Author Topic: Help revoke Bowling for Columbine's Oscar (Read 5836 times)

ra · « **Reply #15 on:** April 28, 2003, 01:56:51 PM »

Quote

Please explain the nature of the attack. Sounds to me like the gun lobby is trying to attack the right to free speech. Or maybe it fancies itself as a self appointed body of film censors.

The nature of the attack is to present an anti-gun propaganda piece as a documentary. The idea is to convince those people who are politically on the fence regarding gun laws that we need tighter gun laws. The anti-gun people pull this kind of crap all the tiime.

As far as anyone attacking free speech, you have earned a gigantic

ra

Pongo · « **Reply #16 on:** April 28, 2003, 02:02:49 PM »

I think its best to ban the movie, its obviosly dangerous propoganda. And ban the showing of the movie too..just to be sure. If there was ever a book..we will have to burn them.
Ra could you please start orginizing your like minded friends of liberty and march in the streets a little to get things rolling?
I havent even seen it. But what is a good disinformation campaign without making sure to try to narrowly define what is acceptable in your culture.

ra · « **Reply #17 on:** April 28, 2003, 02:24:03 PM »

Pongo,

This is one case where what is acceptable in my culture is the same thing that is acceptable in your culture.

-Moore freely makes an anti-gun film disguised as a documentary, and makes lots of money

-the Oscar folks freely decide to also pretend it is a documentary, and award it 'best documentary'

-other folks are angered at political propaganda being promoted as non-fiction, and freely try to pressure the Oscar folks to recind the award

-the Oscar folks are free to ignore this pressure

Everyone is still in possession of their rights, Moore, the Academy, gun owners. No one is banning anything. The argument is over the definition of what will from now on be called a documentary. If the Academy has its way, any kind of propaganda can pass as non-fiction, regardless of what liberties the filmmaker takes with the facts, so long as they are sympathetic with the filmmaker's politics.

ra

SOB · « **Reply #18 on:** April 28, 2003, 03:08:03 PM »

This is funny and tardriffic. The Academy is a farse and it always was. If you're gonna start tearing them apart, you might as well not stop at the documentary category - which were it not for Moore, hardly anyone would pay attention to it. I can't wait to see this movie...I hope it offends me enough to go crazy-stupid too!

SOB

Pongo · « **Reply #19 on:** April 28, 2003, 03:43:46 PM »

Ra
"If the Academy has its way, any kind of propaganda can pass as non-fiction, regardless of what liberties the filmmaker takes with the facts, so long as they are sympathetic with the filmmaker's politics.
"
thats why I laughed.
your so brainwashed.

rpm · « **Reply #20 on:** April 28, 2003, 04:51:03 PM »

This thread is so ludicrous I'm not even going to reply.

Animal · « **Reply #21 on:** April 28, 2003, 05:01:37 PM »

Isnt it too late for April's Fools?

beet1e · « **Reply #22 on:** April 28, 2003, 05:32:59 PM »

ra - I don't see a problem. The NRA can produce its own film to counter that of Michael Moore. Indeed, I look forward to seeing that film.

Seems to me that America champions the right to freedom of speech/freedom of thought - but only if you happen to be in agreement with the "majority", by which I mean the most vociferous group to have an opinion on the issue. Look at poor Blitz - has people bearing down on him because of his stance on the war... but not me. I was in support of the war, but felt no need to ostracise Blitz. Hell, I have even had a beer with Blitz. The thing is that I have learned to tolerate the point of view of another, without feeling the need to ostracise or silence that person. Some Americans here have yet to learn how to do this.

Keep your guns, but please allow others to hold an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the American policy of guns proliferation and the 2nd amendment.

Nash · « **Reply #23 on:** April 28, 2003, 05:33:47 PM »

I think some of the hostility here is misplaced. I mean, getting upset that Moore edited in Charlton Heston speech which turned out to be not the same speech/place/day that Moore would have us believe?

