OmahaAudio Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 Propaganda sells. "Anti-Obama film short on evidence" http://seattletimes.com/html/entertainment/2019005779_apuscvn2016obamasamericafactcheck.html?prmid=head_more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted August 29, 2012 Report Share Posted August 29, 2012 As-Salamu Alaykum my brother. Best line of the month! And thumbs up to John B -- I agree, there's smugness, arrogance, and assholiness on both sides of the political spectrum these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHall Posted August 29, 2012 Report Share Posted August 29, 2012 Been gone a day. Regarding my question about walking out on a job: I admit I was trolling (been doing more of that recently). And nobody doubts that their money spends exactly the same as money from someone you agree with politically. But it seems that you were caught unawares and that the gig was something of a bait & switch from your perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmahaAudio Posted August 30, 2012 Report Share Posted August 30, 2012 "Whose America Is This Movie For?" http://gawker.com/5939387/2016-obamas-america-whose-america-is-this-movie-for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 Do you mean this? (Just an excerpt on YT) No, there was a segment shot before this where Obama and Michelle were standing up, about five minutes before the sit-down segment. I mentioned it to a friend yesterday who also saw the segment, and he said, "maybe the Secret Service guys said, 'uh-uh, nothing called a shotgun is going to be near The President,'" and that was the end of that. The sit down stuff sounded fine, and the interviews also got nationally publicity -- mainly from political pundits who said, "why is an Entertainment show interviewing the President in an election year?" I have objected for years about the non-entertainment content Entertainment Tonight does. Fashion shows, nightclubs, non-celebrities... it's a train wreck compared to the way it was in the 1980s and 1990s, where at least it had a semblance of covering TV, music, Broadway, radio, and movies. I once worked on a John Tesh "Red Rocks" concert project, several years after he left the show, and he rolled his eyes when I brought this up and said it was a fiercely debated topic on the show, one of several reasons he quit. As to the Obama movie, anybody who knows documentaries understands that if you go into making a film with an agenda, you can shoot and shape the footage to support any theory you want. It's clearly not an objective movie, but it doesn't mean it doesn't present a version of the truth. Similar to how Michael Moore manipulates his footage. Those are examples of super-conservative and liberal filmmakers who each twist reality to validate their conclusions. I think they're both kinda sleazy. Objective, it ain't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrd456 Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 How about Romneys America 2016-----it would be the second Victorian Era--your either very rich or very poor---we are headed that way. J.D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lightstone, CAS Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 I saw the film today at an AMC theater. I don't know where the OP Tim Munger saw the film, but the sound quality was fine and certainly as good or better than anything that Michael Moore has done. The camera work, the editing and the overall technical side was absolutely within the parameters of any commercially released documentary that has had a theatrical run. Either Tim was siting in lousy theater, or he didn't like the subject matter and that effected his "appreciation". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old school Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 So it was better sound than the tape of Mitts fundraising dinner? CrewC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lightstone, CAS Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 Crew, you should see the film yourself to really give us your professional comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirror Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 So it was better sound than the tape of Mitts fundraising dinner? CrewC Mitt is right on what he said at the fundraiser. I don't know what people are getting upset about. If 47% of the voters are sucking on the golden goose's teet why would they want to kill the golden goose? Ironically, It's all that sucking that will eventually kill the goose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atheisticmystic Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 If 47% of the voters are sucking on the golden goose's teet why would they want to kill the golden goose? Ironically, It's all that sucking that will eventually kill the goose. Yeah, yeah, I heard this one. "Don't kill the goose that let's you suck on it's golden feet". It's like a fable or something right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Tuzo Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 This 47% nonsense that the Romney campaign is yammering on about includes children below working age, the elderly above working age, and those who's earnings are under 20k annually. It's an inaccurate figure that's being used to wrongly sway the base. A gross exaggeration, much like the rest of the Romney/Ryan platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirror Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 Yeah, yeah, I heard this one. "Don't kill the goose that let's you suck on it's golden feet". It's like a fable or something right? Maybe it's spelled teat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old school Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 To busy working and paying taxes to see a movie. CrewC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 As far as people who'll do whatever it takes to get elected, BOTH parties sling their fair share of slop -- it's a toss-up. They're both on the same playing field playing the same game. . . Toss up? I think not. Just compare the conventions, where Republicans simply lied outrigh with a straight face. Don't even try to heap the democratic party onto the steaming cesspool that the Republican party has become. It's sad. Republicans used to be people who simply had different viewpoints that one could discuss. Now they are just hateful people who want to turn Ameirca into a theocracy, much like places like Iran etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 This 47% nonsense that the Romney campaign is yammering on about includes children below working age, the elderly above working age, and those who's earnings are under 20k annually. It's an inaccurate figure that's being used to wrongly sway the base. A gross exaggeration, much like the rest of the Romney/Ryan platform. This 47% are the people that vote for Romney. The rest live in the states that pay to keep the states that are Republican above water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTA Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 One of the saddest things is how smug some people are about their opinions. No one has all the answers. People who act like they do only make themselves appear narrow-minded. Unfortunately, we live in a time when people think it's necessary to choose up sides. As a result they lose perspective. But <sigh>, life's so much simpler when you don't have to think. Agreed 100%. I'm not even going to get into political sides, but people get so entrenched in their ideology that they cease to see facts and history, and continue to argue theory that has been proven wrong over time. Until people see past sides, and thinking that there are only two sides to a coin, we won't go much of anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 Agreed 100%. I'm not even going to get into political sides, but people get so entrenched in their ideology that they cease to see facts and history, and continue to argue theory that has been proven wrong over time. Until people see past sides, and thinking that there are only two sides to a coin, we won't go much of anywhere. I can agree with this, but the only problem with it is those from the different ideologies think this sort of statement is proving their points/beliefs lol. They will just use it as a means to support what they have been saying, and around and around we go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Babb Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 I love how one side will use hyperbole to complain about the other side's hyperbole. I've told you a million times not to exaggerate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim M Posted September 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 I saw the film today at an AMC theater. I don't know where the OP Tim Munger saw the film, but the sound quality was fine and certainly as good or better than anything that Michael Moore has done. The camera work, the editing and the overall technical side was absolutely within the parameters of any commercially released documentary that has had a theatrical run. Either Tim was siting in lousy theater, or he didn't like the subject matter and that effected his "appreciation". I saw the film at an AMC as well, and maybe you agree with the subject matter, because IMO it sounded terrible lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lightstone, CAS Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 Tim, I happen to be on the Academy Documentary Committee and I am required to see documentaries either in a commercial theater or if it is screened at the Academy's Samuel Goldwyn or the Linwood Dunn theater. I cannot tell you wether I liked the "subject matter" of this or any other documentary that I am required to see. That is reserved for my ballot that goes towards the final judging. IMO, it sounded fine lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 I find that most documentaries sound like crap these days. People do their one man shoots, and then don't want to pay anything for a proper mix. So, it's mostly noisy, crappy, vey interviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old school Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 Not to swing this conversation away from the political treat that it is, but I like a well recorded doc that has a strong background in it. It sells the Doc factor if the S/N ration makes the words intelligible to the shot but the place is well established in the BG sound. Especially when there is a lot of cross cutting going on. That being said, I have no idea how this movie being discussed sounds. CrewC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnpaul215 Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 Mitt is right on what he said at the fundraiser. I don't know what people are getting upset about. If 47% of the voters are sucking on the golden goose's teet why would they want to kill the golden goose? Ironically, It's all that sucking that will eventually kill the goose. Ironically a lot of the top wealthiest Americans are only that way because they game the government (sucking up our tax dollars). Getting no-bid contracts, and bailouts, for their companies is somehow better? Those are the same people/corporations/superPACS that bankroll the elections so they can maintain their wealth. THAT is going to kill the country faster than poor people trying to get food and shelter. That goes for Republicans and Democrats. I'm sure you have all seen the charts showing the major contributors to the Republican and Democrat candidates are the same. Look how many ex Goldmen Sachs people found work in the Obama administration and advise on fiscal policies. There is a joke in there somewhere. As far as Mitt, he's already revised that statement, so I don't think it's true anymore. Till maybe next week, or somebody else records him with a phone again at a private fundraiser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTA Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 As far as Mitt, he's already revised that statement, so I don't think it's true anymore. Till maybe next week, or somebody else records him with a phone again at a private fundraiser. "We" were never supposed to hear that statement. Oops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.