Well, let's see if I can answer some of your concerns Piff.
" Are the people who died the enemy? "
I bet a lot of those who died were the enemy. But of course, it would not advance Moore's agenda to show them, just the civilians. Well guess what? Civilians and innocents die in every war. So are you ready to condemn WWII and Pres. Roosevelt for those deaths of civilians? How about Truman and Korean civilian deaths? Do you accuse Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon for civilians killed in Vietnam? Maybe you do. If so, then at least you are consistent and I would presume you do not believe that any war is just. Or is it just this one?
"Are we safer? "
Probably more so than had we done nothing other than shake our collective fingers and try to shame terrorists and/or Saddam into stopping the killing of these innocents you are now so concerned about.
"Who has gained wealth? "
Well, this one I have no answer for. Do you? Provide figures as to who has gained wealth. Figures for every company and individual who has profitted. I bet there are many more than you care to admit and most will surprisingly have no ties to the current admin.
"Is this what being American is about?"
Yes it is what we are about. Making the world "safe for democracy" and all that. We can argue all our lives about whether we should be the world's policeman, but like it or not, it seems to be the job we have taken on for the last 75 years or so. It may be a thankless job, but somebody has to do it less we find ourselves faced with another Hitler, Stalin, etc.
I know you may not agree with my sentiments, but here they are. Moore has every right to make a film to espouse his views. Just as Rush Limbaugh has every right to spout his on radio. Some people on both sides will embrace as gospel everything they say or film. And that is too bad for them.
All Limbaugh can do is snarl and gnash on the radio. Let's see if any dissenter can make an award winning (yes, probably also the Oscar) box office hit.
'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.
CoastalRat wrote:Well, let's see if I can answer some of your concerns Piff.
" Are the people who died the enemy? "
I bet a lot of those who died were the enemy. But of course, it would not advance Moore's agenda to show them, just the civilians. Well guess what? Civilians and innocents die in every war. So are you ready to condemn WWII and Pres. Roosevelt for those deaths of civilians? How about Truman and Korean civilian deaths? Do you accuse Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon for civilians killed in Vietnam? Maybe you do. If so, then at least you are consistent and I would presume you do not believe that any war is just. Or is it just this one?
Let's stay in the here and now. I'm not going to argue about WWII or any other conflict. (Don't get me started on Viet Nam!)
We invaded a country last year... one that was minding its own business. One that had never threatened us. One that had nothing to do with the tragedy of 9/11. The president has changed his reasons for that war to the point that no one can even say why we did it... not even you.
There should be no "I bets" or "of courses" here. You seem to think that because this selected president has chosen a course, then we are all to fall in line. Anyone who doesn't agree with this has "an agenda." It is pretty damned obvious that this administration has an agenda AND IT'S ONE I DON'T LIKE.
My country right or wrong? Automatons can't even SEE when it is wrong.
Hey, if he wins it, then all power to him. As I understand it, Limbaugh has also won numerous awards for his radio show. In his medium, he is successful based on ratings and awards. Moore is obviously having success in his medium. Both are American success stories.
I tend to think both are a bit over the top and skew the facts to fit the ideas they are trying to get across. It is our job as concerned Americans to distinguish the crap from the truth.
CoastalRat wrote:
"Are we safer? "
Probably more so than had we done nothing other than shake our collective fingers and try to shame terrorists and/or Saddam into stopping the killing of these innocents you are now so concerned about.
No. We are not safer. Even the administration's "Homeland Security" high alert status keeps us on our toes. You should know that. We have more people in the mideast who hate us then ever before.
Have you ever seen a child stir up an ant's nest? Well, GWB is that child.
Piffka wrote:CoastalRat wrote:Well, let's see if I can answer some of your concerns Piff.
" Are the people who died the enemy? "
I bet a lot of those who died were the enemy. But of course, it would not advance Moore's agenda to show them, just the civilians. Well guess what? Civilians and innocents die in every war. So are you ready to condemn WWII and Pres. Roosevelt for those deaths of civilians? How about Truman and Korean civilian deaths? Do you accuse Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon for civilians killed in Vietnam? Maybe you do. If so, then at least you are consistent and I would presume you do not believe that any war is just. Or is it just this one?
Let's stay in the here and now. I'm not going to argue about WWII or any other conflict. (Don't get me started on Viet Nam!)
We invaded a country last year... one that was minding its own business. One that had never threatened us. One that had nothing to do with the tragedy of 9/11. The president has changed his reasons for that war to the point that no one can even say why we did it... not even you.
There should be no "I bets" or "of courses" here. You seem to think that because this selected president has chosen a course, then we are all to fall in line. Anyone who doesn't agree with this has "an agenda." It is pretty damned obvious that this administration has an agenda AND IT'S ONE I DON'T LIKE.
My country right or wrong? Automatons can't even SEE when it is wrong.
Sorry if I have hit a nerve here Piffka. I am not in the business of saying "my country, right or wrong". Nor am I saying that anyone who disagrees with this admin has an agenda. Moore though does. It is simply and admittedly to get someone other than Bush elected. And that is fine. He has every right as far as I am concerned to do what he can to further his beliefs and his agenda. But you cannot deny there is an agenda. That is not a bad thing. I think most politicians and those active in political forums have some type of agenda. That is not a bad word.
As far as the past, I brought that up only to show that in war, civilians die. Sadly, that is a fact. In WWII, we sent troops to Italy and civilians were killed. Italy did not attack us. But we sent troops there. Same with Vietnam. I don't remember Korea attacking us, but we sent troops and I bet (although I have not checked) that civilians died there as a result of our troops. The only difference between then and now is that Michael Moore is using those deaths to tug on heartstrings and making the claim that these deaths can be laid at the feet of only GWB. And he has the right to do so. And you have the right to believe that. Just as I have the right to believe that all the killing over there can also be laid at the feet of a sadistic and brutal dictator named Saddam who we have now removed from power.
Limbaugh, in fact, just picked up a runner-up to Rumsfeld award:
Columnists 'Honor' Rumsfeld With Sitting Duck Prize
By Dave Astor
Published: June 14, 2004
NEW ORLEANS Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld won this year's Sitting Duck Award as an easy target for columnists.
He received the "honor" from the National Society of Newspaper Columnists during its June 11-13 conference here. One reason? Rumsfeld's ability to "duck questions with nonsensical answers." For example, Rumsfeld once said: "As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know."
Sitting Duck runner-up was Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio personality who railed against drug use while being an addict himself.
Last year's winner, disgraced domestic doyenne Martha Stewart, received only one vote this time around.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000530912
See, he just keeps winning and winning and winning......
That's what I came up with from any reputable source on a Google search. See if you can come up with any prestigious journalistic award for Rush -- I don't think you'll find he's, for instance, Pulitzer material.
CoastalRat wrote:
"Who has gained wealth? "
Well, this one I have no answer for. Do you? Provide figures as to who has gained wealth. Figures for every company and individual who has profitted. I bet there are many more than you care to admit and most will surprisingly have no ties to the current admin.
Here is a meaningful quote to me:
"The U.S. current-account deficit increased $17.9 billion to $144.9 billion (preliminary) in the first quarter of 2004."
I wonder who these creditors are? Let's see... not me. Not anybody I know. Have you recently loaned this country over $125 billion dollars??
It is the "haves" and the "have-mores" -- whom GW calls "his (political) base."
Coastal rat,
Have you seen the documentary?
To tell the truth I was surprised at the deaths of Iraqi's from our coalition. I thought we just marched in there and they either layed down their arms and surrendered or they scattered to fight us from hide outs.
The point is that war is bloody and there are always deaths of innocents. That is why it should only be waged if it is absolutely necessary and/or a last resort. This one was done by choice and a lot of innocent people got killed and they are still dying today and in the end we are not any safer today than we were before saddam was in custody. Iraqis are not either because they are dying now too.
Those are the realities.
What was really disturbing was hearing the music that the soldiers listened to while they killed. They said that the music gets them all pumped up and they are ready to kill listening to the music. If it can be called music, it was more like violent heavy metal music inciting death and mayhem.
Lightwizard wrote:That's what I came up with from any reputable source on a Google search. See if you can come up with any prestigious journalistic award for Rush -- I don't think you'll find he's, for instance, Pulitzer material.
I did not say journalistic awards there Light. I said awards. I do not nor ever have considered him a journalist. He is not. Does not claim to be as far as I know. He is a radio host and as such has won awards given for that medium. I will check it out and see if I can find examples and gladly post them or will happily amend my statement from "as I understand it" he has won awards to read "he has never won awards". How's that?
And this isn't some X Box game.
You're ignoring several significant distinctions here, CR. Between the world wars, Guido Douhet contended that strategic terror bombing could effectively knock a nation out of a war. Hitler adhered to this policy (he was militarily and idiot), so much so that, although a jet fighter was available late in 1943, he held up production because he wanted a bomber rather than a fighter.
The Germans bombed the bejeezus out of the east end of London, and then nearly obliterated Coventry. In The Second World War, Churchill unashamedly states that he and Sir Aruthur Harris--known as "Bomber" Harris--decided that factory workers who got no sleep were less efficient, and so advocated area bombing of German cities. Curtis Le May intentionally fire-bombed Japanese cities in order to sap the will of the people--and told his young aid, Rober McNamara, that if we had lost the war, they would have been tried as war criminals.
