Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11"

[amadeus]

It's not about weight, it's about being wrong.

Where Michael Moore is wrong:

(1.) - the title "Bowling for Columbine" - Moore said he selected this title because before Harris and Klebold went on their rampage, they'd gone to a bowling class. False - the boys had skipped that day, and there were the blank score cards to prove it.

(2.) - Moore implies that Harris and Klebold get their violent tendences from a Lockheed-Martin assembly plant in their hometown Littleton, where Moore says they make "weapons of mass destruction" - weapons. The plant in Littleton actually makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites.

(3.) - the North Country Bank and Trust that Moore visits, gets a gun, and walks out - this was staged. The bank does give a gun as a selection of gifts when you open at least a 3-year CD with at least $5,000 and then must pass a background test and pick the gun up at a licensed dealer.

Three "minor" errors or is it just further proof that he distorts the truth?

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

"will suggest that the bin Laden family profited greatly from the association."

The bin Laden family is dozens or hundreds of persons, most of whom are law abiding and respected citizens of the countries. One of Osama's Half brothers regular came to San antonio, and did business with my brother (and eventually accidently killed himself here, flying an ulta-light aircraft into some power lines)

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Wow, Lefty.





I'm gonna make a documentary about you.

 

[Plastic]

I don't have an opinion on Michael Moore, or whatever it is he believes in, so I wish to keep out of this thread.

This is a thread about Moore making a documentary about 9/11, you'd think that his crediblity would be a key topic of this thread.

 

[MrPresident]

where Moore says they make "weapons of mass destruction" - weapons. The plant in Littleton actually makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites.

Don't you know television rots your mind?

You got to love freedom of speech. I admire anyone who can piss off as many people as he has simply by saying what he thinks. That takes a lot of skill. If you say something too outrageous then people will simply dismiss you. However if you say something that quite a few people believe but is still outrageous then you get the best of both worlds.

 

[phoenix_night]

Originally posted by cgannon64
could either be one of the most revealing documentaries ever or a sick, disturbing piece of crap full of hateful lies.

you shoudn't be so dismissive just because it may contain some material that decribes the usa as anything other than perfect. there were links, he can and will make the film/documentary, but with hardly anything known about it i don't think there's no need to be so dismissive. i don't think he will be looking to undermine the events of september 11 or make a quick buck out of it.

slightly ot but: i heard on bbc that the usa network abc were being criticised for being 'unpatriotic' for reporting on civilian casualties. i just think this is a perfect example of the american mentality where no american would want to see anything negative or believe that the usa could do anything wrong. being patriotic doesn't mean to support whoever's in power without question. neither does it mean complete ignorance of anything that may portray your country in anything other than a favourable light.

 

[MrPresident]

I just think this is a perfect example of the american mentality where no american would want to see anything negative or believe that the usa could do anything wrong.

Nice use of unconfirmed evidence about one particular incident to make a wild sweeping generalisation about an entire nation.

 

[phoenix_night]

Originally posted by MrPresident

Nice use of unconfirmed evidence about one particular incident to make a wild sweeping generalisation about an entire nation.

i believe there is such a mentality in the usa, reading things on the net (including this forums), tv, news reports and so on. i do think that americans in general are reluctant to accept anything too negative about their country. as i said, i believed this to be a good example (or did you not read that part?). the fact that michael moore is so heavily criticised (correctly or otherwise) is just another example. i'm not saying i agree with him but his stance has drawn so much attention, and it seems quite a lot of hatred (maybe that's a bit too strong actually).

on another note, i hardly think you are in a position to criticise anybody for making what you call 'a wild sweeping generalisation about an entire nation', MrPresident.

 

[MrPresident]

on another note, i hardly think you are in a position to criticise anybody for making what you call 'a wild sweeping generalisation about an entire nation', MrPresident.

I think I am in the best position to do so. The 'ole "it takes one to know one" logic.

i do think that americans in general are reluctant to accept anything too negative about their country

Shock! Horror! Americans don't like to heard anything too negative about their country! Those bunch of b!st!rds! What kind of monsters are they? How do they sleep at night? We should kill, kill them 'em! Send them to the fiery depths of hell!

