Trent 0 #51 June 30, 2004 Yes, I understand what you're saying. Yes, I've seen parts of her films (not that interested in them). A documentary can be propaganda is what you're getting at, right? According to the MW definitions, it would seem they can't. I haven't shouted yet. Just want you to bother the dictionary guys about this definition, since you clearly have a better one.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #52 June 30, 2004 QuoteYes, I understand what you're saying. Yes, I've seen parts of her films (not that interested in them). A documentary can be propaganda is what you're getting at, right? According to the MW definitions, it would seem they can't. You would be hard pressed to find a "documentary" or for that matter a history text that isn't closer to the propoganda definition you provided. The primary motivation to make a documentary is to express a viewpoint. If everyone already knew and believed your message, wtf would you take the time to make a movie about it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #53 June 30, 2004 For certain kinds of movies, you're correct. But what about movies about penguins, and scuba diving, and great white sharks? See? Ya gots documentaries, mockumentaries, and op-ed pieces...Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #54 June 30, 2004 QuoteFor certain kinds of movies, you're correct. But what about movies about penguins, and scuba diving, and great white sharks? See? How many shark shows have you seen that didn't mention their numbers are dwindling and we're the bad guys? While they're great noble creatures. It's closer to the ballpark than historical documentaries, but still pushing a bit of proganda/surmonizing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #55 June 30, 2004 Give it up, Trent. There's no educating certain mindless sheep. People believe what they want to believe. We all know this movie is propaganda and not a documentary. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #56 June 30, 2004 QuoteThere's no educating certain mindless sheep. People believe what they want to believe. We all know this movie is propaganda and not a documentary. You're totally right... Mindless Sheep... Must be uneducated! For a second there I thought your posts weren't constructive or objective, and that you hadn't seen the movie, but I stand corrected! Clearly constructive and objective, and you must have seen the Movie/Documentary/Propaganda to have such insite into it's content! Don't include me in your "We"... "We" don't all agree with you. Sometimes I think the mindless Sheep are the ones running around pointing fingers at other people calling them Mindless Sheep! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #57 July 1, 2004 QuoteMaybe it will do as well as "The Passion of the Christ?" Cost 30 mil to make and so far has grossed 970 mil worldwide. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hmmm... 30 mil to make 970 mil. That's 32.3 mil made for every mil spent. If F9/11 wants to do better than the Passion on a bang for bucks rating it has to make 194 mil worldwide... It did well over a tenth of that in it's first weekend... hmmm... Now should the total be before or after book sales? The point I was trying to make is the fact that these were two controversial films that the Hollywood execs were afraid to touch. So they were made independently and both were successful. I do take the blame for not making that clear. However, since you have decided to use "fuzzy math" here, I would like to clarify it. You're talking in ratios, not actual gross profits. "The Passion" so far has made a profit of 940 mil. "Farenheit 911" so far has made a profit of about 5 mil. Granted F911 is not done yet. I'm sure it will make quite a bit more, but I seriously doubt it will come close to 940 mil. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #58 July 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteMaybe it will do as well as "The Passion of the Christ?" Cost 30 mil to make and so far has grossed 970 mil worldwide. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hmmm... 30 mil to make 970 mil. That's 32.3 mil made for every mil spent. If F9/11 wants to do better than the Passion on a bang for bucks rating it has to make 194 mil worldwide... It did well over a tenth of that in it's first weekend... hmmm... Now should the total be before or after book sales? The point I was trying to make is the fact that these were two controversial films that the Hollywood execs were afraid to touch. So they were made independently and both were successful. I do take the blame for not making that clear. However, since you have decided to use "fuzzy math" here, I would like to clarify it. You're talking in ratios, not actual gross profits. "The Passion" so far has made a profit of 940 mil. "Farenheit 911" so far has made a profit of about 5 mil. Granted F911 is not done yet. I'm sure it will make quite a bit more, but I seriously doubt it will come close to 940 mil. Well, that's on account of the quality of the acting. Mel Gibson plays Jesus a whole lot better than GWB plays President of the USA... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #59 July 1, 2004 QuoteWell, that's on account of the quality of the acting. Mel Gibson plays Jesus a whole lot better than GWB plays President of the USA Umm...Mel Gibson did not play Jesus. Jim Caviezal did. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #60 July 1, 2004 QuoteMel Gibson plays Jesus a whole lot better than GWB plays President of the USA What drugs are you injuring your brain with? Mel Gibson played Jesus? ROFLMAO. Well the good news is that quote you made is as about truthful as 99% of your other statements you make in your posts. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #61 July 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteMel Gibson plays Jesus a whole lot better than GWB plays President of the USA What drugs are you injuring your brain with? Mel Gibson played Jesus? ROFLMAO. Well the good news is that quote you made is as about truthful as 99% of your other statements you make in your posts. He still plays Jesus better.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #62 July 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteMel Gibson plays Jesus a whole lot better than GWB plays President of the USA What drugs are you injuring your brain with? Mel Gibson played Jesus? ROFLMAO. Well the good news is that quote you made is as about truthful as 99% of your other statements you make in your posts. Explain how that makes my statement untrue? Mel Gibson plays anyone better than GWB plays President of the USA.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #63 July 1, 2004 Mel Gibson for President!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #64 July 1, 2004 QuoteMel Gibson for President!!!! I'm afraid he fails the Constitutional criteria.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #65 July 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteMel Gibson for President!!!! I'm afraid he fails the Constitutional criteria. He and Arnold can start a grass roots campaign to change it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #66 July 1, 2004 Michael Moore once said Americans were the dumbest people on the face of the Earth. Based on his ticket sales, I'd say he was correct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #67 July 1, 2004 QuoteLast time I checked we were talking about a movie so, maybe the Hollywood definition (by which I assume you mean my previously posted reference to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences definition) probably does mean more to me than something written for a dictionary. Look up skydiving for instance in the same links you provided. Do you agree that those are all inclusive definitions or would you trust a definition from the USPA as having more meaning? that depends, do you think the USPA has the same sort of political agenda that Hollywood clearly illustrates? objectivity is an important factor in defining anything....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
