Mrbogey: odds are in my favor that the strongest opinion against this film are held by people who never saw it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
BeesNuts: I like it because it shows a willingness to learn that is far too often lost in documentaries.
Old enough to know better: I wonder if they're also butthurt that Atlas Shrugged didn't get a Best Picture nom?
karmaceutical: Why I am not totally surprised to discover that Vince Vaughn is a tea baggin douche bag?
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.
Graffito: Townhall is free to create their own awards and distribute them as they see fit.
unyon: I'll tell you why- Moore conveniently neglected to mention the type of guns we Canadians have.
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.
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.
schrodinger: Except that the NRA are a bunch of douchebags.
Carth: Graffito: Townhall is free to create their own awards and distribute them as they see fit.Please don't give them any ideas.
kobrakai: He presented what he could
HeartlineTwist: 3. Justin Bieber: Never Say Never . . . $73 million4. 2016: Obama's America . . . $33 million
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.
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.
Epicedion: Michael Moore...doesn't have bias
kobrakai: sprawl15: Eh, I still don't know what the point was of Bowling for ColumbineYou missing the point is not surprising. He presented what he could and left the conclusions up to the viewer.
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.
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.
EyeballKid: The general public isn't very good at drawing its own conclusions.
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.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jul 23 2017 13:48:30
Runtime: 0.432 sec (432 ms)