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  
•       •       •

2223 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 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 25 of 175 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report