Mormon woman on "30 days" -- guess what she's doin

[_beastie]

No, Texas, though I'm California born. No, I don't. I think reality TV people (both Mormon and Non-Mormon) are pulled from the same group that enjoy Jerry Springer and if they're the norm our society would have collapsed long ago.

Finally, a sane moment!!! ;)

[_Yoda]

I agree with Nehor on this one. (looking for lightning to strike and the moon to turn to blood) LOL

The average chapel Mormon is interested in being rather private. Going on a show like this, which most chapel Mormons would die if their kids watched, is not typical behavior.

Now is it typical behavior for an Internet TBM? Yes, indeed! ;)

Watch for me this Fall on the relaunch of Temptation Island.

Pass the popcorn!!! :)

[_The Nehor]

No, Texas, though I'm California born. No, I don't. I think reality TV people (both Mormon and Non-Mormon) are pulled from the same group that enjoy Jerry Springer and if they're the norm our society would have collapsed long ago.

Finally, a sane moment!!! ;)

As Princess Leia once said to me: "You have your moments. Not many of them, but you do have them."

[_GoodK]

Out of curiosity, do you think his social experiments play out as a list of liberal talking points on a topic because, well, that's just how reality is? I think what I'm talking about is fairly obvious. If you go to rottentomatoes.com, you'll see it is all over the critical appraisal of him.

I don't think any of his films have played out as a "list of liberal talking points." You sound like Coggins. I don't see how or why you continue to make that claim. You still haven't given one specific example of something that would tell me you've even seen one of his films. You said you were going off of mine and Shades' notes, and now you are referring me to www.rottentomatoes.com. Color me convinced.

Almost all documentaries I see do not come off as a talking points list. A talking points list refers to lists of responses/arguments pundits are directed to say on TV in response to certain issues. They're meant to be shoehorned in whatever the questions asked.

Again, I don't know what you do for a living, but I've read probably a dozen shooting scripts for documentary type productions. Do you really think the writer doesn't know what is going to happen? Or the director? Are you one of those people that thinks shows like Survivor are not 100% scripted. Even shows like Moment of Truth (sorry Beastie) are 100% written and shot accordingly.

I don't get your beef? Would you be happy if Spurlock went into production with no idea what his film would look like?

They're an essential tool of spin. I think you are confusing an outline with a talking points list.

I think I am. I'm not sure what the difference would be, or what's wrong with a writer writing a script for a documentary.

His "social experiment" isn't an experiment at all. It's a means by which to communicate what he has already determined are the arguments on his side.

I think you are the one calling it a "social experiment" not him. I would call it a film.

He isn't out seeking information like he typically implies he is doing.

Sorry to do this, but if you keep making judgements on his professional abilities, I'm going to have to issue you this CFR. CFR "typically" "isn't seeking out information" and "implies he is doing"

He affects ignorance and goes out to film the equivalent of what he thinks.

How dare a writer/director have any influence over his production

. Again, I don't think you're qualified to make this statement after reading Dr. Shades and my summary. Y

you'd have to move away from generalities and into specifics if you want me to consider your criticism.

For know it sounds like you don't know what you are talking about, with all due respect.

What organization would have been a better representative of the anti-gay adoption movement.

What do I care if a Mormon is shown to be a bigot on national television? Virtually any organization would've been better than Paul Cameron's. I have low opinions of all of them, but the barrel has a bottom. That's just one example that I keep mentioning because I talked about it in my initial post.

So you can't think of a better organization, but you know Spurlock chose the wrong one. Interesting.

Let me know what name I can find you under in the IMDB.

Relative to the times in which they came out, he has some of the highest grossing documentaries ever made.

Key words here: relative to the times in which they came out.

Notice how I'm not judging Morris' film making abilities. I hate looking like I don't know what I'm talking about.

He won an oscar.

Michael Moore won two.

Spurlock was nominated in for an Oscar, and has won numerous awards in other arenas. Here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1041597/awards

He also happens to be my favorite living director, and I've honestly never met anyone who was into film who did not know his work.

Anyone that is in film would have heard of him. I have. But I bet half the people on this board haven't.

I've seen both of Spurlock's movies and several episodes of "30 days."

Out of curiosity, how did you see BOTH of Spurlock's movies? Where you at the Sundance Film Festival this year? I wasn't aware that his second film was realized in the mainstream yet. Please let me know where you saw it, so I can go buy it.

I think my opinion is based on fairly extensive familiarity with his work.

I don't. But again, I haven't seen any specific examples from you, other than you found interviewing folks at the Family Research Institute to be unfavorable. And you can't come up with a better institute to represent the anti-gay adoption movement. (?)

