Saw Fahrenheit 9/11 Today

If there are any 'lies" in Moore's film that are actionable in any way, you can be certain that Bush et al would be all over him with so many lawsuits that your head would spin.

So far I've seen none, and doubt we will.

:mrgreen:

 

Or maybe Republicans just don't stoop to such tawdry things as Lawsuits and Smear Campaigns. :lol: :lol: :lol: (Remember Willie Horton?)

 

Side topic: $$?

Haven't seen the movie yet, but questions for those of you who have been following all this:

• Is the film doing well at the box office?
• Is it doing well only in particular regions of the US?
• Is Disney seeing any of the $$ the film is making? (I thought Lion's Gate had bought the distribution rights, but I didn't know how much either Disney or Mirimax would still be seeing from it.)
  Of course, Hollywood accounting is an art unto itself...
  • 
    Heard a lot of rumors about both questions, but haven't done the research to find out what's what.
    
    I have to assume it's doing well in North Seattle -- saw lines around the theaters yesterday in the U District -- playing at 3 different theaters in a 5-block area. Thought the lines were for Spider-Man 2 until I got a closer look. (Me, I went to see the original Japanese subtitled version of Godzilla. Yes, I'm weird.)

 

Re: Side topic: $$?

• • • )
    • According that same article, the movie has done surprisingly well in all regions.
    • Disney is donating their share of profits (60% of the net) to charity and the rest will go to the Weinstein brothers, the co-chairmen of Miramax who personally bought the distribution rights from Disney (story)

 

Thanks LungCookie!

 

You have to prove not only lying but malice in a libel case. Theoretically the case might do well (if it were ever to crop up), but the hardest part is always proving malice. Opposing political viewpoints aren't enough. Also, a lawsuit would look really bad in an election year-- it would be interesting to see what would happen if Bush lost (that would, to some, really cement his case).

 

A _lawsuit_ might look bad? I thought it looked pretty bad when conservative groups tried to get movie theater owners to BAN the movie. Yeesh. The levels of irony make my head spin.

 

There won't be a lawsuit because it would just give Moore a chance to prove in court and with all the witnesses under oath that every word of the movie is true. Now that would look bad for Bush.

The Bush campaign will just run around calling Moore a liar, and the Repubs will believe it and stick by their moron.

The real effect of the movie will be to motivate the Dems to work that much harder to go out door-knocking and get out the vote.

 

First of all, sorry for the disjointed structure of this post. i unfortunately got into it late and decided to read it all from the beginning.

as for disney, they refused to distribute the film and sold all rights to Lions Gate. they arent getting a dime from it and stated after opening weekend that they werent interested in anything that had to do with the film

First of all, i saw the movie. it had very violent scenes and was moving in many different ways. it was also funny in a strange way not because of comedic value. it was funny because one could not believe the stupidity that was displayed by some of the people in the movie. But i went to a theater that was jammed on a Mon afternoon. (i frequent movies on weekday afternoons and i cant remember ever seeing a crowd this big even for Return of the King which showed during Christmas break) The audience reactions were many and emotional and there was a very healthy round of applause at the end.

whatshisname: you said "If Mr. Moore is so concerned about our country and policies and so anxious to enlighten us why doesn't he exhibit his film for free? I'm interested in what he has to say and willing to be persuaded by honest arguments, but why should I have to put a dollar in his pocket to do so?"

that is simple. the movie theaters are not showing the movie for free. so even if Moore did show it for free, chances are, you would pay nearly the same price as movie houses will not change their prices for one movie.

film is expensive. each copy of a standard length ( this movie was longer than standard length) film is about $15,000-$25,000. Also we pay for services. the lights on the street, the street itself is paid for by you. if you still think that Moore should show the movie for nothing, consider that all his movies address core problems that undermine the greatness of this country. Be it the erosion of the manufacturing industry (Roger and Me) or Corporate profiteering at all costs (Downsize This!) or the destruction of the family structure and the messages sent to children concerning violence in our society (Bowling For Columbine) each documentary helped raise social conscious to problems that desperately needs investigation into it.

One thing that cannot be denied is that Michael Moore is very good at what he does, and im not talking about making movies for profit. im refering to his ability to go out and ask questions of very bright, cunning, and powerful people in his backwater hick style and make these power players look like total fools. He is the best at getting people talking about issues. if that is profiteering then fine im all for it.

