This week's book giveaways are in the Jython/Python and Object-Oriented programming forums.
We're giving away four copies each of Machine Learning for Business: Using Amazon SageMaker and Jupyter and Object Design Style Guide and have the authors on-line!
See this thread and this one for details.
Win a copy of Machine Learning for Business: Using Amazon SageMaker and JupyterE this week in the Jython/Python forum
or Object Design Style Guide in the Object-Oriented programming forum!
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Knute Snortum
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Tim Cooke
  • Junilu Lacar
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Joe Ess
  • salvin francis
  • fred rosenberger

Michael Moore and Disney

 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Let me re-phrase.... Based on what we know of the film and art community, what is the likelihood that the people who vote to award such things as the Palm D'Or tend to generally agree politically with Michael Moore? Given that, are such awards validation of his merits as an artiste, or simply a nod of agreement towards his agenda and views? Could his work stand on its own merits? If it the film had no outrageous political message, would it be given the award? If the film carried a blatant political message that disagreed with the sensibilities of those on the award board, what would its chances likely be? Of course we probably aren't in a position to answer these questions, but it certainly is something to think about.
[ May 23, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I wonder if Sant Michel will make a documentary about the Oil-for-Food scandal?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I wonder if Sant Michel will make a documentary about the Oil-for-Food scandal?

Everyone has a path to walk. Michael Moore chose the one exposing the sins (real or imaginary) of the Bush administration. Michael Moore never said that he is "fair and ballanced" -- his function is to pull all the way to the left while someone else pulls all the way to the right.

Asking Michael Moore to make a documentary about the Oil-for-Food scandal is like asking Quentin Tarantino to direct a movie for children and dicrediting him if he laughs in your face.
 
John Dunn
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
So you agree, MM is an unrepentant Bush-Basher, right?
 
John Smith
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
So you agree, MM is an unrepentant Bush-Basher, right?

Yeah, OK. Now what? Why is he expected to repent for that?
 
author
Posts: 1427
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by John Dunn:
I wonder if Sant Michel will make a documentary about the Oil-for-Food scandal?



Since we are now crawling back to the UN begging for help, wouldn't such anti-UN documentary endanger our troops and make Moore un-American?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
...but it should be obvious that Michael Moore will always be recognized by his type of people, no matter what he does. Hell, he could blow his nose, stick the used tissue to the wall, tell people it represents the evil of conservatism, his fans will call it art and he'll get an award for it. He speaks a language they like to hear and they will use every opportunity to applaud him for it, regardless of any merits his work may or may not have standing on its own.



...but it should be obvious that George Bush will always be recognized by his type of people, no matter what he does. Hell, he could blow his nose, stick the used tissue to the wall, tell people it represents evidence of WMD, his fans will call it evidence and he'll get votes for it. He speaks a language they like to hear and they will use every opportunity to applaud him for it, regardless of any merits his work may or may not have standing on its own.

 
John Dunn
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Why is he expected to repent for that?
MM is not un-American. He is simply exposing truths, right? He cares about Iraqis and is upset about how they've been abused. Doesn't he WANT to make a movie about the UN scandal too?
 
John Dunn
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Since we are now crawling back to the UN begging for help,
Maybe not... Maybe we want them involved before the scandal breaks open. The raid on Chalabi's home was to get papers on the scandal. We want the UN involved first, so they can't duck their duties when the sh** it the fan.
Kerry wanted the UN from the word go, and he's going to look stupid when the scandal hits, (just before he takes one of those Dean nose-dives...)
 
author
Posts: 8998
19
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Regardless of my opinions about Moore or Bush, what I really like is anybody who is vocally mistrusting of whatever the current power structure is.

Long live our right to question authority!

Long live anyone who publically questions anyone in power!

Yea!
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 305
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Bert Bates:
Regardless of my opinions about Moore or Bush, what I really like is anybody who is vocally mistrusting of whatever the current power structure is.

Long live our right to question authority!

Long live anyone who publically questions anyone in power!

Yea!



