Michael Moore the subject of a new documentary...oh how the tables have turned. - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

transplant99 · 03-12-2007, 06:30 AM

The irony in this is just too funny.

Squirm Mr. Moore...squirm.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070311/...turing_dissent

ricoFlame · 03-12-2007, 08:37 AM

hmmm, looking forward to seeing that one. should be pretty interesting.

Burninator · 03-12-2007, 08:41 AM

I'm sure this "documentary" will be as biased and slanted as something Micheal Moore does.

ernie · 03-12-2007, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

I sure this "documentary" will be as biased and slanted as something Micheal Moore does.

Yep. When the whole basis of the documentary was supposed to be about Michael Moore but then when he turns down interviews etc. the focus is changed to look at hw he puts together his films there is going to be bias.

Not saying there won't be truth to things, as there is truth to some of Moore's stuff, but I'm sure you could do the same thing a few years from now on this documentary and find similar things. Funny thing that I can never understand is why do people think documentary is the same as "presenting the facts without bias". It can be and perhaps we can argue that documentaries have gotten away from that pure form, but it doesn't have to be...atleast not in todays making of films. Documentaries whether on some animal or exposing some sort of fraud are put together in order to make the point the filmmaker intends to make. More often than not they have become opinion pieces.

FlamingLonghorn · 03-12-2007, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

I sure this "documentary" will be as biased and slanted as something Micheal Moore does.

It actually wasn't set up to be a Moore attack piece it was 2 of his fans wanting to do a biographical piece on Moore and then they discovered how full of e he is which is plenty.

oldschoolcalgary · 03-12-2007, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sowa

It actually wasn't set up to be a Moore attack piece it was 2 of his fans wanting to do a biographical piece on Moore and then they discovered how full of e he is which is plenty.

or how 2 anonymous film makers decided to try to capitalize on making a documentary on a polarizing figure because they themselves had no talent.

watch for their 15 secs of fame to evaporate pretty quickly.

Burninator · 03-12-2007, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ernie

Yep. When the whole basis of the documentary was supposed to be about Michael Moore but then when he turns down interviews etc. the focus is changed to look at hw he puts together his films there is going to be bias.

Not saying there won't be truth to things, as there is truth to some of Moore's stuff, but I'm sure you could do the same thing a few years from now on this documentary and find similar things. Funny thing that I can never understand is why do people think documentary is the same as "presenting the facts without bias". It can be and perhaps we can argue that documentaries have gotten away from that pure form, but it doesn't have to be...atleast not in todays making of films. Documentaries whether on some animal or exposing some sort of fraud are put together in order to make the point the filmmaker intends to make. More often than not they have become opinion pieces.

If documentaries are fair and balance they are not as entertaining. When a a film maker picks one side and totally destroys the other, it's more interesting for people. People like seeing Micheal Moore getting kicked out of Charles Heston's house. They like seeing their view point get stronger. People who like Micheal Moore, like seeing him do what he does. People who don't like Micheal Moore will probably like this documentary. It is a shame that we don't see more fair and balanced documentaries that have the viewers pick a side, but those don't make any stir or money.

FlamesAddiction · 03-12-2007, 09:48 AM

This film doesn't sound like much more than a glorified paparazzi piece on a celebrity. Who really doesn't have more to worry about?

ernie · 03-12-2007, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

If documentaries are fair and balance they are not as entertaining. When a a film maker picks one side and totally destroys the other, it's more interesting for people. People like seeing Micheal Moore getting kicked out of Charles Heston's house. They like seeing their view point get stronger. People who like Micheal Moore, like seeing him do what he does. People who don't like Micheal Moore will probably like this documentary. It is a shame that we don't see more fair and balanced documentaries that have the viewers pick a side, but those don't make any stir or money.

absolutely. It's all about money for any film. Make money and you get to make more films. Don't make money on a film and struggle to survive.

CaptainCrunch · 03-12-2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

This film doesn't sound like much more than a glorified paparazzi piece on a celebrity. Who really doesn't have more to worry about?

