Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(CNN)   Mickey Mouse miffed Michael Moore's movie might mislead. Miramax may miss mainstream multiplex moola   (money.cnn.com) divider line 468
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

18929 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 May 2004 at 9:09 AM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



468 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-05-05 10:48:32 AM  
DrZombie

The crap about Disney worrying about tax breaks is pure speculation. It was reported by MOORE'S FARKING AGENT. Gee, I guess I should definitely trust him, huh? The much more likely scenario is that Disney doesn't want to be associated with such a political hot potato. It ISN'T CENSORSHIP. Geesh.

And for the record:

Shut up, DrZombie, you cock.
 
2004-05-05 10:49:37 AM  
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

hmm, so he's not a college grad even? Every time this guy says anything I lose even more respect for him.
 
2004-05-05 10:49:44 AM  
Awesome, more than 100 posts about how he's fat, stupid and how everyone who is against Bush listens to him.
 
2004-05-05 10:50:44 AM  
illogic


I love the way Moore gets under conservative skins.


Do you love the way that Rush gets under liberal skins?

Not saying you wouldn't. For all I know, you're a politcal moderate who loves to watch one party get hot and bothered over the blowhard, wingnut rantings of a loopy, hypocritical fat man with a credibility problems.

And what fun! Each party has their own hypocritcal fat man with credibilty problems.

It'a farking movie folks,

At least you're not calling it a documentary.

if you don't like what he has to say, don't go see it.

They won't.

You pretty much already have an idea what the movie's going to say anyway.

They do.

Efforts to try to censor him only lend credibility to his arguments.

I wouldn't say they lend credibilty to his agrmuents, but in making Moore a free speech martyr, they lend credibility to the man himself.

If he truly is the asshat everyone thinks he is, then let him say what he likes so he can demonstrate his asshattedness himself.

Agreed. I hope he wins another Oscar. Seeing him getting booed during his acceptance speech was farking hilarious.
 
2004-05-05 10:52:12 AM  
ProgrammerCat

I buy that. The article doesn't say anything about a threat from the gov't. I'm not sure that they're going to consider cutting a movie that cost a lot of money to make becasue they imagined that they might be voiding a tax break agreement with the government.
 
2004-05-05 10:52:13 AM  
ringersol:

That's the first thing anyone's ever said on FARK that made me really stop and think.

Thanks, buddy.
 
2004-05-05 10:52:31 AM  
sure, the bank scene wasn't staged. It was just artistically edited to omit any shred of context.

Someone needs to read a book on how films are made.

This just in, every single documentary ever made has "artistic edits."

I rather liked bowling. Sure, it was a reach at times, but the point still stood.

Did I mention that now that disney refused to distribute his film there are only 3 other companies in the world he can really go to? (for a wide release)

There _is_ a problem of wealth and media consolidation in this country. Yeesh.

Otherwise, it looks like trouma or ADVFilms might have to pick it up. Yikes. Not really their genre.
 
2004-05-05 10:52:51 AM  
barjockey
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.

-Michael Moore


Oh, my God, he hates all Americans. We must kill him now before he goes wild.

But there is plenty of left out there who wishes he would STFU. He's making them all look real bad.

On the contrary, there are plenty of guys who'd agree with him on his above point. They just wouldn't phrase it as if they were trolling for Republicans.

And by the way, you bit.
 
2004-05-05 10:53:17 AM  
SecretGoldfish:
[I don't think Gov. Bush would put out an official document threatening Disney's tax breaks. These things are communicated by impliacation and reading between the lines.]

So I'm being censored right now? Because reading between the lines, I think Ashcroft would kick me across the ocean (or at least to gitmo) if I published a document portending to reveal the 'truth' about 9-11? I'm not doing it (because I don't believe it - but apparently that doesn't matter) - so I must be being censored.

C'mon. Threats have to be founded on someone who's made an example of. E.g. You can't convince people to fork over protection money without a fight, unless you bust up someone's place who doesn't comply.

If Eisner just doesn't want Disney to be the one who gets made an example of, how is that not just flat-out cowardice?
 
2004-05-05 10:54:34 AM  
Lebowski78 writes:

"Moore's obvious liberal propaganda "documentary" "

Bush has had ties to the Saudi's for decades, this isn't propoganda, ALthough since as usual every Bushie will close their eyes and scream LA LA LA I'm NOT LISTENING like they do to everything else, you might as well label it any way you want.


Bush ----> Oil guy

Saudis -----> Oil guys

Why ever would they have contact? Boggles the Liberal mind, doesn't it?

I'm sure then that rice growers in Lousiana are also in league with the Chinese and Vietnamese, since they've been talking for years too. You never could trust those damn Frenchie Cajuns!

--h
 
2004-05-05 10:55:37 AM  
2004-05-05 10:38:39 AM incrdbil
In a wierd way, Moore works on a McCarthy like level. Tell huge amounts of lies. Keep going, and don't respond to any counters. People have to work to provide documentation of a lie, and by the time they do, you've already tossed out a million zingers to the faithful who believe in you already. You can shrug off most revalations of your dishonesty by more lies, letting sycophants attack your critics, simply saying "in the large amount of ground I cover, it's always possible to make a mistake", take the easy out claim it's differences in interpretation, or the very popular avenue of dismissing your critics as simpy tools of your enemy.

