bowling for columbine

claudius

think this documentary film should be required viewing (even if it is completely one-sided). charlton heston - out of his cold, dead hands, please. just hits home how frightening it is that the states is the unchallenged supreme nation on this planet.

michael moore is supposedly making a docu about 'pres' bush jr. can't wait.

ozpass

I too think that this is an excellent film. Moore is using broad, generalising sweeps of the brush throughout, but it's the sensitivity with which this is accomplished that makes it such compelling viewing.

Mr. Fancypants

If your thinking of buying it on DVD it might be worthwhile waiting to get the R1 version as it has some extras on it compared to the Film only R2 version.

Taken From Dvdreview.com :

The Oscar winning documentary will come with a fair amount of special features including an introduction by Michael Moore, an audio commentary by the production office receptionist and the interns (perhaps recorded out of some sort of good old fashioned spite), the featurettes "Return to Denver/Littleton" and "Film Festival Scrapbook", interviews with Moore, a music video, a still gallery, a theatrical trailer and DVD-ROM content. The film will be in anamorphic widescreen and Dolby Digital 5.1.


Its out in August some time.

Sarky

Saw the DVD recently. I had to watch it twice. Fantastic.

It would have been funny if it wasn't real.

Sure it was one sided, but even if the opposition to his views are just as well thought out and coherent, they're still just as inexcusable. No matter what he might argue himself, Charlton Heston has become a disgusting heartless B*stard in my eyes.

It was refreshing to see an American saying "Hey, maybe we're not so great."

Go see it. Now.

ObeyGiant

Does anyone feel the same way about this film's DVD release as I do?

Here is a noted anti-corporate, anti-greed, lefty pinko commie, in charge of his own production company, who just made an oscar-winning film.

He (not the studio - he has enough power over his own production to have final say in this kind of thing) released a film-only disc (lowest price I've seen - EUR25, highest - EUR35), with another 'special edition' on the way.. I dunno, does this leave a sour taste in anyone elses' mouth?

Don't get me wrong, I've no problem with this practice in general - the film studios are in it to make money after all, and I went and bought both versions of the LoTR DVD. But coming from someone who has gone on record criticising such greedy practices.. doesn't this strike anyone else as a teeny bit hypocritical?

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Does anyone feel the same way about this film's DVD release as I do?

Here is a noted anti-corporate, anti-greed, lefty pinko commie, in charge of his own production company, who just made an oscar-winning film.

He (not the studio - he has enough power over his own production to have final say in this kind of thing) released a film-only disc (lowest price I've seen - EUR25, highest - EUR35), with another 'special edition' on the way.. I dunno, does this leave a sour taste in anyone elses' mouth?

Don't get me wrong, I've no problem with this practice in general - the film studios are in it to make money after all, and I went and bought both versions of the LoTR DVD. But coming from someone who has gone on record criticising such greedy practices.. doesn't this strike anyone else as a teeny bit hypocritical?

who cares.

people have to live you know.

stupid white men is also excellent.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
who cares.

people have to live you know.

Uh.. I care.

If people are going to rally around a man who makes a living off feeding bite-sized nuggets of morality to people, I'd like to know that he practices what he preaches.

Otherwise, what's the point?

Also - I don't think he has to worry about his financial bottom line for quite a while now.

yossarin

he has enough power over his own production to have final say in this kind of thing

thats the whole point i think. The publishers of "stupid white men" tried to supress it in the wake of september 11th, even going so far as to pulping existing sock rather than trying to sell it.
They felt that they would look bad for publishing somthing so unpatriotic as SWM.

Moore presumably needs money as much as the rest of us, like ww) so succinctly asserts

also, not to be heavy handed ObeyGiant, but you've even said that the DVD was cheaper than most.

Sauron

great film really opens ur eyes... like the fact that canada has much more guns and yet America has so many more gun deaths... and the Idea of what they watch etc.
I strongly recomend it:) :ninja:

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by yossarin
Moore presumably needs money as much as the rest of us, like ww) so succinctly asserts

As he so wrongly asserts. Moore is in no need of cash right now - he's even gone so far as to take the huge amount of income generated by Bowling For Columbine, and fed it back into funding 40 independent filmmakers. Admirable and all - but at what cost?

Originally posted by yossarin
also, not to be heavy handed ObeyGiant, but you've even said that the DVD was cheaper than most.

