He never claimed it was an objective view of the facts.

It's HIS view of the facts. No apologies for it either. Does Fox news apologize for slanted views? :winkwink:

Um remind me... who threw out garbage comments first Mr. Rush?

I think I answered the question for you if you were not satisfied with his response

and I said in previous posts, that he'll be the first to admit that the movies are slanted to his views...just as Rush would admit that his shows are slanted to his views...they're both out of the closet with their views - why penalize one but not the other?

They don't claim to be a documentary either . . . . I highly doubt Moore even considers his crap to be a documentary . . . why the Movie Academy deems fit to give him an award for a documentary is beyond me

And I retracted it, and I'd be better suited being called Mr. Moore vs. Rush due to my views...but it's all good.

My only purpose here is to dispute your (or anyone else's) assertion that F 9/11 is a documentary

Think for yourself much do you?

Atleast your honest about it.

AH ok well.. it's been called a documentary by the movie industry itself. They'd have to answer that one. I dont think any of us are more qualified.

And some proceeds do go to victims of 9/11.

Plenty of sig views though :1orglaugh
:winkwink:

STFU!


http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/la...ndex.php?id=33

So true.


You've gone from wondering why Moore, isn't donating 100% of the films proceeds to charity (Since you like playing with dicts, you might look up "capitalisim") , to suggesting that he receives 100% of the box office dollar amounts, to dodging a very similar right-wing comparison ( Rush), and finally to attacking it's classification as a documentry.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/la...ndex.php?id=26



So Headless ( or shitless? ), how much do you give ???/

Or how much Dubya gives ( of his own money ...).... Or to that effect anybody else gives???

Respect the man even if you disagree with his political views. :2 cents:

Well, I guess directfiesta answered all that, big up. :winkwink: :thumbsup :glugglug

However, I remember the lefties were bitching about it's R-rating classification...

I thought that was completely justified after seeing the gorey pictures of the dead and wounded.

But aren't those clips for the news that were played over and over again???

Oups, sorry, they were probably only showed once, because it is not good for the war to show this.

What was showed over and over again was Jannet's nipple and Howard Dean's scream...

LOL...

Thats why Ive been downloading it for a few hours now... So :321GFY with your comments here and there...

Did you see the posts about the money that went to charity? That answer you questions now?

Nah man, DF hasn't answered a thing because it's not 100% of the proceeds...

This person who started this thread doesn't understand why Moore isn't giving away 100% of the proceeds to charity.

:winkwink:

Why doesn't Bush donate his presidential salary to charity like JFK did with his ? The Bush family has more money than Michael Moore.

Michael Moore came from Flint Mich. Alot the whole bullshit of it not being fact alot of it is news clips showing the admin lying with their own words.

What you posted is not the definition of a documentary film. Please read and learn:

"Documentary is the creative treatment of actuality."
-- John Grierson, Cinema Quarterly 22.1, 8.

"Documentary defines not subject or style, but approach. ... Documentary approach to cinema differs from that of story-film not in its disregard for craftsmanship, but in the purpose to which that craftsmanship is put."
--Paul Rotha, Cinema Quarterly, 2.2, 78.

"A non-fiction text using 'actuality' footage, which may include the live recording of events and relevant research materials (i.e. interviews, statistics, etc.). This kind of text is uually informed by a particular point of view, and seeks to address a particular social issue which is related to and potentially affects the audience."
--Paul Wells, "The Documentary Form: Personal and Social 'Realities,'" An Introduction to Film Studies, 2nd ed., ed. Jill Nelmes, 212.

"[A]ny film practice that has as its subject persons, events, or situations that exist outside the film in the real world."
--Steve Blandford, Barry Keith Grant, and Jim Hillier, The Film Studies Dictionary, 73.

"A nonfiction film. Documentaries are usually shot on location, use actual persons rather than actors, and focus thematically on historical, scientific, social, or environmental subjects. Their principle purpose is to enlighten, inform, educate, persuade, and provide insight into the world in which we live."
--Frank Beaver, Dictionary of Film Terms, 119.

"A nonfiction film about real events and people, often avoiding traditional narrative structures."
--Timothy Corrigan, A Short Guide to Writing About Film, 4th ed., 206.

"Film of actual events; the events are documented with the real people involved, not with actors."
--Ralph S. Singleton and James A. Conrad, Filmmaker's Dictionary, 2nd ed., 94.

http://www.docftv.com/definitions/

George Bush needs money for alcohol

Oooh...that would be interesting to find out that those clips (that caused the R rating) were actually clips that were aired on news stations (without getting fined).

I don't know the facts on that myself, is that the case?

Hey Rush, read and learn something new:

http://www.docftv.com/definitions/

Just because you don't want it to be a documentary, doesn't mean it isn't.

Mega dittos. :1orglaugh

:glugglug

hmmmm, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

or

Cinema Quarterly

wonder which one is more accurate

I may be wrong but I believe a % of the proceeds is going to a charity for the families affected by 9/11.

sure ...as long as the Bush Monarchy donates some of their oil profits to good causes.


:)

Actually Cinema Quartely for the translation.

I don't think he is obligated to donate 100%. After all, isn't his film a great contribution as it is?

When Moore's distributors have finished paying off the distribution/promo costs (can be up to 60-70% of box office revenue) and all the hangers on have had a cut - he'll still be left with a few millions - then ya gotta pay off the bankrollers and interest. Tho the movie did not cost that much to make....

Most those repulicans are billionairs....

Fox News has so much money there isnt even a number for it.

you mean for their interpretation? there is no translation required . . . and if it suits their needs to define a documentary that way, so be it . . . doesn't make it fact though

No translation its a cinema publication. Suits their needs stop being a fox sheep for christ sake. Not everything has a fucking political motive.

baddog:

That sounds like the current Admin in the Whitehouse - it's all in the words and bending of them. White is not black and black is not a darker shade of grey. :winkwink:

Sorry.. in case ya don't get that comment - It means Moore's documentary did not become something else because it was launched in an election year and the definitions of a documentary have not changed because Moore made it...


We'll be rewriting the dictionaries next - according to Bush.
:winkwink: