NationStates Jolt Archive

Filmmaker Michael Moore says he is willing to give up a chance to compete in the Oscar race for best documentary with his anti-Bush movie Fahrenheit 9/11 in order to have it shown on television before the US presidential election in November.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_story_skin/446413%3fformat=html

Willing to make another sacrifice for his country!!

Filmmaker Michael Moore says he is willing to give up a chance to compete in the Oscar race for best documentary with his anti-Bush movie Fahrenheit 9/11 in order to have it shown on television before the US presidential election in November.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_story_skin/446413%3fformat=html

Willing to make another sacrifice for his country!!

He still thinks his propaganda will have an effect on the election? How delusional and arrogant.

He still thinks his propaganda will have an effect on the election? How delusional and arrogant.

Yes, nothing is more arrogent then giving up an oscar in order to spread your views to others :rolleyes:

Yes, nothing is more arrogent then giving up an oscar in order to spread your views to others :rolleyes:

It's worrying that his skewed views and emotionally manipulative format could reach even more people quickly. I'm no fan of Bush but having watched Moore's film and seen how it lured in intelligent, free-thinking students, you've got to wonder who's going to benefit from it being shown on TV: The American people should Bush be ousted, or Moore as he eventually reaches the guru like status he is so desperate to achieve?

It's worrying that his skewed views and emotionally manipulative format could reach even more people quickly. I'm no fan of Bush but having watched Moore's film and seen how it lured in intelligent, free-thinking students, you've got to wonder who's going to benefit from it being shown on TV: The American people should Bush be ousted, or Moore as he eventually reaches the guru like status he is so desperate to achieve?

Look at comercials that are flying around nowadays.

Honestly, he isn't as bad as some of the crap that's floating around. I say, go for it.

Look at comercials that are flying around nowadays.

Honestly, he isn't as bad as some of the crap that's floating around. I say, go for it.

True, but commericals have limited effect; buy/don't buy. Moore has the power to change people's philosophies and to an extend ways of life. If it is shown, it needs to be as series of documentaries that provides a different, and balanced viewpoints.

You're right. People are automatons that are fed what they need to know by the television. They will never be able to seek both sides of the argument themselves and make up their own minds. That's just crazy.

True, but commericals have limited effect; buy/don't buy. Moore has the power to change people's philosophies and to an extend ways of life. If it is shown, it needs to be as series of documentaries that provides a different, and balanced viewpoints.
No that's the job of some one with a different view point, they should get off thier arse and make a film that reflect thier views. If they can't be bothered then that's that.

You're right. People are automatons that are fed what they need to know by the television. They will never be able to seek both sides of the argument themselves and make up their own minds. That's just crazy.

Ok, yang my chain, but there are a lot of people out there who are just like that. People can only seek out an alternative viewpoint if they know one exists and with the carefully created 'champion of the people' image Moore has created for himself, how many people are going to stop and wonder whether what he is presenting is the whole truth?

If it isn't the whole truth then there are appropriate mediums though which people can be informed of the alternative viewpoints. If it isn't done then that's as my friend has already stated, not Moore's problem.

If it isn't the whole truth then there are appropriate mediums though which people can be informed of the alternative viewpoints. If it isn't done then that's as my friend has already stated, not Moore's problem.

Absolutely, fairplay to the guy. It' not up to him to point people in the direction of things that contradict his viewpoint, which is why I think it should be up to the station that airs the film to provide alternative sources. Of course, having said that, which station in their right mind would do that? It would take a lot of time and money, and why do they need to bother when the film alone will drag in high viewer ratings?

If it isn't the whole truth then there are appropriate mediums though which people can be informed of the alternative viewpoints. If it isn't done then that's as my friend has already stated, not Moore's problem.

Which is exactly right on point here.

It's not Moore's fault that a majority of people get their opinions fed to them from the TV-he sees it and is using it as he sees fit.

