Michael Moore Boycotts North Carolina: You Anti-Gay Bigots Don’t Get to See My Latest Flop

Wow, first Springsteen, now Moore... NC has got to be doing something right.

FYI for every person who boycotts NC there are people on the other side who will go out of their way to do business there.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Not entirely true.

Wasn't that Desouza guy put in jail?

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: gator2001

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
You know, if I said the same things that have been said about Michael Moore in this thread about his conservative counterpart...

Oh, wait. He really doesn't have one. LOL LOL

Meethinks folks hate on Moore so badly because they can't seem to scrape together someone as successful at partisan movie making as he is.

Jealousy, it's a hulluva thing...

They are out there...
www.conservapedia.com...:Greatest_Conservative_Movies#Documentaries

I don't think they get the press and attention for a couple of reasons. One, Moore capitalized on the great national tragedy of 911 to get attention for his movie. Without 911, we might have never heard of him. Can't blame him business wise for making his movie then. Since his 911 movie, his movies are flops.

Secondly, it is difficult for right wing film makers to get attention from Hollywood because Hollywood is a left leaning community.

Also, political documentaries are a small niche market. Not many people thirst for such movies. They prefer action, comedy, romance, etc.

My point with this post is that him coming out and declaring his boycott is like throwing a rock out into a big pile of rocks. There is no effect. It is probably his attempt to draw attention to his new movie and try to reclaim his one hit wonder past.
There was PayPal...400 jobs hurts. Springsteen...might have been someone that was hurt he wouldn't appear there. One porn site...really? Now Moore...laughter...crickets instead of people in NC crying because they can't go see the new Moore film.

Wait...he made a film about 9-11...and you accuse him of profiting from 9-11? what kind of logic is that? How long would have been decent for him to wait? 2 years? 10? 36?

Maybe you guys should stop bleating about 9-11 constantly. The whole world suffered because of that day and you guys have killed more than enough arabs to make up for it. 9-11 was a tragedy, so was Paris, and London and all the wedding parties bombed by drones in the middle east. It doesn't make the US special just because it happened and it doesn't entitle you to bully the whole world.

Um...nope. I did not say that. Please re-read what I said. "capitalized on 911 for attention." You know, for his movie. I then followed that with "can't blame him business wise for making his movie then."

Where do you get, suppose, or assume that I, in any way, shape or form, accused him of profiting off 911?

Maybe the rest of your diatribe might be an indication. That is not what the topic is about.

I think you meant to be in the anti-U.S. thread somewhere else. Please go there.

originally posted by: gator2001

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: gator2001

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
You know, if I said the same things that have been said about Michael Moore in this thread about his conservative counterpart...

Oh, wait. He really doesn't have one. LOL LOL

Meethinks folks hate on Moore so badly because they can't seem to scrape together someone as successful at partisan movie making as he is.

Jealousy, it's a hulluva thing...

They are out there...
www.conservapedia.com...:Greatest_Conservative_Movies#Documentaries

I don't think they get the press and attention for a couple of reasons. One, Moore capitalized on the great national tragedy of 911 to get attention for his movie. Without 911, we might have never heard of him. Can't blame him business wise for making his movie then. Since his 911 movie, his movies are flops.

Secondly, it is difficult for right wing film makers to get attention from Hollywood because Hollywood is a left leaning community.

Also, political documentaries are a small niche market. Not many people thirst for such movies. They prefer action, comedy, romance, etc.

My point with this post is that him coming out and declaring his boycott is like throwing a rock out into a big pile of rocks. There is no effect. It is probably his attempt to draw attention to his new movie and try to reclaim his one hit wonder past.
There was PayPal...400 jobs hurts. Springsteen...might have been someone that was hurt he wouldn't appear there. One porn site...really? Now Moore...laughter...crickets instead of people in NC crying because they can't go see the new Moore film.

Wait...he made a film about 9-11...and you accuse him of profiting from 9-11? what kind of logic is that? How long would have been decent for him to wait? 2 years? 10? 36?

Maybe you guys should stop bleating about 9-11 constantly. The whole world suffered because of that day and you guys have killed more than enough arabs to make up for it. 9-11 was a tragedy, so was Paris, and London and all the wedding parties bombed by drones in the middle east. It doesn't make the US special just because it happened and it doesn't entitle you to bully the whole world.

Um...nope. I did not say that. Please re-read what I said. "capitalized on 911 for attention." You know, for his movie. I then followed that with "can't blame him business wise for making his movie then."

Where do you get, suppose, or assume that I, in any way, shape or form, accused him of profiting off 911?

Maybe the rest of your diatribe might be an indication. That is not what the topic is about.

I think you meant to be in the anti-U.S. thread somewhere else. Please go there.

How is that different from profiting? Hes a film maker. Gaining attention means making money. The point is that he made a film about 9-11. A good film i thought. Not perfect, but it was an in depth film. He did it to expose the truth, how is that capitalising in a bad way?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: jjkenobi

Not entirely true.

Wasn't that Desouza guy put in jail?

He was indicted, pled guilty, and was given probation.

His movie grossed 33 million.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
they dont like him because he trashes the US and they clearly still shed a tear when the star spangled banner comes on. No one is allowed to criticise the greatest nation on earth!!!!!

I'm not American. Not a USA fan. Also don't think my ability to monetize my opinions has anything to do with me thinking that Michael Moore is a tool.

Ironically I'm also mostly considered a leftist feminist. To quote Bill O'Reilly, you can't explain that.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: gator2001

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: gator2001

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
You know, if I said the same things that have been said about Michael Moore in this thread about his conservative counterpart...

Oh, wait. He really doesn't have one. LOL LOL

Meethinks folks hate on Moore so badly because they can't seem to scrape together someone as successful at partisan movie making as he is.

Jealousy, it's a hulluva thing...

They are out there...
www.conservapedia.com...:Greatest_Conservative_Movies#Documentaries

I don't think they get the press and attention for a couple of reasons. One, Moore capitalized on the great national tragedy of 911 to get attention for his movie. Without 911, we might have never heard of him. Can't blame him business wise for making his movie then. Since his 911 movie, his movies are flops.

Secondly, it is difficult for right wing film makers to get attention from Hollywood because Hollywood is a left leaning community.

Also, political documentaries are a small niche market. Not many people thirst for such movies. They prefer action, comedy, romance, etc.

My point with this post is that him coming out and declaring his boycott is like throwing a rock out into a big pile of rocks. There is no effect. It is probably his attempt to draw attention to his new movie and try to reclaim his one hit wonder past.
There was PayPal...400 jobs hurts. Springsteen...might have been someone that was hurt he wouldn't appear there. One porn site...really? Now Moore...laughter...crickets instead of people in NC crying because they can't go see the new Moore film.

Wait...he made a film about 9-11...and you accuse him of profiting from 9-11? what kind of logic is that? How long would have been decent for him to wait? 2 years? 10? 36?

Maybe you guys should stop bleating about 9-11 constantly. The whole world suffered because of that day and you guys have killed more than enough arabs to make up for it. 9-11 was a tragedy, so was Paris, and London and all the wedding parties bombed by drones in the middle east. It doesn't make the US special just because it happened and it doesn't entitle you to bully the whole world.

Um...nope. I did not say that. Please re-read what I said. "capitalized on 911 for attention." You know, for his movie. I then followed that with "can't blame him business wise for making his movie then."

Where do you get, suppose, or assume that I, in any way, shape or form, accused him of profiting off 911?

Maybe the rest of your diatribe might be an indication. That is not what the topic is about.

I think you meant to be in the anti-U.S. thread somewhere else. Please go there.

How is that different from profiting? Hes a film maker. Gaining attention means making money. The point is that he made a film about 9-11. A good film i thought. Not perfect, but it was an in depth film. He did it to expose the truth, how is that capitalising in a bad way?

