Sold out everywhere and every time in Beantown last night. Mark you're wrong if you think only anti-Bush fanatics are going to see this. Plenty of people I've talked to realize it's going to be entertaining whether or not they agree with him. I talked to some pretty conservative ROTC people I know that want to see it.
Before it's over, he'll make a ton of money because documentaries are cheap to produce and you don't need to sell THAT many tickets to recoup your investment.
Then he'll do it again because there's the DVD coming out in -- you guessed it -- October.
Well, we shall see, shan't we? My bet is that it'll have a brief burst, enough to give the liberal talking heads something to talk about...but it'll fade on the screens pretty quick...there really isn't a huge market for documentaries of any type, let alone for those which are known beforehand to be filled with lies.
This documentary will have the half-life of a beltway scandal. What worries me is the number of people that will take what it says to heart as fact - I have a friend who still swears that the movie JFK was fact based.
The most probable outcome of this will be a jump in the President's approval rating. Michael wants to have an impact on the election - it's likely to be an impact he didn't anticipate.
Of course, any film will be biased, i.e., have a point of view. The question is only: Will it be _honest_ in its presentation of that point of view? Unfortunately, Michael Moore is not honest.
Steve, etc.: um, did you actually read Ken's post? He said "I have a friend who still swears that the movie JFK was fact based." (emphasis added) Not "biased."
Well good for Mike! Note that he's beating films with 2 to 4 times the number of screens.
I'm sure it'll have a big spike in the first couple of weeks and then quickly die down after all the faithful have seen it, which is fine. The film is meant to be an immediate reaction to recent events. After the Kerry inauguration it will become an interesting period piece.
Here in New York it's playing round the clock to packed, sold out houses.
Can anyone in say, Des Moines or rural Ohio tell us what the theatres there showing it look like?
Mark,
I think you thought I was saying that it would continue to sell a lot of tickets. I was just saying that not just anti-Bushers were going to see it. Last night I saw it with a guy who is going into the army and a girl going into the Marines. I agree that it's the flavor of the week.
I bet a lot of people in the blogsphere are going to watch it (even if they don't like Moore) just so they can post on it and argue with people about it.
Prediction: after about 4 weeks of folks pounding on the insane points-of-view in the movie and pointing out the lies, the dims will suddenly realize that it's making them look bad and start claiming again that only a fringe element of the party thinks like this.
This movie along with Moore's others are valuable documents - of the dissolution of a mind (Michael Moore's) and a movement (the liberal left and its encroachment into the Democrat party.) For that, I'll watch them.
The people that like Michael Moore's movie most likely are many who hated Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ", and the people who liked "The Passion of the Christ"* probably just about all hate Moore's movie. There must be some who dislike both (e.g., Objectivists), and a few who like both. It'd be rather interesting to find out. Hmmm....
(*I'm one of those who liked "The Passion of the Christ" -- and, if I do see any of Moore's movies, it will be purely on a "know your enemy" basis. Same as with Leni Reifenstahl's "Triumph of the Will", which glorified Nazi Germany, and D. W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation", which glorified the Ku Klux Klan.)
Well, I agree it's prob. more flavor of the month. Any film pumped like this for a month beforehand is going to get the curious along with the faithful. I mean, heck, remember, there were lines wrapped around the block for "Eyes Wide Shut."
What the larger story here is, IMHO, is how absolutely pathethic it is that the Democratic party seems to be pinning a lot of hopes on this (and, uh, what was that other movie called? The Day After Tomorrow?) Moore's not even a Democrat; as has been said before, he's a lefty equivalent of, say, Rush Limbaugh--an entertainer posing as an editorialist, or visa versa.
Which is OK, but how incredibly sad is it that the Democrats are using this as part of their strategy? Imagine if Bush's stragegy was to hand out free copies of Ann Coulter's new book, or something? Talk about a group looking for ideas. If Bush loses this election, well, dammit, he deserves to then--because the D's are so hapless, I almost feel sorry for them.
Oh, by the way, did anyone notice this blurb in the story on the linked site?
"NOTE: Box Office Mojo asked Michael Moore and company to comment for this story, but they wanted to screen the questions in advance. As policy, Box Office Mojo does not conduct interviews under such circumstances, so there will be no comment from them."
I note that its per-screen average declined on each subsequent day...in other words, just about all the far-out freako lefties have seen it, and its rapidly dying at the box office. Given the very small number of theaters its being shown in, this would explain the "lines around the block" stuff...most theater owners didn't want to touch this crap with a ten foot pole and the few who did are getting every anti-Bush fanatic within 50 miles showing up...
"The Passion of the Crass" -- good one. ha! ha! That says it.
It's just that I notice that both movies seem to have been discussed on just about every blog I'm reading for weeks on end. Difference is that the response to "The Passion of the Christ" was about half-and-half, while responses to this one are almost uniformly negative. I don't see anybody here really defending it. But, I guess that reflect the kinds of blogs I read. I prefer to keep it that way.
"Which is OK, but how incredibly sad is it that the Democrats are using this as part of their strategy? Imagine if Bush's stragegy was to hand out free copies of Ann Coulter's new book, or something?"
I know, that really would be about the same. I don't know why they want to use this movie because I wouldn't think that even most Democrats would go as far as Moore goes.
Whew! For a second there I thought I'd fat-fingered my comment and put in biased. I've been known to leeve out a salient thought here and there (and considering how few I have - that's a real problem).
Since F911 is being seen a limited number of screens (compared to the competition) - that means they're 'packing them in'.
Just picture sitting elbow to elbow with a theatre full of Micheal Moore lookalikes - WOW - we really should encourage people to go see this - just the theatre experience would drive them nuts.
Gee, whiz. I'm glad you all have this forum so you can get out your anger against Michael Moore. Heck, you’re just doing your patriotic duty, defending the President from some over-employed donut-eater.
But I really do wonder . . . why do you all HATE Mike so much? I can see disagreement, but I sense some pretty strong negative energy here. I mean, I'm sure you know that he was one of the severest critics of Clinton Administration. Maybe it's because he didn't call names call him names like "Slick Willy". Maybe it's because his show "The Awful Truth" was on Bravo, and you all don't cotton to that elitist intellectual artsy-fartsy stuff (and, don't forget, it really is a GAY network, and we all know how Right-wingers feel about The GAYS)
Heck, Mike went after Clinton in Bowling for Columbine, citing the fact that the President launched a huge bombing raid in Bosnia on the same morning as the Columbine shooting.
I also don't understand your aversion to Mike's weight. Heck, I thought you all loved fat people--Rush Limbaugh, Tony Blakely, Larry Eagleberger, and John Sununu. Is it 'cause Mike doesn't shave and wears a ball cap? I mean, if it's an image thing, I can email him 1-2-3 and get it all fixed up. We liberals have to keep in pretty close contact, so we can maintain the conspiracy of the Liberal media.
I'm sure you don't hate Mike because he's a Democrat, because he's not. I know you're all smart enough to remember that Moore supported Ralph Nader in 2000 (the very candidate whom Bob Dole recently recommended as worth a look and quite interesting), and, heck, he probably swung the election towards YOUR guy!
You really ought to give Mike a break. It doesn't take a "lefty" to oppose he war in Iraq. Why, Pat Buchanan voiced his opposition every day on MSNBC's "Buchanan and Press" in the days leading up to the war. Don't believe me? It’s in writing in The American Conservative, in Mr. Buchanan's own words.
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
You know, maybe the reason why you all hate Mike so much is that you need a target (and he's a big one! LOL). It's hard to be confronted with the possibility that the "16 words" in the State of the Union Address were a bold-faced lie. Believe me; it grieved me to find out that Clinton lied about getting some oral in the Oval from an intern. I feel your pain. It's hard to find out that the man you trust has business buddies who are not of the best character. I was on pins and needles during Whitewater, until the Clintons were exonerated. I can only imagine how you must feel to know how far back the Bush relationship with the Saudis goes and that our President's now-defunct Arbusto Oil Company received large sums of money from the bin Laden family. I would be sick to my stomach if I were you. I wouldn't want to believe it.
You know, though, the Clinton/Lewinsky thing and the Bush/Saudi thing really aren't all that different. The Saudis like to cut off heads for fun, and Ms. Lewinsky evidently likes to . . . well, work on getting off a different head, if you catch my drift. Maybe we should ignore our differences and celebrate what we have in common.