No, I didn't.
For a film-only disc, even EUR25 is a lot of money.

ozpass

According to his statement in this month's Empire magazine, the reason he released the DVD without extras is because he hasn't had sufficient time to devote to preparing said special features.

Personally I'd prefer this state of affairs where I can choose to purchase the feature rich version as and when it's ready, rather than the majority of DVD releases with horsesh*t tacked on under the 'DVD extras' moniker.

DVD extras are a bonus. They are secondary to the film itself and with film-making of this quality their absence is acceptable.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by ozpass
According to his statement in this month's Empire magazine, the reason he released the DVD without extras is because he hasn't had sufficient time to devote to preparing said special features.

I had completely missed that little bit in my browsing through the magazine. I've read it now - and finally someone has given me a decent answer to one of my questions, but...

Originally posted by ozpass
Personally I'd prefer this state of affairs where I can choose to purchase the feature rich version as and when it's ready, rather than the majority of DVD releases with horsesh*t tacked on under the 'DVD extras' moniker.

Like I said - I'm not condemning this practice. I'll even go so far as to say that in some cases, it really works (again - LoTR is the perfect example of this). But this does not change the fact that this bare-bones disc costs more than most (horseshit) feature-laden Hollywood Blockbusters.

From someone who has written books condemning people's greed, I just found it a little hard to swallow.

The film is still good buh'.

Krusty_Clown

I paid the same price to rent it, as I would any other movie..

Damn fine movie.. Very Stupid White Men'ish though (to be expected, I suppose)..

Wonder what the murder rates are for each country on a per-person of population basis... It's a little unfair to compare the USA with countries where the population is a good bit smaller... Moore portrayed the USA as the worst, but wouldn't the likes of El Salvador/Columbia be way up in the list, on a per-capita basis?

PiE

I enjoyed watching it but all it did was reinforce the perception that everyone in the US is mad. It didn't really offer any answers to the questions raised... except banning guns. But that doesn't explain WHY they NEED to ban the guns.

/shrug

irishgeo

I watched it after it magically "downloaded" itself to my hard drive. I thought it very interesting and the security footage of the columbine was horrific.

its was a great film/doc and i think the reason the US as such high gun deaths is the yanks are way too paranoid.Did you see the gun at the end. I mean the guy was so paranoid he thought there might be a gun in the camera!

Who sang the version of "Its a wonderful World at the end of the movie"?

²°°³webkev²°°³

I think it was sung by joey ramone..

Great Film.. plus I had the honor of meeting the man when he came to Dublin in November..

The place was booked out..but I knew somebody who knew the sound people in Liberty Hall and they snuck me in..

The film has made him a lot of enemies (there are over 4 million NRA members in the USA).. but something definitely had to be said

Caesar_Bojangle

I watched it after it magically "downloaded" itself to my hard drive

Classic:D, must use that in the future for all the porn on my hard drive

Spiffing

Alright movie, nothing spectacular.

ella minnow pea

classic flick..only saw it on saturday hence the sig
the bit with heston - "from my cold dead hands" is probably the scariest fuddermuckin thing i've ever seen
the colombine security camera footage was probably the saddest i've ever seen
also funny...the corporate cops bit...
Stupid White Men is a good read yeah
anyone seen/read his other work? any good or too 'merkinized?

m1ke

Excellent film aye, saw it in the cinema but i'll get it on dvd from play soon. Probably R1 if I can.

ObeyGiant there's nothing wrong with Moore making a profit from his Oscar winning work. That's how the system works, you sell goods and services and make money. He isn't taking advantage of anyone by doing this. People either buy it or they don't. His "bite-sized nuggets of morality" although sometimes a bit crude are overall directed at people who are taking advantage of others.

festivala

From someone who has written books condemning people's greed, I just found it a little hard to swallow.

Uh, don't buy it then.

Democracy in action!

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by festivala
Uh, don't buy it then.

Uh, I won't.

Seriously guys, I'm not trying to tell anyone not to buy the DVD, or anything like that. I'm just asking if anyone else felt there was a lot of hypocrisy in the things he says, and the things he does. I know if one of his books (can't remember which one), he gives out about the Hollywood system, asking how they can justify large ticket and unit prices on their "products", and saying that "piracy" is not a valid excuse.

