quote:

---

He will certainly walk away with an award for being the grisliest looking fat person to ever be in film!

---

I take it you haven't seen Chris Farley's autopsy photos.

I heard today that Moore is making a sequel to Fahrenheit. Even I think that's taking it a bit far (restraining political comments) since this last film prooved to be what everyone was saying from the beginning... Loved by the Dems, avoided by the Reps, not influencing the election, and a vehicle for self-promotion.

Oh my God, did I just say something negative about a liberal??

quote: Greg Davis

---

Lifetime achievement award to that Malcom in the Middle kid!!!!

---

Well, his career is basically over anyway. (Unless they make a Cody Banks 3) so why not?

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-12-2004, 11:59 AM:
 
Moore was not planning to submit his film in the documentary category preferring to go for best pictures. But with the election results, it kind of takes the wind out of the whole thing.

I am most interested in whether Incredibles gets nominated in the Best Picture category. It's about time animated movies get some of the real gold.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-12-2004, 12:35 PM:
 
Dittos, Mike.

quote: Greg Davis

---

Considering it is a documentary

---

quote: Mike Heenan

---

I find it funny almost everyone who has a problem with Michael Moore always attacks his appearance.

---

quote: Thomas Procyk

---

I take it you haven't seen Chris Farley's autopsy photos.

---

Yea but Chris Farley wasn't grizzly like Michael Moore is... Can you imagine what Michael Moore's autopsy photos would like like... stretched out across three tables in the morgue.....

quote:

---

Michael Moore should just shut his mouth and go eat another sandwich!

---

Bwahahaha..... His next show really ought to be a sequel to "Super Size Me"..... called "Fat Soul 911"

Be careful Mike, or we'll be attacking your appearance pretty soon .

Mark
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 11-12-2004, 05:47 PM:
 
Ehh, attack me all you want, it's silly and a waste of time. Hell, I could attack your appearance on a few things but I won't stoop that low.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-12-2004, 06:20 PM:
 
This should answer y'alls question about an Academy nomination request for "Best Picture"...

From the "Hollywood Reporter" Print edition:



>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-12-2004, 06:34 PM:
 
Best SOUND? Good luck!
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-12-2004, 06:47 PM:
 
But Mike.... you're the perfect one to attack... I can't help that....

Mark
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 11-12-2004, 08:07 PM:
 
Ok....
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-12-2004, 09:27 PM:
 
Play nice boys. No personal attacks between members. Besides, there are plenty of non-members out there you can go after.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-12-2004, 09:37 PM:
 
Its nothing personal Brad, all in fun and I thnk Mike also knows that..... Even you have to admit there is an uncanny resemblance between what a very dieted Michael Moore would look like and Mike Heenan.....

Mark
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 11-12-2004, 10:04 PM:
 
They forgot to add "BEST SONG: 'Let The Eagle Soar' by John Ashcroft" to that Hollywood Reporter ad

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 11-12-2004, 10:20 PM:
 
But unlike Michael Moore, I have lost 105 pounds.... As for the bad beard, that stays.
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 11-12-2004, 11:27 PM:
 
Thomas, they should've added that song in a movie score
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-13-2004, 12:46 AM:
 

quote: Mike Heenan

---

I find it funny almost everyone who has a problem with Michael Moore always attacks his appearance.

---

 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-13-2004, 01:27 AM:
 
In "Roger & Me" his schtick was kind of funny. He seemed like a working-class hero type of guy. The fact that he didn't get in to see the head of the company made the movie all the more poigniant.

Next, in "Columbine" he pulls off the same schtick but THIS time he gets in. (In fact, I think that movie should have been subtitled, "Roger & Me II -- I got in this time.") Then, when he finally DOES get in, he badgers Charleton Heston in his OWN house so much that the guy walks out of the interview! The movie ends with Moore's empassioned plea, "Mr. Heston! Mr. Heston! What about all the children?!", and we zoom in on a picture of a kid who got shot at Columbine.

Would ANYBODY in his right mind give this fool an interview EVER again?! -- NO!! Not on your life! It's a sure thing he'll badger you and twist your words around until you either get fed up and quit or make a fool out of yourself.