Or would you rather have a senator voted by the public but driven by big business and other powerful interests controlling the engine that runs our lives. a congressman is sworn to serve the people who voted him into office. Moore makes no claims to talk for anybody else but himself. why should he present a balanced view?? do you think bush did when deciding to attack Iraq? we dont need to answer that question do we?

but now that Moore has released his 4th movie he still hasnt been sued. there is no real evidence that anything was untrue in any of his other movies, and for all except the first one he did, there have been many yelling lawsuit but nothing has gone to court as of yet.

in another forum, one poster complained that Moore used PBS funds to help pay for the movie. I am not familiar with the details, but if that is what it took to get it to the screen then it was money well spent. after all, Moore didnt steal it from PBS. they must have given it to him freely. that speaks volumes for what others think of the content. PBS generally deals in facts and not sensationalism.

as far as invading Iraq, i still think it was the right thing to do. getting sadam out of power was essential. but now that he has been captured, what are we doing? get out, let them figure it out. that is my view.

also it might be interesting to note that since Dec of 2002, we have not imported a drop of Iraqi oil.

on Moore's editing: yes he did make comments that were purely speculative and obviously wrong. his comments about bush not acting when imformed of the first plane hitting means nothing. at the time, bush had no idea that several other attacks were imminent. in all cases, a panic or rush to action after the fact does very little to alleviate the damage of an occurence already done. if any one remembers that immediately after 9-11, there was talk of a government conspiracy of a staged attack gone wrong in order to generate momentum for attacking factions in the middle east.

and for the guy who thinks that news reporting is supposed to be bias with no spin applied. i read papers online from a dozen different cities around the US (not all every day!) and i cant remember the last time i read an article that had no spin on it one way or the other.

and if one has seen all the documentaries Moore has made, they might notice a theme that runs through all his films. people who think that he is just doing it for the money must realize that up until "Columbine" he didnt make any real money on the films. he did however have two very lucrative books he wrote.

and what does he do with his money now that he is filthy rich??

well we need to go back to that common theme in his movie and that theme is family, honor, home. Flint, Michigan his hometown is in every movie. but it should be because all these movies are a part of Moore and what he is concerned about. and his hometown is one of them.

but now that he can afford to live anywhere, first thing to do is leave Flint right? after all, its a dump. you seen the movie. the place is worse than most inner city slums. but he hasnt moved.... why is that?? what keeps him there now that he can afford to move.

well that is the type of person he is. he doesnt run off when things get tough. he stands up and asks what can be done to fix this?? he has poured a lot of his money back into the town he grew up in and why?? he sure as hell aint doing it because its a good business investment. in fact, most people think he is crazy for even wanting to believe in Flint.

all in all, you can complain about him or whatever makes you feel right, but as for me, i have a huge amount of admiration for the man. he stood up and let his opinion be known many times knowing that he would be persucuted and hassled for his views. but he doesnt care any more than he cares about wearing expensive clothes or buying fancy cars. But all in all, as i watched the movie, i began to realize that he had effectively summarized my feelings that i had over everything but had subconsciously buried it by the frustration of not being able to do anything about it. Thank you Mr. Moore for having the guts to stand up and say what we all wanted to say but couldnt.

for a capitalist pig as some has called him, he sure has a strange way of showing it.

See the movie, it was well worth the price of admission.

 

It will be such a relief to have a president who can formulate a coherent sentence and actually pronounce polysyllabic words correctly! (I really do miss Clinton every time Bush opens his mouth......)

All this hoo-ha about Cheney being more experienced that Edwards is SOOOO ridiculous. Of COURSE people wanted Cheney to be experienced in 2000--since everyone knew he would be calling the shots anyway! Kerry is FAR more able on his own than Bush could ever hope to be, so his VP choice will be more a matter of personal preference than dire necessity. Bush just wanted all of his daddy's cronies to make him look good......and Colin Powell (the only member of that regime who is worthy of respect) is certainly not going to be a part of the team if Bush wins. He disagrees with Bush too much (i.e. thinks for himself and makes sense).

 

I, for one, was happy to pay $7.50 to see Fahrenheit 9/11, knowing that the few pennies of my admission price that does not stay in the theater-owner's pocket will go towards making Moore's next film.

 

First, the profits from the movie:
"Despite their personal investment, the Weinstein brothers will not be the biggest financial beneficiaries of “Fahrenheit.†The real winner: a charity, or charities, that will receive about 60 percent of the net profit ultimately generated by the film — a tally that could be tens of millions of dollars. The Weinsteins, meanwhile, will pocket about 40 percent of the net, according to people familiar with the deal."
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/b.../9085495.htm?1c




Second, Moore has said that he doesn't mind people "pirating" his work, so long as they don't profit from it:
"I don't agree with copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it...as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labor...

