Tweet
Originally posted by DukeP
Im quite sure you have to watch the films to judge them.
I was supprised, the movie wasnt what I expected, based on the reviews i had read.
Michael Moore might be an advocate of gun control, but this is not what the picture says.
The picture says that guns per see isnt dangerous.
One of its major points, is that the US have more gun related killings than more or less the sum of the rest of the west (EU + Canada + Japan).
But: Canada have more guns per family than USA (and I think the same goes for Sweden).
Ergo: Guns doesnt kill people, people kills people.
(I am NO fan of weapon proliferation - but both my parents are members of a sportshooting club and shoots every monday - and I have a military rifle (H&K G3) hidden in my appartment - all very legal).
Actually Cars are MUCh more dangerous than Guns. I dont see anyone trying to ban cars on the ground that they are dangerous as weapons.
But I digress.
What You see in the movie is real. Theres no SGI inside it.
Perhaps some of the people gets tricked into saying things that they wouldnt like other people to hear. Some would call this a kind of paparazzi journalism. But people still read The Sun.
And Michael Moores pictures ARENT edited in photoshop.
~~Dukep~~
Im quite sure you have to watch the films to judge them.
I was supprised, the movie wasnt what I expected, based on the reviews i had read.
Michael Moore might be an advocate of gun control, but this is not what the picture says.
The picture says that guns per see isnt dangerous.
One of its major points, is that the US have more gun related killings than more or less the sum of the rest of the west (EU + Canada + Japan).
But: Canada have more guns per family than USA (and I think the same goes for Sweden).
Ergo: Guns doesnt kill people, people kills people.
(I am NO fan of weapon proliferation - but both my parents are members of a sportshooting club and shoots every monday - and I have a military rifle (H&K G3) hidden in my appartment - all very legal).
Actually Cars are MUCh more dangerous than Guns. I dont see anyone trying to ban cars on the ground that they are dangerous as weapons.
But I digress.
What You see in the movie is real. Theres no SGI inside it.
Perhaps some of the people gets tricked into saying things that they wouldnt like other people to hear. Some would call this a kind of paparazzi journalism. But people still read The Sun.
And Michael Moores pictures ARENT edited in photoshop.
~~Dukep~~
He uses the documentary format as a guise. He porports to be reporting fact when indeed he is spouting political dogma.
In fact, I think you could make an agrument that his movies are documentaries only in the sense that they follow him as he pushes his agendas. They are documentaries of him, not just by him.
I don't fault him for lying to get interviews. I think that is a standard tool of investigative journalism. But there are many websites, http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/, is just one, that show how he uses creative editing to misconstrue actual events and interviews.
I enjoyed BFC, but only from an entertainment perspective. This guy is heavily biased, and allows his bias to inhibit his ability to report events honestly.
As for use of PhotoShop, I do remember that there was something about some wording of some document that was shown in the movie that was modified in the different versions of the movie; Theatrical release, VHS and DVD. I read about it on a website somewhere. I'm sure someone here probably knows what I'm talking about. I'm too lazy to look it up so feel free to assume I made it up until you hear otherwise.
Comment