NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Can you say, "lies coming back to haunt you," boys and girls? :D


GI Sues Michael Moore for $85 Million (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/31/130505.shtml?s=et)


Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:01 p.m. EDT
A double-amputee veteran of the Iraq war is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming Moore used an old interview with the G.I. to make him appear anti-war in his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America's invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie. Damon lost his arms when a Black Hawk helicopter exploded in front of him.

In the 2003 interview, which he did at Walter Reed Army Hospital for NBC News, he discussed only a new painkiller the military was using on wounded veterans, the New York Post reports.

"They took the clip because it was a gut-wrenching scene," Damon said. "They sandwiched it in. [Moore] was using me as ammunition."

According to the lawsuit filed in Suffolk County, Mass., Damon seems to "voice a complaint about the war effort" in the movie.

But he told the Post: "I was complaining about the pain I would've been having [if it weren't for the painkiller].”

Newsman Brian Williams ends the NBC clip by adding, "These men with catastrophic wounds are . . . completely behind the war effort," according to the lawsuit. That part wasn't shown in the Moore movie.

Damon’s lawyer Dennis Lynch said he delayed filing the lawsuit in a bid to settle the matter with Moore.

"We attempted to resolve the situation amicably with Mr. Moore [for a year] but he refused," he said.

Damon is asking for up to $85 million because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation."

$85 million, that's reasonable:headbang:
What a dick.

I would sue is dumb ass too. That would piss me off if a war profiteer such as MM did that to me. Hopefully a jury see's the light and they hand MM ass to him.

few things...first, what does being an amputee have to do with anything in this story? Second, loss of reputation, okay. emotional distress? okay. embarrassment? bitch, please. My pants fell down. I was embarassed. Can I sue the pant company now? Get over it. You're in the friggin army and you can't deal with something as minor as this? I don't even remember him being in the movie, let alone what he said

Good. I can't stand Moore. Through his lying and other bullshit he's discredited the left better that any of our opponents could have. He's a disgrace to all of us that call themselves liberals.

...only in America...

*laughs uncontrollably @ Sark saying "bitch please"*

i didnt see the movie, does anyone remember this guy and whether or not he seemed to be against the war?

The GI was used by Bush as ammunition. Is he suing the government?

I guess that's $85 million worth of burgers Moore won't be munching.

i didnt see the movie, does anyone remember this guy and whether or not he seemed to be against the war?

I only watched it like a week ago, and i can't remeber him at all.

i didnt see the movie, does anyone remember this guy and whether or not he seemed to be against the war?
I remember him, I think his clip was in with other injured soldiers. Don't really remember what he said though.

To be fair if Moore bought the rights to the clip or licenced it, and his editing was within the terms of that agreement, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Which would suck, seeing as he has no arms either.

If MM obtained that video from the interviewing media company (the ones who own the rights to the interview) legally, then I don't think the amputee guy has a case. If not then I think it would be the media company that needs to sue anyway no?

*laughs uncontrollably @ Sark saying "bitch please"*
I blame the parents.

no. seriously. Tonight at dinner, my dad said that to my grandma. I almost choked to death laughing.:D

To be fair if Moore bought the rights to the clip or licenced it, and his editing was within the terms of that agreement, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Which would suck, seeing as he has no arms either.


beat me to it!

Well, the GI must have seen the cameraman filming him. So obviously he knew he was going to be on film... and so obviously he knew the footage had to be used for something, didn't he? And so obviously he was going to be seen on some sort of media (in this case, in a movie), yeah?

The GI can sue whoever he wants for as much as he wants, but it still doesn't change the fact that his limbs were lost while combatting in Iraq.

i didnt see the movie, does anyone remember this guy and whether or not he seemed to be against the war?
I saw it - when it came out. I honestly don't remember this guy. Personally, I think he's just trying to feather his nest after having bitten the hand that feeds him.

I would sue is dumb ass too. That would piss me off if a war profiteer such as MM did that to me. Hopefully a jury see's the light and they hand MM ass to him.
You only choose now to rage against a war profiteer who has made no personal sacrifice?

I blame the parents.

no. seriously. Tonight at dinner, my dad said that to my grandma. I almost choked to death laughing.:D


sounds like an extremely fun family.....I wish I'd been sitting there when your dad said that to your g'ma. Ha!

I blame the parents.

no. seriously. Tonight at dinner, my dad said that to my grandma. I almost choked to death laughing.:D

Damn lol

Sweet, sweet irony. Not because Michael Moore is getting sued for profiteering but because neocons are supporting a run-away, frivolous lawsuit.

Suing for 85 million dollars...

What, trying to build a private fucking army to go after the guys who blew off your arms? Get a grip, dude. Im sure 100,000 would fix any amount of pain and suffering this film caused you, if even that would be needed.

I'd let rush limbaugh completely misinterpret me for 50 bucks.

...only in America...
Now now, England has way more complicated liable laws than we do...

Having said that, there's a bunch of crap that you have to go through to be able to put someone on film and if Moore didn't do that, especially in a movie like that, then he invited himself to be dinged. If he did do it, then this is nothing more than a bunch of noise-which is pretty common. Nowadays it isn't important to be right, it's important to make the accusation loudly and often. Well see where this goes, but even if he loses I'll bet we'll still hear about it over and over again from wingnuts and 'centrists' alike.

85M is ridiculous, the time it has taken is ridiculous.

What is worst is that this guy is suing a filmmaker for using an interview discussing his pain and injuries in an anti-war film.

Suing for 85 million dollars...

What, trying to build a private fucking army to go after the guys who blew off your arms? Get a grip, dude. Im sure 100,000 would fix any amount of pain and suffering this film caused you, if even that would be needed.

I'd let rush limbaugh completely misinterpret me for 50 bucks.
By October of 2004 the movie had made close to $120 million dollars. If the only ding you had to endure for 'dicking' someone after that was $100,000 then it wouldn't be much of a thing. The idea is to make the mis-step costly to the person who does it so the punishment is in proportion to what they make, not neccisarily what the victim deserves.

Having not seen the movie, I cannot present knowledge of any of the excerpts. But what I do have to say is this: Michael Moore knows how to fool people. I'm sure he managed to get the guy to sign his name while he was dazed out on morphine, or something. I don't think he would go and put it in the movie if he didn't have all his bases covered for something like this.

Oh, and lol at Nadkor!

then he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Which would suck, seeing as he has no arms either. XD

By October of 2004 the movie had made close to $120 million dollars. If the only ding you had to endure for 'dicking' someone after that was $100,000 then it wouldn't be much of a thing. The idea is to make the mis-step costly to the person who does it so the punishment is in proportion to what they make, not neccisarily what the victim deserves.

So 2/3rds of the profit of the movie should be given to this guy because he was misinterpreted a bit in a movie? Thats bs.

A government fine would be a different thing. But this person shouldn't become a multi-millionaire because he was misinterpreted in a film, as a quite small part of the film.

So 2/3rds of the profit of the movie should be given to this guy because he was misinterpreted a bit in a movie? Thats bs.

A government fine would be a different thing. But this person shouldn't become a multi-millionaire because he was misinterpreted in a film, as a quite small part of the film.
That's 2/3rds of the domestic profits while the movie was still in theaters and before its DVD release. Much more money has been made off that movie. Since we don't have a system of government fining it's this kind of lawsuit that has to take its place. Keep in mind also that he is merily asking for $85 million and these amounts are almost always reduced.

Sweet, sweet irony. Not because Michael Moore is getting sued for profiteering but because neocons are supporting a run-away, frivolous lawsuit.
Now where the frack did you see anything about "neocons?"

Now where the frack did you see anything about "neocons?"
Where did you see anything about "quotation marks"? Sheesh.

Where did you see anything about "quotation marks"? Sheesh.
LMAO! Jeeze, dude! Get a grip! :p

Now where the frack did you see anything about "neocons?"
If you think I'm talking about the article, I can understand why you are asking such questions.

So 2/3rds of the profit of the movie should be given to this guy because he was misinterpreted a bit in a movie? Thats bs.

A government fine would be a different thing. But this person shouldn't become a multi-millionaire because he was misinterpreted in a film, as a quite small part of the film.

*shrug* Give him the hundred thousand and put the 84,900,000 elsewhere.

To be fair if Moore bought the rights to the clip or licenced it, and his editing was within the terms of that agreement, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Which would suck, seeing as he has no arms either.

What if his legs were the ones amputated? Would he do handstands to move? Would he not have an arm to stand on?

Yes, it's wrong that Moore would misuse information like that in his movie.
Yes, it's wrong for that man to assume this ridiculousness is worth $85 million.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
I could see some settlement, but $85 million is stupid. I hope it gets thrown out of court because he's a greedy bastard.

What if his legs were the ones amputated? Would he do handstands to move? Would he not have an arm to stand on?
Maybe he could stand on his head, that would be fun for him.

Maybe he could stand on his head, that would be fun for him.

Breakdancing? Could we call him Torso-boy? Or, Torso-sir? What was his rank?

Breakdancing? Could we call him Torso-boy? Or, Torso-sir? What was his rank?
Sargeant

Breakdancing? Could we call him Torso-boy? Or, Torso-sir? What was his rank?
That's kinda f'd up. Regardless of who is using him as a tool (either Moore used him or he's being used now) he's still a human being who lost his limbs-it's f'd up. I don't know, maybe I'm being prudish, I just don't want to end up making fun of someone losing their limbs like that. Just sayin'-obviously people can do what they want.

Sargeant

Sgt. Torso then...

That's kinda f'd up. Regardless of who is using him as a tool (either Moore used him or he's being used now) he's still a human being who lost his limbs-it's f'd up. I don't know, maybe I'm being prudish, I just don't want to end up making fun of someone losing their limbs like that. Just sayin'-obviously people can do what they want.

Sorry. I'm just a devout follower of "laugh at everything, escpecially the f'd up stuff". I suppose it depends on the guys sense of humor...

loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation

YOU CAN SUE FOR EMBARRASSMENT!?!?!

YOU CAN SUE FOR EMBARRASSMENT!?!?!

So many school bullies to track down...

I'm disinclined to think that the man's case has a leg to stand on, let alone for the kind of money he's asking. Unless Moore edited the film to show him standing holding an anti-war protest sign, or said "This man is an anti-war soldier" about him, there is no case for him. I would have to know the context, but simply being pictured in an anti-war film is no grounds for any lawsuit.

By any means, 85 millions is absurdist and idiotic, and now nobody in their right mind is going to take him seriously (so he can join Michael Moore in the ranks of 'totally un-credible').

meh.

I haven't watched the movie, so can't comment on whether suing is actually warranted.

As for the $85 million figure, the point of that probably isn't to actually win that much. He may not even be expecting to win at all, in the legal sense of the word.

What such a figure does is insure that it will be reported, talked about, and the story will become well known. Therefore, practically everyone will soon know that he is not in agreement with the way the movie portrayed him. And as long as that fact indeed becomes known (and my speculation that that's his aim is correct), it's mission accomplished. Actually winning the suit itself would be gravy.

COMMENTARY: Can you say, "lies coming back to haunt you," boys and girls? :D


GI Sues Michael Moore for $85 Million (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/31/130505.shtml?s=et)


Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:01 p.m. EDT
A double-amputee veteran of the Iraq war is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming Moore used an old interview with the G.I. to make him appear anti-war in his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America's invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie. Damon lost his arms when a Black Hawk helicopter exploded in front of him.

In the 2003 interview, which he did at Walter Reed Army Hospital for NBC News, he discussed only a new painkiller the military was using on wounded veterans, the New York Post reports.

"They took the clip because it was a gut-wrenching scene," Damon said. "They sandwiched it in. [Moore] was using me as ammunition."

According to the lawsuit filed in Suffolk County, Mass., Damon seems to "voice a complaint about the war effort" in the movie.

But he told the Post: "I was complaining about the pain I would've been having [if it weren't for the painkiller].”

Newsman Brian Williams ends the NBC clip by adding, "These men with catastrophic wounds are . . . completely behind the war effort," according to the lawsuit. That part wasn't shown in the Moore movie.

Damon’s lawyer Dennis Lynch said he delayed filing the lawsuit in a bid to settle the matter with Moore.

"We attempted to resolve the situation amicably with Mr. Moore [for a year] but he refused," he said.

Damon is asking for up to $85 million because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation."

Propoganda for whatever reason... meh.

Desparate attempts to cash in on the success of another... a little sad...

They should fine this guy for wasting time on frivolity.

85M is ridiculous, the time it has taken is ridiculous.

What is worst is that this guy is suing a filmmaker for using an interview discussing his pain and injuries in an anti-war film.
To be fair to the guy, the amount is only ridiculous because that's prob what his lawyer put down, and these lawsuits, if they are won invariably result in a massive drop in the amount awarded. Especially after appeals, out-of-court settlements etc.
So if you really want $1 mill, you're better off asking for $50 mill.

