• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

revoketheoscar.com

Oh, get a friggin life. Bowling for Columbine deserved that oscar. Bowling for Columbine was a _fun_ movie for the most part. Hell, even the so-called controversial parts weren't so controversial.

People keep talking baout the bank/gun scene. Hey, they say in the movie that they are an FFL and they show him filling out a background check. When he asks "do you think its safe handing out guns in a bank?", its funny, laugh! They just ran a check on his criminal record and handed him an unloaded gun that isnt even semi-automatic.

Above all, I think bowling is about perception. Facts, shmacks. There are plenty of people in this forum that substitute their perception for reality. The parent railing against the tek-9 gun is a good example. The tek-9 can no longer be produced in the US due to the assault weapon ban, the magazine that was in it couldnt either, the boy holding it wasnt old enough to buy it, nad to top it off the tek-9 is a piece of crap. If he had a glock with 2 full cap magazine he would have been much more dangerous. Of course, Joe "Im a Progressive" Doe doesnt know bits of this and other parts he chooses not to see. Bowling doesnt judge these people. It merely shows they're flawed perception.

Sure, the lockheed martin thing was flawed factually, but the perception was one many people share. Of course, Bowling was mostly about perception!

If you havent watched the movie, go watch it. Someone who knows how guns work will have a different take on the movie than someone who fears guns. Its a weird movie that way. Mike Moore knows how guns work and I think thats why he didnt explain some things in the movie. He just lets the camera tell the story in some parts.

When Terry Nichols brother points a gun at himself, you hear him clearly say, "its alright, the safeties are on". Now, I dont recommend pointing a loaded gun at yourself, but the truth is when you are carrying your always pointing a gun at your own leg. The dirty secret is all guns have one safety "keep your finger off the trigger". So, to someone who knows guns the guy pointing at himself wasnt as powerful as the fact that he kept it under his pillow.

Facts, schmacks. Go see the movie. Its a good movie. Have fun.
 
and there is always the distortions about the NRA convention and Charlton Heston's mysteriously changing tie (via editing) for effect !!!


IT'S ALL JUST ABOUT HAVING A GOOD TIME !!!



;)
 
Nie Trink Wasser said:
and there is always the distortions about the NRA convention and Charlton Heston's mysteriously changing tie (via editing) for effect !!!


IT'S ALL JUST ABOUT HAVING A GOOD TIME !!!



;)
Click to expand...

I dont think they were distortions per se. Those distortions were actually just a flawed perception he documents. Im not sure it was his duty as a filmmaker to expose the flaws in their perception.
 
corplinx said:
I dont think they were distortions per se. Those distortions were actually just a flawed perception he documents. Im not sure it was his duty as a filmmaker to expose the flaws in their perception.
Click to expand...
Sorry, these were not flawed perceptions. They were out and out deliberate lies.

I find it quite pathetic how people continue to defend Moore for his lies, saying it doesn’t matter, or he was just exaggerating, or how the ends justify the means, or whatever. If you have to lie to get your point over, you probably don’t have a valid point. Which means you are probably not addressing the real problem.
 
RichardR said:
Sorry, these were not flawed perceptions. I find it quite pathetic how people continue to defend Moore for his lies, saying it doesn’t matter, or he was just exaggerating, or how the ends justify the means, or whatever. If you have to lie to get your point over, you probably don’t have a valid point. Which means you are probably not addressing the real problem.
Click to expand...


Look, I remember your thread on that convention. I watched the movie with that in mind. What I saw was what the dad foaming at the mouth about the tek-9 saw. He saw the conference as "in your face" and thats what I got.
 
It is about perception?

Is that the same reasoning that allows people to still follow Al Sharpton and the like, after that case of the black girl raped by the white guys was found to be a lie? Is that why some people ate the hook when Sharpton claimed "It doesn't matter that this didn't happen! All that matters is that it could happen!"

Hell, I guess we can pass anything off as non-fiction under those rules. As long as it could happen, it is all right to say it did happen.
 
I didn't have too much of a problem with Bowling for Columbine until I saw the Charleton Heston "speech". I did notice, even in the theater (which some websites confirm), that the camera would often cut away for a second, and then cut back to Heston, whose tie had magically changed color during the cut-away - and it happened more than once, if I recall. Barring the notion that Heston gave the exact same speech in several different places, it seems obvious to me that the spiteful speech was actually fictitious - a collection of sound bites made to look like a single speech.

I don't support the NRA, but that single attempt by the movie editors to deliberately deceive me completely blasted any respect I would've had for Moore. I don't care how "funny" the rest of the documentary was, or what point it was trying to make - it was supposed to be nonfiction, and fabrication of evidence is fabrication of evidence; thus, in my eyes, Moore is a creep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom