Comic Genesis Forums

Boy I can hardly wait to see the fat slobs face when he sees the film that he created. Of course I mean the properly edited version.

Heck, Maybe Hollyweird will blacklist him if they think he actually made a film supporting the United States.

Those kids are the cutest examples of biological warfare ever.

Steltek wrote:Those kids are the cutest examples of biological warfare ever.

Yep... right up there with Experiment 626.

Nothing like drastically censoring a work of art that you happen to disagree with. If it offends me, then *nobody* should be able to see it, right?

'art' is a term that gets more and more undefined as the years go by.

what I notice is that the last time Nip had a big plan it wasn't explained to the audience, it was just played out and executed and you just assumed.

I don't think this counts as 'censoring' so much a 'sabatoging' (did I spell that right?)

I would classify any work of creative fiction as a work of "art." As for the subject matter, there's no accounting for taste, as they say.

In any case, sabotage is just as wrong. Someone creates something you don't like? Go ahead and destroy it.

Steltek wrote:Those kids are the cutest examples of biological warfare ever.

Of course! Haven't you ever heard of acute illnesses?

Steltek wrote:Those kids are the cutest examples of biological warfare ever.

Of course! Haven't you ever heard of acute illnesses?

Squeaky Bunny wrote:

Steltek wrote:Those kids are the cutest examples of biological warfare ever.

Of course! Haven't you ever heard of acute illnesses?

Ralen wrote:Nothing like drastically censoring a work of art that you happen to disagree with. If it offends me, then *nobody* should be able to see it, right?

Straw man. They are being -used- by this slob to promote a point of view that they find personally repulsive. This is not censorship - this is demanding their proper share of creative input.

Censorship is when the government tells you you can't do something. What's happening to Fat Boy isn't censorship. It's consequences.

Indeed, this is not an external group attempting to suppress an artist's work. This is a group of artists having an artistic disagreement. The disagreement would not have happened if the director had been open with his artistic vision from the first.

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Hey, Ralph, I noticed Mr. Lapine got a nose job!



Compare that to the 8th panel today.


¡Zacatepóngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

Ralen wrote:Nothing like drastically censoring a work of art that you happen to disagree with. If it offends me, then *nobody* should be able to see it, right?

The problem with such an arguement is that there is more then one artist here. The director used other people to put up a vision they oppose completely by making them seem to support his view.

"I'm all for art even if it offends me, so long as it doesn't miss represent me." -Rob D.L.

Ralen wrote:Nothing like drastically censoring a work of art that you happen to disagree with. If it offends me, then *nobody* should be able to see it, right?

Now that brings up an interesting point. Does the right to free speech and press include the right to lie?


I would contend that common sense-- and our established laws-- would say no. Libel and slander are still both serious crimes. The right to speak your opinion does not include the right to skew facts, falsify evidence, and present scurrilous lies as proven fact. And our establishment of defamation lawsuits indicates that, as a society, we still have enough sense to not tolerate <I>innuendo and insinuation</i> as "free speech" either.


It's already been established that not only is Moby Director using lies, slander, deceptive innuendo and open falsifications about the terror war and the military as a <I>starting foundation</i> for his movie, he has deliberately decieved the people working for him in order to obtain their cooperation, and gain their help in making a movie that would be, from their perspective, on a deplorable par with "Birth of a Nation."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation

Does he have a right to the labor and sweat of people whom he decieved? To their words and images?

What of the people who are invested their money in what they THOUGHT was an action film by "a famous director, whose name is being kept under wraps," only to discover they've invested in something that's going to make them about as popular as a dead skunk at a lawn party?

The movie industry, in case you haven't heard, is taking a hit to the groin right now.... largely because over half this country is still reliably patriotic, has gotten tired of the steady diet of leftist navel-gazing in the theatres, and is staying away in droves.

(Don't be fooled. The only reason movies like "Bowling for Columbine" and "Farenheit 9/11" enjoyed the dishwatery "success" they did was because Micheal Moore ran around furiously masturbating every media shill he could wrap his fat fingers around. Even then both movies combined didn't gross as much as the average direct-to-video B-flick. Notoriety isn't the same as ticket sales.)

What happens to those investors when they find out they've invested in an Anti-American "Ishtar?"

Does freedom of speech include the right to use other people to foment a lie?

They are being -used- by this slob to promote a point of view that they find personally repulsive. This is not censorship - this is demanding their proper share of creative input.

Yes, well the contract they all signed says they aren't allowed any creative input. They should take this as a learning experience and in the future they know what they're getting themselves into before they commit to something. You can't tell someone you'll do whatever they want, but then back out when they ask you to do something you don't like. You bite the bullet, do your job, and know better next time.

If they don't want to have their names associated with such a project, I'm sure any director (especially this one) would be more than happy to remove their names from the credits, and take the credit himself.

