NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, this is NOT a forum to debate whether Moore is the "savior of western civilization" or "the Anti-Christ" or "way too chubby to have so many hot chicks around him" (ok, that last one may be fact....)

Its to discuss F 9/11 in technical terms as a documentary


Oh, and for those who say "its not a documentary, documentaries have to be unbiased", you should take a film class or two, documentaries are used to present a limited individual or group perspective, and as a result cannot under any circumstances be un-biased. Un-biased documentaries aren't documentaries are called news pieces.

I just saw it tonight/yesterday [whatever] and I thought it was good. It made a lot of solid points regarding how the Bush administration acted towards Iraq. It was faithful to the documentary style in which Moore presented his ideas, which is what his goal was. I especially liked the part where he tried to get congressmen/women's children to sign up for the marines. He found that the congresspeople were unwilling to risk their children but more than willing to rish other's. All in all, I felt it was quite good.


"There's an old saying in Tenessee. Well, I know we have it in Texas, it might be in Tenassee. It goes, fool me once. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice. You can't fool me"

I have no plans to see F911, but I have seen bowling for columbine and Moore attempts to answer the question "how could this happen?" but in reality all he did was make himself look foolish with his little cartoon tying the NRA in with the KKK.

Moore always raises qustions with his movies, but never answers any.

His "documentaries" do not document anything but his opinion, they do not document the subject that he addresses. Bowling for Columbine was supposed to be about Columbine, not Moore's anti-NRA, anti-media, anti-business, anti-USA, opinions.

I am sure F911 will follow the same style.

Haven't seen 911 yet, but in the Bowling for Columbine Moore commits the ultimate sin of a documentalist- he tries to pass lies as facts.

I especially liked the part where he tried to get congressmen/women's children to sign up for the marines. He found that the congresspeople were unwilling to risk their children but more than willing to rish other's.
Parents do not have the right to sign up their children for the military. Jeesh. Stop insulting those who volunteer to serve. :x

I especially liked the part where he tried to get congressmen/women's children to sign up for the marines. He found that the congresspeople were unwilling to risk their children but more than willing to rish other's.
Parents do not have the right to sign up their children for the military. Jeesh. Stop insulting those who volunteer to serve. :x\

I have to agree with Stirner. My dad voluntarily signed up for Army ROTC and got a commission! My grandparents knows what this might mean but they supported his decision!

Haven't seen 911 yet, but in the Bowling for Columbine Moore commits the ultimate sin of a documentalist- he tries to pass lies as facts.
There are a lot of Facts in Bowling for Columbine though and you can't deny that? As for the gray areas being "the ultimate sin", at least no one dies because of them.

"way too chubby to have so many hot chicks around him" (ok, that last one may be fact....)

I agree with you on that but Heff and Micheal Doughles are old and right now very ugly but have alot of hot chicks arund them because they have money. It's a fact supermodels want guys with money. I bet Bill Gates could get the etire swedish bikinie team if he wanted to. So next time you see a butt ugly dude with a hot chick he probably has alot of cash.

First of all, this is NOT a forum to debate whether Moore is the "savior of western civilization" or "the Anti-Christ" or "way too chubby to have so many hot chicks around him" (ok, that last one may be fact....)

Its to discuss F 9/11 in technical terms as a documentary


Oh, and for those who say "its not a documentary, documentaries have to be unbiased", you should take a film class or two, documentaries are used to present a limited individual or group perspective, and as a result cannot under any circumstances be un-biased. Un-biased documentaries aren't documentaries are called news pieces.

I want to take the time to thank you. I thought I ws the only one who studied in college. It's about time that people realize that documentaries are all about perspective based on the facts as perceived by a particular group.

Moore always raises qustions with his movies, but never answers any.

That's exactly his intention. He's asking YOU. IS there a reason to train militias? IS there a reason to have a set of rifles at home? IS there a reason, the media just presents violence on TV? Maybe, maybe not. And he wants you to think about it.

Moore always raises qustions with his movies, but never answers any.

That's exactly his intention. He's asking YOU. IS there a reason to train militias? IS there a reason to have a set of rifles at home? IS there a reason, the media just presents violence on TV? Maybe, maybe not. And he wants you to think about it.

There is no point to anything if it does not make you think....

By the way M. Moore did not actually ask Congressmen to sign up their kids, but rather asked them to get their kids to sign up. It's a symantics question but an important one. By the way I've read a lot of supposed lies in Bowling, but all the lies are really lies.

I have no plans to see F911, but I have seen bowling for columbine and Moore attempts to answer the question "how could this happen?" but in reality all he did was make himself look foolish with his little cartoon tying the NRA in with the KKK.