This is, of course, my exact objection to the Bush administration and his cheering section (Rush, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al). Verbatim. Hell, I wish I'd written it.

What is interesting and ironic is your evoking the name of McCarthy...who has been vigorously defended by some of these same people very recently. Sorry that I don't have a link handy, but I will make a point to find one if you doubt this in any way.
 
2004-05-05 10:56:39 AM  
ChuckRoddy
hmm, so he's not a college grad even? Every time this guy says anything I lose even more respect for him.

Wow, I didn't know you had to be a college grad to have an opinion. I guess that eliminates 75% of Fark, huh?
 
2004-05-05 10:58:36 AM  
Love him or hate him, you KNOW Moore is taking a printout of this thread into his bathroom, gazing lovingly into the full-length mirror in front of the john, and working through an entire jar of vaseline.
 
2004-05-05 11:00:52 AM  
Michael Moore points his spin on the facts to get his point across stronger just like the right bend the facts their way.

In today's culture and media you have to look at all sides objectively. Everyone has something to gain by their words and actions; power, money, etc.
 
2004-05-05 11:01:10 AM  
Let's just get this down for the record:

Michael Moore making his movie is free speech.
Disney not wanting to run the movie is ALSO free speech.

Michael Moore tells lies.
Republicans tell lies.
Democrats tell lies.

In fact, the above three people have told more lies than you actually know about, because you don't know enough to know they're untrue. (this isn't an insult, just an observation on how mind-bendingly untruthful these people are)

The tax-break thing is speculation. That may be their reasons, and they just might not like Michael Moore, or Michael Eisner could be Satan incarnate. It doesn't matter -- they still have the right to say/do what they want. This is NOT, repeat, NOT a freedom of speech issue. Just because a corporation doesn't want to distribute my free speech doesn't mean they're stopping me from doing so.

TunaRevenge
I don't need Mickey Mouse deciding for me.

Mickey Mouse isn't deciding for you! They're just choosing not to distribute this particular film. For the same reason as Moore has freedom of speech, so does Disney. There is no force here. If the GOVERNMENT decided Moore couldn't show his movie, that would be censorship. Disney's decision may be distasteful to you, but it's not like they are suppressing him somehow. He'll just shop the movie to a different studio, like he should.
 
2004-05-05 11:01:48 AM  

DrZombie

The crap about Disney worrying about tax breaks is pure speculation. It was reported by MOORE'S FARKING AGENT. Gee, I guess I should definitely trust him, huh? The much more likely scenario is that Disney doesn't want to be associated with such a political hot potato. It ISN'T CENSORSHIP. Geesh.

And for the record:

Shut up, DrZombie, you cock.


Stupid dick. If you bothered to read the above post, I made it clear that there was a separation of reasoning based on whether or not the tax break information was correct.

Maybe if you'd stop stroking yourself looking at the barnyard animals for a few minutes and actually try to establish some kind of comprehension, you wouldn't have to look like an ass by resorting to 3rd grade name calling.
 
2004-05-05 11:01:56 AM  
Back when I was about 15 (about 7 or 8 years ago) my friends were driving down the street with one kid's mom. At a red light they noticed Michael Moore filming on the corner of the street. So the kid's mom slowly rolls down the window, turns to Mr. Moore and says "GET THE FARK BACK TO SAN FRANSISCO YOU FARKING PIECE OF SHIAT!", flips him the bird, and then continues to drive on as if nothing happened.

That kid's mom is so cool.
 
2004-05-05 11:02:06 AM  
Let him release his movie. Disney is helping Kerry by doing this. Disney is pro Democrat Party like AOL is pro Democrat. MSFT, was we found from the Clinton era Justice Witchhunt, doesn't cave to strong arming tactics for political juice ($$) and therefore must be considered in the Repub camp.

If we assume Disney is run by pro Democrat people, we can only assume their refusal is tacit acknowledgement that this farker help the Repubs. Run the damn movie you chickenshiats.
 
2004-05-05 11:02:11 AM  
Thanks cap811. Now I have to bleach my brain to get rid of that image.
 
2004-05-05 11:02:44 AM  
Oh, fer gods' sakes! Stop using the word "censorship"! A distributing company has the FREEDOM to distribute what they desire. If the filmmaker wants FREEDOM he/she can jolly-well release his/her film through someone else.

Moore claims to be a documentary maker. He makes stuff up. End of story. Used to be a day that was called "lying."
 
2004-05-05 11:03:08 AM  
Your All tools. Especially those that would badmouth one a source as lying, yet still believe the mouthpiece of the man. Please stop wasting the oxygen, we need it more than you 'tards.
 
2004-05-05 11:03:19 AM  
And greenpants, for the record, you are so farking stupid it hurts.
 
