LOS ANGELES (AP) - Michael Moore plans a follow-up to ``Fahrenheit 9/11,'' his hit documentary that assails President Bush over the handling of the Sept. 11 attacks and the war on terrorism, according to a Hollywood trade paper.
Moore told Daily Variety that he and Harvey Weinstein, the Miramax boss who produced the film, hope to have ``Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2'' ready in two to three years.
``Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them,'' Moore was quoted in Thursday's edition of Variety. ``They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now.''
A spokesman for Fellowship Adventure Group, formed by Weinstein and brother Bob to help distribute ``Fahrenheit 9/11,'' did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
``Fahrenheit 9/11,'' which won top honors at May's Cannes Film Festival, became the first documentary to top $100 million at the domestic box office. Moore, who won the documentary Academy Award for ``Bowling for Columbine,'' is pushing ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' in the best-picture category for the upcoming Oscars.
The issues for the follow-up film will remain the same, Iraq and terrorism, Moore said.
``The official mourning period is over today and there is a silver lining: George W. Bush is prohibited by law from running again,'' Moore said.
Why say it's his job to educate the American public and go out of his way to insult 58 million people to prove a point he wasn't able to do with his first movie? That's the arrogance I cannot stand.
So does Bush and Cheney's arrogance bother you all that much - I find their arrogance actually more sinister - as they have far more power at their disposal than Moore ever did... unless you consider a Microphone and a coherent argument a WMD
and I find Kerrys arrogance to be unbearable, and I thank god that both Kerry and Mr. Moore do not have 'more power at their disposal' Speak on!!
Posted by OSCARtheGROOM Read the 9/11 commision report it shows you that most of this goes back to the Clinton administration
While I know that Clinton did not help with his basically ignoring the potential threat of terrorism it goes back so much further then him. How about the fact that we armed Bin Laden when they were fighting the Russians or that we helped put Saddam in power. We are now suffering because of a problem we helped create. No one person can have the blame laid on their shoulders. This was a coarse that was set in motion long before Clinton or Bush.
I understand that but Clinton had a chance to take Bin Laden out and he didn't. Who knows what would have happened if he did. Maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened , but it did.
This Bush also had a chance to take Bin Laden out but he concentrated on Sadam instead. I just hope that in 5 or 10 years we aren't saying that 'maybe an attack even worse than 9/11 wouldn't have happened if W would have gotten him.'
myasmom
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by lanikai
Posted by myasmom
Posted by lilqtny
to answer laniki--
I've seen the films and I don't appreciate his methods
He may use 'facts' but he does with them with all media does but he goes too far. He stretches them so far that you can barely see the truth behind them.
his methods and ability to spin the truth definitely..I was in Blockbuster this weekend and the guy was recommending films and of course Farenhype 911 was suggested. I said..I am military..do you htink I really want to see that..and so many people agreed it was a one sided view..and thats why he gets no love. I hate people who are one sided and have the ability to get the one sided message across to people without consequence all due to free speech. OS in a sense if you think about it, for those who think people who voted for Bush were uninformed..I guess my counter speech would be, those who think Farenheight 911 was a detailed account of the truth were idiots..and no I am not calling anyone an idoit..unless you call a Bush voter unifomred.
I think it is unfair to think that you will always be able to get 'objective' opinions. Michael Moore has always made it clear that his opintion is not 'objective' when it comes to Bush, however but, I think his movies are his attempt to provide hard core, 'objective' evidence about why he finds Bush problematic. I understand your issue about the one-sided ness of things, but if everyone's is always trying to be 'objective' a lot of important truths get lost in the shuffle. I think that everyone is subjective about a lot of things. Even though you are military why would that prevent you from trying to understand why he says and does the things he does?
Also, I do think he's trying to bring Bush down, but not for his own self-aggrandizement but because of a genuine concern for the state this country and the world. People may not agree with his approach, or his views but I think he is doing this for what he believes are altruistic reasons.
I do understand what Mr. ******* I mean Mr. Moore says and does and I watch his films before I critique them. I cannot in good faith say that he presents 100% fact but I can say that sometimes he can stretch the truth to make a 'story'. Yes we need people like him but at the same time people need to put things in perspective and not beleive 100% f everything they see in his films.
I have actual gotten into an argument with this one lady in the subway over this film. She couldnt understand how little me would want to go out there and fight for this country after seeing his film..I politely told her..because your cowardly *** would not .. and I dont need Mr. Moore to tell me what the facts are and are not. People take the film for truth and that is sad. Because the line between fact and ficture is blurred.
eogara
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by Ronkonkomonga
Posted by eogara
He began to lose credibility with me after Bowling for Columbine
yeah - it was pretty lousy that he got Kmart to stop selling bullets....dang that Moore!
Actually, it was his spin on his interview with Charlton Heston and when he tried to say the NRA came to Colorado for their convention that made him lose his credibility with me. Also, the fact that he did not request permission from all of those in the video of the shooting (or their families if they are no longer living).
