Farenheit 9/11 Rocks the Box Office!

Maybe because the Wayan's brother's film seemed completely stupid? Thats what I thought from the previews. lol.
 
Yea it did... totally retarded... I NEVER plan on seeing White Chicks... less I go for free...
 
I just thought it was impressive that it's been out for 1 day and it is already the 4th highest-grossing non-fiction film of all time.
 
haha, watch the conservatives rush in here and say it's not "non-fiction" :D

it'll be interesting to see how it progresses (to see if people see it again and again and whatnot).
 
I wonder if there are as many lies in it Bowling for Columbine, I hope not :(

I was disapointed when I heard about the lies of Bowling. I still liked the movie, but as entertainment not so much for facts.

But I believe the movie's point still stands, Americans need gun control.

Or physcho-path control. Take your choice.
 
Every country has psychopaths, it's psychopaths that make movies that scare me.

:)
 
I went to see the film last night and I was surprised to see the line for tickets actually going outside of theater. The theater itself was totally packed, a full house (and this was one very massive theater). After it was over the entire audience gave a standing ovation. I can see this film becoming a big hit, easy.
 
It's simple the film is amazing. It is a work that should rightfuly take it's place in history.
 
I'd just like to step in here and randomly point out that, all the sources for the pro-BFC mentality are very liberal sources, and you can't take those as 100% truths.

/me is going to get flamed for that, but who cares, it's the truth
 
yea seriously, if you go to michael moore's site, of course he's gonna defend himself, i'd link to some other independent site that doesn't already have a set view point, shuzer if you get flamed i will laugh
 
Sai said:
yea seriously, if you go to michael moore's site, of course he's gonna defend himself, i'd link to some other independent site that doesn't already have a set view point, shuzer if you get flamed i will laugh
Click to expand...

I just know how many Michael Moore fanboys are here.. and take his films for 100% truth, and don't question them. Then, they turn around and say how any sources against it (sites such as Bowling for Truth) are conservative BS, and they can't be trusted simply because they're "biased" sources. So in turn, they link to liberal sites praising Moore, and yatta yatta.. the cycle continues :)
 
Shuzer said:
I just know how many Michael Moore fanboys are here.. and take his films for 100% truth, and don't question them. Then, they turn around and say how any sources against it (sites such as Bowling for Truth) are conservative BS, and they can't be trusted simply because they're "biased" sources. So in turn, they link to liberal sites praising Moore, and yatta yatta.. the cycle continues :)
Click to expand...

yes that's very very very true, but i'm finding it more and more obvious that people who bash the film and are totally against moore's view points, well, the majority of them have yet to see the movie, and i think that's just a horrible way to present yourself. atleast the moore fanboys have some credibility to start critiqing, the majority of the uber conservatives don't really have that much of a say i think
 
Perhaps, but even a well-informed conservative point of view is never taken seriously (case in point, Bowling for Truth) by liberal sources, simply because they're conservative.
 
Michael Moore:

"Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach.

In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them."
 
What, are you supporting him? Just because of something he said? lol
 
CptStern said:
Michael Moore:

"Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach.

In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them."
Click to expand...
Yah...everything in BFC is "true"...wow...
 
as stern and javert will quickly point out, the 'well-informedness' of something like bowlingfortruth.com is debatable. and the fact is that no one has been able to level a lawsuit against moore for defamation, slander, libel, or any such thing that would indicate that he is actually "lying" in his films. that is a pretty strong case in itself, imo.

shuzer, your original comment was rather out of place here.. you should have put it in the other thread that's already blown apart. since you recognize that it's only going to illict flames and long-winded quotations from various sources, don't ruin another thread.
 
Lil' Timmy said:
shuzer, your original comment was rather out of place here.. you should have put it in the other thread that's already blown apart. since you recognize that it's only going to illict flames and long-winded quotations from various sources, don't ruin another thread.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was responding to Stern's response to Baal about BFC. I wasn't the one who originally made an out-of-place post.

