Moore's strategy backfires; '9/11' shut out of Oscars

[Velk]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

HA! Those were debunked long ago. It's been discussed up here before.

Regardless of what you think of Moore, you have to agree that calling him a documentary film maker is a stretch of the word...Moore's films are politically slanted to serve his particular agenda, and he utilizes many of the propoganda film tricks of the trade to make his points.

Regardless of any political views, leanings, facts or distortions, my opinion is that Moore is a sleazeball.

Bowling for columbine was an entertaining film, but his treatment of Charlton Heston was despicable and calls into question how he gained any other information he uses.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: tangent1138
I'm sorry you don't full understand the concept of rhetoric. I was posing ideas and questions, fully expecting your answers.

I've been exposed to rhetoric and rhetorical devices in debates for a few decades now so I'm pretty familiar with them. Posing questions in a non-rhetorical manner does not include making ridiculous/absurd observations commentary such as you did concerning bin Laden. If you don't want to recognize that as hyperbole and a rhetorical device, so be it. You lack of recognition doesn't change a thing though. It's still there in black and white, obvious for all to see.

I'm sorry you don't understand the concept of "acting presidential". It's an elusive quality, akin to the "It Girls" of Old Hollywood. It's a set of behavior rules that conveys an equal amount of confidence and accessibility. Howard Dean's rally yell? That wasn't presidential. It was too raw and it cost him the nomination. JFK's Berlin speech? That was presidential. These moments are all planned: George Bush on an aircraft carrier to instill confidence, George Bush on a fishing show to convey accessibility ("Hey, he's one of us!") Of course policy is more important than all the smoke and mirrors, but the people demand a certain amount of it to feel secure. Why do you think Bush was mad at his advisors for whisking him away to that airbase on 9-11? I didn't look presidential.

Sorry, but "acting presidential" is not a quality. It's an expectation that people have that varies from person to person and is a catch-phrase that originates from Hollywood. What you actually mean is "leadership qualities." We expect all our leaders to exhibit some form of leadership qualities. It's an ephemeral behavior that tends to come to the fore in a time of crisis. Bush demonstrated such qualities in his speech on 9/12.

I'm sorry you don't understand the way the Secret Service works. At any given location, the Secret Service knows multiple escape routes and can move the president instantly to safety. The Presidential limo is basically a moving tank, and Air Force One is the safest aircraft in the world. To say that the Secret Service need 7+ minutes to figure out where to move him is an insult to one of our greatest organizations, which operates tirelessly 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

What you say is true, under normal circumstances. However, they didn't have a contingency for planes crashing into the WTC. It was not a normal circumstance. The SS had no idea if the attack was localized or was an all out attack that spanned the nation. Until they could ascertain what was what they couldn't make a move. I don't know why I even have to state this as it should be evidently clear and, iirc, has been stated by those on Bush's staff as well.

To be honest, I feel like you're not really thinking through your responses. You paste together a couple phrases you've heard bandied about--"liberal circle jerk"-- and throw in a few concepts that you don't truly understand-- "rhetorical"-- but your arguments have no real substance. "You're unintelligent." Okay, how? "I don't like your methodology" Okay, how?

Think again. Your attempt to subtley state that I'm clueless is pretty disingenius. You make rhetorical statements and then pretend as if you don't know what I'm talking about. You seem to be smarter than that, but maybe I'm giving you more than your fair share of the benefit of the doubt?

Sigh. You weren't the debate partner I'd hoped for. Have a nice night...

Later.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Ldir
Did anyone think F911 would actually get an Oscar? What for? It was not eligible as documentary because it was shown on TV. You could nominate the Dub as best actor, but he was not convincing as a president.

No, it wasnt eligible as a documentary because it was FICTION.

 

[StageLeft]

Even at the start of this thread, the article was more than four months old.

 

[Tab]

F 9/11 Facts

I bet 95% of this forum haven't even seen F 9/11...

The partisan hackery is astounding. It doesn't MATTER THAT IT'S ON HIS FVCKING WEBSITE. WHAT MATTERS IS WHO HIS SOURCES ARE!