I second that. Regardless of what team you're playing for (Moore, Bush, Kerry, Martha Stewart, Barny, etc.) there will always be controversy. The purpose of Moore, I believe, is to deliver a message not only in support of his position, but at the very least, to make his opponents question their own positions. I agree with some of Moore's ideas, but disagree with others. But inevitably, and I think this is his ultimate goal, Moore's assertions made me detach myself from entrenched beliefs and re-evaluate my position. Moore walks the tightrope, with politics and yellow journalism on one side, and responsible reporting on the other.

And of course, there are who have completely fallen off that tightrope, and pipe nothing but illusory facts and ill-conceived speculation (remember OJ anyone -- if the glove don't fit, you gotta acquit). But surprisingly, people will continue to buy into it.
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeffrey Hunter:
Moore walks the tightrope, with politics and yellow journalism on one side, and responsible reporting on the other.

Moore doesn't walk any tightrope. He is squarely on the side of yellow journalism.

What amuses me most about this thread is the idea of certain people that challenging authority is a good thing but challenging Michael Moore is a bad thing.
 
author and iconoclast
Posts: 24203
43
Mac OS X Eclipse IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Please send my medal for self-restraint to my home address. Thanks.
 
John Dunn
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Please send my medal for self-restraint to my home address.
that's a good one...
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
No matter what you may think of MM's views, at least be glad that you live in a country where someone can make a film criticising the head of government and not be kidnapped and imprisoned - throughout the world now, and through history, this would have been the most likely result of such criticism.

The other thing to remember is that given the litigation-loving lawyers that thrive in America, if a part of this film is proved to be wrong, then most likely MM would be sued - this means that people like him are likely to try and be as truthful as possible. This is also a good thing, as it means that politicians cant hide doing dodgy things, because people will find out and publish information about it.

So, even if you disagree with the film, the fact that it can be made is a good thing in itself.
 
Michael Yuan
author
Posts: 1427
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
What amuses me most about this thread is the idea of certain people that challenging authority is a good thing but challenging Michael Moore is a bad thing.



Challenging authority is a good thing. Suppressing Moore is a bad thing.
 
Michael Yuan
author
Posts: 1427
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by John Dunn:
Kerry wanted the UN from the word go, and he's going to look stupid when the scandal hits, (just before he takes one of those Dean nose-dives...)



Possible. But I am sure that Bush will use all his machines to prevent the UN scandal from "hitting". Didn't they dump Chalabi to *prevent* him from digging more dirt on UN? These days, Bush needs the UN more than John Kerry does, and he knew it. Bush got himself into this mess. So much for his "principles".
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 451
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Yuan:


Challenging authority is a good thing. Suppressing Moore is a bad thing.



Who is suppressing Moore? Disney? Disney made a business decision which they have the contractural right to do? The administration somehow forcing Disney not to do something? I suggest that anyone alleging this show a little hard proof, something completely lacking heretofore.....
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Yuan:
Challenging authority is a good thing. Suppressing Moore is a bad thing.



Yes, poor Michael Moore. One wonders how he manages to stay so fat with all that suppresion going on.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:
The other thing to remember is that given the litigation-loving lawyers that thrive in America, if a part of this film is proved to be wrong, then most likely MM would be sued - this means that people like him are likely to try and be as truthful as possible.



Actually, you are mistaken. Unlike Great Britian, suing for slander and libel is VERY difficult if you are a famous person. Not only do you have to prove that what I said was wrong, that it damaged you, and that I knew it was wrong, you also have to prove that I did it deliberately to harm you! So Michael Moore could release a movie claiming that GWB had sex with his mother and GWB still wouldn't win because MM could claim that he did it to be funny. This is the reason that Hollywood stars always sue British tabloids but never US tabloids.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Yuan:
Didn't they dump Chalabi to *prevent* him from digging more dirt on UN?

No, they dumped Chalabi because he was selling secrets to Iran.
 
Michael Yuan
author
Posts: 1427
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Don Stadler:
Who is suppressing Moore? Disney? Disney made a business decision which they have the contractural right to do? The administration somehow forcing Disney not to do something? I suggest that anyone alleging this show a little hard proof, something completely lacking heretofore.....



I made a generic statement that suppressing Moore is bad. Do you agree with that statement? I did not say that he is actually suppressed. Please do not read between the lines. Thank you.

On the other hand, big media companies do not just "make business decisions". They have social responsibilities as well. People from both the left and right cry about media bias all the time -- for good reasons. Again, I am not saying that Disney has a political bias here -- I just think its CEO is too incompetent to seize this money making opportunity,
 
Michael Yuan
author
Posts: 1427
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Yes, poor Michael Moore. One wonders how he manages to stay so fat with all that suppresion going on.



Poor people are fat since they cannot afford low carb diet! Suppressed people are fat because they can only get comfort from food! On the other hand, Bush obviously has a lot of free time to exercise.
 
Don Stadler
Ranch Hand
Posts: 451
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Yuan:


I made a generic statement that suppressing Moore is bad. Do you agree with that statement? I did not say that he is actually suppressed. Please do not read between the lines. Thank you.



Moore is screaming at the top of his lungs that he's being surpressed. From the context of your statement(s) I thought you agreed.

Originally posted by Michael Yuan:

On the other hand, big media companies do not just "make business decisions". They have social responsibilities as well. People from both the left and right cry about media bias all the time -- for good reasons. Again, I am not saying that Disney has a political bias here -- I just think its CEO is too incompetent to seize this money making opportunity,



Yes, big media have social responsibilities which are frequently ignored. Perhaps people at Disney were dismayed to learn that many particulars of Bowling for Columbine were either fictional or so distorted as to be almost completely divorced from any truth? Perhaps Disney had the social responsibility to not wish to be a party to Mr. Moore's attempt to distort the presidential election using the same techniques? Perhaps Disney reasoned that Mr. Moore would have no difficulty in getting his fiction-laden 'documentary' distributed whether Disney did it or not?

Seems to me they took Mr. Moore's word the last time, but experience showed that wasn't a good idea?
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Disney dropped the distribution plans because they didn't want to offend the millions of people who go to Disney movies and visit Disney theme parks. Offending the 200 people who care about MM's movie was probably considered a good trade off.
 
Don Stadler
Ranch Hand
Posts: 451
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Be fair, Mr. Krabs! At least 20,000 care!
 
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Disney dropped the distribution plans because they didn't want to offend the millions of people who go to Disney movies and visit Disney theme parks.


They'd much rather be bored to death by "Treasure Planet" and "Country Bears."
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
You see the consequences of all those very nasty jokes about french army.

Now that the french are giving one of their most visible and prestigious cultural prices to Michael Moore, I do understand why they need all those laws of protection for french culture against US cultural imperialism. French culture can't be that strong, if they have nothing better homegrown.
 
Michael Yuan
author
Posts: 1427
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Disney dropped the distribution plans because they didn't want to offend the millions of people who go to Disney movies and visit Disney theme parks. Offending the 200 people who care about MM's movie was probably considered a good trade off.



Hmm, how can millions be offended if only 200 care? Would you be offended by something you do not care?? Do the images of dying troops offend people? Is the reality too harsh to face?

Maybe the "millions" would care when the government has to raise tax (as the administration has forced states to do in recent years), or de-value the dollar (as the administration is try to do), or raise interest rate to actually pay for the war? Geez, I wish that we were in it for the oil. Then we at least get *something* back from the hundred billions spend there.

Maybe the "millions" would care if China or North Korea preemptively attacks our major interests in Asia and the America military is too weak to respond?

Actually, from what I read, MM's film does not give us much new information about Bush. What strike me is the apparent "sacrifice of our troops" theme of the film. I think everyone, for or against the war, should appreciate that. Of course, I have not seen the film. So, do not take my word for it -- that is another reason why the movie needs to released.

