Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Anyone going to see Fahrenheit 9/11??Follow

#1 Jun 25 2004 at 11:54 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,313 posts
Is anyone going to see this movie? Its a movie made by Michael Moore the guy who did Bowling for Columbine. I was curious because they put a R rating on it because of some of the violent Iraqi war scenes (like we don't know what that's like from our games and movies!), so now most of us can't get in unless we sneak in.


Whose sneaking in? Whose not going? Whose going?

I'm still sitting on the fence about it.
#2 Jun 25 2004 at 11:58 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,455 posts
I am going to see it.
#3 Jun 25 2004 at 11:59 AM Rating: Decent
**
862 posts
Not a chance.
#4 Jun 25 2004 at 12:09 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Yeah, I should go see it on the big screen I guess. It's worth the 9 bucks.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#5 Jun 25 2004 at 12:09 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
I'm still sitting on the fence about it.



Quote:
not a chance


Waht are you afraid of seing it?? will it offend your "sensibilities"?

I havn't gone to see a movie in a while.
I'm there.

Edited, Fri Jun 25 13:11:04 2004 by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#6 Jun 25 2004 at 12:31 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Not a chance.


Who are you kidding? It won't even be in theatres in AL.

Eb
#7 Jun 25 2004 at 12:34 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,313 posts
Waht are you afraid of seing it?? will it offend your "sensibilities"?

Actually I'm more afraid of traveling in the the dunes during the night at low levels then seeing this.

It has more to do with whether or not its worth seeing, just like any other movie.

Also, since its rated R I was curious to know if anyone was going to sneak in to see it (whose under age).
#8 Jun 25 2004 at 12:39 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,499 posts
Yea I am going to see it - in about 2 hours actually - Whoop.

#9 Jun 25 2004 at 12:47 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
It does seem pretty entertaining.. comedic actually.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#10 Jun 25 2004 at 12:51 PM Rating: Good
43 posts
I plan on seeing it, too, if only to see what all the hullabaloo is about.
#11 Jun 25 2004 at 12:52 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Hopefully it'll swing more people to vote for Kerry.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#12 Jun 25 2004 at 1:39 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
I was curious because they put a R rating on it because of some of the violent Iraqi war scenes (like we don't know what that's like from our games and movies!), so now most of us can't get in unless we sneak in.


Did they raise the age limit on R movies to 30? Damn guess I have to sneak in too.
#13 Jun 25 2004 at 1:46 PM Rating: Decent


Edited, Fri Jun 25 14:46:27 2004 by smashogre
#14 Jun 25 2004 at 2:56 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
I'm waiting for the special double feature presentation before I go to see it. No Michael Moore film is complete without it's accompanying Joseph Goebbel's film headlining on the marquee.

Totem
#15 Jun 25 2004 at 2:58 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
I'm waiting for the special double feature presentation before I go to see it. No Michael Moore film is complete without it's accompanying Joseph Goebbel's film headlining on the marquee.


Wasn't JG's side in power?

Eb
#16 Jun 25 2004 at 2:59 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I'm waiting for the special double feature presentation before I go to see it. No Michael Moore film is complete without it's accompanying Joseph Goebbel's film headlining on the marquee.


God, let's hope it's that effective!! If it's anything like a Goebbel's peice of propaganda we'll win all the Republican votes!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 Jun 25 2004 at 6:10 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,499 posts
So, I just saw Fahrenheit 9/11. I went to a 12:40 show and surprisingly, the theater was packed. I didn't think that many people would be able to go in the middle of the day.

It was very powerful. It basically rehashed a lot of things that I already knew, but it is very different reading about these things and seeing video/film documentary about it. For example, on the morning of September 11th, when Bush was in that classroom reading with some children, he was informed that the US was under attack. He sat in that classroom for 7 minutes before leaving to see what was going on. I've seen the video on the internet, where basically you get to see poor quality footage of him just sitting there, but Moore got ahold of the orginal footage, and you get to see Bush's reaction up close after he was told, and it was frightening. He looked panicked.

There was also a focus on a family whose son was killed in Iraq, and watching the pain that his mother went through, well, it had me and several other people crying.

I really don't want to go any further as basically, I would just be going over everything in the movie, but I think everyone should see this, whether they are for Bush or not. I stil can't believe how many people believe the bull that these republicans spew out of their mouths. Like Molly Ivins says, listen to what you hear, but look at their record.

One thing I did hear on Air America coming home though, was that some republicans want to stop Moore from advertising his movie after July 30th, because it's a campaign add for Kerry. If they are so right about Iraq, why that the heck are they so afraid of? That people might actually look at their record and not believe their rhetoric anymore? Oh brother. (For the record, Kerry isn't mentioned in this movie at all)

kundalini
#18 Jun 25 2004 at 6:59 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
kundalini wrote:
One thing I did hear on Air America coming home though, was that some republicans want to stop Moore from advertising his movie after July 30th, because it's a campaign add for Kerry. If they are so right about Iraq, why that the heck are they so afraid of? That people might actually look at their record and not believe their rhetoric anymore? Oh brother. (For the record, Kerry isn't mentioned in this movie at all)

kundalini


While I disagree in general principle with stopping a film for political reasons (cause, it never works anyway, and usually just creates more interest, not less). I can see why it would be viewed as a campaign ad for Kerry. Positive ads aren't the only type. This is essentially mudslinging. We've got two people running for office really (that have any chance of winning). If you've got a film running that does *nothing* but level clever seeming but really bogus claims at one of them, that does effectively end up as campaigning for the other guy.