2004-05-05 11:03:38 AM  
I'm impressed at how many jackasses show up whenever the name "Moore" pops up in a story. HOLY FARK! HE'S A LYING LIAR WHO LIES ABOUT LYING! AND HE"S FAT! STAY AWAY AND IGNORE HIS MESSAGE BECAUSE SOMEONE FROM THE NRA SAID HE"S A LIAR AND SOME WEBSITES THAT THINK EDITING A MOVIE = LYING!

Holy Fark the US is going to hell lately.

I was equally impressed after reading many of the replies how many didn't even understand the article. Some wondered why Moore needs Disney's money to finance this venture. Others say Disney has every right to not distributre the movie.

It was Miramax who signed on to distribute the movie...not Disney. It may be nitpicking but that is fact. Miramax STILL wants to distribute the movie and they know it will make millions of dollars for them.

Disney, who owns Miramax, is taking flak because of what Miramax is doing and MAY be threatened with tax increases by the Bush a$$holes. So to cover thier own bottom line they want Miramax to NOT distribute the movie.

This has little to do with Moore and is mostly between Disney and Miramax, who feels that Disney is over-stepping their authority and has no right to stop Moore's movie due to a very specific contract DIsney has with Miramax.

Therefore this all comes down to a contract disbute between Miramax and Disney and Moore is left in the wings. Moore can NOT tkae his movie elsewhere at this point since he is under contract to Miramax right now. So until Miramax and Disney work their shiat out, Moore is left temporarily in limbo for his US distribution plans.

/back to the groundless Moore bashing.
 
2004-05-05 11:04:41 AM  
Everyone has the right to voice an opinion. Shine on Moore, you silly little assmonkey.
 
2004-05-05 11:04:50 AM  
It's 2004 in Parallel World, and this is an election year. Mr. Rush Limbaugh, well-known attack filmmaker from the conservative side, makes a film linking the President Zeidler (Socialist) with some shady foreign deals. The president's sister, governor of Florida and also quite a left-winger, threatens MouseCorps with a loss of tax break if they allow Mr. Limbaugh's film to be released. MouseCorps duly fail to release the film.

How does that look? Even in Parallel World?
 
2004-05-05 11:05:38 AM  
I think it's time to bring up that old maxim:


Beware the military-industrial complex.
 
2004-05-05 11:06:11 AM  
Sorry elendilmir. A teeeeny little voice in my head said "This is a baaaaad image to pull together" but it was drowned out by a bigger voice saying "Post it and only the strong shall survive." Glad to see you're still with us.
 
2004-05-05 11:06:20 AM  
It's amusing - if Fark were to post an article that Howard Stern was being told by the government to shut up, this thread would be all about protecting the 1st amendment and rallying behind Howie and file more complaints against fat oprah.

Since we are talking about Moore, however - then we need MORE censorship and please make him shut up.

From these two things, I would deduce that protection and passion for the 1st amendment are completely relative to either the size of the offender or the popularity of the offender or at worst, the hygenic status of the offender.
 
2004-05-05 11:07:55 AM  
In related news, Miramax won't give George Romero 30 million dollars so that he can finish telling the Day Of The Dead [DaOTD] story that he started. AHHHHH! CENSORSHIP! AHHHHH! Miramax is a lapdog to the Bu$h/A$$croft new world order alliance! I DEmand my next zombie movie be financed on constitutional grounds.
 
2004-05-05 11:09:21 AM  
M. Moore is a hypocritical windbag. He is blind, and leading blind sheep.
Please open your eyes and minds for there are none so blind as those who will not see.
 
2004-05-05 11:09:21 AM  
NakedAvengerZero

Heh. I try to be civil, and barjockey just continues to act like a clod of belligerent fratboy shiat.

You haven't been civil yet. You've been immature and have called me stupid without any basis. I haven't called you stupid because I don't know if you are. Unlike you, I can tolerate differing opinions.

Actually, if you said "Limbaugh cites outside sources, here's my evidence," I would assume that to continue the argument to any degree I would have to go there. I mean, the enemy is showing you their ammunition. It would benefit you to go over and check it out. So no, I wouldn't ignore it. Granted, I'd have probably just gone to have a good laugh if you linked to Rush's website, but I'd have gone. I know, I know, you don't believe me because it isn't what you would have done. Clearly we're very similar, so your reasoning stands there...

Well, I'm glad you see my reasoning there. I understand your point.

Rockin' job, dude. You aren't worthy of an further response, because you're insanely, horrendously stupid, and falling down to your level is beginning to depress me.

Now you've stooped back to that shiat. What have I done? I think Michael Moore is a complete asshat based on the words that have come out of his mouth!! That makes me horrendously stupid? Your true colors are beginning to show.

You like the bingo card, huh? Don't you think there's a reason you made it on there? No one was being cute: people really think you're a cock. And rightly so. So am I, but I have the good graces to accept it.