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Ldir
Did anyone think F911 would actually get an Oscar? What for? It was not eligible as documentary because it was shown on TV. You could nominate the Dub as best actor, but he was not convincing as a president.

regardless of being shown on TV, I would surmise that it would have been discredited as a *documentary* piece anyway for its fictionalized elements. Specifically, you can't put THOUGHT BUBBLES over someone's head to tell your audience what that person is or was thinking at any given moment, especially when you never even INTERVIEWED that person, and expect it to have any credibility as a Documentary.

Jason

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
He's probably still up for customer of the year at McDonalds. He should be receiveing an award from Ronald himself - from one clown to another. How fitting.

Good God, TLC, of all the frickin' things you could criticize about either Moore or the Oscars, and you make a fat crack?

Does making fun of fat people make you feel better about yourself?

 

[gordanfreeman]

Originally posted by: Buz2b


I guess good old "Dub" was convincing enough to get more popular votes, by percentage, than anyone in over 30 years (going back to Nixon's 61% in 1972). Your man Clinton never got close to that.

i couldnt believe that and after 5 minutes or research i found you were wrong.

bush jr had 51% of the popular vote in '04
highest before him was:
bush sr with 53% in '88
and
reagan with 58% in '84

no clinton never got that percentage of the popular votes but during both of his campaigns 3rd party candidates played a much larger role in the election than they did in '04. perot was able to take 18% and 8% of the vote in the '92 and '96 campaigns, respectively (to contrast, 3rd party candidates accounted for barely 1% of the overall vote in '04). add half of perot's votes to clinton either of those years and he would tie/beat bush jr's % in '04

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
He's probably still up for customer of the year at McDonalds. He should be receiveing an award from Ronald himself - from one clown to another. How fitting.

Good God, TLC, of all the frickin' things you could criticize about either Moore or the Oscars, and you make a fat crack?

Does making fun of fat people make you feel better about yourself?

Has nothing to do with Moore's size. It has to do with his attitude. He is a clown!!

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Ldir
Did anyone think F911 would actually get an Oscar? What for? It was not eligible as documentary because it was shown on TV. You could nominate the Dub as best actor, but he was not convincing as a president.

No, it wasnt eligible as a documentary because it was FICTION.

WRONG.


---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Ldir
Did anyone think F911 would actually get an Oscar? What for? It was not eligible as documentary because it was shown on TV. You could nominate the Dub as best actor, but he was not convincing as a president.

regardless of being shown on TV, I would surmise that it would have been discredited as a *documentary* piece anyway for its fictionalized elements. Specifically, you can't put THOUGHT BUBBLES over someone's head to tell your audience what that person is or was thinking at any given moment, especially when you never even INTERVIEWED that person, and expect it to have any credibility as a Documentary.

Jason

I do not believe the definition of documentary is that rigid. A documentary can contain entertaining elements. They make a dry film more interesting.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
He's probably still up for customer of the year at McDonalds. He should be receiveing an award from Ronald himself - from one clown to another. How fitting.

Good God, TLC, of all the frickin' things you could criticize about either Moore or the Oscars, and you make a fat crack?

Does making fun of fat people make you feel better about yourself?

Has nothing to do with Moore's size. It has to do with his attitude. He is a clown!!

Actually, it clearly is a jab at his weight.

 

[lanche]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Ldir
Did anyone think F911 would actually get an Oscar? What for? It was not eligible as documentary because it was shown on TV. You could nominate the Dub as best actor, but he was not convincing as a president.

regardless of being shown on TV, I would surmise that it would have been discredited as a *documentary* piece anyway for its fictionalized elements. Specifically, you can't put THOUGHT BUBBLES over someone's head to tell your audience what that person is or was thinking at any given moment, especially when you never even INTERVIEWED that person, and expect it to have any credibility as a Documentary.

Jason

I do not believe the definition of documentary is that rigid. A documentary can contain entertaining elements. They make a dry film more interesting.

ldir - Like MM you have inserted your own opinion and passed it off as fact.

Documentary - Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Ldir
Did anyone think F911 would actually get an Oscar? What for? It was not eligible as documentary because it was shown on TV. You could nominate the Dub as best actor, but he was not convincing as a president.

regardless of being shown on TV, I would surmise that it would have been discredited as a *documentary* piece anyway for its fictionalized elements. Specifically, you can't put THOUGHT BUBBLES over someone's head to tell your audience what that person is or was thinking at any given moment, especially when you never even INTERVIEWED that person, and expect it to have any credibility as a Documentary.

Jason

I do not believe the definition of documentary is that rigid. A documentary can contain entertaining elements. They make a dry film more interesting.

It wasn't an "entertaining element", it was a MADE UP element. You *can't* try to convey what a man you've never spoken to or interviewed at all is THINKING at any given point by using THOUGHT BUBBLES and claiming you know what that person was thinking. It has NOTHING to do with "entertainment", and documentaries are not MEANT to entertain they are meant to INFORM. To mix the two is to intentionally confuse and mislead your audience.

Jason

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Ldir
Did anyone think F911 would actually get an Oscar? What for? It was not eligible as documentary because it was shown on TV. You could nominate the Dub as best actor, but he was not convincing as a president.

regardless of being shown on TV, I would surmise that it would have been discredited as a *documentary* piece anyway for its fictionalized elements. Specifically, you can't put THOUGHT BUBBLES over someone's head to tell your audience what that person is or was thinking at any given moment, especially when you never even INTERVIEWED that person, and expect it to have any credibility as a Documentary.

Jason

I do not believe the definition of documentary is that rigid. A documentary can contain entertaining elements. They make a dry film more interesting.

It wasn't an "entertaining element", it was a MADE UP element. You *can't* try to convey what a man you've never spoken to or interviewed at all is THINKING at any given point by using THOUGHT BUBBLES and claiming you know what that person was thinking. It has NOTHING to do with "entertainment", and documentaries are not MEANT to entertain they are meant to INFORM. To mix the two is to intentionally confuse and mislead your audience.

Jason

You are trying to redefine documentary to fit your political agenda. Entertaining and informing are not mutually exclusive. Your harping about thought bubbles is specious. No one with an 80+ IQ was confused that the thought bubbles were the literal thoughts in the context of F911. The only reason F911 is not eligible for a documentary Oscar is it was shown on television.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: lanche

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Ldir
Did anyone think F911 would actually get an Oscar? What for? It was not eligible as documentary because it was shown on TV. You could nominate the Dub as best actor, but he was not convincing as a president.

regardless of being shown on TV, I would surmise that it would have been discredited as a *documentary* piece anyway for its fictionalized elements. Specifically, you can't put THOUGHT BUBBLES over someone's head to tell your audience what that person is or was thinking at any given moment, especially when you never even INTERVIEWED that person, and expect it to have any credibility as a Documentary.

Jason

I do not believe the definition of documentary is that rigid. A documentary can contain entertaining elements. They make a dry film more interesting.

ldir - Like MM you have inserted your own opinion and passed it off as fact.

Documentary - Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Is there a law that says Bush apologists must fail reading comprehension? "I do not believe" is a statement of opinion. Just like I believe your dictionary clip is another attempt to redefine documentary to fit your political agenda. Just like I believe you are the one who is passing off your opinion as fact. Just like I believe you are a pointless troll.


----------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[Ldir]

I wish I lived in Bushworld where I can make up stuff and insist it is fact. The apologists keep trying to redefine documentary to discredit Fahrenheit 9/11. Not one has offered any facts to support their claims. That is because they are full of it.

Here is what the MPAA says about Oscars and documentary films:

Link
Rule Twelve
Special Rules for The Documentary Awards

I. DEFINITION
1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

(clip)
III. ELIGIBILITY
1. To be eligible for award consideration for the 2004 awards year, a documentary film must qualify via theatrical exhibition (within two years of the film?s completion date) between September 1, 2003 and August 31, 2004. No television or internet transmission shall have occurred at any time anywhere in the world in any version prior to the qualifying run or furthermore contrary to section III.2.B(1) or III.2.B(2) of these rules.

There are the real facts.


