I don't need Mel Gibson or Michael Moore

**AvengerRam** · -07-05-2004

If these films were not made by famous people, you wouldn't even know they exist.

I'm not telling anyone what movies they should or should not see. I'm just saying that, if you go to these movies, don't just accept them as (no pun intended) Gospel. Perhaps you, Nick, won't. However, all too many people do.

**Nick** · -07-05-2004

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

If these films were not made by famous people, you wouldn't even know they exist.

I disagree. While the exposure to the general public probably wouldn't have been as great, there are plenty of great movies that are made by up-and-coming film makers that not only see the light of day but are praised and achieve more wide-spread appeal.

Besides, how many people do you actually think recognize the name Michael Moore? I think the draw for his movie is more about the advertising being done for it rather than who he is as a person. I bet I could count on one hand the number of people I know personally who have watched "Bowling For Columbine" or "Roger and Me."

**AvengerRam** · -07-05-2004

You're not honestly going to tell me that media hype did not provide a major lift to both films at the box office.

**Nick** · -07-05-2004

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

You're not honestly going to tell me that media hype did not provide a major lift to both films at the box office.

Where did I say that?

There's no question media hype has caused more attention to be paid to this film, but has the media hype been regarding who made it or the content of the movie? It would seem to me it's the latter.

***Curly Horns*** · -07-06-2004

I guess I lead a sheltered life because this is the first I have heard of michael moore.

:redface:

**HUbison** · -07-06-2004

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

"The Passion" (which I have seen many "making of" segments on) contains slants (i.e. the sympathetic nature in which Pilate and his wife are portrayed) that simply do not appear in the Gospels (which I have read).

For the record, Matthew 27:24 ; Luke 23:4,20,22 ; & John 18:38 all make statements that Pilate believed Jesus to be innocent and his desire to release him. Likewise, Matthew 27:19 expresses Pilate's wife's instruction to her husband to "have nothing to do with this innocent man". So, there are Biblical references to the want of Pilate and his wife to release Jesus. However, regardless of his opinion, Pilate chose to hand Jesus over for crucifixtion which would indeed be contrary to Gibson's portrait of the sympathetic governor who had no choice. Pilate was politician, he acted accordingly...which is to say, politically.

Originally Posted by NickSeiler

Clearly someone like Moore isn't going to present all the facts -- just the ones that support his conclusion. Is that right of him? In the grand scheme of things, probably not, but it's the nature of the beast.

Nick, I agree. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if someone is willing to spend enough money they should be free to make a movie about it. However, Moore really should stop billing this movie as a documentary. I don't think it documents anything except Moore's politically motivated slant on the Bush administration.

**AvengerRam** · -07-06-2004

Michael Moore, in essence, began hyping "Fahrenheit" at last year's Oscars when he made the "shame on you Mr. Bush" acceptance speech for "Bowling for Columbine."

Gibson created his own controversy by showing the film to a limited number of hand picked viewers months prior to its release, while refusing to allow many of those concerned about its potentially Anti-Semitic message to view it.

Some call these things acts of marketing genius. To me, they are both examples of cynical (but effective) manipulation of the public.