Jump to content

2016: Obama's America review


Tim M
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

O0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...