JTNOLA5211
Bluelighter
DigitalDuality said:i think Moore refers to his films more as a polemic than a documentary if i'm not mistaken..
So what is the diff b/w the 2?
DigitalDuality said:i think Moore refers to his films more as a polemic than a documentary if i'm not mistaken..
I sort of felt the same way and I think this movies's target audience was more so to turn the people on his side, who were somewhere in the middle and/or confused about which side to pick. I don't think he needed to turn people like me and you more to the left or even try to convince us. I just think he was just trying to portray the other side to the people who were less of a political junkies like us.DigitalDuality said:my bleeding heart liberal take on this:
I personally like Moore. I know he's full of shit. I know he is biased, i know he doesn't play a fair game and cuts off the camera just as quick as O'Reilly does. And i don't give a fuck.
Frankly, Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity and the like do this all the fucken time. They never (well temper tantrum O'Reilly has gotten better), show both sides. Fox shows a clear conservative bias. Most news stations show a moderate view. So kudos to Moore for help move the sheep from one herd to another herd.
Frankly, I enjoyed the film mainly for it's humor. I think he could have still used the same amount of sympathy and empathy, but done it in a more effective manner instead of being so whiney. I'm sick of him relating Flint, Michagen in every single one of his films.
Also, he had the ability to cut some crap out.. and really drive some other points home, and he never bothered. He could've taken some hints from BushFlash.com to really make some points.
I dunno, i wasn't as impressed with this as i thought i would be. I'm pretty sure if i had his wit and knew anything about making films, I could've done a better job myself..
But just as in Bowling for Columbine he choses which facts to keep, and which to throw away in order to build his biased arguement, which i don't have a problem with.. i just think he could have done a better job. I felt like it was missing something...
BlueAdonis said:Regarding the issue of the bank "giving" a gun away: I think j22 may be refering to how the movie makes it look as though the bank just hands over a rifle instantly after filling out the account paperwork. There's more to the process of "getting the gun" that the movie somehow left out..
j22 said:I agree with miamitsu too.
AmorRoark said:No fucking way I'm going to support Moore again with my money. I payed for Bowling for Columbine and some other equally awful "documentary" that he did. Watching the obvious audience seduction was enough to make me want my money back... nevermind the constant gag itch in my throat due to voice/choice of words.
I have urged a large array of my friends to wait for this to come out on video at the local public library... Yeah... I got a couple chuckles but it's the best I can come up with.
stop supporting propaganda.![]()
michael said:so because disney "disowned" the film that means that no funding came from those directions?
and on top of it, moore is allowed to make a tenuous link to crap but i am not?
nice try dysco!
DigitalDuality said:At least propaganda on each side (Rush or Moore) gets people politically interested and motivated. I think both sides really do encourage people to vote first and foremost. Without the hype of these twits, even less people would participate in our electorate process. And this also includes Al Franken, Howard Stern, Ann Coulter, Noam Chomsky, Hannity, O'Reilly, Howard Zinn, etc.. These are the common people's celeberties they look for both representation and a good laugh. It's sad there are people that listen to rush and are considered (proudly) ditto heads. Moore has the same kind of following. But keep the herd interested..and manipulate them, or don't expect them to care at all for the most part...