RHJunior wrote:
The movie industry, in case you haven't heard, is taking a hit to the groin right now.... largely because over half this country is still reliably patriotic, has gotten tired of the steady diet of leftist navel-gazing in the theatres, and is staying away in droves.

(Don't be fooled. The only reason movies like "Bowling for Columbine" and "Farenheit 9/11" enjoyed the dishwatery "success" they did was because Micheal Moore ran around furiously masturbating every media shill he could wrap his fat fingers around. Even then both movies combined didn't gross as much as the average direct-to-video B-flick. Notoriety isn't the same as ticket sales.)

I don't think you're entirely right there. Not that I disagree with you ideologically speaking, but I believe that the gut-shot that the film industry is taking is due more to the fact that movies that people would pay $10 to see in a theater once are either commercially available for unlimited personal use for about $20 three months after they're in the theaters, and that's including deleted scenes, commentary, etc, or off of a pirated feed for the more unscupulous members of society.
Furthermore, I believe that part of it also has something do do with a stagnation of ideas on the silver screen. When the movie industry started, it was the majority of directors and actors were ex-broadway and vaudeville people (Danny Kaye, etc), who knew how to play to an audience and write a good script. Nowadays, Hollywood fulfills its motto of "If it succeeds, beat it to death", and anything that is remotely successful and creative (Consider Disney's "Pirates of The Carribean") automatically has two or three more cookie cutter sequels lined up.

Do not get me wrong, I feel as marginalized by Hollywood's Leftism as much as the next person on this forum, it's just that I don't think that their shortcomings as artists stem from their political beliefs.
Their personal habits, on the other hand, are another story.

And, for everyone's enjoyment, from IMAO's "Know thy Enemy Archive":
Michael Moore is fat. Oh, and he also had the number one movie over the weekend with his new propaganda piece, Fahrenheit 9/11, about how Bush is not a good president or something or other. I hope he really gets Bush on not controlling spending at home. Anyway, I had my crack research staff work overtime finding out all the facts about the fascinating piece of work known as Michael Moore.

FUN FACTS ABOUT MICHAEL MOORE

* He's fat.

* He's ugly.

* He's fat and ugly.

* He corpulent... which means fat.

* He compares unfavorably to a baboon’s butt in both appearance and smell.

* Michael Moore has the uncanny ability to cause burst of hatred in otherwise rational people - that fat, fat, ugly, smelly man!

* Michael Moore had a trouble childhood as he grew up without parents... since he ate them.

* Michael Moore was raised by a family of gorillas in the zoo until they could no longer stand either his smell or personality.

* Some say Michael Moore is a (poorly) shaved wookie, but wookies take offense at that.

* It's a myth that Michael Moore never bathes... he just does it nacho cheese sauce.

* John Candy died soon after appearing in Canadian Bacon. It is unknown how many other people Michael Moore's films have killed.

* Though a millionaire, Michael Moore is often stopped on the streets by hobos who offer him hygiene advice.

* Whether Michael Moore is fat and ugly because of his views or he got his views by being fat and ugly is under academic debate.

* The reason Michael Moore always wears a baseball cap is to keep in his pulsating brain which is a mixture of neurons and hog fat.

* Someone is making a documentary about Michael Moore, but I believe there already was one. I think it was called The Blob.

* Michael Moore doubles in size every one and a half years. This is referred to as "Moore's Law."

* Michael Moore's new movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, gives irrational Bush haters even more irrational reasons to hate Bush.

* As for people who are rational and don't hate Bush, any attempt by Michael Moore to convert them to drooling idiots is undone by him appearing on screen causing people to shout, "Who is that fat, fat ugly man? Whatever views he has, I want the opposite!"

* Michael Moore had a T.V. series, T.V. Nation, for a while which had a cool theme song... though not cool enough to distract from how fat and ugly Michael Moore is. Thus it was soon canceled.

* Though he says he's a socialist, the way he makes millions by exploiting the ignorance and venom of angry lefties is extremely capitalistic. Makes me wish I were a fat, ugly, lying, sack of...

* If he ever lost all his money though (probably spending it all on pork rinds) and became a hobo, how could anyone tell?

* Bowling for Columbine was a film all about guns, yet someone Michael Moore never took a bullet in a shooting accident... perhaps evidence that God doesn't love us.

* Then again, if Moore were to burn in hell, the fuel costs on frying that fat man would soon bankrupt the underworld, causing all the evil demons within to have to find jobs elsewhere... probably stealing them from our hardworking illegal immigrants.

* Fat and ugly, that man.

* The diet of the Michael Moore is globs of fat, mugs of grease, and small children.

* Michael Moore is frightened by healthy vegetables, facts, and three-headed zombie monsters. If you ever encounter him, scare him away with one of those.

* When Michael Moore wraps all his lies and distortions into a film he calls a "documentary," he gets lots of awards from Hollywood types, who, though not necessarily as fat and ugly, are quite stupid.