Usually film critics have specific reasons to call a movie maker transparent and a propaganda artist. I understand why people say these things about Michael Moore (I don't agree) but you caught me off guard with Spurlock.

Are you sure you aren't just a little tainted by the Mormonism involved? Or by Shades' summary.

Perhaps the critics just didn't go and see the movie?

Or perhaps you didn't see the movie, and you rely on what you read on the internet. That's fine, but I take offense to someone criticizing the professional work of someone else without even seeing their work. Especially in this industry. Especially Morgan Spurlock.

Oh. Errol Morris also directed First Person, a TV series that aired on Bravo. The guy is basically Johnny Nobody.

Ask any 18 - 29 year old that isn't in the industry to name an Errol Morris flick and let me know how many ask, "Who is Errol Morris" (by the way, I never saw "First Person", or even heard of it until this morning.) Maybe I'm out of touch. But I'm not bashing Errol Morris, I just don't think he is relevant today or as influential as you make him out to be. How many seasons did "First Person" last? Just one? Shucks.

[_EAllusion]

s. You said you were going off of mine and Shades' notes, and now you are referring me to www.rottentomatoes.com. Color me convinced.

I was referring to notes on this episode, which I did not see. All I said is they fall in line with my prior experience with his style. I'm referring you to a masterlist of criticism of his work. Since many other professional critics have observed the same thing as I, I figured that might clue you into me not coming out of left field here.

Again, I don't know what you do for a living, but I've read probably a dozen shooting scripts for documentary type productions. Do you really think the writer doesn't know what is going to happen? Or the director? Are you one of those people that thinks shows like Survivor are not 100% scripted. Even shows like To Tell the Truth (sorry Beastie) are 100% written and shot accordingly.

Here are what talking points are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_points

I'm not sure you are appreciating what I'm saying here.

Would you be happy if Spurlock went into production with no idea what his film would look like?

No. That is not what I'm saying.

I think you are the one calling it a "social experiment" not him. I would call it a film.

Uh, experiments as journalism is one of his main schticks. It's what made him famous. Brief social experiments form the entire premise of his 30 days show, including this episode.

How dare a writer/director have any influence over his production

He pretends he is seeking answers to questions by performing an investigation when in reality he has the answers on hand and is just setting up the illusion of investigation. It is a carefully scripted attempt to portray a series of arguments in favor of his predetermined conclusions. This is, at best, disingenuous. Type in "Spurlock" and "disingenuous" into google. Again, you act those though I'm coming from nowhere with my comments.

. Again, I don't think you're qualified to make this statement after reading Dr. Shades and my summary.

I've seen every film he has made. I've seen several episodes of his TV show. I think I have a good beat on his directorial style.

So you can't think of a better organization, but you know Spurlock chose the wrong one. Interesting.

I can think of a better one. How about the Family Research Council? They have better PR people. I'm attempting to point out that he picked the most ridiculous in order to massage the message. It'd be like doing a documentary on "critics of the Mormon Church" and making sure you show their side by interviewing temple protesters. The only worse example I can think of off the top of my head is Fred Phelp's group. But they don't exactly attempt a veneer of academic respectability.

Key words here: relative to the times in which they came out.

The documentary form hasn't taken off until very recently in terms of box office success. The distribution process changed overtime leading to more "blockbuster" numers. Inflation has happened. This undercuts the relative success of earlier documentaries on lists that just order by gross box office. The Thin Blue line was the highest grossing documentary ever made when it came out. But forgetting that, Morris has several movies in the top 50 grossing documentaries of all time. The Fog of War is still in the top 20.

Michael Moore won two.

And? Winning an Oscar is a pretty good sign that you've entered the mainstream. If you recall, you insisted Morris is not mainstream.

Anyone that is in film would have heard of him. I have. But I bet half the people on this board haven't.

I bet most of the people on this board haven't heard of numerous well-known directors. People generally don't know a lot about directors.

Out of curiosity, how did you see BOTH of Spurlock's movies? Where you at the Sundance Film Festival this year? I wasn't aware that his second film was realized in the mainstream yet.

Lol. It's been out for a while. I wasn't at the Sundance film festival, but - hey - it played at our Sundance theater. I doubt it is out for sale yet.

Are you sure you aren't just a little tainted by the Mormonism involved? Or by Shades' summary.

I'm not, nor have I ever been a Mormon. I probably agree 100% with him on the issue. I couldn't care less about how this Mormon was portrayed because she is a Mormon.