How do you figure, if Moore in fact did get to speak to Roger Smith and then lied (imagine that ) in his film that Smith refused to talk to him, it destroys the whole premise of that film. Its hardly a paparazzi piece where they're making things up.

we know that Moore is incredibly dishonest and very smart about his editing in his fillms, and it follows a trend that show that his films are a good collection of fiction with a few facts thrown in supported by lies and fiction.

Its hardly a paparrazi piece since it dosen't allude to Moore having relations with Elvis. It could be considered a journalism piece if its blowing the roof off of Moore's industry and exposing a film maker that himself is no better then the Paparrazi.

Good for these two kids.

llama64 · 03-12-2007, 10:24 AM

Sounds more like a video argument then a "documentary". Not sure this project is worth the money being invested in it. Certainly not worth my time to watch it.

<goes back to watching My Little Pony reruns>

Lanny_MacDonald · 03-12-2007, 10:33 AM

Turn about is fair play. I hope they hammer the crap out of Moore and make him rethink his manipulative ways. He presents some very good subject matter, but goes to extremes to ambush people and catch them at their worst without a chance to rebut what he's saying. Moore would have a lot more credibility of he would do this. Mind you, the same practices are followed by certain members of the "media", so maybe its time for everyone to clean up their act.

RougeUnderoos · 03-12-2007, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How do you figure, if Moore in fact did get to speak to Roger Smith and then lied (imagine that ) in his film that Smith refused to talk to him, it destroys the whole premise of that film.

According to the article the fact that he actually met the guy was first reported in 1990. And really, who cares.

I can understand why some people want to see this guy hoisted by his own petard, but I don't think this is it.

FireFly · 03-12-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sowa

It actually wasn't set up to be a Moore attack piece it was 2 of his fans wanting to do a biographical piece on Moore and then they discovered how full of e he is which is plenty.

That's rather interesting. Moore essentially brought this on himself then, simply by not doing an interview. I bet he wishes he'd given them one now!

Sparks · 03-12-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Posted by ernie:
It can be and perhaps we can argue that documentaries have gotten away from that pure form, but it doesn't have to be...atleast not in todays making of films.

Certainly, and I'd say it's a part of a much larger trend. Just look at the media recently - the ideal of "fair and balanced" seems to be disappearing. Reading the newspaper is like reading one big editorial. The news on TV just reeks of bias. It seems like people want to be told what to believe, and the media has followed the trend. It's a bit disconcerting.

Alpha_Q · 03-12-2007, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sowa

It actually wasn't set up to be a Moore attack piece it was 2 of his fans wanting to do a biographical piece on Moore and then they discovered how full of e he is which is plenty.

Michael Moore is full of 'e' if 'e' equals crap. Suzuki is full of it too, so is Al Gore, and George Bush. So are the people who are opposed to Suzuki, Gore and Bush. If politics, money, and/or opinions are involved, then the crap flows freely, no matter what side of any issue you are on. It's the way it has always been and always will be.

Sparks · 03-12-2007, 12:39 PM

I'm full of 'e'. Enthusiasm!

PsYcNeT · 03-12-2007, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Turn about is fair play. I hope they hammer the crap out of Moore and make him rethink his manipulative ways. He presents some very good subject matter, but goes to extremes to ambush people and catch them at their worst without a chance to rebut what he's saying. Moore would have a lot more credibility of he would do this. Mind you, the same practices are followed by certain members of the "media", so maybe its time for everyone to clean up their act.

Ah journalistic integrity...

I don't think we've seen anything resembling it since...pre-WWI?

Sensationalism rules the day, and why fix the problem when you can make money tearing down other people (even if they deserve it) and adding to it?

mykalberta · 03-12-2007, 01:12 PM

Why are we wasting a thread on this guy. Geesh - he's a biased idiot and this documentry "by 2 fans" will be as biased and idiotic as his films.

Its amazing how a guy can start from such humble roots as documenting the tough times in the Motor City and then can 180 as a mouthpiece for all Liberal causes in the US.

MYK

Flame Of Liberty · 03-12-2007, 02:20 PM

Oh the humanity! First Fat Al and his $30k energy bill and now Fat Moore enjoying his own medicine in this documentary. More hypocrisy of 2 leftist posterboys exposed, who would of thought that will happen??? Well color me suprised... Not!