lissener, if you are going to “bow out of a thread”, then how about not posting to the thread twelve minutes later, m’kay?
Regards,
Shodan
Sure he did. He presented it as a major part of the problem. You seem to think the film critiques people who consume those products. It does not. It points out that predatory corporations target those people precisely because of their poverty. People who don’t have easy access to a variety of healthy options are left at the mercy of companies who only care about profit. That is one of the major drumbeats of the film.
Umm, err, I doubt that. Sorry, but your posts say very strongly to me that *you * understand the film, and anyone who doesn’t agree with your interpretation *doesn’t * understand the film. I saw the film, and I got out of it almost exactly what Wee Bairn & JohnT did. So, does that now make three of us who didn’t *really * watch and understand the film? Or instead- does that make three of us who did watch the film, *did * understand the film, but just happen to disagree with you on what the films “real” message was? If you’re willing to concede that other dudes can watch a film, understand it fine, but still come away with a different opinion of it’s message, then we can get back to the film itself. Otherwise, it’s just gonna be more :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Ok?
You forgot torturing kittens and sacrifcing babies to Satan. :rolleyes:
No desire to discuss the movie with people of differing opinions, but a desire to make four or five posts, each at least two full paragraphs, detailing why you won’t discuss the movie :rolleyes:
No, I think he focused way too much on what eating fast food was doing to him. So much so that the average viewer wouldn’t really notice anything else.
My responses to Bairn and T were specifically in regards to factual misstatements they made about the content of the movie, which is what led me to ask if they’d actually seen it. (Same inaccuracies pointed by others than me in this thread.) I haven’t really engaged with you in this thread, but frankly your completely mistaken assertion that Spurlock’s intended goal was to gain weight made me wonder if you’d paid any more attention than Bairn did.
I have never said that the film is not open to differing conclusions. I’ve only said if you’re going to want me to participate in a discussion wherein you make so bold as to defend those conclusions as your own, then you’re going to have to have seen the movie. Otherwise, it’s not really possible to have an intelligent discussion on the topic. As I’ve pointed out, this is especially important in discussing a documentary of this nature, when your opinion of it can turn on such inaccuracies as Spurlock’s intention to gain weight; that he ate four meals a day; or that the documentary included no information about school lunches. You disqualify yourself from a meaningful discussion of the content of such a movie when you betry such an inaccurate knowledge of that actual content.
And your comparison of Spurlock’s experiment with your five examples is more apples and oranges. If Spurlock had undergone the same experiment–if he had set out to prove, for example, that you can eat at McDonald’s and lose weight–no doubt he would have reached the same results. But he didn’t have such a hypothesis in mind. His goal was to see what would happen if he spent a month working through the entire McDonald’s menu, not limiting himself to only the least fattening, or the most, but sampling the entire menu, to see what would happen. Sure, any idiot would be able to predict that the results would not be Olympian glowing health. But just because any idiot coulda predicted the outcome doesn’t mean it wasn’t worthwhile documenting it in real life.
In addition, as pointed out by countless others, while he was documenting what we all agree was gonna be a pretty obvious outcome to such an experiment, he was also researching other aspects of the way America feeds itself: food production, manufacturing, packaging, marketing, consumption; government nutrition policies; school lunch programs; etc. etc. etc. It was not a one-note stunt film, as many people who haven’t seen it imagine (wrongly) that it was. It pointed out some good things about the way we feed ourselves, and some bad things.
Put it this way: if he HAD, actually, set out to gain weight; eaten four meals a day; never mentioned school lunches; made a one-note gimmick movie about a stupid stunt–if that’s *really *all it was, I’d be right there with you talking about what a stupid movie it was. Lord and the rest of you know that I’m not one to be shy about calling a stupid movie a stupid movie. But the fact that your (collective) opinion of the movie seemed to be based on simple misinformation suggested, to me, that this was pretty easily addressed. “Your facts are wrong; have you seen the movie?” is not anything like “You disagree with me, therefore you’re stupid.”