Nice how you again omit and refuse to acknowledge what I said after that: "Cant blame him business wise for making the movie then."

What I am saying is that the time was ripe, gold, excellent for a controversial documentary about 911. That is all. If at that time, he came out with a documentary on the Iran contra scandal, he wouldn't be famous.

I am not blaming him for anything, said nor implied. His business decision at that time to make a controversial documentary about 911 was brilliant.

Then his movies flopped, in my opinion.

originally posted by: gator2001

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: jjkenobi

Not entirely true.

Wasn't that Desouza guy put in jail?

He was indicted, pled guilty, and was given probation.

His movie grossed 33 million.

But, it got squashed on Rotten Tomatoes.

The film flutters to the ground like so much GOP convention confetti, all assertions, few facts and little substance other than the conspiratorial right wing talking points that are D'Souza's bread and butter. Critic Roger Moore www.rottentomatoes.com...

Michael Moore's latest: Where to invade next - - - got a 76%

originally posted by: gator2001

Then his movies flopped, in my opinion.

Not according to Rotten Tomatoes.

Yes, he has a couple flops, but most have a pretty high percentage rating.

www.rottentomatoes.com...

originally posted by: gator2001

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: gator2001

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: gator2001

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
You know, if I said the same things that have been said about Michael Moore in this thread about his conservative counterpart...

Oh, wait. He really doesn't have one. LOL LOL

Meethinks folks hate on Moore so badly because they can't seem to scrape together someone as successful at partisan movie making as he is.

Jealousy, it's a hulluva thing...

They are out there...
www.conservapedia.com...:Greatest_Conservative_Movies#Documentaries

I don't think they get the press and attention for a couple of reasons. One, Moore capitalized on the great national tragedy of 911 to get attention for his movie. Without 911, we might have never heard of him. Can't blame him business wise for making his movie then. Since his 911 movie, his movies are flops.

Secondly, it is difficult for right wing film makers to get attention from Hollywood because Hollywood is a left leaning community.

Also, political documentaries are a small niche market. Not many people thirst for such movies. They prefer action, comedy, romance, etc.

My point with this post is that him coming out and declaring his boycott is like throwing a rock out into a big pile of rocks. There is no effect. It is probably his attempt to draw attention to his new movie and try to reclaim his one hit wonder past.
There was PayPal...400 jobs hurts. Springsteen...might have been someone that was hurt he wouldn't appear there. One porn site...really? Now Moore...laughter...crickets instead of people in NC crying because they can't go see the new Moore film.

Wait...he made a film about 9-11...and you accuse him of profiting from 9-11? what kind of logic is that? How long would have been decent for him to wait? 2 years? 10? 36?

Maybe you guys should stop bleating about 9-11 constantly. The whole world suffered because of that day and you guys have killed more than enough arabs to make up for it. 9-11 was a tragedy, so was Paris, and London and all the wedding parties bombed by drones in the middle east. It doesn't make the US special just because it happened and it doesn't entitle you to bully the whole world.

Um...nope. I did not say that. Please re-read what I said. "capitalized on 911 for attention." You know, for his movie. I then followed that with "can't blame him business wise for making his movie then."

Where do you get, suppose, or assume that I, in any way, shape or form, accused him of profiting off 911?

Maybe the rest of your diatribe might be an indication. That is not what the topic is about.

I think you meant to be in the anti-U.S. thread somewhere else. Please go there.

How is that different from profiting? Hes a film maker. Gaining attention means making money. The point is that he made a film about 9-11. A good film i thought. Not perfect, but it was an in depth film. He did it to expose the truth, how is that capitalising in a bad way?

Nice how you again omit and refuse to acknowledge what I said after that: "Cant blame him business wise for making the movie then."

What I am saying is that the time was ripe, gold, excellent for a documentary about 911. That is all. If at that time, he came out with a documentary on the Iran contra scandal, he wouldn't be famous.