The entire movie was not him getting Kmart to stop selling bullets.
Ronkonkomonga
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
So - let me get this straight - you don't think Moore has credibility because of his conversation with Heston DESPITE the fact that he got a major US retailer to stop selling bullets????
talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
Small sidebar: I saw Moore speak at my University in Philadelphia back in '97 or '98... he was making all these wonderful erudite points, and students kept interrupting him with nonsense - He looked out at the sea of Abecrobie and Fitch clad frat boys (curiously not many women attended) Moore sighed, shook his head and said... 'You just don't get it....'
eogara
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by Ronkonkomonga
So - let me get this straight - you don't think Moore has credibility because of his conversation with Heston DESPITE the fact that he got a major US retailer to stop selling bullets????
talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
Small sidebar: I saw Moore speak at my University in Philadelphia back in '97 or '98... he was making all these wonderful erudite points, and students kept interrupting him with nonsense - He looked out at the sea of Abecrobie and Fitch clad frat boys (curiously not many women attended) Moore sighed, shook his head and said... 'You just don't get it....'
First of all, I would appreciate it if you would stop with the 's. It's rather immature.
No, I said he BEGAN to lose credibility with me after Bowling for Columbine AND his Oscar speech. It was downhill from there.
No wonder you like him - pick a small bit of what I said, completely blow it up and take it out of context. You could be his protege.
Robinella
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
atleast michael moore is trying to find the truth instead of ignoring it!
myasmom
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by lanikai
YOUR QUOTE Everytime you post its about Kerry or how Bush supporters are uninformed. We'll guess what I'm very informed about politics, and I'm a Bush supporter. I think the media was misinformed. Most of the media stations were supporting Kerry, and so were the newspapers except the new york post. So if i turned on the tv or read the papers that supported Kerry, I would believe everything I read and see. Get over it already he won. I spent months at Ground zero digging for bodies. I lost a lot of friends on 9/11, and I was there when the president came. You can believe what you want about Fahrenheight 9/11. Its your opinion as I have mine. Rent Fahrenhype 9/11 and see how Michael Moore twisted everything around. Read the 9/11 commision report it shows you that most of this goes back to the Clinton administration. ______________________________________
OSCARtheGROOM
I am not saying you are uninformed. If you carefully read my post you would see that I was talking about diversity among Bush voters, informed one. Since you have been monitoring me so closely you would know that MOST of my posts are WEDDING CHAT, so, please don't SWEAT me. The funny thing is that you feel you are entitled to your opinion, but you don't care for it when I voice mine. As you would say, why don't you 'Get over it.'
I find it interesting you refer to the 9/11 commission that your president didn't want to exist. Don't worry, I did see Fahrenheit and although I did not always agree with the way Moore presented things, I saw truth in what he was saying. If you didn't that's your right and your choice.
As for your take on the 'liberal' media, I'll leave you to your informed opinion on that.
He is still our president regardless of if some like it or not. I am getting appalled by the immaturity that comes with these topics. Its as if we all cant have a discussion without conflict. So maybe its time to just back up and cool down..The facts as I see it is..Bush is President..cant change that. Kerry is in politics still..he still has a chance of making change. The media is a toss up when deciding which truth/fiction to present. All we can do an Americans is make the decision that is best for ourselves and for those who like agree thats great, for those who dont thats fine too. For those who cant understand why people voted the way they did..and continually challenge people's opinions.....oops I may get censored
myasmom
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by Ronkonkomonga
Posted by eogara
He began to lose credibility with me after Bowling for Columbine
yeah - it was pretty lousy that he got Kmart to stop selling bullets....dang that Moore!
I call that half of a victory..its a galant effort but if he thinks Kmart was the problem..Mr. Moore is UNINFORMED.
lanikai
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Myasmom:
The media is a toss up when deciding which truth/fiction to present. ______________________________________ I don't think that is the case when increasingly the radio and tv waves are controlled by a handful of people, not many. It is increasingly one-sided and not in the favor of so-called 'liberals'.
lanikai
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by myasmom
Posted by Ronkonkomonga
Posted by eogara
He began to lose credibility with me after Bowling for Columbine
yeah - it was pretty lousy that he got Kmart to stop selling bullets....dang that Moore!
I call that half of a victory..its a galant effort but if he thinks Kmart was the problem..Mr. Moore is UNINFORMED.
It's one battle at a time, but you have to start somewhere right?
myasmom
Posted:
Member since
Re: Moore's at it again
Posted by lanikai
Myasmom:
The media is a toss up when deciding which truth/fiction to present. ______________________________________ I don't think that is the case when increasingly the radio and tv waves are controlled by a handful of people, not many. It is increasingly one-sided and not in the favor of so-called 'liberals'.
so isnt it being one sided mean that the side presented may not be based on 100% fact but some fact with speculation mixed in...so it is a toss up on if you should beleive everything you hear or see.