I just wonder why it took him so long to put in a claim. The movie was out over 2 years ago.
Seems odd to wait this long. I wonder if it isn't an attempt to hit the Dems, now that we're moving closer to the Nov elections. Bringing out Moore and his villified docu now might sway ppl back to GOP. The Dems get guilt through association.

I can't see it winning. I can only vaguely remember that bit in the movie and if the guy had signed to let himself be filmed, I can't see how he has any comeback. Loss of rep maybe could work if he can show that he has been treated badly by others because they now think he's rabid anti-war. But how can you prove that? If someone did actually say to his face, "We're not giving you a job cause that movie showed you're anti-war", then he should be sueing them for discrimination, not Moore.
And we're talking about a Joe Lunchbox here, so how much rep can you really lose?

And now for some source mining, because I couldn't for the life of me remember this guy in the movie and I don't own a copy of it.

Starting at the top of the list, here's something (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/31/iraq_veteran_sues_filmmaker_over_portrayal_in_fahrenheit_911/) that gives more information than Trusci's (no suprises there...)
He lost his arms when a tire on a Black Hawk helicopter exploded while he and another reservist were servicing the aircraft on the ground. Another reservist was killed in the explosion.

In his interview with NBC, Damon was asked about a new painkiller the military was using on wounded veterans. He claims in his lawsuit that the way Moore used the film clip in "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- Moore's scathing 2004 documentary criticizing the Bush administration and the war in Iraq -- makes him appear to "voice a complaint about the war effort" when he was actually complaining about "the excruciating type of pain" that comes with the injury he suffered.

In the movie, Damon is shown lying on a gurney, with his wounds bandaged. He says he feels likes he's "being crushed in a vise."

"But they (the painkillers) do a lot to help it," he says. "And they take a lot of the edge off of it."

Damon is shown shortly after U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., is speaking about the Bush administration and says, "You know, they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind."

Damon contends that Moore's positioning of the clip just after the congressman's comments makes him appear as if he feels like he was "left behind" by the Bush administration and the military.
His arms where. Which I think was the point, but arguments can be made...

EDIT:
"I just want everybody to know what kind of a guy Michael Moore is, and what kind of film this is," said Damon. He has appeared in two films attacking "Fahrenheit" -- "Michael Moore Hates America" and "Fahrenhype 9/11."
From, who else, Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197637,00.html).

A more cogent explination of the complaint, which at least makes for a more grounded discusion:
He said that, while at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center recovering from his wounds, he had surgery and physical therapy, learned to use prosthetics and live independently. He also said that Homes For Our Troops, a not-for-profit group, built him a house with handicapped accessibility.

"The work creates a substantially fictionalized and falsified implication as a wounded serviceman who was left behind when Plaintiff was not left behind but supported, financially and emotionally, by the active assistance of the President, the United States and his family, friends, acquaintances and community," Damon says in his lawsuit.
source (http://9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=8d144bec-0abe-421a-00f2-0a02ea08dca6&TEMPLATEID=b010ff41-ac1f-02c5-0009-00c014346932)

COMMENTARY: Can you say, "lies coming back to haunt you," boys and girls? :D
Eut, either the comment has nothing to do with the article posted or you are implying that the article says something about lying.
It doesnt.
This is not a minor matter. The article certainly makes a case that Moore might have recklessly implied something he knew to be untrue, or even that Moore acted with the sole intention of implying something he knew to be untrue in order to mislead people.
The distinction between what the article presents a case for, and lying is not a minor distinction, it is hugely significant. Knowing the distinction and its implications is necessary if you are to both consume any media whatsoever and have a reasonable chance of not being a dupe.
If you percieve this article as describing an instance of lying, then you percieve that something is stated that isnt. So the fact is A has been said and you believe that B has been said. It should be clear to you already that your ability to know what is going on is seriously impaired by your inability to know what has been stated.
So here you are consuming media with an ability to reliably know if something has or has not been stated or alledged. Meanwhile the case presented in the article is an instance of standard practise in the media industry. The effect is you cant comprehend what media is saying. This isnt a 'Moore trick' this is a common media practise employed by Moore. It is happening all the time and it's as likely as not that any media you consume will characterised by this standard industry practise. That leaves you a babe in the woods - how can you possibly avoid being manipulated and mislead if you have no idea how to interpret media in such a way that you even know the difference between what has been stated and what hasnt?
The fact is you base your world view and so your behaviour on what you believe. So if you are going to consume media is there not some personal responsibility to yourself, not to mention those people who share the effects of your behaviour, to at least attempt to not be a complete dupe to anyone who wants to make you think something untrue is true and who posseses the moderate wits required to hand the undiscriminating dupe enough rope to hang themself on?
I expect you thought - aha, I knew Moore was a lier, not like those stoopid dupe lefties....and I bet that there are indeed lefties duped by Moore. What I expect you have not thought is - this of course is no different from stoopid dupe not-lefties, who you are duped by isnt really the point is it?
I have to conclude Eut that all you have proved is that you are a prime target for duping.
This brings me to what I really care about, the reason I bothered to post this. The evidence is you are a dupe, my opinion is you are in this particular regard in the majority. This is really rather scary. People act in light of what they believe, so if the majority of people are as easily duped as the evidence indicates you are, think of the consequences!

If you believe that what is presented in the article is not standard practise, then your notion as to what reality is, is subject to the manipulation of any 2-bit media hack. Now you can go the easy way of willingly been duped by the particlar media that coincides with your view while feeling oh so superior about how easily duped by the media those 'X-wing' fools are, or you can get ethical and responsible - you can preference knowing truth or the self congradulatory back pat of being convinced that the ideology you hold is the only one that isnt based on being a dupe...

If MM obtained that video from the interviewing media company (the ones who own the rights to the interview) legally, then I don't think the amputee guy has a case. If not then I think it would be the media company that needs to sue anyway no?
Looks like he's casting a wide net:
NBC is named in the suit - which was filed in Suffolk County, Mass., on Friday - along with Harvey and Robert Weinstein, Miramax Corp., Lions Gate Films and other production companies involved with the picture.
The NY Post (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/69383.htm), but I ran across that elsewhere, too.

I'm sure it's already been said in this thread...but:

Although one could argue that Moore should be sued for misrepresenting this guy's position, $85 million is a ridiculous amount of money for which to sue. I'd even go so far as to call the GI worse than Moore for being just another dick who starts lawsuits asking for more money than anyone should ever deserve.

Personally, I'd say he deserves $250,000 -- tops.

I mean, seriously, what a selfish, useless, greedy, thieving fuck-head. And I don't care what you say about what part the lawyer had in determining the amount to ask for (he's equally guilty and despicable.)

I hope the guy wins and take the lard ass to the cleaners.

Nice to see that the Moral Majority is all for caps on lawsuit liabilities... unless it's aimed at Commie Liberal Pinko Al Qaeda Traitors like Michael Moore.

:rolleyes:

COMMENTARY: Can you say, "lies coming back to haunt you," boys and girls? :D


GI Sues Michael Moore for $85 Million (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/31/130505.shtml?s=et)


Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:01 p.m. EDT
A double-amputee veteran of the Iraq war is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming Moore used an old interview with the G.I. to make him appear anti-war in his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America's invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie. Damon lost his arms when a Black Hawk helicopter exploded in front of him.

In the 2003 interview, which he did at Walter Reed Army Hospital for NBC News, he discussed only a new painkiller the military was using on wounded veterans, the New York Post reports.

"They took the clip because it was a gut-wrenching scene," Damon said. "They sandwiched it in. [Moore] was using me as ammunition."

According to the lawsuit filed in Suffolk County, Mass., Damon seems to "voice a complaint about the war effort" in the movie.

But he told the Post: "I was complaining about the pain I would've been having [if it weren't for the painkiller].”

Newsman Brian Williams ends the NBC clip by adding, "These men with catastrophic wounds are . . . completely behind the war effort," according to the lawsuit. That part wasn't shown in the Moore movie.

Damon’s lawyer Dennis Lynch said he delayed filing the lawsuit in a bid to settle the matter with Moore.

"We attempted to resolve the situation amicably with Mr. Moore [for a year] but he refused," he said.

Damon is asking for up to $85 million because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation."


GET SOME! GET SOME!

You know how to make me smile, Eutrusca, that's for sure.

If Michael Moron ever used my image and interview in one of his movies I'd sue to for every penny of his.

$85 mill, no way. The guy supported the war in Iraq, so he got his ass to Iraq and surprise-surprise he loses his limbs. Thats his fault for going there in the first place, and thats the price he pays. Cause and effect my friends. Michael Moore didn't do anything wrong, he just did his job as a film-maker. The lawsuit is just bullshit for the GI's sadness.

GET SOME! GET SOME!

You know how to make me smile, Eutrusca, that's for sure.

If Michael Moron ever used my image and interview in one of his movies I'd sue to for every penny of his.
To be fair, if Michael Moore ever used your image/interview in a movie it would be as a sad inditement of how dreadful the US education system is now, especially at fostering independent thinking.

few things...first, what does being an amputee have to do with anything in this story? Second, loss of reputation, okay. emotional distress? okay. embarrassment? bitch, please. My pants fell down. I was embarassed. Can I sue the pant company now? Get over it. You're in the friggin army and you can't deal with something as minor as this? I don't even remember him being in the movie, let alone what he said
:)

I'm sure it's already been said in this thread...but:

Although one could argue that Moore should be sued for misrepresenting this guy's position, $85 million is a ridiculous amount of money for which to sue. I'd even go so far as to call the GI worse than Moore for being just another dick who starts lawsuits asking for more money than anyone should ever deserve.

Personally, I'd say he deserves $250,000 -- tops.

I mean, seriously, what a selfish, useless, greedy, thieving fuck-head. And I don't care what you say about what part the lawyer had in determining the amount to ask for (he's equally guilty and despicable.)

He is a leech.

Agree with Moore or not, film is his medium, and he constructs compelling pieces that make money.

This guy is attempting to hitch a ride on the coat-tails of an artist.

Parasites like this should be laughed out of the courts. And then fined, for wasting court time.

Moore says his films are NOT factual, and are intended as comedy.

So he would win the lawsuit.

Moore said in an interview that he doesn't care if he is representing anything correctly or factually - it's comedy, not a documentary full of facts.

Thus the juxtaposition of one film clip with another, without regard to facts, and intentionally misleading the viewer about context.

But in comedy, you can legally get away with that.

Now now, England has way more complicated liable laws than we do...



Yeah, they even spell it complicatedly - libel!!

If some of you guys could spell and string a sentence together, America might become the greatest nation on earth.

Yeah, they even spell it complicatedly - libel!!

If some of you guys could spell and string a sentence together, America might become the greatest nation on earth.

I don't have any trouble with spelling or grammar, and I'm an American.

Nice to see that the Moral Majority is all for caps on lawsuit liabilities... unless it's aimed at Commie Liberal Pinko Al Qaeda Traitors like Michael Moore.

i'm pretty sure they specifically wrote that in to all their proposed 'tort reform' bills

Not enough I sue for every penny the film made plus one dollar !
Liasia']$85 million, that's reasonable:headbang:
What a dick.

I think he's just angry that government pension isn't paying him enough... My uncle (Unable to work due to a broken back) is on full time pension, which means he is not allowed (Even if he could) To work, even part time, because he'd lose that pension. I believe (This is an estimate now) he gets 20,000 a year. Which is enough to survive on, but definetly not enough to buy nice things. Now, I think this greedy a-hole double amputee is just pissed because he can't afford his new 60 inch plasma screen T.V.



What a dickface...

or maybe a wronged party seeking justice from a media whore.

This isn't the 1st time something like this happening to Moore.

Propoganda for whatever reason... meh.

Desparate attempts to cash in on the success of another... a little sad...

They should fine this guy for wasting time on frivolity.

Liasia']$85 million, that's reasonable:headbang:
What a dick.
No kidding ... I mean I know moore is a dick but 85 milion is just as bad as thoes people with frivilous lawsuits over "emotional damage" (not to say that all emotional damage cases are bunk but a lot of them seem really dumb)

or maybe a wronged party seeking justice from a media whore.

This isn't the 1st time something like this happening to Moore.
Justice would be giving him what he deserved ... I some how doubt he deserves 85 million.

or maybe a wronged party seeking justice from a media whore.

This isn't the 1st time something like this happening to Moore.

A wronged party... Media whore... Maybe we should sue Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. I'm a wronged party. They make me feel embarrassed whenever I watch or listen too them. I have severe mental distress for days. I get so angry at them I punch small children, this definetly doesn't help my reputation. I am personally humilutated because I walk around crying for days because I can't understand how any human being could be like that... I think 85 million is good from each...

This is a fricking JOKE, much like the idiotic lawsuit.

Not enough I sue for every penny the film made plus one dollar !
Talk about frivilous lawsuit

or maybe a wronged party seeking justice from a media whore.