I am not blaming him for anything, said nor implied. His business decision at that time to make a controversial documentary about 911 was brilliant.

Then his movies flopped, in my opinion.

Fine, my mistake. But can yo not see how your comment MIGHT be construed as saying he was wrong to capitalise on 9-11?

Sorry mate

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: gator2001

Then his movies flopped, in my opinion.

Not according to Rotten Tomatoes.

Yes, he has a couple flops, but most have a pretty high percentage rating.

www.rottentomatoes.com...

Rotten Tomatoes? Funny you mention them. In the past when deciding a movie watch, my wife and I would compare them on RT. We would pick the one with the worst rating because we got burned picking the best rated before.

Critical acclaim and box office success are two different things entirely. Many critically acclaimed movies were box office disasters.

I do hear what you are saying, though.

Are you a Moore fan or are you just enjoying arguing with me? Or both?

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
they dont like him because he trashes the US and they clearly still shed a tear when the star spangled banner comes on. No one is allowed to criticise the greatest nation on earth!!!!!

I'm not American. Not a USA fan. Also don't think my my ability to monetize my opinions has anything to do with me thinking that Michael Moore is a tool.

Ironically I'm also mostly considered a leftist feminist. To quote Bill O'Reilly, you can't explain that.

So, you are a left handed woman?

a reply to: 3danimator2014

It's ATS. It happens. No worries

a reply to: Annee

Also, that one review you presented looks a little bit like a partisan James Bond..lol Didnt know he was a movie critic

Wait a tick! Roger Moore? Michael Moore? Hhmm...same last name. I think we have a conspiracy on our hands. Roger Moore was actually Michael Moore trashing the movie....lol

Anyways...it also shows that a controversial political documentary can make lots of money, if done on the right topic at the right time...acclaimed or not.

originally posted by: gator2001
a reply to: Annee

Also, that one review you presented looks a little bit like a partisan James Bond..lol Didnt know he was a movie critic

Wait a tick! Roger Moore? Michael Moore? Hhmm...same last name. I think we have a conspiracy on our hands. Roger Moore was actually Michael Moore trashing the movie....lol

Anyways...it also shows that a controversial political documentary can make lots of money, if done on the right topic at the right time...acclaimed or not.

There were other reviews.

The ones I saw were all "squashed tomatoes".

originally posted by: gator2001

Critical acclaim and box office success are two different things entirely. Many critically acclaimed movies were box office disasters.

I am very much aware of that. I personally read "user/personal reviews" rather then "critic reviews".

I usually go to IMDB

One movie I thought was stupid is "Babel". There's a movie that came out before it on the same premise, which I thought was much better. I think the title is a time - like 10:45. But, I can't find it.

a reply to: Annee

The movie sites I use now have a IMDB rating next to the movie. I agree that user reviews are much more accurate.

I don't recall seeing Babel. John Carter was not so liked by the critics and didnt do well at the box office, but I like it. It was a good concept...time travel, Mars, and an ancient alien feel.

originally posted by: gator2001
a reply to: Annee

The movie sites I use now have a IMDB rating next to the movie. I agree that user reviews are much more accurate.

I don't recall seeing Babel. John Carter was not so liked by the critics and didnt do well at the box office, but I like it. It was a good concept...time travel, Mars, and an ancient alien feel.

I liked John Carter too.

Bad title. Should have been a more descriptive title.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: gator2001
a reply to: Annee

The movie sites I use now have a IMDB rating next to the movie. I agree that user reviews are much more accurate.

I don't recall seeing Babel. John Carter was not so liked by the critics and didnt do well at the box office, but I like it. It was a good concept...time travel, Mars, and an ancient alien feel.

I liked John Carter too.

Bad title. Should have been a more descriptive title.

John carter was fun. The title and advertising sunk it.

a reply to: Annee

I saw something about the title before and had to look it up to remember. They changed the title a few times.

collider.com...

Apparently, they couldnt figure out how to make it sound appealing to women, so they just stuck with John Carter, which makes no sense.