Like I said - just asking if anyone else felt the same way. I'm not trying to bring down capitalism or whatever.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
As he so wrongly asserts.

in your admirable opinion.



with you question on hypocrasy, why dont you tell me one person who is isnt at some stage in their life.

tell you what, when you become a multi millionaire, let em know, because im sure you will have no problem giving me all your money so you can liveby your own ethics.

by the way, 'From someone who has written books condemning people's greed, I just found it a little hard to swallow' im not sure ive managed to get to that part yet.

perhaops you can point it out to me?

i thought bowling for colombine was a film about the stupidity of guns and fear in the US, not about people with large amounts of cash?
if michael moore went out and bought a gun and then started to shout about 'our rights to bare arms' then yes, i would agree with you about it being hypocritical, however, it wouldnt really bother me at the same time because i thought the film was interesting.

it was a film/documentry.

it was interesting.

if you want to start up a debate on the hypocrasy of humanity, go and buy yourself an ethics board.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by ObeyGiant


If people are going to rally around a man who makes a living off feeding bite-sized nuggets of morality to people, I'd like to know that he practices what he preaches.

yeah, he doesnt own a gun.

hows that for practise......

Typedef

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Uh.. I care.

If people are going to rally around a man who makes a living off feeding bite-sized nuggets of morality to people

So what maybe if this particular prophet allowed himself to be martyrised ... say by selling his DVD for €5.00 or perhaps crucifixion... his message would be good?

Jesus saves people.

no really

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
with you question on hypocrasy, why dont you tell me one person who is isnt at some stage in their life.

Uh, this is going quite off-topic.. but since we're heading that way anyway...

As regards hypocrisy.. I don't know anyone else making a living off seeing things in terms of "right" and "wrong", "good" and "bad". Moore is. I just think the idea of him giving out about greed, and then having his DVD priced the way it is... well, it would be a little like Noam Chomsky dropping a bomb on a bunch of little brown people.

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
tell you what, when you become a multi millionaire, let em know

I sure will - any day now

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
perhaops you can point it out to me?

No problem.

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
i thought bowling for colombine was a film about the stupidity of guns and fear in the US, not about people with large amounts of cash?

It sure was.
And like I said - "The film was good buh'".
My point is not about the film itself, just the price of the DVD. The fact that, for a bare-bones disc, with nothing on it (okay, there's a trailer - whoopdidoo), it costs more than most big-budget Hollywood blockbuster discs. This is what I've been saying all along about "hypocrisy". I'm pretty sure most people have had no problems following my argument on this (as far as I can tell, you are the only person who has so drastically misunderstood me).

I know I'm a pretty frustrating person, but at least have the decency to read what I'm saying before you reply.

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
if you want to start up a debate on the hypocrasy of humanity, go and buy yourself an ethics board.

But what if I want to debate the hyprocisy of a filmmaker with regards his film? Do I still have to buy an ethics board? Or can I still discuss this in the film board.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Typedef
So what maybe if this particular prophet allowed himself to be martyrised ... say by selling his DVD for €5.00 or perhaps crucifixion... his message would be good?

Noone is disputing the quality of the message.

But by selling the DVD for less money, at least his message would be consistent.

Yeah, this is heading into the realm of the humanities board now.

Clintons Cat

I think the Ecconomies of scale apply here, A Blockbuster however ****e can more or less predict how its going to fair on the DVD retail market.

Therefore the buget for DVD extras can be worked out in advance,safe in the knowledge that the expense will be recouped in the increased sales.

For a film like Colombine which had a fairly limited R2 release, popularity would be harder to anticipate until it was almost ready for shipping,by which time it would be too late to add extra chapters.Could an independant company absorb the risk?

Poorly executed Extras are a waste of money and time,Most of the Lost In La Mancha extras (also from an independant company) had a cobbled on feeling to them though and added little to the DVD.The other thing to bear in mind is a lot of the "making of " doccumentaries are made in advance of the films release (natch) and have already been shown/broadcast as part of the Pre Publicity package that accompanies a major film release.

Essentially Michael Moores film already comes with a Directors Commentary,it is hard to see how he could improve on the one he had already given.

m1ke

Moore through his work gives us his interpretation of things like
corporate greed, manipulation of our system of capitalism and the media and politics through subvertive ways, back door, loop holes for the rich to maintain their power, exclusive entry type things. He is pointing out the abuses in our system.

Him making a dvd and selling it for lots of money is not an abuse of the system - it is an honest way of making a buck ! There are dishonest ways of manipulating society to make money.... I think that is what he's trying to get at. You're off on a mad tangent thinking he should be lowering the price of his dvds to prove a point.

