1
   

Equal time and Fahrenheit 9/11

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 05:49 pm
I can almost entirely agree with the CNN review:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/24/review.fahrenheit/index.html
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 05:54 pm
I'll prolly watch it when it hits the movie channels.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 06:07 pm
Showtime has the contract for October I believe. I realize the timing is obvious but Moore has made no attempt to conceal his feelings (does he ever?) Hate him or like him, he's now a major voice on social and political issues. It's unfortunate for the dissenters that he one hell of a good filmmaker. Okay, so I cringe when he pushes out the envelope and it makes a loud popping noise as it bursts but I haven't failed to see his point. He isn't a saint as none of are saints.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 06:11 pm
IMHO, Michael Moore is an ass. Pure and simple. I fully expect Fahrenheit 911 to be another "crockumentory" (thanks for the link to that other thread Phoenix... crockumentory, what a hoot Laughing ).

However: to answer Equus's question, I would have to say that ass's are well within their rights to make movies about any damn thing they choose and I can decide for myself whether or not I wish to pay for it. If they were giving it away, I could see cause for complaint, but not for something I have to pay to see.

The response to this thread has given me a little idea for a partisan test. You don't have to answer out loud... but if you can't see Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are the same species of ass; that would be because your hyper-partisanship is limiting your ability to think rationally. Idea
BTW, it makes no difference which ass you defend. :wink:
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 06:24 pm
I'm not as much of a film freak as I used to be, but a lot of this discussion (not this specific thread) reminds me of what I've read about some of the reactions to Orson Welles and Citizen Kane. The enormous efforts made to attempt to prevent people from seeing Citizen Kane ...
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 06:25 pm
o.k. - so someone had the same brilliant idea just over a month ago (i just did a quick google on citizen kane and censorship) -

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04144/320120.stm
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 06:27 pm
Quote:
The truth is that the threat of censorship should offend all Americans regardless of party affiliation. Administrations Democratic and Republican have been guilty of it.


from the article i linked above
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 12:08 am
Call it a "crockumentary" (not original, BTW) or anything else you want to but resorting to calling someone an ass instead of actually addressing what is being presented is the route of a fool. No, I don't see Moore as a Limbaugh. Moore is a consumate filmmaker -- Limbaugh is just raving on the airways. This is a film and should be judged as a film, political considerations aside. As a film, it is almost without peer.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 03:03 am
I just saw "crockumentary" on the McG thread that Phoenix linked to, and thought it was funny regardless of what film it's applied to.
Have you seen this one yet, my hyper-partisan friend? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 08:56 am
I've seen the documentary and basically agree with this reviewer:


http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/24/review.fahrenheit/index.html
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 07:39 am
Okay, I just saw the film. It is now officially a crockumentary, Michael Moore remains an ass and my buddy Lightwizard is clearly hyper-partisan sheep to have made this statement:

Lightwizard wrote:
No, I don't see Moore as a Limbaugh. Moore is a consumate filmmaker -- Limbaugh is just raving on the airways. This is a film and should be judged as a film, political considerations aside. As a film, it is almost without peer.


Consummate filmmaker? Shocked Laughing The film is almost without peer, because political considerations aside, it gets seen by a dozen people who each report that it stinks. There is no new accurate information that isn't well known by A2K regulars and some of the misleading, dishonest portrayals are over the top. I give him credit for making a fortune for doing very little, but loathe him for waddling in the misery of others. This man has no shame. The war is hell aspect was pretty well done and some of his captures of Bush looking stupid were quite funny... also I did laugh at the Bonanza parody (let's surround em and smoke'm outta there!) But mostly it was meaningless or misleading dribble and one-sided opinions that could easily be found on one side or the other of every major similar issue. I feel silly for paying that idiot to bore me for an hour and 45 minutes of a film that took less than 2 hours to complete.

As an aside: Curiously, MUVICO (my preferred theater in South Florida) isn't showing it and apparently has no plans to. So, I had to drive 10 miles to the Regal, and it was only about 1/3 full. I thought this was supposed to be a record breaker?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 07:56 am
Re: Equal time and Fahrenheit 9/11
Equus wrote:
Is this strictly a free-speech issue, or do we need to regulate politically-charged motion pictures, at least during an election year, to allow equal exposure by all candidates?


This question seems to assume that there is a lump of political influence to go around, and that it's the government's business to divide this lump as equally as possible. But this is false. Michael Moore created his franchise of the lump by producing a movie that lots of cinemas want to show and lots of people want to come see. In a free society, the rule is that he who creates something, gets to do with it whatever he wants. I have no problem with that, just like I have no problem with the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger's movies contributed to his being elected governor of California. By contrast, I would find it very unfair if creative people like Moore and Schwarzenegger were deprived of the fruits of their labor in pursuit of some government-defined notion of fairness.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 08:54 am
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Ignites Box Office Passion
by Brandon Gray (www.boxofficemojo.com)
June 28, 2004



HOLLYWOOD (Box Office Mojo) - Over three million people elected Fahrenheit 9/11 to be the No. 1 movie of America.

