drinkwine732Posts: 20,418destroyer of motherfuckers
edited December 2010
a few good men is not a documentary. a believe a documentary holds a little more of a responsibility to the watcher than a drama to explain the entire story. i understand he is trying to motivate change so he has to get peoples attention but his points are very skewed to his favor. for example, in bowling for columbine he visits the canadian side of detroit and says something like "look they have black people, and they seem ahppy and not in gangs, so why cant this happen in the usa?" keep in mind he was at a fair where people are happy and gang violence is minimal and showing a black family at a fair doesnt mean canada has as many black people as the us. show statistics if you want to say something like that to back your point. but he doesnt do that because i dont think it would go with his point
His rhetoric is fairly irrelevant, but his point is a good one. What is the reason for more violent crime in America as opposed to a country like Canada? It's certainly not the amount of black people. I think you might have oversimplified his point there.
A question. Can you name me five completely neutral documentaries?
Instead of watching biased movies search out all the info on your own instead of believing what one guy has done. I don't know what is hard to understand about that.
I thought I did a pretty good job of explaining what was difficult about understanding that. I attempted to defend Moore by claiming that he has no tie to any journalistic integrity because he is not a journalist. Ask him if he is one, and he will say no. Ask Tom Brokaw if he is one, and he will say yes. There's a fundamental difference in duty and results.
a few good men is not a documentary. a believe a documentary holds a little more of a responsibility to the watcher than a drama to explain the entire story. i understand he is trying to motivate change so he has to get peoples attention but his points are very skewed to his favor. for example, in bowling for columbine he visits the canadian side of detroit and says something like "look they have black people, and they seem ahppy and not in gangs, so why cant this happen in the usa?" keep in mind he was at a fair where people are happy and gang violence is minimal and showing a black family at a fair doesnt mean canada has as many black people as the us. show statistics if you want to say something like that to back your point. but he doesnt do that because i dont think it would go with his point
His rhetoric is fairly irrelevant, but his point is a good one. What is the reason for more violent crime in America as opposed to a country like Canada? It's certainly not the amount of black people. I think you might have oversimplified his point there.
A question. Can you name me five completely neutral documentaries?
To be honest, I've never seen a documentary that was neutral. And I've never heard of one. Because majority of the time, the person making the documentary wants his/her certain view and opinions on shit to come across to the audience and usually uses facts.
like i said, he raises valid points, but i could come up with the same thing. we have a gun/violence problem in the us? NO WAI!! The huge corporate companied can be corrupt? SAI WHAT?!?!?!
why doesnt he do a documentary on trying to FIX these problems or else he is just the same as everyone else
Okay. One I didn't say anyone believed everything. Two all I'm saying to the people that defend Moore to the end is do the research for your self. Also that's to everyone on every topic. Just listening to the radio, watching movies, and tv will not get you all the information you need and starts to follow ignorance.
This has nothing to do with Moore but I will say it anyway. It pisses me off to no end that people are allowed to go vote with out knowing all of the parties beliefs and goals.
You tryin to be a hero fool? You wanna see badass mother fucker?! I'll show ya a badass!!!
drinkwine732Posts: 20,418destroyer of motherfuckers
like i said, he raises valid points, but i could come up with the same thing. we have a gun/violence problem in the us? NO WAI!! The huge corporate companied can be corrupt? SAI WHAT?!?!?!
why doesnt he do a documentary on trying to FIX these problems or else he is just the same as everyone else
Well, I think we both would consider ourselves to be educated. A lot of people in the Midwest and South don't really consider our gun control to be a problem.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Moore almost always has a point in his movies where he illustrates a solution.
To be honest, I've never seen a documentary that was neutral. And I've never heard of one. Because majority of the time, the person making the documentary wants his/her certain view and opinions on shit to come across to the audience and usually uses facts.
I asked the question because I couldn't either. I'm a total nerd, so I love documentaries and every single one has had a point to make on an issue.
This has nothing to do with Moore but I will say it anyway. It pisses me off to no end that people are allowed to go vote with out knowing all of the parties beliefs and goals.
I'll do you one more. The more and more I think about it, I'm not in favor of universal suffrage.
like i said, he raises valid points, but i could come up with the same thing. we have a gun/violence problem in the us? NO WAI!! The huge corporate companied can be corrupt? SAI WHAT?!?!?!
why doesnt he do a documentary on trying to FIX these problems or else he is just the same as everyone else
Anyone with these views could if they had money or had enough money to. He's doing it because its putting a spotlight on it when the majority if this country either doesn't give two shits or looks the other direction. I'm sure he'd try to fix some of these problems but he can't fix them. This is beyond him and in order for anything to get fixed the country would have to take their heads out of their asses and change it, because we do have the power to do that. But the thing is, people don't care.
like i said, he raises valid points, but i could come up with the same thing. we have a gun/violence problem in the us? NO WAI!! The huge corporate companied can be corrupt? SAI WHAT?!?!?!
