|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 7, 2004 11:45:04 GMT -5
Well, IMHO, it shouldn't be on the list. It was made as a documentary and should remain as such. Then I read the following:
"Moore also hinted in a recent interview in Rolling Stone he would like the movie to play on television before the presidential election. According to the rules of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, playing on TV would invalidate its contention in the documentary category, but not for best picture. With the movie coming out on DVD Oct. 5, it's not clear whether the TV deal would happen. "
Like I was saying, I just don't think this is an appropriate move on Moore's part. I found the documentary good in some parts and a waste of time in other areas.
However, this quote strikes me as odd as well.
""It's not that I want to be disrespectful and say I don't ever want to win a (documentary) Oscar again," Moore said. "This just seems like the right thing to do. ... I don't want to take away from the other nominees and the attention that they richly deserve."
I just don't think his motives are sincere enough given the fact he wants to put it on TV before the vote. Disqualifying himself for "best documentary" would be his choice. But, having said that, I find it too convenient an excuse that he's left with only one option should he do this; to nominate his documentary for "best picture."
Like his documentary, I find this confusing not to mention inappropriate. In his documentary he tries to insert comedy, which IMHO, was overblown in some spots. So, what is it? A documentary or a comedy? WRT to this situation I'm unsure as to his motives; do you want Bush to lose the next election, or do you want an Oscar for best picture?
Not right at all. Just my opinion.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 7, 2004 17:46:50 GMT -5
Well, IMHO, it should be on the list. It was made as a documentary and should remain as such. Then I read the following: "Moore also hinted in a recent interview in Rolling Stone he would like the movie to play on television before the presidential election. According to the rules of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, playing on TV would invalidate its contention in the documentary category, but not for best picture. With the movie coming out on DVD Oct. 5, it's not clear whether the TV deal would happen. "Like I was saying, I just don't think this is an appropriate move on Moore's part. I found the documentary good in some parts and a waste of time in other areas. However, this quote strikes me as odd as well. ""It's not that I want to be disrespectful and say I don't ever want to win a (documentary) Oscar again," Moore said. "This just seems like the right thing to do. ... I don't want to take away from the other nominees and the attention that they richly deserve."I just don't think his motives are sincere enough given the fact he wants to put it on TV before the vote. Disqualifying himself for "best documentary" would be his choice. Having said that, I find it too convenient an excuse that he's left with only one option should he do this; to nominate his documentary for "best picture." Like his documentary, I find this confusing not to mention inappropriate. In his documentary he tries to insert comedy, which IMHO, was overblown in some spots. So, what is it? A documentary or a comedy? WRT to this situation I'm unsure as to his motives; do you want Bush to lose the next election, or do you want an Oscar for best picture? Not right at all. Just my opinion. Cheers. How about original fiction screenplay? |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 7, 2004 21:55:17 GMT -5
How about original fiction screenplay? If you're going to call it fiction, could you at least point a real, clearcut piece of fiction in there ? Not something subjective to ramble about meaninglessly.... |
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Sept 8, 2004 2:23:05 GMT -5
I don't think the movie itself is deserving of even a nomination. the way it had been filmed, I find the movie is more like an anti-Bush MTV video than a real documentary.
I was disappointed when I finally got to see it. the way everybody talked about it, I expected a much, much better product and something i haven't heard/read/seen before. I was disappointed to see that the movie is essentially a short recap of his book "Dude, where's my country?" with the addition of the grieving mother and a few interviews by soldiers in Iraq. the book, IMHO, is much better and funnier.
re Moore's decision to contend for the best picture award, it's just a way of getting more attention/controversy for his movie and, ultimately, his crusade against Bush.