Moore always raises qustions with his movies, but never answers any.

His "documentaries" do not document anything but his opinion, they do not document the subject that he addresses. Bowling for Columbine was supposed to be about Columbine, not Moore's anti-NRA, anti-media, anti-business, anti-USA, opinions.

I am sure F911 will follow the same style.

All the critics have stated that Moores style in presenting the info. in F 9/11 is way way different and more effective than his other documentaries. So see the movie before you judge.

I especially liked the part where he tried to get congressmen/women's children to sign up for the marines. He found that the congresspeople were unwilling to risk their children but more than willing to rish other's.
Parents do not have the right to sign up their children for the military. Jeesh. Stop insulting those who volunteer to serve. :x

I'm not insulting those who volunteer. Moore went around to congressmen asking if they would be interested in having their children serve. All that he said no. His point in that segment was to show that the congressmen are willing to go to war with other people's children, but they are unwilling to send their own children off to war through thier own legislation.

Oh, and for those who say "its not a documentary, documentaries have to be unbiased", you should take a film class or two, documentaries are used to present a limited individual or group perspective, and as a result cannot under any circumstances be un-biased. Un-biased documentaries aren't documentaries are called news pieces.

I want to take the time to thank you. I thought I ws the only one who studied in college. It's about time that people realize that documentaries are all about perspective based on the facts as perceived by a particular group.
Not to be a whiney little 'me too,' (though it's pretty clear that that is what I'm doing....), but I've been making this case since the begining.

Oh, and for those who say "its not a documentary, documentaries have to be unbiased", you should take a film class or two, documentaries are used to present a limited individual or group perspective, and as a result cannot under any circumstances be un-biased. Un-biased documentaries aren't documentaries are called news pieces.

I want to take the time to thank you. I thought I ws the only one who studied in college. It's about time that people realize that documentaries are all about perspective based on the facts as perceived by a particular group.
Not to be a whiney little 'me too,' (though it's pretty clear that that is what I'm doing....), but I've been making this case since the begining.Me three--and a number of film critics have made largely the same point over the last couple of weeks, that documentary is not journalism, that it is by its very nature subjective to the filmmaker's point of view. The filmmaker's only responsibility is to be factually accurate and to be entertaining, and this film succeeds tremendously on both levels.

I have no plans to see F911, but I have seen bowling for columbine and Moore attempts to answer the question "how could this happen?" but in reality all he did was make himself look foolish with his little cartoon tying the NRA in with the KKK.

Moore always raises qustions with his movies, but never answers any.

His "documentaries" do not document anything but his opinion, they do not document the subject that he addresses. Bowling for Columbine was supposed to be about Columbine, not Moore's anti-NRA, anti-media, anti-business, anti-USA, opinions.

I am sure F911 will follow the same style.

All the critics have stated that Moores style in presenting the info. in F 9/11 is way way different and more effective than his other documentaries. So see the movie before you judge.
I was judging Moore's movie making skills and technique, not F911

Parents do not have the right to sign up their children for the military. Jeesh. Stop insulting those who volunteer to serve. :x
I'm not insulting those who volunteer. Moore went around to congressmen asking if they would be interested in having their children serve. All that he said no. His point in that segment was to show that the congressmen are willing to go to war with other people's children, but they are unwilling to send their own children off to war through thier own legislation.
Again, this is insulting. A congressman cannot decide if his son or daughter will be enrolled in the army and sent off to fight.

Is Moore proposing that legislation should be passed to compell people to serve based on who their parents are? I didn't know he was an advocate of slavery.

Hey, if there was a special battalion formed exclusively by the sons and daughters of congressmen, and it was kept out of battle by a law of Congress, then Moore might have a point. But since that's not the case he's just being an idiot.

Again, this is insulting. A congressman cannot decide if his son or daughter will be enrolled in the army and sent off to fight.

Is Moore proposing that legislation should be passed to compell people to serve based on who their parents are? I didn't know he was an advocate of slavery.

Hey, if there was a special battalion formed exclusively by the sons and daughters of congressmen, and it was kept out of battle by a law of Congress, then Moore might have a point. But since that's not the case he's just being an idiot.It's not insulting--you can just give it up.

It was nothing more than a publicity stunt, one of those things that weakens Moore's movies and could have easily been left out. And pay attention--Moore wasn't trying to get Congresspeople to sign their kids up--he was asking them to talk to their kids and try to convince them--there's a huge difference there, and if you refuse to see it, then you're being willfully blind.