I'd also be the first one to point out that in many instances he's totally wrong and off the mark. He only shows us one side of the picture, one side of the argument, or he over simplifies it and sometimes can just come accross as a guilt ridden liberal making films for like minded people to wallow in. However, a lot of his work is excellent, oscar winning stuff, with a good and clear message. I mean he's just like any of us really.... he gets it right and wrong..... but he's NOT being hypocritical for making a profit off his dvd.

oeNeo

I thought it was a really amazing documentry but has anyone read this?

²°°³webkev²°°³

Warning...this may take a while.

while Hardy (henceforth known as 'the author') makes a few valid
points, i have to say that this writing is about as sensational and
improperly researched as he claims the movie is.

second warning, this may take a while. this was written a couple of
days ago, so please forgive any grammatical errors.

well, im sure we are all upset over finding out that we've all been
horribly lied to by Mr. Moore's latest picture. the author of the
article referenced makes some pretty startling comments, but for some
reason he chose to use the magic number 10 to organize his writing.
Good idea. sounds official. Wonder where he came up with that?

unfortunately, its a bit padded. here's my play-by-play.


1. Lockheed and Missiles
the author might be on to something, because, as he claims "Soon after
Bowling was released someone checked out the claim, and found that the
Lockheed-Martin plant does not build weapons-type missiles; it makes
rockets for launching satellites. "

although, according to the lockheed website, this is one of the
references for the facility:

Lockheed Martin
Space & Strategic Missiles
12999 Deer Creek Canyon Road
Littleton, CO 80127-5146
303-977-3000

they don't make ballistic missiles (anymore), but they do assemble
rockets (that used to carry nuclear warheads, but now do good things
like, carry communications equipment and , uh, spy satellites...)

can anyone prove that the plant doesnt make compnents of these
weapons.. I mean check out their product list

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/about/lob_list_1.html

and the Colorado area has more than enough weapons manufacturers and
military installations to back his point anyway..

The author's take is the movie implies that the littleton plant is a
weapons facility. i'll give it to him, this does seem an exaggeration.

2. NRA and the Reaction

Key to this argument is that the mayor of Denver called for the NRA to
cancel its yearly meeting. The movie suggests that the NRA held its
meeting in spite of Columbine. the author denies that, and
additionally states that the keynote speech footage was a fabrication,
using two separate speeches spliced together. doubt is also shed about
the "NRA rally in Flint, Michigan, just 48 hours after a 6 year old
shot and killed a classmate in that same town. "

First, the denver speech. I personally can't remember exact details,
but the author helpfully points out "Moore then has an interlude -- a
visual of a billboard and his narration. The interlude is vital.
He can't cut directly to Heston's real Denver speech. If he did that,
you might ask why Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and
lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie. Or why the background
draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two
segments of this supposed speech to keep the viewer from noticing. "
He also points out that the speech was edited considerably, for the
effect of painting the NRA as callous in light of the events. i'd
accept that as fact except for one thing:

The author continues to state that the NRA could not legally cancel
the meeting, although his reference webpage suggests "according to
news items at the time, Denver city officials encouraged the
cancellation, and were not intending to enforce any penalties arising
from the cancellation at the city-run Colorado Convention Center. "
It's extremely vague on whether or not the convention could have been
completely canceled, or even rescheduled/moved (author says
impossible). The webpage, by the way, was a news story centering on
convention cancellation insurance.

The second rally: the author disputes the rally existed, or at least,
as quickly as the movie suggested (more than a few people believe it
was that quickly). I'll have to concede this one, it was a sneaky
trick. Oddly enough, this one will show up again.

3: cartoon sequence

the author jumps all over this one suggesting it was a attempt to
relate the NRA with the KKK. I had the opinion that it was a
commentary on white america's irrational fear of African-Americans. He
spends the entire point arguing about the KKK/NRA relation.

Also the movie states that the NRA was born in 1871 the same year as
the KKK became an illegal organaisation.. this is complete fact ..
even by the authors own sources..

http://www.koeroesi.asn-graz.ac.at/f_gump/kkk.htm

But the author implies that the animated sequence stated that the KKK
and NRA were set up at the same time.. which is a lie. Its
knitpicking..but wrong knitpicking..which makes it kind of silly

4: the aforementioned grade school shooting:

The author states that the little boy/shooter was a brat-and-a-half.
the segment was about how the boy's mother had to work 2 hours away (a
state-sponsored work/antiwelfare program) and couldn't raise him
properly, so she left him in care of her brother, a drug dealer.

wasn't that the movies point? does that mean if his mother could have
been better off financially, that the kid still would have shot the
little girl?


5: money for the taliban.

the author refutes the claim that the US gov. gave the taliban $245M
in aid. the corrected story suggests that the US gave $43 million in
food-related aid to Afghanistan, that said aid was tied to a anti-drug
program the Afghan gov. sponsored, and that the taliban is believed to
have stolen some of this aid. None of the numbers appear to agree. i
guess the real question is what about the other $202M? does it not
exist? no-one seems to know. Note: none of the other stories say
anything about the $245M number, they all reference the $43 million.
what gives?

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/afghanistan.php

6: murder rates, international style:

the authors main point is that the firearm murder rate numbers are
"invented for the movie." No real dates are given, but the author
suggests that the Canadian number is accurate for 1999...so here are
my calculations:
country (stated murders) : actual murders 1999/ population (M) 1999 =
murders per Million people


de (381): 168/ 82M 2d/M

aus (65): 64/ 18M 3.6d/m
123/18m 6.8d/m
this is both the low and high quoted number for australia

jp (39): 39/120M .325 d/m

ca(165): 165/30M 5.5 d/m

usa (11,127): 8000/280M 28.6 d/m

as you can see, two of the numbers are definitely wrong, one is just
questionable. the other 2 are spot on. He explains that the inflated
numbers are including suicides and accidents. I've eliminated all of
those.
Point given: numbers were inaccurate. Point taken away. the US has a
murder rate five times the next closest stated country not 7 times as
suggested by the movie. fortunately, the author does only suggest that
the numbers are merely inaccurate, although he does for a moment bring
up the concept of rates.


7: buying bullets/ b-52 plaque

the author claims that Moore's 'purchase' of ammunition was "faked or
Illegal". He suggests that the law states that he would have needed to
present a picture ID and a gun permit. The story linked only says that
Moore would have needed 'proper identification'. oddly not more
specific than that.

Moore reads a plaque attached to a bomber/memorial at the air force
academy. The author suggests that the engraving was not read
accurately. Key point being that the document "proudly proclaims that
the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972."

the plaque actually states that the crew shot down a enemy plane
during the linebacker II action on that date. I guess its entirely
possible that the bomber didn't drop any bombs, that none of those
bombs could then have killed anyone, and that there was not a
vietnamese pilot in the plane that was shot down.

8: race

the author states that he believed that moore tried to label heston as
a bigot. although "Upon reviewing the movie again, I'd have to say
that Moore does not make that point, although many of his viewers hold
it after watching."

9: fear

the author suggests that the movie condemns fear by using fear. by
showing fear. vicious circle, isnt it?

10: finally....

the author points out that even though his assumptions of the movie
suggests gun control, it isn't about gun control. isn't that cool?

his final thoughts:
"Moore's resolution is questionable. After all, early in the movie he
discards the possibility that playing violent video games and watching
violent flicks can cause violence -- because Canadians like, and
Japanese positively love, those.

If violent movies and violent videogames cannot cause violence -- then
how can newscasts about violence do so? "

i dunno...maybe because the newcasts are usually about actual events
that really happened?

oops, i lied. his semi-final thoughts are "Bowling for Columbine is
dishonest. It is fraudulent. It fixes upon a theme, and advances it,
whenever necessary, by deception "

...very much like this article

In my view, this guy is pushing too hard to preach to the already
preached .. he seems to be trying to come up with a list that looks official than come up with strong credible facts against the basic premise of the film..

No peice of film is ever "the truth" (Just turn on the news)
..it's only someones elses view of the truth..

Ronan|Raven

Having just watched it for the fifth time it is still as good as the first watch. It is a damn fine "documentary" and gets some very good points across, yes it is very one sided in ways but it gets out a lot of what most people know already about the U.S. to the masses. I wont start the whole politics spiel here. I think someones comment of it being both funny and tragic summed it up pretty well, the footage from the cctv was quiet a chilling moment. Well worth buying/renting.

DadaKopf

"Why" "do" "you" "call" "it" "a" ""documentary"?"

Ronan|Raven

"Because" "You" "Have" "Nothing" "Better" "To" "Do" ":rolleyes: "

antwalsh

Michael Moore makes his documentaries for the masses therefore he has to dumb things down in them. Anybody with any clue about the world would have enjoyed this film to a certain extent. They would have applauded it for it's worthy attempt to spread the news to the ignorant but this film is far from being anything new.
Some things he says are downright stupid and put the rest of the film in danger. If you feel that one part of what he says is totally inaccurate you are liable to dismiss the rest of the film. Moore either takes chances or he doesn't know what he's doing.
He compares the US to Europe and why does US have guns and Europe not. This is ridiculous. Their histories are incomparible.
Like I said it's a worthy attempt but all it does in my mind is show up the dearth of similar programmes/documentaries/films that need to be made about the important stories in this world of ours.

ella minnow pea

Originally posted by antwalsh
He compares the US to Europe and why does US have guns and Europe not. This is ridiculous.

would you mind explaining why then

i dunno, my brother felt it was crap but he was just arguing for arguments sake, can people not relax and watch a good bit of cinema without going "NO WAIT!!! America only had 11,874 gun deaths in 1998, not 11875!!!!" every five seconds

gandalf

Seen this at long last (no thanks to my local xtravision which has multiple copies of every ****e blockbuster but only a couple of this). A extremely worthwhile experience and quite a chilling one as well. The CCTV footage of Columbine is quite chilling.

Gandalf.

gandalf

Seen this at long last (no thanks to my local xtravision which has multiple copies of every ****e blockbuster but only a couple of this). A extremely worthwhile experience and quite a chilling one as well. The CCTV footage of Columbine is quite chilling.

Gandalf.

pickarooney

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
yeah, he doesnt own a gun.

hows that for practise......

He is a card-carrying member of the NRA, though.

If you(se) get the chance to see Roger and Me or The Big One, do watch them. There's less hyperbole and little or no way to construe them as an attack on Americana. There's less to point and laugh about, the message is more likely to make you angry or sad, but the truth that the average American is being conned and fooled by successive Governments(TM), exploiting their honesty and loyalty for obscene profits is inescapable.

Q_Ball

I don't know, and its probably me being me, but wouldn't moore have gotten an NRA membership to improve his chances of meeting that heston? I mean, if he really was an NRA member, why would he do what he did to the leader of a movement that he was a life time member of?

Giblet

I read somewhere he got the membership a long time ago.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by ObeyGiant

As regards hypocrisy.. I don't know anyone else making a living off seeing things in terms of "right" and "wrong", "good" and "bad". Moore is. I just think the idea of him giving out about greed, and then having his DVD priced the way it is... well, it would be a little like Noam Chomsky dropping a bomb on a bunch of little brown people.

so because the man has an opinion, and is giving his views on what he sees as right and wrong, to put it into a litle understandable 'good\bad' box for easy use, and then sells the message at an infalted price, makes him a hypocrite.
i mean, that is essentially what you are saying, right?

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
It sure was.
And like I said - "The film was good buh'".
My point is not about the film itself, just the price of the DVD. The fact that, for a bare-bones disc, with nothing on it (okay, there's a trailer - whoopdidoo), it costs more than most big-budget Hollywood blockbuster discs. This is what I've been saying all along about "hypocrisy". I'm pretty sure most people have had no problems following my argument on this (as far as I can tell, you are the only person who has so drastically misunderstood me).

again. the film is about guns and murder and fear.

your point is about greed.

can you please show me where the cross over is. simple repeating yourself by paraphrase does not represent a more valid answer.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
But what if I want to debate the hyprocisy of a filmmaker with regards his film? Do I still have to buy an ethics board? Or can I still discuss this in the film board.

if you havea problem with the ethics of a watchmaker, do we have to creat a a clock board?



now, dont get me wrong. i can see where you are coming from, but the fact of the matter is, you seem to have a problem with moore's pricing of his dvd, and you have brought it up, but i cant really see how this takes away from the man or his work.

Clintons Cat

The reason he got membership to the NRA was so he could legally attend meetings,(otherwise it would be tresspass)
in the same way Mark Thomas buys shares in a company so he can legally attend AGMs

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
so because the man has an opinion, and is giving his views on what he sees as right and wrong, to put it into a litle understandable 'good\bad' box for easy use, and then sells the message at an infalted price, makes him a hypocrite.
i mean, that is essentially what you are saying, right?
...
again. the film is about guns and murder and fear.

This is exactly what I'm saying. The point you seem to be missing is that I am not saying the message he is putting across in Bowling for Columbine is about greed - it is about American society. However, if you read his books, or even watch some of TV Nation (or even read the book about TV Nation), you will see that he has pretty strong feelings when it comes to greed. As I said before, there is a chapter in one of his books condemning movie studios for artificially inflating the prices of their products, with absolutely no way to justify this extra price. Now - I can't see any way to justify the extra price of the bare-bones DVD of Bowling for Columbine DVD (although someone - I think Clinton's Cat - came pretty close to convincing me to just shut up about it). I was also pretty peeved about Moore following the path of 'greedy' Hollywood studios by releasing a bare-bones disc now, followed by a "special edition" disc later, but someone pointed me to the issue of Empire where they explained that there is actually a slightly altruistic reason behind this behaviour in this case.

As I said, you're the only one who hasn't understood this point I am trying to make.

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
if you havea problem with the ethics of a watchmaker, do we have to creat a a clock board?

What?

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
but i cant really see how this takes away from the man or his work.

I'm going to say this again. For the last time.
For me, it calls into play the quality and strength of his convictions, which are key to filmmaker/author whose entire career has been made by questioning the ethics and convictions of other people and companies. (Pay very close attention to the start of that sentence - I said "For me". If you look back through this entire thread, you'll see I've just been asking if anyone else felt this way). This is not entirely dissimilar to the case a couple of weeks ago of Ciaran Cuffe stepping down from position of Environment Minister for the Green Party because it came to light that he owns shares in companies with ethically questionable histories.

Not a great analogy, but certainly better than that "clock" one.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
This is exactly what I'm saying. The point you seem to be missing is that I am not saying the message he is putting across in Bowling for Columbine is about greed - it is about American society. However, if you read his books, or even watch some of TV Nation (or even read the book about TV Nation), you will see that he has pretty strong feelings when it comes to greed. As I said before, there is a chapter in one of his books condemning movie studios for artificially inflating the prices of their products, with absolutely no way to justify this extra price. Now - I can't see any way to justify the extra price of the bare-bones DVD of Bowling for Columbine DVD (although someone - I think Clinton's Cat - came pretty close to convincing me to just shut up about it). I was also pretty peeved about Moore following the path of 'greedy' Hollywood studios by releasing a bare-bones disc now, followed by a "special edition" disc later, but someone pointed me to the issue of Empire where they explained that there is actually a slightly altruistic reason behind this behaviour in this case.

we arent discussing his books.

please look at the title in the thread and stick to the film.

you are talking about the price of the dvd of this film, so please make your comments about it.

and if you cant understand the clock analogy, then i suggest you dont try and make a comparison about ethics and film boards.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
we arent discussing his books.

please look at the title in the thread and stick to the film.

you are talking about the price of the dvd of this film, so please make your comments about it.

I've pretty much lost all sense of polite patience now - this is one of the most retarded responses I've ever read. I'll despair if most people reading this aren't feeling the same way. I'll say it again - noone but you is having a problem understanding what I'm saying. Don't you think this says a lot?

We are not discussing his books (congratulations! something right). We are discussing a filmmaker, his ethics, and how this relates to the price of his DVD. Two parts of this are completely on-topic for the film board. The other is too, but at at stretch. It's certainly more on-topic here than on the humanties board.

If this was only about the actual price of the DVD, I'd gladly take it somewhere else, like the consumer rights board. Likewise, if this was only about Michael Moore's ethics, I'd consider taking it to the Humanities board. But it's not. These are just secondary to my point about the price of this DVD, which firmly belongs on the Film Board.

Or is the Film Board reserved for only discussing the content of the films? There have been a few discussions about this before...
here and here and here. Oops - that last one was also me complaining about inflated prices of DVDs

Officially ruined what was turning into a pretty good debate. Congratulations.

Now it's a great thread.

For me to poop on!

MrPinK

afaik it's the publishers, MGM, that set the price of the DVD. Unless he sets up his own distribution company, he can't set the price per disk. He gets a set amount per unit sold regardless of what price they are sold for.

[edit]
but yes, I agree that it would be hypocritical of him if he were to overcharge for his products after all his speaking out against corporate greed over the years.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by MrPinK
afaik it's the publishers, MGM, that set the price of the DVD. Unless he sets up his own distribution company, he can't set the price per disk. He gets a set amount per unit sold regardless of what price they are sold for.

[edit]
but yes, I agree that it would be hypocritical of him if he were to overcharge for his products after all his speaking out against corporate greed over the years.

MrPinK - thank you for redeeming this thread from a state of oblivion.

I agree - if it was MGM that set the price so high, then a lot of my worries would be laid to rest. However, I've spoken to a number (that number: 2) of filmmakers who have had minor distribution deals with similar big-name studios, and they have told me that they get final say in just about everything regarding the video distribution of their film, from artwork to price. It's worth noting, however, that neither of these are Oscar-winning films

Also - Michael Moore has been a member of the NRA since childhood, not just to gain access to their meetings. But this is okay, because the film isn't anti-gun.

WhiteWashMan

forget it.

you cant seem to put an argument together. you hop from one foot to another.

you go from his talking about his books, to then saying its not about his books. can you make your mind up.

you want to talk about the hypocracy of a dvd price based on something that isnt in that film.
i cant understand why it hasnt been plain to you.

i said if yuo wanted to talk about the ethics of a man who has preached about these things and then you find it unethical, you should go to an ethics board.
you said, but hes a film maker.
and i said, it doesnt matter if he was a watch maker, the fact remains its about the ethics of the man. after all you wouldnt talk about it on a clock board.

i think you are just trying to misunderstand what im saying on purpose because you dont have anything to say.

there is only one thing that im saying here. and that is i dont think he is being hypocritical selling his dvd at what you deem an inflated price. the dvd is about fear and guns in america.

you seem to think its about money.
im just saying that there is no link between the film and your comments.

try not to throw your toys out of the pram will you.

jesus. talk about melodrama.....

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
forget it.

you cant seem to put an argument together. you hop from one foot to another.

you go from his talking about his books, to then saying its not about his books. can you make your mind up.

It's not about his books. It's about the filmmaker as a person. The books were brought up to support my point. The books are not in question. They are just given in evidence.

So far, my argument has been consistent. Your argument has consisted of "Who cares?" "Hey, who isn't a hypocrite at some point or other?", and now we're onto "Books? But this is a FILM. Not a book. You're dumb."

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
you want to talk about the hypocracy of a dvd price based on something that isnt in that film.

Congratulations, Columbo. I've said this from post 1.

Now count the number of people who have had absolutely no problem understanding this fact.

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
i said if yuo wanted to talk about the ethics of a man who has preached about these things and then you find it unethical, you should go to an ethics board.
you said, but hes a film maker.
and i said, it doesnt matter if he was a watch maker, the fact remains its about the ethics of the man. after all you wouldnt talk about it on a clock board.

i think you are just trying to misunderstand what im saying on purpose because you dont have anything to say.

Oh, I understood the analogy alright. I just thought it was a little retarded, or at least irrelevant to the topic at hand. "Likewise, if this was only about Michael Moore's ethics, I'd consider taking it to the Humanities board. But it's not.". Kind of ironic, you saying that stuff about "misunderstanding", when you're not even reading what I'm saying, huh?

The watchmaker thing - If it was as clean-cut as you're making out, certainly it would belong on the Humanities thread, because it would only be relating to the ethics of that watchmaker. However, if the Watchmaker was a noted animal rights protester, and suddenly brought out a watch that was (apparently) made from.. I dunno.. koala fur or something.. I'd say someone questioning that would belong on the thread about that particular watch. This situation is much more like the one we're currently in.

Is this making it any clearer?

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
there is only one thing that im saying here. and that is i dont think he is being hypocritical selling his dvd at what you deem an inflated price. the dvd is about fear and guns in america.

you seem to think its about money.
im just saying that there is no link between the film and your comments.

I am literally stunned at this.
Stunned.
Slowly, then.
"The point you seem to be missing is that I am not saying the message he is putting across in Bowling for Columbine is about greed - it is about American society." (note the bit where I say the film is NOT ABOUT GREED - for the sake of my sanity and patience, please, please note this).

I am, and always have been, saying I thought that the PRICE OF THE DVD (note: not the content of the film, just the PRICE OF THE DVD), if set by the FILMMAKER himself, is contrary to what the FILMMAKER has previously stated (BUT NOT IN BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE - ELSEWHERE), and was wondering if anyone else thought that the PRICE OF THE DVD was a little STRANGE.

Can Draco step in here sometime and let me know if we're not allowed discuss filmmakers beyond whatever film of theirs we're discussing in the thread?

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by ObeyGiant

and was wondering if anyone else thought that the PRICE OF THE DVD was a little STRANGE.

yeah, its very expensive.