World Trade Center - The Movie

[Bells]

well... if we are going to talk about Michael Moore, one must wonder if for all the BS he talks, the things that he say that are true, arent enough to give him some credit...

But i wont talk about that... i prefere to talk about how Cage is being a Hollywhore on movies nowadays actually....

[Mirai Gen]

Originally Posted by Meister

One wonders (this one does) if there is no better answer to Moore's theories and arguments that to ridicule his appearance. It just doesn't strike me as operating on the same intellectual level is all.

Indeed.

Honestly, all of my patriotism has been drained by anything Bush says or does, and this just kind of makes me sigh and shake my head. I really can't get angry or laugh anymore. There's just nothing there - we've been pushing patriotism for years (while at the same time ruthlessly bashing any Iraq-americans) and I just can't get any emotion, good or bad, because of it.

[Althane]

Originally Posted by Mirai Gen

(while at the same time ruthlessly bashing any Iraq-americans)

I don't know about you, but I haven't been bashing ANYONE.

Except my little brother.

But seriously, I haven't been bashing any Iraqi-Americans. I don't know where you're picking that up from.

But it's good to be patriotic. You live in one of the best damn countries in the world, why don't you support it? And shouldn't you try and help other countries achieve the same level of greatness and happiness that includes somewhere around 90,000 rapes and over a 100,000 murders each year? (eh, I got those numbers from somewhere, I'm actually pretty sure they're wrong. It's a joke, shaddup)

[Arlia Janet]

Please don't turn this into a debate about the war.
And please don't use pronouns like "We" when you talk about hate crimes.

This is a discussion about this crappy movie that's being made and other movies like it.

[Althane]

About the crappy movies:

Does anyone know what kinda losses they're taking? Total production costs, and profits (if any)?

[Bells]

Originally Posted by Althane

About the crappy movies:

Does anyone know what kinda losses they're taking? Total production costs, and profits (if any)?

Nick Cage's Self respect counts?

[Solid Snake]

Honestly in regards to Micheal Moore, while I dislike the fact that conservatives mock him for his weight and ignore many of his arguments, it's not as if liberals don't act the exact same way. Take Ann Coulter. Now, Ann Coulter is about the same caliber of asinine as Micheal Moore, at least in the sense that both of them make absolutely absurd statements from time to time. Moore, at times, unfairly stereotypes and demonizes Republicans and Coulter acts the same way to Democrats. (It's just a way for both to garner free publicity, I highly doubt either one actually means a few of the more slanderous comments they'll utter.)

I've heard Moore referred to as many horrible things, but the same's true of Coulter, who's been referred to as a "bitch" or a "spawn of the devil" more times than I can afford to count.

Now, I've read both Moore and Coulter's books and let me tell you something -- both actually make valid points, if you bother to read the literature with an open mind...and if you filter out the 50% of the crap they insert just to placate their fanbases with potshots against their opponents.

Coulter and Moore are just among a certain breed of modern political advocates who've learned to maximize their potential power by harnessing the American media. And these days if you want to make a point to the American public, you do so through the media, and you do so in a certain way -- with arguments compressed into emotionally instigating 15 second sound bites. So Coulter calls the 9/11 widows nasty names, but if you bother to look beyond the hyperbole you see she has a point; quite a few of the 9/11 widows have wasted a lot of the money the government's doled out to them on pleasure cruises and fancy cars -- and while Coulter's language is horrific, I do agree with her in principle that these women (and men) should not be immune to criticism just because they lost a loved one in 9/11 (others lose loved ones all the time, and they're open to be torn apart five years later for indescretions, after all.)

Same with Moore and his critique of the war on Iraq. I disagree with the language he uses -- Bush is not the antichrist, and I even disagree with the linguistic tone that suggests that he's necessarily evil or an absolute idiot (it'd be rather difficult for Bush, after all, to be a manipulative mastermind and a dimwit at the same time.) But I do agree with many of Moore's underlying premises -- the administration's arguments in favor of war in Iraq were flawed, there certainly were some business interests being taken into consideration, and Bush was sloppy and didn't come clean when he should have. And don't even get me started on how ticked off our 'special relationship' with the Saudis makes me.

Bottom line is, if you're going to demonize spokespeople on the basis of their hyperbole, at least be willing to demonize the messengers on both sides of the political aisle. As for me, I prefer ignoring the 15 second soundbites and looking deeper into the real arguments Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter and Michael Moore and Al Franken and Jon Stewart bring into light...however indirectly they may go about it.

[Archbio]

Ah, yes. "Balance". The new innovation from the USA. A very popular game, it seems.

Yes, people questionning Coulter's gender is as shameful and irrelevant as people calling Moore fat. But the fact of the matter is, citing examples of ad hominem on Coulter (somewhere else) when people point ad hominem on Moore that have been made in this thread seems like a really ackward, indirect defence. I think the "Coulter is a man" comments is a more proper equivalent to the "Moore is fat" comments since both groups are physical in nature, and irrelevant to the discourse. As for "bitch" and "spawn of hell"... I'm sorry but while the first might be an unfortunate choice of word, both can be thought to qualify the level of Coulter's discourse pretty well.

"Spawn of hell" and Moore's "antichrist" comment should probably not taken literally.

Moore's rethoric tends asinine and hyperbolic, yes, and so is Coulter's, but there happens to be a certain difference of degree and tone. Also, Moore's rethoric isn't always his whole point, unlike Coulter, as you actually help to demonstrate. Coulter's point in her most recent foible wasn't, as I could understand, that the persons she attacked were "beyond criticism". Her point was the personal attack, a baseless and vicious attempt to discredit people without addressing in any substantial manner their views.

One could have questionned the seeming authority given to these widows by their experience, what is in fact a mere emotional appeal. Their view should be as credible coming from someone else, after all. But Coulter could never do that. So much of her tactics rest on the same (and somewhat identical) emotional appeal. How many times has she herself used the dead of this particular attack?

As far as I know, very few people have stated that these widows were beyond criticism. Coulter made comments to the effect that they were beyond credibility.

As for Moore, well, when you strip the hyperbole, there is usually some actual argument underneath. Also, as far as my failing memory can inform me, I can't seem to recall Moore wishing, even in a joke, violence upon his fellow citizens.

False equivalences aren't making discourse any healthier. Coulter gets too much publicity as it is.

As for this movie, I have no intention of watching it. Until it's broadcast, that is.