Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Government Politics

Celsius 41.11: A Rebuttal to Michael Moore 255

Posted by michael
from the and-he's-fat-too dept.
deezl writes "Michael Moore released a controversial movie revealing 'facts' about the Bush Presidency. A new rebuttal has just been released called Celsius 41.11. I would think that time sensitive political commentaries would be available for download to ensure the widest possible distribution base. If documentary makers are so interested in getting their message out and arguments across, why not encourage free BitTorrent type distribution for their movies?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Celsius 41.11: A Rebuttal to Michael Moore

Comments Filter:
  • But... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Issue9mm (97360) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @10:52AM (#10394562)
    Michael Moore DID encourage downloading of his movie via Bittorrent, and other means.

    -9mm-
    • In typical Michael Moore fashion he said one thing but did nothing. Sure he said to download the movie, but did he make a bittorrent or put it up for download from his site?

      • I doubt that kind of "permission" would be up to him, anyway. Did he finance the movie himself?
      • Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)

        by sgant (178166)
        True, but this story submitted by deezl said "why not encourage free BitTorrent type distribution for their movies?".

        And as I read this again from a different perspective, perhaps deezl was calling out the makers of Celsius 41.11 because if you go to their site, no where does it say where or how or even if you can download their movie. Just lists how to get the DVD.
      • Micheal Moore had to walk a thin line concerning net distribution of the movie. If he had openly endorsed it, it would have been disqualified from the Academy Awards. By merely tolerating it, he was able to keep the Oscar hopes alive.

        Granted, the Oscar may not seem like much, but it is important to the producers and the financial backers.
        • by Minna Kirai (624281) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @01:11PM (#10396304)
          If he had openly endorsed it, it would have been disqualified from the Academy Awards.

          He's already been disqualified by leasing it for TV broadcast this year. It will be on next month.

          The real reason he couldn't put it online is that he doesn't have 100% copyright ownership. It's not his decision to make.

          but it is important to the producers and the financial backers.

          Not for this film. True, many movies get revitalized popularity after an Oscar win- but F911 has an onrushing expiration date. After the US election, nobody will care about it. All the profits need to come now. (And it's already earned far more than they hoped, which is why Moore is personally alright with free internet trading)

        • Fact about Fahrenheit 9/11: It has been extraordinarily successful, grossing a fifth of a billion dollars [boxofficemojo.com] on a $6 million investment.

          --
          Bush: Borrowing money [brillig.com] to try to make his administration look good. Are you getting some of the $?
      • Re:But... (Score:3, Funny)

        by Lars T. (470328)
        And while we're at it, why didn't he deliver the DVD to my house for free?
      • Re:But... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by eyeye (653962) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @11:16AM (#10394948) Homepage Journal
        What makes you think he even knows what bitorrent is?

        He was actually sending free copies of his DVD to any serviceperson abroad IIRC so he didnt "do nothing".
      • Re:But... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by RevAaron (125240)
        Yeah, those evil Dems are at it again! Not only do we want permission to pirate his film, but we want him to do the work for us! LAZY FAT BASTARD! Not willing to steal our movies for us!

        (sheesh)
    • Yeah, I remember that too. It was even talked about here at slashdot as I recall.

      deezl needs to do a little more research before he posts stuff like this. He's calling Moore out when in fact he already said download his movie!

      Talk about embarassing for deezl!
      • And as I read this again from a different perspective, perhaps deezl was calling out the makers of Celsius 41.11 because if you go to their site, no where does it say where or how or even if you can download their movie. Just lists how to get the DVD.

        So maybe he's saying that Celsius 41.11 isn't true? Or is he saying that Michael Moore isn't true?

        Just WTF is deezl saying? Or is he saying anything?

        Or maybe to quote Mongo: "deezl just pawn in game of life".
      • Except that Moore already sold the distro rights to another company. Saying "download my movie" is like saying "I just sold my car to Fred down the road, but I'll give it to you. Just go take it."

    • Re:But... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by shufler (262955)
      Indeed, and he pushed to get it aired on network TV, at the cost of giving up some awards.

      This Celsius 41.11 seems to be solely trying to make money off the success of F9/11. If they want to "get the facts straight," they wouldn't force us to pay $20 for them.

      And what the hell does C44.11 mean, anyways? The daily temperature in Iraq? . I mean, 41.11C is 105.998F, they could have at least had it convert properly. I bet Ray Bradbury is really rolling in his err... near grave)
      • Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)

        by ageoffri (723674)
        So is Michael Moore the only one allowed to make money off of his propaganda? I'd say that this organization is at least more honest with the money then Moore has ever been. They want you to donate to thier political organization to get the DVD. Moore just wants money for his next Big Mac.

