Dreidel: RottenPotatoes.com

 
2012-12-07 02:27:38 PM

EyeballKid: Old enough to know better: I wonder if they're also butthurt that Atlas Shrugged didn't get a Best Picture nom?

I'm still surprised that politicians who treat that trudging snoozefest of literary shiat like it's gospel complained that the ACA bill was too hard to read.


ZOMG you made my brain hurt.

/good point
//well, my head asplode
 
2012-12-07 03:07:07 PM
If it makes them feel any better, the movie is a shoo-in to sweep the Razzie Awards.
 
2012-12-07 03:11:53 PM

HeartlineTwist: I personally don't find it too impressive that it's the 4th highest grossing documentary of all time when you have conservatives being bussed to go see the movie in droves.

Also, the top 10 highest grossing documentaries:

1. Fahrenheit 9/11 . . . $119 million
2. March of the Penguins . . . $77 million
3. Justin Bieber: Never Say Never . . . $73 million
4. 2016: Obama's America . . . $33 million
5. Earth . . . $32 million
6. Chimpanzee . . . $~29 million
7. Katy Perry: Part of Me . . . $25 million
8. Sicko . . . $24 million
9. An Inconvenient Truth . . . $24 million
10. Bowling for Columbine . . . $21 million

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm

Also, the Academy has rarely, if ever, given a flying fark about how much a movie grossed in relation to whether or not to nominate.


Bieber and Perry's movies count as documentaries? I would think they would be considered "concert films", "musicals", or "cinematic abortions".
 
2012-12-07 03:16:44 PM

Mrbogey: Koalaesq: Did anyone here actually see this movie? I assume most democrats didn't, not wanting to add to its box office gross. I know it was a hit piece, I just don't know how bad it really was.

I didn't see it and I believe the odds are in my favor that the strongest opinion against this film are held by people who never saw it. I at least have seen the Moore films I bash.


You don't have to actually eat sh*t to know that it will taste bad.
 
2012-12-07 03:20:22 PM
In which case both Al Gore and Michael Moore need to return something to the Oscar comity as they received awards by mistake.
 
2012-12-07 03:21:23 PM

FuryOfFirestorm: You don't have to actually eat sh*t to know that it will taste bad.


You don't. Apparently Republicans do.
 
2012-12-07 03:24:32 PM

Dr Dreidel: Pants full of macaroni!!: Dimensio: neenerist: [i50.tinypic.com image 687x325]

And after such high critical acclaim. Grass root astroturf campaigns; how do they work?

The Rotten Tomatoes rating is not the final unskewed rating.

Rotten Tomatoes is clearly slurping on OBIGOT's gigantic Kenyan penis.

We need to start an unbiased movie review site. Conserva-Tomatoes, perhaps.

RottenPotatoes.com


I would chip in for that parody site, but only on the condition "Birth of a Nation" gets All Time #1.
 
2012-12-07 03:41:44 PM
the oscars is just self congratulating crap fest anyway. who cares?

who ever said they need to be fair to fringe conservative views anyway? it's their little pageant they can award or not award any way the want.

Cons don't like it? make your own BS high five fest for your bottom feeding propaganda smear flicks...no one will care.

/more crying RWer BS...go to bed ya brats
 
2012-12-07 03:47:41 PM

Epicedion: The problem with Michael Moore is that he uses deceptive techniques to get people to say things they don't agree with and so he can later use clever editing to take quotations out of context or make individuals look stupid. He doesn't have bias, he fundamentally misrepresents people and opinions to strengthen whatever message he's cooked up for his movie.


So basically, the Todd Akin defense. Or the guy who insisted that he was quoted out of context for saying that rape babies are a gift from God, on the basis that he only meant that the baby was a gift from God, not the rape itself.

The problem isn't that people are being quoted out of context. The problem is that the statements are offensive even in context. Conservatives don't understand how anyone could believe that the statements are offensive in context, because they agree with the statement. So their only conclusion is that the statement has been taken horribly out of context, even though it wasn't.

i.e., a person who agrees with Akin that most women lie about rape and any woman who gets pregnant secretly enjoyed it is not going to find Akin's "legitimate rape" comments offensive, and is not going to understand why people are complaining. Therefore, he will conclude that Akin must be quoted out of context and that people are reading something in his statements that isn't actually there. And that's basically what happened with Heston. Even in context, Heston's speech was insensitive to the tragedy. Conservatives don't understand that, because they don't agree with the speech. So they conclude that the only reason that anyone would find his speech offensive is because Moore took out some magical words that would have completely changed how people interpreted the speech.

Another example that comes to mind is when Maddow interviewed Rand Paul, asking him if he agreed with the Civil Rights Act, specifically the provision regarding discriminations in businesses of public accommodation. The conservative blog sphere accused Rachel Maddow of being a dirty liar for claiming that Rand Paul would repeal the civil rights act even though she never accused him of that. They also insisted that Rand Paul was being quoted "out of context," and that his actual position was simply that government shouldn't interfere with business. In other words, the conservative blog sphere couldn't understand how opposing anti-discrimination laws for businesses was offensive to the American viewer. So their only conclusion was that Rachel Maddow must have quoted Rand Paul out of context somehow.
 
2012-12-07 03:55:00 PM
This dumbass doesn't realize that "highest grossing" doesn't = "Best".
 
2012-12-07 04:28:15 PM

schrodinger: The problem isn't that people are being quoted out of context. The problem is that the statements are offensive even in context.


Uh...no.

Simple example: the KKK/NRA cartoon.
 
2012-12-07 04:51:46 PM

sprawl15: Uh...no.

Simple example: the KKK/NRA cartoon.


The cartoon makes the argument that both organizations are symptoms of the same underlying disease, which is a culture of violence and irrational paranoia.

Considering all the irrational paranoia of "Black president is trying to steal your guns, the fact that he hasn't proposed any gun laws is proof of it!", it doesn't seem like a far-fetched observation.
 
2012-12-07 06:08:19 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Michael Moore plays loose with the facts, but he was still nominated I believe. It's not that truth itself is a condition for getting a nod, it's plausibility.


"bowling" had some editing that created visual lies. no one got handed a rifle at the bank. but they did get rifles.

i didn't see more than the trailer for "2016" but man was that steaming pile of bull shiat.
 
2012-12-07 08:02:57 PM
DNRTFA

That being said, I'm pretty sure that it wasn't nominated because of a rule that if the DVD of the movie comes out before a certain date, that will make it ineligible.

So, whether it was good or not, it wouldn't have been nominated anyway.

It was the same reason why Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't nominated for an Oscar either.

Hilariously, when F9/11 wasn't nominated, conservative pundits gloated to anyone who would listen, as though that was more important than it being the only documentary to gross nine figures. Plus, obviously, the fact that Michael Moore already HAS an Oscar.
 
2012-12-07 10:02:28 PM
"Fark that noise! We'll just start up our own Conservative Movie Awards!"


With blackjack! And hookers!
 
2012-12-07 10:06:58 PM

schrodinger: The cartoon makes the argument that both organizations are symptoms of the same underlying disease, which is a culture of violence and irrational paranoia.


Which is factually untrue, and trying to cast the NRA as a reaction to the banning of the KKK is one of the more ridiculous possible claims one can make.

The historical NRA is far different than what it is now. You're letting your current perceptions taint actual history.
 
2012-12-07 10:23:27 PM

The Lone Gunman: DNRTFA

That being said, I'm pretty sure that it wasn't nominated because of a rule that if the DVD of the movie comes out before a certain date, that will make it ineligible.

So, whether it was good or not, it wouldn't have been nominated anyway.

It was the same reason why Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't nominated for an Oscar either.

Hilariously, when F9/11 wasn't nominated, conservative pundits gloated to anyone who would listen, as though that was more important than it being the only documentary to gross nine figures. Plus, obviously, the fact that Michael Moore already HAS an Oscar.


There's no such rule. Eligibility is determined by the theatrical release date. As long as a movie is released in at least one or two theaters for at least a weekend between January 1st and December 31st of the calender year, it is eligible for Oscar consideration. The DVD release date is irrelavent.

Now, since the documentary nominees have just been determined and other movies won't be announced for about six more weeks, it's possible the eligibility date for documentaries is pushed back, but given that 2016 was theatrically released this summer, it still fell well within the eligibility guidelines.
 
2012-12-07 11:09:39 PM

Curious: "bowling" had some editing that created visual lies. no one got handed a rifle at the bank. but they did get rifles.

i didn't see more than the trailer for "2016" but man was that steaming pile of bull shiat.


