Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (by Peter Joseph)

ztoical

HighandMighty wrote: »

People could nit-pick all day long about the truth behind this and that esp when it comes to obscure history.

First off honey posting in a larger font size does not make your comments any more or less valid so lets stop that shall we?

The so called obscure history used in the 'film' is not actually that obscure and there are plenty of people who are well read the topics covered and frankly a first year Theology student could show more understanding of the material then is shown in the opening sections of the 'film'. Other sections of the film cover events that you might consider obscure but I find I have a fair bit of knowledge on [such as the sinking of the Lusitania and Gulf of Tonkin incident both referenced in the film]

But I'm not going to get into nit-picking the content as this is the film forum and it is being judge here on how it holds up as a film. If you wan to start a thread on the whole deeper meaning rubbish behind it humanties or better yet the conspiracy theory forum is that way =>

I have sadly wasted time out of my life watching the utter crap that is Zeitgeist because I feel very strongly you must watch the good, bad and utter crap cus otherwise how can you tell the utter crap from everything else. I go on record saying I knew little about it before watching so please don't accuse me of holding a biased view before watching that coloured my opinion of it being utter crap. Ignoring the dribble that tries to pass for content as a film it is very very poor. Even documantaries must follow the rules of filmmaking and have structure to them. Fair City like it or loath it is at least produced to a decent standard. It tries for a very hamfistted three act structure but there is little attempt to bring these three acts together to create an overall narrative, I've seen youtube videos by 12 year olds with better editing and the pacing is very uneven. I could go into details on it's failings as film product but that would require having to sit through it again to point out extact sections and frankly I'd rather sit through Battlefield Earth again then do that.

HighandMighty

ztoical wrote: »

First off honey..

Damn, i just got pwned diddle i.:pac:

deanjdk

Hi all. :-)
My name is Dean i am a member of the Zeitgeist Movement Ireland. Iv been reading through this thread and i see a number of things id like to try clarify.The first of which is the validity of a claim made upon presumption /3rd party hearsay ...
For example here are some quotes by people in participation on this thread--->

MagicMarker
I was thinking of giving it a watch but now I know it's by the same guy who did the other one I'm not really so keen to give up 90 minutes of my life.

johnny_ultimate
I know this probably isn't about lizard people, but I'm going to assume it is.

Precious bandwidth saved [IMG]file:///C:/Users/none7/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]


jaykhunter
reading the above posts I'm quite reticent to spend my precious bandwidth on it.

johnny_ultimate

The reason we're dismissing this particular work is that it is a piece of crap. I haven't seen it, but that's because I'm not wasting my time with this rubbish.

All films/documentaries have critics on either side. For example. Lets take the god awful(pun intended)Christian propaganda film “Expelled: no intelligence allowed” which is a film that tries to make the case against evolution. Any rational minded person will be able to watch the film and point out the logical fallacies and bull**** data in the film straight away yet if you or i were to talk to a demographic (for example,the bible belt in the usa etc) you might find a large portion of people who loved the film and agreed with the subject matter

Now lets take Carl Sagans series Cosmos..An excellent set of programs based upon the methodology of scientific inquiry,,,yet ,,you can still find critics on either side.

The point i am making is that biases exist in all areas of life,,if we are to weed out the valid from the fallacious, basing our advocations/opinions purely upon hearsay and opinions of others is rational suicide straight from kickoff.

johnny_ultimate

I can safely assume, having spent some time watching other garbage like Loose Change, that it is a factually suspect, poorly directed piece of crap

Loose change has nothing at all to do either the Zeitgeist Movement /Zeitgeist Moving Forward or a Resourse based economy.You are making a false correlation with this link to Loose Change
Im going to highlight the next it of text just so people don’t miss it since it is a common misconception(sometimes even amoungst members unfortunately!)
None of the first Zeitgeist film has anything to do with the Zeitgeist Movement /Zeitgeist Moving Forward or a Resource based economy....at all.That includes 911.
This is also a very common misunderstanding(again, sometimes even by members unfortunately)

johnny_ultimate

Only thing worse than sheeple? People who call people sheeple.

I agree with you 100% johnny,,im sick of that term. It is often used by Conspiracy theorists against those who disagree with their position. Usually by people claiming “new world order” or some other unsubstantiated nonsense by “truthers” or “anti new world order” fools

johnny_ultimate

I am well aware of the way the world works, and it's not perfect. I also understand how film works, and going by the people making these unwieldy, emotionally manipulative conspiracy theory docs that's something I have over them.

