Deciding whether the Academy should consider the morality of the recipient when awarding Oscars is for another thread.
HoldenCaulfieldi get the feeling you desire another thread…
i was speaking out since there wasn’t a thread, and this one is five pages, and that people have their priorities out of whack.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by minty green *
**
I have no idea where you get this "all of us crap.
[quote]
**
I guess I’m not following you then…
You say
OK…you’re rejecting what you see as the “special rules for awards shows” thinking.
Ok…you’re noting that the Oscars especially have a history of political expression.
I guess you lose me here then…who are you referring to here? Who exactly are the pro-war crybabies that are in this thread?
He can still sing.
I found MM’s comments to be in poor taste. Tha tismy opinion. But clearly the most distasteful moment of the night was the thunderous applause for Roman Polanski.
You can start with the OP.
Actually, the funny thing is that I pressed “Submit Reply” once, then closed the window because I didn’t really care enough to argue it out here or in another thread; somehow it posted it three times.
And, even though I am on the other side of the Roman Polanski argument, I, too, thought it was strange that there hadn’t been more mention of his award here at the SDMB.
Here’s the thing: like all good comedy, it’s all in the delivery. Moore delivered poorly.
Let’s think about it a bit. The point he wants to get across is, “Bush is a fake president, this is a fake war.” But, if you lead with that, you alienate people. He should have led off with the “Pope / Dixie Chicks” comment; that would have made at least some people laugh, and the crowd would have been on his side. Then, he could have followed up with his “fiction” material, and the response wouldn’t have been as harsh. Hell, they might even have cheered.
Really, the problem wasn’t the message; for the message he wanted to deliver, the crowd should have been on his side. He just delivered it all wrong, by starting with an awkward bash on the president and shouting his speech like a televangelist berating his flock.
And again, he’s an asshole for bringing his fellow nominees up there with him when he knew full well that what he was going to say and that they might not agree with him. By making them stand behind him, he put them in the position of appearing to be on his side, whether they wanted to or not. And since he appeared to be asking them to join him on the spur of the moment as he shook their hands in the audience after his name was called, I don’t think it was pre-planned or arranged at all. And really, if the winner of an award asks his fellow nominees to join him onstage during a televised award ceremony, what’re they gonna do, turn him down? Argue? That would make them look like sore losers. Rock and a hard place, that is.
Roman Polanski shouldn’t get anything after what he did, we can thank the french for harboring his sick ass. Great job, france, thanks!
It’s a good thing Moore had the 90 seconds to speak his mind because 2 seconds longer and he would run out of things to say.
Moor is a bloviating touchhole. As much as I agree he should have used a little discretion, I’m just as glad he had the opportunity to show his ignorance and see the truthful response the majority holds of him and his bullshit.
So MM told a joke poorly? What an asshole!
Also, does anybody have any actual proof that the other nominees got hijacked into anything at all? It seems unlikely they had no idea they’d all be standing up there together, or that they had no idea MM would spout off about DubyaDubya II. Shit, at least some of them were apparently there the night before when Moore said exactly the same things!
[sub]Hmmm, DubyaDubya II. I think I’ve just coined one with a little staying power![/sub]
And…? (there’s a “bunch”…right?)
I intentionally kept my complaint generic instead of calling out specific posters, and I see no reason to change that now. If you really care, email me.
And your basis for saying it’s a "bullshit rationalization is…what? Just your gut? And when posters explicitly tell you that it’s not about the content of the speech after you claim it is, and you continue to assert the opposite – well, aren’t you basically accusing those posters of lying?
I’d like the pod person that took over the nice, rational, polite minty we know and love to please cease and desist control of same immediately. **
And what evidence would you have us present? It isn’t like there was a conservative equivelant to Moore at the Oscars (or the Emmys, or the Tonys, or the Grammys, or the Boy Scout merit badge ceremony, or whatever). I’m telling you I’d find it in equally bad taste for a conservative to stand up on the Oscar dais and start talking about stupid, smelly hippies, but since no one’s actually gone and done that you’re just gonna have to take my word for it.
That, combined with the posting histories of the persons to whom I refer and the inherent stupidity of the claim that this sort of thing is unusual or unwelcome at the Oscars. Once you have eliminated the idiotic, the only thing that remains is cow poop.
I would be if I had done so in this thread. I have not.
Polite? Surely you jest. Well, at least in the Pit anyway. 
What I meant is that I have not done so with particular persons in this thread. I reject the rationalization in general, not in any particular instance, even though the rationalization appears both contrived and counter-factual.
I agree that Michael Moore looked like a complete buffoon. However, he did accomplish what I thought was impossible: he made Barbra Streisand and Richard Gere look positively restrained.
Oh, and about the U2 comments. Bono has learned that there is little to be accomplished by being in-your-face angry. Oh yeah, it’s cool, but in the end it doesn’t solve anything.
He’s learned the fine art of restraint and diplomacy. You think Michael Moore has a chance in hell of getting an audience with the Pope or the POTUS to lobby for his pet projects? Highly bloody unlikely.
Bush recently significantly increased AIDS funding to Africa, in part because Bono convinced him to do so. Considering their obvious political differences, that’s quite an accomplishment. He’s not about to alienate the people who are in power. That’s just stupid.
There’s windbags and then there’s people who actually get shit done. Moore is a windbag. Bono gets shit done.
Gun control Pornography 
No but one would hope for factually correct. I would like to think I could cite a documentary without being laughed at here.
Michael Moore = lying ass.
I just saw Roger Ebert on Leno. He said Michael Moore came into the press room after his Oscar remarks and said “Tell the truth! Tell them it was only five loud people booing!” Ebert assured Leno there were more than five people.
How the fuck can Moore think he can edit reality like his propaganda films when the videotape of his remarks is available everywhere for everyone to see what really happened? He must be borderline psychotic.
Here’s an (http://people.ku.edu/~bag/mooreoscars.mp3) of his speech.
Five boos my ass.