All in all, you don't have to worry about me further derailing this thread, as I will no longer partake in it. Next time, however, weed out the proper instigator.
 
Lil' Timmy said:
shuzer, your original comment was rather out of place here.. you should have put it in the other thread that's already blown apart. since you recognize that it's only going to illict flames and long-winded quotations from various sources, don't ruin another thread.
Click to expand...

i like shuzer's original post, it pointed out the ironic circular logic everyone seems to follow when discussing about moore, it's a good post......
 
I find this whole riff-raff drama that Moore willingly keeps going entertaining and astonishing. I actually read that whole article where he 'debunks' the opposing points of view of people critiquing BFC. I'm sorry but did I just see the words "gun nut" around 200000 times in there? Oh dear lord, I wonder if this specific piece of info is to be trusted by me as a respectable source of news? I guess not, sorry.

I found it funny that he also chose to respond to some of the comments by avoiding the actual point and just circling around a smaller part of it. It reminds me a lot of Clinton's questioning of the real meaning of "sexual intercourse", I guess his target audience is people who will take his info as absolute truth because he says so.

And I do agree with Shuzer that a lot of conservatives aren't even considered as sane people by liberals, they somehow think everyone who points out Moore's bias and mistakes is some sort of conservative trying to impose the most strict laws seen in the history of civilization.

Let it also be noted that Moore also seems to enjoy pointing out people's bias in the before-mentioned article while he chooses to ignore his very own BIAS. Surely hypocritical statements such as these should not go unnoticed.
 
from the article in the new york times about the facts in F 9/11

"Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Mr. Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career)."
 
Shuzer said:
Actually, I was responding to Stern's response to Baal about BFC. I wasn't the one who originally made an out-of-place post.

All in all, you don't have to worry about me further derailing this thread, as I will no longer partake in it. Next time, however, weed out the proper instigator.
Click to expand...
yes, it was out of place.. it's not uncommon on forums, infact, it probably happens in almost every thread, so i won't sweat it. but you even state yourself that you are 'randomly pointing out something'. if stern was replying to baal, let them have their conversation.. you don't need to interject something tired like 'liberal sources!!' or bowlingfortruth into this thread, it has no place here.

edit: consider it dropped on my part.

edit2: :stare: editting doesn't count :p. you're missing the point shuzer. as has been clearly demonstrated your post did infact derail the thread. why not let baal respond to sterns offer? you don't need to protect him do you? i'm pretty sure he can think for himself.

edit3: no, we can't :sniper:
 
Argh, even though I said I won't partake further in this thread, I have to respond to THAT..

I should just let it stand that conservatives are insane and that the opposing view is the final say on the subject? I just thought I'd interject as a voice of reason simply because people take sources for absolute truths. I'm not saying "Listen to Bowling for Truth, EVERYTHING there is 100% accurate!" I'm not saying "Wacko Attacko is 100% lies, EVERYTHING there is 0% accurate!" I'm just trying to get people to take a more neutral stand on sources. To step back, look at what they're reading, and realize everything has a slant depending on the author. Form your own opinions, don't take any one source as gospel.

Edit: Fair enough. I'll drop it myself, as I said I wouldn't partake in this thread anymore.
Can't we all just get along!? :) :cheers:

Edit 2: I'm not protecting anyone, just trying to maybe open people's eyes a bit. I've seen so many cynical viewpoints on stuff like this just because there's more sources saying Moore's films are 100% accurate than sources against it. Meh, either way, I'm dropping it.
 
Shuzer said:
I just know how many Michael Moore fanboys are here.. and take his films for 100% truth, and don't question them.
Click to expand...

I think you'd be surprised Shuz. I think there are a lot of intelligent people on these forums, and those people take Moore's films with a grain of salt. Yes, he has an agenda and his films esentially amount to propeganda. That said, he raises interesting points and is very talented filmmaker. I loved Farenheit.
 