This isn't the 1st time something like this happening to Moore.

I like the fact you made it rhyme.

How is the 'party' wronged?

Moore must have obtained a release to use the image and content recorded. The other guy must have signed it. Moore makes no explicit claims that misrepresent... thus, this man is claiming for a PERCEIVED wrong, AFTER he signed a 'release' on his image to the artist.

I can't see how this joker could seriously win this court case, if the legal system lives up to any of it's protestations of justice.

No kidding ... I mean I know moore is a dick but 85 milion is just as bad as thoes people with frivilous lawsuits over "emotional damage" (not to say that all emotional damage cases are bunk but a lot of them seem really dumb)

Like that case a couple of years ago... I think she was a teacher from Alabama, and she wanted to sue a cinema chain, because the movie started 7 minutes late, or something?

There should be a vetting procedure you have to go through BEFORE you are even allowed to file charges...

(Greetings, friend! Long time, no see!)

I Hope He Wins.

American justice... Where you can get 2.7 million dollars for spilling coffee on your lap... I'm allowed to say that, I"m American.

Like that case a couple of years ago... I think she was a teacher from Alabama, and she wanted to sue a cinema chain, because the movie started 7 minutes late, or something?

There should be a vetting procedure you have to go through BEFORE you are even allowed to file charges...

(Greetings, friend! Long time, no see!)
Yeah ... If he signed a release he should have been smarter before signing said piece of paper

Was moores reputation that obscure that he did not realize what sort of viewpoint the movie would take? Specialy before signing a legal document

American justice... Where you can get 2.7 million dollars for spilling coffee on your lap... I'm allowed to say that, I"m American.
Even that case had more worth then this one... at least someone was actualy injured

I Hope He Wins.

Why? Do you hate the American legal system so much, you WANT to see it trivialised and whored (yet again) for political and populist reasons?

Even that case had more worth then this one... at least someone was actualy injured

True. I actually read about that McDonalds case. While I don't believe she deserved 2.7 million dollars, McDonalds was a pretty big dick to her.

Why? Do you hate the American legal system so much, you WANT to see it trivialised and whored (yet again) for political and populist reasons?
No kidding ... I mean I dislike moore with a passion, but hoping for our legal system to be used to incorrectly punish someone like this (no matter how much of a dick he is) is just silly.

Rationalizing everything by the ends justify the means is silly

To be fair if Moore bought the rights to the clip or licenced it, and his editing was within the terms of that agreement, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Which would suck, seeing as he has no arms either.


So cold.

Why? Do you hate the American legal system so much, you WANT to see it trivialised and whored (yet again) for political and populist reasons?

Yes, you nailed his motives dead on.

I would sue is dumb ass too. That would piss me off if a war profiteer such as MM did that to me. Hopefully a jury see's the light and they hand MM ass to him.

If war profiteers piss you off too, then who's the biggest of them all?

Yeah, they even spell it complicatedly - libel!!

If some of you guys could spell and string a sentence together, America might become the greatest nation on earth.


We are the greatest nation on earth, even without the spelling & sentence stringing. But thats not such a big deal, is it?

I would sue is dumb ass too. That would piss me off if a war profiteer such as MM did that to me. Hopefully a jury see's the light and they hand MM ass to him.

He should sue George W for lying about WMDs!

I mean come on - he lost two arms fighting a phony war.:p

If war profiteers piss you off too, then who's the biggest of them all?

Halliburton.

Halliburton.

Agreed.

M-M is an idiot anyone who actualy believes his crap may not be an idiot but very misguided.

Why? Do you hate the American legal system so much, you WANT to see it trivialised and whored (yet again) for political and populist reasons?

No, because Moore has made a great deal of money from distorting interviews, twisting facts and outright lying; I would like to see him go down for his ill gotten riches.

M-M is an idiot anyone who actualy believes his crap may not be an idiot but very misguided.

I suggest reading 'Michael Moore is a big fat stpid white man', it shows how he lied in all his films.

No, because Moore has made a great deal of money from distorting interviews, twisting facts and outright lying; I would like to see him go down for his ill gotten riches.

But, THAT isn't what the case is 'about'. You are allowing your own prejudices decide (in advance) what you think the final verdict should be.

The simple fact is - Moore makes films. He uses cut-up interviews as the material for a large part of his 'art'. One of the requirements of 'documentary' style film-making, is that your 'models' have to sign releases... they allow you to interpret them as part of your 'art'.

You dislike Moore (which is your choice), so you want to see him punished (which is not necessarily a good precedent to set), by the legal system (which is an abuse of it's purpose).

You are making a mockery of the concepts of 'law' and 'justice' in order to fulfill a need for petty revenge against an ideology you do not share.

COMMENTARY: Can you say, "lies coming back to haunt you," boys and girls? :D


GI Sues Michael Moore for $85 Million (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/31/130505.shtml?s=et)


Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:01 p.m. EDT
A double-amputee veteran of the Iraq war is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming Moore used an old interview with the G.I. to make him appear anti-war in his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America's invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie. Damon lost his arms when a Black Hawk helicopter exploded in front of him.

In the 2003 interview, which he did at Walter Reed Army Hospital for NBC News, he discussed only a new painkiller the military was using on wounded veterans, the New York Post reports.

"They took the clip because it was a gut-wrenching scene," Damon said. "They sandwiched it in. [Moore] was using me as ammunition."

According to the lawsuit filed in Suffolk County, Mass., Damon seems to "voice a complaint about the war effort" in the movie.

But he told the Post: "I was complaining about the pain I would've been having [if it weren't for the painkiller].”

Newsman Brian Williams ends the NBC clip by adding, "These men with catastrophic wounds are . . . completely behind the war effort," according to the lawsuit. That part wasn't shown in the Moore movie.

Damon’s lawyer Dennis Lynch said he delayed filing the lawsuit in a bid to settle the matter with Moore.

"We attempted to resolve the situation amicably with Mr. Moore [for a year] but he refused," he said.

Damon is asking for up to $85 million because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation."

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

But, THAT isn't what the case is 'about'. You are allowing your own prejudices decide (in advance) what you think the final verdict should be.

The simple fact is - Moore makes films. He uses cut-up interviews as the material for a large part of his 'art'. One of the requirements of 'documentary' style film-making, is that your 'models' have to sign releases... they allow you to interpret them as part of your 'art'.

You dislike Moore (which is your choice), so you want to see him punished (which is not necessarily a good precedent to set), by the legal system (which is an abuse of it's purpose).

You are making a mockery of the concepts of 'law' and 'justice' in order to fulfill a need for petty revenge against an ideology you do not share.
Better said then I could have

The man is a liar; plain and simple.

No, because Moore has made a great deal of money from distorting interviews, twisting facts and outright lying; I would like to see him go down for his ill gotten riches.

Interestingly this sentence works just as well if you replace 'Moore' with 'Bush'.

The man is a liar; plain and simple.
Possibly ... but that does not mean that it is a good use of the justice system to try to seek revenge for apparently legal actions

Interestingly this sentence works just as well if you replace 'Moore' with 'Bush'.


Actually-it doesnt work at all if you do that.

Better said then I could have

Hey, I did it all for you, man... :)

only in America.

Interestingly this sentence works just as well if you replace 'Moore' with 'Bush'.

Bush made his money (about $15,000,000), as the managing director of an investment group that bought Texas Rangers baseball team and sold it on for a profit. Bush now makes his money governing America and from his Crawford Ranch. Moore makes his money and always has done from libel, lies and stuff he makes up; I am not going to trust a man who can't even control his appetite to tell me how Bush should 'control' the country. He should first get a real job, lose some weight, stop telling people he's a 'Michigan native' now that he lives in a $1,900,000 apartment on the Upper West Side of Manhattan (a legal resident of NYC, NY) , give all his ill gotten gains to charity and then publicly apologize to President Bush.

He deserves not to be stigmatized by the moore film, he probably feels like a traitor and is osteracized by fellow disabled vets the people to whom exceptance would mean a great deal.


Justice would be giving him what he deserved ... I some how doubt he deserves 85 million.

I am not going to trust a man who can't even control his appetite

OMGLOL FAT COMMENT

I'm not going to take seriously someone whose main argument against a man is that he's fat. Your mom was fat when she gave birth to you, maybe that means she should control her "appetite" when hanging around with your father.

He should first get a real job

Filmmaking isn't a "real job" on what basis?

It's not real, because he isn't President of the USA?

It's not a job, because it doesn't take effort and earn payment?

Give me an argument here to back up your statement, or its just yet another idiot-statement in a long line of idiot-statements from Moore's fan club.

, lose some weight,

OMGLOL FAT COMMENT

stop telling people he's a 'Michigan native' now that he lives in a $1,900,000 apartment on the Upper West Side of Manhattan

I'm not sure how you define native, but where I come from (the real world), a native of a state is someone who was born and raised there. It has nothing to do with where one CURRENTLY lives.

So maybe he shouldn't stop telling people that, hmm?

, give all his ill gotten gains to charity

Bitch please! Maybe BUSH should give all his gains to chairty. Maybe you should too! Maybe everyone should!

Or maybe just people you don't like, eh?

and then publicly apologize to President Bush.

Oh, poor Mister Pwesident Bush had his feewings hurt, now Mister Pwesident's Secwetawy wants a pubwic apowogy! Awwwww!

doc·u·men·ta·ry adj.

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.


So he misrepresnted him self as a documentarian so can everybody who bought tickets or rented the DVD file a classaction for false advertising?


But, THAT isn't what the case is 'about'. You are allowing your own prejudices decide (in advance) what you think the final verdict should be.

The simple fact is - Moore makes films. He uses cut-up interviews as the material for a large part of his 'art'. One of the requirements of 'documentary' style film-making, is that your 'models' have to sign releases... they allow you to interpret them as part of your 'art'.

You dislike Moore (which is your choice), so you want to see him punished (which is not necessarily a good precedent to set), by the legal system (which is an abuse of it's purpose).

You are making a mockery of the concepts of 'law' and 'justice' in order to fulfill a need for petty revenge against an ideology you do not share.

Michael Moore isn't even honest about his place of birth. He claims he is from Flint, when in fact he is from Davison. For people taking theit SATs, Davison is to Flint as the Hamptons are to New York City.

He deserves not to be stigmatized by the moore film, he probably feels like a traitor and is osteracized by fellow disabled vets the people to whom exceptance would mean a great deal.
Exceptance is very important to me too ... but if I made a stupid mistake signing a legal waver to a movie maker with a known slant I would be deserving of what I got ... I most deffinatly would not be entitled to 85 million dollars

Unless the subject is fully aware, presenting an interview as a documentary and then editing said material in order to misrepresent one's statements can be considered an offense tantamount to slander and libel.

Example:

"Interior design is a field widely misunderstood as a profession for men who are gay."

::EDIT::

"Interior design is *CUT MATERIAL* gay."



Very different statements.

OMGLOL FAT COMMENT

I'm not going to take seriously someone whose main argument against a man is that he's fat. Your mom was fat when she gave birth to you, maybe that means she should control her "appetite" when hanging around with your father.

That was not my main argument, my main argument is that he is a liar.

Also quick lesson:
Pregnancy: Life growing inside you.
Michael Moore: Too many Big Macs.


Filmmaking isn't a "real job" on what basis?

Lying isn't a real job, no matter how many quotation marks 'you' put it in.

It's not real, because he isn't President of the USA?

No it's no real because he's a con man.

It's not a job, because it doesn't take effort and earn payment?

If Moore's conscience is a big as his stomach, ignoring it so often does take a lot of effort.

Give me an argument here to back up your statement, or its just yet another idiot-statement in a long line of idiot-statements from Moore's fan club.

Moore is a BIG FAT STUPID LYING PASTY WHITE MAN.


I'm not sure how you define native, but where I come from (the real world), a native of a state is someone who was born and raised there. It has nothing to do with where one CURRENTLY lives.

Fair cop, I used the wrong word.

So maybe he shouldn't stop telling people that, hmm?

No, but he should stop acting like he's still (or ever was) 'one of the boys' down in Flint.

Bitch please! Maybe BUSH should give all his gains to chairty. Maybe you should too! Maybe everyone should!

Bush's gains aren't ill gotten, Moore's are.

Or maybe just people you don't like, eh?

I don't like Edward Kennedy, I in no way think he should give his $165,200 per annum to charity; he works for it, while Moore lies, cheats and distorts the truth for his money.

Oh, poor Mister Pwesident Bush had his feewings hurt, now Mister Pwesident's Secwetawy wants a pubwic apowogy! Awwwww!

It's a decent, honorable thing to do. Oh sorry, I forgot a Moore supporter might need definitions:

Decent:socially or conventionally correct; refined or virtuous.
Honorable: adhering to ethical and moral principles

doc·u·men·ta·ry adj.

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.


So he misrepresnted him self as a documentarian so can everybody who bought tickets or rented the DVD file a classaction for false advertising?