Incensing as many as it's entrancing, writer-director Michael Moore's Bush bash celebrated over the weekend with $23.9 million at 868 theaters, beating co-distributor Lions Gate's $21.8 million estimate on Sunday by 9%. Lions Gate released the picture along with IFC Films and Fellowship Adventure Group -- the latter quickly formed by Miramax chiefs Bob and Harvey Weinstein to release the $6 million picture after buying it back from corporate parent Disney. Around $10 million was spent on prints and advertising, less than a third of the average Hollywood release.

The estimate for Fahrenheit 9/11 was trounced thanks to a much stronger than expected Sunday. Breaking the weekend down, the picture attracted nearly $8.6 million on Friday, fell 5% on Saturday to about $8.1 million, but then eased just 12% to around $7.2 million on Sunday. By comparison, the other wide releases in the marketplace experienced Sunday drops ranging from 22% to 35%.

With $24.1 million in the till since its record-breaking debut in New York City on Wednesday, Fahrenheit 9/11 is already the highest grossing documentary of all time -- excluding large format, concert and other non-"apples-to-apples" sub-genres - surpassing Moore's own Bowling for Columbine's $21.6 million lifetime gross.

Fahrenheit is also the first documentary to land in the weekend top five, let alone be No. 1. Its opening topped Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction's $9.3 million as the best ever for a Cannes Film Festival Palme d'Or winner, and it was Tarantino's jury that handed Moore the prize this year.

Fahrenheit's $27,558 per theater average ranks as the second highest all time for a wide release (adjusting for ticket price inflation knocks it down to No. 11) and the best of 2004, ahead of The Passion of the Christ's $27,554 and Shrek 2's $25,951. However, they were super-saturation releases playing at 3,043 and 4,163 theaters respectively -- the lower the theater count, the easier it is to have a high average as the release isn't diluted by less populous locations with lower ticket prices.

Fahrenheit's performance harkens back to the days when big movies wouldn't play in every nook and cranny of the country, but would bow at around 700 or 1,000 theaters to sell out crowds. Perhaps the greatest example of this, Return of the Jedi debuted to $23 million at 1,002 theaters in 1983, which would adjust to $45 million by today's ticket prices. In terms of raw dollars, Fahrenheit is actually the biggest opening ever for a movie playing at less than 1,000 theaters, topping Rocky III's $12.4 million at 939 venues.

Controversy is proving to be bigger business than ever. Prior to this year, it was seen as a way to raise awareness and help bolster a picture to modest returns (Dogma, Last Temptation of Christ). Chatter about its global warming themes didn't hurt The Day After Tomorrow either, which opened beyond expectations and is a solid blockbuster with $175.6 million to date. But it was Moore and Mel Gibson with The Passion of the Christ who have taken it to the next level: Controversy as saturation marketing campaign.

Though The Passion is perceived as the opposite of Fahrenheit in terms of whom it appeals to, both Moore and Gibson enlisted today's mass media to work for them, knowing that everyone from 24-hour news channels to talk radio would eat up the grand hot topic issues of their movies with the littlest of stoking. Gibson took the more strategic approach with his surgical strike appearances and screenings, but he had months to wage his campaign. Fahrenheit didn't have a release date, let alone a distributor, until a few weeks ago, so Moore and company used the shotgun approach, showing up everywhere and heralding every single development of the movie's progress.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 08:58 am
The critical response is over 80% positive with many of them rave reviews -- www.rottentomatoes.com. This is in contrast to "Passion's" over 70% bad reviews. Moore is getting the double endorsement for his movie, big box office and overwhelmingly good reviews.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 08:59 am
So you can stop dribbling (sic), Bill.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 09:14 am
LW, does it really surprise you that people who sit around complaining and pointing out the flaws in things (critics) would respond positively to the mother of all finger-pointing complainers? Idea

As for the box office; I spent my money on it and was pretty sure going in that I wouldn't be endorsing it coming out. Don't confuse my desire to discuss it with first hand knowledge of it as an endorsement. Idea
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 09:21 am
Lightwizard, from your past few posts I'm getting the impression that you think

1. box office success is an argument for believing the content of a film;

2. approval from movie reviewers is an argument for believing the content of a film.

I don't understand either. Could you please elaborate your point?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 09:35 am
Bill didn't like Fahrenheit 9/11? Now I know it's gonna be good! :wink:
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 09:35 am
Not saying either -- just passing on the facts. It does happen to be an achievement to both please the critics and the moviegoers as well.

Reputable movie critics don't sit around looking for flaws and pointing fingers to complain -- in fact, some of the very good reviews point out what they believe are flaws in Moore's film and still recommend it.

And what motivated you to go spend the money for a ticket, Bill? Did you fall for the controversy, did you want to play critic and find flaws and finger point?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 09:46 am
Lightwizard wrote:
And what motivated you to go spend the money for a ticket, Bill? Did you fall for the controversy, did you want to play critic and find flaws and finger point?
I figured it would have some impact on the upcoming election for who was going to be the next President of my country and therefore would likely be discussed plenty. I neither wanted to avoid the discussion nor join them and speak from ignorance... so it seemed like the logical thing to do.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 01/21/2022 at 09:20:10