HaysooChreesto!

And that's meaningful because...

Deacon

What exactly does 'Bowling for Columbine' promote?

King Rat

This;

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Kinross

The same thing all Michael Moore's film promate, Michael Moore.

Deacon

David Hardy is just as much a media whore as Michael Moore. Too bad he hasn't made a better film.

King Rat

Ad Hominem

That doesn't negate his good points.

Deacon

I don't think he has any good points. And his points are few and far between given the 100's of points Bowling for Columbine throw's out there.

Hardy is a documentary filmmaker who admits to currently working on his own 2nd Amendment Documentary that he complains doesn't have nearly the funding that Bowling for Columbine did. Does that throw up any red flags to anyone? How do you get funding for a doc that tackles the same subject matter as one of the most popular docs in years? You attack 9 points and call Moore a liar thus gaining support from those who do not like him and may write a big fat check.

Here's another question:

Is Jackass: the Movie a documentary?

King Rat

Aw hell, I'm done.

HaysooChreesto!

I agree. With the mention of Jackass, this thread has officially degenerated.

CuriosityKills

Here is what Hardy has to say...

This is tha Acedemy's own definition (which I belive was already posted):

http://www.oscars.org/74academyawards/rules/rule12.html

How seriously can we take Hardy when he doesn't even bother to look up the Academy's own definition? To tell you the truth I couldn't read past the first line, he has effectively discredited anything else he has to say with this blunder.

When I again tried to read what Hardy has to say I was confronted with the fact that he holds a grudge because he is not making the big bucks that Moore is.



The truth is Moore's movies are entertaing. People will go to see them. They make money. He gets a bigger budjet because his investors know they will profit. Does this mean that they are not based on fact?

But I thought the injustice was to the independant producers of real documentaries?

I am not convinced that a documentary must be objective. Has anyone here seen a documentary on the holocaust that could be considered truly objective? When making a film on the holocaust could you be truly objective?

I have seen many documentaries where the documentor takes a back seat and seems to let the story tell itself. To tell you the truth some of the best documentaries I have ever seen have done this. But this is also an illusion. All movies (even documentaries) go through the editing process. Is Hardy trying to tell us that his movies will be unedited? Maybe this is why he isn't hauling in the cash.