Again..your opinion here is fallacious 3rd party heresay. Please back up this claim that Zeitgeist:Moving Forward is based upon conspiracy theory. You can start to do this by watching the film and then analysing the content with honest scepticism.

johnny_ultimate

I should stress that what people in Zeitgeist believe in is far from the truth too

If you wish to stress this like you say,,please first demonstrate your understanding to what the zeitgeist movement actually advocates and then we can go from there. I ask this of you for the following reasonà
Its all too often that people waste time projecting their demonstrably incorrect misunderstanding about a resource based economy without actually understanding the system being proposed. This leads to strawman argument after strawman argument and just wastes everybodys time in a lengthy back and forth discussion discussing fallacious arguments/false projections and misunderstandings instead of real skeptical discussion of the economic system being discussed.

johnny_ultimate

everytime Zeitgeist comes up it's the same old crap - this thread was started by a (now deleted) poster who was simply spamming links to the rubbish. Rubbing it in people's face while insulting those who disagree with it is one form of arguing, but it isn't a very good one.

I agree, spamming should not be tolerated and you guys did right to delete the OP.Im not sure if the OP was a member of the movement of not,,unfortunetly there are people trying to discuss this material who have no idea what they are actually advocating. It is usually people who have watched the films and think they understand a resource based economy. I hope in time ,as understanding grows,that people will stop behaving like this.

johnny_ultimate

No I'm not going to watch Moving Forward, and you can argue that negates my opinion.

It doesn’t just negate your opinion ,,,it also throws your rational credibility into question for making such a baseless statement

johnny_ultimate

But I'm also not going to watch Big Momma's House 3, and I am equally confident that that is absolute rubbish.

This is a false analogy.Surely you must see how ridiculous this argument is..it is similar to the “Hitler had a head,,,you have a head,,i don’t like Hitler,,therefore i don’t like you “ argument.

johnny_ultimate

Believe what you want, but don't come here criticising people's abilities to criticise just because they have rightly called out the failures and faults of what many believe to be a poorly made film.

How can you claim they have “rightly” called out the failures and faults of a film(zeitgeist moving forward) if you have not actually seen the film?

johnny_ultimate

If you want to argue about the theories present in the documentary, there's a conspiracy theory forum on here too.

Again,,please demonstrate ,specifically, the conspiracy theory present within Zeitgeist moving forward

johnny_ultimate

just because they have called this - correctly IMO - a piece of crap.

Seriously Johnny,lets be honest here, you cannot claim intellectual honestly and hold an opinion about the information in the film to which you have demonstrated (so far) you know absolutely nothing about

Shulgin
The section about machines being in complete control of us is a bit hard to digest though. Sounded like a bit of a nightmare future [IMG]file:///C:/Users/none7/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif[/IMG]

Hi shulgin.
I would recommend a look at the watchlist in the link below to clear up any concerns you may have.Nobody is saying “machines” will control us but i do understand why one might jump to that assumption. Im particular have a look at the “orientation guide” “where are we going” “where are we now” “social pathology” lectures. These talks go into far more detail about the workings of a resource based economy and will clear up your concerns far better than me typing page after page of text on here! J


http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.ie/component/kunena/7-the-zeitgeist-movement/5548-understanding-the-zeitgeist-movement

Syferus
and that those same facts are intermixed in with tin-hat level paranoia and mis-truths.

Hi Syferus

You make the claim of tin hat paranoia and mistruths..In order for this claim to be taken as valid please demonstrate firstly your understanding of what is being proposed and then please point out the “tin-hat level paranoia and mis-truths” you claim.

Phony Scott
My issue with documentaries such as this is that they need to be accredited. This, as far as I can tell, hasn’t by anyone serious in the know and until I see that happening I’ll be avoiding this documentary like the proverbial plague. If this was, say, a John Pilger or a Michael Moore documentary, I would watch it, even if I disagree with some of their views. At least Pilger and Moore has been accredited in some way for years.

