Michael Moore is not taking George Bush's election victory lying down. The guerrilla film-maker is planning a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11, the feature-length documentary he hoped would sway American voters in the recent presidential election. The sequel, to be called Fahrenheit 9/11½, will be timed to coincide with the next election and will revisit the same issues as the previous documentary, which lambasted Mr Bush's presidency, the response to the 11 September attacks and the war in Iraq. "We want to get the cameras rolling now and have it ready in two [to] three years," he told the industry paper Daily Variety. "Fifty-one per cent of the American people lacked information [in this election], and we want to educate and enlighten them. They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now." Moore's film, which won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes film festival this year - and is expected to be considered for a best picture nomination at the upcoming Academy Awards - has grossed nearly $120m (£65m) at the US box office, a record for a political documentary...
The sequel, to be called Fahrenheit 9/11½, will be timed to coincide with the next election... Ugh, can we give Michael Moore back to the green party?
I was just wondering if he was going to edit out interviews with soldiers againt o make it look like they said things they didn't really say? I mean, did you see Farenhype 9/11? They interviewed a few of the same people shown in the Moore film and they called Moore a liar. I was also curious as to if Moore will be using photoshop to help edit his movie again? I've used AVID and Final Cut Pro when editing before but I was unaware that photoshop would be a good tool to use. Should be interesting. The last movie certainly helped his cause what with Kerry winning and all.
Awesome! Republicans need to mobilize this time--buying the tapes in bulk, and distributing the tapes to undecideds. I hope he narrates it with that same "pedophile talking-to-a-3-year-old" voice. After the next election, the GOP should make Moore an honorary GOP Senator for all his help.
Are you still here? The blind await you. Back! Back to Archer's den where the above has a real home; here, you'll suffer only criticism and surcease of the crippled mindset from which your invecto-fascism springs.
Just a minor correction. This movie is not being considered as a documentary as was the case with Columbine. While Hollywood loves this guy, they are not willing to undermine the cred of their Academy by claiming this movie, full of out-of-context statements and misrepresentations of fact to be a documentary. This movie will be up either for a feature film or nothing.
eyeroll? so you far lefties instist that f911 is truthful? even after most left-leaning media outlets admit there were many factual errors in the movie? please continue what you are doing though!
As always whenever this subject comes up anytime online or in real life, I would like some examples of factual errors because I have not heard any SPECIFIC examples. Please somebody list some examples.
Moore really nails it as to why Bush was elected. The basic problem with liberal or Democrat attitudes is that anyone who doesn't agree with their principles or ideals is either ill informed or an idiot. There's absolutely no way to engage in a political discouse when you're starting out with that premise. Quite simply, as there are no inherent or trully objective truths in this world people given the same set of information will form oppinions on it and that should be respected. The fact that Micheal Moorites don't makes it very easy for Red Staters to completely discredit anything they say. The irony is of course that for all the acceptance and open mindedness these people espouse when it comes to this issue you're either for them or against them, so to speak.
It has nothing to do with Hollywood. Moore didn't want to submit his film for Best Documentary because he had won it already. He's submitted for Best Picture at the awards. He's a long shot given what he faces in the form of competition. As for the factural errors, Moore has stated that he would sue anyone who challenged his films accuracy.
I'd be interested to see exactly where he said that. Usually anyone who stands behind their work welcomes a vigirous inspection of it. Doesn't sound like something that would be said, exactly.
And this is where he does it: http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/ Now, if the Right wants to debate the accuracy of these points after seeing the sources, that'd make things a lot more interesting. Otherwise, it's just so much sound and fury.
My question as to where he said he'd sue anyone who went after him or whatever he said. I've seen his lists of defenses before. Though I have never seen the movie so I can't speak towards how I precieve its veracity.
Well as I've said before I haven't and probably wont see the movie so I won't defend or attack its veracity. However, just because Moore lists a series of articles which back up his points or which he believes back up his points doesn't mean that they factually back up what was said, or that there aren't other instances which he didn't defend. The problem I have with Moore, and I used to be a big big fan of his, is the tenor at which he goes about making his arguments. They tend to be juvenile, sniping and obtuse. Moreso the visiciousness of his attacks strikes me more as him being a propagandist and fear mongerer than any kind of civil advocat, reporter or documentarian.
I guess it's up to you whether you watch the movie or not. I don't see how you could verify the movie simply by watching it though, unless you know more than anyone else. I agree with most of your problem with Moore. He's not very subtle (English understatement!) He does come off as viscous at times but not as a propagandist but because he is so incensed by the injustice he perceives.
I was answering the bit about "Usually anyone who stands behind their work welcomes a vigirous inspection of it." I completely agree with you on Moore. I read one of his books and was disgusted with the speciousness of his arguments, regardless of their veracity. It could have been a textbook for a logic class on "fallacies and their application". The Left so doesn't need its own version of Rush Limbaugh. I don't care if everything he says is right, the way he goes about saying it is harmful. That said, I've had it up to here with those on the right whining about this movie, claiming it to be full of inaccuracies, but mysteriously disappearing when asked how they know that. When the Left claims "Mr. Cheney, your pants are on fire", it's backed up with video tape. When the Right questions the accuracy of their opponent's arguments, it's most often done by out-screaming them. Sort of like bunker soccer -- effective but boring.