I make these movies and books and TV shows because I want things to change, and so the more people who get to see them, the better. "
For the article: http://www.stargeek.com/item/56854.html
For the video of Moore speaking: http://www.flirble.org/mirror/Michael_Moor...filesharing.avi

His basic argument about pirating DVDs and such is this: if I buy a DVD and 10 of my friends watch it, he hasn't made any money off of my 10 friends. As long as I'm not charging admission or selling copies, I've done nothing illegal. So what's the difference between holding a viewing at my house with my DVD, lending my DVD out, or making copies of my DVD? Moore would argue: nothing.

For those who "don't want to give Moore a dime of their money," try and remember that Moore pulled himself up by his bootstraps, something Republicans are suppose to love. On the other hand, Dubya's life has been the very definition of priviledge. So many ironies... amazing, isn't it?

 

I didn't know this. Unfortunately, the mountain of cr@p they sell at the consession stand does not interest me. I used to buy the popcorn, but there are so many advertisements before the movie that the popcorn does not even last me to the opening titles. I'd make a deal with them, though: I'd happily pay an extra dollar if they'd leave off the ads.

 

as i said before, i have a huge amount of admiration for the man for standing up for his beliefs.

he portrays himself as a man who cares for the common man and he also backs his stance by living his beliefs.

to find out that he would distribute the movie for nothing does not surprize me at all. he said in his documentary "Downsize This!" that he already had made enough money to last him his lifetime plus his childrens lifetime so he was no longer in it for the money.

he didnt make the money from the movies he has done. he has written two very very successful books and makes quiet a bit from speaking engagements. although he freely admits that he would speak for nothing more than transportation and expenses which he does frequently if a group he feels strongly about cant afford him.

he will tell you honestly that doesnt feel one iota of guilt in taking money from large corporations.

 

well, it looks like the WMD issue has been solved, although there is no doubt in my mind that this is not new information.

so now Moore's documentary starts to become more factual... not surprised to be honest with ya.

 

Just got back from seeing the movie. I had read "Stupid White Men" and, so knew of some of Moore's assertions. However, seeing this film was much more powerful an experience and really left me sad that we, as a nation, have fallen for this "leader" and his gang of puppeteers. I wish that more Americans would see the film and then deride Moore, if they still feel the same way they did before seeing it. Even if some of his allegations turn out to be untrue(some say the Bin Laden family being allowed to leave unquestioned is not factual), there are still many others that stand up under scrutiny and reveal Bush & Co. to be simple minded and motivated first and foremost by greed.

I do like Moore's style of asking the Important Ones questions they don't seem to have answers for. Perhaps if some of the GOP saw how stupid their heroes look when under fire, they would agree it's time for a big change in our government.

I cut Bush some slack when it comes to his immediate reaction to 9/11. Moore's depiction of Bush as too slow to react in those minutes after he got word of the second plane hitting the WTC was unnecessary. I can't honestly say I would have looked any differently than he looked at that moment. But, I am not the elected (appointed) President of the #1 world power. (you should all be grateful for that.) A person in that postion should be able to think on his feet. This man is no thinker.

Every American owes it to the nation to see this movie.

 

well i think bush's rep is becoming pretty consistant with a boy in over his head. Jay Leno is unmercyful in playing the news conference where bush cant pronounce the name of the prison in Iraq

 

I saw the movie. I suspect that the facts are correct. Moore's a smart guy and too go to get caught in a lie. Having said that he is good at what he does, very, very good. He was not trying to be fair he had a point of view and used all his skill to put it across. My wife was some what offended by that. She like others I talked to have confused a documentary with a factual non biased news report. Some documentaries are more that but frankly most are editorial in nature. Facts presented with a point of view. I don't have a problem with that. The film has made a impact, got people thinking, talking, debating, arguing and even shouting at each other. Great that is what political dialogue is about and as far as I am concerned there has been too little of that since 9/11.

 

well there are several degrees of truth and Moore had depicted one of them. it is then up to each individual as to how they intrepret the truth.

is anything he said completely wrong? i doubt it. is anything he said completely true? in some people's eyes, probably not.

but i will say one thing... controlling opinion is the #1 job of congress. so they do the mind control thing also just as Moore does and i think they are much bigger culprits at it then Moore will ever be albeit not as popular or convincing.

i just to think congress' main job was creating and READING laws to determine whether or not to vote for or against each law... well Moore has changed my mind on that thought... must have been that 6th grade government propaganda that gave me that wrong idea.