The biggest "LIES" the movies ever told me.

[IsmaVA]

I'm no fan of George W. Bush, but Farenheit 9-11 was just too much for me... It was just plain insulting to any intelligent human being.

Moore: Don't bore us with rediculous conspiracy theories based on loose facts that you've twisted and mangled beyond reality. Bush doesn't need your help to lose the election.

I'm really nervous that too many people will accept that movie as a documentary instead of a mockumentary. After all, if it's on TV, it's got to be real, right?

About F 9/11 . . . Moore opinions are definitively on the propaganda side and his movie maybe 90% opinion and a mere 10% fact . . .however, there is a $10K for anybody who can point out one factual error . . .so far no takers . . .

[skeptic]

Sometimes lies can be propagated not by what is said but by what is omitted or by taking facts out of context to trick the viewer into drawing the opposite conclusion than he otherwise would. Moviemakers and other storytellers are excellent at that technique. That's why we leave history to professional historians and not to partisans wanting to influence current political debate by trying to disguise opinion as history.

[kexodusc]

Sometimes lies can be propagated not by what is said but by what is omitted or by taking facts out of context to trick the viewer into drawing the opposite conclusion than he otherwise would. Moviemakers and other storytellers are excellent at that technique. That's why we leave history to professional historians and not to partisans wanting to influence current political debate by trying to disguise opinion as history.

I would just add that there is an infamous sick-o Nazi sympathizer organization in Europe that has indisputable proof that the Holocaust did not occur, with a similar cash prize for disproving their factual evidence. It's been around since the 50's or 60's.
Just goes to show the power of manipulation, and how dangerous ignorance can be.

Hey, we all believed Oswald killed JFK, too. Funny, didn't a movie change that opinion and even prompt the government to accelerate the de-classifcation of those files by some 20 - 30 years?

[IsmaVA]

Yeap, I would agree with both of you (Skeptic and Kexodusc) . . .however, Kex comment only proves that nobody can really cry "Lies, Lies, Lies!!!" either way . . .


In the end, it is just a matter of opinions . . .

[skeptic]

"In the end, it is just a matter of opinions"

NO!
Historians look at ALL of the facts and try to weave them into a complete tapestry with the advantage of hindsight and time to reflect on them and what they mean. They may have different interpretations of what different people were thinking, they may disagree on nuances, and sometimes the facts may be incomplete leading them to the admission if they are honest that unless and until further evidence is uncovered, it is not possible to draw any firm conclusions. Moore and those like him have done none of this. They have a political agenda for the here and now, make no bones about it, and try to present this biased view as factual history. This alone makes them a pack of liars.

[kexodusc]

This may not be quite the same, but I really get pissed off when movie directors re-write a super-hero's history to their own liking.
When did Spiderman get web making organs in his hands? What happened to the little web shooter devices?
And The Hulk...let's not go there.

My all time biggest let down was "Masters of the Universe". Other than the loose character likeness, and use of names and images, there was NOTHING He-Man about that movie. Dolf Lundgren...Pffff!!!!

[IsmaVA]

This may not be quite the same, but I really get pissed off when movie directors re-write a super-hero's history to their own liking.
When did Spiderman get web making organs in his hands? What happened to the little web shooter devices?
And The Hulk...let's not go there.

My all time biggest let down was "Masters of the Universe". Other than the loose character likeness, and use of names and images, there was NOTHING He-Man about that movie. Dolf Lundgren...Pffff!!!!

Yeap, what about the Lara Croft movies (yeap, I know, not quite in the league of Sipdey)?

They completely change the character . . .her background, they way she was raised, the transformation into the tomb raider . . .

Nowadays, I just take it as a new superhero, not even a new version of the old ones. . . :-)

[IsmaVA]

My friend, being a skeptic myself I don't want to get into a useless argument, but Historians are nothing more that the writers of the OFFICAL opinion . . .you would be amazed at the factual differences between "history" as chronicled by historians of different backgrounds.

Yes, Moore has a political agenda, just as everybody else . . . believing that any version of the "facts" is devoid of interpretation, perception and personal mythology is, IMHO, as naive as believing in the tooth fairy.

It is just a matter of choosing who and what to believe . . .

[skeptic]

Moore has appeared regularly on television lately and said many times publicly with no appologies that he would like to see George Bush defeated in the upcoming election and hopes that this film contributes to that defeat. (Personally I'm not sure who I'm voting for but I don't like people trying to manipulate me this way.)

As for professional historians, not only do they have the perspective of time, often decades or centuries to distance themselves from the emotions of the moment, but if they are worth anything at all, they do extensive research reading private correspondence, diaries, listening to what others who have researched the subject have to say, and put all of the facts in context. Yes sometimes they disagree but as more and more time elapses and the events lose their current edge in the haze of antiquity, they are seen though entirely different eyes. It is amazing how few Republicans now would dream of repealing Social Security or Medicare (although they might like to tinker with them) when just a few decades ago, they denounced them as Socialism. There are very few people left anymore who feel that somehow the United States could have stayed out of World War Two or get worked up over World War One or Prohibition or the Civil War. At the time, these were all hot button issues. The time between then and now distances us from those events and even the most extreme differences that still exist among historians are orders of magnitude less than they were at the time. The facts in most of them are generally accepted, the interpretations may differ. But the discussion is usually scholarly, not passionate. That's what separates historians from pundits and we shouldn't confuse the two. I'm sure most professional historians and even amateur historians would agree.