Now, it's time for him to make a third movie. He's exhausted all his original options. No stinkin' way he'll ever get to see the President! So, what's a fat-assed, no talent 12 sandwich eatin' documentary film maker to do?! Make shit up? Be as controversial as possible? Do and say just about every inflammatory thing you can possibly think of? All of the above!

The truth is that he's got no more good ideas left and he's just grabbing at straws to keep his directorial head above water. Who doesn't think his little act last year at the Oscars was anything more than a publicity stunt to pre-publicize his next movie?

He gets away with it by claiming he's expressing a "political opinion" (Hiding behind the 5th Amendment.) and using frenzy of the liberal "arousal gap" media to his advantage.

The guy's got little talent. What talent he DID have was used up when he made his first movie. And let's fact it... His appearence is SLOVENLY! No, he's not just a fat guy. He's a dirty, sloppy fat guy. Cripes! Couldn't he catch a shave even for the Oscars?!

He reminds me of that fat guy in the movie, "Monty Python's Meaning of Life." You know, the one that ate so much he exploded.

The guy has noting to say that interestes me. As far as I'm concerned, the name "Michael Moore" is poison.

I'll say whatever I want about that fat-assed, no talent, slovenly, sandwich eatin sonofabitch!

After all... It's Constitutionally protected free speech. Isn't it?
 

---

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 11-13-2004, 01:58 AM:
 
I don't care about his looks, I just don't like his bullshit logic or his bogus theories.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 11-13-2004, 01:17 PM:
 
Uh-oh! Sounds like someone's straddling the political line there, Morrow, King of Wolffs.

All I have to say is everyone who says "Michael Moore lies in Fahrenheit 9/11" has never seen the film and has no justification for their claims sine most of the film consists of interviews and speeches coming straight from the horse's mouth. Moore is not the one conducting the interviews in most cases, they are from things like Larry King, Fox news, NBC... things that have aird in the mainstream but were conveniently ignored that time around, too.

The film works more like a fractured or double-voiced narrative, showing one group of people vehemently making one set of claims, and then that same group contradicting themselves as "events unfold." At least, that's what I got out of it.

But nobody pays attention to the flipflopping or zipflopping of their own class of individuals.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-13-2004, 02:42 PM:
 
Best song must go to "Only a Woman" from Team America.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-13-2004, 02:52 PM:
 
Sorry but I disagree...

best song should go to "Everyone Has Aids" from team america...

ciao baby!

Dave
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 11-13-2004, 03:22 PM:
 
Randy, what did MM do at last years Oscars?

Thomas, I know where you stand politically, so I'll ignore that comment
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-13-2004, 06:16 PM:
 

quote: Thomas Procyk

---

All I have to say is everyone who says "Michael Moore lies in Fahrenheit 9/11" has never seen the film and has no justification for their claims sine most of the film consists of interviews and speeches coming straight from the horse's mouth.

---

quote:

---

Illinois Paper Hits Michael Moore for Copyright Infringement

By E&P Staff

Published: July 31, 2004

NEW YORK The Pantagraph newspaper in Bloomington, Ill., has sent a letter to Michael Moore, drafted by its lawyer, citing him for copyright infringement, admonishing him for his "unauthorized ... misleading" use of the paper in his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," and asking for an apology.

It is also seeking compensatory damages of exactly one dollar.

"While we are highly flattered to be included in the movie," said the newspaper's President and Publisher Henry Bird, "we are a bit disturbed that our pages were misrepresented."

Early in the movie, according to the paper, a large headline appears in the film, purporting to be from a Dec. 19, 2001, edition of the paper, and reading "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election." The paper contends that the headline actually appeared on Dec. 5, 2001, in much smaller type, and above a letter to the editor, hardly a factual news story or editorial.

The letter to Moore from the paper calls this a "misrepresentation of facts." The newspaper said it had been unsuccessful in attempts to reach Moore through his film company, Lion's Gate, by phone and e-mail.

"In an instance that The Pantagraph prints material in which there is a mistake, it is corrected," the letter to Moore reads. "It is our hope that you would adhere to the same high ethical standard."

Moore could not be reached for comment.

---

quote:

---

"misrepresentation of facts."

---

Thats Moores exact ploy. Even the paper sueing him recognizes that..... The way he edits and shows snipes of speeches out of context is why most people dislike him. Those thata re interested in seeing exactly how he does this watch the Dicu "Fahrenhype 911" it shgows many good examples of what he does.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 11-13-2004, 08:02 PM:
 
isn't this a little like the pot calling the kettle black? One could also go watch "hijacking catastrophe" to see an alternate perspective. "What a jackass, moore spinning a story like that." give me a break. Its all about spin from both sides, so don't act like moore is the only one playing that game.

Back on topic Moore won't get best picture if he tries for it, and probably shouldn't get best documentary if he applied for that either. Not because of the film's content, but because there are many other, dare I say better, documentaries this year. I really liked My Architect, but think Fog Of War is also a serious contender. (feel free to let me know if either of these are not eligible for some reason this year )
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-13-2004, 08:55 PM:
 

quote: Adam Wilbert

---

feel free to let me know if either of these are not eligible for some reason this year

---

quote: Adam Wilbert

---

give me a break. Its all about spin from both sides, so don't act like moore is the only one playing that game

---

I'm not sure who that's directed to, and I'm not sure what you mean by the pot calling the kettle black. Moore, like everyone else in this country, is of course free to try and make any point he wants in his films. And he's also free to completely fabricate a newspaper headline out of thin air, and call it a fact, and use that to back up his film's point. My question is, what amount of fiction has to take place in his film before its status as a 'documentary' is in question. The word 'documentary' to me suggests 'non-fiction' but I could be wrong in that definition.

He could of course be eligible for a 'best picture' nod, I'm just not sure about 'best documentary.'
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-14-2004, 04:08 AM:
 
I don't think that freedom of speech extends to the point where you can make a completely false statement about a person or fact related to that person. I am sure you also have some laws against libel here.
Manufacturing newspaper headlines or quotes may not be libel, but it certainly is bad journalism and has nothing to do with documentary filmmaking.
While you may see "Bowling for Columbine" as a filmic essay, I actually think that "Fahrenheit 9-11" didn't do MM's proclaimed cause any good. The whole issue is already very emotionally charged, his polemic style doesn't do any good but pours more oil into the fire. Whatever the actual facts may be - and we are not going to discuss these here -, he didn't present them very well. Interspersing information with interviews which were obviously taken out of context without the knowledge of the participants and manufacturing newspaper headlines is of absolutely no info value for the viewer.
Another element I don't like about his movies is that he often highlights facts which are quite irrelevant. While the US-Canada comparison in "Bowling" may be seen as a sarcastic way of trying to bring a point across, presenting the lone Oregon state trooper as proof for the lack of anti-terror activity is simply idiotic. Everyone knows that coastlines are protected by the coast guard. I think a state trooper is more some kind of highway patrol or sheriff.
 

---

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 11-14-2004, 04:11 AM:
 
Phil, boy do I feel stupid. I only saw them both this year, so i assumed they were more recent than that. Uh, in that case, I have no pick for best documentary this year!

Mark, the point was that some people will come down on Moore for bending/altering/warping/distorting/etc. the truth, and ignore the same behavior from "the other side." I wasn't saying the newspaper was calling the kettle black, after all, they should call attention to the misrepresentation. It just irks me that people in general seem to be more upset about possible misrepresentation in a documentary than possible misrepresentation in government. I really feel like i'm going too far into "read the faq" territory, and don't want to get banned, so i'll stop here. If this whole paragraph gets deleted, at least everyone can refer to my above time-warped stupidity!
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-14-2004, 04:41 AM:
 
Hmmmm.. lets see... how to make this non political... hmmm....

quote: Thomas Procyk

---

The film works more like a fractured or double-voiced narrative, showing one group of people vehemently making one set of claims, and then that same group contradicting themselves as "events unfold." At least, that's what I got out of it.