Also, isn't suppressing the minority opinion (for profit or not) part of the "bias" the media is accused of?
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

Now that the french are giving one of their most visible and prestigious cultural prices to Michael Moore,



Not really, only one of the judges was French and several were American.


Cannes Jury
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
No, they dumped Chalabi because he was selling secrets to Iran.



Interestingly there are now rumours that Iran asked Chalabi to give false evidence to the Americans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224075,00.html

To say that this would be embarrassing if it were true is a bit of an understatement....

It wouldn't be entirely suprising though - Iran stood to gain a lot with the fall of Saddam, especially if they could then push for another Islamic republic to be formed. Once the US was worries about the domino effect of countries in the far east becoming communist, but perhaps they should now be worried about countries in the middle east becoming fundamentalist. What would happen if Iran's wishes came true, and Iraq voted in a radical cleric who pushed the country towards fundamentalism? Its not that hard to imagine similar things spreading to places Syria (and therefore Lebanon) and maybe even Saudi Arabia.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Score one for Ray Bradbury. He put it quite well.

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2004-06/04/09.00.books
 
town drunk
( and author)
Posts: 4118
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
if he put it that way @ all. The source cited isn't known for it's integrity.
[ June 04, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Max Habibi:
if he put it that way @ all. The source cited isn't known for it's integrity.



The Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter isn't known for it's integrity?

Ray Bradbury rips Michael Moore

Moore �r en skitst�vel (Original Swedish interview. I believe the headline translates to "Moore is an asshole", but I may be mistaken.)
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I've been reading Bradbury for a long time. The article cited is clearly a fraud, and I'd guess Bradbury would be more insulted by portraying him as some raving capitalistic polemic than having his famous title plainly co-opted.

Bradbury's works are big business. This report seems far more consistent with that:

Author Ray Bradbury thinks Michael Moore's title will confuse people with his classic sci-fi novel Fahrenheit 451 and he wants Moore to change it. "He can't have my title," said Bradbury. "We've got an important film coming out [Fahrenheit 451], the book's having its 50th anniversary in October. If he wants his movie to be an homage to me, why not title it, 'Bradbury, where the hell are you now that we need you?'" (Variety)
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
The article cited is clearly a fraud



Proof?
[ June 04, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Posts: 4118
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:


The Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter isn't known for it's integrity?



Read my post again: the source cited isn't known for it's integrity. I can't comment on the Swedish piece, because it wasn't cited.

Since neither of us can read it, or know where the information comes from: well, it's it not an thoughtful approach to newsgathering. You are, of course, free to accept whatever you choose. However, I'll wait for collaboration.

M
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Proof?


Asserting what is plain to a student of the writer is all I care to do.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
People seem quite ready to dismiss anything that goes against pre-conceived notions, yet eager to wholeheartedly embrace anything that fits the way they view the world (Michael Moore's works for instance). First the source isn't known for its truthfulness (anyone have proof by any chance?) and next the original source is to be dismissed because either (take your pick) a) Ray Bradbury would supposedly never have voiced such opinions, or b) the source is in Swedish. But, as has been said, we are all free to pick and choose what we feel like believing, whatever the basis.
 
Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Posts: 4118
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:


Proof?




While the rest of the post certainly isn't proof, it's @ least an argument. Let's read it again.

ME: I'd guess Bradbury would be more insulted by portraying him as some raving capitalistic polemic than having his famous title plainly co-opted.

Bradbury's works are big business. This report seems far more consistent with that:

Author Ray Bradbury thinks Michael Moore's title will confuse people with his classic sci-fi novel Fahrenheit 451 and he wants Moore to change it. "He can't have my title," said Bradbury. "We've got an important film coming out [Fahrenheit 451], the book's having its 50th anniversary in October. If he wants his movie to be an homage to me, why not title it, 'Bradbury, where the hell are you now that we need you?'" (Variety)


HTH,
M
[ June 04, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]
 
There will be plenty of time to discuss your objections when and if you return. The cargo is this tiny ad:
Java file APIs (DOC, XLS, PDF, and many more)
https://products.aspose.com/total/java
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!