It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Loose Change 2E shoots itself in the foot

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
First off, I like this film very much and I think it is crucial to the 9/11 'truth movement'. The documented info is excellent and this movie may well be the 'holy grail' of the bunch so far. I'm passing around copies of this and if I only had 90 minutes to state my case, LC would probably be the one.

However, with a subject as important as this I could understand why the movie may be somewhat ignored or brushed off by those in 'higher positions' and who would otherwise have an open mind.

What is most distracting is the production, which IMO lacks professionalism and a serious tone in many areas:

1. The Music.
How does an overpowering hip-hop style pounding beat help this message? I can understand a bunch of 21 yr old kids from NYC wanting to get their buddies' bands in a movie, but for this? I have watched this DVD on 6 different home systems so far, and there are scenes where the music is just too loud. In one scene the narration is VERY difficult to hear over the beat. I know it's the norm to embellish your emotional message with a soundtrack, but do our emotions NEED an extra push regarding this subject?

2. The Narrator/Script
Although a good effort and much better than 'Painful Deceptions' narrator Eric Hufschmid's voice, there is no mistaking the young teenage sounding- often rushed voice of inexperience. There were spots I had to replay several times because of poor diction and hurried sentences. And what's with the SARCASM? The place for ridicule and sarcasm is on the street or in the bar with your friends. For this story to be taken seriously by the masses it must be presented in a mature, non-judgmental way. The evidence that LC presents is certainly strong enough to stand on it's own without wisecracks.

3. The Speculations
As we have seen on this forum with comments like: "You don't have evidence, 95% of what is being said in documentaries is simply not true", there are many skeptics who are chomping at the bit to debunk this effort whether they have seen the films or not. Loose Change's assertion that "The cell phone calls were faked", for example, is just the kind of thing that will steer people away and sour them on the subject. Plus, it gives the detractors plenty of well-founded ammo.

The point of my criticism is to help us become more aware of just how huge an obstacle we face. We will never convincingly identify, let alone defeat those who did this by fighting them on our home court. We must beat them using THEIR rules. Plenty of great and powerful minds are out there to help us .. we only need to reach them.

[edit on 21-4-2006 by bvdd]




posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I agree that Loose Change may be the perfect cornerstone movie for getting people ‘in the know’ about opening their minds to 9/11. It seems to me that something by Alex Jones or David Icke in comparison would be too much for virgin eyes to handle, but Loose Change has the right mood and tone to keep people interested and listening. I recognize your criticism about those 3 parts of the movie, and the creators of it are by no means professional filmmakers, but I think the use of hip-hop, sarcasm, and speculations add to the overall value of it.

This “kids” know the content being presented here would blow the minds of some people, it’s just so much for the average person to take in while trying to be convinced that 9/11 was carried out by our Government. The music adds a little down-to-earth flow and helps keep the theme of it less hostile. I think because Loose Change is so new-age oriented that it actually helps to have some sarcasm and pop culture music in there to maintain a bit of levity in the mood of the viewer as he takes all this in. I firmly believe that the younger generations of people are the ones this movie was made for; after all they are the ones who can still do something about it as they grow and mature, while the older people might already be too set in their ways and mentality for it to have an impact on them. That’s not to say this wasn’t made for them as well, but from what I get out of people when the 9/11 subject is brought up is consistent with those beliefs.

Yes, we do have some powerful and controversial minds on our side fighting to expose the truth, but there needs to be a way to de-condition the minds of people before they will start asking questions themselves. I think Loose Change is the perfect tool for at the very least letting people know what still hasn’t been proved and what wasn’t being plastered all over Faux News and CNN during the aftermath of 9/11. Yes, some of the stuff in it has been debunked, and yes, other stuff isn’t very well documented and could be labeled as factually skewed, but the film as a whole is as close to a masterpiece as you can find on the subject for what it’s looking to accomplish. And as you can see with people reposting it day after day, people ARE watching it and following up on their thoughts.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Those are all good points BV.
One thing I have not done is observe the reaction from young people about the same age as Avery's gang. I haven't been thinking in those terms so that may change my opinion some.

I'll watch for this closely as I spread it around. Meanwhile, 'In Plane Site' takes care of my own 'old man' needs.

Thanks for responding.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
If you want to see something more professional, look up Steven Jones' lecture on the WTC on Google video. It's dry but definitely more professional and totally science-based.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I agree that they should have an older person do the voice, the person is annoying and people will brush him off as some stupid kid. Hopefully they will get it right on the third edition, lucky number 3.


SMR

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Have these issues been told to Dylan on his blog?
I was going to send him a message to get rid of that damn tarp image as he kept it in the 2nd edition and it was in the first.

The music could use a different beat for sure.To 'urban' 'hip-hop' for this issue IMO
The voice.Well, that could use some work as well.There are programs he could use to get more professional sounding.Even using his own voice.But not some rebot sounding thing either.

I agree that if you want to hit the masses with something like this, you have to be aware that simple things like this can discourage listeners/watchers.
This is an important issue and you really need to watch these things.

Maybe the 3rd edition can be a 2 disc set so he can add more so as not to leave any stone unturned.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I'm sorry but LC 2nd edition has indeed shot its self in the foot. Yes the voice was a bit childish but it goes beyond that. Someone mentioned the faked cell phone calls, but it gets worse then that. The biggest flaw in the movie is the fact the they made the conspiracy far to big. In order for their theory to be true you would need to have hundreds of people to be in on it, and that breaks the KISS rule. The more people in on it the more likely that there will be a leak. Bringing the whole thing down
But we have been lied to and the movie and its makers are spreading the word and for this I support them.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
In order for their theory to be true you would need to have hundreds of people to be in on it, and that breaks the KISS rule.