...I was being sarcastic by the way.

 

[Plastic]

I admire anyone who can piss off as many people as he has simply by saying what he thinks

What if I was to say that you are a racist nazi? What if I took different clips of you speaking, edited them and spliced them together, sometimes taking 2 different sentences and making a whole new sentence, so as to portray you as a racist nazi? What if I was to take your attendence at one of several political rallies you attended in one day, called it a racist nazi fest, and asked you to defend your actions on that one day which you naturally had no recollection of? What if 3/4 of the people watching my movie portraying you as a racist nazi took it as gospel truth and now believe you to be a racist nazi? Would this piss you off? Would this upset you?

That's why I am upset at Michael Moore. Not for what he has to say. But for how he creates lies to "prove" his points.

 

[Phantom Lord]

First of all it's difficult to say if too much or not enough has been investigated, written, filmed about 9/11 and its backgrounds. And even if there is evidence for such connections between the Bush and Bin Ladn families, they will be very hard to prove and even harder to present.

Maybe he is really on to something (but in this case he should better act cautious and silent about it), maybe he's on to nothing and tries to promote himself, maybe he's on to nothing and doesn't know it.

But if he truly has enough information to make such a movie, he should share that information with as many people as possible, but I'm not sure if a movie is the best way to do so. By announcing the project so early, he's also endangering his own project imho.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by phoenix_night
i heard on bbc that the usa network abc were being criticised for being 'unpatriotic' for reporting on civilian casualties.

Who did the critizing? First I've heard about it.

 

[MrPresident]

What if 3/4 of the people watching my movie portraying you as a racist nazi took it as gospel truth and now believe you to be a racist nazi?

I would question the education of the country you were showing this film in.

What if I was to say that you are a racist nazi?

As opposed to what other kind of Nazi?

 

[phoenix_night]

Originally posted by Greadius
Who did the critizing? First I've heard about it.

well at first, i thought they just meant the people.

but i heard them mention it again last night and they seemed to be talking about the pentagon.

 

[phoenix_night]

Originally posted by MrPresident

I think I am in the best position to do so. The 'ole "it takes one to know one" logic.

Shock! Horror! Americans don't like to heard anything too negative about their country! Those bunch of b!st!rds! What kind of monsters are they? How do they sleep at night? We should kill, kill them 'em! Send them to the fiery depths of hell!

...I was being sarcastic by the way.

i get the sarcasm. but i do think the mentality in america is quite different to that of the uk.

 

[MrPresident]

i get the sarcasm. but i do think the mentality in america is quite different to that of the uk.

It doesn't take a genius to work that one out.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Originally posted by newfangle
Interestingly enough, the only argument the anti-Moore crowd uses is that he is fat. Newsflash, most of America is.

Actually, most of the people who critisize him do it for his lack of fact checking, for his staged incidents, for his grandstanding, and for his outright fabrications in his documentaries.

Moore might be entertaining, but I find it hard to trust the man.

 

[MrPresident]

Moore might be entertaining, but I find it hard to trust the man.

That's exactly what I said about Bush.

 

[CamBot]

I like his books better than his movies...

Bowling for Columbine has it fair share of hyperbole and inaccuracies, but Roger and Me was spot on about what happened in Flint, MI.

 

[Plastic]

I would question the education of the country you were showing this film in.

The thing is, people want to believe Charlton Heston is a racist because then they could tie that into their anti-gun movement. "See he's a racist! That invalidates his pro-gun position!" I think that's why Moore even bothered to portray Heston as a racist. When you watch the movie, and go in with a mindset that you want to discredit Heston, and then this movie which is supposedly a documentary and therefore fact based, and the movie confirms what you want to believe, do you then question it?

The grave crime here is that Moore creates works of fiction and passes them off as works of fact when they are not. And since his audience is predisposed to believe him, they blindly take his work of fiction as fact rather than the lies they are.