Trailer for fahrenheit 911....

[Rivercard]

How about adding in remarks that didn't even occur in the same speech and making it seem as though Heston said them in Denver? You're being obstinate. The NRA issue is just one of many things Moore has trouble telling the truth on.

Maybe I misunderstood the link you supplied. Weren't all those edits from the NRA meeting in Colorado?

 

[Dan H]

Maybe I misunderstood the link you supplied. Weren't all those edits from the NRA meeting in Colorado?

From the link:

"["Cold dead hands" is nowhere in speech. It is actually from a speech given by Heston in Charlotte, N.C., a year later. By swapping in the billboard and his narration, Moore covers the splice.]"

You might also reference the links to Spinsanity.org I provided on the first page. They detail many more of Moore's problems with truth.

 

[Rivercard]

From the link:

"["Cold dead hands" is nowhere in speech. It is actually from a speech given by Heston in Charlotte, N.C., a year later. By swapping in the billboard and his narration, Moore covers the splice.]"

Where is the lie? There is a clear edit complete with voice over that seperates "cold dead hands" from the Denver speech.
Moore's movies are more about entertainment and making a point than being a documentary in the classic sense. And there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[vikesfan]

The point is Moore is telling the truth, that is the difference. Bush lies and FOXNEWS lies. But Moore is presenting the truth. Some details are off it happen. He needs to hire better fact checkers the point is you guys are missing the forest for the trees. Let me repeat you are missing the forest for the trees.

Bush's lies big time and those lies cost people lives.

You want to dismiss the whole forest because of a couple trees that aren't perfect?
It's not like Moore said there were WMDs in Iraq.
Moore is a LITTLE sloppy he is not malicious or evil.

I think it is very telling that when people attack Moore they attack him on these little slip ups they don't bother contesting the big ideas he is presenting. Those they don't bother denying. Such as America is run by the corporate elites etc. BTW Moore unlike FOXNEWS and Limbaugh etc also attacked Bush and Clinton both - that is another big difference.

 

[Evil Ash]

The point is Moore is telling the truth, that is the difference. Bush lies and FOXNEWS lies. But Moore is presenting the truth. Some details are off it happen. He needs to hire better fact checkers the point is you guys are missing the forest for the trees. Let me repeat you are missing the forest for the trees.

Its not the fact on whether or not Moore's social commentary is right or wrong, its the fact that he is purposefully and maliciously lies by editing to show his views are absolutely correct. He doesn't care about the facts if they get in the way of his view.

In a true documentary (like Moore claims his work to be), the person shows both sides of the issue. However Moore doesn't even do that. His views are law according to him.

You want to dismiss the whole forest because of a couple trees that aren't perfect?
It's not like Moore said there were WMDs in Iraq.
Moore is a LITTLE sloppy he is not malicious or evil.

A little sloppy? Are you ****ing kidding me? Are you really that clueless?

He is very malicious in editing items to make it present his views. It doesn't matter what is actually being shown. He will purposefully mislead by editing items to make sure that they show his views are absolutely correct.

You know the very thing that you accuse all of the American media are doing (which you are very wrong about by the way). The American media isn't for or against the President in his views! Have you ever worked in the media? Do you know how things work there?

My guess is no but you'll continue to give commentary about how everything works here and completely ignore what people in the industry (like me) say about it.

I think it is very telling that when people attack Moore they attack him on these little slip ups they don't bother contesting the big ideas he is presenting.

A slip up is an accident, he does this on purpose.

Those they don't bother denying.

Why deny an extremist's views? Most people do what they should do with extremists and their views of the World, they ignore them.

 

[vikesfan]

Its not the fact on whether or not Moore's social commentary is right or wrong, its the fact that he is purposefully and maliciously lies by editing to show his views are absolutely correct. He doesn't care about the facts if they get in the way of his view.

In a true documentary (like Moore claims his work to be), the person shows both sides of the issue. However Moore doesn't even do that. His views are law according to him.



A little sloppy? Are you ****ing kidding me? Are you really that clueless?

He is very malicious in editing items to make it present his views. It doesn't matter what is actually being shown. He will purposefully mislead by editing items to make sure that they show his views are absolutely correct.

You know the very thing that you accuse all of the American media are doing (which you are very wrong about by the way). The American media isn't for or against the President in his views! Have you ever worked in the media? Do you know how things work there?

My guess is no but you'll continue to give commentary about how everything works here and completely ignore what people in the industry (like me) say about it.



