Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media

Moore Approves Fahrenheit 9/11 Downloads 1417

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the opening-a-can-of-worms dept.
13.7BillionYears writes "The Sunday Herald reports that Michael Moore has expressed his approval of Fahrenheit 9/11 being downloaded through networks like BitTorrent and eDonkey2000. He also champions a very Lessig-esque outlook in his reasoning. Quentin Tarantino's earlier support for such practices is also mentioned. Meanwhile, Lion's Gate says it has no plans to oppose the practice."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Moore Approves Fahrenheit 9/11 Downloads

Comments Filter:
  • Not surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zeux (129034) * on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:00AM (#9605759)
    I saw this documentary yesterday and I was both shocked and impressed. I even cried a lot.

    It's the only way to do that in the US. A documentary must be very shocking for people to care about. This doesn't work like that in Europ.

    This decision from Michael Moore is not surprising as he has always said that his goal is to touch as many people as possible. I think he simply doesn't care about the money.

    Besides that, I think the documentary raises some points while I think Michael Moore goes too far in some others. But this movie definitely deserves its Golden Palm.

    Please, go there, watch it. Give it a chance.

    Oh and I'm French and I'm living in the US so I'm ready to be modded down and insulted.
    • Please, go there, watch it. Give it a chance.

      I'll download it as soon as there's something better than a CAM out there :-)

      • Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Informative)

        by fenix down (206580) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:07AM (#9605817)
        There's DVD copy from the Cannes judges. Suprnova.org should have like a 2 gig ludicrously high-quality version for torrent.
        • Re:Not surprising... (Score:4, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:10AM (#9605840)

          It's [66.90.75.92] marked as "Cam" on suprnova even though the description says "Screener on DVD". Since it's not on vcdquality, I'm not going to 'risk it'. mis-labeled downloads are all too common. I'll wait for a proper release.

      • by GGardner (97375) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:08AM (#9605822)
        I'll download it as soon as there's something better than a CAM out there :-)

        While this was intended to be funny, there is some seriousness here. If I were Moore, and my goal was widest possible distribution, not most money made, putting it up for P2P download is a great idea. However, having gone to the trouble to shoot and edit the movie with high enough quality for movie projection, I'd want the highest possible quality to be downloadable. So, if he were really interested, he'd upload a copy from the original sources.

        Or, maybe Moore sees P2P as an advertising medium to drive sales of movie tickets? In which case, you'd probably want a low-quality CAM capture to be floating around the net.

        • by Handpaper (566373) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:17AM (#9605898)
          I've got the CAM-POT copy from suprnova, and there is only one scene where the rip quality detracts from the experience of the film [1]. This is because the majority of the film is made up of clips of news broadcasts (some captured post-transmission).

          [1] An interview with an Iraqi woman where the subtitles are off the bottom of the screen.

          • Um, WTF are you talking about? The POT release is *the* worst, most amateur cam release I've ever seen in my life, ever. The image is framed terribly (you're missing a big portion of the screen), it constantly flickers, the sound is almost inaudible, and to add insult to injury, they used *3* wrong formats distributing the thing. They rar'd iso's of VCDs? 1 gig? WTF? Distribute a 250 meg DIVX and let the lamers still using VCDs transcode it themselves.
            • by Otto (17870) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @02:41PM (#9607207) Homepage Journal
              In the movie piracy scene, generally films are released as either VCD or SVCD format. These are in BIN/CUE format, ready for burning. The BIN/CUE's are then RAR'd to take advantage of RAR's splitting capabilities and integrity checks. Then the RAR's are distributed.

              In other words, this is normal. What's annoying is when somebody hosts a torrent that is the RAR files and not the uncompressed BIN/CUE's. The pirating group never goes so far as to release the thing onto torrents or such. They're sending files between ftp sites, usually on hacked systems or other systems with big fat pipes and lots of storage. They use tools that let them FTP between sites (similar to FSP), and sometimes from multiple sites (this is where having many RAR files comes in handy) to saturate bandwidth on the receiving sides.

              Sometimes this is even automated. Those tools are pretty nifty, actually. You feed it a list of sites and a list of files. It FTPs the whole thing to the first site, then uses FSP to copy it to the second site (much faster than directly FTP'ing it there), then uses FSP to send it to the third site from both of the first two sites simultaneously, and so on. By the time it's done, 20-30 sites can have the thing, and it didn't take any longer than it would have took to send to 3 or 4 of them directly, thanks to the FSP using direct connections between sites and the RAR's being split so that it can send from multiple sites at once. More complicated tools can improve on this by transferring to many sites at once from many other sites and maximizing bandwidth on all of them.

