When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gregory Dittman
15 years ago
It probably wouldn’t be shown in Pakistan or any Muslim country or even India. It’s not because of the subject matter, but the content. It’s rated R and runs 83 minutes. Their rules prevent offending anybody because nobody wants their theater to be burned down. For instance showing women of power including one of the female characters having tatoos (looking at imdb.com and that’s one of the “character names”), cussing, sexual reference etc. would all have to be cut. Then there are the various inciting riot laws that would keep this movie out of the theaters. No government likes having to squash riots especially if the people aren’t big fans of the government.
To make it more interesting, from the imdb reviews there is plenty of poor craftmanship in this movie including one of the characters claiming they are in Afganistan a guy whose weapon changes from scene to scene and extras that don’t know what to do. There are also major military flubs but those could be part of the propaganda (it’s listed in the imdb bio he is against the war and expected to see more anti-war movies than are out there). Even in the U.S. it’s listed as limited, probably not for the content (anti-military movies have done well in the past), but for the poor quality of the film.
ChrisG
15 years ago
“Anti-war” movies have done well in the past? Recent past or “Born on the 4th of July” past? In the recent past, Hollywierd has lost money year after year.
Gregory Dittman
15 years ago
Fahrenheit 9/11 grossed $119 million in it’s theater run. The movie gross come from IMDB. Of course that movie is mostly news footage and interviews so no need of the poor quality writers, directors and actors that have plagued Hollywood for the past 25 years.
On the pro military front, the just released Halo 3 made $330 million in about its first month. Halo 2 generated $125 million in its first 24 hours in 2004. Battlefield 2 sold a couple million copies so far (not to mention profit from the monthly fee).
ChrisG
15 years ago
Moore??!!?? That lying sack of excrement? You know that Soldiers are suing him for defamation and misrepresentation right? They were lied to about what the film was, were interviewed by Moore’s associates under false pretenses, and their response in the film were not what the Soldiers were asked (Standard fair for Moore). Similar lawsuits were filed by the “rabbit woman” in “Roger and Me” as she was not even PART of the auto industry.
Moore’s filth film, which contains more photoshopping than most AP/Reuters articles. I had to watch that POS film “Roger and Me” in college so I wonder how many movie watcher in the US were going willingly. His film made $228 million world wide (when it is the most popular film with islamofascists, can we wonder about Moore’s intentions?) of which he took in $21 million for himself. Since he rails against the “rich” not paying taxes, I wonder if he donated it all to social security?
Thanks for making me sick to my stomach with a traitorous Micheal Moore reference.
“Pro military” is video games??? Well, maybe that is all it can be since most other media outlets censor anything ‘pro-military’. There are other indicators though. How about the rise of the MILBLOG (which the media ignors and leftists rabidly attack) or the fact the US Military has met retention goals and most recruiting goals in a ‘full employment’ economy (5.4% unemployment rate in the 90s was called ‘full employment’)? In addition, drives to expose these leftist lie-filled sedition pieces are becomming more succesful. Hollywood is finding the results in its bottom line year after year.
It is not the writing that kills these films, but the ignorance and blantent, disgusting lies they spew. People had it with Moore’s stupidity and the rest of these Hollywierd films can go the way of the Dodo.
Gregory Dittman
15 years ago
As far as I’m concerned, Michael Moore is a character actor (Much like Daniel Lawrence Whitney from Nebraska, who fakes his accent as he plays Larry the Cable Guy) selling docu-fantasies (fiction posing as fact to add to the effect) to liberals that buy into his act. Here are some Docu-fantasy movies:
The Faces of Death series, The Blair Witch Project, Chariot of the Gods, In Search of Noah’s Ark, Inconvientant Truth and Alien Autopsy. There were many in the ’70s based on gangs, ghost sightings and the occult. A few friends, a camera and a basic script is all it took to make something look like it happens or still is.
The TV series In Search Of did it every episode. 60 Minutes was sued and lost doing it along with Dateline.
Docu-dramas are different. They are saying this could have happened this way. For instance on America’s Most Wanted you aren’t seeing people actually kill each other.
ChrisG
15 years ago
“In Search Of”
I remember that show as a kid. Man, that was ages ago. I am trying to remember the 60 Minutes and Dateline cases. Was that before, after, or because of the Exploding Ford fiasco (the one where they stated a Ford truck would blow up if T-boned… by rockets)? One would think people would have learned after the media is disproven time and again that too many stories are trumped up or even fake.
Hollywood itself is predicated on fantasy brought to life. Unfortunately for these people, reality is not fantasy and there is only one take. Also, this docu-drama passes itself off as “fact” to its viewers (all 3000 of them). That in itself is as infuriating and disgusting as watching old NAZI “science” films about how other “lower people” were inferior.
Hollywood writers went on strike as we all know. The question is, has the world suffered or not cared?
Sorry, it is a cold, icy-rain-snow night. My mood is dour.
ChrisG
15 years ago
Greg,
I do not know if you saw my response to the reply on American Indians you did, but I wanted to say thanks again in case you missed it. Most (if not all) public schools do not teach WHAT the names mean, much less who gave each tribe what name.
Which to think about it, most schools still teach “squaw” as a female Indian, when, well, they are partially correct (but only for a few Indian dialects/languages).
Gregory Dittman
15 years ago
I don’t watch TV so I don’t know what 60 minute shows anymore. I do know that 60 minutes cut and pasted an interview with a CEO of General Motors one time. The CEO was smart enough to have his own people tape the interview to match the questions with the answers. You have probably seen parody interviews where the comedians took an interview and injected his own questions to make the person “being interviewed” sound stupid. This is basically what 60 Minutes did. I think 60 Minutes was sued at least one other times and lost, but I don’t remember what for.
It was Dateline that used explosives. Ultimately they proved that car bombs do exist.
Yes I did go back and read your statement from the American Indian story. I do find it funny they would name a recon helicopter “Mohawk.” Maybe it ran on the biofuel soylent green. Other interesting tidbits. Indians labeled as redskins refer to an East Coast American tribe that used berries to dye themselves red. Mixed genetic backgrounds were common. There was even a famous chief of his time that had real red hair (part Irish). Not every tribe used feathers. The feathers represented generally represented “points” from a literal game of non leathal tag with the enemy. They would get a witness, go out and touch the “enemy” (often while the “enemy” was sleeping) and run back to their camp. It would be on par of a U.S. trooper sneeking into a Chinese base, touching a Chinese soldier (this would require a witness), stealing proof such as the guy’s weapon, and leaving without getting killed (or killing the person he touched) and doing this on a regular bases and showing/bragging to everyone he is doing it.
It probably wouldn’t be shown in Pakistan or any Muslim country or even India. It’s not because of the subject matter, but the content. It’s rated R and runs 83 minutes. Their rules prevent offending anybody because nobody wants their theater to be burned down. For instance showing women of power including one of the female characters having tatoos (looking at imdb.com and that’s one of the “character names”), cussing, sexual reference etc. would all have to be cut. Then there are the various inciting riot laws that would keep this movie out of the theaters. No government likes having to squash riots especially if the people aren’t big fans of the government.
To make it more interesting, from the imdb reviews there is plenty of poor craftmanship in this movie including one of the characters claiming they are in Afganistan a guy whose weapon changes from scene to scene and extras that don’t know what to do. There are also major military flubs but those could be part of the propaganda (it’s listed in the imdb bio he is against the war and expected to see more anti-war movies than are out there). Even in the U.S. it’s listed as limited, probably not for the content (anti-military movies have done well in the past), but for the poor quality of the film.
“Anti-war” movies have done well in the past? Recent past or “Born on the 4th of July” past? In the recent past, Hollywierd has lost money year after year.
Fahrenheit 9/11 grossed $119 million in it’s theater run. The movie gross come from IMDB. Of course that movie is mostly news footage and interviews so no need of the poor quality writers, directors and actors that have plagued Hollywood for the past 25 years.
On the pro military front, the just released Halo 3 made $330 million in about its first month. Halo 2 generated $125 million in its first 24 hours in 2004. Battlefield 2 sold a couple million copies so far (not to mention profit from the monthly fee).
Moore??!!?? That lying sack of excrement? You know that Soldiers are suing him for defamation and misrepresentation right? They were lied to about what the film was, were interviewed by Moore’s associates under false pretenses, and their response in the film were not what the Soldiers were asked (Standard fair for Moore). Similar lawsuits were filed by the “rabbit woman” in “Roger and Me” as she was not even PART of the auto industry.