But since Gulf War I, and the current Return of the Son of Gulf War, we have been regaled with accounts of the precision of our munitions, and assured that civilian casualties would be kept to a minimum. Instead, we've killed many thousands of Iraqis as a result of the speciousness of these claims about accuracy. The claim that we have freed them from a brutal dictator has only been advanced since the war was well underway, and the other causii belli about WoMD and terrorist links have evaporated. It is questionable indeed what benefit the Iraqis have derived from the deaths they've suffered ostensibly in the name of removing a murderous dictator. A great many of the people Hussein killed were killed during and after an uprising in 1991 which the elder Bush encouraged, and then did nothing to support. It's the disgusting high moral tone the administration takes, while so many die, to which so many decent people (decent despite not subscribing to your political opinions) object to.
Here ya go:
"Limbaugh wins delay on access to medical records Rush Limbaugh's medical records
will remain off-limits to prosecutors for at least 15 days more "
revel wrote:Coastal rat,
Have you seen the documentary?
To tell the truth I was surprised at the deaths of Iraqi's from our coalition. I thought we just marched in there and they either layed down their arms and surrendered or they scattered to fight us from hide outs.
The point is that war is bloody and there are always deaths of innocents. That is why it should only be waged if it is absolutely necessary and/or a last resort. This one was done by choice and a lot of innocent people got killed and they are still dying today and in the end we are not any safer today than we were before saddam was in custody. Iraqis are not either because they are dying now too.
Those are the realities.
What was really disturbing was hearing the music that the soldiers listened to while they killed. They said that the music gets them all pumped up and they are ready to kill listening to the music. If it can be called music, it was more like violent heavy metal music inciting death and mayhem.
Careful Revel, sounds like you would be all for outlawing heavy metal music since it obviously incites people to kill. Did all our soldiers listen to this music to get "pumped up" to kill? Or just a few that Moore talked to? Maybe some of them listened to rap or whatever but did not make the comment to Moore on tape that the music pumped them up to kill, so of course he did not use that in the film. Could that be the case? I don't know. Only Moore would know that. I just mention it as a possibility.
As to your question, I have not yet seen the movie. Will I? Probably not, which is why I make no comments about the reliability of the content. I don't know so I keep my mouth shut. My comments have been related strictly to stating that Moore has a specifc agenda in this film and he has so stated that fact. Beyond that, I will not get drawn into those here arguing whether facts are right or wrong because I have not seen it for myself.
And I agree war should only be waged when absolutely necessary. Killing people is not something I get all excited about. The question then returns to whether this war was necessary. I think we both know the arguments pro and con enough not to have to go over them here. Each of us have our own opinions that may or may not ever be born out by history.
Thank you, Setanta. Can always expect a relevant historical capsulization from you. If too many Americans are politically dumb, how many who vote are lacking in any historical knowledge? Many of them couldn't pass the federal test to become a citizen I would guess. History is not boring. Bush is boring.
CoastalRat wrote:
"Is this what being American is about?"
Yes it is what we are about. Making the world "safe for democracy" and all that. We can argue all our lives about whether we should be the world's policeman, but like it or not, it seems to be the job we have taken on for the last 75 years or so. It may be a thankless job, but somebody has to do it less we find ourselves faced with another Hitler, Stalin, etc..
Sadly this is what Americans think... that we should be the "world's policeman." But if so, then shouldn't we expect these police to have the decency to act decently? Or are these L.A. cops?
We should see that not only is this self-imposed position a thankless job but it is one that other people in this world don't want us to have. Considering the awful job we've done with our own criminal justice system, I can surely see why.
Being American means, to me, having the freedom to do the right thing, believing that with freedom comes a responsibility to act like adults, not spoiled children out to grasp everything they can.
What good children learn is to see when they are wrong, to say they are sorry and try to make amends. Americans have screwed up. We've followed a flawed doctrine and many people have died as a result. After 9/11 we should have used the rule of law, but we didn't. We followed this president who thinks he is above the law and we Americans have, in our fear of terror, given him free rein.
coastalrat said
Quote:As to your question, I have not yet seen the movie. Will I? Probably not, which is why I make no comments about the reliability of the content. I don't know so I keep my mouth shut. My comments have been related strictly to stating that Moore has a specifc agenda in this film and he has so stated that fact. Beyond that, I will not get drawn into those here arguing whether facts are right or wrong because I have not seen it for myself.
Go see it. Bring along whatever scepticism you feel appropriate given knowledge of Moore's agenda. But there is information here which is simply not available elsewhere unless one has many free hours and a large staff of dedicated coastalrat helpers. It is very surely a polemic, but it is also an exceptional example of film-making.
The Democrats for political reasons gave Bush and Co. too much free rein from the onset of this war.