---

quote: Adam Wilbert

---

Mark, the point was that some people will come down on Moore for bending/altering/warping/distorting/etc. the truth, and ignore the same behavior from "the other side." I wasn't saying the newspaper was calling the kettle black, after all, they should call attention to the misrepresentation. It just irks me that people in general seem to be more upset about possible misrepresentation in a documentary than possible misrepresentation in government

---

quote: Dave Williams

---

Hell I can take a series of news clips, cut them the way I want them to actually look, interview people and cut thier interviews off for the effect I want, and interlay my own opinion into it, and then I will get plenty of people to believe my own bullshit just like MM did.

---

Yes, and that's exactly what 99% of all non-live news broadcasts are. Especially those interviews where the answers were taped 2 weeks before the questions.

If you've actually SEEN the movie, it's not like Michael Moore asks, "How do you feel about the War on Terror" and then it cuts to Bush saying, "Well, when I lived on the Ranch in Texas, we shot deer. [CUT] that's how the American People [CUT] should be treated [CUT] if they disagree with my agenda."

Making that claim in itself is a lie. You then become what you hate.

IMHO, people love to be comfortable in their ignorance. I'll admit, I am one of them when it comes to anything medical. I'd much rather a doctor not tell me about a terminal disease so that I can live out my remaining years carefree, and without the burden of knowing what doom is on the horizon. I think that's how most Americans feel about the state of the country. If someone tries to warn us about our impending terminal disease, it's easier to blow them off than do anything about it.

=TMP=

PS, Adam:

quote: Adam Wilbert

---

BTW Thomas, I'm glad to see you're back regularly now.

---

Well, it's good to know someone is!
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-14-2004, 02:17 PM:
 
Thomas, you are confusing two fundamentally different things:
What facts you chose and how you arrange them, comment on them, and what conclusion you draw from them is a matter of opinion and freedom of speech. Or in the case of the phone book, the way the facts are arranged is based on a convention which everybody understands and therefore makes it possible for people to use it. If you present facts which are simply wrong, that has nothing to do with that.
To give a simple example: If you say Bush did this wrong and should have done that instead, that's an opinion. If you say his middle name is Wilbur, that's simply wrong, and not a matter of opinion.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-14-2004, 02:49 PM:
 
Perhaps you'd like to give a few examples of things MM said that were flat out untrue, not because of being taken out of context, not because "yeah, but you should also know that..." and not because of the way presented, but flat out untrue no matter how presented. Just like the W = Wilbur example.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-14-2004, 02:53 PM:
 

quote: Tom Procyk

---

I bet the phone company is saying that Phill Hill is more important than Brad Miller because he's listed first.

---

While I certainly agree with that statement in general, I'm *SURE* many others would disagree.

Tom, you're assuming (selectively saying) that the phone book is arranged in alphabetical order based on last names. In that specific case your statement would be correct. To further illustrate my point, I'll add your name to the list.

Then lastname first listing would be:
Phil Hill
Brad Miller
Thomas Procyk

Me on top, Brad in the middle and you the bottom.


"Filter" the list and twist it around and sort by firstname first:
Brad Miller
Phil Hill
Thomas Procyk

Brad on top, me in the middle, and you still are the bottom.


How about a Reverse Directory sorted by Address?
Or, by Phone numbers?
Or ANY number of ways someone **chooses** to present the "facts".

The point being: Facts can be manipulated by ANYONE in ANY MANNER.

OBTW: And be interpreted in the way the writer wants us to "believe" ...just as you did in the above quote when you were surmising what was the phone company's purpose in listing names that way.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-14-2004, 04:57 PM:
 
A google search on "fahrenheit 911 lies" (minus the quotes) will give you some clues to just how uninterested Moore is with facts in his "documentary".
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-14-2004, 05:58 PM:
 
I think the bottom line is that people believe what they want. If what Moore is saying coincides with how they feel then they will believe him and take what he says at face value. If you Work for the timber company you will not want to hear anything that the discovery channel has to say. That is just how most people are, not concerned with evedince at all.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-14-2004, 07:21 PM:
 
I like to think I'm at least somewhat objective and open to opposing views, but it's pretty tough to take Michael Moore seriously when he plays so fast and loose with the facts (and dresses like a slob, etc.). What a regrettable choice in spokesperson for the opposition party.

Michael Moore (and P Diddy, with his "Vote Or Die" slogan) definitely had an influence on the outcome of this election, just not the way they intended.
 

---