Fahrenheit 9/11 looking back

PaperPlates wrote:

Did he just use the words "accurate" and "revealing" in the same breath as Michael Moore? Just checking.

Moore still gave a more accurate description then that which the admin fed us......and the misled who voted for Bush bought.

i really enjoy moore's films. he brings disturbing but important information to light and helps to show some of the sick processes and operations that go on almost entirely unbeknownst to the average person. the only thing that DOES bother me is he's a bit of an asshole that acts entirely different in real life than the image he personifies. his average little man act kind of dissipates when he refuses to visit certain talk shows if they don't provide a certain amount of a certain bottled water. he once made a statement that 'if any blacks feel discriminated against, come work for me, i'll give you a job!' despite the fact moore has only hired 3 african americans throughout all of his work and projects...this is compounded by the fact that he stated in 'stupid white men' "if you're white and you want to make a difference, start with yourself," despite the fact he sent his daughter to a private school with virtually no african american students present. he also tends to make some unneccessary exhaggerations; for example, in bowling for columbine he uses the 'weapons' factory in columbine as a contributor to the teens' obsession with violence. he never mentioned though that this factory only crafted rockets that launch t.v satellites into space.
people who have worked for/with moore, including former manager douglas urbanski have charged moore with being 'difficult to work with, hypocritical in his treatment of employees', and 'money-obsessed.' i mean....the guy DID claim he gave a third of his income away to charities, and it's been proven since that that's not even close to being true.
moore's publically available irs documents show he has shares in some of the very companies he has spent so much energy in the past criticizing as being 'corrupt' and 'evil.' need i mention the tens of thousands of share's moore's foundation has in HALLIBURTON?....little shady, yeah? moore also calls american neighborhoods racist, even though in his beachfront home he's surrounded by 2600 neighbors, ZERO of whom are black.
like i said, i respect his films and their messages immensely; i just don't think we need to crawl up his ass TOO far. i agree with columnist janet street-porter in that moore is a victim of his own success.

jamtemplechains wrote:

i really enjoy moore's films. he brings disturbing but important information to light and helps to show some of the sick processes and operations that go on almost entirely unbeknownst to the average person. the only thing that DOES bother me is he's a bit of an asshole that acts entirely different in real life than the image he personifies. his average little man act kind of dissipates when he refuses to visit certain talk shows if they don't provide a certain amount of a certain bottled water. he once made a statement that 'if any blacks feel discriminated against, come work for me, i'll give you a job!' despite the fact moore has only hired 3 african americans throughout all of his work and projects...this is compounded by the fact that he stated in 'stupid white men' "if you're white and you want to make a difference, start with yourself," despite the fact he sent his daughter to a private school with virtually no african american students present. he also tends to make some unneccessary exhaggerations; for example, in bowling for columbine he uses the 'weapons' factory in columbine as a contributor to the teens' obsession with violence. he never mentioned though that this factory only crafted rockets that launch t.v satellites into space.
people who have worked for/with moore, including former manager douglas urbanski have charged moore with being 'difficult to work with, hypocritical in his treatment of employees', and 'money-obsessed.' i mean....the guy DID claim he gave a third of his income away to charities, and it's been proven since that that's not even close to being true.
moore's publically available irs documents show he has shares in some of the very companies he has spent so much energy in the past criticizing as being 'corrupt' and 'evil.' need i mention the tens of thousands of share's moore's foundation has in HALLIBURTON?....little shady, yeah? moore also calls american neighborhoods racist, even though in his beachfront home he's surrounded by 2600 neighbors, ZERO of whom are black.
like i said, i respect his films and their messages immensely; i just don't think we need to crawl up his ass TOO far. i agree with columnist janet street-porter in that moore is a victim of his own success.

great user name....my favorites....

you can nit pick anyone...especially if the person is rich

would like to see some support for Halliburton thing....and not from right wing war machine website.

callen wrote:

great user name....my favorites....

you can nit pick anyone...especially if the person is rich

would like to see some support for Halliburton thing....and not from right wing war machine website.

thanks for the username comp
as for the halliburton thing, simply google 'michael moore, shares, halliburton' and there will be a wealth of information from various websites and sources, and i assure you--as someone who's far more to the left--many of these are definitely NOT simply right-wing, conservative sites.

onelongsong wrote:

no; he's using sensationalism and fiction to line his pockets. if his facts (?) were correct; and his motives to inform the public; he wouldn't be charging you to see the information. he makes $ millions off the sheep; as they blindly follow.

as my previous posts suggest, he's a man who might have began with sincere intentions, but became a victim of his own success. in case you missed any, maybe check out some of the points i came across and posted here on my longer post on the previous page. and keep in mind this is all coming from someone who FOR THE MOST PART respects the messages relayed in moore's films. it IS true that he exhaggerates certain points, and embellishes some information nearly to the point of making it untrue, even if it is all for some greater purpose to inform the general public of things that should change.

onelongsong wrote:

no; he's using sensationalism and fiction to line his pockets. if his facts (?) were correct; and his motives to inform the public; he wouldn't be charging you to see the information. he makes $ millions off the sheep; as they blindly follow.

Movies don't just show up in theaters or video stores for free. You have to pay the projectionists and concession stand workers and ticket sellers, etc. Only producers and studios make money after a movie is released. Most talent (actors, directors, etc) are paid before the movie is made and then get a % of residuals if they are lucy. Moore does co-produce his films so he does have some stake in the success of his films but not as much as you state.

For example Sicko was a semi flop following Fahrenheit's sucess but it doesn't mean it cost Moore his money but the studio and investors there money.

The point of all this is that you're a little off base with your post.

onelongsong wrote:

thousands are still making money from 9/11 and i see them as vultures.

I 100% agree with this part of your post.

cough cough.....Dick Cheney.....cough cough....

jamtemplechains wrote:

what about some of the disengenous things moore did (as compared to the ideals he spouts) that i mentioned?

I did not talk about the accuracy of Moore's works in my post. As a film major i disagree with how he presents his arguements. His films are more propaganda then documentories. I am a fan becasue I find him funny and agree with a lot of his stances. I do wish he was more accurate in his portrayls but he goes for entertainment over accuracy.

I think its funny that the main people who call him out on this come from Fox News who are the kings of entertainment over accuracy.

BTW I know CNN went after his last film... but not as much or as vicious as Fox News.

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

You're right. Micheal Moore should pracitce what he preaches.

I did not know about the halliburton stocks which is just shameless, if true.

That does not change the fact that no one has made more money off a tactically stupid war then Dick Cheney. The same Dick Cheney that said in 1990 and 1994 we should not go into Iraq because it would become a Quagmire. That is worse then someone making some money off of a movie about the subject.

oh i couldn't agree more, i just like kickin up some shit i assure you the stock shares thing is true...but you're absolutely right, dick cheney is definitely about 343,455,387,455 times worse than moore could ever be. at least moore does corrupt things and makes dirty money getting good messages across.