Shuzer: These people have already made up their minds that Moore is apparently an infallible being with no interest of lying (or at least "bending" the truth as he likes to do in his films). Let them keep their image of the all-american, average-joe who's only looking for America's best interest, Michael Moore. Me? I'll just keep my realistic view on the subject.

I'd also like to point out that his constant rebuttal of points by using "people haven't sued me yet so I MUST be right!" is completely without merit. The court system is filled with rules and regulations which make such things as suing someone for libel either impossible or a waste of money (you need to make people 100% sure that it's a lie, 90% does not count) and perhaps these people may not be willing to waste cash on a being such as Moore.

Always consider the opposition, never take information from a single source and trust it with your life.
 
Lil' Timmy said:
as stern and javert will quickly point out, the 'well-informedness' of something like bowlingfortruth.com is debatable. and the fact is that no one has been able to level a lawsuit against moore for defamation, slander, libel, or any such thing that would indicate that he is actually "lying" in his films. that is a pretty strong case in itself, imo.
Click to expand...
You have my sword Timmy!

Look, would any Republican be FOR violence? No. Would they be AGAINST Peace? No. So why are they so critical towards BFC? Is it wrong to espouse peace and criticize violence? Perhaps it's because Moore attacks the status quo so violently, it comes to a shock to some people. Now let's look at both sides (for once). Moore makes this film attacking America's love for guns. Some people find it so outlandish and preposterous, they proactively seek to demerit it. How? They blame editing techniques (NRA rallies), they blame his opinions (the bomber plaque), and they blame his catching people off the street (bank). For some reason, these count as lies, a purposeful and malicious attack meant to defame. But who is defamed here? The NRA? No, everyone knows they love guns, and eveyrone (until now perhaps) would have stood behind Heston's "from my cold, dead hands" speech. Is it America? No, he loves a peaceful America, not a war-mongering America. Do Republicans seriously espouse war-mongering? Maybe, though they'd never say 'yes'.
So responses against Moore such as bowlingfortruth.com is merely an attempt to maintain the status quo, harking back to an idyllic time when authority was not questioned, when everything was 'normal'. To them, Moore is a radical who challenges authority, something they'd never do. Well times have indeed changed. People like Moore realize that if he just shuts up, nothing will change, things will go on. He doesn't want this to go on, and frankly neither do I. We must realize that the reason why Moore has become so successful, is not because of some brain-washing/hypnosis class he took in Flint, but because people, like me, wanted an anti-authoritarian voice. A voice unfraid in the face of what has recently become a corrupt and morally bankrupct authority. He despises the status quo and seeks to rise above it; A gadfly. The world we live in today needs more gadflies. He may use every film trick in the documentary book to present his views, but so long he's presenting it to the world, he's doing his part.
Is he inherently infallible? Well, that's impossible since he is human. But does he make mistakes in his films? He can't, as he knows his enemies would pounce on him in a minute. It's all a point of view. There are no malicious lies (if we apply the definition given by Law), but are there flaws? I can view Chopin or Raphael as flawed, some would trust in their complete divinity. See how it works? It's all point of view. I can imagine why people would fear Michael Moore. Can the other side imagine why I respect him?

Edit: Gosh, that was long. Sorry 'bout that, but it's truly what I feel about this dichotomy over Moore.

Edit2: I pasted this, found at the very very bottom of bowlingfortruth.com in black letters that are hidden in the black background. Funny if you ask me:
republican, conservative, news, GOP, RNC, media, liberal, democrat, politics, information, aid, help, lie, lies, liar, information
 
DarkStar said:
I think you'd be surprised Shuz. I think there are a lot of intelligent people on these forums, and those people take Moore's films with a grain of salt. Yes, he has an agenda and his films esentially amount to propeganda. That said, he raises interesting points and is very talented filmmaker. I loved Farenheit.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I saw it today (in a packed theater), and I knew going into it that it would be unfair. But so what? Some movie isn't going to change my political views. I am fairly anti-Bush so the movie was pretty amusing and it was interesting to see the connections to the Saudis. That said, I don't think Bush is some evil man. He just isn't the right man for the job IMO.