A slip up is an accident, he does this on purpose.



Why deny an extremist's views? Most people do what they should do with extremists and their views of the World, they ignore them.

You are fooling yourself about the American media. You want to learn something read THE BUSH DYSLEXICON or read NOAM CHOMSKY. The American Media is a corporate entity with very rich people running things.
You think the American Media doesn't "edit" read MANUFACTURING CONSENT.
His views are correct. Ask Peter Arnett about the American Media.

 

[Evil Ash]

You are fooling yourself about the American media. You want to learn something read THE BUSH DYSLEXICON or read NOAM CHOMSKY. The American Media is a corporate entity with very rich people running things.
You think the American Media doesn't "edit" read MANUFACTURING CONSENT.
His views are correct. Ask Peter Arnett about the American Media.

Unbelieveable! As usual you didn't get the gist of my post.

I am a member of the American media so don't tell me how it works and who is on whose side. You make it sound like all American media is with the side of Bush ... that is a complete and utter load of ********! Some parts of the medium will show favortism with one party or another, but that is not true with the overwhelming majority.

I also said nothing about whether Moore's views on the world are right or wrong but its wrong to emphasize your viewpoint by editing things in such a way to deceive the public into showing his viewpoints are absolute. There are points and factors that refute his viewpoint for which he lightly acknowledges or completely ignores. Thats how he shows his bias and how often his points get ignored due to his favortism.

2 wrongs don't make a right!

 

[Djaughe]

"Fahrenheit" Burning Up over R
[font=verdana,helvetica]
by Joal Ryan
[/font][font=verdana,helvetica]Jun 14, 2004, 5:15 PM PT

[/font][font=verdana,helvetica]

To Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 is serious kids' stuff.

The Oscar-winning filmmaker has called out the movie-ratings board for slapping a child-proof R on his new documentary about the run-up to the U.S.-led Iraq invasion.

On Monday, the Motion Picture Association of America branded Fahrenheit 9/11, scheduled to open June 25, off limits to moviegoers under age 17 not accompanied by a parent or guardian, due to "violent and disturbing images and for language."

Balderdash, said Moore. (We paraphrase.)

"It is sadly very possible that many 15- and 16-year-olds will be asked and recruited to serve in Iraq in the next couple of years," Moore said in a statement. "If they are old enough to be recruited and capable of being in combat and risking their lives, they certainly deserve the right to see what is going on in Iraq."

A similar argument during the Vietnam War (i.e., if you're old enough to fight, you're old enough to vote) led to the passage of the 26th Amendment, granting ballot-box access to persons as young as 18.

In this case, Moore and his distributors, Lions Gate Films and IFC Films, are looking for something a little less grand, if no less important to them: A PG-13.

Lions Gate and IFC vowed on Monday to appeal the R, and asked for an emergency confab with MPAA chieftain Jack Valenti.

In a statement, Lions Gate president Tom Ortenberg said his company was "adamant" about making sure Fahrenheit could be seen by "as many people as possible."

And while all studios are adamant on that point, Ortenberg said he had a higher cause, calling Moore's film "one of the most important and thought-provoking films of our times."

Fahrenheit 9/11 has been courting controversy since the project was announced just months after Moore shouted about "fictitious" President Bush while accepting the 2002 Best Documentary Oscar for his guns-in-America screed, Bowling for Columbine.

His new film examines the link between Bush and the Saudi royal family, takes on legislation, chiefly the Patriot Act, pushed through Congress in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks, and looks for any previously unexplored holes in the White House's rational for the ouster of Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

In the space of one month this past May, Fahrenheit was dumped by Disney, which deigned it too controversial to distribute through its art-house Miramax division, and praised by Cannes with the film festival's top Palme d'Or prize.

Miramax bosses Bob and Harvey Weinstein subsequently bought the film back from Disney, for a reported $6 million, and found distribution with Lions Gate and IFC.

Last week, Lions Gate set up a Website and toll-free 800 telephone number for advance and group ticket sales for the film, citing "overwhelming audience interest."

Newmarket Films used a similar tactic earlier this year with The Passion of the Christ, which racked up group sales to church groups, helping boost the film's bottom line to $370 million--and still counting.

Fahrenheit 9/11 has its own faithful, as well. Last week, per Daily Variety, Moore rated a 70-second standing ovation from the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio and Drew Barrymore following a special screening of the documentary in Beverly Hills.

[/font]

 

[vikesfan]

Unbelieveable! As usual you didn't get the gist of my post.

I am a member of the American media so don't tell me how it works and who is on whose side. You make it sound like all American media is with the side of Bush ... that is a complete and utter load of ********! Some parts of the medium will show favortism with one party or another, but that is not true with the overwhelming majority.

I also said nothing about whether Moore's views on the world are right or wrong but its wrong to emphasize your viewpoint by editing things in such a way to deceive the public into showing his viewpoints are absolute. There are points and factors that refute his viewpoint for which he lightly acknowledges or completely ignores. Thats how he shows his bias and how often his points get ignored due to his favortism.

2 wrongs don't make a right!

The American Media does it all the time I cannot discuss this with you if you don't know how the American Media edits just like Moore or worse then Moore. You need to read Noam Chomsky he shows how for example the NY Times edits the news much worse then Moore. Or you need to see how CNN edited the Iraq attack.

Please do some reading. What FOXNEWS does is very obvious but all mainstream American media is edited. Read Manufacturing Consent.

 

[vikesfan]

"Fahrenheit" Burning Up over R
[font=verdana,helvetica]
by Joal Ryan
[/font][font=verdana,helvetica]Jun 14, 2004, 5:15 PM PT

[/font][font=verdana,helvetica]

To Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 is serious kids' stuff.

The Oscar-winning filmmaker has called out the movie-ratings board for slapping a child-proof R on his new documentary about the run-up to the U.S.-led Iraq invasion.

On Monday, the Motion Picture Association of America branded Fahrenheit 9/11, scheduled to open June 25, off limits to moviegoers under age 17 not accompanied by a parent or guardian, due to "violent and disturbing images and for language."

Balderdash, said Moore. (We paraphrase.)

"It is sadly very possible that many 15- and 16-year-olds will be asked and recruited to serve in Iraq in the next couple of years," Moore said in a statement. "If they are old enough to be recruited and capable of being in combat and risking their lives, they certainly deserve the right to see what is going on in Iraq."

A similar argument during the Vietnam War (i.e., if you're old enough to fight, you're old enough to vote) led to the passage of the 26th Amendment, granting ballot-box access to persons as young as 18.

In this case, Moore and his distributors, Lions Gate Films and IFC Films, are looking for something a little less grand, if no less important to them: A PG-13.

Lions Gate and IFC vowed on Monday to appeal the R, and asked for an emergency confab with MPAA chieftain Jack Valenti.

In a statement, Lions Gate president Tom Ortenberg said his company was "adamant" about making sure Fahrenheit could be seen by "as many people as possible."

And while all studios are adamant on that point, Ortenberg said he had a higher cause, calling Moore's film "one of the most important and thought-provoking films of our times."

Fahrenheit 9/11 has been courting controversy since the project was announced just months after Moore shouted about "fictitious" President Bush while accepting the 2002 Best Documentary Oscar for his guns-in-America screed, Bowling for Columbine.

His new film examines the link between Bush and the Saudi royal family, takes on legislation, chiefly the Patriot Act, pushed through Congress in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks, and looks for any previously unexplored holes in the White House's rational for the ouster of Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

In the space of one month this past May, Fahrenheit was dumped by Disney, which deigned it too controversial to distribute through its art-house Miramax division, and praised by Cannes with the film festival's top Palme d'Or prize.

Miramax bosses Bob and Harvey Weinstein subsequently bought the film back from Disney, for a reported $6 million, and found distribution with Lions Gate and IFC.

Last week, Lions Gate set up a Website and toll-free 800 telephone number for advance and group ticket sales for the film, citing "overwhelming audience interest."

Newmarket Films used a similar tactic earlier this year with The Passion of the Christ, which racked up group sales to church groups, helping boost the film's bottom line to $370 million--and still counting.

Fahrenheit 9/11 has its own faithful, as well. Last week, per Daily Variety, Moore rated a 70-second standing ovation from the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio and Drew Barrymore following a special screening of the documentary in Beverly Hills.

[/font]

OMG this is so classic. An R rating for a documentary on politics, unbelievable. They are really trying to prevent the truth from getting out to as many people as possible. They don't want teens to see it so they know the score.

 

[Djaughe]

OMG this is so classic. An R rating for a documentary on politics, unbelievable. They are really trying to prevent the truth from getting out to as many people as possible.

Are you bummed because you need to find an adult to accompany you?

 

[Pariah]

The point is Moore is the only one telling the truth.