It no less moral then what many others have done. More moral in a way; he's not trying to sell anything. Now it has been stated numerous times that Moore twists facts-however, many political comercials do the same. Some even make things up and present them as facts.

The article only states that Moore is willing to do that, not Lions Gate who would take a hit in DVD sales (what are they complaining about, someone just handed them a seat at the big table, a few chairs down from the minor that took the risk on Lord of the Rings...)

Certainly ABC won't run it, considering thier parent would release it. CBS pussed out on The Reagans and won't even take MoveOn.org's money. NBC doesn't seem that likely either, considering corperate parent GE has more than likely been in Moore's crosshairs. PBS relies on gov. funding, not likely to take another hit like from the Reagan/Bush I era.

It's an idea, but thats all it is.

Which is exactly right on point here.

It's not Moore's fault that a majority of people get their opinions fed to them from the TV-he sees it and is using it as he sees fit.

It no less moral then what many others have done. More moral in a way; he's not trying to sell anything. Now it has been stated numerous times that Moore twists facts-however, many political comercials do the same. Some even make things up and present them as facts.

True, but I would say he is trying to sell something. He's trying to sell himself as 'the people's man'. Everything he has made has been carefully crafted to make him look like the lone crusader and that people can trust him to always tell them the truth. Of course, as you say, this is no different to what the politicians etc do, but at least there is a healthy level of distrust within the population of these people.

The article only states that Moore is willing to do that, not Lions Gate who would take a hit in DVD sales (what are they complaining about, someone just handed them a seat at the big table, a few chairs down from the minor that took the risk on Lord of the Rings...)

Certainly ABC won't run it, considering thier parent would release it. CBS pussed out on The Reagans and won't even take MoveOn.org's money. NBC doesn't seem that likely either, considering corperate parent GE has more than likely been in Moore's crosshairs. PBS relies on gov. funding, not likely to take another hit like from the Reagan/Bush I era.

It's an idea, but thats all it is.

Comedy Central

either that, or we have to depend on WB or UPN...yuck!

The article only states that Moore is willing to do that, not Lions Gate who would take a hit in DVD sales (what are they complaining about, someone just handed them a seat at the big table, a few chairs down from the minor that took the risk on Lord of the Rings...)

Certainly ABC won't run it, considering thier parent would release it. CBS pussed out on The Reagans and won't even take MoveOn.org's money. NBC doesn't seem that likely either, considering corperate parent GE has more than likely been in Moore's crosshairs. PBS relies on gov. funding, not likely to take another hit like from the Reagan/Bush I era.

It's an idea, but thats all it is.


There are plenty of networks that would be willing to run that Movie.
The commercial revenue alone would make more than worthwhile for them.
I say If Moore can swing it.....he should go for it.


If you (or anyone) doesnt like it.....dont watch it.
Simple as that.

Yes, nothing is more arrogent then giving up an oscar in order to spread your views to others :rolleyes:

He already won that frog award. No, he is arrogant because he thinks the American people are actually stupid enough to fall for it.

Comedy Central

either that, or we have to depend on WB or UPN...yuck!
How out of date was my media analysis? I didn't even consider FOX, much less UPN and WB. FOX, yeah no. If I have to explain then you haven't been paying attention. WB would do it, but everyone in it would have to model KMart fashions and feature tracks from the new album by [insert newest crap that the label is pushing this week].

UPN is linked through ownership to CBS, so we're back to wussing out.

There are plenty of networks that would be willing to run that Movie.
The commercial revenue alone would make more than worthwhile for them.
I say If Moore can swing it.....he should go for it.


If you (or anyone) doesnt like it.....dont watch it.
Simple as that.
Okay, first of all-I have no problem with it. Check my post history for my feelings on the film and Moore. I did not state a personal value as to whether or not the film should be shown, just the likely hood based on past activities of media outlets and thier parents. RIF.