Actually, the bank did hand out rifles, since they were able to run instant background checks. Sure, a normal bank wouldn't have been able to do that. But a normal bank wouldn't have run the promotion in the first place.

There's a similar argument, "Moore bought a gun without identification! Clearly that's against the law, and the entire scene was staged to make it look like you can buy a gun with no background check!"

Which is similar to showing a scene in a bar where no one is carded, and concluding that the entire scene must be fake. While ignoring the possibility that a) people were carded, but not off camera, or b) people weren't carded in violation of the law, which is illegal, but happens all the time in reality.
 
2012-12-08 01:02:47 AM

SilentStrider: I'm thinking of doing a documentary of my own. I'm calling it "Butthurt: What Happens When Conservative Crybabies Don't Get What They Want".


(in my best politician stump voice, with the echo turned all the way up) And someday.....when it's again cool to be smart.....we will care whose butt it is.....and why it hurts....

/just not anytime soon
 
2012-12-08 01:08:04 AM
In all seriousness, I would guess that less than 1 in 10 documentaries contain 100% fact. Maybe 5 in 10 contain 80% fact. They're designed to sway opinion, not to be peer-reviewed research.

I guess the Obama one fell far below some threshold, or maybe it was just blatantly offensive, I haven't seen it.
 
2012-12-08 12:35:50 PM
"2016: Obama's America denied Oscar nomination. Conservatives outraged to learn that actual truth, not simply box office receipts are a requirement for the 'documentary' category"

Oh, you're serious. Let me laugh harder.

And before you acuse me of anything:
A Whitewash of Bush: The Underlying Message of D'Souza's Documentary, 2016: Obama's America
http://www.garynorth.com/public/10001.cfm
 
2012-12-08 12:55:05 PM

vygramul: And we return to exactly the question, why is crime rare. I bet even the rate of single-shot murder is lowed in Canada.


Or violent crime in general. But single-shot murder would be a fairly arbitrary statistic. Like I said, guns are generally concentrated into the hands of very few, and not in urban areas. I live in a city of around 1.2 million people, and I've never seen a gun anywhere or owned by anyone in the city that wasn't on the hip of a cop. That'd be the experience of most Canadians. Given the relative rarity of firearms, it's hardly surprising that gun murders are pretty uncommon. Gun murders are almost always gang related and committed with illegal handguns smuggled from the US.
 
2012-12-08 02:40:35 PM

unyon: vygramul: And we return to exactly the question, why is crime rare. I bet even the rate of single-shot murder is lowed in Canada.

Or violent crime in general. But single-shot murder would be a fairly arbitrary statistic. Like I said, guns are generally concentrated into the hands of very few, and not in urban areas. I live in a city of around 1.2 million people, and I've never seen a gun anywhere or owned by anyone in the city that wasn't on the hip of a cop. That'd be the experience of most Canadians. Given the relative rarity of firearms, it's hardly surprising that gun murders are pretty uncommon. Gun murders are almost always gang related and committed with illegal handguns smuggled from the US.


FWIW, there is some misperception about life in the US. I live in VA, and have for the last 30 years. Were I not a gun-owner, the only gun I would have seen that wasn't on the hip of a cop was my ex-gf's dad had a rusty one they found among his things after he died. People don't typically go around armed, despite what Fox encourages. (The most "fark-you" thing about them is when they say someone should have owned a gun. I bet none of them carry regularly. No one I know, even among gun-owners, does.)
 
2012-12-09 05:54:18 AM

sprawl15: It went in asking what factors contributed to the Columbine massacre and went out saying "Dunno. But the NRA are douchebags."


In Moore's defense the NRA really *are* a pack of chilly douchebags and flat out propagandists who've contributed to the US gun culture replete with it's globally deplorable and undeniably sad gun death statistics.
 
2012-12-09 12:58:12 PM

schrodinger: So basically, the Todd Akin defense.


Let me stop you here, because this is exactly the sort of thing Moore does -- take something that might be bad in its own way, connect it with something that's truly deplorable by the most tenuous means, and then crap correlative logical fallacy all over the place.

If something is bad, you don't need to bring up something worse and do backflips to associate the two.
 
Displayed 175 of 175 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report