A Farker-friend of mine, heap made that card. We both got a good laugh out of it and he said that no offense was intended. He thinks that I am told to shut up before I even post because I must be getting somebody's attention. Actually, the left-leaning Farkers that are tolerant are my favorite. There are plenty that disagree with me, but enjoy conversation on the issues. I feel the same way - but don't have tolerance for ad hominem attacks. They steal ones credibiity.

That's all you'll hear from me. I don't want to upset your meager sensibilities any further, anyway. You can put your blinders back on and resume licking the president's taint now.

Another unintelligent stereotype. I must be having sex with the president because I don't like Michael Moore. You've got alot of nerve to call someone stupid when your attack-filled posts are ridiculously devoid of intellect.

/are we done?
 
2004-05-05 11:09:57 AM  
DrZombie

Stupid dick. If you bothered to read the above post, I made it clear that there was a separation of reasoning based on whether or not the tax break information was correct.

Maybe if you'd stop stroking yourself looking at the barnyard animals for a few minutes and actually try to establish some kind of comprehension, you wouldn't have to look like an ass by resorting to 3rd grade name calling.


Ok, dude. You aren't even worth responding to anymore. I'm not sure you could possibly be a bigger hypocrite. I'm guilty of third grade name calling??

1. You called me an asshat first. Pot meet kettle.
2. Now you've called me a dick.
3. And barnyard animal masturbation jokes? I'm the childish one?

Wow, just wow.
 
2004-05-05 11:10:13 AM  
Argh_Dammit

It's amusing - if Fark were to post an article that Howard Stern was being told by the government to shut up, this thread would be all about protecting the 1st amendment and rallying behind Howie and file more complaints against fat oprah.

The FCC illegally fining Howard Stern, causing ClearChannel to drop his show, is not the same as Michael Eisner being a chickenshiat and putting pressure on Miramax to prevent distribution of Moore's film through a Disney subsidiary because of the possibility of offending Jeb Bush.
 
2004-05-05 11:11:12 AM  
and the reason is that they don't want to endanger tax breaks from Bush's brother...

Accodring to...the world's worst-ever source: Michael Moore's agent!

More likely, it's that the Mouse doesn't want to piss off half its audience with partisan crap. Smart move. Too bad NBC doesn't take this approach with The Left Wing.
 
2004-05-05 11:11:32 AM  
szmike

Do research on who wrote that. Its not by some college student trying to make a documentry about the 2nd admendment. He is a gun lawyer and contributing editor of Guns N Ammo. So I'm sure he wouldn't be biased in the least.

Oh and go here for the explaination of lies of Micheal Moore.

Oh wait, its 404. There are no lies.
 
2004-05-05 11:11:35 AM  
he is such as asshole.
 
2004-05-05 11:12:03 AM  
Mr. Moore does not disagree that "Fahrenheit 911" is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. "If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine," he said.

It should be noted that Mr. Moore made this comment while having a grounding wire attached to his belt buckle. Fear of a lightning strike though it was a cloudless day was the reason.

Mr. Moore, you are a partisan hack. You would do *anything* to see that President Bush doesn't get re-elected short of shooting him. Even then, if I were the Secret Service you'd bear watching.

Don't use the poor or the needy as an excuse for your actions. They never asked you to be a spokesman, nor are you even an efective one. You stir up shiat, and drive around in a limo patting yourself on your back for it.

--h
 
2004-05-05 11:12:21 AM  
www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
 
2004-05-05 11:16:18 AM  
greenpants

Once again, you are so farking stupid it hurts.

You posted a little spiel that was based on nothing, and that you cry because you got smacked for it.

"Wow, just Wow" indeed.
 
2004-05-05 11:16:18 AM  
Michael Moore roxors....
 
2004-05-05 11:16:24 AM  
The worst part of all this is tha the Bush/Saudi connection would provide fodder for a very important, revealing documentary. Since the beginning of the War on Terror, Bush has been protecting the House of Saud (where o where did those 18 pages go?) even though it is their country that is the chief export of Wahabbism, the fanatical Islam.

No doubt the film will cover this. But with Michael Moore, nothing less than "Bush is the lovechild of Hitler and Satan" will suffice. He will take the Democratic Underground/ Ted Rall route, push the angle that Bush knew about the attacks beforehand, but let it happen so he could get that pipeline into Afghanistan and take care of Daddy's Unfinished Business in Iraq. If he has to manipulate facts to make it more damning, well that's never stopped him before.

So when the film gets released, the conservatives will give it the Zapruder treatment and the manipulations will be exposed. For the film's detractors, the film is nothing but lies and only a fool would believe a word of it. For supporters of the film, the most important aspect of this film is that it Bothers Bush and his Followers and they will triumph the film as a success. As with Bowling for Columbine, many relevant points and issues will have been pushed to the side because all attention will be focused on Moore's demagoguery.

I do realize that am being an asshat in being so judgemental over a movie that barely anybody has seen. I may find myself eating each and every one of those words. I wouldn't bet on it, though.
 
2004-05-05 11:17:03 AM  
techmaniac

I think the word YOU'RE looking for is not the one you used. All you just did was make yourself look like a fool.

But hey, way to dazzle us all with the HTML.
 
2004-05-05 11:17:12 AM  
AN APPEAL TO REASON!

I get "flamed" everytime I point this out, but I will keep repeating this until the message sinks in:

Despite an endless string of military victories, we lost the war in VietNam because the liberal press turned America against it.
Well, the press is owned by Conservative interests now, and they will not repeat the same mistake. Virtually every news organization has agreed not to run stories that show disturbing images of Iraq or criticize our President. This is not Censorship, it is Patriotism.

When President Bush is re-elected, he will hopefully expand the Patriot Act to make this standard the law. Then web sites such as this will be on the same page as the rest of America!
 
2004-05-05 11:18:19 AM  
This might be different if it were a credible source. This is Michael Moore folks. He writes fictional documentaries and sells them as truth. Who would want to finance that?
 
2004-05-05 11:19:36 AM  
Well...I had no desire to see this movie until this. Michael who? Isn't he a boxer. Now searching Kazaa.
 
2004-05-05 11:20:22 AM  
to the farktards screaming censorship.

Even if Disney thinks they may lose some political favor via tax breaks by releasign the film, it's not censorship unless someone, acting in official capacity from the state Government told disney this.

Just because some tinfoil hat wearing nutcase refuses to go public whith his proof that the Government is in league with Elvis Laiens because he's afraid of the MIB's raiding him doesn't making it censorship. after all, the Floroida government would only feed Moores publicity miull if Miramax did distribute the film then Disney lost some form of Tax Break--in fact, if Disney wanted to guarantee they would keep those breaks, distribute the film, as the publicity backlash for the supposed government retaliation would be devastating.
 
2004-05-05 11:21:02 AM  
We are still waiting for proof that Micheal Moore lies. Or that his films are fiction. Or you could just be talking out your ass.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
 
2004-05-05 11:21:03 AM  
TFarker thread on the same subject

Disney is attempting to block Michael Moore's latest anti-Bush film



2004-05-05 07:43:40 AM Lumpmoose


Moore claims "it might 'endanger' millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will 'anger' the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush."

It's not an absurd idea considering the massive success Orlando has been.

2004-05-05 07:54:14 AM Shut........UP


I say let him release his film. The only ones who'll believe him after all the lies that were exposed about his other films are the sheep he makes his living off of.


2004-05-05 08:03:37 AM Aprilia.RSV


Not to be confused with the sheep that refuse to believe Bushie has done anything wrong regardless of how many times the facts beat them over the head

Squawk Box this morning said the film will probably win the Cannes film award

2004-05-05 08:08:31 AM CineKal


...after all the lies that were exposed about his other films are the sheep he makes his living off of.

GWB only financed one slasher movie, give him a break. sheesh.

2004-05-05 08:10:16 AM Bonkthat_Again


Note to submitter:

Disney is not "blocking" the movie. Moore has approached Miramax to distribute (Miramax is owned by Disney) the movie. Disney doesn't want to because of the content. Miramax would have to share the profits with Disney. Moore can go to any other distributer if he wants, or he can finance it himself (like Mel Gibson did).

I wonder how many farkers will see this as a "free speech" issue again.

2004-05-05 08:12:03 AM Shut........UP


well Aprilia its nice to see you confirm that moores followers are sheep by arguing the bushies are the same way.

And bowling for columbine won an oscar for the mistaken belief it was a documentary, so I wouldn't be surprised if anything anti-bush won in cannes.


2004-05-05 08:13:38 AM Bonkthat_Again


Aprilia.RSV

...regardless of how many times the facts beat them over the head.

What facts are you referring to?



2004-05-05 08:18:06 AM CineKal


..the mistaken belief it was a documentary

If you can tell us why it wasn't a documentary (specifically) without parroting the typical conservative "it was full of lies and Michael Moore is fat" rhetoric we'll listen, until then STFU.

I'm guessing you either haven't seen it and just spout off like the other clones, or you didn't like the facts it dealt with.

2004-05-05 08:24:24 AM Shut........UP


CineKal. The irony of you asking for facts to back up a statement is just the laugh I needed to start my day.

If you haven't ran across any of the many sites that have well documented the inaccuratcies in the bowling for columbine and roger and me, then my guess is you want to sit in a closed in room and believe all the nonsense moore is spouting.

They have this thing called google, try using it.

"the typical conservative"

ahh here we go. this is what the left wing has turned into, you either believe everything negative said about the other side or you're a neo-con conservative republicrat..."

Grow up and think for yourself. the world is conservative and liberal.

2004-05-05 08:24:30 AM Aprilia.RSV


Bonkthat_Again

Are you serious?

I don't have nearly enough time to give a complete list.. that'll still be in the making through 2006

If you think he hasn't mis-led this country then i hope you can't vote

2004-05-05 08:24:53 AM Bonkthat_Again


CineKal
Michael Moore is not only fat, he's ugly too.

:-P


2004-05-05 08:25:11 AM Shut........UP


its to early for spelling.

2004-05-05 08:26:01 AM Bonkthat_Again


Aprilia
Just give me 3.