Where was he misrepresented?

His art is 'documentary style', and he has made a career largely selling himself as a producer of funny and/or thoughtprovoking materials.

But - if you consider also, that every piece of 'documentary' footage can be considered a 'document'... how is his film-making misrepresented?

Unless the subject is fully aware, presenting an interview as a documentary and then editing said material in order to misrepresent one's statements can be considered an offense tantamount to slander and libel.

Example:

"Interior design is a field widely misunderstood as a profession for men who are gay."

::EDIT::

"Interior design is *CUT MATERIAL* gay."



Very different statements.

Not strictly relevent, either.

The complaint isn't 'editing'... it is placement. The complaint is based on something that the party feels is inferred, rather than something explicit in the finished piece.

That was not my main argument, my main argument is that he is a liar.

Also quick lesson:
Pregnancy: Life growing inside you.
Michael Moore: Too many Big Macs.


If that's your main argument, it is profoundly hurt by your insistence on attacking the man's character.

Also, quick lesson:

Michael Moore: Too many Big Macs.
Your Pregnant Mom: Too much sperm.

(See. I wasn't being insulting. If Michael Moore should "control his appetite" for food because he is fat, your mother should have "contolled her appetite" for sperm because she's pregnant. It's a valid analogy.)


Lying isn't a real job, no matter how many quotation marks 'you' put it in.


Making films is a "real job." I put it in quotes because it's a bullshit phrase - one which you appear unwilling to back up with definition or support of any kind.


No it's no real because he's a con man.


Hmm... so your definition of a real job is one which doesn't involve any sort of lying?

Bush needs a real job!

You said it!


If Moore's conscience is a big as his stomach, ignoring it so often does take a lot of effort.


OMGLOL FAT COMMENT

I'm glad we have such intelligent and mature posters as you. What's next? Pull my finger? Hurh hurh.


Moore is a BIG FAT STUPID LYING PASTY WHITE MAN.


You seem to be awful threatened by him. Admit it, were you molested by a big fat stupid lying pasty white man as a child?


No, but he should stop acting like he's still (or ever was) 'one of the boys' down in Flint.

I find this aspect of your disagreement with him to be even more shallow and petty than the fat comments.


Bush's gains aren't ill gotten, Moore's are.


Oh, so one should only give to charity if you have "ill gotten gains?"

That's a kind of backwards viewpoint from the one I have, which is that charitable people should give to charity. You on the other hand seem to view giving to charity as a form of punishment to inflict on people of low character. Weird.


I don't like Edward Kennedy, I in no way think he should give his $165,200 per annum to charity; he works for it, while Moore lies, cheats and distorts the truth for his money.

You know, what you are saying could be construed as libel. I hope you don't mind if I sue you for 85 million dollars.


It's a decent, honorable thing to do. Oh sorry, I forgot a Moore supporter might need definitions:

EHH. WRONG. Thanks for playing. Just because I trash your sorry "arguments" and your idiot-comments doesn't mean I'm a "Moore supporter." I'm a free market capitalist and I've never even SEEN any of his fucking films. Sorry, your lame-ass retorts aimed at stereotypes and consisting of strawmen won't work here. :)

(See. I wasn't being insulting. If Michael Moore should "control his appetite" for food because he is fat, your mother should have "contolled her appetite" for sperm because she's pregnant. It's a valid analogy.)

How is my mom being pregnant a ‘valid analogy’ to Moore’s comfort eating (because his conscience refuses to speak to him).

Making films is a "real job." I put it in quotes because it's a bullshit phrase - one which you appear unwilling to back up with definition or support of any kind.

But lying to millions of people is not a '"real job"'

Hmm... so your definition of a real job is one which doesn't involve any sort of lying?

Yes it is.

Moore needs a real job!

You said it!

You certainly did!

I'm glad we have such intelligent and mature posters as you. [Moore style editing]

Thank you

You seem to be awful threatened by him. Admit it, were you molested by a big fat stupid lying pasty white man as a child?

Are you a big fat stupid lying pasty white man?


I find this aspect of your disagreement with him to be even more shallow and petty than the fat comments.

I'm correctly stating that he is a liar, if you find my truths reprehensible and his lies morally correct, you need serious help.

Oh, so one should only give to charity if you have "ill gotten gains?"

No, certainly not; but one should especially give ill gotten gains to charity.

That's a kind of backwards viewpoint from the one I have, which is that charitable people should give to charity. You on the other hand seem to view giving to charity as a form of punishment to inflict on people of low character. Weird.

Being charitable would be a punishment to Michael Moore, he is a greedy man.

You know, what you are saying could be construed as libel. I hope you don't mind if I sue you for 85 million dollars.

I am stating fact with malicious intent; so no libel there.

EHH. WRONG. Thanks for playing. Just because I trash your sorry "arguments" and your idiot-comments doesn't mean I'm a "Moore supporter." I'm a free market capitalist and I've never even SEEN any of his fucking films. Sorry, your lame-ass retorts aimed at stereotypes and consisting of strawmen won't work here. :)

Maybe you should see the films; the lies that you are defending.

How is my mom being pregnant a ‘valid analogy’ to Moore’s comfort eating (because his conscience refuses to speak to him).



But lying to millions of people is not a '"real job"'



Yes it is.





You certainly did!



Thank you



Are you a big fat stupid lying pasty white man?




I'm correctly stating that he is a liar, if you find my truths reprehensible and his lies morally correct, you need serious help.



No, certainly not; but one should especially give ill gotten gains to charity.



Being charitable would be a punishment to Michael Moore, he is a greedy man.



I am stating fact with malicious intent; so no libel there.



Maybe you should see the films; the lies that you are defending.
Congratulations you just showed how anoying moore style (some of it) is ... how the fuck is that worth 85 million dollars?

Before people start complaining that $85 million is too much, keep in mind that if the soldier wins the lawsuit or the case gets settled, he won't be getting $85 million. If it get settled out of court, the veteran will likely get half or less (<= $42.5 million). After lawyers fees (about 1/3 or more of the total award) and taxes (for that amount, about 40% of the total award, IIRC), and he'll probably see about $11.3 million. Also, if this goes the distance in the courtroom, the judge can decide to award a lower amount than the $85 million that the veteran is sueing for (then figure in the lawyer fees and taxes, as mentioned above).

COMMENTARY: Can you say, "lies coming back to haunt you," boys and girls? :D


So the shrub is going to be sued as well?

Before people start complaining that $85 million is too much, keep in mind that if the soldier wins the lawsuit or the case gets settled, he won't be getting $85 million. If it get settled out of court, the veteran will likely get half or less (<= $42.5 million). After lawyers fees (about 1/3 or more of the total award) and taxes (for that amount, about 40% of the total award, IIRC), and he'll probably see about $11.3 million. Also, if this goes the distance in the courtroom, the judge can decide to award a lower amount than the $85 million that the veteran is sueing for (then figure in the lawyer fees and taxes, as mentioned above).
Only 11.3 million for being stupid enough to be upset over implied meaning when he signed a waver and spouted off at the mouth for a known movie maker.

Somehow I dont feel bad for him

He (Michael Moore) claims his films are documentaries and markets them as such. They in fact are fiction. Spinal Tap is also a fake documentary but is not marketed as such so no harm.

Where was he misrepresented?

His art is 'documentary style', and he has made a career largely selling himself as a producer of funny and/or thoughtprovoking materials.

But - if you consider also, that every piece of 'documentary' footage can be considered a 'document'... how is his film-making misrepresented?

He didn't ...it was edited news footage, from NBC I believe.

Exceptance is very important to me too ... but if I made a stupid mistake signing a legal waver to a movie maker with a known slant I would be deserving of what I got ... I most deffinatly would not be entitled to 85 million dollars

Only 11.3 million for being stupid enough to be upset over implied meaning when he signed a waver and spouted off at the mouth for a known movie maker.

Somehow I dont feel bad for him

As others have pointed out, the veteran gave an interview with NBC, not Michael Moore. Moore then used that footage in the same manipulative way that's made him money in the past.

He (Michael Moore) claims his films are documentaries and markets them as such. They in fact are fiction. Spinal Tap is also a fake documentary but is not marketed as such so no harm.

Documentary and fiction are not necessarily opposites...

As others have pointed out, the veteran gave an interview with NBC, not Michael Moore. Moore then used that footage in the same manipulative way that's made him money in the past.

One assumes that 'rights' were still transferred, no?

A waiver signed to release the original interview, 'rights' purchased by Moore or his purchaser...

Yeah, they even spell it complicatedly - libel!!

If some of you guys could spell and string a sentence together, America might become the greatest nation on earth.
Really? A stab at the spelling? Is that the best you got?

One assumes that 'rights' were still transferred, no?

A waiver signed to release the original interview, 'rights' purchased by Moore or his purchaser...

You are assuming that NBC had the legal right to sell the interview to Moore, without the consent of the veteran (the waiver may have only covered the initial purpose of the interview, which was reporting the news). Of course, until all the facts are presented, we won't know exactly what the truth is.

You are assuming that NBC had the legal right to sell the interview to Moore, without the consent of the veteran (the waiver may have only covered the initial purpose of the interview, which was reporting the news). Of course, until all the facts are presented, we won't know exactly what the truth is.

I believe standard waivers have a kind of 'use or trade at own discretion' setup... but, as you say, without more information on the specifics, we are guessing.

I believe standard waivers have a kind of 'use or trade at own discretion' setup... but, as you say, without more information on the specifics, we are guessing.
I have a standard release somewhere but I can't find it. But part of my job is to get people to sign those things and they give up rights usually throughout the universe, which is comical wording on a legal document, but there it is.

Before people start complaining that $85 million is too much, keep in mind that if the soldier wins the lawsuit or the case gets settled, he won't be getting $85 million. If it get settled out of court, the veteran will likely get half or less (<= $42.5 million). After lawyers fees (about 1/3 or more of the total award) and taxes (for that amount, about 40% of the total award, IIRC), and he'll probably see about $11.3 million. Also, if this goes the distance in the courtroom, the judge can decide to award a lower amount than the $85 million that the veteran is sueing for (then figure in the lawyer fees and taxes, as mentioned above).


I dont think there is any income tax on proceeds from a lawsuit. (?)

few things...first, what does being an amputee have to do with anything in this story? Second, loss of reputation, okay. emotional distress? okay. embarrassment? bitch, please. My pants fell down. I was embarassed. Can I sue the pant company now? Get over it. You're in the friggin army and you can't deal with something as minor as this? I don't even remember him being in the movie, let alone what he said

Oh Lord, you're a dumbass.

Stating that he's an amputee provides backstory for why he was interviewed by Michael Moore, how Michael Moore abused what Sgt. Madon said, etc.

Being put into a movie without your permission that millions of people saw and being exploited by seeming to say something you didn't doesn't call for a lawsuit?

I don't know how old you are, but imagine one of your friends tells your girlfriend/spouse/whatever that you hate them, when you never said nor thought that. Wouldn't you be a little pissed off?

You agreed with emotional distress and loss of reputation. How is embarassment not a direct cause of these and/or vice versa?

I have a standard release somewhere but I can't find it. But part of my job is to get people to sign those things and they give up rights usually throughout the universe, which is comical wording on a legal document, but there it is.

Whatever the wording, what it basically means is - you've sold us everything but your soul... maybe.

They are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED !!!! anathama oil and water


Documentary and fiction are not necessarily opposites...

They are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED !!!! anathama oil and water

No - they are really not.

Documentary describes the TYPE of film.... the technique, if you wish.

Fiction describes the nature of the content... the FLAVOUR of the film, if you wish.

Fuckin' a, I really wish you parrot mother fuckers would actually come up with something that didn't make you look like idiots. You have no idea what documentary filmmaking is and 'fat' is the worst ad hominem ever.

Nanoock of the North got a ton of shit wrong, it's still a documentary.

A documentary is a thesis, an argument of the filmmaker, not a fucking newspaper.

Even the evening news edits clips to fit their story. If you don't recognize that you are to stupid to comment on media.

If you want to argue whats presented in the film, fine-do that. He invites it and, shock and horror, it's actually healthy and productive, you should question him and his conclusions like you should any argument. But if you're going to run around like idiots saying "It's not a documentary because of a passage from dictionary.com" or "He's fat" then you are stupider and more disengenious than he is and should rightfully be ignored just as you'd ignore anyone else not suficiently enough informed to join the discussion.

No: a documentary is just a that, a visual doctument of FACTSas they have happened without any editorial or fictional components.

Per the Academy :
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.


Oliver stone is a brilliant film maker but although his films are about historic people and events they are NOT documentaries. Hotel Rwanda was not a documetary nor was F/911 (nor was "Bowling" for that matter)

Noir, Cinema Verite, Animation are styles of film documetary is not a style. The DUTY of a documetary is to tell the TRUTH not proseltize with oppinions take "Paradise Lost" any biases of the film maker are "disclosed" or "March of the Penguins" no contrived editing to make a point.