---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): confusing wishful thinking with fact since 1980

 

[lanche]

Originally posted by: Ldir
I wish I lived in Bushworld where I can make up stuff and insist it is fact. The apologists keep trying to redefine documentary to discredit Fahrenheit 9/11. Not one has offered any facts to support their claims. That is because they are full of it.

Here is what the MPAA says about Oscars and documentary films:

Link
Rule Twelve
Special Rules for The Documentary Awards

I. DEFINITION
1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

(clip)
III. ELIGIBILITY
1. To be eligible for award consideration for the 2004 awards year, a documentary film must qualify via theatrical exhibition (within two years of the film?s completion date) between September 1, 2003 and August 31, 2004. No television or internet transmission shall have occurred at any time anywhere in the world in any version prior to the qualifying run or furthermore contrary to section III.2.B(1) or III.2.B(2) of these rules.

There are the real facts.


---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): confusing wishful thinking with fact since 1980

yeah okay - You must have overlooked the part of your definition that stated the emphasis is on fact not fiction (I highlighted for your reference). Its no wonder MM decided to go for the best pic award, that way he was at least eligible for some category.

Here is a link to the 59 deceipts of the movie from a democrat. I'm sure you've seen it already but just in case you forgot - lies and distortions do not equal fact. Maybe I should provide you with the actual definition of "fact" so there's no chance for any further misunderstandings? Naw - you know, you just can't admit.

http://capmarine.com/personal/iraq/59deceipts.html

Oh, by the way you DO live in bush county no wishing necessary. Here's another reminder for you...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Ldir
Did anyone think F911 would actually get an Oscar? What for? It was not eligible as documentary because it was shown on TV. You could nominate the Dub as best actor, but he was not convincing as a president.

regardless of being shown on TV, I would surmise that it would have been discredited as a *documentary* piece anyway for its fictionalized elements. Specifically, you can't put THOUGHT BUBBLES over someone's head to tell your audience what that person is or was thinking at any given moment, especially when you never even INTERVIEWED that person, and expect it to have any credibility as a Documentary.

Jason

I do not believe the definition of documentary is that rigid. A documentary can contain entertaining elements. They make a dry film more interesting.

It wasn't an "entertaining element", it was a MADE UP element. You *can't* try to convey what a man you've never spoken to or interviewed at all is THINKING at any given point by using THOUGHT BUBBLES and claiming you know what that person was thinking. It has NOTHING to do with "entertainment", and documentaries are not MEANT to entertain they are meant to INFORM. To mix the two is to intentionally confuse and mislead your audience.

Jason

You are trying to redefine documentary to fit your political agenda. Entertaining and informing are not mutually exclusive. Your harping about thought bubbles is specious. No one with an 80+ IQ was confused that the thought bubbles were the literal thoughts in the context of F911. The only reason F911 is not eligible for a documentary Oscar is it was shown on television.

No, I'm not redefining ANYTHING. A documentary has ALWAYS been defined as a factual piece. Even one of the Academy's criteria is that it can have NO FICTIONALIZED ELEMENTS, and I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that thought bubbles over someone's head are anything but a FICTIONALIZED ELEMENT.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Ldir
I wish I lived in Bushworld where I can make up stuff and insist it is fact. The apologists keep trying to redefine documentary to discredit Fahrenheit 9/11. Not one has offered any facts to support their claims. That is because they are full of it.

Here is what the MPAA says about Oscars and documentary films:

Link
Rule Twelve
Special Rules for The Documentary Awards

I. DEFINITION
1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

(clip)
III. ELIGIBILITY
1. To be eligible for award consideration for the 2004 awards year, a documentary film must qualify via theatrical exhibition (within two years of the film?s completion date) between September 1, 2003 and August 31, 2004. No television or internet transmission shall have occurred at any time anywhere in the world in any version prior to the qualifying run or furthermore contrary to section III.2.B(1) or III.2.B(2) of these rules.

There are the real facts.


---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): confusing wishful thinking with fact since 1980

Yes, and tell me, when you are broadcasting footage with THOUGHT BUBBLES over someone's head, is the emphasis on FACT or on FICTION?

Thought Bubbles aside, there are plenty of reasons that F9/11 discredits ITSELF.

Jason