2004-05-05 08:26:40 AM ReBurninator


Just because Disney doesn't want to distribute the film doesn't mean that it can't be distributed. It just may not be distributed by a big-name production company, which would mean that it would probably show in fewer theaters.

Moore is entitled to his opinions. After seeing Bowling for Columbine I question the veracity of Moore's research. That movie seemed more like propaganda designed to blame government for society's failures than a documentary designed to lay out facts and let people decide for themselves. But that being said, this is America and Moore has every right to release this. Some people will believe him, some people will question him, and some people will accept it as gospel. That's just the way things work.

2004-05-05 08:27:54 AM Shut........UP


Hey CineKal, why didn't you ask Aprilia to back up his statement?

Is it because you believe he has the same political view as you?

(not directed negatively at you Aprilia, just making a point about hypocrisy and partisanship)

2004-05-05 08:28:31 AM CineKal


If you can't elaborate, then STFU, Shut........UP.

"its to early for spelling."

or in your case, thinking.



2004-05-05 08:29:04 AM Shut........UP


"the world is conservative and liberal"

that should be ISN'T.

damn. Never post after only 1 cup of coffee.

2004-05-05 08:33:58 AM Shut........UP


"or in your case, thinking"

That's it? that's all you have? after all that spouting and holier than thou post of yours, thats the best you can do?

Oh well, it just shows your character.

2004-05-05 08:36:47 AM jay_vee


Shut........UP:- I've read some of the lists you're talking about.

They do make some good points, but also generally make a lot of assumptions that weren't in the film, and are full of straight out lies too. I've never seen a list that just contains genuine points about set ups, misleading stats etc. (which both happened in the film) without surrounding them with rubbish and obtuseness.

It also doesn't change the good points made or the entertainment value of Moore's films. It just means you have to take what he says with a pinch of salt, as you should with any made-for-entertainment documentary.

2004-05-05 08:39:29 AM CineKal


Hey CineKal, why didn't you ask Aprilia to back up his statement?

Because Aprilia wasn't relying on conjecture. The lies GWB are well-documented while the supposed lies that Michael Moore told aren't debunked by any credible source.

It has nothing to do with hypocrisy and partisanship only facts and common sense. It's no wonder you don't understand.


2004-05-05 08:40:37 AM control


This is reminiscent of the publicity generated to promote "Passion of Christ".

Title this publicity method: "the film the bad people don't want you to see"

2004-05-05 08:40:40 AM ReBurninator


I believe that if Bowling for Columbine were a true documentary then Moore wouldn't have presented some of the content in the way that he did. For example, when he changed the 1988 Bush/Quayle campaign ad that questioned Michael Dukakis' prison furlough program. Moore superimposed text similar to "Willie Horton released. Kills again" over the ad to make it appear that Horton had killed someone (one would assume with a gun) during a furlough. The fact is that Horton didn't kill anyone while on furlough, although he did rape a woman.

My point is that there were a few things that I feel he altered to make his points and in altering them left out a little thing I like to call the truth.


2004-05-05 08:46:13 AM Bonkthat_Again


Aprilia.RSV
I'll settle for 1 fact that Bush "mislead" this country.

If you're going to bring up the WMD point, save it. Democrats, Republicans, AND the UN all agreed that he had the WMDs at one point. He had at least 9 months to move them to Syria while the far left voices in this country stalled us from going in.



2004-05-05 08:46:58 AM Shut........UP


"The lies GWB are well-documented"

You mean they are available on the internet if I searched for them? Image that. So you want me to go and find the information, rather than provide it to me?

"while the supposed lies that Michael Moore told aren't debunked by any credible source."

The lies GWB mike moore are well-documented

"It has nothing to do with hypocrisy and partisanship only facts and common sense."

But he gave no facts and you didn't ask for any, but you did from me (hypocritical?) and his post was anti-bush and mine was anti-moore (partisan?)

"It's no wonder you don't understand."

I can just leave what you said alone and its funny on so may levels.

2004-05-05 08:52:01 AM Bonkthat_Again


CineKal

The lies GWB are well-documented while the supposed lies that Michael Moore told aren't debunked by any credible source.

I'm simply asking for a credible source for these "well-documented" lies. I'm agreeing with Shut....Up that you usually scold people for not backing their statements up. You are on the verge of becoming a hypocrite.

2004-05-05 08:54:16 AM Lumpmoose


I haven't paid much attention to either side of the BFC debate, but I know Moore has made attempts to refute the lie claims against it: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

2004-05-05 08:57:18 AM LostAgain


n. pl. documentary

A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.


propaganda

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.



You decide.


2004-05-05 09:02:24 AM Bonkthat_Again


Ha Lumpmoose, I just read that article. Sounds like Moore is claiming to be a victim of the same falsehoods he spreads about Bush. How can anybody believe this guy?

2004-05-05 09:03:02 AM CineKal


You mean they are available on the internet if I searched for them? Image (sic) that. So you want me to go and find the information, rather than provide it to me?

yes and Yes

The lies mike moore are well-documented

Again, prove it.