You can't the fact that the documentary was well made though, regardless of subject matter.
 
When people will get in their hands that watching Moores movies is not about his shitty opinion, but about question being raised there?

Edit: Damn, beaten :/
 
ShadowFox said:
Agreed. I saw it today (in a packed theater), and I knew going into it that it would be unfair. But so what? Some movie isn't going to change my political views. I am fairly anti-Bush so the movie was pretty amusing and it was interesting to see the connections to the Saudis. That said, I don't think Bush is some evil man. He just isn't the right man for the job IMO.

You can't the fact that the documentary was well made though, regardless of subject matter.
Click to expand...

Very even-handed. Nice.
 
Javert: That's still an opinion, one could easily argue that if Moore's views were accepted universally "because he's right" (which he clearly isn't, otherwise the opposing side would not be arguing in the first place) the U.S could indeed to turn out to be worse than it is. Remember this people, change is not always good. Would it be good if America suddenly decided to implement a bill that says 1/10 civilians will be shot? (humor me, lets say this actually passed as it is a fictional example) It certainly is a big change, but is it automatically good?

Status Quo is not a bad thing, this is why people oppose Moore because simply enough, the world and the country are made up of opposing viewpoints and one ideal is not any more in the right than the other, otherwise there would be no opposition because to argue a point you need something to base it on. Moore's views on society are in fact his opinion and the thing that makes people mad is not the fact that he has a differing opinion than them and definitely not because he challenges the status quo, it is because he does so in a deceiving manner and tries to hide opinion in what he calls "facts". Does he make his point? Sure. Does he deceive the public while he does it? You bet.

An extreme comparison would be the Nazi propaganda machine set forth during WW2. By appealing to the nation's emotions many people were indeed convinced that the master race was superior and that they should rule the world. Mostly though, it was nationalist sentiment brewn up using propaganda and existing conditions to instill the feeling "this man is right! we should follow him!".

In this same scenario one could easily use Allied newsreels and put them on screen, all the while some poor german soldier or afflicted reads the sad story of his life and how his life had been miserable due to WW1 and how Germany deserved better.

Emotional appeal people, easily done, some people find it hard to see through and it has been proven that it can convince millions and attract them to the wrong cause. Hitler was a horrible man (in my frame of mind, everyone believes what they want) but it has been said time and time again that he was a charismatic individual, he appealed to the masses (emotional appeal) and they listened to his voice. Didn't Moore do something similar in both his movies, putting clips of thing the opposite side believed in and then juxtaposed an opposite image that inspired pity or sadness in the viewer's hearts? What do you think made people perform "standing ovations" and cry during the film? Certainly not the facts, because those have been presented in the news time and time again with little or no 'spin' to them. Meanwhile you have a film made by a liberal (I don't like to label people but he is, no arguing about it) that contains only the facts he wants or needs to prove his point. He does not present a point that refutesh is film because it would be stupid to go against your own argument, but the way he presents it, it is as if there were no other side to it and any other way of thinking would be inhuman (who would want to be the evil man that thinks an iraqui girl should die to US bombings?). A good argument is one that presents both sides of the issue equally. Therefore by elimination we can now conclude that Moore's argument against the president and many of his other films are not really arguments or 'facts' but they are indeed more of an opinion on the matter. Once again I present why people are angered by him: He chooses to disguise opinion as fact.

"This pie is the best pie ever made! It is undeniably so because I say so!"
"But it's lemon pie, I hate lemons"
"Lemons are the best fruit, plus, are you saying you don't support the poor people who farm the lands to grow these lemons for you? They help the economy and are hard-working individuals!"

To me, that's what Moore sounds like.

