conniption

Manos: Hands of Fate, closely followed by Night of the Lepus, Glen or Glenda, and The Brain from the Planet Arous.

I love the bad movies .

Look, Dukes, I'm not asking you to like Michael Moore. All I'm pointing out is that your accusations of him being a glory hog are absurd. He has a set of strong beliefs (whether or not you agree with them), and a strong desire to promulgate them (fair enough) and his methods - namely his humorous, opinionated stunt-filled films / TV shows carried by his everyman charisma - have proved extraordinarily succesful in doing that. Attacking him for being a glory hog by putting himself on screen could hardly be more off-base - was Martin Luther King, Jr a glory hog for standing behind his podium and using his magnetism, charisma and flair for rhetoric to present his views? Of course not. Note that I'm not asking you to think that Moore is as good a person as MLK or whatever - you can think he's the devil for all I care - but merely that that particular attack on him is ludicrous.

If he never put himself on-screen, if he tried to prevent his personal touch coming out in his shows and documentaries, he certainly wouldn't be putting out a film that became the highest selling documentary ever in JUST ONE WEEKEND.

Moore's work is known because he's Michael Moore. And your statement about it being the highest selling documentary shows you CLEARLY don't understand American movie receipts. Michael Moore's documentary did well because he's Michael Moore. The goodness or badness of the documentary has nothing to do with it...

Read what I said again. Slower. Did I say anything about the goodness or badness of Fahrenheit 9/11? Of course not. The film hasn't even come out in New Zealand. I said, in effect, exactly what you said - you say people go to the film just because it's Michael Moore and it's hyped. well, why is it hyped? Why do people want to see his film just because it's Michael Moore? Well, because of his past film and TV work, particularly his directorial style which has always seen him put himself in front of the camera. That seems pretty reasonable - I'd go to most Coen Brothers or Tarantino films just because based on their previous works I think I'll enjoy it.

is he supposed to keep his opinions to himself and make sure he never goes past the stating of facts to actually draw some conclusions in his work? Hell no.

Yes, if he wants to be seen as a documentarian. That's the definition of a documentary.

No, it's not. All documentarians make choices about what material they include and what material they exclude from their films, and these choices reflect the documentarian's editorial concerns. A list of facts on screen with no conclusions drawn would be crushingly dull, and can't fail to be incomplete. Of course, they're not allowed to lie, and if Michael Moore lies (he hasn't been caught out for any in Fahrenheit 9/11 yet that I know of yet) I'm not going to support him. But he's free to express his opinion - just think of it as an op-ed piece in your newspaper, but in film form instead, if that makes it easier for you.

Right, fine, okay, I get it.  Michael Moore can say whatever the hell he wants.  That doesn't mean I have to like it...

Yes he can. That's free speech. And no, of course you don't. Just try not to dislike him for such phony reasons.

Hasn't the Disney affair (and the trouble he had publishing Stupid White Men before that) tought everyone that if he didn't bust his ass to promote his work, they'd simply be shut down and suppressed by big corporations with their own reasons not to upset the applecart?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -- oh, you're serious.

Michael Moore has a reputation, well-earned.

And he got that reputation by promoting himself and (more importantly) his work, and breaking through the considerable barriers that stand in front of his style of political message - whether you agree with it or not - getting mainstream exposure.

2. Could this be the greatest example of "pot, kettle, black" in history?

What do you even mean by that? It's not like Moore's done many of the major things he's accused Bush of, like starting a war for fraudulent reasons that's killed millions, and so on.

Good find, sycodmn. Anyone volunteering to serve in the Vietnam War in 1972, by which time it had become obvious that the US had lost, and the US was scaling back their involvement, would really need their head read.

A great quote from the New York Daily News:

Look, the Bush campaign spent $85 million in three months trying to convince the electorate that John Kerry is a flip-flopping left-wing threat to national security. Moore spent $6million to make his documentary showing that Bush is an arrogant, self-serving, dangerous buffoon who is a threat to national security.

This Onion article (yes, really) also offers a hilarious parody of the people who think criticism of the President is somehow unpatriotic or distasteful. Dammit, themick, you live in a democracy! Blind allegiance to the Commander-in-Chief and refusal to question him is what you do in a dictatorship. Which would you rather live in?

MICHAEL MOORE IS A GLORY HOG.

←

I don't understand this attitude at all. Moore's work is known precisely because of his oddball charisma and unique ability to present arguments and political views in unconventional, thought-provoking and funny ways. If he never put himself on-screen, if he tried to prevent his personal touch coming out in his shows and documentaries, he certainly wouldn't be putting out a film that became the highest selling documentary ever in JUST ONE WEEKEND.

This whole idea that he's a glory hog, in it for the money and/or publicity... is he supposed to keep his opinions to himself and make sure he never goes past the stating of facts to actually draw some conclusions in his work? Hell no. He's an artist, regardless of whether you think he's a good artist or not, and it's his role to get his message out and present it in the most effective and memorable way he can. Hasn't the Disney affair (and the trouble he had publishing Stupid White Men before that) tought everyone that if he didn't bust his ass to promote his work, they'd simply be shut down and suppressed by big corporations with their own reasons not to upset the applecart?

It depends what your tastes are. I'm most interested in the Asian cinema (Old Boy, Hero, Ong-Bak, etc) and a few of the docos (Fahrenheit 911, The Yes Men, the Corporation, Control Room). Prices are quite high, though, so I'll probably wait to see the films that'll definitely get mainstream release, like Fahrenheit.

