Author Topic: Help revoke Bowling for Columbine's Oscar (Read 5983 times)

Widewing · « **Reply #60 on:** April 29, 2003, 11:58:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ra
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

You're right. The NRA doesn't oppose free speech, it opposes the use of fabricated "facts" in the exercise of free speech.

Ya see the difference Beet1e?

My regards,

Widewing

-tronski- · « **Reply #61 on:** April 30, 2003, 12:16:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
It was a well made film. Thats why it won the Oscar.

Go check out Olympia, Leni Riefenstahl's documentary about the 1936 Olympic games in Nazi Germany. It is beautifully filmed, incredible footage, great editing,,, and chock full of propaganda! Is it worthy of the Oscar? Heck yes! Is it factual? Well....mostly.

The real issue with Moore is that he attacked guns. How dare he!

And of course his acceptance speech just added more ammo!

I liked Bowling, I thought it was a worthy winner, even so this push (if you could call it that) to revoke his oscar is world championship class tard'ness.

Tronsky

beet1e · « **Reply #62 on:** April 30, 2003, 03:59:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D

You've made such a coninuous bellybutton of yourself that I am somewhat suprised you keep going on. I guess pointing it out again and again is somewhat useless.

My money says you reply again... only to say you really weren't an idiot previously, while at the same time demonstrating that I have understated it.

MiniD

Well it would be rude not to reply.

But I don't think there's much left to say. Hard to reply to a guy who's run out of things to say, and can do nothing more than reiterate the same personal insult, over and over and over again. But that's OK, MiniD. I've got your measure. You can call me a love muffin as much as you like. It won't make me go away. But let's not get off topic.

This thread is about wanting to revoke Moore's Oscar - something about the true definition of a documentary. The Gun Lobby doesn't really care about that. That's just a smokescreen. What the GL really wants is to flex muscle and exert some form of triumphalism over Moore for having portrayed as evil an issue close to so many hearts in the GL. Forget about sanitising TV for the simpletons - that's another smokescreen, but nice try. I have been told that there are historical and other inaccuracies in Pearl Harbor. Do we hear the GL mounting a campaign to set the record straight on that? We do not.

_________________________

The NRA/Gun Lobby is in no way threatened by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, it's just plain redikulolous.

Toad · « **Reply #63 on:** April 30, 2003, 07:24:08 AM »

IIRC, Pearl Harbor did not compete as a documentary. If it had, I'm sure the same sort of thing would have been heard, particularly from PH vets.

As for BFC being a "good movie"..... puhlease. Filming wasn't even good "cinema verite" and thematically it just hopped around like a deranged rabbit as Moore set out to prove one thing and then wandered in and out of blind alleys never really proving anything.

If that's the best "documentary" of the year it says pretty sad things about the state of documentaries.

beet1e · « **Reply #64 on:** April 30, 2003, 07:49:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
IIRC, Pearl Harbor did not compete as a documentary.

No, but that was not my point. My point was that (I am told) it contains many historical inaccuracies which would mislead its audience...

... but I hear no calls for this to be rectified.

Toad · « **Reply #65 on:** April 30, 2003, 08:26:00 AM »

PUh-leez Beet1e, you're more intelligent than that.

The basis of this thread is that BFC shouldn't get an Oscar as a documentary because it is in no way a documentary.

No one said Hollywood dramas are historically accurate; nor does anyone with an ounce of common sense expect them to be. But a documentary, by the very nature of the genre, is supposed to be accurate. It's supposed to "document" the facts.

Further, if you seach this very BBS you'll find folks slapping PH around for it's historical inaccuracies back when it came out. But that has NOTHING to do with an Oscar for an entertainment-genre film.

I'm not sure PH got an Oscar; I'll admit I don't track the doings of the Hollyrock Glitterati like I probably should.

Anyway, your injection of "hey PH was a smarmy attempt at turning war into a chick-flick and it was historically inaccurate!" is merely a red herring.

Worse, you know it and keep trolling the stinky old red herring bait.

Shame on ya!

Creamo · « **Reply #66 on:** April 30, 2003, 08:42:57 AM »

Although i did not see this film, one thing is very clear. Beetle is just awful at argument. Not in the sense of being persistant to jump in a debate mind you, but just failing miserably at making a point during one. It's uncanny how he misses to get a edge at almost every chance so completely. And I do think he's a nice guy... but damn. Perhaps this is the 'wrong forum for the right guy' type of thing.

Pongo · « **Reply #67 on:** April 30, 2003, 08:57:26 AM »

Well hes over matched by toad for sure. I still think this thread is funny just from the stand point of gun rights supporters complaining about moore twisting facts.

lazs2 · « **Reply #68 on:** April 30, 2003, 09:05:16 AM »

some of you lefties are missing the point...

Any opportunity to discredit the lef, moore and the hollywood should not be passed up. When the opportunity is so blatantly obvious then it behooves us to really rub their face into it and embarass them.

Maybe the next lefty who feels that the truth is not as important as the message will think it over a little moore? Maybe the next time a left wing group gets all wet and gushy over such drivel and tries to elevate it... they will think again..

this is nothing new... belles..bellis... belis somebody had multiple awards revolked over his highly acclaimed and patently false book "the arming of america"... the lefty book crowd, critics and awards people, heaped praise on this "research" and then had to eat it when, like moores work, it was found that the work of fact was.... fiction.

if moore wan't to write movies and satires... fine... if they award him film awards.... fine... if he claims to make a work of fact and then produces this drivel.... ignore him... or... give him awards at your peril.
lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #69 on:** April 30, 2003, 09:09:08 AM »

think of it this way... I have no problem with "pearl harbor" getting best special effects award but would be pissed if it got "best documentary". moors "documentary" is about as much of a documentary as pearl was.

moore is a lying idiot... hollywood is full of lying idiots... embarassing either is good for everyone.
lazs

midnight Target · « **Reply #70 on:** April 30, 2003, 09:40:54 AM »

Moore is a member of the NRA.

Syzygyone · « **Reply #71 on:** April 30, 2003, 09:46:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Moore is a member of the NRA.

Proof please.
If he is, he's a spy!

midnight Target · « **Reply #72 on:** April 30, 2003, 10:03:07 AM »

From here http://www.ericdsnider.com/view.php?mrkey=1591

Quote

Moore's politics do come through, but they're balanced. He grew up in hunting-happy Michigan and is a member of the NRA, but doesn't seem opposed to the idea of reasonable gun control. Mostly, he is perplexed: Canada has 7 million guns in 10 million homes -- a very high per-capita rate of gun ownership -- yet only a couple hundred gun-related deaths per year. In the United States, there are 11,000 gun deaths every year. What is so different about America that makes us kill each other?

midnight Target · « **Reply #73 on:** April 30, 2003, 10:05:22 AM »

and here

http://www.skymovies.com/skymovies/article/0,,12078076,00.html

Quote

Famed documentary-maker, American left-winger, marksman and lifelong NRA member Michael Moore returns with his first feature film in five years - and it's a winner.

Mini D · « **Reply #74 on:** April 30, 2003, 11:03:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Well hes over matched by toad for sure. I still think this thread is funny just from the stand point of gun rights supporters complaining about moore twisting facts.

Not twisting them... creating them. Pretty major difference.

And I think its funny that while arguing moore's film was "just well made and deserved an Oscar for that", people continue to use to slap gun rights supporters across the face with it.

Hell, some people can even read an entire thread about the inaccuracies of the movie, then start a post about how great it was without even seeing it first, just because they know it will get people riled up.

Its odd. People have said a website with a very clear goal has an "agenda". People have said the NRA has an agenda. I just don't get it. I simply cannot remember the NRA showing up with a gun at my door and asking me if I could hold onto it for them.

Then movies get made with fictitious "facts" and faulty assumptions based on timelines with events that either did not occur when said, or did not contain the statements being quoted, or only had parts of speaches quoted. Then people who criticize it get accused of having an agenda? I wonder how people continually fail to realise just exactly who has an agenda right now. You don't need an agenda to keep the constitution the way it is.

MiniD