* Michael Moore's smell is a natural protection, as even a rabid animal isn't crazy enough to put its mouth around something with a stench like that.

* In a fight between Michael Moore and Aquaman, Michael Moore would hound Aquaman for an interview who would then hide in his Aqualair and ignore the fat, annoying man. Good for Aquaman.

* Finally giving up, Michael Moore would then fry and eat many of Aquaman's fish friends. Poor Aquaman.

* I once thought it would be funny to put a baseball cap on a pile of manure, get a picture of me standing next to it, and then show it saying I met Michael Moore, but I gave up the idea since I don't own a baseball cap.

* Michael Moore has a bunch of lawyers to sue anyone who tells the truth about him (namely that he is fat and ugly) for libel. Bring it on, fatty!

* BTW, if you would like to donate to the Frank J. legal defense fund, click on either the Amazon of PayPal link on the sidebar.

* Liberals and Conservatives often get into lengthy arguments about the merits of Michael Moore's political views, but so far there has been no good rebuttal to the fact that he is a fat, ugly, unshaven, smelly man, and I suspect there never will be.
http://www.imao.us/archives/cat_know_thy_enemy.html

RHJunior wrote:(Don't be fooled. The only reason movies like "Bowling for Columbine" and "Farenheit 9/11" enjoyed the dishwatery "success" they did was because Micheal Moore ran around furiously masturbating every media shill he could wrap his fat fingers around. Even then both movies combined didn't gross as much as the average direct-to-video B-flick. Notoriety isn't the same as ticket sales.)

Don't forget: Fib9/11 garnered its initial push from massive support by MoveOn.org, which promoted the movie to its anti-Bush audience as a major anti-Bush flick. Fully 100,000 MoveOn members committed to view the movie, long before it came out. For a documentary, that's a big push, and the buzz from MoveOn likewise spilled over into major news and talk show outlets.

Calbeck wrote:

RHJunior wrote:(Don't be fooled. The only reason movies like "Bowling for Columbine" and "Farenheit 9/11" enjoyed the dishwatery "success" they did was because Micheal Moore ran around furiously masturbating every media shill he could wrap his fat fingers around. Even then both movies combined didn't gross as much as the average direct-to-video B-flick. Notoriety isn't the same as ticket sales.)

Don't forget: Fib9/11 garnered its initial push from massive support by MoveOn.org, which promoted the movie to its anti-Bush audience as a major anti-Bush flick. Fully 100,000 MoveOn members committed to view the movie, long before it came out. For a documentary, that's a big push, and the buzz from MoveOn likewise spilled over into major news and talk show outlets.

Recall also that Moore isn't afraid to antagonize the studios themselves for the sake of publicity. Disney warned him A YEAR IN ADVANCE that they weren't happy with his proposal for F911, but he went ahead and made it anyway, and when Disney said, "Well we warned you a year ago, and now we're telling you again that we're not going to release it" - Mike screamed "CENSORSHIP! I'M BEING REPRESSED!" and went on every television talk show and talked to every newspaper that he could about how Even Hollywood Doesn't Want You To See This Movie, until another studio picked up the distribution rights.

I think the tagline when the film first opened was: "Controversy? What controversy?" over a Photoshopped picture of Moore and Dubya walking across the White House lawn together.

Ralen wrote:

They are being -used- by this slob to promote a point of view that they find personally repulsive. This is not censorship - this is demanding their proper share of creative input.

Yes, well the contract they all signed says they aren't allowed any creative input. They should take this as a learning experience and in the future they know what they're getting themselves into before they commit to something.

Ah, I see your problem here, for you ASSUME that there was such a clause in the contract ... it is a bad thing to assume. I would guess that Tuck's giggle fit was because such a clause was MISSING. :p

Remember RHJunior never showed us the contract ... only bits and pieces that the characters took exception to via dialogue.

You can't tell someone you'll do whatever they want, but then back out when they ask you to do something you don't like. You bite the bullet, do your job, and know better next time.

Sure you can, its called renegotiating the contract and Unions do it all the time.

Couple notes.

1. The decline of Hollywood has more to do with cookie-cutter sequels, TV re-hashes and a general complete lack of imagination than any leftist viewpoint. (Examples: Disney's remake of The Shaggy Dog, Pirates of the Caribbean 2, Big Momma's House 2, Cheaper by the Dozen 2 (aka Parenthood 3), as well as upcoming movies based on Knight Rider, The A-Team and Miami Vice). Hollywood is failing because Hollywood is out of ideas.

Second, the First Amendment says you can criticize the government. It does not guarantee the right to heap piles of libelous garbage, just as it does not grant you the right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. With rights come responsibilities, and most seem to forget that.

And third, it seems as though he's got all his bases covered. It should be interesting to see what unfolds.