Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (by Peter Joseph)

AnonoBoy · 27-01-2011 06:51PM #1

Has Peter Joseph learned to research properly for this time? The first Zeitgeist movie was god awful with more factual errors than a Fianna Fail press release.

Is he still narrating it himself in that boring style of his?

Chris P. Bacon · 27-01-2011 06:59PM

You can watch it on vimeo and YouTube ,ill have a look over the weekend.

MagicMarker · 27-01-2011 08:15PM

Anyone watched it yet?

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.

Chris P. Bacon · 27-01-2011 08:28PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Anyone watched it yet?

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.

Its on for 2hrs 41mins :eek:

Galvasean · 27-01-2011 10:50PM

I'm gonna read some reviews first. the first Zeitgeist has so many rookie errors in it that I am very skeptical of the new one being any use.

Faith+1 · 28-01-2011 12:54AM

Didn't like it. Very boring in parts and it ran for way too long. Disapointed as hell as I was looking forward to it.:(

Phony Scott · 28-01-2011 03:07AM

Never heard of it, but I'm presuming with a pretentious title like that it has to be about a conspiracy theory of some sort?

Oh it is...I won't be polluting my brain cells with junk like this, even if it is free. It's crappola like this which killed the liberal in me.

johnny_ultimate · 28-01-2011 04:00AM

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

Precious bandwidth saved

Syferus · 28-01-2011 04:21AM

It actually opens up with a genuinely profound monologue which is dully shattered by terrible CG liquid and the worst and most ham-fisted attempt to equate poverty and opulence I've ever seen. The cinematography makes everything seem dinky, the acting is barely school play level and the message is made obnoxious by its delivery.

Then it strays into Give Up Yer Auld Sins style animation to chart a man's life story from rather obnoxious child into obstinate obsolesce and old age. The animation is actually rather good, but at times totally at odds with the seriousness of what is being portrayed. Then it 'really' begins with some manner of discussion of nature versus nurture. I get the idea.

It's uneven to the point I hardly fathom how it manages to even hang together and so evangelising it makes Michael Moore seem like a David Attenborough-esque documenter of fact. No thanks.

jaykhunter · 30-01-2011 01:14PM

This sounds more like a movie than a documentary.

I thought the first one was interesting and thought-provoking (although quite specious); the second one was much worse and with more wild notions/accusations; reading the above posts I'm quite reticent to spend my precious bandwidth on it.

Cheers Sy. Anyone else lemme know how it stacks up

Carl Sagan · 30-01-2011 04:14PM

I'm a fan of some of the people featured in the film and enjoyed it thusly. A resource based economy is a great idea in theory, but there are likely too many flaws for it to work. The Rep Rap is a pretty cool invention.

Sad Professor · 30-01-2011 07:09PM

Just to clarify, AnonoBoy did not start this thread. The original OP was a spammer and got nuked.

HighandMighty · 25-02-2011 05:04PM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

The first Zeitgeist movie was god awful with more factual errors than a Fianna Fail press release.

humour is an attractive quality in a person, but use with caution, for it may make you sound silly. The first Zeitgeist was god-something alrght though ill give you that.

Galvasean wrote: »

the first Zeitgeist has so many rookie errors in it that I am very skeptical of the new one being any use.

please elaborate to add substance to your statement...

Phony Scott wrote: »

I won't be polluting my brain cells with junk like this, even if it is free. It's crappola like this which killed the liberal in me.

Polluting Brain cells? eesh, sucks to be you. Casting judgement on a film you have not seen says alot about how you view your world.

Obviously everyones entitled to their opinion but it would be nice to see some references made to details in the film/s when a critisim is being made otherwise it just comes across as a misinformed stab in the dark.
These films are productions for open-minded people and i mean open in the somewhat conventional sence (not the lizard-people type open, lets be realistic here).
Many citations are made here to this being a bad film yet no recommendation of a better effort in its genre. bit of a waste of a thread really isnt it.

All in all alot of negitave reviews.. We obviously have some kickass movie producers among us at this fourm! and thats a good thing. For id be dissapointed to just see film bashing by some wana be critics.
Showcase your skills... just so theres no misinformation strictly biased comments welcome.

zeitgeist films raise serious issues with todays world and make an attempt to wake the mass of sheeple in todays society, please dont attempt to subtract from that while adding nothing. thats just hypocritical.

you expressed your views and now ive expressed mine.

latenia · 25-02-2011 05:37PM

I switced off the first one after there were about 10 blatant factual errors (lies if you will) in the first 2 minutes.

jaykhunter · 25-02-2011 06:19PM

welcome to Boards.ie HighandMighty

Your positive review was very vague and general, much like our generally negative reviews. I suppose if you're going to go against the general consensus you could be more specific. I personally downloaded and tried watching the 3rd one, twice, but just didn't care for it at all. I would like to know what points struck you enough to create an account and reply here though

johnny_ultimate · 25-02-2011 07:43PM

HighandMighty wrote: »

zeitgeist films raise serious issues with todays world and make an attempt to wake the mass of sheeple in todays society, please dont attempt to subtract from that while adding nothing. thats just hypocritical.

Dear HighandMighty

Sheeple, ROFL.

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. 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. That is my opinion on the film, backed up by numerous other people's reports on Moving Forward, so I'm happy to avoid it.

Only thing worse than sheeple? People who call people sheeple. 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. I don't need someone saying it in a really dramatic voice while equally dramatic music plays over it. That's manipulation in itself. If you want to persuade people of "the truth" (I should stress that what people in Zeitgeist believe in is far from the truth too) don't do it in such a condescending, arrogant way.

People are free to believe what they want, I'm happy for them. But 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.

No I'm not going to watch Moving Forward, and you can argue that negates my opinion. But I'm also not going to watch Big Momma's House 3, and I am equally confident that that is absolute rubbish. 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. If you want to argue about the theories present in the documentary, there's a conspiracy theory forum on here too. But don't come on insulting people whose opinions I actually trust, and many others do too, just because they have called this - correctly IMO - a piece of crap.

Regards,
Johnny.

HighandMighty · 25-02-2011 08:18PM

jaykhunter wrote: »

welcome to Boards.ie HighandMighty

Thanks jaykhunter.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Sheeple, ROFL.

funny but serious at the same time. Quite a few here in Ireland (aswell as sheep!). For the confused.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple

I have not seen "lose change" myself so i cannot judge. What i can say is i dont watch tv everyday like alot of people, i intake what i want to intake, not what others want me to intake, and i mean that in the broadest of senses. I totally understand your dislike of the methods of the spammer, extremism is prevalent in many walks and they tarnish agreed.

Respect to your opinion though Johnny.;)

HighandMighty · 27-02-2011 07:08PM

Just some links for anyone interested...

The 3 Films can be found here - http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Reviews and info:

Zeitgeist (Video 2007)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1166827/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist_movie

Zeitgeist: Addendum (Video 2008)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1332128/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_Addendum

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (2011)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1781069/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_Moving_Forward

Shulgin · 27-02-2011 07:26PM

This was generally quite a good film, and should be an eye opener for people. 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

That said, I believe the reason that people continue to point out as many factual errors as they can and disregard the bigger picture painted just shows how terrified they really are of this house of cards delusional civilisation collapsing. So terrified in fact, they will rubbish the possibility of it happening entirely.

The Peak oil and the debt/money pyramid scheme issues are very real it seems. It's only when the sh1t really hits the fan will people listen.

maybe they needed better CGI?

Syferus · 28-02-2011 04:33AM

No one questioned it contains real possibilities and actual facts, just that as a piece of film it's not very good and that those same facts are intermixed in with tin-hat level paranoia and mis-truths.

It's like a nice cake smeared on a dirty floor. With better care it could have been worthwhile.

g5fd6ow0hseima · 01-03-2011 03:39PM

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm gonna read some reviews first. the first Zeitgeist has so many rookie errors in it that I am very skeptical of the new one being any use.

I switched that film off after the first section on religion as I immediately lost interest after that. But - was there many errors in that first section?

HighandMighty · 01-03-2011 04:43PM

Alfredo Scrawny Waitress wrote: »

was there many errors in that first section?

Im not sure if your question was directed at the poster of the quote or just anyone.
I posted some links for anyone interested but the post was removed due to some spamming rules for new posters with under so many posts and thats understandable. if you checkout "zeitgeistmovie dot com" under the original 2007 film header there is a source guide available to download for anyone to research. I havent gone through it with a fine tooth comb but its nice to have and it may be of use to you?

ztoical · 01-03-2011 05:21PM

HighandMighty wrote: »

Im not sure if your question was directed at the poster of the quote or just anyone.
I posted some links for anyone interested but the post was removed due to some spamming rules for new posters with under so many posts and thats understandable. if you checkout "zeitgeistmovie dot com" under the original 2007 film header there is a source guide available to download for anyone to research. I havent gone through it with a fine tooth comb but its nice to have and it may be of use to you?

Well if we're going to be doing that then we might as well get the other side of the coin as well so it's all far and balanced - serveral sources that offer a break down of the entire 'film' and it's 'facts' Here's one - quick google will offer plenty more or there's always the option to do proper research [which clearly wasn't done on this 'film']

HighandMighty · 01-03-2011 05:38PM

ztoical wrote: »

Well if we're going to be doing that then....

Interesting. Now thats the type of criticism i like to see.

Phony Scott · 01-03-2011 05:50PM

HighandMighty wrote: »

Casting judgement on a film you have not seen says alot about how you view your world.

Obviously everyones entitled to their opinion but it would be nice to see some references made to details in the film/s when a critisim is being made otherwise it just comes across as a misinformed stab in the dark.

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.

I, like Johnny Ultimate, have been burned a few times in the past with documentaries which say everything is a conspiracy. I recently saw the very enjoyable, but factually shallow ‘Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine’. As the ‘journalistic’ investigation into the conspiracy started, the film quickly ended. As usual, the conspiracy revolved around a huge ‘paper trail’ that the filmmakers can never seem to get their hands on. That makes films like ‘Game Over…’ unfalsifiable.