This is not an arguement over the cinematic value of the film only that it was NOT anymore a documentary that "Triumph of the Will" was.




No - they are really not.

Documentary describes the TYPE of film.... the technique, if you wish.

Fiction describes the nature of the content... the FLAVOUR of the film, if you wish.

I have only one simple question for you: Was "Truimph of the Will" a documentary ?


Fuckin' a, I really wish you parrot mother fuckers would actually come up with something that didn't make you look like idiots. You have no idea what documentary filmmaking is and 'fat' is the worst ad hominem ever.

Nanoock of the North got a ton of shit wrong, it's still a documentary.

A documentary is a thesis, an argument of the filmmaker, not a fucking newspaper.

Even the evening news edits clips to fit their story. If you don't recognize that you are to stupid to comment on media.

If you want to argue whats presented in the film, fine-do that. He invites it and, shock and horror, it's actually healthy and productive, you should question him and his conclusions like you should any argument. But if you're going to run around like idiots saying "It's not a documentary because of a passage from dictionary.com" or "He's fat" then you are stupider and more disengenious than he is and should rightfully be ignored just as you'd ignore anyone else not suficiently enough informed to join the discussion.

No: a documentary is just a that, a visual doctument of FACTSas they have happened without any editorial or fictional components.

Per the Academy :
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.


Oliver stone is a brilliant film maker but although his films are about historic people and events they are NOT documentaries. Hotel Rwanda was not a documetary nor was F/911 (nor was "Bowling" for that matter)

Noir, Cinema Verite, Animation are styles of film documetary is not a style. The DUTY of a documetary is to tell the TRUTH not proseltize with oppinions take "Paradise Lost" any biases of the film maker are "disclosed" or "March of the Penguins" no contrived editing to make a point.


This is not an arguement over the cinematic value of the film only that it was NOT anymore a documentary that "Triumph of the Will" was.

I hate to break it to you, friend... but the Academy definitions per AWARDS, are not definite for a genre... only for how AWARDS will be judged/presented in that genre...

Show me one source beside Joseph Goebbels who though that documentaries are for policital indoctrination or that shouuld be fictional I think YOU are self defining the genre.:headbang:


I hate to break it to you, friend... but the Academy definitions per AWARDS, are not definite for a genre... only for how AWARDS will be judged/presented in that genre...

So you have nothing, then? Could have called that one...

By your guys' narrow definition the only documentary ever made was Empire...

You don't think March of the Penguins was edited? That there wasn't an argument in it? You have less tools for this discusion than I thought.

You comedicly fail to realise the artistic regard Triumph of the Will actually holds to documentary filmmakers, further evidence that you are not informed enough for this discusion.

You want to have a productive discussion that doesn't make you look like you're flailing? Talk about the points raised in the film, prove or disprove them-this red herring is just silly and an admission that you have nothing of merit to say about the argument raised in the film.

No: a documentary is just a that, a visual doctument of FACTSas they have happened without any editorial or fictional components.

Per the Academy :
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.


Oliver stone is a brilliant film maker but although his films are about historic people and events they are NOT documentaries. Hotel Rwanda was not a documetary nor was F/911 (nor was "Bowling" for that matter)

Noir, Cinema Verite, Animation are styles of film documetary is not a style. The DUTY of a documetary is to tell the TRUTH not proseltize with oppinions take "Paradise Lost" any biases of the film maker are "disclosed" or "March of the Penguins" no contrived editing to make a point.


This is not an arguement over the cinematic value of the film only that it was NOT anymore a documentary that "Triumph of the Will" was.
Look at what you bolded:
non-fiction motion picture
emphasis is on fact and not on fiction

Was Farenheit (or Bowling or Triumph for that matter) a non-fiction motion picture?
YES it was. It dealt with some actual events. It wasn't performed by actors using a script.

Was the emphasis on fact, and not on fiction?
YES it did. Whether you want to believe or accept Moore's interpretation of those facts is entirely up to you, which is well within your rights.

But you have to accept it was a documentary. Documantaries are not 100% truthful. They take liberties and present things in the way the film-maker wants. It doesn't stop it being a documentary.

Those 'Fake Moon landing' films are still documentaries, regardless of that they are full of shit.

They're still documentaries.


Take that Penguin movie that came out last year. It showed the Penguin parents as these wonderful caring family units. To put this across, the film-makers ommitted the fact that when Penguins have two eggs, they leave the other, smaller, baby penguin to die in the cold.
Total manipulation and selective usage of the facts, but still a documentary.




And btw, Oliver Stone is not a brilliant film maker. He's a bloated slef-indulgent egoist who's been disappearing up his own butt for years.

I dont think there is any income tax on proceeds from a lawsuit. (?)

Only awards from libel, slander of personal reputation, and expemlary damages are taxed. The majority of any award he receives in this case because of the charges would be taxed.

The point is the film was constructed to be propaganda NOT a documetary.

Whether the film raised relavent points is not the point. "Wag the Dog" was one of the most spot on criticisms of politics, as "Spinal Tap" was a biting send up of Heavy Metal but neither proffesed (seriously) to a a real documentary. Moore is the greatest living propagand film maker and the greatest since Leni Riefenstahl but they aren't factual nor are they documentaries. If I produced a Holocaust denial film using Moore's technics would it make the million od dead Jews spring back to life?


So you have nothing, then? Could have called that one...

By your guys' narrow definition the only documentary ever made was Empire...

You don't think March of the Penguins was edited? That there wasn't an argument in it? You have less tools for this discusion than I thought.

You comedicly fail to realise the artistic regard Triumph of the Will actually holds to documentary filmmakers, further evidence that you are not informed enough for this discusion.

You want to have a productive discussion that doesn't make you look like you're flailing? Talk about the points raised in the film, prove or disprove them-this red herring is just silly and an admission that you have nothing of merit to say about the argument raised in the film.

The point is the film was constructed to be propaganda NOT a documetary.

Whether the film raised relavent points is not the point. "Wag the Dog" was one of the most spot on criticisms of politics, as "Spinal Tap" was a biting send up of Heavy Metal but neither proffesed (seriously) to a a real documentary. Moore is the greatest living propagand film maker and the greatest since Leni Riefenstahl but they aren't factual nor are they documentaries. If I produced a Holocaust denial film using Moore's technics would it make the million od dead Jews spring back to life?
Yay! I invoke Godwin.
You lose. You're not allowed to post ever again.

fyi, if you make a movie that attempts to show that the holocaust didn't happen and your movie is based on interviews, and presentation of facts, then it is a DOCUMENTARY.

Why can't you ppl understand that?

No: a documentary is just a that, a visual doctument of FACTSas they have happened without any editorial or fictional components.

Noir, Cinema Verite, Animation are styles of film documetary is not a style. The DUTY of a documetary is to tell the TRUTH not proseltize with oppinions take "Paradise Lost" any biases of the film maker are "disclosed" or "March of the Penguins" no contrived editing to make a point.
No contrived editing, huh?
Then explain to me why in the closing credits there's:
A listing for a Foley artist. That's someone who sits in a booth and makes up sounds with everyday objects -- all the little penguin footsteps were probably done with crunched paper bags;

Credit for "additional sound recording" (where, at the zoo? in a sound booth somewhere?)

Listings for the special effects crew (a whole ton of them)


And when did Penguins gain the power of speech? (the French version has them 'speaking' to each other)


Also, where in the movie is it mentioned:
That penguins are not monogamous from year to year?

That, at least in captivity, penguins have a tendency toward homosexual and bisexual behavior?

That many penguin 'adoptions' of chicks are in fact kidnappings?

That weak chicks are frequently the victims of infanticide?

That albino penguins are ostracised and attacked?

That prostitution is practiced by at least one species of penguins?
(New Scientist, October 1, 2005)



no contrived editing, my arse.

The point is the film was constructed to be propaganda NOT a documetary.

Whether the film raised relavent points is not the point. "Wag the Dog" was one of the most spot on criticisms of politics, as "Spinal Tap" was a biting send up of Heavy Metal but neither proffesed (seriously) to a a real documentary. Moore is the greatest living propagand film maker and the greatest since Leni Riefenstahl but they aren't factual nor are they documentaries. If I produced a Holocaust denial film using Moore's technics would it make the million od dead Jews spring back to life?
The most telling thing you've said. Invalidates the whole deal, really, so I thank you for it.

In order for your thesis to apply you have to address the factuality of the film. Therefore, even if we where to accept your thesis (still don't-it's ill informed) you'd have to actually address what in that film is wrong in order to make the film fit. So you're still wasting time even if you knew what you where talking about and avoiding the real discusion.

:upyours: you :upyours: Godwin :upyours: Michael Moore.
Yay! I invoke Godwin.
You lose. You're not allowed to post ever again.

fyi, if you make a movie that attempts to show that the holocaust didn't happen and your movie is based on interviews, and presentation of facts, then it is a DOCUMENTARY.

Why can't you ppl understand that?

:upyours: you :upyours: Godwin :upyours: Michael Moore.
Well reasoned, properly backed up, irrefutable argument.

Michael Moore put the man in F911 without his consent.
The film was seen by millions of people around the world.
The soldier was used by Michael Moore to make a point with which he did not agree.
This is not only illegal but immoral.
That's all there is to say on the matter.

Michael Moore put the man in F911 without his consent.

somehow, i suspect that moore's lawyers would have gone with some sort of a settlement if this was clearly the case.

I couldn't find mine, and even then you'd have to take my word for it, so I found one on the web-this language is pretty standard, though sometimes as I said they add "throughout the universe" etc. I like those the best.

I can't copy and paste and I don't care to know why, so here's an HTML version of a pdf, I wouldn't make you all download nuthin'. This is not from the NBC affiliate in the case.

Here (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:p-JhSLJ_bQMJ:www.bloomfieldtwp.org/forms/PDFForms/BCTVStandardRelease.pdf+standard+release+form+television&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=firefox-a)

Newsman Brian Williams ends the NBC clip by adding, "These men with catastrophic wounds are . . . completely behind the war effort," according to the lawsuit. That part wasn't shown in the Moore movie. Even if he did give his consent, if you butcher a man's comments so that he seems to be talking about one thing ( the war) when he is really talking about somthing else ( painkillers) that is SLANDER. SLANDER IS ILLEGAL. Mr. Moore is attempting to save face. He is doing a poor job.

YOU miss the point completely. Did "March of the Penguins" try to portray penguins in a specific light. Did the director try to make them out to be "the black and white killers of the south pole", no it was a brief overveiw of the life of penguins. The foley used was to recreate factual events they didn't use special efects to show penguins fly did they? The movie was a document of facts. The editing was not to promote a political agenda. Moore is a propagandist of the 1st order as are his films works of propaganda. You can call them documentaries that doesn't make them documentaries. You can say your shit smells like roses that doesn't make it so. :rolleyes:



No contrived editing, huh?
Then explain to me why in the closing credits there's:
A listing for a Foley artist. That's someone who sits in a booth and makes up sounds with everyday objects -- all the little penguin footsteps were probably done with crunched paper bags;

Credit for "additional sound recording" (where, at the zoo? in a sound booth somewhere?)

Listings for the special effects crew (a whole ton of them)


And when did Penguins gain the power of speech? (the French version has them 'speaking' to each other)


Also, where in the movie is it mentioned:
That penguins are not monogamous from year to year?

That, at least in captivity, penguins have a tendency toward homosexual and bisexual behavior?

That many penguin 'adoptions' of chicks are in fact kidnappings?

That weak chicks are frequently the victims of infanticide?

That albino penguins are ostracised and attacked?

That prostitution is practiced by at least one species of penguins?
(New Scientist, October 1, 2005)



no contrived editing, my arse.

Penguins are not sentient beings. They cannot be slandered. This soldier most clearly was.

A political cartoon even one I don't agree with can be art, it can be a telling commintary on the politics at the time. That doesn't make it a documentary any more than going into your garage makes you a car.


The most telling thing you've said. Invalidates the whole deal, really, so I thank you for it.

In order for your thesis to apply you have to address the factuality of the film. Therefore, even if we where to accept your thesis (still don't-it's ill informed) you'd have to actually address what in that film is wrong in order to make the film fit. So you're still wasting time even if you knew what you where talking about and avoiding the real discusion.

Newsman Brian Williams ends the NBC clip by adding, "These men with catastrophic wounds are . . . completely behind the war effort," according to the lawsuit. That part wasn't shown in the Moore movie. Even if he did give his consent, if you butcher a man's comments so that he seems to be talking about one thing ( the war) when he is really talking about somthing else ( painkillers) that is SLANDER. SLANDER IS ILLEGAL. Mr. Moore is attempting to save face. He is doing a poor job.
All the film had him saying, according to the report, was that he was in pain ("felt like being in a vice") and that pain killers helped. He actually appear to indeed talking about the painkillers as he was in the original news piece. Brian Williams makes the other statement, it's Brian Williams editorial that is not included. The news piece was about the painkillers and the Sgt's comment was about the painkillers. His position, according to the article, has not changed in regards to the painkillers and in fact the comment in the movie goes along with his position on painkillers, in that he believed then and does now what he said in the movie. That the painkillers helped.

