Camera Control Laws

[Under13]

Because videorecording is serious business...

[browncoat]

George Lucas!

[Morgan]

Morgan vanHumbeck

i'm dutch, not german.

[Under13]

Morgan vanHumbeck

i'm dutch, not german.

It's all deutsche to me...
Sorry, Morgan. I'd go in and edit the poll to correct myself if I could...

[Allen!]

Such a tough choice, but I let Morgan keep his so that I didn't have to see another Uwe Boll film.

[Graham]

Count Morganus von Humbeck, muahahaha!

[Allen!]

Countess Morganna von Humbeck, muahahaha!

Fixed. =P

[Corax]

George Lucas!

George Lucas after he made Episode 4 or possible after 4, 5, 6

[Misty]

Hey! Morgan's not a bad cameraman! Day in the Liff wasn't that horrible.

That being said, Mr. Boll gets my vote. Dear God, someone hide all the fucking cameras... my eyesight is permanently scarred cause of him x___x

[Sirius]

House of the dead...or more like rave of the dead...and by dead I mean suck...and by rave I mean suck...and by "of the" I mean suck...it just...gah it burns us!

[Wraith]

Ordinarily, Uvay (because he dosen't DESERVE proper spelling, that's why) would be the clear choice, but Michael Moore? I honestly don't think I could come up with ANYONE you could put on that poll that would make me not choose Moore.

[Under13]

Ordinarily, Uvay (because he dosen't DESERVE proper spelling, that's why) would be the clear choice, but Michael Moore? I honestly don't think I could come up with ANYONE you could put on that poll that would make me not choose Moore.

...will you be my best friend?
We can text-message an' everything.

[CyberTractor]

Hey, Michael Moore isn't that bad.

Bowling for Columbine was a pretty good documentary (besides the insinuations that gun owners are part of the KKK and NRA...)

[tak197]

Hey, Michael Moore isn't that bad.

Bowling for Columbine was a pretty good documentary (besides the insinuations that gun owners are part of the KKK and NRA...)

And his new one, Sicko, looks good, since it is all about healthcare in the US. His nonpartisan stuff is good, but if it's too political, he epically fails.

[Wraith]

Hey, Michael Moore isn't that bad.

Bowling for Columbine was a pretty good documentary (besides the insinuations that gun owners are part of the KKK and NRA...)

Except that it was filled with gross inaccuracies, rigged events, and flat-out lies. For example the "open a bank account get a gun" thing, where he neglected to mention the fact that he had been working with that bank for over a month convincing them to give him the gun (they ordinarily did not give out the gun AT the bank under any circumstances). Watch "Michale Moore Hates America" some time. The guy rigged the hell out of that and then acted like he just walked in and walked out with a gun. The dude uses mis-quotes, rigged events, "creative editing" and plain old, flat-out LIES to push his agenda.

Moore is a disgrace.

[Iverix]

I concur. When I see his films I put myself into a creative-thinking mode and try to correct all the misconceptions. It's almost like a word search or something, so you pay for both a movie and a game! O.o

[Alex Steacy]

Ok, so he's REALLY left-wing and uses a lot of unsavoury and questionable means.

However, I do still find him funny and he does make some good points. And America IS gun-crazy, but I think most of us knew that before the movie.

Also, in before red/blue flamewar.

[CyberTractor]

The dude uses mis-quotes, rigged events, "creative editing" and plain old, flat-out LIES to push his agenda.

Moore is a disgrace.

The media does that with every thing that they put on the TV, especially in America. It's much easier to point out when one person does it that when an entire news station does it, eh?

Newspapers stretch the truth to appeal to people's senses so that they'll spend money to read it. Moore stretches the truth to outrage people and build up fame.

Sounds like Moore knows exactly how to boost his PR, no matter how risque.

[Under13]

If someone really wanted to do something about a problem in society, making a movie about it, despite how "trendy" it has become lately, does little to no actual good. Sure, you can claim that it generates a lot of "public awareness," but honestly who in America that currently buys/owns health insurance wasn't already aware that the system needs some serious rework? I don't need Michael Moore heckling U.S. soldiers at Gitmo through a megaphone to remind me; I get a nice little reminder each paycheck when my medical is taken out.

If someone really, honestly wanted to do something about a problem in society, they would dig into the problem and start trying to actually do something about the problem.

[Wraith]

Ok, so he's REALLY left-wing and uses a lot of unsavoury and questionable means.

However, I do still find him funny and he does make some good points. And America IS gun-crazy, but I think most of us knew that before the movie.

Also, in before red/blue flamewar.

Firstly, we are not "gun crazy". Most the people I know have never even TOUCHED an actual gun.

Secondly, if the only way you can prove your point is through a bunch of lies, your point is probably wrong. If it was as easy to get a gun as he claimed, he shouldn't have had to rig up phony events. He should have been able to just GET one.

[Wraith]

The dude uses mis-quotes, rigged events, "creative editing" and plain old, flat-out LIES to push his agenda.

Moore is a disgrace.

The media does that with every thing that they put on the TV, especially in America. It's much easier to point out when one person does it that when an entire news station does it, eh?

1. If the media lies to you about everything they put out, then how do you know it's a lie? Are you personally going to every place they write a story about and investigating? Because if you're not, then you're just taking one media outlet's word over another.

2. He makes "documentaries" the point of a documentary is to inform. If the entire thing is a pack of lies, then you're MISinforming, and screwing up people's already warped, ignorant perceptions.

Newspapers stretch the truth to appeal to people's senses so that they'll spend money to read it. Moore stretches the truth to outrage people and build up fame.

Sounds like Moore knows exactly how to boost his PR, no matter how risque.

Moore doesn't "stretch the truth", Moore LIES. Pure and simple. He goes on camera and says things that he KNOWS aren't true. He fabricates stories. He's full of shit.

[AmazingPjotrMan]

But he's kinda funny sometimes either way. So if it's fictional then can't we just call it comedy?

[tak197]

In the end, what would you rather see, a movie by Moore who had inaccuracies in the information, or anything Uve Boll has EVER FILMED?

That's what I thought.

[Wraith]

But he's kinda funny sometimes either way. So if it's fictional then can't we just call it comedy?

No, because its intent is clear, it's meant to be taken as a documentary, and it's meant to convince people that its points are true.

[Wraith]

But he's kinda funny sometimes either way. So if it's fictional then can't we just call it comedy?

No, because its intent is clear, it's meant to be taken as a documentary, and it's meant to convince people that its points are true. Calling it a comedy would be like calling "The Final Solution" a "cautionary tale"