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  
•       •       •

2226 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report