No. They're transplanting their views onto impressionable teens. Young people these days (outside of America at least) are inundated left wing politically influenced artists/celebrities. I'm not a Conservative by any means, but that's lopsided and unfair. I got to where I was politically by listening to what both sides have to say and making my mind up. These kids are being asked to choose between fashionable musicians and old politicians; who do you think they're going to side with. So yeah, artists should keep their big mouths shut, and if they want to enlighten people then give people the unbiased facts and let them make their minds up. People aren't too dumb to do that.

←

Who the hell wants to listen to a conservative rock band? Rock, rap and several other genres of music have their roots in rebellion, struggle and controversy, and I'll take that over the safe commercial crap that many bands churn out because they're afraid to say something that might upset a potential customer. There'll always be bands that are too ham-fisted or simplistic in their attempts to cram politics or ethics in their songs, but that isn't an argument that politics in music sucks any more than Vanilla Ice is an argument that rap sucks. To me, addressing real issues, political or otherwise, in lyrical form will always be one of the primary purposes of music, and any indeed most forms of art.

Remember, a title cannot change hands on a disqualification or count out. Anything is possible.

←

True... but a DQ in a workrate-based tourney like this one would kinda suck.

I'm picking Dutt over Shelley in one semi (Shelley ain't over enough to go over Dutt, I don't think), Walters over Sabin in the other, and Dutt over Walters in the final. That is two title changes in one night, which some might not like, but it'd put over a new champ while keeping Walters and Sabin strongly in the hunt, which is a pretty good result from a tourney.

Isn't there a Punk-Raven match on Wednesday, as well? By the way, I want to hear what AJ Styles thinks about only beating Raven by Punk's interference. He didn't notice Punk interfering at the time, but surely he knows about it by now, and can't be happy about it.

I like that you're using the Super 8 tourney to put over the X Division - the bios were nice - and the TNA vs the World concept is a good way to add a bit of prestige to the tourney, and maybe introduce a couple of new regulars.

Predictions:

Sabin over Kruel. Splat. No way Sabin's dropping his title to a nobody.

Walters over Cunningham. I'd be very surprised if I'm wrong here.

Dutt over Rave. The only quarterfinal match I can really see going either way, as Rave's someone that might be worth pushing in TNA. However, I think Dutt takes it by dint of his 3LK-induced coolness.

Shelley over Siaki. One of the 'World' guys has to win, and I just don't see Siaki going anywhere in the X division.

It's not clear who's bracketed with who for the semis, but I could see a Walters-Sabin final with Walters going over.

It's great to this towering monument to the possibilities of the humble EWR diary isn't lost to this version of the Dome. This is a diary that's not only great, but - dare I say it - significant.

5. Speaking of "book", I'm going to send an email to WWE Publishing and see what they think about it.  It's my goal to have them not sue me for copyright infringement.

Considering your portrayal of certain WWE wrestlers (and management!), don't be surprised if they aren't exactly keen to work with you. Still, good luck I guess.

However, my biggest flip-flops would come later, as several people noted that I was portraying the usual Internet "heels" in a favorable light. I dunno -- I just don't think I know the guys well enough to consider them assholes. But that's just me.

Man, you must know Vince, Triple H and Regal real well, then .

Also noteworthy is the first appearance of a major crutch I leaned on -- motormouth syndrome.  Eddie talks very candidly about his life and times to Andy/Cena, which soon became a theme of mine.  It was one of the main points of contention when Conniption reviewed my diary, and he said it was what held it back from being true literature.  (How I ever got ****3/4 out of him I'll never know -- if you read his review, it focused a lot on the negatives.  Maybe I should get him to repost it after I finish reposting my story.)

←

Oh, come on, you know I love this diary . Coincidentally, I explained part of the reason my reviews are so negative in the Conniptionizer thread a couple of hours ago. Of course, I'd be happy to post my shallow griping at the end of this thread if you'd like.

Hilarious press conference, especially Vince Russo's part. Looking forward to which diary writers I get to subjugate to my will - hey, I am a Cult Leader!

Join my cult, y'all.

Ah... Bastard is one fucking good song.

UK: Goody Two Shoes by Adam Ant - never heard of it

US: Ebony and Ivory by Paul McCartney & Stevie Wonder - hmm, a song about ignoring skin colour by someone who's blind - what would he know about the subject?

Is anybody watching this on ABC?  They're doing this in depth feature about how horrible porn is and how big corporations distribute it through their cable and satellites.  They of course then say bullshit like "why don't these corporations care that girls as young as 18 are having sex on camera with no health care and condoms aren't always required?"  This is hands down, one of the most underhanded tactics I've ever seen.  ABC is taking this chance to blast FOX and Time Warner all while keeping their image clean because they're owned by Disney.  This is absolutely fucking disgusting and isn't the first time ABC has pulled shit like this.

←

None of the big media companies who are distributing pornography are likely to do exposes on themselves, are they? So if other media companies aren't allowed to comment on the issue because that's an 'underhanded tactic', how can anyone ever report on the subject?

I don't know that Bowling really was a message movie, per se. At least, there's no 1 underlying message dominating the whole movie - Moore looks at all sorts of stuff from poverty to the NRA to American violence in other countries to gun ownership levels to the 'culture of fear' created by the media, but leaves a fair bit of room for viewers to make up their mind.

This movie will be the first Documentary I will see in THeatres!  I don't remember any other time when I was excited about a Documentary.  I wonder if Bush will see it?? 

←

Bush doesn't even read newspapers - not even right wing ones - so I'm pretty sure he'll stay a million miles away from this one.