Or, more to the point, he's the only one telling the brand of truth you want to believe.

Michael Moore is an *****. Now he's bitching that even though his movie is graphic enough to get an R rating, he thinks "the message is important enough" for young teenagers to see? That's rich. That's almost as good as Oliver Stone wanting his JFK film to be part of High School history curiculums.

 

[Chaz]

Or, more to the point, he's the only one telling the brand of truth you want to believe.

Michael Moore is an *****. Now he's bitching that even though his movie is graphic enough to get an R rating, he thinks "the message is important enough" for young teenagers to see? That's rich. That's almost as good as Oliver Stone wanting his JFK film to be part of High School history curiculums.

Of course he does, teenagers might be stupid enough to believe his movie is truthful. Who else besides the French and the Canadians would believe him?

 

[Chaplin]

Hey guys,

Let's make sure we keep this topic on the movie--if it explodes into a political debate (which it appears it might be), I may just move the thread to the Politics board.

Chap

 

[Rivercard]

Or, more to the point, he's the only one telling the brand of truth you want to believe.

Michael Moore is an *****. Now he's bitching that even though his movie is graphic enough to get an R rating, he thinks "the message is important enough" for young teenagers to see? That's rich. That's almost as good as Oliver Stone wanting his JFK film to be part of High School history curiculums.

Why all the vemon toward Moore? Sure you might not like his movies but sheesh....

 

[Djaughe]

Hey guys,

Let's make sure we keep this topic on the movie--if it explodes into a political debate (which it appears it might be), I may just move the thread to the Politics board.

Chap

lol...the mods over there may kick it back claiming that all we're debating about is a movie........

 

[Chaz]

I think as long as people understand Moore's fims are just movies and mostly fiction (because of what he leaves out) I think they are fine.

 

[vikesfan]

Moore tells the truth. There is some slight editing involved. But it's the truth. He deals in facts.

 

[Djaughe]

Moore tells the truth. There is some slight editing involved. But it's the truth. He deals in facts.

OMG this is so classic. An R rating for a documentary on politics, unbelievable. They are really trying to prevent the truth from getting out to as many people as possible. They don't want teens to see it so they know the score.

The point is Moore is telling the truth, that is the difference. Bush lies and FOXNEWS lies. But Moore is presenting the truth. Some details are off it happen. He needs to hire better fact checkers the point is you guys are missing the forest for the trees. Let me repeat you are missing the forest for the trees..

The point is Moore is the only one telling the truth. He is not a politician he is a commentator who tells people the things the rest of the media does not. It is the people's fault for not listening to him. Some people can't stand the truth. He is the conscience of America. There has to be at least one person out there who tells the truth.

lol....I guess VF's figures that if you post something enough times its gotta be true.

 

[vikesfan]

lol....I guess VF's figures that if you post something enough times its gotta be true.

Okay lets have all his lies listed here what did he lie about?

 

[Pariah]

Why all the vemon toward Moore? Sure you might not like his movies but sheesh....

It's not really venom, I just think he's a jerk. I don't like the way he presents his ideas as gospel, and I don't like his tactics (i.e. the Heston "interview" in Bowling for Columbine). I don't like that the guy can't be on TV without talking about his latest agenda. He just seems really pompous to me.

I actually like his movies. I think they generally depict a side to an important issue--and in the case of Bowling for Columbine, I think it asked some really important questions. So, it's not the films I dislike as much as the man.

 

[Djaughe]

Okay lets have all his lies listed here what did he lie about?

Please refer to post no. 44.

 

[Pariah]

Okay lets have all his lies listed here what did he lie about?

I don't think its a matter of "lying." It's a matter of presenting a very one-sided portrait of the truth. "The Truth" isn't an absolute that can't be tainted one way or the other--I personally believe that Moore taints it moreso than the mainstream media, liberal or conservative.

There's a reason Moore isn't a news-coorespondent or an investigative reporter. Those professions require more balanced reporting than does the roll of a filmmaker.

 

[Rivercard]

There's a reason Moore isn't a news-coorespondent or an investigative reporter. Those professions require more balanced reporting than does the roll of a filmmaker.

Your post is a little misleading - Moore is not a failed news-correspondent.

 

[Pariah]

Your post is a little misleading - Moore is not a failed news-correspondent.

I didn't intend to imply he was. All I'm saying is that he's not reporting "news" in his films. He has a pretty wide margin of error for what can be called "truth" as a filmmaker. Much moreso than he would IF he were a reporter.