Hmm… Well, did he eat anything from Burger King or Hardees in the movie? You have a perception that this thread is about you because you are the only one Jeff Olsen mentioned, and thus you are defending your views. Why not consider that the thread is about hardheadedness in general and refrain from taking his pitting personally?
You stated “The sniper asking the questions is basically assaulting claims that Sperlock hasn’t made”. However, your statement above contradicts this.
Technically, it’s about his habit of needlessly dredging up the movie.
Ah, but if you get to say what the thread is about, then Dio is right: the filmmaker gets to say what the movie is about.
This makes no sense. Who ever said the movie was attempting to portray the life of an average person? It’s a useful datapoint because it’s at the limit of realistic behavior. It gives perspective and a sense of scale. It’s no different than testing drugs on lab animals at ten or one hundred times the normal dosage, or little kids doing science fair projects where they soak extracted teeth in glasses of soda overnight. Even though no one actually soaks their teeth in Pepsi, seeing what 24 hours of continuous immersion can do is still very interesting and, I think, useful.
So why are they Spurlock’s critics? Spurlock hasn’t made any of the claims that they are endeavoring to debunk. If they want to criticize Spurlock, why don’t they address something he’s actually fucking said?
No. The film makes the point that the average American still eats pre-packaged processed crap even when they eat at home. Processed crap is processed crap. Hot Pockets and Ramen noodles aren’t any better than White castle sliders.
Huh? 
How so?
Well, Stossel addressed what he actually fucking said because Stossel spoke directly fucking to him. 
holmes, post #12.
Because there are people who think Spurlock is saying something completly different and he’s been playing along. It’s all about promoting himself and his movie.
Note: I am not saying he’s lying.
Fair enough.
There’s a difference between not exercising more than the average person in order to isolate the effects of eating nothing but McDonald’s food, and making a movie entitled “Why Americans Are Fat” and claiming that someone eating every meal at McDonald’s is typical.
I simply don’t understand criticizing the movie on the grounds that it’s not realistic. It’s not supposed to be.
FTR, I do think that the McDonald’s stunt, while effective as a hook to get people to watch the film, has also been a distraction from some of the real points that the film tries to make. In particular, the way that public school lunch programs have been sold out to junk food purveyors is a much more important issue than whether McDonalds will make you fat. I wish the interviewers would focus on issues like that instead of fixating on defending McDonalds.
Here’s what holmes said: “The guy said he was trying to recreate what the average person does.” It should have been worded better if it only applied to exercising.
As I’ve been saying the whole time, there are people who don’t get this.
I don’t understand criticizing a movie based on not seeing the movie. And almost being proud of that fact.
Arguing from ignorance is what this board is supposed to fight.
May I refer you to the thread title? We’re criticizing Spurlock and his pandering.
What mystifies me is why anyone feels motivated to defend McDonalds, just as it mystifies me that anyone feels compelled to defend Bush. All I can think is that you are so brainwashed by the powers that be you feel their skin is your skin.
Dude, have the honesty to quote me in entirely…
The average person doesn’t eat well, the average person doesn’t excerise enough…by eating lousy food and reducing his excerise he changed his eating and excerise routine to that of the average person.
Again, why the hard on for this guy?
Did that earlier. I was just refresing Giraffe’s memory.
Why?
- He’s fostering ignorace by pandering to those who: [ul][li]believe he is anti-McDonald’s.[]believe the movie is realistic.[]believe that McDonald’s food is what endangerd his health.[/ul][/li]2. He insists on being interviewed alone, thus ensuring his ability to continue pandering.
- Some people keep missing the above points.
Umm… did you see the film?
He clearly explained how he was adjusting his lifestyle and why. He modeled the amount of exercise he engaged to match the typical American sedentary lifestyle. This information was given to him by his nutritionist, down to the number of steps per day taken.
He also quite amiably introduced us to a man who eats nothing but Big Macs, one who is slender and apparently quite healthy.
Spurlock comes right out and says several times that it is the combination of diet and exercise that he is modeling.
Now, try these side by side:
There’s a woman who exercises religiously and eats McDonald’s salads and is demonstrating a healthy lifestyle.
And there’s a man who plays couch potato, and eats supersized Mickey-D’s Quarter Pounder meals, and is worrying his doctors.
Which do you think is a more realistic picture of people who frequent McDonalds??
Hell, which is closer to the average middle-American stereotype?
(Here’s a hint: the people I know who exercise and eat right don’t think of McDonalds when they want a healthy meal. Here’s another hint: When someone says “McDonalds,” what kind of food do you associate with it? Don’t filter, what comes to mind first?)
Did you read the title of this thread?
People tend to see/hear/read only what they want to see/hear/read.
This thread reminds me a bit of a beauty pageant contestant from some years back.
Host: ‘What is your favorite author?’
Miss Whatever: ‘So-and-so.’
Host: ‘Which of his books have you read?’
Miss Whatever: ‘None. But I have heard he is a great writer’
Have any of the ‘critics’ in this thread actually seen the movie? I find the subject interesting, and should the movie be shown in local theaters I will go see it.
How many times to I have to say it’s not about the fucking movie!?