A political cartoon even one I don't agree with can be art, it can be a telling commintary on the politics at the time. That doesn't make it a documentary any more than going into your garage makes you a car.
What does that have to do with what you quoted?

It's not an argument it's an opinion. Unless you a "Moorist" then its a documentary :rolleyes: Well reasoned, properly backed up, irrefutable argument.

It's not an argument it's an opinion. Unless you a "Moorist" then its a documentary :rolleyes:
Or a documentarian. Or someone who knows anything about film. Or you're not grasping for straws instead of addressing the points in the film.

So lets get this straight.

In F911:

Michael Moore blabs on about how the soldiers are being exploited and hurt by a war he believes is wrong.

He includes a clip of a soldier who is pain and takes the clip out of context.

Moore uses the clip to further an anti-war view without explaining that the soldier is pro-war.

And the soldier has not been slandered?

Slander: false statements injurious to a person's reputation.

Interesting.

You calling Moore's films a documentary doesn't make it one. I'm trying to make the point that despite the artistic value and what your opionion of what it is you can't make it fit a definition that it simply does not. What does that have to do with what you quoted?

And the soldier has not been slandered?

not obviously, no

Well the film doesn't meet the Academy's defintion of a docuntary I would consider them experts. All the definitions I've seen for a documentary require it to be FACTUAL not opinion whar Moore did was the equivalant of a editorial.


Or a documentarian. Or someone who knows anything about film. Or you're not grasping for straws instead of addressing the points in the film.

What would it take for you to believe it was slander?
not obviously, no

So lets get this straight.

In F911:

Michael Moore blabs on about how the soldiers are being exploited and hurt by a war he believes is wrong.

He includes a clip of a soldier who is pain and takes the clip out of context.

Moore uses the clip to further an anti-war view without explaining that the soldier is pro-war.

And the soldier has not been slandered?

Slander: false statements injurious to a person's reputation.

Interesting.
The context of the clip and the original segment was the painkillers. The context of the original piece was used in the clip.

The arguement is that the positioning of the clip implies he is 'left behind,' not so much even against the war. The argument of the case is that he feels he was well cared for and the documentary implies that he is not. Without seeing the clip again, since I don't remember it and don't own it, it seems the implication was that his limbs where left, and that the statement is setting up a reflection on the number of injuries. Could be wrong, they may have a case, but I only have the two lines they give in the article to go by.

But for what the soldier said, it doesn't change them-he was talking about the painkillers then, he's talking about them in the movie and in both his opinion of them is the same.

Well the film doesn't meet the Academy's defintion of a docuntary I would consider them experts. All the definitions I've seen for a documentary require it to be FACTUAL not opinion whar Moore did was the equivalant of a editorial.
This film was factual. And yes he spinned all the facts to his advantage, but it was none the less factual.

Well the film doesn't meet the Academy's defintion of a docuntary I would consider them experts. All the definitions I've seen for a documentary require it to be FACTUAL not opinion whar Moore did was the equivalant of a editorial.
Why don't you focus on what qualifies the film for your bullshit definition instead of trying to recreate a definition for something you don't understand? It would be more productive.

The "facts" Moore used are questionable.


This film was factual. And yes he spinned all the facts to his advantage, but it was none the less factual.

I'm not the one trying to redefine the word. The word has a concrete definition Moore is pushing the definition and the psuedo-cognoscenti are allowing it to happen. Call the film what it is propaganda.



Why don't you focus on what qualifies the film for your bullshit definition instead of trying to recreate a definition for something you don't understand? It would be more productive.

You calling Moore's films a documentary doesn't make it one. I'm trying to make the point that despite the artistic value and what your opionion of what it is you can't make it fit a definition that it simply does not.
Around 40 years ago filmmakers did what is really consisidered the nail in the coffin over films ability and/or duty to provide an unfiltered document, if you will, of reality. It had been a discussion amongst scholars of film and filmmakers for a while. With every inovation, each step towards a more complete or 'realistic' feature, a critic would bemoan the death of film as an artform.

As it turned out, it was never the case. Then came cinema verte, the cinema of life-the idea was to just aim the camera and record and let the story tell itself.

It became apparent in the creation of what I consider the seminal film (not going out on limb with that) Salesman, and other verte films, that regardless of comment, filmmakers where making decisions from where they aimed the camera to how the film was cut. It became clear that you could not, indeed, take the filmmaker out of the film.

Documentary film is an argument. Day one, first thing you learn making a documentary. What is your argument, what are you saying?

Why Study Industrial Arts is a documentary about why someone should study the industrial arts. The filmmakers think it's a good idea that you should study the industrial arts and present an arguement in favor of it. It does not include a single second of opposition to the idea that someone shouldn't study industrial arts. Despite this bias, it is still a documentary, even though some of the conclusions and interpretations could be disagreed on.

I'm not the one trying to redefine the word. The word has a concrete definition Moore is pushing the definition and the psuedo-cognoscenti are allowing it to happen. Call the film what it is propaganda.
That you don't understand that any kind of film can be propaganda and therefore something can both be propaganda and a documentary speaks legion.

No, not possible, propaganda is ananathama of truth. All propaganda is by nature untruthful.


That you don't understand that any kind of film can be propaganda and therefore something can both be propaganda and a documentary speaks legion.

I see the point you are trying to make, but I disagree. I'm too damn tired to have a well reasoned responce right now. I will finish later.





Around 40 years ago filmmakers did what is really consisidered the nail in the coffin over films ability and/or duty to provide an unfiltered document, if you will, of reality. It had been a discussion amongst scholars of film and filmmakers for a while. With every inovation, each step towards a more complete or 'realistic' feature, a critic would bemoan the death of film as an artform.

As it turned out, it was never the case. Then came cinema verte, the cinema of life-the idea was to just aim the camera and record and let the story tell itself.

In the creation of what I consider the seminal film (not going out on limb with that) Salesman, and other verte films, that regardless of comment, filmmakers where making decisions from where they aimed the camera to how the film was cut. It became clear that you could not, indeed, take the filmmaker out of the film.

Documentary film is an argument. Day one, first thing you learn making a documentary. What is your argument, what are you saying?

Why Study Industrial Arts is a documentary about why someone should study the industrial arts. The filmmakers think it's a good idea that you should study the industrial arts and present an arguement in favor of it. It does not include a single second of opposition to the idea that someone shouldn't study industrial arts. Despite this bias, it is still a documentary, even though some of the conclusions and interpretations could be disagreed on.

YOU miss the point completely. Did "March of the Penguins" try to portray penguins in a specific light. Did the director try to make them out to be "the black and white killers of the south pole", no it was a brief overveiw of the life of penguins. The foley used was to recreate factual events they didn't use special efects to show penguins fly did they? The movie was a document of facts. The editing was not to promote a political agenda. Moore is a propagandist of the 1st order as are his films works of propaganda. You can call them documentaries that doesn't make them documentaries. You can say your shit smells like roses that doesn't make it so. :rolleyes:
You're missing the point completely, as usual.
Total fallacious rebutes there.
NO they didn't pretend they were killers or could fly, but tell me:
Where did I say that?


What they did do, was show them in an antromorphistic way, bestowing human emotions and qualities on them, and attempted to make it look as if they were caring loving monogamous couples.

Whereas in reality, as I showed in several well-researched (unlike anything you've actually done here) points that the truth - the FACTS - are entirely different.

How is that documentary filmmaking according to your narrow definition?

To summarise:
The movie 'March of the Penguins' was NOT A DOCUMENT OF FACTS.
How much clearer can I be?

The film-makers had an agenda and edited and manipulated footage and ignored major factsb to push that agenda. That doesn't stop it being a documentary.

Yet you still view this as a true, real documentary without any manipulation, whereas Moore's interpretation of actual events isn't.

How is this possible?

This just serves to show your irrational hatred of Moore has overwhelmed any logical or sensible thought processes you may once had possessed.



To Cannot think of a name: Are you getting as bored as I am with this mindless repetitive dweeb? Nothing we say or show is sinking in, in the slightest. May as well give it up as a lost cause. Of course, when we leave, he'll consider that a victory and that he's right, but I think we're big enough to give the poor thing his moment in the sun.
Most unfortunate aspect is that he'll then feel that to win an argument or debate all one needs to be is obstinantly parroting the same things over and over again until the other person gives up and leaves.

All propaganda is by nature untruthful.

not in the english language it isn't. perhaps in whatever language you speak?

I see the point you are trying to make, but I disagree. I'm too damn tired to have a well reasoned responce right now. I will finish later.
Uhh...yeah.
Well-reasoned response right now?
As opposed to what?
Your well-reasoned responses previous, when presumably you weren't tired?

Such as this gem, for example:
:upyours: you :upyours: Godwin :upyours: Michael Moore.

Newsman Brian Williams ends the NBC clip by adding, "These men with catastrophic wounds are . . . completely behind the war effort," according to the lawsuit. That part wasn't shown in the Moore movie. Even if he did give his consent, if you butcher a man's comments so that he seems to be talking about one thing ( the war) when he is really talking about somthing else ( painkillers) that is SLANDER. SLANDER IS ILLEGAL. Mr. Moore is attempting to save face. He is doing a poor job.
Why would Moore put in Williams opinion?

That's a big issue here:
Brian Williams used that footage and makes the claim that, "These men with catastrophic wounds are . . . completely behind the war effort,"
whereas
Michael Moore using the exact same footage in an anti-war movie, which some imply that these men are against the war.
(which shows you how easy it is to manipulate film footage)

So how is Moore an liar, but Williams not?

They're both stating their opinions, and using film of injured soldiers to do so to support those opinions.

And no, you can't say that because one of those injured men is for the war, that validates Williams statement. Note, he said, "THESE MEN", implying that all the men shown with injuries are for the war. Unless someone can prove that they indeed are all for the war, then it is just Williams opinion, not a statement of fact.

Which puts in the same league as Moore.

Moore must have obtained a release to use the image and content recorded. The other guy must have signed it. Moore makes no explicit claims that misrepresent... thus, this man is claiming for a PERCEIVED wrong, AFTER he signed a 'release' on his image to the artist.

.

Ya figure Moore stuck a ballpoint pen in the guys mouth and moved the paper under it?

Ya figure Moore stuck a ballpoint pen in the guys mouth and moved the paper under it?
No, everybody knows that Moore made a deal with satan and things were arranged.

That prostitution is practiced by at least one species of penguins?
(New Scientist, October 1, 2005)


How in the world does that work?

How in the world does that work?
fish, my man. Fish.

Them hot penguin hos will put out for a piece of tuna.

Ya figure Moore stuck a ballpoint pen in the guys mouth and moved the paper under it?
Maybe Moore threatened to sit on him unless he agreed.

Either that, or be put in a small windowless room with Moore and a BIGGG plate of beans.

He signed the release to NBC, not Moore. The dispute is whether or not NBC had the right to sell his footage and if Moore mischaracterized that footage.

Michael Moore used that footage to show the impact of war. No where is what stance the man took on the war, or any real opinion on anything for that matter. The dude's legs were blown off, showing the impact of war. Plain and simple. This bullshit lawsuit is the equivilent of a tank manufactuer suing the filmer of the infamous Tiananmen Square because it shows tanks in a bad way.

I've been doing some research, seems Moore sued an employer for unfair dismissal for $2,000,000 and subsequently settled for $58,000 which covered his legal costs.

I've been doing some research, seems Moore sued an employer for unfair dismissal for $2,000,000 and subsequently settled for $58,000 which covered his legal costs.
Relevance? And source?

'Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man' (book)

It will be interesting to see whether Moore refers to frivolous, pointless law suits in the course of this trial.

'Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man' (book)

It will be interesting to see whether Moore refers to frivolous, pointless law suits in the course of this trial.
So when you said you'd been doing a little research, you really meant, "I read in this book."

Moore has not commented on the lawsuit. That Moore was involved in a lawsuit doesn't automaticly make his frivolous nor does it shed any light or insight into this case.

This is white noise of no substance.

Moore has not commented on the lawsuit. That Moore was involved in a lawsuit doesn't automaticly make his frivolous nor does it shed any light or insight into this case.

I'm am not saying that just because Moore is involved it is frivolous, I am saying it will be interesting to see whether Moore himself debunks the lawsuit as frivolous despite himself being the plaintiff in a very questionable one himself.

I'm am not saying that just because Moore is involved it is frivolous, I am saying it will be interesting to see whether Moore himself debunks the lawsuit as frivolous despite himself being the plaintiff in a very questionable one himself.
You have failed to prove the questionable nature of the lawsuit, simply that he sued for wrongful termination and was settled out of court implying that he did indeed have something of a case.

