Capt. Murdoch, meet pizzabrat.
I disagree with you there. Quite a lot of people, including very intelligent ones, who have seen the film have come away with exactly that impression. You might not like Stossel et al, but they are not idiots.
Above intended for Dio in response to:
[QUOTE=Psycho Pirate]
Before you start thinking I’m sitting here wearing a Ronald McDonald mask, let me make one thing clear.
[QUOTE]
As an aside, there is no more distubing image I could dredge up from the bowels of my fevered imagination than that little snapshot you have provided.
Thank you!
I’d be less inclined to think McDonald’s was a target if Spurlock had simply eaten at a variety of fast-food establishments.
And didn’t name the movie “Supersize Me”.
How about this? :eek:
Well, that’s a catchy name, and I think he had to pick something. Personally, I wouldn’t have gone for “Biggie Size Me!” but that’s because I find there’s something inherently funny in the word “biggie.”
There were copious other, non-commercialized titles he could have utilized. Spurlock seems like a creative guy, I’m sure he could have thought of something.
Perhaps. But what he did choose is punchy, to the point, recognizable, and includes multiple meanings. I’m in sales, so be aware of my bias, but that makes good business sense. And we’d all agree, I think, that making such a movie is as much a business decision as an artistic or moral one.
Actually, I didn’t see/hear/read that part. 
Exactly! Some people are unable to grasp that Spurlock is exploiting McDonald’s presence for financial gain. Were it non-profit, I’d take his argument far more seriously.
Very funny. 
Peace?
Wahhhh…poor, little McDonalds is poor defenseless victim. 
Since Spurlock doesn’t say anything about your precious Mickey D’s that isn’t true, the fucking place doesn’t have anything to cry about. Is there some law against telling the truth about a company? Is there some law against making money by telling the truth about a company? Is there something immoral about making money by telling the truth about a company?
What do you have against capitalism?
Whether relevant or not, I saw the film a while back.
My primary problem with it is more that it was kind of underwhelming as a film, not that it was particularly deceptive. Whatever Spurlock says outside the movie to people like Stossel (whom I have both admiration for on some counts as well as irritations with some Moore-like skew, deceptions, and misrepresentations), the movie itself does make pretty clear the rules of the game, and it sounds like he stuck to them. The “experiment” isn’t taken from any model of a normal lifestyle: it’s presented as being taken right from the story of the two girls who ate at McDonalds every day and sued the company, and lost: an outcome that the narrative thrust of film itself seems to agree with even though it explores all the elements for the defense and gives a sympathetic to the lawyer in the case. In the end, the message did seem to be about choices.
The movie’s main thrust was basically to outline a fact that people like Stossel refuse to ever acknowledge or grapple with: that some corporations do more than simple offer products for sale on a free market: some also have made concerted efforts to alter entire cultures and human physiology so as to be more receptive to wanting, needing, and being unable to avoid their products. The film doesn’t even necessarily paint these corporations as being concertedly evil or entirely aware of what effects they are having, but mostly that this is an unconfronted element of our society.
The titling and focus on McDonalds is good marketing and good for narrative focus, but also because McDonalds has been more successful than any other fast food chain, especially in targeting children.
I didn’t find the movie particularly deceptive: it is presented as a stunt, playing around to illustrate some aspects of modern life, not an attempt to prove definitively that eating McDonalds will make you deathly ill. I’d say that if Spurlock tries to present it as otherwise outside the movie then he probably is overplaying his own film.
Stop putting words into my mouth buddy. I don’t live McDonald’s (and never stated I did), and I have nothing “against” capitalism. What I do have a problem with are people who deny any motives Spurlock may have had during the production of his film. Why do you think he chose McDonald’s? Because it was guaranteed to garner his film more attention, and thus money.
live = like
So fucking what? What’s wrong with that?
And because it was the place that was sued by the two girls, and hence the reason the film was made. And because it’s the biggest fast food chain worldwide, and the most universally well known icon of Americana around the world, and so on. I mean, I see what you’re saying, but I’m also not sure I get the point of making a film about fast food excess in our culture and NOT making it be about McDonalds. I mean, SSme just IS the best title and focus for such a movie. How could it not be?