        If you had bothered to watch the trailers you would see that 41.11C is what they are claiming the brain begins to die at. I'm no medical person so I have no idea if that is accurate.

        • I'd say that this organization is at least more honest with the money then Moore has ever been. [...] Moore just wants money for his next Big Mac.

          How is asking for a payment (and not even requiring it) in exchange for watching his film dishonest?
      • Re:But... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by bmetzler (12546) *
        This Celsius 41.11 seems to be solely trying to make money off the success of F9/11. If they want to "get the facts straight," they wouldn't force us to pay $20 for them.

        Whine if they charge, whine if they don't. Can't make everyone happy. You think they should give the DVD away, this post [slashdot.org] complains that they do show the documentary for free.

        They must be bad, they are trying to make money off of it. No must be bad, they are giving it away.

        -Brent

        • Whine if they charge, whine if they don't. Can't make everyone happy...this post complains that they do show the documentary for free

          no, I don't think that the post you refer to complains about it being free. Personally, I don't know that anyone would complain about getting something they want free. You might complain about someone offering something that they don't want others to see/use at all for free, but seeing how speach is (for the most part) protected...

          It's not bad to make money off of a pr

      • Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)

        by thoughtterrorist (817272) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @12:40PM (#10395844)
        The links explains it as "The temperature as which the brain begins to die". Modded insightful for being too lazy to visit the link, that's absurd..
  • by JMandingo (325160) * on Thursday September 30, 2004 @10:52AM (#10394566)
    The video has some shocking content. The worst was a clip of a kid getting his fingers chopped off. That almost made me ralph with the hangover I have this morning.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Calm down ya nancy boy. It's ok to show someone getting their fingers cut off. It's not like it's anal sex or flag burning or anything. It's especially ok since a republican did it. Hell, when the republicans are done putting spin on it, you'll think you NEED to see fingers getting cut off in footage. Hell, it already sounds very patriotic. I know I'm sold. Heck, since I already decided how I'm going to think months ago when I was brainwashed, I'm not going to let ANY facts or liberal douchebags influence m
    • Well to be fair, Farenheit 9/11 had a video(though a really crappy quality video) of a public beheading in Saudi Arabia(appearently the old dude wielding the scimitar was weak, as it took 2 hacks to get the head off)
  • Facts... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cheeseSource (605209)
    There are no facts here or there or anywhere. There is only Zoul.

    Seriously, neither film is unbiased so those with an interest in a particular one pretty much know which way they are voting.
    • This one seems especially bad. Why the hell do they have footage of stalinists at a protest saying that Hussein was good? That certainly isn't the general belief at a protest. That and the protest warrior sign about war only being good if a democrat is in office. This whole thing looks like a bunch of crap.
      • Why the hell do they have footage of stalinists at a protest saying that Hussein was good?

        Lets see many of the people at these protest support castro (a dictator), and the vocal minority (yes they are a minority) think as the woman stated. There were three people around here nodding their heads

        That and the protest warrior sign about war only being good if a democrat is in office.

        Thats funnny there was no outrage from the left and democrats in general when Clinton bommbed Iraq, and Serbia..

  • Dang (Score:5, Funny)

    by daeley (126313) * on Thursday September 30, 2004 @10:57AM (#10394634) Homepage
    Nothing like loading /. in the browser and seeing what at first glance appears to be your own rather obscure domain name in the first story next to "Michael Moore".

    Note to self: have more coffee before logging on /.
  • Ok... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2004 @11:00AM (#10394695)
    Having not particularly been impressed, well with any of Moore's movies, and having seen this. I'm filled with new found respect for Moore. They manage to make the tubby hack look, well pretty subtle and tactful. I'm not sure how they pulled that off....

    I like how they equate even rudimentary social programs with out of control totalitarianism.

    I mean I was a *little* tired of the latest excuse for liberating Iraq, "What you though Hussein was a nice person, well why do *you* live with him?" But seriously, they're making the obvious response, as grim and undignified as it is, look ever more appropriate.
  • See it free!! (Score:4, Informative)

    by k4_pacific (736911) <k4_pacific AT yahoo DOT com> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @11:10AM (#10394848) Homepage Journal
    Not only that, Citizens United is renting a theater [neonmovies.com] in my hometown to show it for free. I guess that's the only way to get anyone to come if it's free. I wonder if the theater will bill them extra for having the coke syrup and bits of popcorn cleaned off the screen when they're done.