Further, you have failed to prove this to be anything other than white noise, of no relevance to the case at hand.

...only in America...
I second that voat ...only in America...

Michael Moore used that footage to show the impact of war. No where is what stance the man took on the war, or any real opinion on anything for that matter. The dude's legs were blown off, showing the impact of war. Plain and simple. This bullshit lawsuit is the equivilent of a tank manufactuer suing the filmer of the infamous Tiananmen Square because it shows tanks in a bad way.
Actualy that is a fairly good analogy ... add to that the fact that the tank manufactures signed a waver to use footage of said tanks

I second that voat ...only in America...
And in europe you get a man suing the easter bunny ...
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1801049.html?menu=news.quirkies.eccentrics

Show me one source beside Joseph Goebbels who though that documentaries are for policital indoctrination or that shouuld be fictional I think YOU are self defining the genre.:headbang:

I'm not sure I can understand what you are saying... can you rephrase?

If you mean what I think you mean - you are implying that I am trying to set the boundaries of what defines 'documentary'... and your reason for this assumption, is that I think the Academy Awards guidelines refer to Awards...

No contrived editing, huh?
Then explain to me why in the closing credits there's:
A listing for a Foley artist. That's someone who sits in a booth and makes up sounds with everyday objects -- all the little penguin footsteps were probably done with crunched paper bags;

Credit for "additional sound recording" (where, at the zoo? in a sound booth somewhere?)

Listings for the special effects crew (a whole ton of them)


And when did Penguins gain the power of speech? (the French version has them 'speaking' to each other)


Also, where in the movie is it mentioned:
That penguins are not monogamous from year to year?

That, at least in captivity, penguins have a tendency toward homosexual and bisexual behavior?

That many penguin 'adoptions' of chicks are in fact kidnappings?

That weak chicks are frequently the victims of infanticide?

That albino penguins are ostracised and attacked?

That prostitution is practiced by at least one species of penguins?
(New Scientist, October 1, 2005)



no contrived editing, my arse.


Just made me think - does anyone remember the name of the Disney 'nature film', made in documentary style, that now has most of the western population convinced that Lemmings commit mass suicides?

So lets get this straight.

In F911:

Michael Moore blabs on about how the soldiers are being exploited and hurt by a war he believes is wrong.

He includes a clip of a soldier who is pain and takes the clip out of context.

Moore uses the clip to further an anti-war view without explaining that the soldier is pro-war.

And the soldier has not been slandered?

Slander: false statements injurious to a person's reputation.

Interesting.

But - the statement wasn't false, was it?

What YOU get from the context is a matter for your discernment.

No, not possible, propaganda is ananathama of truth. All propaganda is by nature untruthful.

So - Chaplin's 'propaganda' about the evils of Nazism was actually wrong?

Ya figure Moore stuck a ballpoint pen in the guys mouth and moved the paper under it?

Strange to relate - a manual signature is NOT the only legally allowed type...

You mean the comedy "The Great Dictator" ?

Wrong how ? Was it literal fact NO. Did it capture the zeitgeist? Hell yes!
It was the moving equivalent of a political cartoon. Propaganda isn't necessarily "evil" it is merely the political twin to advertizing, and nobody would call a Tide commercial a documentary would they? If it has an agenda it becomes propaganda. I film maker infuses him/herself into their work
a documentarian has to do so with a level of removal to put forth the facts in a manner that expresses their art without promoting their agenda.


I would place F911 closer to Chaplin's "Great Dictator" It is an important piece of political cinema but not a documetary like say Ken Burns' "The Civil War"

Do you see the point I am so ham handedly trying to make?


So - Chaplin's 'propaganda' about the evils of Nazism was actually wrong?

No you're playing this rather coyly. Moore reminds of the politican who called his opponent a Homosapean and that his (the opponent's) sister was a practicing thespian. The meaning purposfully lost on the less sophisticated.


But - the statement wasn't false, was it?

What YOU get from the context is a matter for your discernment.

You mean the comedy "The Great Dictator" ?

Wrong how ? Was it literal fact NO. Did it capture the zeitgeist? Hell yes!
It was the moving equivalent of a political cartoon. Propaganda isn't necessarily "evil" it is merely the political twin to advertizing, and nobody would call a Tide commercial a documentary would they? If it has an agenda it becomes propaganda. I film maker infuses him/herself into their work
a documentarian has to do so with a level of removal to put forth the facts in a manner that expresses their art without promoting their agenda.


I would place F911 closer to Chaplin's "Great Dictator" It is an important piece of political cinema but not a documetary like say Ken Burns' "The Civil War"

Do you see the point I am so ham handedly trying to make?

You said, and I quote:

"No, not possible, propaganda is ananathama of truth. All propaganda is by nature untruthful."

"The Great Dictator" is propaganda - it is also very funny, and very astute. It is ALSO, most importantly, 'true' (not that every sketch is LITERALLY true - but the message is true).

Thus, propaganda is NOT the enemy of truth.


And now - you are trying to blur the boundaries? Trying to claim, perhaps, that propaganda MUST be documentary? Or that your comment ONLY applied to 'documentary' propaganda?

No you're playing this rather coyly. Moore reminds of the politican who called his opponent a Homosapean and that his (the opponent's) sister was a practicing thespian. The meaning purposfully lost on the less sophisticated.

So... Moore should be found guilty of this 'crime'... because we are arguing that the proletariat are too dumb to make their own sense of the media?

I'm saying you are trying to overbroaden the definition of documentary to include documentary "style" films that aren't in point of fact actual documentaries.


I'm not sure I can understand what you are saying... can you rephrase?

If you mean what I think you mean - you are implying that I am trying to set the boundaries of what defines 'documentary'... and your reason for this assumption, is that I think the Academy Awards guidelines refer to Awards...

Moores "guilty" of being more sophisticed than his target audience who don't/ can't/won't understand that he has an agenda and isn't in the documentary business...these are the left wing equivalent of the people who think Rush Limbaugh is news.


So... Moore should be found guilty of this 'crime'... because we are arguing that the proletariat are too dumb to make their own sense of the media?

I'm saying you are trying to overbroaden the definition of documentary to include documentary "style" films that aren't in point of fact actual documentaries.

Except that they ARE 'documentary', whether or not they meet the requirements for being judged for Academy Awards, which is the defining requirement, it seems, according to you...?

What is an 'actual' documentary? And, who are you to decide?

Moores "guilty" of being more sophisticed than his target audience who don't/ can't/won't understand that he has an agenda and isn't in the documentary business...these are the left wing equivalent of the people who think Rush Limbaugh is news.

You can't find someone guilty of a crime, by virtue of "I think he/she is too clever".

If he makes documentaries, he IS in the 'documentary' business - whether you AGREE with his documentaries... whether or not they are even 'true'... they are still 'documentary film'.

Its hard to discuss objectively when you have a strong dislike for the man.
I dont like moore and his work, but I dont see the plaintiff in this case being awarded 85 mil. And now that its got so much attention, I dont see even a nuisance value offered to settle out of court. It will be all or nothing and it looks more like nothing.

Still avoiding the real issue by insisting on the ill-informed 'It's not a documentary' goose chase? I ask again, why don't you focus on what you think disqualifies (what you disagree with in the film) it rather than the definition that you're making up? It would actually be productive and would have the side benifit of not insulting our intellegences.

Then is "Spinal Tap" a documentary ???

Is Rush Limbaugh "The News" ???

The genre of what is a documentary has already been defined I'm not redefining it only calling that the definition not be changed to accomidate a political agenda.

Is a Tide advert a documentary ??


Except that they ARE 'documentary', whether or not they meet the requirements for being judged for Academy Awards, which is the defining requirement, it seems, according to you...?

What is an 'actual' documentary? And, who are you to decide?

I'm not ill informed... What disqualifies this as a doucmentary is it's blatent political agenda. Not that having an agenda is a bad thing only it makes the film a political advert. I don't cotten to Moore's politic agenda but that doesn't make him a bad filmaker it just makes him a political film maker. George Clooney is just as political and just as diametrically opposite from me as Moore but I have no axe to grind with him as he doesn't pass his propaganda off as fact.

Still avoiding the real issue by insisting on the ill-informed 'It's not a documentary' goose chase? I ask again, why don't you focus on what you think disqualifies (what you disagree with in the film) it rather than the definition that you're making up? It would actually be productive and would have the side benifit of not insulting our intellegences.

Then is "Spinal Tap" a documentary ???

Is Rush Limbaugh "The News" ???

The genre of what is a documentary has already been defined I'm not redefining it only calling that the definition not be changed to accomidate a political agenda.

Is a Tide advert a documentary ??
IIiiiironnyyyyy....

I'm not ill informed... What disqualifies this as a doucmentary is it's blatent political agenda. Not that having an agenda is a bad thing only it makes the film a political advert. I don't cotten to Moore's politic agenda but that doesn't make him a bad filmaker it just makes him a political film maker. George Clooney is just as political and just as diametrically opposite from me as Moore but I have no axe to grind with him as he doesn't pass his propaganda off as fact.
What makes you ill informed is that you do not seem to understand that EVERY documentary filmmaker has an agenda and SEVERAL of them have been political and becuase you don't like the politics doesn't disqualify it as a documentary.

Your pat refusal to discuss anything of merit has worn thin. You know nothing of film and have demonstrated that repeatedly. You have offered nothing new to your argument other than "Uh uh." You are wrong, it is obvious to anyone else if not to you, further discussion is wasted.

Would you rather I discuss the Italian directors of the 1950's and neo realism. The introspective self indulgence of Kurasawa's last films compared to his earlier works. We could compare and contrast say "Dreams" with "Roshomon". The post modern Asian horror films? (I think "The Audition" was a awesome film). We could discuss the pathetic state of Peter Lorre at the end of "M"

You say every documentary has an agenda what were the agenda's of
say "The Life and Times of Harvey Milk" or "The Man that Skeid down Everest"
both of these won Academy Awards.
You make the asertion that every documetary directory has a political agenda you assume style and agenda to be the same thing.
What was Cousteau's agenda he won more Oscars for documetaries than any other director.

Shall we discus Frank Capra's WWII propaganda or the whole sale coopting of Hollywood during the WWII era ?



Actually Roshomon would be an excellent film to contrast with F/911
because Kurasawa's basic premise in that film is an examination of what is "Truth".

What makes you ill informed is that you do not seem to understand that EVERY documentary filmmaker has an agenda and SEVERAL of them have been political and becuase you don't like the politics doesn't disqualify it as a documentary.

Your pat refusal to discuss anything of merit has worn thin. You know nothing of film and have demonstrated that repeatedly. You have offered nothing new to your argument other than "Uh uh." You are wrong, it is obvious to anyone else if not to you, further discussion is wasted.

Would you rather I discuss the Italian directors of the 1950's and neo realism. The introspective self indulgence of Kurasawa's last films compared to his earlier works We could compare and dontrast say "Dreams" with "Roshomon". The post modern Asian horror films (I think "The Audition" was a awesome film). We could discuss the pathetic state of Peter Lorre at the end of "M"

You say every documentary has an agenda what were the agenda's of

say "The Time of Harvey Milk" or "The Man that Skeid down Everest"

both of these won Academy Awards.

You make the asertion that every documetary directory has a political agenda you assume style and agenda to be the same thing.


"Documentary film is a broad category of cinematic expression united by the intent to remain factual or non-fictional...

Modern documentaries

Fahrenheit 9/11 movie poster.Box office analysts have noted that this film genre has become increasingly successful in theatrical release with films such as Super Size Me, Fahrenheit 9/11 and March of the Penguins being the most successful examples. Compared to dramatic narrative films, documentaries typically have far lower budgets. This has made them attractive to film companies because even a limited theatrical release can be highly profitable. Fahrenheit 9/11 set a new record for documentary profits, earning more than US$228million in ticket sales and selling more than 3million DVDs. [1]

The nature of documentary films has changed in the past 20 years from the cinema verité tradition. Landmark films such as The Thin Blue Line by Errol Morris, which incorporated stylized re-enactments, and Michael Moore's Roger and Me, which made claims of chronology that were later questioned by critics such as Pauline Kael, placed far more overt interpretive control in the hands of the director. Indeed, the commercial success of the documentaries mentioned above may owe something to this narrative shift in the documentary form, leading some critics to question whether such films can truly be called documentaries; critics usually refer to these works as "mondo films". However, directorial manipulation of documentary subjects has been noted since the work of Robert Flaherty, and may be endemic to the form.

The recent success of the documentary genre, and the advent of DVDs, has made documentaries financially viable even without a cinema release. There are now around thirty quality feature-length documentaries on notable photographers, for instance, a situation that would have seemed incredible twenty years ago.