But he gave no facts and you didn't ask for any, but you did from me (hypocritical?) and his post was anti-bush and mine was anti-moore (partisan?)

Again, the facts and sources of the facts are readily available from credible sources, they were never in question. His post was not anti-bush, he only mentioned the fact that people continue to support him despite the fact that he has lied to The citizensa of the United States on several occasions. Again, not partisan or hypocrytical.

I can just leave what you said alone and its funny on so may levels.

Your entire belief system gives me stomach cramps from laughing. Then I begin to pity you. So I apologize in advance.



2004-05-05 09:06:13 AM Bonkthat_Again


despite the fact that he has lied to The citizensa of the United States on several occasions.

Dammit Cinekal, give a reference or a point.

2004-05-05 09:09:55 AM Shut........UP


"Again, prove it."

Its available on the internet.

"Again, the facts and sources of the facts are readily available from credible sources"

But you don'tr want to give them to me?..but you want me to give them to you about moore?...whats that called again? hypoc..hypocra...come on you can say it....

"he only mentioned the fact that people continue to support him despite the fact that he has lied to The citizensa of the United States on several occasions."

which you won't back up with those "facts" you keep asking me for.

"Again, not partisan or hypocrytical."

Lets introduce a new word...self-delusional.

2004-05-05 09:14:35 AM Generation_D


Being middle aged, I really could give a crap when teenagers shoot each other at school. Seems like a damn fine idea. So I finally got around to watching Bowling for Columbine the other day when it came on HD-TV.

Looked like Moore having fun with the NRA at their expense, and asking some valid questions about whether our society breeds killers if everything goes right. Or wrong as the case may be.

Don't see what the panties in a twist are about. If you're a rational thinker you've seen bucketloads of stuff with right wing views come out with flimsier logic behind them than this Bowling for Columbine. I am sure if any of you wanted to, you could poke holes in any Heritage Foundation presentation, or any Ann Colter Speech, or any broadcast on Fox News. But you don't see to want to do that, only go after one of the few truly independent voices in America thats managed to cut through the clutter and have an opinion intact.

Not sure why that bothers you so much, but I like it, free speech and the constitution and all.

All documentaries have a point of view. Thats not what makes them a documentary. A documentary shows facts to let the viewer form an opinion. What in Moore's film was not a fact? He just frames the facts in a way as to poke the sacred cows of those that support one point of view. Thats what good filmmakers do

2004-05-05 09:16:59 AM CineKal


Here's three to get you started.

WARNING: Big Words

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61903-2002Oct21.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=145

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1

2004-05-05 09:17:45 AM Generation_D


propaganda

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

Sounds like Fox News.

Anyway hows one guy (Moore) a systematic propogation? One guy is a filmmaker. Fox News is a corporation with thousands of hand-picked people spreading one mind-set. Now which ones a documentary and which ones propoganda???


2004-05-05 09:29:41 AM curlinggod

spinsanity

Moore established his reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth in his first film, the 1989 documentary "Roger and Me," centering on General Motors layoffs in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. As the New Yorker's Pauline Kael wrote at the time, he manipulated the chronology of his film, implying that certain events were a response to GM's large 1986 layoffs when in fact they had occurred years before.

2004-05-05 09:31:47 AM uuddlrlrbastart


Cinekal is making Shut....up his biatch.
My opinion on documentaries is that they are not always true. They are how the filmakers see things. Michael Moore sees the U.S. as a big gun toting,evil society. So its not like he's going to show the loving tenderness of Charleton Heston. Or the great work K-Mart does for society(notice sarcasm). So he made a movie about what he thinks is wrong with guns. Big Deal. Documentaries are made all the time which show one side of things. FAHRENHEIT 911 is just going to be more of his opinions. Although, I dont agree with a lot of Moore's ideas, he has a right to say them. A movie studio shouldnt try to shelve a movie because they are woried about tax breaks. Anything about this War will be entertaining to watch. Because as a moviegoer you are going to see the "juicy stuff" not the stuff Michael Moore sees as good. If he did that people wont see his movie. Just dont count on 100% accuracy because you will see his side of things.

2004-05-05 09:35:47 AM curlinggod


readers who uncritically accept those "facts" -- along with a number of other egregious and sloppy distortions -- will be duped. Good satire also should be grounded in fact. Regrettably, Moore gets his facts wrong again and again and again, and a simple check of the sources he cites shows that lazy research is often to blame.


Spinsanity

2004-05-05 09:43:31 AM ReBurninator


What in Moore's film was not a fact?

He claimed that the U.S. gave millions of dollars, $43 million I believe, in aid to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001, something that he has repeatedly claimed. That was a clear distortion of fact. The money sent to Afghanistan went through a United Nations administered aid program to combat famine. Moore's statement was propagated by several sources, including the New Yorker and Salon based on an article by syndicated columnist Robert Scheer. Salon later retracted it after finding out that the story had been debunked and they had been duped.