    Incidentally, the same theater charged for F9/11 with numerous soldout screenings.
    • Geez. They may as well label the stuff political advertising.

      If it were me, I'd charge $100 to see the movie, then quietly make sure everyone knew it was available in Gnutella.
  • I woke up on Fark (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Karma Farmer (595141) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @11:11AM (#10394859)
    Wow. Only eight comments so far. I'm actually kind of sad about that. Do you guys have any idea what this thread would look like already on Fark?

    I wonder how many people (like me) are reluctant to post in Political threads because we will undoubtedly lose karma in the process. There are only so many (-1) flamebait posts I want to see next to my name, you know?

    --
    shut up barjockey, you cock

  • Bush really didn't sit there on 9/11 like a useless moron for 7 minutes as the nation was under attack?
    That bastard Michael Moore!!!!

    • Well, I truly despise Bush, but what was he supposed to do? Call Cheney and yell, "To the Bat Cave!"?
  • David Bossie (Score:5, Informative)

    by kaos_ (96522) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @11:17AM (#10394958)
    Some notes [salon.com] on David Bossie.
    • So *Salon* is your resource for unbiased analysis? Listen to this lead they write:

      Partisan hack David Bossie raised political sliming to an art form against Bill Clinton. Now he's out to smear John Kerry and Michael Moore. Why does anyone in the media still take him seriously?

      Partisan hack? Raised political sliming to an art form? Now out to smear [a presidential candidate]?

      Sounds like a description of Michael Moore. Funny that Salon didn't mention that part, being Journalists with such high profession
    • Re:David Bossie (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Sevn (12012) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @01:57PM (#10396915) Homepage Journal
      Not to be a dick, but us smarter Conservatives know that Bossie is a whackjob. He's right up there with Ann Coultier or however you spell her french name. Completely batshit nuts. He's one of our MANY Moores. He's like that strange uncle that nobody wants to admit is actual family.
  • by yo (31271) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @11:25AM (#10395099)

    Two new films offer a rebuttal to the slanted views of Michael Moore. Michael Moore Hates America [michaelmoo...merica.com] and FahrenHYPE 9/11 [fahrenhype911.com]. Both are due to be released to DVD on October 5th to coincide with the DVD release of Fahrenheit 9/11. I have yet to see either of these films, but the trailers look compelling.

    For an detailed rebuttal of Fahrenheit 9/11 read Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 [davekopel.com].

    • by BoomerSooner (308737) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @11:42AM (#10395384) Homepage Journal
      Regardless of any liberties taken by Michael Moore the point of the documentary is valid. Bush started a war for profit not liberty.

      In the end people who support the war should go fight the damn thing. I'm tired of all these stupid fucking republicans in my state backing bush and like him, saying the war is good but not participating themselves.

      It's high time we let people vote for or against war. All those for the war go into the draft pool, all those against do not. I doubt people would be so pro-war if their ass were on the front line.

      Note: 1/2 my family is in the military, both my grandparents have purple hearts from WWII and I have 3 uncles who fought in Vietnam. Of course my Father (a Republican) is pro-war, however he (like our schmuck in chief) avoided Vietnam for himself. Hypocrites amaze me.
      • The fact you got a +2:Insightful for this makes me cringe.

        Bush started a war for profit not liberty.


        And I will wholeheartedly agree with you, when you or people like you provide a shred of grounded evidence supporting your point.

        It's high time we let people vote for or against war.

        We do, like we vote for most everything else, through our elected officials. I believe it was unanimous.

        --trb
        • Well, if it's about 'liberty,' why haven't they 'liberated' any other oppressed countries? There's more than one out there, ya know.

          If it's about bringing down Al-Queda, why haven't they invaded, oh, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, or any other countries which 'give aid and comfort' to terrorists, specifically Al-Queda?

          • We have only so many resources. Hussein was a known problem, we'd tangled with him before. Afghanistan was taken down before Iraq. Libya laid down its arms recently, and you can argue whether that was because of our invasion or other mitigating (sanctions?) reasons. Iran and North Korea are being dealt with.

            Let's look at this like a game of Starcraft...when playing against 3 other people, do you attack all 3 simultaneously, or do you attack 1, stabilize it, then attack another? While Starcraft is a fa
            • Why was no thought given to liberating anybody before 9/11? You speak of overextending oneself; why, in the midst of trying to track down a world-wide terrorist organization, would you suddenly decide to 'liberate' Iraq?