Moore’s filth film, which contains more photoshopping than most AP/Reuters articles. I had to watch that POS film “Roger and Me” in college so I wonder how many movie watcher in the US were going willingly. His film made $228 million world wide (when it is the most popular film with islamofascists, can we wonder about Moore’s intentions?) of which he took in $21 million for himself. Since he rails against the “rich” not paying taxes, I wonder if he donated it all to social security?
Thanks for making me sick to my stomach with a traitorous Micheal Moore reference.
“Pro military” is video games??? Well, maybe that is all it can be since most other media outlets censor anything ‘pro-military’. There are other indicators though. How about the rise of the MILBLOG (which the media ignors and leftists rabidly attack) or the fact the US Military has met retention goals and most recruiting goals in a ‘full employment’ economy (5.4% unemployment rate in the 90s was called ‘full employment’)? In addition, drives to expose these leftist lie-filled sedition pieces are becomming more succesful. Hollywood is finding the results in its bottom line year after year.
It is not the writing that kills these films, but the ignorance and blantent, disgusting lies they spew. People had it with Moore’s stupidity and the rest of these Hollywierd films can go the way of the Dodo.
As far as I’m concerned, Michael Moore is a character actor (Much like Daniel Lawrence Whitney from Nebraska, who fakes his accent as he plays Larry the Cable Guy) selling docu-fantasies (fiction posing as fact to add to the effect) to liberals that buy into his act. Here are some Docu-fantasy movies:
The Faces of Death series, The Blair Witch Project, Chariot of the Gods, In Search of Noah’s Ark, Inconvientant Truth and Alien Autopsy. There were many in the ’70s based on gangs, ghost sightings and the occult. A few friends, a camera and a basic script is all it took to make something look like it happens or still is.
The TV series In Search Of did it every episode. 60 Minutes was sued and lost doing it along with Dateline.
Docu-dramas are different. They are saying this could have happened this way. For instance on America’s Most Wanted you aren’t seeing people actually kill each other.
“In Search Of”
I remember that show as a kid. Man, that was ages ago. I am trying to remember the 60 Minutes and Dateline cases. Was that before, after, or because of the Exploding Ford fiasco (the one where they stated a Ford truck would blow up if T-boned… by rockets)? One would think people would have learned after the media is disproven time and again that too many stories are trumped up or even fake.
Hollywood itself is predicated on fantasy brought to life. Unfortunately for these people, reality is not fantasy and there is only one take. Also, this docu-drama passes itself off as “fact” to its viewers (all 3000 of them). That in itself is as infuriating and disgusting as watching old NAZI “science” films about how other “lower people” were inferior.
Hollywood writers went on strike as we all know. The question is, has the world suffered or not cared?
Sorry, it is a cold, icy-rain-snow night. My mood is dour.
Greg,
I do not know if you saw my response to the reply on American Indians you did, but I wanted to say thanks again in case you missed it. Most (if not all) public schools do not teach WHAT the names mean, much less who gave each tribe what name.
Which to think about it, most schools still teach “squaw” as a female Indian, when, well, they are partially correct (but only for a few Indian dialects/languages).
I don’t watch TV so I don’t know what 60 minute shows anymore. I do know that 60 minutes cut and pasted an interview with a CEO of General Motors one time. The CEO was smart enough to have his own people tape the interview to match the questions with the answers. You have probably seen parody interviews where the comedians took an interview and injected his own questions to make the person “being interviewed” sound stupid. This is basically what 60 Minutes did. I think 60 Minutes was sued at least one other times and lost, but I don’t remember what for.
It was Dateline that used explosives. Ultimately they proved that car bombs do exist.
Yes I did go back and read your statement from the American Indian story. I do find it funny they would name a recon helicopter “Mohawk.” Maybe it ran on the biofuel soylent green. Other interesting tidbits. Indians labeled as redskins refer to an East Coast American tribe that used berries to dye themselves red. Mixed genetic backgrounds were common. There was even a famous chief of his time that had real red hair (part Irish). Not every tribe used feathers. The feathers represented generally represented “points” from a literal game of non leathal tag with the enemy. They would get a witness, go out and touch the “enemy” (often while the “enemy” was sleeping) and run back to their camp. It would be on par of a U.S. trooper sneeking into a Chinese base, touching a Chinese soldier (this would require a witness), stealing proof such as the guy’s weapon, and leaving without getting killed (or killing the person he touched) and doing this on a regular bases and showing/bragging to everyone he is doing it.