Second-the movie itself was a liscence to print money and had to go to Lions Gate to be distributed in theaters. The bottom line is a big line and sometimes you have to follow it a while. It's why Disney would sign off on a big ass check even while their normal fare is flopping horribly and Eisner is fighting for his job. RIF.

It's worrying that his skewed views and emotionally manipulative format could reach even more people quickly. I'm no fan of Bush but having watched Moore's film and seen how it lured in intelligent, free-thinking students, you've got to wonder who's going to benefit from it being shown on TV: The American people should Bush be ousted, or Moore as he eventually reaches the guru like status he is so desperate to achieve?

Actually, TV is the only thing Americans believe. CIA operations in Nicaragua weren't on television, so to many people they didn't exist? TV is the only education people get. Wether you like Michael Moore or not, he's not telling you any lies. He can defend all of his statements with references, he's telling the truth. If he would make his film as boring as documentaries used to be, nobody would be interested, and whats the point of making a film then?
So, yes he is dramatising a bit, but he is telling the truth in a slightly more amusing way (just the truth is frightening).

Look in your TV-guide and wake up, this is more important than the wheel of fortune.

why shouldn't he show it, its not like the berg beheadings that where flying around. or the Die Erwiche Jude that was shown in Nazi Germany. He can actually back it up with facts. It doesn't potray any violence and whatnot and its not any more viscious than Bush's attacks on Kerry. Its just simply a little documentary that he put together. And why can't he critizise this countries presedent?

why shouldn't he show it, its not like the berg beheadings that where flying around. or the Die Erwiche Jude that was shown in Nazi Germany. He can actually back it up with facts. It doesn't potray any violence and whatnot and its not any more viscious than Bush's attacks on Kerry. Its just simply a little documentary that he put together. And why can't he critizise this countries presedent?


Right on.
If they try to take away his right to express his views (proven facts), why not take some more civil rights out of the constitution?

True, but commericals have limited effect; buy/don't buy. Moore has the power to change people's philosophies and to an extend ways of life. If it is shown, it needs to be as series of documentaries that provides a different, and balanced viewpoints.
Well if Moore is that powerful than so be it? It should be shown exactly the way it was at the theatre, uncut and unedited.

He already won that frog award. No, he is arrogant because he thinks the American people are actually stupid enough to fall for it.
What award is that one? Frog? Are those annual awards and what are they for?

There are plenty of networks that would be willing to run that Movie.
The commercial revenue alone would make more than worthwhile for them.
I say If Moore can swing it.....he should go for it.


If you (or anyone) doesnt like it.....dont watch it.
Simple as that.
There may be many networks willing to run it, but will they risk the backlash?

It should be interesting to see if it happens.....I hope it does.

Absolutely, fairplay to the guy. It' not up to him to point people in the direction of things that contradict his viewpoint, which is why I think it should be up to the station that airs the film to provide alternative sources. Of course, having said that, which station in their right mind would do that? It would take a lot of time and money, and why do they need to bother when the film alone will drag in high viewer ratings?

Yeah. That capitalism's a bitch. :)

There may be many networks willing to run it, but will they risk the backlash?

It should be interesting to see if it happens.....I hope it does.

Of course they will. Imagine the response! Whichever channel shows it could host several phone-in debates regarding the film before and after.

Of course they will. Imagine the response! Whichever channel shows it could host several phone-in debates regarding the film before and after.
Oh I like that suggestion!!

He still thinks his propaganda will have an effect on the election? How delusional and arrogant.
you still think your bullshit propaganda will have an effect on the election

and even in the offchance the network heads authorized it, the local networks dont even have to show it at a time when people would see it

locally here the local stations keep cutting and replacing network shows because they dont like hte content

It seems like the most likely channel to air it would be IFC, since Lion's Gate films is an offshoot of IFC and Lion's Gate Entertainment.

But it would be more significant to get it on PBS. Don't know if that would happen or not. It seems like there might be pressure on local PBS stations to not show it in some areas of the U.S.

They already put such tripe on American television! That crap is such mind-numbing drival! I personally support the showing of Moore's film, as it has substance that most American programming evidently lacks on the whole.

To you who argue over whether Moore's lack of objectivity should keep F9/11 off the air, a two-word answer: Fox News.

Now gather round, children, Uncle Jove's gonna tell a story. Twenty years ago, before a lot of you were born, my generation was growing up under the deep shadow of the nuclear umbrella. Impending environmental collapse was chicken feed, kids. We could feel the finger resting lightly on the Big Red Button. At about the same time came a couple of made-for-TV films, one from the UK called Threads and one ABC production, The Day After.

The same battle lines were drawn as with Heat-Seeking Love Missile 911 - the right wing didn't want it aired because it would scare people out of trusting in nuclear deterrence. What the networks finally did was, they aired both films, Threads and The Day After - not together, of course. And at the end of each, they had a Distinguished Panel of Experts<tm> from both sides of the debate, pro and con, taking questions from a live audience for an hour. Cleared the air pretty well, I have to say. And when it came down to cases, the impact on public opinion really wasn't all that dramatic.

Now, these punk-arse TV executives with guts like water they've got now? I don't know if they could stomach that kind of thing, putting up a controversial drama and sponsoring a meaningful discussion after. But I tell you this much, a lot of people would tune in for it, from both sides of the aisle.

Certainly ABC won't run it, considering thier parent would release it. CBS pussed out on The Reagans and won't even take MoveOn.org's money. NBC doesn't seem that likely either, considering corperate parent GE has more than likely been in Moore's crosshairs. PBS relies on gov. funding, not likely to take another hit like from the Reagan/Bush I era.


Moore wants it shown on Public Television (PBS) so that there will be no commercial interruptions and no advertising revenue generated.

PBS no longer relies on government funding, but rather relies now on private sponsorship - hence the pledge drives and all of that stuff. Also the constant reminder before and after shows on PBS that says things like "This program has been made possible by a grant from the Fannie Mae Foundation and from viewers like you."

If Michael Moore drops a nice donation to PBS, then I'll betcha PBS will show it without hesitation. It will probably also be shown on Sundance and IFC, but that's not Moore's target. He wants as large an audience as possible. Not everyone has cable television, but anyone in the US with rabbit ears gets PBS.

I hope he does it. It will show some integrity on his part.

Moore wants it shown on Public Television (PBS) so that there will be no commercial interruptions and no advertising revenue generated.

PBS no longer relies on government funding, but rather relies now on private sponsorship - hence the pledge drives and all of that stuff. Also the constant reminder before and after shows on PBS that says things like "This program has been made possible by a grant from the Fannie Mae Foundation and from viewers like you."

If Michael Moore drops a nice donation to PBS, then I'll betcha PBS will show it without hesitation. It will probably also be shown on Sundance and IFC, but that's not Moore's target. He wants as large an audience as possible. Not everyone has cable television, but anyone in the US with rabbit ears gets PBS.

I hope he does it. It will show some integrity on his part.
Corperate donations and pledge drives have always been part of PBS, they are more important now because they get less funding from the government, but not none. While I'll agree that PBS is the only reasonable possibility, it still seems like a long shot. I could argue that PBS is not a large audience, but the truth is if they showed it it would be a large audience (just look at what Ken Burns does, and he's a marshmellow). It would be a hard haul for even PBS, even finding corperate donners or keeping them much less maintianing thier funding sources. I'll give the caveat that a great deal of the PBS supporters would be behind it, but it's a balancing act. I'm not saying it's impossible, it is the most likely of all (IFC will show it eventually, that's a given. When he talks about TV he is talking about broadcast).

This still doesn't handle the fact that it's only Moore saying he'd be willing and not the distributor who doesn't want to give up the DVD revenues (which I honestly don't think will take that big a blow, but thats me)