              Why not start out with something closer to home, such as, say, Cuba? Why not start out somewhere just as undemocratic, but where you already have a military presence, such as, say, Saudi Arabia?

              Thank you, by the way, for your well-thought and well-reasoned reply; I'd expected naught bu

            • Not to mention that using a military solution in Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein may allow us to easier seek a diplomatic solution elsewhere (Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc.). The example you gave of Libya supports this.

              Hussein had violated, what was it, 17-19 U.N. resolutions without any major consequences. Other hostile nations like Iran and North Korea can look at that and think, "Look at Iraq, they can get away with anything and the U.N. won't do a thing. Why should we have to listen to them?" Well
            • "Let's look at this like a game of Starcraft...when playing against 3 other people, do you attack all 3 simultaneously, or do you attack 1, stabilize it, then attack another?"

              Newsflash!

              Running the country is NOT the same as playing a game. In StarCraft it is only you running all the forces. In the Real World you have LOTS of people to work with.

              It's possible to support the UN's efforts at finding "WMD's" in Iraq (they did have people on the ground there)
              -and-
              Shore up the country you just invaded (Afghani
            • by damiam (409504) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @05:27PM (#10399107)
              Hussein was a known problem, we'd tangled with him before.

              And what happened then? We decided not to take him out, because our president at the time had at least a shred of intelligence and could forsee the consequences:

              "Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

              - George H. W. Bush [snopes.com]

    • by brandido (612020) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:13PM (#10398338) Homepage Journal

      For a detailed rebuttal of David Kopel's detailed rebuttal of Fahrenheit 9/11, please check out Deception; Desperate Right Wing Attacks on Fahrenheit 9/11 [opednews.com] or Debunking '59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11' [dailykos.com]

  • by edalytical (671270) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @12:03PM (#10395422)
    Anyone that wants to refute Moore's film is really missing the point of the film. That being said the rebuttals are just a necessary as the original film.

    Let me explain. Once you look past Mr. Moore's biased you'll see that the film is doing nothing more than asking the question that should have been asked by the media we already have in place. The media failed to do so, thus we have Moore's film filling in where they came up short. Does he get somethings wrong? Your goddamn right he does, but it doesn't mean we should ignore him completely.

    Now the same can be said for the rebuttal. Moore's obviously put his own spin on things (as he should) after all, all he's doing is connecting dots to make a point. He most likely went overboard with some of his assumptions. Now I haven't seen the new movie yet, but lets hope it fills the holes in Moore's movie and is not just an outright attack on Moore (I hope this makes my own biased completely clear).

    This shouldn't have to be said, but everyone should watch both movies and then make up their own minds.

  • by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @12:07PM (#10395459)
    911 in Plain Sight [911inplainsight.com] has an interesting DVD [69.50.168.139] (scroll down to [Movies - DVD-R] 911 In Plane Site ,excelent new docu...)

    And here is a good commentary & rebuttal [freedom-force.org]

    Peace

    --
    ALL civilizations eventually collapse.
    Or are you that ignorant and arrogant to assume that yours won't?

    Why?

    "The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws" -- Tacitus, A.D. 55
  • by raider_red (156642) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @05:25PM (#10399078) Journal
    Okay, I wasn't impressed at all with F9/11. I felt that it was a selective set of facts loosely assembled in such a way as to make the Bush administration look bad. It was almost purely a propaganda piece.

    Celsius whateveritis looks like an attempt to do the same thing in reverse. They've selectively assembled a bunch of facts to make President Bush look good and to make Michael Moore look bad. So basically, another propaganda piece trying to rebut the first.

    My recommendation is to do your homework, find your own facts, and draw your own conclusions. Don't listen to a bunch of blowhard filmmakers about who you should vote for.
  • Just Curious... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DeComposer (551766) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @05:49PM (#10399266) Journal
    Who the hell is "G Squared Interactive?"

    Google's never heard of 'em; AnyWho's never heard of 'em; their phone number is either bogus or unlisted, ditto for their admin email address.

    WHOIS:
    www.citizensunited-interactive.org
    G Squared Interactive
    c/o Network Solutions
    Herndon, VA 20172-447
    (570) 708-8780
    pz74s7h92ge@networksolutionsprivateregistration.co m

    I suppose if I were making inflammatory political statements (right-wing, left-wing, or other-wing), I'd use anonymizers, too. But don't ICANN rules require legitimate contact info for domain registration?

    Just curious...

You can do this in a number of ways. IBM chose to do all of them. Why do you find that funny? -- D. Taylor, Computer Science 350

Working...