Perhaps it isn't the strongest example but it may be due to the fact that it's 2 AM right now and I can barely form coherent thoughts at this time. However I think its solid enough for you to see my point, a man can be praised by millions but it does not mean he is in the right. Along the same lines, I don't think the world is perfect right now and I hardly think Bush is the best president to have ever held office but there's one thing I am truly sure of: It could have been worse, worse than you imagine and perhaps Kerry or some other candidate would have caused some sort of WW3. Possibilities are fun no? You can complain about the current situation but in fact there's no way to tell if the future others propose is as good as they make it sound.

Also I'd like to just leave one last comment before I log off and go to bed. It's a well-known fact that most of the American people think that the president is the person to blame/reward for how the country is faring at the time period, it is in fact not the case. In truth its the whole system that has either failed you or delivered, the president has no more say in economic policy than Congress does, many of the downturns in economy are caused by people in Congress and not the president. The president, being a symbolic figure in the government is usually the one that shoulders the blame and/or rewards for what happens during his administration. This is what happened during Clinton's administration... Do people think terrorism just suddenly started happening just as Bush got into office? Do people think the economy went to hell because Bush won? It was a long coming recession, after many years of economic boom (which Clinton rode on but hardly contributed to) the economy took a sudden downturn, a minor depression which made it worse. This was automatically blamed on the president of course and whichever administration was in office at the time as always. However, one thing people fail to realize is that this is the way Capitalism works. The economy shifts up and down constantly, there will always be depressions, there will always be booms and sometimes you may hope to linger in between them long enough to get some good productive work done but that's all you can hope for. No amount of presidential economic policy and no amount of laws, tax cuts or regulations (or budgets) will make it so the economy is stable in a boom forever.

*Brain shut down*
 
*Gasp!* Have I finally met one worthy of my attention in Rico? I hope this moves beyond arguing towards just a healthy conversation.
Good points, some pointers.
Javert: That's still an opinion,...
Click to expand...
Never said it wasn't ;)
change is not always good. Would it be good if America suddenly decided to implement a bill that says 1/10 civilians will be shot?
Click to expand...
Agreed, but change is inevitable, though I'd call your example...extreme?
Does he deceive the public while he does it? You bet.
Click to expand...
No comment. :upstare:
Status Quo is not a bad thing
Click to expand...
Agreed, though a corrupt Status Quo socioeconomically divided by race/region can be.
An extreme comparison would be the Nazi propaganda machine set forth during WW2. By appealing to the nation's emotions many people were indeed convinced that the master race was superior and that they should rule the world. Mostly though, it was nationalist sentiment brewn up using propaganda and existing conditions to instill the feeling "this man is right! we should follow him!".
Click to expand...
Ah, but see how I can turn that example around, and use that comparison to Bush as well: instigating fears and hatred towards an enemy, brewing nationalism to the brink of war. However, I would argue that this would be more of a Bush case because 1)Bush has an leadership position 2)Bush has indeed led us to war. 3)By ignoring the international community, Bush has implied that U.S.=#1. (Of course, feel free to argue these points. And don't give me the "Coalition of the Willing" baloney. One country offered monkeys to spot mines, sheesh.)
Meanwhile you have a film made by a liberal (I don't like to label people but he is, no arguing about it) that contains only the facts he wants or needs to prove his point.
Click to expand...
He calls himself an Independent fyi.
Didn't Moore do something similar in both his movies, putting clips of thing the opposite side believed in and then juxtaposed an opposite image that inspired pity or sadness in the viewer's hearts? What do you think made people perform "standing ovations" and cry during the film?
Click to expand...
True, very true. That is what art conveys, great emotions. I would call that a success on his part. However, we must also see context and purpose in your example. If Moore's manipulation of our emotions told us to commit mass murder, I think our opinion of him would change somewhat no?
A good argument is one that presents both sides of the issue equally.
Click to expand...
Another sticking point. I don't believe "arguments" in the pure sense of the word are supposed to present both sides fairly. To have an "argument" is to take a stance. When I write an essay, I make an argument, provide the evidence on my side, and then proceed to counter-argue the opposing side. That is what Moore has done.
it's 2 AM right now
Click to expand...
You in the West Coast of the U.S.? I'm in California and it's 2:42am right now!
This is what happened during Clinton's administration... Do people think terrorism just suddenly started happening just as Bush got into office?...
Click to expand...
Of course not! (Has neone in the forum said so?) Terrorism has been an international concern since Vietnam. However, can we agree on one fundamental rule of the presidency, that "the buck stops here". Whatever happens, it is the president's final responsibility. Did Clinton's intelligence failures (hooah, plenty) cause 9/11? Debatable, I honestly don't know. However, 9/11 occured more than a few months after Bush was elected, and that he should've recognized the risks. Same goes for the economy. Clinton rode the high tide, no doubt about it. We were already in a recession in the last months of his presidency. What made him great was that he surfed it, not killed it. Bush rode the low tide, unfortunately. But he killed it too in tax cuts (for the rich). Unlike Reagan (RIP) who surfed the low tide, Bush killed it. It's his responsibility (and Congress).
I find it ironic that a party so bent on conservative spending would spend so much on the military. True, a military is important, but with troops in so many places, won't we wear ourselves thin? Thus happened to Alexander, Rome, and the German East Front. I think Bush should study some more history anyway.
*rant begin* Not protecting the Iraqi museums during the invasion was inexcusable. He should've also realized that winning hearts and minds /= city-bombings killing innocent (yes, innocent) civilians. And he has failed in his promise to the American people to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. Now, he doesn't even care about Osama. Now, Iraq has become a quagmire. We will have to stay until Iraq cleans up. And when will that be? Half-Life 3 will go gold sooner. *rant end*