              In any case, these sites then get distributed to others via IRC, and people download the thing from these sites, and put it onto their 0-day hookups. This goes on for a bit, and then it eventually filters down to people who might actually watch the movie. Up until now, it's just people trading files because they like trading files fast. They might never actually use those files. Anyway, once it makes it onto sites where people will actually download the thing and thus watch it, it often goes from there onto the P2P networks. Some guy makes a Torrent out of it, somebody sticks it onto Usenet, etc, etc. Often it'll hit newsgroups before it gets made into a torrent somewhere. But by the time it's a torrent, you're at least 4-5 generations away from the original pirated site transfers.

              This is so commonplace that tools exist to deal with the multiple layers of formatting. I suggest getting a copy of VCDGear (search google). It can convert RAR'd BIN/CUE's directly into MPG files for viewing. One step, instead of two or three.

              • by Cramer (69040) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @04:24PM (#9608049) Homepage
                • saturate bandwidth on the receiving sides
                Actually, it tends to saturate bandwidth on all sides and right down the middle, too :-) I have seen (and about 6 seconds away from getting a coworker fired, to boot) a single warez node consume 30% of an ISPs entire aggrigate bandwidth. When you do this on the wrong side of a SONET ethernet bridge, it becomes VERY noticable. (OC3 carrying a DS3, 6 T1s, a 10M ethernet, and a 100M ethernet VLAN span... yes, that's more than 155mbps.)

                • Up until now, it's just people trading files because they like trading files fast.
                It's a pissing a contest... who can transfer the file the fastest. They don't care what they are moving or who they may be hurting in the process. I sat and watched these idiots once... a dozen "people" all pushing the same file(s) to the same server; the first one to get the entire file there "wins". This is both stupid and wasteful.

                • Often it'll hit newsgroups before it gets made into a torrent somewhere
                For some things, yes. But for more popular items, a torrent will ususally be available before it appears in part or whole on USENET. (I know, because I watch... and, sadly, usenet is faster than downloading via bittorrent. esp. from such places as suprnova)
              • by Deadplant (212273) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @04:44PM (#9608170)
                I know it's common but that doesn't make it right.
                VCD/SVCD/??VCD all suck and should be consigned to history along with VHS and audio cassette tapes.

                Here is a public service announcement:
                Attention warez scene d00dz! Here are the correct encoding setting for movies and TV shows.
                XVid at 900-1300Kbps 720x480 (do not scale it down! for god's sake. why?)(actually, the height depends on the specific widescreen format used...it's often 330-340 pixels) Audio should be 5 channel AC3 or vbr stereo mp3.

                p.s. Do not under any circumstances trade-off encode quality to fit a file on a CD! If your hdd is too small, buy a freaking DVD burner for christ sake. they're only $100 CDN.

                thank you. that is all.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 04, 2004 @01:29PM (#9606780)
          Actually, you're both wrong--the article is fake.

          Here is a link explaining how Moore's alleged stance on copyright issues is being used to damage the profitability of the film:


          Link to CNN.com story. [cnn.com]

          • by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @05:51PM (#9608593) Homepage
            Actually it seems to me the article quotes Moore and does not deny he said what he said. That said, the article DOES say that the companies involved are going to sue anybody who distributes the movie illegally.

            The article goes on to describe the back and forth between supporters and detractors of the film and the almost "polticial campaign" behavior of both sides. This fight may be more significant than the actual Presidential campaign it is intended to influence.

            Of course, Bush is planning the Second Korean War as we speak as his "October Surprise", so all this may become irrelevant - except to prove Moore was right.

      • Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:17AM (#9605900)
        1,3, and 4 above I believe are all basically the same. Cam-capture in 2 folders that are ready to be ripped onto CDRs for viewing in most any DVD player.

        2 is the same cam except ready to be ripped onto a DVD.

        5 is the trailer only.

        • by TrevorB (57780) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @12:34PM (#9606459) Homepage
          Which completely sucks, because this particular POT version is missing a good 15 minutes out of the middle (all the bits about the patriot act) and is probably the most hideous cam I've ever seen taken of a movie. I was downloading the DVD version hoping it was better, but now I'll stop.

          If you're going to advocate downloading a movie, at least have a decent telesync online first! :)
    • Re:Not surprising... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by presarioD (771260) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:12AM (#9605856)
      The most interesting thing of all is how people have a hard time watching their beliefs capsize and collapse in front of their eyes.
      In the process to defend them they contradict themselves so badly!
      An example was an article in a local newspaper on how Michael Moore is just another capitalist and while people watch his documentary he is making a fortune and blah blah blah...

      Since when capitalism became such a bad thing?
      Fox news, ABC, CNN etc etc etc are charitable institutions?
      Why is it so hard to accept Michael Moore's news while "Live on CNN" is welcomed with a gaping mouth?

      I guess I know now! Interesting, very interesting!
      • by Ralph Wiggam (22354) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:24AM (#9605958) Homepage
        People on the right call Moore a capitalist because they belive that everyone on the far left is a Communist and that revealing that he's making money makes him a "sell out" or something. Like he's faking being a liberal to make money. Anyone who dresses like Micheal Moore isn't too concerned about money.

        There are lots of liberal capitalists. We think that making money is fine as long as you're not destroying people's lives and ruining the environment in the process.

        -B
        • Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Trolling4Dollars (627073) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @01:56PM (#9606956) Journal
          Bingo! I may have more liberal leanings, but I don't think there is anything wrong with REAL capitalism. The kind that originally made this country a great place. REAL capitalism isn't about making the most sales and dominating the market. It's about providing a good or service that really has value and keeping your customer satisfied. The criminal activites that masquerade as "capitalism" these days have made a travesty of the United States. It sickens me that so many people out there believe that they are part of something good when they support the purveyors of these activities. It also does my heart good to see that there are plenty of people who are, perhaps, starting to become a little more aware of how this country is being ruined.
    • Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Informative)

      by vogelgesang (730058) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:35AM (#9606043)
      This decision from Michael Moore is not surprising as he has always said that his goal is to touch as many people as possible. I think he simply doesn't care about the money.

      Before Bowling for Columbine he might not have. Moore agreed to speak for an hour at Hendrix College (where I attend), booked eighteen months in advance for $50,000 plus expenses. A few months after Bowling for Columbine hit theaters, he changed his price to $120,000 for that same hour of whatever he wanted to talk about. Needless to say, Hendrix's strongly liberal-minded campus and its conservative surrounding cities did not get to see him that year.

      I know this because I did bitch work for one of the guys who booked the college's special events. It's also worth noting that Hendrix never charges admission for any of its events, though students do get priority.

      • by EulerX07 (314098) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @04:50PM (#9608206)
        Keep in mind that charging for your time can have two goals :

        1) Income
        2) Moderation

        If I'm a busy person and have only a limited number of time to spend visiting special events, I'll set the price at the point where the demand (for that price point) will not exceed the time I have available for that activity.

        This is similar to computer geeks charging people to go fix their computers once they have a real job. It's not to make more money, it's so you don't spend every single hour of your free time fixing other people's computer, and only the people that REALLY needs your help will take your time.

        If Michael Moore only charged 1000$ to go and do those events, he would be booked every single day out of the year, and that would keep him from doing what he really wants to do.
    • i'm lovin' it (Score:4, Insightful)

      by patrickoehlinger (445411) <patrickoehlinger@gmx.net> on Sunday July 04, 2004 @12:31PM (#9606438) Homepage Journal
      With the 4th of July ahead, I thought it is time to watch Fahrenheit 9/11. At first I was surprised that this documentary won the first price in Cannes this year, but now I have to admit, "i'm lovin' it".
      Although I can't agree with some of his conclusions. I like the way he leads us, especially Americans themselves, to remember and think about some very important issues. Going thru numerous points of why the "war-president" is wrong. Moore, at the end, finds a wonderful quote* on what may be the true reason:
      "It does not matter if the war is not real. For when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous."
      "A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance, this new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or east Asia but to keep the very structure of society in tact"
      *...George Orwell's 1984
    • by kitzilla (266382) <paperfrog AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday July 04, 2004 @12:54PM (#9606590) Homepage Journal
      > Oh and I'm French and I'm living in the US so I'm ready to be modded down and insulted.

