EAllusion wrote:
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.
GoodK wrote: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.