|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Super Size Me (2004)
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-12-2004 07:33 AM
Apeshit or not, McDonald's (Wendy's, Burger King, et al.) is under no obligation to sell healthy food. As long as they aren't misrepresenting the health benefits (or lack thereof) of consuming their "food," then I don't see the problem. As a practical matter, eating fast food on an occasional basis isn't likely to have a material effect on one's health, anyway.
If you don't like the company or it's products, don't buy from them.
As for Super Size Me, I really wish that someone from McDonald's had actually responded to the director and said something to the effect of "We don't apologize for what we do--we aren't a health-food store, we don't claim that anything we sell will improve anyone's health, and we aren't forcing anyone to consume our food. If you don't like it, eat somewhere else." It would have been more honest than simply refusing to return his phone calls.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-13-2005 03:53 PM
Hmmm...I've seen the documentary twice now...thats right Scott, it is a DOCUMENTARY...unlike Michael Moore films, which are propoganda.
I dispute the claims that this documentary was some how tainted in the way Michael Moore films are.
The idea of the film, as presented, was from a court case in which the reason for McDonald's victory was examined and documented.
One method of examining a hypothosis is to take it to its absurd extreme. In this case, living on McDonalds for three meals a day for a month. Only taking the Super-Size choice when it was offered (and you may note it was a suprising few times given the approximately 90 meals consummed). The director/star even explained this in the film.
As to getting sick from eating that first super-sized meal (it was right at the beginning of the experiment)...I can easily believe that. If your body isn't accustomed to eating a particular type of food and you suddenly and briskly eat that food, you can get quite sick...it has happened to me. Just recently, I went to a seafood restaurant that serves really top notch seafood (eaten their myself several times before)...this night, however, I must have ODed on the Maryland Crabs because I got the "McGurggles" and was able to stop. My wife was eating the same food and didn't feel the same. In Super Size me...the option of not finishing was not available, his body did the next best thing, it puked.
While most people would indeed think that eating at Mickey Ds three times a day would not be healthy, most would not have predicted the results from the medical exams...the doctors sure didn't or do you feel that there are some doctor's findings that the film is not showing?
During the travels they do find a guy that is not particularly overweight that has been eating massive quantities of Big Macs for some time. Something that one would think not normal either. Then again, there are always the smoker examples of the person that lives to 100+ and smoked every day since they could walk (or since their teens). It does't make it the norm but sure it happens.
As documentaries go, I give it a 4 out of 5 stars. It was a nifty experiment, there was good follow-through and it was interestingly presented.
I do NOT think McDonalds is at fault with their menu or advertising. People stuff the crap into their mouths by their own choice. The documentary did show that some of the "healthy" alternatives offered at McDonalds are not as healthy as they would, at first, appear....kinda like popcorn being healthy until you pop it in coconut oil, smother it in some topping (butter hopefully) and salt it down.
People need to be responsible for their own actions and not blame the other guy for their poor choices. Industry normally only provide what people want. If people don't want unhealthy fast food and stop purchasing it, McDonalds and the rest will make what they are interested in buying. They want to stay in business too. It isn't the manufacturer's job to force health on people that don't seem to want it.
Perhaps if a "Healthy Hendersons" rapidly prepared food chain was created and people flogged to them we would see the current fast food joints bring out their healthy food. They will make and sell what people will buy.
Again, ****/***** for me.
[ 08-14-2005, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Steve Guttag ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-14-2005 01:23 PM
I just saw this on cable recently. The problem with Spurlock's experiment is that it's bad science or, at best, grossly incomplete science. The audience doesn't know what his diet was during the previous 30 days nor what his normal exercise was. And why did he have to add the "no exercise" bit to the experiment anyway? A better experiment would have included, say, 30 individuals with a wide variety of ages, dietary habits and exercise schedules going into the experiment. I see a problem with the fact that Spurlock has created an "education" edition of this movie and wants to distribute it to schools. Sure, kids need enlightenment about their dietary habits, but should we also give legitimacy to his bad science in our classrooms?
Nevertheless, while he's clearly trying to promote an agenda (like, say, big-bad corporations must be punished for what their customers do with their products), he's a very watchabe guy and I'll consider his point of view much more openly than, say, one of Mr. Moore's agendas.
I recently found a contrary point of view in a movie from a young slacker who decided to try a similar experiment. And it's a little entertaining when this guy is refused an interview with Mr. Spurlock time after time.
http://www.bowlingformorgan.com
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-14-2005 05:50 PM
Greg,
I'll grant that the no-excersise rule was one that was not needed. Accoding to the movie, it was based on the average American's daily excersise. However, with an experiment such as this, one should change just one thing...that is, the food intake, not the entire life style.
Do you think that he dumped his weight to make it artificially go up? He WAS in his recommened weight based on his height. In this counter film you linked to...that was not the case...he went from Super Sized to grossly oversized. Who knows what he did immediately prior but he was not at a proper weight. It is pretty easy to bloat or cause one's chemicals to go wacko...it is much harder to get them right again.
As to his "agenda"...I didn't get from the film that big-bad corporations need to be punished. In fact, a lawyer brought the court case first that McDonalds was somehow responsible for two girls over weight problem.
As to being refused an interview with Mr. Spurlock...it is much harder to have a single individual's time coincide with anothers than a "public relations" offical for a corporation to do so. The man was out promoting his film. He could tried for an on-camera interview with Ray Dolby and had a difficult time as well. In Mr. Spurlock's film, he was just trying to talk to McDonalds public relations official. Personally, I found that aspect less interesting any way.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-14-2005 09:56 PM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Perhaps you got the edited version at the "Family Films" Store or something...
What? I am shocked and insulted by this! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) A film is either worth seeing or it is not. Yes, I refuse to see a lot of movies. But after-market editors are useless.
Okay... so I didn't take notes while watching the movie but I think a lot of things were implied without actually being stated. That's going to make a lot of people "see" things that were never there and will always give Spurlock an escape when someone accuses him of saying something which was merely implied. It's implied, for example, that he has a "normal" diet before the experiment but the audience knows very few specifics. Meanwhile, the MacDonald's diet is portrayed much more specifically. And, while the doctors are shocked at symptoms like depression and liver problems and it is implied that the "McDiet" caused this, it's never proven and the doctors never clearly say that the diet is the cause. Why not find out more before releasing the movie? Because of the Sundance submission deadline? (I don't know if that's the real reason but I'll pretend that it's implied.)
But, hey, you gotta hand it to this guy. He's getting a lot of fame and fortune off of the painfully obvious. His next project was a "performance documentary" where he and his girlfriend tried to survive on minimum-wage jobs for 30 days and, Presto! They found out that it's really difficult. Genius!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic