Micahel Moore Shut Out- Page 2

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 1/26/05 at 2:13am

"But if I recorded it, he might have won. Oh no!"

As in, oh no how stupid of me to think that would have been the outcome!

[camerangel]

Posted: 1/26/05 at 2:16am

actually that probably would have put the final nail in the democratic coffin this year and not helped kerry at all..

[Ellie3]

Posted: 1/26/05 at 2:18am

Poor Jim.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/26/05 at 3:16am

I agree that had Moore included counter arguments, there would have been a balance to the discussion that many seem to have desired.

For me (and I would guess many others), the film WAS balance to the general discussion in the country where people weren't talking about the lies and deception. Did this film change anyone's mind?--well, supposedly a few people--but it did ignite furor in many people to get out and vote. Assuming the election was legit, I daresay that Bush would have won by more than he did had Moore and others not fired up people to take action--the same thing that was being done amongst grassroots Bush supporters.

Thus, I in no way see any blame on Moore's shoulders for the loss. At least he was trying to do something. At least he was trying to fight the empire that we now have. He gave up his Oscar (because he would have definitely won) in hopes that he could do even more with a televised presentation.

I know that some of you never liked Moore or the film, but for anyone who is changing their colors about it because of the election: I am so sick of people supporting something, and then denouncing it once you lose. And, I hate how everyone wants to come up with some blame for the loss. There are a million factors in what happened.

I don't know what more to say on this at 3:00 a.m. except that I am thankful for people like Moore who are going out there and exposing truths and getting the conversations started. We need that now more than ever. With so many LIES and DECEPTION, we NEED something to counter that inbalance!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 2:00am

The NY Post even printed the wrong information today about why Moore did not submit F/911 in the Best Doc category. Granted, they are an uber Conservative "news"paper owned by Fox--of course, this wrong version of events seems to insult Moore.

Well here is the letter that Moore wrote about why:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-09-06

Quotes relating to comments made in this thread:

"I had dinner recently with a well-known pollster who had often worked for Republicans...he believes if Kerry wins, "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be one of the top three reasons for his election. Kerry's only problem, he said, is how many people will actually be able to see it before election day. The less that see it, the better for Bush."

"...Though 80% going IN to your movie are Kerry voters, 100% of those COMING OUT of your movie are Kerry voters. You can't come out of this movie and say, 'I am absolutely and enthusiastically voting for George W. Bush.'"

"The only problem with my desire to get this movie in front of as many Americans as possible is that, should it air on TV, I will NOT be eligible to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Academy Award consideration for Best Documentary. Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release (fiction films do not have the same restriction)."

"I have decided it is more important to take that risk and hope against hope that I can persuade someone to put it on TV, even if it's the night before the election. Therefore, I have decided not to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for consideration for the Best Documentary Oscar. If there is even the remotest of chances that I can get this film seen by a few million more Americans before election day, then that is more important to me than winning another documentary Oscar."

No--Kerry did not win the election, but he didn't lose it by that much given all of the factors.

And, I imagine a second F/911 film is going to be even hotter than ever given that so many things are going to be happening in the next 4 years.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 2:14am

Well, to the clear, I appreciate the fact that Moore forces people to look at Bush and his actions, and hopefully hold him accountable for them, not to mention the impact that Moore has had in motivating young voters to be proactive re: the election instead of sitting with their thumbs up their bums, both with 9/11 and his campaign tactics. I watched Moore's documentaries and I enjoyed them for what they were worth - factual entertainment. But I would hope that people would watch his films and be inspired to do more research on their own instead of blindly accepting what's presented to them as passive consumers.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 2:19am

Yes, and that is true of anything but ESPECIALLY true of people who merely accept anything spoonfed to them by the administration and/or the media.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 7:48am

jrb, did he actually get it shown on tv?

[thirdrowcenter]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 11:59am

Jrb I never saw The Passion. I'm Jewish I cannot handle violence in movies all that well. I have no feelings about the movie being snubbed.

[HeresJohnny]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 12:12pm

Frankly, once he's done messing with the drug companies, I wish he would go after the College Textbook industry. You talk about a buch of theives who all deserve to die...

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 1:17pm

I understand that it aired on pay per view the night before the election. Regardless, he kept the film from submission in order to have it aired.

The only thing that I would have done differently is that I would have submitted my documentary. Then, if it did violate the rules with a TV broadcast, the Academy could pull it from consideration. But, perhaps there are details that make that easier said than done.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 1:23pm

It's premiering on UK TV tonight too.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 1:31pm

Your country will be glad we dumped your butts over 200 years ago!

[HeresJohnny]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 2:53pm

You have to remember it costs $$$ to promote a film to the Academy.

[GypsyRoseLee]

Posted: 1/28/05 at 11:32pm

It's a good thing he didn't submit it for the Documentary catergory(sp?). It's a great film, but it's a bad documentary. A good documentary should be unbiased and present both sides of the argument. Farenheit 9/11 certainly didn't do this.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/29/05 at 1:07am

Documentaries can be whatever they want to be. Documentary merely refers to the style of film that is completely "realism". There are no actors, no sets, no costumes, etc.

So, that comment is 100% wrong.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 1/29/05 at 9:25am

Documentary: a non-fiction film which usually, although not always, has a particular point of view regarding its subject matter.

So I would agree with JRB and say Gypsys comment was 100% wrong.