I'm not saying that Moore shouldn't be able to release his movie. He should. But in my opinion his films are more entertainment than documentary. Entertainment is what a good filmmaker provides. And that is something that Moore is good at.

2004-05-05 09:44:14 AM Bonkthat_Again


CineKal

Here's three to get you started.

WARNING: Big Words

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61903-2002Oct21.html
Author: Dana Milbank
C'mon CineKal, that would be like me asking you to take Rush Limbaugh's word as fact



http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=145

"Bush: We cut the taxes on everybody who pays taxes"
FactCheck.org: "It is true that everybody who paid federal income taxes is getting a cut."

So, a lie is considered because Bush did not include the word "income"?

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1

So Bush lied again, eh? He EXPECTS to get valid intel. You can't say he lied if he was given false intel.



I think it's funny how all you libs are obsessed with what is a lie and what is truth. Five years ago the President of the United States went on National TV and tried to tell me that a blowjob was NOT sexual relations....and the libs DEFENDED him. Hahahahaha.....

2004-05-05 09:46:28 AM ReBurninator


2004-05-05 09:31:47 AM uuddlrlrbastart



Cinekal is making Shut....up his biatch.

No he isn't. You can find stuff to support any argument on the internet. Cinekal is just being Cinekal. Nothing wrong with that.

2004-05-05 09:53:29 AM uuddlrlrbastart


Reburninator
Nah not the supporting his argument the whole big words thing made me leggo my eggo. This flamewar is much more fun to watch then the caffiene free fark-lite flame about the same subject

2004-05-05 10:14:35 AM Shut........UP


"Cinekal is making Shut....up his biatch" "Nah not the supporting his argument the whole big words thing made me leggo my eggo"

You're easily impressed.

2004-05-05 10:24:00 AM CineKal


Cinekal is making Shut....up his biatch

I had nothing to do with that.

2004-05-05 10:30:07 AM uuddlrlrbastart


yep easily impressed i am. I just thought it was funny sorry dude dont get all bent out of shape. I am just entertained by the argument that was going on. Go back to fighting with cinekal

2004-05-05 10:34:49 AM ReBurninator


This flamewar is much more fun to watch then the caffiene free fark-lite flame about the same subject

agreed!

2004-05-05 10:44:49 AM Terminal Frost


uuddlrlr

unfortunately for you, we politically charged TFers take our flamewars very seriously, and while we don't bat an eyelash at our continual distortion of fact and repetition of what we heard on the news, we generally don't take kindly to someone jumping into an existing flamewar with an asinine comment :)

kidding, pay it no mind.

Oh, my two cents? I watched bowling for columbine and found it to be ridiculous at best.



2004-05-05 10:48:24 AM batchild


can anyone tell me if it was this popular to hate michael moore and bfc BEFORE the academy awards? it seems like everyone hopped on the "he's fat and stupid" bandwagon after that.

maybe he just stings you people too badly. surely there will be a lot of interesting things brought up in this movie that will get people talking. like the plane full of bin ladens flying around the country while we were still on lockdown after 9/11. or the familial financial connections to them.

2004-05-05 10:49:23 AM puffy999


while the supposed lies that Michael Moore told aren't debunked by any credible source.
So Moore's film is entirely factual? Or, the half-truths and clever editing in his movie just doesn't "count" because ABC (or whoever) hasn't told the nation?
It's really too bad people can't admit someone with a similar viewpoint has done something... questionable, in order to get attention.

And Moore has a right to show his new film, just as Disney has a right to reject him.

2004-05-05 10:58:16 AM TenaciousP


Bonkthat_Again

When Clinton lied, no one died.

2004-05-05 11:04:10 AM CineKal


So Moore's film is entirely factual?

Unless PROVEN otherwise. That's where most people stumble.

2004-05-05 11:04:27 AM Bonkthat_Again


TenaciousP

I'm still looking for instances where Bush lied.

/if you say something that is untrue over and over, some people will eventually believe it

Bush Lied
Bush Lied
Bush Lied
Bush Lied
Bush Lied
Bush Lied
Bush Lied
Bush Lied
Bush Lied
Bush Lied
Bush Lied
 
2004-05-05 11:21:41 AM  
hdhale


Mr. Moore does not disagree that "Fahrenheit 911" is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. "If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine," he said.

It should be noted that Mr. Moore made this comment while having a grounding wire attached to his belt buckle. Fear of a lightning strike though it was a cloudless day was the reason.

Mr. Moore, you are a partisan hack. You would do *anything* to see that President Bush doesn't get re-elected short of shooting him. Even then, if I were the Secret Service you'd bear watching.


I think this next election is win-win for Moore.

If Bush loses, Moore is vidicated. He will take credit for the ousting even though he refuses to take the blame for helping to put him there in the frist place.

If Bush wins, Moore has another four years of the boogeyman in the White House to help him sell books and movie tickets.
 
2004-05-05 11:21:41 AM  
This is Michael Moore folks. He writes fictional documentaries and sells them as truth.

Don't you mean fictious?

;-)
 
Displayed 50 of 468 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report