Ask any 18 - 29 year old that isn't in the industry to name an Errol Morris flick and let me know how many ask, "Who is Errol Morris"

That is true of almost every single documentary filmmaker who ever lived, probably including Spurlock. And he casts himself as the star of his films. The one exception is Micheal Moore. This is also true of almost all directors in general. It's not a particularly good measure of what you are going for.

First Person lasted for 3 seasons. I think that is comparable to TV Nation. Like Moore, he also - you know - makes major documentaries.

[_Mister Scratch]

You think that's an average Mormon???

Yes.

I think you're wrong. The average Mormon is not stupid/attention whorish enough to get onto a TV show like that. I'd like to think that the average Mormon doesn't even watch TV shows like that but I don't have that much faith in humanity.

Well, this is a real laffer. Here we have The Nehor, who uses his real image for his avatar, who boasts about his "six pack," and who has a knack for making every thread about himself, claiming that Mormons are not "attention whorish."

[_The Nehor]

Hahahahahahahahahaha, now someone thinks I'm an average Mormon. Mom would be so proud.

To anyone interested, I can be defined as an attention whore. I prefer the term reactionist for myself as I take pleasure in doing or saying something off the wall or inane and watching people respond. It's fun.

Maybe I should ask Shades to give me the title: Attention Whore of all the Earth.

Hmmmm....have to ponder that.

[_GoodK]

I'm referring you to a masterlist of criticism of his work. Since many other professional critics have observed the same thing as I, I figured that might clue you into me not coming out of left field here.

A masterlist of criticism. Good one.

Well, your choice of professional critics gave his debut movie a 93% on the tomatometer, so I'm still confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_points

Interesting. Short, nothing to do with film, but nonetheless, interesting.
Now what does this have to do with Spurlock's movie, and how can you demonstrate he uses "liberal talking points"?

Here is what a people who make movies use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_script, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_down_the_script, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Script_breakdown

There really are very few surprises in any editing room.

He pretends he is seeking answers to questions by performing an investigation when in reality he has the answers on hand and is just setting up the illusion of investigation.

Here you go again being vague about things as if they are a matter of fact. Still don't know what you are referring to. Or how you can read someone's mind and tell that they are pretending. To me you're just demonstrating that you don't know how a documentary is written and produced.

It is a carefully scripted attempt to portray a series of arguments in favor of his predetermined conclusions.

So is almost every other documentary/film/television show that has ever been made. Come on... really?

I've seen every film he has made. I've seen several episodes of his TV show. I think I have a good beat on his directorial style.

Well, your memory must be failing you otherwise you are just being coy about your reasons.

I'm attempting to point out that he picked the most ridiculous in order to massage the message.

Or maybe he picked one of the most popular, because people identify with it. (In my best Coggins impression) Nope, cuz hims a liberal.

It'd be like doing a documentary on "critics of the Mormon Church" and making sure you show their side by interviewing temple protesters.

Wait a minute, are you saying a documentary about critics of the Mormon church shouldn't even mention temple protesters? Are you serious?

Everything that the two people from FRI said was in agreement with what the woman was saying.
He didn't do a documentary on the FRI, nor was the episode focused on the FRI. If you paid close attention, you'll see that only my notes refer to the FRI. Not Shades. By the powers of deduction you could conclude that the FRI was only mentioned in the first half of the doucmentary. It was not the focus of the episode.

Why am I debating a topic with someone who has no clue what the topic is.

The only worse example I can think of off the top of my head is Fred Phelp's group. But they don't exactly attempt a veneer of academic respectability.

Right. The FRI is on par with the Westboro Baptist Church. You really are damned with me, aren't you?

If you recall, you insisted Morris is not mainstream.

I insisted he is unheard of in the mainstream. There is a totally different context behind what I said, and the twist you put on it. But ask around. You'll see that I am right.

I bet most of the people on this board haven't heard of numerous well-known directors. People generally don't know a lot about directors.

Maybe not. Generally. But they would know Morgan Spurlock. And a few others, besides Michael Moore.

I wasn't at the Sundance film festival, but - hey - it played at our Sundance theater. I doubt it is out for sale yet.

What theater? When?

[_EAllusion]

A masterlist of criticism. Good one

That's what rottentomatoes is. It's just a compiling of critics' reviews. It contains all the significant ones. What is with you?

Well, your choice of professional critics gave his debut movie a 93% on the tomatometer, so I'm still confused.

Yep. And if you read the content of reviews of his films, you'll see the points I am making.

Interesting. Short, nothing to do with film, but nonetheless, interesting.

I used "talking points" as a metaphor to describe what occurs in his material. I believe the line was something to the effect of "he makes the documentary equivalent of a talking points list." Metaphors. Describing film. Amazing.

Now what does this have to do with Spurlock's movie, and how can you demonstrate he uses "liberal talking points"?

Spurlock's films go point by point along liberal points on a topic. He contrives situations specifically to make those points. I think the outline provided here is an obvious example. Do we really need to go line by line and show how those comport with standard liberal arguments on gay adoption? For instance, gay adoption should be allowed because there is a shortage of heterosexual couples willing to take in children in foster care? If you want one I've watched, his very first episode of 30 days was essentially a "Nickel and Dimed" short where he and his girlfriend attempted to live on min wage. Virtually everything that occured lined up perfectly with a simple list of arguments liberals would be apt to make concerning the issue. To pick one simple example, he ended up living in a (former) crackhouse. It's not really true that this is all they could possibly manage in such a circumstance, but it melds nicely with a point they are making about the livability of the min wage.

Here you go again being vague about things as if they are a matter of fact. Still don't know what you are referring to. Or how you can read someone's mind and tell that they are pretending.

If you don't know what I am referring to, I don't think you paying very much attention, even if you disagree with the idea that Spurlock really isn't investigating so much using the investigation as a contrivance to express his views.

In Where in the World is Osama, Spurlock's feigned ignorance is so obvious I'm actually a little baffled as to why you think you can't tell when someone is pretending without having mind-reading powers.

So is almost every other documentary/film/television show that has ever been made. Come on... really?

You are aware that Spurlock's premise always sets him up as simply doing an investigation to find out what the world is like, right? You can't see this as a ploy? I'm not faulting him for merely having a PoV. I'm faulting him for the disingenuous way he gets it across.

Wait a minute, are you saying a documentary about critics of the Mormon church shouldn't even mention temple protesters? Are you serious?

Did you read what I said? How about I reword it. It would be like making a documentary on "critics of the Mormon Church" and making sure the only critics who tell their side in the documentary are temple protesters.

It was not the focus of the episode.

I know it isn't. It's an example of how he makes his case. He lets the opposition to gay adoption come off as vile and "out there" as he can by picking a group notorious for that. The gay couple she stays with is ideal as all get out, isn't it? The notes here say they are, but I would've predicted that without the notes. That's how Spurlock rolls.

The only worse example I can think of off the top of my head is Fred Phelp's group. But they don't exactly attempt a veneer of academic respectability.

Right. The FRI is on par with the Westboro Baptist Church. You really are f*****g with me, aren't you?

I said they were worse. I left my quote in just to make sure that is clear. You have some of the worst reading comprehension I've come across on these boards. The FRI is known for being exceptionally unethical and offensive in its approach, even for the anti-gay industry. I said Phelps group was the only thing I could think of off the top of my head that is worse.

I insisted he is unheard of in the mainstream. There is a totally different context behind what I said, and the twist you put on it. But ask around. You'll see that I am right.

He won an Oscar. That's the mainstream. He's probably one of the 5 most famous documentary makers working today. He has produced several highly acclaimed films in any case. Besides Moore and Spurlock, can you name three other documentary makers with more fame (as documentary makers)?

I bet most of the people on this board haven't heard of numerous well-known directors. People generally don't know a lot about directors.

Maybe not. Generally. But they would know Morgan Spurlock. And a few others, besides Michael Moore.

I'd bet against Spurlock. They might know his work if you say, "The guy who made Supersize Me", but I doubt his name will have the recognition you suggested. Outside of Moore, Richard Attenborough is probably the only living documentarian I'd bank on having wide name recognition.

What theater? When?

You are being a jerk. Are you suggesting I'm not telling the truth about something so banal? You are the one who suggested that it wasn't out yet. After all, if I haven't seen it at the Sundance film festival, then there's no way I couldn't seen it. Nevermind that it was released in April and you have no idea what you are talking about. It played at the Sundance Cinema in the Hilldale Mall. Would you like directions? http://www.sundancecinemas.com/sundance_608.html
It also can be watched on the interwebs if you are not aware that this occurs.

[_GoodK]

Yep. And if you read the content of reviews of his films, you'll see the points I am making.

Isn't 93% a great rating? Doesn't that mean critics thought it was a good movie?

Spurlock's films go point by point along liberal points on a topic.He contrives situations specifically to make those points.

No, they don't. Since you've made it more than obvious you need this, here are the topics discussed in every episode of 30 days so far:

1. Minimum Wage
2. Anti-Aging treatment (steroids, HGH)
3. Muslims in America
4. Straight man in a gay world
5. Living off the grid (Dancing Rabbit Eco-Village)
6. Binge drinking mom
7. Immigration - A Minuteman goes to live with an illegal alien family in East L.A.
8. Outsourcing software progamming to India
9. Atheist goes to live with a Christian family
10. New age healing
11. Abortion
12. 30 days in Jail.
13. Working in a coal mine.
14. A star football player lives life in a wheelchair for 30 days.
15. Animal rights activist.
16. Same sex parenting

He seems to be choose topics that are relevant today. What a bastard.

Do we really need to go line by line and show how those comport with standard liberal arguments on gay adoption?

Liberal, homo, commie... yawn.

If you are going to say he consistently follows a list of liberal talking points, yes we really need to go line by line. At least if you want me to agree with you. Feel free to agree to disagree on this.

For instance, gay adoption should be allowed because there is a shortage of heterosexual couples willing to take in children in foster care?

You've got the premise all wrong. Scroll down a bit and read what the show is about. Can you blame me for wondering if you've even seen his work?

If you don't know what I am referring to, I don't think you paying very much attention,

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

even if you disagree with the idea that Spurlock really isn't investigating so much using the investigation as a contrivance to express his views.

Maybe it's 'cause I know what the premise is, and I'm not under the false assumption that he is an investigative journalist. Last time I checked, he wasn't Chris Hansen, and we weren't talking about Dateline.

You are aware that Spurlock's premise always sets him up as simply doing an investigation to find out what the world is like, right?

No I am not aware of that. But I am now aware of what you think the premise is. Here is some clarity for you. Thanks for asking:

30 days: An unscripted, documentary-style program where an individual is inserted into a lifestyle that is completely different from his or her upbringing, beliefs, religion or profession for 30 days.

Wait a minute, are you saying a documentary about critics of the Mormon church shouldn't even mention temple protesters? Are you serious?

Did you read what I said? How about I reword it. It would be like making a documentary on "critics of the Mormon Church" and making sure the only critics who tell their side in the documentary are temple protesters.

I did. You should have just not worded it at all, because your analogy doesn't fit. The FRI isn't the only group that got to tell their side of why gays shouldn't be parents.
But point taken, you would have rather seen the Family Research Council. LOL. If this is your only example of his "liberal agenda" I think the coversation is about done.

I know it isn't. It's an example of how he makes his case. He lets the opposition to gay adoption come off as vile and "out there" as he can by picking a group notorious for that.

The opposition of gay adoption IS vile. He picked a group in the spotlight.

Great example of the logic behind people who cry that documentaries are biased and aren't fair.
Because a gay man presents himself like a civilized, rational human being, and another woman presents herself as a moron, Spurlock is biased and sticking to his liberal agenda.

You think he needs to find too perfectly reasonable people that agree with eachother. Got it. Besides making for boring television, how accurately would this reflect reality?

I'm not the only person who found this woman to be a typical TBM. And I know gay men that are just as kind as the gay couple depicted.

The gay couple she stays with is ideal as all get out, isn't it?

I don't know about that. Two super hot lesbians would have been better, in my opinion.

The notes here say they are, but I would've predicted that without the notes. That's how Spurlock rolls.

Maybe because the gay couple happened to be on the side of reason in this debate.
Maybe if they did a TV show where the gay couple comes to my house, lives with me for 30 days, and argues with me about how liberal and crappy Spurlock's films are - they might have looked more idiotic.

I said they were worse. I left my quote in just to make sure that is clear. You have some of the worst reading comprehension I've come across on these boards. The FRI is known for being exceptionally unethical and offensive in its approach, even for the anti-gay industry. I said Phelps group was the only thing I could think of off the top of my head that is worse.

I understood you. You were comparing a national organization (championed by Mike Seaver) with a hateful church whose membership is a group of relatives. Don't be so dense.

I insisted he is unheard of in the mainstream. There is a totally different context behind what I said, and the twist you put on it. But ask around. You'll see that I am right.

He won an Oscar. That's the mainstream.

If you say so.

He has produced several highly acclaimed films in any case. Besides Moore and Spurlock, can you name three other documentary makers with more fame (as documentary makers)?

Sure. Rob Epstein. Ron Mann. Kenny Hotz. Kenny Hotz probably isn't the best example, but he is a documentary maker and he is well known (Kenny vs Spenny, Pitch, Papal Chase).

Are you suggesting I'm not telling the truth about something so banal?

No, I really was wondering where you saw it. It didn't make it to too many theaters and I'm not sure what state you lived in. I was really hoping it was out on DVD already and I just missed it.