R.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 8, 2004 7:42:53 GMT -5
I don't think the movie itself is deserving of even a nomination. the way it had been filmed, I find the movie is more like an anti-Bush MTV video than a real documentary. I was disappointed when I finally got to see it. the way everybody talked about it, I expected a much, much better product and something i haven't heard/read/seen before. I was disappointed to see that the movie is essentially a short recap of his book "Dude, where's my country?" with the addition of the grieving mother and a few interviews by soldiers in Iraq. the book, IMHO, is much better and funnier. re Moore's decision to contend for the best picture award, it's just a way of getting more attention/controversy for his movie and, ultimately, his crusade against Bush. R. Actually, I thought it was alright to a point, Rimmer. But, as the movie progressed I started losing interest. I think his poor attempt at humour also took away from the film's credibility as well. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 8, 2004 9:29:44 GMT -5
How about original fiction screenplay? I thought he had his facts right in some areas while in other places he's been off the mark. However, I like Rimmer's comparision of his documentary to that of an anti-Bush MTV video. I keep going back to it, but he could have done himself a favour by dropping the comedy routine. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Sept 8, 2004 13:20:07 GMT -5
I thoroughly enjoyed the film; even if it's obviously slanted to one viewpoint he does back up his accusations at least as well and for the most part better than anyone else on the other side of that left-right divide.
Moore has used this sort of comedy ever since his first film - Roger & Me - and it has worked very well for him. It has made people that would never have thought twice (or even once) about looking at a documentary actually pay attention and give his movies a chance.
There is absolutely no coincidence that Moore holds the top two spots on the highest grossing documentaries of all time.
Look, if you don't like the style, that's one thing. However, advising him to drop the humour is probably bad advice, considering how it has worked.
And that's the point of it all - if you need a little humour to get people to pay attention to the greater message, and you succeed, I think it's worth the trouble.
As for the fact it was a "short recap of 'Dude, Where's My Country'" - I disagree. I enjoyed that book as well, and while there are many similar areas covered, I find that video gives a visceral feel to the material that is unattainable in print (while print has a detailed explanation of the events that is unattainable in video) - I think the two compliment each other very well.
HFLA - Original fiction? It's obviously slanted, but I would leave that category for the Swift Boat Veterans' commercials.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 8, 2004 22:37:12 GMT -5
I don't think the movie itself is deserving of even a nomination. the way it had been filmed, I find the movie is more like an anti-Bush MTV video than a real documentary. I was disappointed when I finally got to see it. the way everybody talked about it, I expected a much, much better product and something i haven't heard/read/seen before. I was disappointed to see that the movie is essentially a short recap of his book "Dude, where's my country?" with the addition of the grieving mother and a few interviews by soldiers in Iraq. the book, IMHO, is much better and funnier. re Moore's decision to contend for the best picture award, it's just a way of getting more attention/controversy for his movie and, ultimately, his crusade against Bush. R. I tend to agree. The documentary had a few interesting facts and all, but for anyone with some understanding of world events and of news, there's nothing incredibly new in it. However, for that very reason, I can accept the comedy and the lack of real documentary content - this is a simple movie for simple folks who usually just say "you gotta back your prez whatever happens". |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 9, 2004 2:30:32 GMT -5
I tend to agree. The documentary had a few interesting facts and all, but for anyone with some understanding of world events and of news, there's nothing incredibly new in it. However, for that very reason, I can accept the comedy and the lack of real documentary content - this is a simple movie for simple folks who usually just say "you gotta back your prez whatever happens". Sometimes you play on a team and one of your teamates does something stupid. He's still your teamate and you have to back him up. You can clean out your dirty laundry in private or in the locker room, but on the ice you back him up. I certainly don't agree with everything "W" says and neither does Chainey. Stem cell research......Religeon in schools.......Illegal imigraion.......Moderation in Iraq When you are on the ice or in battle the team sticks together. Cutting Bush and bringing in Kerry would be like cutting Koivu and bringing back Rucinsky. No thanks!  |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Sept 10, 2004 18:56:37 GMT -5
Cutting Bush and bringing in Kerry would be like cutting Koivu and bringing back Rucinsky. No thanks! You're comparing Bush to Koivu?? I think a better comparison would be Traverse.... |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 11, 2004 1:11:23 GMT -5
or Hardy Astrom. If you leave the hockey arena, a better comparison is Chance the gardener.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Sept 11, 2004 5:10:52 GMT -5
or Hardy Astrom. If you leave the hockey arena, a better comparison is Chance the gardener. Chauncey Gardner was an heroic figure (whose service record required absolutely no scrutiny) and a veritable fount of wisdom when compared to today's babbling brooks. |
|
