the getting the pistol ammo off the shelf at K-Marts. I was expecting him to show up at a K-Mart on day 91 and their still being ammo everywhere.
The Dick Clark ambush seemed a little pointless.
It helps to hit the preview button, so you can catch those embarrassing misspellings.
And the free pass wasn’t given out by the theater, so again.
And what exactly did I steal? A seat from someone who did pay? Hardly, as the theater was more then 1/2 empty.
Oh, and WSL stands for While Supplies Last which is the name of my band.
And is it really the dumbest thing you have ever read?
I doubt it.
So did you get a free pass or not? Straight answers from you are as impossible to get as gold from a emu’s beak.
For your next trick, please explain why stealing cable isn’t really stealing.
I’m not familiar with the Dick Clark incident (haven’t seen the movie yet)…though I know Moore had a Bob Eubanks incident from his earlier work.
Who will be the next game show host in a Michael Moore film? Wink Martindale? Richard Dawson?
Depends on the theater. Don’t any American theaters do double-features any more?
Sometimes. If you went to a double feature, would you brag about not paying for one of the movies?
…When you buy a ticket to a double feature, you are paying for both movies.
BTW, double features are exceedingly rare in the US.
As I understand it, the standard practice for film distributors these days is to take a (very, very large) percentage of the film’s ticket sales as their compensation for letting the theater display it. The distributors would be quite upset if the theater were allowing patrons to see extra movies without additional compensation.
I see. We have a couple of small theaters in our neighborhood that both alternate two films on the same screen. You just buy a ticket to go in and can stay as long as you want. Not very comfortable, but fairly cheap.
I don’t know that I’d brag that I saw one feature for free, but I suppose if one film sucked, hopefully I could shrug it off by saying “at least I got my money’s worth on the second movie”.
Usually if you complain about a film, quality of presentation or just it itself, the management will let you go see another one. This is especially true when theaters are near enough to be in compitition with one another. In a case where one did that it wouldn’t be bad at all to talk about it.
Theater hoping is theft of service. Theaters don’t really protect themselves against it except for movies that are going to be packed because then the seat is stolen from a paying customer. I’m not saying this is a justification for doing a theater hop it is clear that the management of most places don’t care if people sneak into shows like BfC because they aren’t going to fill all the seats and if they encountered resistance they aren’t going to go buy a ticket they are just going to leave. All you do in protecting against theater hops for unpopular movies and show times is waste money.
Among others:
-
Moore’s claim that GM laid off 30,000 workers in one year. It was 10,000.
-
Moore’s showing people getting evicted from their homes and saying that they had lost their jobs at GM. Trouble was, the people he showed had never worked for GM.
Am I correct in guessing that they worked for parts suppliers for GM, and lost their jobs as a result of GM’s own production shutdowns? And that the 30,000 figure is also related to that?
Not that there was anything in the remotest bit wrong about GM’s layaoffs. Such is and should be the nature of the labor market in America.
Well, you know Michael Moore, he WOULD be upset about a gun rally being held in Flint.
Anyway, I thought Roger and Me was blatant propoganda. Is it really the CEO of GM’s problem if the workers took their jobs for granted instead of looking into the future? And why is Roger Smith portrayed as such a bastard for not wanting to talk to a sketchy guy off the street with a camera crew who don’t even have appointments?
Entertaining movie, though, it was funny, especially with all the pop culture references and certain bits (selling Amway and Pets and Meat pop up :)), but he didn’t convince me that GM or corporate America was evil. He did however convince me that he’s really annoying…perhaps, ironically, even…a Stupid White Man himself? (Okay maybe he’s not that stupid but that was too good not to put in.)
The film hasn’t played here yet, but here’s what I don’t get about Bowling For Columbine based on what I heard Moore say on the Tim Russert show yesterday:
He originally figured it would be cool to go to Canada and show how safe the country is, and how few guns there are. This was going to be a major thesis of his support for extensive gun control legislation.
So he goes to Canada, and discovers that we are awash in guns. Handguns, rifles, you name it. I own a handgun and two rifles. I’m not unusual in that regard. Here in Alberta, I’m guessing our gun ownership rates are much the same as the U.S. average.
So Moore discovers that we have lots of guns, but way fewer gun deaths.
And yet from this, he STILL concludes that the proper solution in the U.S. is more gun control?
In the interview with Russert, he even conceded that there are other countries that have as many or more guns than the U.S., yet with much lower incidence of gun crime.
How can you be presented with so much evidence contradicting your own thesis and yet still stick to it? Can’t he reason?
The film hasn’t played here yet, but here’s what I don’t get about Bowling For Columbine based on what I heard Moore say on the Tim Russert show yesterday:
He originally figured it would be cool to go to Canada and show how safe the country is, and how few guns there are. This was going to be a major thesis of his support for extensive gun control legislation.
So he goes to Canada, and discovers that we are awash in guns. Handguns, rifles, you name it. I own a handgun and two rifles. I’m not unusual in that regard. Here in Alberta, I’m guessing our gun ownership rates are much the same as the U.S. average.
So Moore discovers that we have lots of guns, but way fewer gun deaths.
And yet from this, he STILL concludes that the proper solution in the U.S. is more gun control?
In the interview with Russert, he even conceded that there are other countries that have as many or more guns than the U.S., yet with much lower incidence of gun crime.
How can you be presented with so much evidence contradicting your own thesis and yet still stick to it? Can’t he reason?
I was puzzled by that initially but as the interview went on what he was trying to say became clearer (though I am not sure how much he has thought through his own ideas). His contention is that there is a culture of violence in the US which is a result of a number of things including poverty, racial disparities and just plain psyche which makes folks take to the gun to settle problems (put simplistically). He mentioned that ~70% of gun-related murders happen between people who know each other (I haven’t verified the statistic). So, basically he was saying that unless this country learns to take care of its people (i.e., minimize poverty) and mitigates its psyche of revenge and taking to the gun to settle problems, gun control should be considered as one of the options to bring down violence. And, when we learn to live with guns like Canada, for example, then regulations would cease to matter. The other angle he provided for gun control was the needlessness of a gamut of guns, including a number of semi-automatics, in a single house.
The difference between the U.S. and Canada is that you have a lot of urban violence. Gangs, drug dealers, etc.
If you ask me, the major factor dividing the U.S. from Canada is the existence of a lot of very silly laws that create a huge criminal underclass. That, coupled with inner city violence and a gang culture that really doesn’t exist in Canada.
I wonder what the gun violence rate is in suburban Vermont or Maine, and how that compares to suburban Toronto or Halifax? I’ll bet it’s pretty close.
Sam–I thought you weren’t allowed to have handguns in Canada. Or are you just not allowed to bring them in from the U.S.? It’s on all the customs forms I’ve seen.
To buy a handgun in Canada, you just have to go to the police station and get a permit.
The major difference is that once you own the handgun, you can only legally transport it to a sanctioned gun range and your home, or to a gun smith and your home. You cannot carry a handgun around with you at all for any other reason.
Rifles are barely regulated at all. We only started registration last year. Before that, all you needed was a Firearms Acquisition Certificate and you could walk into any K-Mart and buy a rifle. Now you can still do that, but it has to be registered with the government.