Hi PhonyScott
I see you also have a strong public opinion about a film you have not actually watched.
You claim this documentary needs to be accredited. Here are the list of interviewees in Zeitgeist Moving Forwardà
- --Dr. Robert Sapolsky(professor of Biological Sciences, and Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences and, by courtesy, Neurosurgery, at Stanford University,
- --Dr. Gábor Máté,( physician who specializes in the study and treatment of addiction)
- --Richard Wilkinson(Professor Emeritus of social epidemiology at the University of Nottingham, having retired in 2008. He is also Honorary Professor at University College London.)
- --Dr. James Gilligan(psychiatrist/director of mental health for the Massachusetts prison system and President of the International Association for Forensic Psychotherapy),
- --- Dr. John McMurtry(moral philosopher and ethicist who works at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada),
- -- Michael Ruppert(investigator and Journalist).Even though i don’t disagree with his points in the film i would have left him out to be honest but that’s just my opinion
- --Max Keiser(former broker and options trader/financial analyst)
- -- Dr. Behrokh Khoshnevis(professor of Industrial & Systems Engineering and is the Director of Manufacturing Engineering Graduate Program at the University of Southern California)
- --Dr. Adrian Bowyer(British engineer and mathematician, currently an academic at the University of Bath.)
- --Dr. Colin J. Campbell (PhD Oxford, petroleum geologist)
- --Jeremy J. Gilbert.( Petroleum Engineer)


I think it is important at this stage to also point out that accreditation is not the be all and end all. It is the validity of the information that should determine the acceptance or rejection of the points made in the film.
To demonstrate my point here..lets take a film i mentioned earlier on in this post “Expelled: no intelligence allowed” . There are actually people with phds who agree with the content of this film! For example Dr. Georgia Purdom (Ph.D. in molecular genetics Ohio State University) Does the fact that she agrees with the content of the film make it accurate or inaccurate? Not at all..
The same applies to Carl Sagans excellent series “Cosmos”..is it factually accurate because Carl Sagan was a astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist? ...again no..is was accurate based upon the available information at the time.
Like wise with Zeitgeist Moving forward. The people themselves do not automatically imply accuracy of information. It is the information that needs to be considered above all else rather than blind dismissal and false projections

AnonoBoy
If a documentary that's supposed to be exposing 'lies' and getting 'sheeple' to wake up is itself lying and stating things as 'fact' which have nothing to back them up and are easily proven wrong then it makes one wonder how reliable it is as a documentary.
Also, just from a technical point of view, it's put together really really poorly.

Hi Anonoboy,,which of the zeitgeist films are you referring to? Peter Joseph has admitted to a complete turnaround in thinking after making the first film. Before the second film(Zeitgeist Addendum) there was no zeitgeist movement either nor was there plans to be. At that time Peter Josephs worldview was ass backwards as he admits himself. In other words he created Zeitgeist 1 before he ever even heard of a Resource Based Economy/The Venus Project.

Deleted User
Zeitgeist is the ramblings of a possibly mentally unstable mind, it's full of fabrications, half-truths and blatant lies. To classify it as a documentary is plain wrong, much like the work of Michael Moore

Hi Darko
You have made some claims here that i would like you to verify.As this thread is about Zeitgeist moving forward can you specifically point out the “ramblings of a possibly mentally unstable mind” “fabrications, half-truths and blatant lies” in detail as so we can discuss these claims as rational adults

Deleted User
it's fiction which manipulate some truths in order to serve the directors agenda.

You have made a claim here that the film is being dishonest to serve some kind of conspiratorial agenda on behalf of the director. Please bring forward you best evidence to confirm this.


If anybody would like to know more information they are free to visit the forums on the Zeitgeist Ireland chapter website.Honest skepticism is welcomed and encouraged.
That does not include opinions like "I have not watched the material but my opinion is...."
Here are some helpful links for those who may be genuinely interested/skeptical - the peter joseph radio addresses(literally dozens of hours of Peter answering questions about the details of a resource based economy)
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/peter-joseph

and here is the link to the recommended watchlist again

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.ie/component/kunena/7-the-zeitgeist-movement/5548-understanding-the-zeitgeist-movement

ztoical

deanjdk wrote: »

This is a false analogy.Surely you must see how ridiculous this argument is..it is similar to the “Hitler had a head,,,you have a head,,i don’t like Hitler,,therefore i don’t like you “ argument.]

Ignoring your attempt to Godwin the thread and very poor straw man argument, it is not a false analogy as again your looking at it from the side of the message the film is trying to put forward while most here are viewing it as a film production and it's success and/or failings as such. Given the high number of films that come out each year it's hard for those of us that are interested in film to see all of them so we must make choices based on the information out there on what to spend our time and money on. Looking at the credits for Big Momma's House 3 I see several film makers whose work I have not been impressed with and based on past experience I'm not going to waste my time and money going to see their newest film. Looking at the credits for the first Zeitgeist I didn't know anything about the filmmaker so gave them the benifit of the doubt and watched it, it was utter rubbish and as such I will not watch any future productions. Claiming the first Zeitgeist film has nothing to do with the Zeitgeist Movement /Zeitgeist Moving Forward is all well and good but it's guilt by association I'm afraid. Why should I sit through another film from the same director/producer/editor of a film I thought was rubbish?

Over all your missing the point that most people on this forum will not sit through any of the Zeitgeist films because they are badly made films with a seriously worrying obession with After Effects. People are bringing up films like Loose Change not because they feel they are connected in the sense of the message being put forward but because both films fall into the same genre of film making [Internet documentary films] and it's only fair to compare like with like when discusing the production values. I wouldn't compare it with the likes of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as while I also think that film was rubbish and badly made it had a budget $3.5 million [what they spent all of it on is a mystery] and still managed to be utter rubbish while the likes of Zeitgeist and Loose Change by their very nature are not big budget productions.

However I don't like people using the excuse of 'O it's offered for free you shouldn't judge the production values blah etc etc' as all you have to do is spend some time on the likes of youtube to find some really wonderful short films that are produced to a very high standard. I really couldn't care less if the subject matter of the film is controversial as long as it's presented well. And it's not a case of me having issue with the content and opting to attack the film making as a result. I've seen plenty of bad films on subjects I do agree with and am just as quick to call them on bad film making. Earthlings is a good example as I've been a veggie for over 15 years and have protested for animal rights but think it's a good awful film and could only sit through half of it before stopping for fear of tearing my own hair out.

With Zietgeist the first 4 and a half minutes involves alot of bad after effects flames, random photos and truely awful music and this continues on with a badly spliced voice over with more badly done After Effects - it is seriously 10+ minutes before the film actually starts and had I been in a theatre I may well have walked by then. The amount of effects used in the first 10 mins is a sign of very weak film making as it reads more like a first year film major whose just discoved After Effects and has gone mad pressing all the buttons - it's like when someone first gets photoshop and they start putting lense flares on every single thing they create. It's very clear the director also did the music given it's over use and his inability to edit it. A good documentary is about presenting information. Doesn't mean it has to be straight here are facts and figures blah boring....it can be presented in a varity of interesting ways - the recent Bill Hicks doc is a good example as it didn't go down the standard he was born, he lived he died road. By having such poor presentation of information in Zietgeist film it just leaves people questioning said information. Either the creator felt the subject matter was so powerful it would over come truely awful film making, that the directors ego got in the way and couldn't see the clear flaws or the information presented is so poorly researched that the poor film work is an attempt to hide that.

AnonoBoy

deanjdk wrote: »

Hi Anonoboy,,which of the zeitgeist films are you referring to? Peter Joseph has admitted to a complete turnaround in thinking after making the first film. Before the second film(Zeitgeist Addendum) there was no zeitgeist movement either nor was there plans to be. At that time Peter Josephs worldview was ass backwards as he admits himself. In other words he created Zeitgeist 1 before he ever even heard of a Resource Based Economy/The Venus Project.

I'm referring to the first film. If you read my posts in this thread you'd see that as I make specific reference to the glaring errors in the religion section.

Peter Josephs may well have admitted since that he had everything backwards but he was simply making sh*t up in that first film and the manner in which he put the film together was so poor and uninvolving that I do not wish to sit through the 2nd film.

He deliberately misleads his audience in several places. The screenshot of the BBC news website he uses when talking about people being implanted with chips at birth is in fact a story about chipped bracelets that are put on babies wrists to pervent them from being taken from a hospital. Now he doesn't say in voiceover that the BBC story is about implants but he does show it while talking about them thus leading the viewer to believe that the website was running the story about that subject. That's being deliberately misleading and is very underhanded.

Because of his dishonesty in making the film I do not trust him as a filmmaker. He is lying to his audience and therefore everything he says I now question. A terrible terrible position for a supposed filmmaker to be in.

Also he's technically a terrible filmmaker. He seriously needs to take some classes in filmmaking or actually watch and pay attention to some good documentaries to learn how it should be done.

AnonoBoy

HighandMighty wrote: »

Damn, i just got pwned diddle i.:pac:

Typical of these sorts of threads. A poster has very clear points put to them and come back, make a quip about something else and ignore the arguments put forward.

Somehow I suspect you will just come back with a link to some other video instead of actually taking the time to respond to my points.

mewso

deanjdk wrote: »

Hi all. :-)...various cherry picked responses to other posts

Now how about you address the posts that demonstrate the blatant untruths in the film.

AnonoBoy

mewso wrote: »

Now how about you address the posts that demonstrate the blatant untruths in the film.

Somehow I imagine these points will not be addressed. He will merely say that the new film is much different etc. etc.

Sad Professor

I'm seriously considering moving this thread to Conspiracy Theories. I think the film's advocates would be much more at home there as well.

mewso

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Somehow I imagine these points will not be addressed. He will merely say that the new film is much different etc. etc.

Oh well we better watch it and compile a new list.

mewso

Sad Professor wrote: »

I'm seriously considering moving this thread to Conspiracy Theories. I think the film's advocates would be much more at home there as well.

Skeptics Corner surely

AnonoBoy

mewso wrote: »

Oh well we better watch it and compile a new list.

Not a hope I'm wasting my time watching another one of this guy's movies.

I'm still angry I wasted my time watching the first one.

johnny_ultimate

I can only restress that the pro-Zeitgeist crew here doesn't seem to recognise this is a film discussion forum. We're discussing a film, not a 'resource based economy'. Other places for that.

Another analogy: I have two and a half hours free. I go to the cinema. There are two films on. The first is an acclaimed film, which I have heard nothing but positive feedback on from friends, critics and people on boards.ie whose opinions I respect. The second is a film which has been ripped apart by critics, friends and people on boards.ie whose opinions I respect. The only thing going for it is that people wearing t-shirts promoting the film in the foyer are saying it's really good, I swear, and that it isn't as awful as the awful filmmaker's earlier work. They readily admit they are affiliated with the film.

I go for the first film, because quite frankly life is too short to be watching rubbish that I have been assured by numerous trustworthy sources is in fact rubbish. I love documentaries - stuff like the Cove and Inside Job are affecting calls to arms, well researched and powerful viewing. They also tend to be well made, and address the audience with confidence and honesty.

I watched the first five minutes of Zeitgeist Moving Forward (giving it a chance, as is frequently suggested), and thought it was dreadful. Awful special effects, vague, ambiguous nonsense for narration, and overly dramatic music playing in the background. It was a poorly made, poorly paced opening, and so I chose to quit in the haste, backed up the assurances that things don't get any better. It fails as a film in the first few moments.

It also most certainly is a conspiracy theory documentary, as has been pointed out by numerous posters here. Trying to disprove Jesus' existence by blatantly made up facts smells like conspiracy to me, and I'm a full-blown atheist.

Two and a half hours is a long time, and I can very literally think of thousands of better ways to spend it than watching Zeitgeist Moving Forward. It's a load of poorly made crap, and you can rally your troops as much as you want over on other forums, but frankly you are not going to persuade us learned, intelligent film fans that this film is anything but badly made and a load of old silliness.

indough

its scary how close this zeitgeist conspiracy crap is getting to becoming almost a religious thing. i tried watching these before but the quality of the film making is so, so poor and the content is bat**** crazy for the most part. if some of the ideas were used in a narrative and presented as fiction then they could make for a pretty interesting story, so i'm not sure why they try to pass it off as a documentary. it never fails to amaze me that people will go on about not believing mainstream sources but will automatically believe anything and everything in a youtube documentary.

HighandMighty

AnonoBoy wrote: »

1. Zeitgeist claims Horus was born on December 25th, of a virgin.

2. Attis was crucified. He was resurrected.

3. Krishna was born of a virgin.

4. Dionysus was born of a virgin on 25th December.

5. They try to connect 'Son of God' with 'Sun God' because they both sound the same.

I am not knowledged in these fields to give you a definate answer.

hows that?

Robert ninja

HighandMighty wrote: »

I am not knowledged in these fields to give you a definate answer.

hows that?

Pretty bad.

@AnonoBoy

That list you made up is actually correct there - those are flaws in Zeitgeist (I think). But... that doesn't really mean anything to Zeitgeist Moving Forward.

johnny_ultimate

Just a heads up that if you want to discuss the theory behind Zeitgeist the nice people at Zeitgeist Ireland are talking about us over here.

Any posts that do not discuss Zeitgeist as a film or documentary from now on will be deleted

HighandMighty

All in all Zeitgeist - Moving forward = Damn good Film.

Robert ninja wrote: »

Pretty bad.

- you dont know what your talking about.

johnny_ultimate

HighandMighty wrote: »

All in all Zeitgeist - Moving forward = Damn good Film..

Why?

HighandMighty

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Why?

Right now i only like it because it rubs YOU up the wrong way.

johnny_ultimate

Right, HighandMighty is completely ignoring the arguments at this point, so I'm going to lock this disaster of a thread. I may reopen it at some point, but for the moment it's well outside the realm of 'film discussion'. Sorry guys.