Or would it be ok for someone to release a film documentary showing Kerry's exploits in Vietnam and afterwards in the worst light? After all, this isn't debate. A filmaker can present any point of view he wants, and is not required to have any factual treatment of the topic at all. Heck. Just look at the film JFK. That influenced tons of people's opinions about the assassination and yet was basically presenting a case that was struck down in court and totally disproven on many accounts, and had so many holes in it that it could have performed as a pasta strainer just perfectly. But a filmaker has the advantage of being able to add in information that fills in those holes, or present the information in a way so that the inconsistencies never come up.

That's what Moore's done with this film. He's examining minute details of 9/11 and looking at the normal day to day things that people do and implying that somehow they are unusual. He's then implying that those unusual behaviors must have had some sort of sinister purpose behind them. There's no counter arguement (since it's his film), so no one questions the information in the film.


I might watch it just to see a realy good example of a conspiracy theorist gone wrong. Maybe laugh at how people can be gullible enough to believe the garbage that Moore spews. Mostly, just kinda shake my head, because the unfortunate fact is that a lot of people *will* believe what Moore is saying. For the past several decades we've promoted the idea that there's always some sort of conspiracy going on, and glorified those who uncover them. It's why we have so many conspiracy theory nuts out there. And for the most part, they get ignored only because they can't get airtime for people to see them. The people tend to make the mistake that if it's in a film, or on the news, it must be true.


In our zeal to find watchdogs to find out the "secret" stuff our government is doing, we've forgotten the most important thing: "Who watches the watchers?". We trust people purely because they say they've uncovered the truth, with no regard to the person's qualifications, or potential ulterior motives. If they claim to be uncovering "the truth" we believe them, without question. It never occurs to us that these people can have just as much reason to lie to us as any government official. In many times, they've got *more* reason to do so...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Jun 25 2004 at 7:08 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
In our zeal to find watchdogs to find out the "secret" stuff our government is doing, we've forgotten the most important thing: "Who watches the watchers?". We trust people purely because they say they've uncovered the truth, with no regard to the person's qualifications, or potential ulterior motives. If they claim to be uncovering "the truth" we believe them, without question. It never occurs to us that these people can have just as much reason to lie to us as any government official. In many times, they've got *more* reason to do so...


Yeah, you're right. Who's watching you?

Eb
#20 Jun 25 2004 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
pickleprince wrote:
Quote:
In our zeal to find watchdogs to find out the "secret" stuff our government is doing, we've forgotten the most important thing: "Who watches the watchers?". We trust people purely because they say they've uncovered the truth, with no regard to the person's qualifications, or potential ulterior motives. If they claim to be uncovering "the truth" we believe them, without question. It never occurs to us that these people can have just as much reason to lie to us as any government official. In many times, they've got *more* reason to do so...


Yeah, you're right. Who's watching you?

Eb



Lol. Um. I don't go around randomly accusing the government of misdeeds because I don't happen to be the same party as the party in power.

I also am not using mass media to promote my beliefs.


But other then that, you're right! I'm just like Moore...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Jun 25 2004 at 7:48 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
It never occurs to us that Gbaji can have just as much reason to lie to us as any government official. In many times, He's got *more* reason to do so...


FTF Us.

Eb
#22 Jun 25 2004 at 9:04 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
pickleprince wrote:
Quote:
It never occurs to us that Gbaji can have just as much reason to lie to us as any government official. In many times, He's got *more* reason to do so...


FTF Us.

Eb



Sure. And if I could get people to believe that, then I'd be happy. You can substitute *anyone's* name in there pickle. That's my whole point. People shoul make up their minds based on an assessment of the facts, not based on the source that tells them something.

I don't *want* people to believe me because they think *I* know what I'm talking about. I want people to believe me because they read what I say and they look at the facts that I present, and they come to the same conclusions I do. It's people like you who just want people to blindly follow someone else's idea because that person is popular, or their political leadership, or the pope, or the local newscaster who just seems like a nice guy and wouldn't ever lie to you.

I want people to question what they are told is "the truth". But more and more, that questioning has been replaced by blind faith in just another voice saying something different. The guy standing on a soapbox yelling: "You're being lied to by the government! Believe what I have to say instead!!!", is no better of a source to believe in then what he's railing against. Unless he can say *why* he's right and they aren't, he's just as bad. More importantly, unless people demand the facts instead of simply spoonfed the conclusions, the people will still continue to make decisions based on poor or no information.

It's sad really. You're arguing for ignorance. Whatever...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Jun 25 2004 at 9:23 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
If you've got a film running that does *nothing* but level clever seeming but really bogus claims at one of them, that does effectively end up as campaigning for the other guy.

Or would it be ok for someone to release a film documentary showing Kerry's exploits in Vietnam and afterwards in the worst light?
Isn't this what 90% of AM talk radio is all about?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Jun 26 2004 at 1:08 AM Rating: Decent
I heard that even a bunch of liberal groups have called this film misleading and stretching the truth type-of-stuff. Now this is just what I heard from a friend, but he doesn't usually make crap like that up.
#26 Jun 26 2004 at 1:09 AM Rating: Decent
*
105 posts
Rate up Gbaji

Lets just hope that we don get another embarrassment in office like --- the funny Mr. Clinton

I bet that would make all the blood sucking liberals happy



« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 336 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (336)