why doesnt he do a documentary on trying to FIX these problems or else he is just the same as everyone else
Anyone with these views could if they had money or had enough money to. He's doing it because its putting a spotlight on it when the majority if this country either doesn't give two shits or looks the other direction. I'm sure he'd try to fix some of these problems but he can't fix them. This is beyond him and in order for anything to get fixed the courtyard would have to take their heads out of their asses and change it, because we do have the power to do that. But the thing is, people don't care.
leah, things dont fix themselves, there had to be a plan. he could at least propose a plan on how we could change it and plus he is getting mad rich off this as well. if he cares so much he would do the documentaries for free or give his money back alot to the jobless people he cares about. like u said earlier, he has 60 million off his last movie, does he really need a new mercedes or could he help out a family he exploited in his movies
drinkwine732Posts: 20,418destroyer of motherfuckers
I haven't seen Columbine in forever, but I'm almost certain he illustrates it, and I'm fairly certain it's just the simple "repeal the second amendment."
i dont think he is for repealing the 2nd at all. he is a gun owner and grew up in michigan and owns guns. his point could possibly be tighter gun control but he doesnt illustrate that well. but any of his movies for that matter, go ahead...
like i said, he raises valid points, but i could come up with the same thing. we have a gun/violence problem in the us? NO WAI!! The huge corporate companied can be corrupt? SAI WHAT?!?!?!
why doesnt he do a documentary on trying to FIX these problems or else he is just the same as everyone else
Anyone with these views could if they had money or had enough money to. He's doing it because its putting a spotlight on it when the majority if this country either doesn't give two shits or looks the other direction. I'm sure he'd try to fix some of these problems but he can't fix them. This is beyond him and in order for anything to get fixed the courtyard would have to take their heads out of their asses and change it, because we do have the power to do that. But the thing is, people don't care.
leah, things dont fix themselves, there had to be a plan. he could at least propose a plan on how we could change it and plus he is getting mad rich off this as well. if he cares so much he would do the documentaries for free or give his money back alot to the jobless people he cares about. like u said earlier, he has 60 million off his last movie, does he really need a new mercedes or could he help out a family he exploited in his movies
I know shit doesn't fix itself. I'm saying that even though there's problems that need fixed, I could bet a million dollars no one will ever do anything about it. Sure, he can propose a plan to fix shit...but no one will do anything. And if some group or person tries, its not going to go very far in fixing the whole problem. And I really could give a shit what he makes from his movies, I wasn't talking about that at all.
drinkwine732Posts: 20,418destroyer of motherfuckers
i dont think he is for repealing the 2nd at all. he is a gun owner and grew up in michigan and owns guns. his point could possibly be tighter gun control but he doesnt illustrate that well. but any of his movies for that matter, go ahead...
He quite clearly advocates a non-profit universal health care system in Sicko.
well leah, his movies commonly deal with the poverty issue in the us yet he makes ungodly money. youve said it earlier in this thread that you are for taxing the rich. dont you think then he should feel obligated to help out these poor people he seems to care for so much in his movies?
i dont think he is for repealing the 2nd at all. he is a gun owner and grew up in michigan and owns guns. his point could possibly be tighter gun control but he doesnt illustrate that well. but any of his movies for that matter, go ahead...
He quite clearly advocates a non-profit universal health care system in Sicko.
thats taking a side, not presenting a solution. at no point did he explain how we should go about handling that
Do you know if he donated to charities or whatnot? I'm sure you don't. I don't know either but I'm not looking shit up, I have a phone not a computer. And yes, I'm for that because it'll start fixing shit in this country. A start if you will. But what's crazy is all this shit could have been fixed or started to get fixed years or even decades ago, but that hasn't happened. I wonder why that is..
well what i think he should do is instead of making another 60 million for himself starring in a new movie. he should take the money he has already made and start a quiet charity for the poor he care so much about and where he is not the focus of attention. he seems to me like just a media whore and im starting to doubt if he honestly cares for these people hes fighting for
Comments
A question. Can you name me five completely neutral documentaries? I thought I did a pretty good job of explaining what was difficult about understanding that. I attempted to defend Moore by claiming that he has no tie to any journalistic integrity because he is not a journalist. Ask him if he is one, and he will say no. Ask Tom Brokaw if he is one, and he will say yes. There's a fundamental difference in duty and results.
why doesnt he do a documentary on trying to FIX these problems or else he is just the same as everyone else
This has nothing to do with Moore but I will say it anyway. It pisses me off to no end that people are allowed to go vote with out knowing all of the parties beliefs and goals.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Moore almost always has a point in his movies where he illustrates a solution. I asked the question because I couldn't either. I'm a total nerd, so I love documentaries and every single one has had a point to make on an issue. I'll do you one more. The more and more I think about it, I'm not in favor of universal suffrage.