      There, there mon ami. We're not all Republicans.

      Without France, there would be no United States. And vice-versa. American-French relations will survive the little man from Crawford.

  • Makes sense. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Eru-sama (698753) <erusama@gmail.com> on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:01AM (#9605760)
    The whole point of the movie is get a message out, why wouldn't he want it to reach the greatest possible audience?
    • Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Distinguished Hero (618385) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:51AM (#9606159) Homepage
      If the whole point of the movie is to get a message out, why doesn't Moore release a DVD rip onto the P2P networks?

      Moore is smart enough to realize that he can't prevent people from downloading his movie, and bitching and moaning about it would make him look like a hypocrite. Instead, he states that he doesn't mind letting people do the same thing that they would do regardless, and in the process improves his public image tremendously.

      If Moore is serious about getting the message out, he should put his money where his mouth is and release a DVD rip on the P2P networks.
  • personally, i would like to see more artists doing this with their works, kind of beats the companies to the punch.
  • by DragonMagic (170846) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:01AM (#9605765) Homepage
    Post your torrent links here, folks!

    Nothing says "I'm trading this" like a /. torrent cluster.
  • F911 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mfh (56) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:02AM (#9605771) Homepage Journal
    This truly is a first. I am quite pleased by Moore's decision to broaden his audience by allowing free downloads of the film.

    I think this would be a great place to link all your Fahrenheit 9/11 torrents!

    I already saw Fahrenheit 9/11 in theatre, and it was truly amazing. I don't care if some of it was not factual, because the bulk of it is just too damn funny to worry about trivial he-said, she-said crap. Think for yourself, but also see the movie... it's amazing, imho. Quite a catalyst for provocative thought and discussion. It's not just funny, it's moving and sad, terrifying at times. The funniest parts are when they look at bush in his candid moments, when his true hick nature seeps through the $5000 suits he wears. I won't spoil it. I will say that during the film, they play audio of the 9/11 attacks over a black screen and people in the audience were crying, it was soooo moving, and sad. Now watch this drive!

    So much for the MPAA... gosh it's nice to see their hands tied for a change.
    • by TrekkieGod (627867) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:15AM (#9605880) Homepage Journal
      I think this would be a great place to link all your Fahrenheit 9/11 torrents!

      Michael Moore doesn't own the rights to the movie, Harvey and Bob Weinstein do. Even if Michael Moore doesn't care if his movie is pirated, I'm pretty sure the distributors do. At best, this can put your conscience at rest but it definitely doesn't mean you can start hosting the illegal copy in your website and expect not to get a cease and desist.

      Yeah, I know, torrents are different, and slashdot isn't responsible for what we post. You, however, seem to be thinking that it's now legal to download F911 when saying, "I am quite pleased by Moore's decision to broaden his audience by allowing free downloads of the film." He's not really allowing them, he's just saying he doesn't morally disagree with the practice.

      • by atomm1024 (570507) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:56AM (#9606202)
        No, the story explicitly says that the distributors do not care if people share the movie. "I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labour." -- Michael Moore "Meanwhile, Lions Gate says it has no plans to oppose the practice." -- The article See? (Lions Gate is the distributor, by the way.) I'm not sure if this makes it perfectly "legal," but it's effectively the same thing if the copyright holder allows it and the creator literally encourages it.
  • by garcia (6573) * on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:04AM (#9605785) Homepage
    The activist, author and director told the Sunday Herald that, as long as pirated copies of his film were not being sold, he had no problem with it being downloaded.

    "I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that," he said.

    "I do well enough already and I made this film because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I'm happy this is happening."


    Very few people download movies to make a profit off of them. We download the movies because it is convienient to do so (ala iTunes). We also download the movies because the theatres charge entirely too much money (anywhere from $8 to $11 from what I have seen) to watch it.

    Let's stop making movies with tons of computer generated special effects, bad acting, and boring plots and then blaming the pirates when it doesn't do well.

    Let's make a movie that is powerful, moving, and gets people into the theatres that didn't cost $200 million to make.
    • by _defiant_ (120560) <stephen.butler@gmail.com> on Sunday July 04, 2004 @02:21PM (#9607100) Homepage
      Very few people download movies to make a profit off of them. We download the movies because it is convienient to do so (ala iTunes).

      I honestly think some people -- maybe not the majority but a significant minority -- download movies, songs, TV shows, software, etc because they are addicted.

      I'm willing to bet that everyone here knows at least one guy (or girl) who has hundreds of thousands of MP3s, some of which they've only listened to once. Or maybe someone who has dozens of complete TV series. You walk into these people's rooms and there are tons of 100 disc CD spindles sitting on shelves, completely burned and just collecting dust.

      I have to believe in these cases that it's a form of internet cleptomania. Not the most damaging of disorders, but still not fucking right.

  • well in that case: (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:06AM (#9605805)
  • Have fun (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:07AM (#9605810)
    http://trackerwww.prq.to/download.php/3219853/Mich ael%20Moore%20About%20Filesharing.avi.torrent
  • Interesting. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:07AM (#9605812)
  • by gustgr (695173) <rondina@@@gmail...com> on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:07AM (#9605814) Homepage
    I belive any respectable director want their movie to be watched many people as possible. In the Farenheit case this goes even further, due the political idea behind the movie.

    The problem lies in the millionaries companies that produce the movies. Distributing it for free through the network isn't really interesting (profitable) for them. How long it will take to Warner to distribute a expensive movie in this way ? A long time IMHO.
  • by FrO (209915) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:10AM (#9605836)
    Valenti said: "Nobody can allow their rights to be stolen because, if you can't retrieve your investment, you're out of the movie business,

    "I don't think there's really a single actor or director in the world who does not believe that if you don't combat piracy, it will devour you in the future."


    I've seen this happen so many times that it's the norm for me. A group of my friends used to pirate movies/music/apps/games/etc back in our early days of college. While it is true that there were many things we didn't buy, there were also many things that we DID buy. my DVD collection grew greatly during this period, as did my CD collection and the number of games that I owned. I mean hell, I had a pirated copy of Warcraft III, yet I forked over the $80 to get the special edition of the game when it came out. Yes, there are those assholes who decide that they will never buy anything, but most pirates will pay for things that they really enjoy. Thus, in my experience, Valenti's assertion that piracy is the downfall of the industry is wrong. If they produced something that everyone wants to see or own and sold it at a reasonable price, then even the pirates would go out and buy it.
  • by teamhasnoi (554944) <teamhasnoi&yahoo,com> on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:18AM (#9605906) Homepage Journal
    What What What?

    Wow. I've thought that I would give away my record (when it's done) to those who would want to download it, but frankly, I never thought that I'd see a comment like that from a movie maker, whose movie is currently in theaters.

    That is a bold move, and probably making Jack Valenti spin in his grave.

    Oh, he's not dead yet? Well, I guess you can't have everything...

  • Good answer. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by acceleriter (231439) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:31AM (#9606015)
    If he were crying about his copyright being infringed, he would have been labelled as a rank hypocrite.
  • Moore's next film (Score:5, Interesting)

    by epsalon (518482) * <slash@alon.wox.org> on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:42AM (#9606097) Homepage Journal
    If Moore is against Copyright, he should make a film about the DMCA, the Sonny-Bonno copyright extention act, software patents, and similar freedom-inhibiting laws. That kind of film could really make a difference.
  • Simple logic (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kilimangaro (556424) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:54AM (#9606187)
    There is no such thing in that stories about Hey dude!!! pirating is OK. There is a cold logic behind Moore's warm aproval...
    And the logic is simple: This movie is a COUNTER-PROPAGANDA. More people will see it, More people will be against Bush administration.

    By the way, im sure that Moore's wish his movie to be broadcast on national television
  • by fmaxwell (249001) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @12:48PM (#9606560) Homepage Journal
    The MPAA really needs some better PR people. I'm on Michael Moore's side, but the MPAA has an easy response to his stand on piracy.

    Michael Moore:

    "I do well enough already and I made this film because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I'm happy this is happening."

    The correct response from the MPAA should be something along the lines of:

    "While we are happy that Michael Moore's films have brought him financial success, we are disappointed in his apparent lack of empathy for the movie theatre employees who rely on box-office ticket sales for their much more modest incomes."

    Again, my views are in line with Michael Moore's regarding fair use, but I'm still capable of recognizing valid arguments against that position.
  • by canadacow (715256) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @01:34PM (#9606798)
    Interesting how Mel Gibson actually cracked down on peer-to-peer distribution of "The Passion of the Christ" (techincally the equivalent to stealing Bibles) where as Moore supports the free sharing of his movie.
  • by mabu (178417) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @01:35PM (#9606806)
    Letterman's Top Ten List: "Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11":

    10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing

    9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election

    8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words

    7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported

    6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger

    5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true

    4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe

    3. Where the hell was Spider-man?

    2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth

    1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball
  • by mOoZik (698544) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @01:45PM (#9606872) Homepage
    ...in approving downloads? Is it to spread his message? Very possibly. But can it be much deeper? I recall reading he will possibly be banned from selling his DVDs and Videos due to some federal laws prohibiting the candidates' names from being advertised in commmercial products, or something of that nature; I suppose similar to network channels not broadcasting Arnold's films half-a-year ago. So, that could very well be his real reason, as I strongly doubt he wants to forego potential profits, despite his political position.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 04, 2004 @02:11PM (#9607053)
    In reading a plethora of "critiques of the movie", web sites supposedly debunking Moore's claims and everything in between, I've noticed a consistent pattern of how Moore's critics address his work:

    1. Standard right wing/conservative approach to dealing with issues: DON'T

    Attack the messenger, ignore the message.

    The vast majority of negative reviews of F911 tend to center around character assassination of Moore himself, rather than the issues raised in his movies:

    "Before watching Fahrenheit 9/11, I actually had some sort of admiration for Michael Moore. In his previous, most popular, two movies, Bowling for Columbine and Roger and Me, he was able to hide the fact that he's truly a sleaze-ball."
    - Bucket Reviews


    2. Make outrageous claims with no intent to back them up:

    "Fahrenheit 9/11 is a different experience than his past two outings, though. In it, he lets the filth fly, exposing his entirely evil heart, which is offensive and vile through and through. No matter how many quick cuts and slick moves he can make behind and in front of the camera, there's no disguising his despicableness here. Fahrenheit 9/11 is comprised of one percent truth, thirty-three percent staging, sixteen percent bents of reality, and fifty percent downright, inexcusable, lies. If I was a Democrat, I'd be ashamed that such an obnoxious scum was representing my political party, in film. If I was on the fence, voting, I would steer towards George W. Bush's side because of the atrociousness Moore utilizes in this film."
    - Bucket Reviews


    3. "Post-hypnotic suggestions" - Tell people what they will think.

    It's bad enough that any critic has the job of influencing people based on their opinion, but when they start telling you how you will react to the movie, they've gone too far:
    "What can I say about "Fahrenheit 9/11" that you can't already guess? If you are in line with Michael Moore's politics, you're gonna love this movie. But if you disagree with him - or maybe even find yourself somewhere in the middle - you just might find this the most grossly speculative, obnoxious, racist, obscured and hate-filled movie yet."

    - Film Threat


    4. Push the boundaries of hypocrisy

    This great trick, perfected by Fox News with the advent of the "No Spin Zone" has been elevated to an art form by the Bush administration. Right wing pundits employ this technique more often than they whip out their American Express gold card:
    "..Apparently Moore didn't have any footage of torture chambers, rape rooms or mass Kurdish graves to throw in as well. Oh yeah, I forgot. That doesn't fit in his agenda. So, let's not "document" those facts. Most people forget that Michael Moore has had a problem with accuracy. ...At times, Moore completely abandons any pretext of a documentary and slips into fiction by literally putting words into Bush's mouth and thoughts into the man's head.


    Let's put thoughts in Michael Moore's head, then let's lambast him for putting thoughts in other peoples' heads. Then let's top it all off with a cherry:
    "The bottom line is that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is nothing short of yellow journalism. In fact, it's worse. It's yellow journalism masquerading as investigative reporting. It is Michael Moore's desperate attempt to justify his Oscar speech."

  • by inkswamp (233692) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @03:48PM (#9607770)
    A slew of anti-Moore web sites out there are no doubt rushing to revise smart-ass comments now. Some of them try to show what a "liar" Moore is by encouraging their visitors to share F9/11 justifying it with Moore's quotes about not having a problem with downloading these kinds of things. I love the fact that Moore doesn't flinch on this stance. A lot of those smarmy comments are going to look pretty stupid at this point.

    Not that they didn't already, but now it will be more obvious.

Wernher von Braun settled for a V-2 when he coulda had a V-8.

Working...