*Brain also shuts down and fries*
 
speaking of Farenheit 9\11 does anyone knows that rock song in the trailer...just after that politican sings "let the eagles fly" its during most of the iraqi war scenes..
 
Agreed. I saw it today (in a packed theater), and I knew going into it that it would be unfair. But so what? Some movie isn't going to change my political views. I am fairly anti-Bush so the movie was pretty amusing and it was interesting to see the connections to the Saudis. That said, I don't think Bush is some evil man. He just isn't the right man for the job IMO.

You can't the fact that the documentary was well made though, regardless of subject matter.
Click to expand...
I'd like to shake your hand. :D
Myself, I can't really call myself conservative. I just don't agree with two many things that much of the right stands for. That said I can't find myself calling myself a liberal either, for I know I'm certainly more cynical and pragmatic than that. I probably wouldn't feel any anymosity towards Moore if I hadn't felt so betrayed after researching Bowling for Columbine. Some of the gaffs the movie made had me seeing red, especially some of the ones that Moore himself doesn't debate (his own site hosts a full transcript of the Heston Denver speech that is very different from what is in the movie).
Farenheit 9/11 just doesn't interest me now. I can't find myself trusting anything said in it (no matter whether its true or not), nor would it really be entertaining for me (I'm often more annoyed by stuff like this).
I DO, however, find it mildly hilarious that Ray Bradbury (one of my favorite authors ever) is pissed at Moore for using his title from Farenheit 411 without permission. :D
 
Michael Moore is a good guy but I just don't agree with his opinions. I probably wouldn't like his movie if I went to go see it.

his own site hosts a full transcript of the Heston Denver speech that is very different from what is in the movie
Click to expand...

That's because he took movie clips from a speech that was given a year later than what was stated in the movie.
 
Actually the only big clip from a year later is the "From my cold dead hands," which was from a speech in South Carolina. Moore did more omission than addition.
 
theres michael moore fanboy's?? lol ?!, I thought those where the people that wanted some 'good' answers. people looking for the truth.

more omission than addition
Click to expand...

Yes Moore makes alot of sense if your more intune with how the world works , and how screwed up some people are. in buisness.. and the search for power. Now , not everyone.. but most people who follow rather than think for themselves, the ones with atleast an ounce of patriotism would'nt ever believe their government where liers :rolleyes: , even if they were. Just for contemptments sake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top