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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
maudibjr: How can you have a 'documentary' about the future?
basham: The problem with it was its inherent dishonesty and ridiculous speculation.
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.
schrodinger: Except that the NRA are a bunch of douchebags.
BeesNuts: I like it because it shows a willingness to learn that is far too often lost in documentaries.
Mrbogey: odds are in my favor that the strongest opinion against this film are held by people who never saw it.
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.]
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?
Marcus Aurelius: This is satire, right?Right?
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: Feb 23 2017 07:45:38
Runtime: 0.464 sec (463 ms)