Farenheit 9/11 Sequel

[Jaimoe]

From Moviehole.com:

Moore planning Fahrenheit 9/11 sequel

Posted on Thr, 11-Nov-2004

Michael Moore has ditched the damp tissue - he's been crying over Bush's re-elect you see? - and has decided what the world needs is a sequel to his controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11".

The title? "Fahrenheit 9/11½".

"We want to get cameras rolling now and have it ready in two-three years," Moore told Variety.

"We want to document and commercialize it," added Moore, "Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them. They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now. The official mourning period is over today and there is a silver lining -- George W. Bush is prohibited by law from running again."

[ollie]

Um yeah, because the first one was sooooo successful in ousting Bush. I like Michael Moore and his work but I think he creates more division than unity. He's usually preaching to the converted.

[Jakis]

Anyone heard of the movie Fahrenhype 9/11 that came out this week. It tries to prove Michael Moore wrong on a number of facts.

"A documentary which refutes and debunks 'facts' made by Michael Moore in his hit film "Fahrenheit 9/11". From IMDB.

[Jaimoe]

I like Moore as a filmmaker, but he does like to blur the facts from time to time to drive home his point.

[Tickler]

He is definitly one sided, but some of the facts he presents, no matter how you look at them are shocking and cannot be ignored. But as we all know, they were by 51% of americans.

There is nothing Moore can do about ignorance and lack of education.

[ollie]

I like Moore as a filmmaker, but he does like to blur the facts from time to time to drive home his point.

And this really bugs me because he leaves himself open to the kind of backlash campaign that was mounted against Farenheit 9/11. The truth doesn't need blurring.

I only saw the movie after the controversy had died down and I was really left wondering what people were complaining about. It's a fairly factual account. If Moore would just leave some of the over-the-top selling out of his films I think "the right" would have a much harder target to hit.

I think there are actually more "problems" in Bowling for Columbine. I felt kind of cheated when I read how Moore manipulated the timeline in some of the scenes to make the story fit.

[Jaimoe]

I think there are actually more "problems" in Bowling for Columbine. I felt kind of cheated when I read how Moore manipulated the timeline in some of the scenes to make the story fit.

The worst is the staged opening scene in the bank.

The best thing that comes from Moore's films are the discussions and analysis of the issues posed.

[StoneMtn]

The fact is that Noam Chomsky has been trying to get a similar message out for 4 or 5 decades. He's written an untold number of books, recorded tapes/CDs and produced films.

The average Americans that he needs to reach are simply not intelligent enough to read/listen to/watch Chomsky; or at least that is my presumption. Otherwise, if I am wrong in that presumption, it must be that they are simply disinclined.

Without someone like Michael Moore to "dumb down" the message, it will never get out. Of course I would prefer that everyone read Chomsky, however, I am willing to take Michael Moore as the most viable option in light of the prevailing sub-standard intelligence that seems to predominate.

[Douglas]

ollie - you took the words outta my mouth.

And this really bugs me because he leaves himself open to the kind of backlash campaign that was mounted against Farenheit 9/11. The truth doesn't need blurring.

It's almost sad since I really believe that he has some very important things to say, and (more) people might actually listen to him if he didn't come off so strong (edit to add - ie: opinionated).

[TheGoodRev]

Yes I find him strong too...but odour isn't everything. :: ::