I disagree. Only the ones in charge need to be in on it. Military just does as ordered (It´s an exercise, stand down). CIA just does as ordered with a team of no more than 10 or 15 individuals. Just your basic black op. Media just does as ordered (you cannot broadcast that or we´ll revoke your license). Just your basic PsyOp.

But who gives the orders? Aha. Bush Sr, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice & the rest of the wolfpack. No more than 20 - 25 total.

Kiss KISS goodbye.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
In the movie LC 2nd Edition they make the claim that flight #93 landed and all the passengers removed and taken to a N.A.S.A. Site at the airport (I cannot remember where) and interrogated after the pilot told traffic control there was a bomb on board.
To pull this off they would need assistance from the airport personal, all of whom would remember if a flight with such historical import landed there, normally a landing would go unnoticed but on this day a plane coming in that had security suspicions about it I'm sure would be remembered by someone there, and talked about.
Secondly the claim is made that the plane that hit the pentagon was a smaller attack bomber and not a passenger jet. You would need fake witnesses to say that it was not a smaller plane, and a large team to go about silencing anyone who did see the the “real” plane.
In other word a lot of people.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Secondly the claim is made that the plane that hit the pentagon was a smaller attack bomber and not a passenger jet. You would need fake witnesses to say that it was not a smaller plane, and a large team to go about silencing anyone who did see the the “real” plane.
In other word a lot of people.


Why do you need fake witnesses for the pentagon attack? Just as many people (if not more) said it was a smaller plane. Also, not showing the footage of the actual plane says enough tbh.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
You are being hyper-critical and splitting hairs.

BrokenVisage explained it best, and I implore you to consider the viewpoint before knocking the individual aspects of the production qualities of what is still a very well done documentary.

This is a film that introduces firmly entrenched mindsets to something that literally blows minds when honestly thought about without being to in your face.

The sarcasm allows levity which still gets the facts across without coming across as a maniacal overthetop holierthanthou preacher.

The trendy and stylish presentation allows this film to be viewed by a much larger audience than a staunchy and purely scientific presentation. Both Stephen Jones and Loose Change have places where they can be effective tools to promote discussion.

Which one would you pick to show to a classroom? A church group? A civics group? College students? Who do you think is actually going to pick up the pieces and make changes in this world?

The older generation has created this situation, its up to their children to fix it because they are too impotent to accomplish anything.

Where else can you target groups of people and expose them to something with so much information as the 911 truth movement in a format palatable to the American fastfood me-first attention span?

Getting the word out to promote discussion without instantly having minds shutdown is more easily done with Loose Change than any other film I have been exposed to - stop being armchair critics and attempt to make your own video's and then maybe you can have a bit more appreciation of the work done instead of nitpicking about the music and voices.

The truth movement shoots itself in the foot by wasting energy splitting hairs instead of acting and trying to spread open discussion to people that haven't been exposed yet. Preaching to the choir is not going to be as effective in affecting change as bringing the message in a digestible way to those that are just uninformed.



[edit on 22-4-2006 by Violent]

[edit on 22-4-2006 by Violent]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   
You are being hyper-critical and splitting hairs.

BrokenVisage explained it best, and I implore you to consider the viewpoint before knocking the individual aspects of the production qualities of what is still a very well done documentary.

This is a film that introduces firmly entrenched mindsets to something that literally blows minds when honestly thought about without being to in your face.

The sarcasm allows levity which still gets the facts across without coming across as a maniacal overthetop holierthanthou preacher.

The trendy and stylish presentation allows this film to be viewed by a much larger audience than a staunchy and purely scientific presentation. Both Stephen Jones and Loose Change have places where they can be effective tools to promote discussion.

Which one would you pick to show to a classroom? A church group? A civics group? College students? Who do you think is actually going to pick up the pieces and make changes in this world?

The older generation has created this situation, its up to their children to fix it because they are too impotent to accomplish anything.

Where else can you target groups of people and expose them to something with so much information as the 911 truth movement in a format palatable to the American fastfood me-first attention span?

Getting the word out to promote discussion without instantly having minds shutdown is more easily done with Loose Change than any other film I have been exposed to - stop being armchair critics and attempt to make your own video's and then maybe you can have a bit more appreciation of the work done instead of nitpicking about the music and voices.

The truth movement shoots itself in the foot by wasting energy splitting hairs instead of acting and trying to spread open discussion to people that haven't been exposed yet. Preaching to the choir is not going to be as effective in affecting change as bringing the message in a digestible way to those that are just uninformed.


Violent,
I can tell you without question that I am TOTALLY interested in spreading this message as efficiently as possible. My concern about this movie was simply that it has unecessary distractions and that discussing those distractions will help some of us better understand how to present this story to others.

We don't need to make our own videos before we can appreciate Loose Change, and sharing constructive criticism with each other will only make us stronger and wiser.

You're right about the role of young people in this quest. However, young people are NOT in charge right now, and it will be a while before their collective voice is 'legitimate' enough to make a difference.

Using sarcasm and anti-government rhetoric to tell this story at this point in time may make you a big shot with other 20 year olds, but it will only make people with real CLOUT ignore you.

[

[edit on 23-4-2006 by bvdd]

[edit on 23-4-2006 by bvdd]

[edit on 23-4-2006 by bvdd]

[edit on 23-4-2006 by bvdd]



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bvdd
The older generation has created this situation, its up to their children to fix it


That would be us.

No you won´t fool the children of the revolution - Marc Bolan



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join