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 53
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-07 09:04:36 AM
8 votes:

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 09:55:35 AM
6 votes:

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 09:05:19 AM
4 votes:
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 09:05:01 AM
4 votes:
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 10:26:41 AM
3 votes:

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 09:08:54 AM
3 votes:
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 09:07:27 AM
3 votes:
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 09:02:30 AM
3 votes:

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 08:51:40 AM
3 votes:
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 08:46:37 AM
3 votes:
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 11:32:29 AM
2 votes:
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 09:35:52 AM
2 votes:

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 09:34:30 AM
2 votes:

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 09:25:09 AM
2 votes:
(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 09:19:30 AM
2 votes:

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 09:19:27 AM
2 votes:

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 09:18:04 AM
2 votes:

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 09:09:27 AM
2 votes:
Dinesh D'Souza is the emperor of intellectual dishonesty.
2012-12-07 09:01:33 AM
2 votes:
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 08:56:00 AM
2 votes:
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 08:02:57 PM
1 votes:
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 03:47:41 PM
1 votes:

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 03:16:44 PM
1 votes:

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 02:03:43 PM
1 votes:

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 01:25:09 PM
1 votes:

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 01:19:40 PM
1 votes:
How can you have a 'documentary' about the future?
2012-12-07 12:04:16 PM
1 votes:

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 11:37:30 AM
1 votes:
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 11:35:07 AM
1 votes:

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 10:34:40 AM
1 votes:
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter was equally factual and historically accurate.
2012-12-07 09:59:04 AM
1 votes:

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 09:56:34 AM
1 votes:

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 09:50:59 AM
1 votes:

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 09:42:47 AM
1 votes:

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 09:40:17 AM
1 votes:
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 09:39:18 AM
1 votes:
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 09:28:37 AM
1 votes:

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 09:26:29 AM
1 votes:
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 09:24:46 AM
1 votes:
Why I am not totally surprised to discover that Vince Vaughn is a tea baggin douche bag?
2012-12-07 09:23:44 AM
1 votes:
Is the documentary called "The Hacktivists" on the list? That was a pretty good documentary I saw this fall.
2012-12-07 09:14:18 AM
1 votes:

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 09:13:21 AM
1 votes:

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 09:11:37 AM
1 votes:
Documentaries are non-fiction by definition.
2012-12-07 09:11:32 AM
1 votes:

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 09:09:19 AM
1 votes:
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 09:09:15 AM
1 votes:

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 09:06:09 AM
1 votes:

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 09:04:12 AM
1 votes:
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 09:04:11 AM
1 votes:
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 09:03:51 AM
1 votes:
Propaganda cannot be categorized as a documentary. Though they should be fair since Michael Moore is pretty much propaganda.
2012-12-07 09:03:36 AM
1 votes:
Maybe they'll get the award in four years.
2012-12-07 09:02:18 AM
1 votes:
Somebody get the crying bald eagle in here, because I am just devastated.
2012-12-07 09:01:08 AM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 53 of 53 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report