AnonoBoy · 01-03-2011 09:35PM

HighandMighty wrote: »

humour is an attractive quality in a person, but use with caution, for it may make you sound silly. The first Zeitgeist was god-something alrght though ill give you that.

Okay let's take the religion part which is the one I have the major problems with. Now I'm not saying that Christian mythology didn't draw influence from other sources. However Zeitgeist merely invents facts to back up the claim. Here are just a few of the glaring errors (or made up 'facts'):

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

Considering the Roman calender didn't exist in 3000 BC it's very hard to see how Horus' date of birth could be given as 25th December (a month that wouldn't be invented for over 2,000 years.

There is also absolutely no evidence that Horus was born of a virgin. In fact she was impregnated by her resurrected husband Osiris.

2. Attis was crucified. He was resurrected.

He wasn't crucified, he cut off his own genitals.

He was reborn as a tree, not resurrected.

3. Krishna was born of a virgin.

No. Krishna was born to the princess Devaki and her husband Vasudeva. Hardly a virgin birth I'd say considering she had other children before Krishna.

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

Again no he wasn't. He was Zeus' son and was born from an affair with a mortal woman. No date given for his birth.

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

They only sound the same in English. Greek and Roman words for 'son' and 'sun' do have similarities.

What Zeitgeist's religion section lacks:

Research.
Accuracy.
Reliable Sources.

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.

HighandMighty · 02-03-2011 03:35AM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Okay let's take the religion part

This will shed some light for you.
youtube DOT com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4

It is titled "ZEITGEIST, Part 1 (Religion) Debunked? Acharya Responds"..

she makes some good points.

HighandMighty · 02-03-2011 06:22AM

People could nit-pick all day long about the truth behind this and that esp when it comes to obscure history. I think where the zeitgeist films lead people to is far more important than the films themselves and thats to an idea of a better-than-todays world. So as a result of the many people the films have touched, in existance we now have "The Zeitgeist Movement" with chapters spreading across the globe.

From what i see what is now The Zeitgeist Movement is not about denying people their right to believe whatever they want, its about helping move society forward from old spent ideals into the 21st century. We all dont have to look very far to see the negatives in the current way of being.
We have it on our on doorsteps here in Ireland now with this infamous BAILOUT.
People are tired of living in a class-tiered society where the underprivileged are taken advantage of for the sake of a ruling and elite class of privileged people. This has always been recognized even by "Jesus" himself as wrong and many political solutions have been offered, all of which have failed miserably.
The solution the is not political – it is social. It is a complete re-engineering of society and thats basically the underlying idea Peter Joseph is edgeing us towards throughout his productions. If you watched them all you would see this clear as day. And hey, Its the thought that counts!

Its a Paradigm Shift for the good of humanity.

Intelligence wins over Ignorance. For those of you whom havent watched the "free films" yet criticized them here anway, concider giving them a chance. It may make you feel like you want to add something positive to society. If not then come back here and we'l discuss the topics raised without dwelling on them and possibly comming to a general consensus at the same time.

just google "Zeitgeistmovie" much better than fair city anyway.:D

02-03-2011 07:15AM

HighandMighty wrote: »

just google "Zeitgeistmovie" much better than fair city anyway.:D

At least fair City is somewhat believable.

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

AnonoBoy · 02-03-2011 12:33PM

HighandMighty wrote: »

This will shed some light for you.
youtube DOT com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4

It is titled "ZEITGEIST, Part 1 (Religion) Debunked? Acharya Responds"..

she makes some good points.

She claims that vested interests have been going around censoring enclyclepedias and that's why all these books that state the opposite to her claims are wrong. She uses the video as a plug for her books saying read them to find out the truth. Bullsh*t.

If the majority of texts over centuries state a religious myth one way then it's more than likely that that is the accepted mythology for that God. Finding one obscure text somewhere in the annals of history does not prove your version is right when there's hundreds of texts that state the opposite.

She dismisses all the Dec 25th stuff by saying that Jesus wasn't born on 25th December even though some people think he was but doesn't address the fact that Zeitgeist claims other Gods were born on that date even though this is quite obviously completely false and easily proven wrong (see my post above).

If I write a book saying that Jesus' origins actually came from an ancient Celtic God called AnonoBoyus who was deadly in the sack and was born on 25th December of a virgin mother and was crucified and then resurrected the Zeitgeist dude would in about 50 years time probably try to use that as proof that the Jesus myth was in fact inspired by AnonoBoyus.

Nonsense of the highest order.

I'd like to see you try to answer just the few simple points I made in my post above about Zeitgeist. But somehow I'd say you just watched the film and took everything they said as fact without doing any research or reading of your own.

Funny how people who deride others as 'sheeple' just believe wholesale any crackpot theory they're fed as long as it's in the form of a sh*tty Youtube video.

johnny_ultimate · 02-03-2011 01:47PM

I went to see Inside Job last night. Well researched film on the economy, with credible interviewees. Explained the complex issues clearly and concisely.

Oh, wait, this is the Zeitgeist thread isn't it? My mistake.

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (by Peter Joseph)

Comments