Modern documentaries have a substantial overlap with other forms of television, with the development of so-called reality television that occasionally verges on the documentary but more often veers to the fictional or staged."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film#Modern_documentaries

What unifies 'documentary' film is the factual content, not how it is used. As the article suggests, even 're-enacted' material has been acceptable as 'documentary'. Does this make the concept amorphous, non-specific and arbitrary? Sure... but that's how it is - and Moore's work falls WELL within the broad confines of the field.

Would you rather I discuss the Italian directors of the 1950's and neo realism. The introspective self indulgence of Kurasawa's last films compared to his earlier works. We could compare and contrast say "Dreams" with "Roshomon". The post modern Asian horror films? (I think "The Audition" was a awesome film). We could discuss the pathetic state of Peter Lorre at the end of "M"

You say every documentary has an agenda what were the agenda's of
say "The Life and Times of Harvey Milk" or "The Man that Skeid down Everest"
both of these won Academy Awards.
You make the asertion that every documetary directory has a political agenda you assume style and agenda to be the same thing.
What was Cousteau's agenda he won more Oscars for documetaries than any other director.



Shall we discus Frank Capra's WWII propaganda or the whole sale coopting of Hollywood during the WWII era ?



Actually Roshomon would be an excellent film to contrast with F/911
because Kurasawa's basic premise in that film is an examination of what is "Truth".
Did I say every documentary filmmaker has a political agenda? No, no I did not. I said several.

And if you don't see an agenda in The Life of Harvey Milk you either haven't seen it and named it in the hopes of 'dazzling' me or you trully have blinders on.

EDIT: And by 'refusal to discuss anything substantial' I meant as it pertains to the documentary in question, not what you learned (or didn't) in your film survey class

I actually started looking for where the bias layed in your everyday animal planet, history channel and discovery channel documentaries and I found that yes, pretty much every documentary has an agenda- whether it be environmental, political or educational (if not a combination of). I do not think that this negates that these are still documentaries.

Usually I find that most documentaries about animals and insects also warn of the dangers of mans negative influence on so many aspects of our environment.

I don't see anyone here saying that you should watch Gores movie and not do any of your own critical thinking. When someone makes a good case for something that I agree with I point to that and tell others to check it out to see what they think of it (NOT that it is undeniable fact). If they say "that was informative but I saw flaws and here are those flaws" I will listen to what they have to say and consider it, but if they say something like "Oh no, so and so was involved with this movie so without seeing it I am just going to say that it is a pack of lies and propaganda and has no merit whatsoever", I am going to dismiss that person as someone not worth listening to because they are irrational.

Or ..has the definition been broadened to purposfully include the likes of Moore?
Morgan Spurlocke did a pretty much home movie of his life he didn't come at this with a "I'll take McDonalds down attitude" Moore made his facts fit his film not his film fit the facts. Only in the last 10 years would a film like Moore's be considered a documentary. I think his film making style is unique and probably needs it's own genre. Docuganda ?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film#Modern_documentaries

What unifies 'documentary' film is the factual content, not how it is used. As the article suggests, even 're-enacted' material has been acceptable as 'documentary'. Does this make the concept amorphous, non-specific and arbitrary? Sure... but that's how it is - and Moore's work falls WELL within the broad confines of the field.

Or ..has the definition been broadened to purposfully include the likes of Moore?
Morgan Spurlocke did a pretty much home movie of his life he didn't come at this with a "I'll take McDonalds down attitude" Moore made his facts fit his film not his film fit the facts. Only in the last 10 years would a film like Moore's be considered a documentary. I think his film making style is unique and probably needs it's own genre. Docuganda ?
Are you seriously suggesting that Super Size Me didn't have an agenda, an argument that Spurlocke was making?

Thanks, that's the nail. You're delusional.

Or ..has the definition been broadened to purposfully include the likes of Moore?
Morgan Spurlocke did a pretty much home movie of his life he didn't come at this with a "I'll take McDonalds down attitude" Moore made his facts fit his film not his film fit the facts. Only in the last 10 years would a film like Moore's be considered a documentary. I think his film making style is unique and probably needs it's own genre. Docuganda ?

Didn't you read the post?

"The nature of documentary films has changed in the past 20 years from the cinema verité tradition. Landmark films such as The Thin Blue Line by Errol Morris, which incorporated stylized re-enactments, and Michael Moore's Roger and Me, which made claims of chronology that were later questioned by critics such as Pauline Kael, placed far more overt interpretive control in the hands of the director. Indeed, the commercial success of the documentaries mentioned above may owe something to this narrative shift in the documentary form, leading some critics to question whether such films can truly be called documentaries; critics usually refer to these works as "mondo films". However, directorial manipulation of documentary subjects has been noted since the work of Robert Flaherty, and may be endemic to the form".

You got shot down, my friend.

Your 'arguments' (such as they were), are in tatters. This is the point where you bow gracefully, and head out, stage left.

"Harvey Milk" wasn't a 90 minute attack add. :rolleyes: (Don't get me wrong I'd have the same problems with Moore if it were a 90 min Bush Neocon lovefest.)
I've never taken a film class too pretentious, unless you actually going to film school.


Did I say every documentary filmmaker has a political agenda? No, no I did not. I said several.

And if you don't see an agenda in The Life of Harvey Milk you either haven't seen it and named it in the hopes of 'dazzling' me or you trully have blinders on.

EDIT: And by 'refusal to discuss anything substantial' I meant as it pertains to the documentary in question, not what you learned (or didn't) in your film survey class

Spurlock went into the film as an experiment (on himself no less) the results of the expirement were anit McDonalds. Spurlock didn't damage McDonalds, McDonalds damaged McDonalds. Spurlock only documented the evidence whick speaks volumes on its own.


Are you seriously suggesting that Super Size Me didn't have an agenda, an argument that Spurlocke was making?

Thanks, that's the nail. You're delusional.

Yes I DID .....and Nanook wasn't a friggin documentary either.

Didn't you read the post?

"The nature of documentary films has changed in the past 20 years from the cinema verité tradition. Landmark films such as The Thin Blue Line by Errol Morris, which incorporated stylized re-enactments, and Michael Moore's Roger and Me, which made claims of chronology that were later questioned by critics such as Pauline Kael, placed far more overt interpretive control in the hands of the director. Indeed, the commercial success of the documentaries mentioned above may owe something to this narrative shift in the documentary form, leading some critics to question whether such films can truly be called documentaries; critics usually refer to these works as "mondo films". However, directorial manipulation of documentary subjects has been noted since the work of Robert Flaherty, and may be endemic to the form".

You got shot down, my friend.

Your 'arguments' (such as they were), are in tatters. This is the point where you bow gracefully, and head out, stage left.

Yes I DID
leading some critics to question whether such films can truly be called documentaries...

However, directorial manipulation of documentary subjects has been noted since the work of Robert Flaherty, and may be endemic to the form

$85 million.. Are you fucking serious? Pfft. What a joke.
But, I guess thats reasonable in America or something.

Yes I DID .....and Nanook wasn't a friggin documentary either.
That was the deep end you just went over. At this point it is clear that you are adjusting the definitions for your own agenda and not facing the real issues (i.e. what was raised in the film). Please stop. It's embarassing.

"Harvey Milk" wasn't a 90 minute attack add. :rolleyes: (Don't get me wrong I'd have the same problems with Moore if it were a 90 min Bush Neocon lovefest.)
I've never taken a film class too pretentious, unless you actually going to film school.
It was if you where Dan White, a Dan White supporter, homophobic or felt that homosexuality shouldn't be part of politics.

You're last sentence makes no sense.

$85 million.. Are you fucking serious? Pfft. What a joke.
But, I guess thats reasonable in America or something.


well considering they ( the LAWYERS ) based the Amount on the money the film in question made ...and not the WORTH of MOORE himself...you are right ...its a JOKE...


How can they hope to punish the guy by taking away his beer money ?

Spurlock went into the film as an experiment (on himself no less) the results of the expirement were anti McDonalds. Spurlock didn't damage McDonalds, McDonalds damaged McDonalds. Spurlock only documented the evidence whick speaks volumes on its own.
bollocks. Spurlock was anti-Maccys way before he even thought of this movie. His g/f was vegan and he ate mostly organic foods. Find me one vegan who doesn't think MacDs is evil and disgusting. Just one.
Spurlock knew before he started filming what the outcome was going to be. He delibrately went overboard in consuming nothing but Maccys for a month and supersizing whenever asked.
Any idiot could see what the result would be.
If I ate nothing but bread for a month, do you think I'd be entitled to claim that eating bread is bad for you?

The only shocking bit was just how bad the effect on his body was at the end.

What I find ironic is you using him against Moore, when he employed several filmmaking techniques that Moore has popularised and used extensively, like:
hyperbole, multiple and selective listing of facts, making comparisons between 'normal' and extreme people or orgs to highlight differences, influence/imply things like making repeated attempts to contact businesspeople (knowing full well that most of them won't take an unsolicited call - yet when they don't it's implied on camera that it's due to their indifference rather than common business practise).

Also ironic is that Spurlock, I'd wager, is a huge fan of Moore.


As for your constant harping on and usage of the Academy awards definition of what a documentary is, and somehow this means that 9/11 isn't a documentary because it doesn't hold to your perceived interpretations of those definitions, perhaps you could explain to me why 9/11 was nominated for Best Documentary in no less than 29 seperate award festivals, including:
Cannes Film Festival
Directors Guild of America (gee, you think they might know a thing or two about film-making?)
International Documentary Association* (ohh..what about these guys? D'ya think they might know what constitutes a documentary?)

*The IDA is a non-profit association, founded in 1982 to raise public consciousness of the documentary's importance. With over 2500 members in 50 countries, it is the only organization in the United States focusing solely on documentaries and documentarians.
But hey, what the hell would they know about documentaries, right?



Let's face it, Grave & Cannot, this guy is one of these:

Ferrous Cranius (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm)

Y'a go away for a week and look what happens.... Ok 1st off Cannes dosen't even have a best documentary catagory. Second most of the awards F/911 was put up for were for best film or best forgein film as it was nominated across the world.

I'd like to address 2 of the awards you mentioned the Directors Guild award was for best DIRECTION in a documentary film. I contacted them and they have no criteria for a documentary..basicly if you call your film a documentary it is one, this seems to be the case in most film festivals where there are no strict guidelines as to what constitutes a documentary film.

Michael Moores nomination let alone win with the IDA seems so be controversial even among its own members I found a essay that I have on a different computer and will post later that mirrors this tread. Basicly her opinion that not all non fiction films are documetaries and some while being in that style are editorials. her opinion (as mine) it that films like Moore's fall into that catagory.

What made me revisithis thread after being on vacation for a week was something I caught in passing on MSNBC that Anne Coulter ( Who I veiw as the Bizzaro Michael Moore eg. equal but opposite) is being sued because in her latest book she "edited a quote to paint somebody in a false light" I paraphrase the legal consultant. While people rabidly supported this there is a great deal of derission (sp) heaped on the poor bastard with no arms sueing Moore and I find that ironic.


I also found the flame warrior links funny but I think I'm more a Trogladyte with y'all being alternatly Jerks of Enfant Provocateurs.



bollocks. Spurlock was anti-Maccys way before he even thought of this movie. His g/f was vegan and he ate mostly organic foods. Find me one vegan who doesn't think MacDs is evil and disgusting. Just one.
Spurlock knew before he started filming what the outcome was going to be. He delibrately went overboard in consuming nothing but Maccys for a month and supersizing whenever asked.
Any idiot could see what the result would be.
If I ate nothing but bread for a month, do you think I'd be entitled to claim that eating bread is bad for you?

The only shocking bit was just how bad the effect on his body was at the end.

What I find ironic is you using him against Moore, when he employed several filmmaking techniques that Moore has popularised and used extensively, like:
hyperbole, multiple and selective listing of facts, making comparisons between 'normal' and extreme people or orgs to highlight differences, influence/imply things like making repeated attempts to contact businesspeople (knowing full well that most of them won't take an unsolicited call - yet when they don't it's implied on camera that it's due to their indifference rather than common business practise).

Also ironic is that Spurlock, I'd wager, is a huge fan of Moore.


As for your constant harping on and usage of the Academy awards definition of what a documentary is, and somehow this means that 9/11 isn't a documentary because it doesn't hold to your perceived interpretations of those definitions, perhaps you could explain to me why 9/11 was nominated for Best Documentary in no less than 29 seperate award festivals, including:
Cannes Film Festival
Directors Guild of America (gee, you think they might know a thing or two about film-making?)
International Documentary Association* (ohh..what about these guys? D'ya think they might know what constitutes a documentary?)

*The IDA is a non-profit association, founded in 1982 to raise public consciousness of the documentary's importance. With over 2500 members in 50 countries, it is the only organization in the United States focusing solely on documentaries and documentarians.
But hey, what the hell would they know about documentaries, right?



Let's face it, Grave & Cannot, this guy is one of these:

Ferrous Cranius (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm)