EAllusion wrote:GoodK wrote:
Isn't 93% a great rating? Doesn't that mean critics thought it was a good movie?
Yes. It does. They thought his second film was bad. That's how it goes.
Ok. So help me understand why you would say he
consistently follows liberal talking points. He made a movie that was critically acclaimed (and had no hint of
them libs agenda) so by my count, he doesn't always follow liberal talking points, if he does at all.
That's like me saying Shyamalan is a hack because
The Happening was easily the worst movie I've seen this year (and I saw 27 dresses).
Why do you think he is frequently compared to Micheal Moore?
LOL. Have you met Coggins? He is frequently compared to Michael Moore because anyone that doesn't appear to be on the right, is deemed to be a liberal homo commie.
Perhaps his latest film was a bit too critical of "The War on Terror"
It's about gay parenting, right? Isn't gay adoption a major subset of this issue? Didn't this occur?
Why is gay parenting a liberal talking point? Does gay parenting only affect liberals? Are gay people liberal by default? I don't think I follow.
# In the next segment, she was taken to a meeting with two former foster kids--one man and one woman, now full-grown adults--who never were adopted. These people, too, were the very epitome of calmness and rationality. The man did most of the talking. One of the first things he discussed was, "If gay and lesbian couples are prohibited from adopting or becoming foster parents, then there will be a lot more kids in my situation." She went on with, "That might be true, but I think kids should be placed in homes with a man and a woman." Did she miss what the guy was trying to say??
Later they drove to some of the spots where the man grew up. The first was a run-down neighborhood with boarded-up homes, trash littering the streets. She was like, "Oh my gosh!" Mouth agape. You'd almost think she'd never seen any movies before. He pointed out his former foster home (at least, the one in that particular neighborhood), and he said, "The house was firebombed. My foster mother was shot the same week."
Didn't this occur?
Why is this a liberal talking point? Do you think this scene was staged? You don't think this sort of thing
occurs in the real world?
Later that night they had a campout with the gay couple and several of one of their kids' blood relatives, including his birth mother. The relatives were all straight. The birth mother and her sister talked about the initial reservations they had with the kid getting placed with a gay couple, but then talked about how they came around after seeing what a good home and environment he was finally getting to live in. Later, around the campfire, they talked about the dearth of adoptive parents. Mrs. LDS declared--wait for it--"I feel that children should be placed in a home with a man and a woman." You'd almost think it was rcrocket talking about internet anonymity.
To this, one of the straight relatives replied, "So you'd rather they stay in foster care
You don't think that maybe, just maybe he was putting together a extremely stark way of illustrating the argument re: gay adoption and foster care I mentioned above?
No. I think that IS the argument, and peopel were making it. The gay couple were foster parents. And the women DID say that she would rather have the children stay in foster care.
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.
Hey, it's a social experiment as investigation. Man that EA guy is talkin' crazy.
Ha. There is no investigation, you crazy guy. You put two opposites in a house and film them. Welcome to the new wave of television. Have you ever seen Wife Swap? Is that a "social experiment as investigation" as well? Again, this isn't
Dateline. There are lots of hotheaded, inarticulate gays with mediocre to poor parenting skills. That's people for 'ya. What are the odds they would've been picked for this documentary? 0%? .001%?
I'll just refer you to something I've already said:
goodk wrote: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.
The conservative equivalent of Spurlock would've made sure they were people who liked to walk around in leather cod pieces. They had to be fairly ideal, because there was a message being sent here. I agree with the message mind you. That's not the point.
Wow. Really? You really think this way? You really think there are gay foster parents out there dying to get on TV with their "leather cod pieces". Come on, man. You're better off trying to convince me who is a more famous - Errol Morris or Rob Epstein.