That bit of fudging was merely a sympathetic and protective gesture to Heston. On the actual day in question, Heston was seen out in the middle of a Beverly Hills intersection directing traffic in his pyjamas.

funkedup · « **Reply #24 on:** April 28, 2003, 05:47:25 PM »

Beet please show how anyone's freedom of speech is being compromised here? Freedom of speech applies to those who express political views, and it also applies to those who point out that they are full of ****.

Freedom of speech applies to those who create dishonest "documentaries" and it also applies to those who seek to discredit such dishonest work.
You seem to be arguing that free speech should be allowed only for those voicing minority opinions.

Shuckins · « **Reply #25 on:** April 28, 2003, 05:48:07 PM »

Any film that draws a connection with banks giving away $1,500 Weatherby Rifles to any customer who deposits $15,000 in a new account and the Columbine tragedy deserves to be called a documentary.

Any punk kid with an axe to grind can just waltz into those banks, plunk down several grand, walk out with a deadly weapon, and start massacring his fellow students. I see the connection between the two events.

Don't you?

Let the man keep his oscar. Just alter the thing so its' head is sticking up its...

Regards, Shuckins

ra · « **Reply #26 on:** April 28, 2003, 05:53:22 PM »

Quote

Keep your guns, but please allow others to hold an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the American policy of guns proliferation and the 2nd amendment.

Well, Ok.

beet1e · « **Reply #27 on:** April 29, 2003, 01:12:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
Beet please show how anyone's freedom of speech is being compromised here? Freedom of speech applies to those who express political views, and it also applies to those who point out that they are full of ****.
Freedom of speech applies to those who create dishonest "documentaries" and it also applies to those who seek to discredit such dishonest work.
You seem to be arguing that free speech should be allowed only for those voicing minority opinions.

Well what I meant was Moore's freedom of speech - his right to make a doc... er, movie. BTW who the hell cares if it was a documentary or a movie? Well quite a few people, it would seem, but why???

I'm just saying that Moore is entitled to make his own cinematographic production (for want of a more generic description) and for the folks running the Oscars to make the awards as they see fit.

Many years ago, the Eurovision song contest was won by a crappy Israeli entry. The British offering, a marginally less crappy record called Save all your kisses for me, by Brotherhood of Man, came last. Did I campaign to have the awards decision reversed? No. I quickly arrived at the opinion that the Eurovision song contest was a load of crap (not a huge leap to make) and never paid any attention to it again.

Instead of getting upset about the Oscars, the gun lobby should just ignore what happened, make their own movie, whatever.

I keep hearing that Moore's movie/documentary was "dishonest", and I think that's bullshit. How can a collection of interviews be "dishonest"? Oh wait, he got the KKK foundation date wrong by 5 years...

But for the gun lobby to want to interfere with the machinations at the Academy Awards ceremony, oh puhleeeeze!!! Geez, guys, get a freakin' grip.

Toodle-Pip.

PS Yeager, nice location, but the correct spelling is "demarcation".

funkedup · « **Reply #28 on:** April 29, 2003, 01:55:41 AM »

Quote

I keep hearing that Moore's movie/documentary was "dishonest", and I think that's bull****. How can a collection of interviews be "dishonest"? Oh wait, he got the KKK foundation date wrong by 5 years...

Read the second link on that website: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Moore clearly did some things that cross the line from documentary to fiction.

Quote

Well what I meant was Moore's freedom of speech - his right to make a doc... er, movie. BTW who the hell cares if it was a documentary or a movie? Well quite a few people, it would seem, but why???
I'm just saying that Moore is entitled to make his own cinematographic production (for want of a more generic description) and for the folks running the Oscars to make the awards as they see fit.

Nobody is questioning or impeding his right to make movies. All they are doing is pointing out to the Academy that according to the Academy's own rules, the content of Moore's film was not appropriate for the category in which it won an award. To turn it into a free speech issue is ludicrous.

SOB · « **Reply #29 on:** April 29, 2003, 02:21:23 AM »

Oh poor, well meaning Blitz. He just wanted peace and harmony and the big bad war bullies were mean to him. Yep, never had an unkind word to say about anyone, but them bullies - err, us bullies picked on him anyhow. I, for one, am ashamed of myself.

SOB