We on the Left understand. Honestly. It's a heartbreaker to see your guy take it on the chin. You need to lash back. We had Rush and Newt (yet, another fat guy!). I just want you to know that we're here for you now, in your time of need. Mike knew he'd become a target, and so did all of us. For the benefit of the country, we can take it.
In a post back in March, Rosemary defended the practice of name-calling as a valid form of political discourse. She's right. Name-calling feels good. Keep doing it! Soon you'll feel much, much better. See how it's helped the terrorists who like to call us "infidels" and "oppressors"? The terrorists are stronger and bolder now than they ever have been.
But I have to warn you. If I were a Republican, I'd be so upset because you just proved President Clinton (please note the proper respect for the office of President) absolutely correct . . . That since the Right lacks a reasonable argument that would defeat the Left, the Right resorts to personal attacks and insults.
Sure, he's smiling...but this is the peak; every anti-Bush fanatic went to see the flick on Friday, so lets see how far down it drops on Saturday...
Sold out everywhere and every time in Beantown last night. Mark you're wrong if you think only anti-Bush fanatics are going to see this. Plenty of people I've talked to realize it's going to be entertaining whether or not they agree with him. I talked to some pretty conservative ROTC people I know that want to see it.
Michael Moore
-------------------
Michael Moore,
he ain't so wise
he makes a living
telling lies.
"Regulate this,
regulate that!"
Clinging to the gub'ment
like a spoiled little brat.
Rigid thinking
masked with rage
is a backward method
like minimum wage.
Fourteen an Hour,
don't fail HIS test!
Anything less
and your under arrest.
Obnoxious and loud,
so filled with hate.
He really can't help it
he's a ward of the state.
"I'll poke my camera
into your face
make you look guilty
and berate you in place!"
"Those greedy corporations,"
Ewwwww, they're so bad!
I'll teach them a lesson.
Conform! or be sad!"
Like a union thug
he'll get in your face.
Show you who's boss
and dump on your race.
Don't "cross the line"
you know what you'll get,
a busted lip
and a lawn full of shit.
Demean, intimidate,
berate and ridicule;
these are the methods
that Michael finds cool.
The lines here in Houston wrapped around the theater.
Before it's over, he'll make a ton of money because documentaries are cheap to produce and you don't need to sell THAT many tickets to recoup your investment.
Then he'll do it again because there's the DVD coming out in -- you guessed it -- October.
Jeff,
Well, we shall see, shan't we? My bet is that it'll have a brief burst, enough to give the liberal talking heads something to talk about...but it'll fade on the screens pretty quick...there really isn't a huge market for documentaries of any type, let alone for those which are known beforehand to be filled with lies.
Yeah, its a blockbuster...you only have to go back to 1989 and the release of Batman to find a movie with only double the per-screen average...
This documentary will have the half-life of a beltway scandal. What worries me is the number of people that will take what it says to heart as fact - I have a friend who still swears that the movie JFK was fact based.
The most probable outcome of this will be a jump in the President's approval rating. Michael wants to have an impact on the election - it's likely to be an impact he didn't anticipate.
Ken McNamara:
"I have a friend who still swears that the movie JFK was biased."
It would be amazing if you had a friend who swore it was _not_ biased!
Well, not so amazing, unfortunately.
Of course, any film will be biased, i.e., have a point of view. The question is only: Will it be _honest_ in its presentation of that point of view? Unfortunately, Michael Moore is not honest.
Steve, etc.: um, did you actually read Ken's post? He said "I have a friend who still swears that the movie JFK was fact based." (emphasis added) Not "biased."
:)
Hell, Air America had a good first month...
Give fattie his due. He'll drown in it, soon enough.
Somehow I missed that! Hm!!!!
I thought I was seeing a typo, like I make all the time. "fact based" = "in fact biased"???? Hm!!!! Embarrassing! Delete all my comments here!
Well good for Mike! Note that he's beating films with 2 to 4 times the number of screens.
I'm sure it'll have a big spike in the first couple of weeks and then quickly die down after all the faithful have seen it, which is fine. The film is meant to be an immediate reaction to recent events. After the Kerry inauguration it will become an interesting period piece.
Here in New York it's playing round the clock to packed, sold out houses.
Can anyone in say, Des Moines or rural Ohio tell us what the theatres there showing it look like?
Mark,
I think you thought I was saying that it would continue to sell a lot of tickets. I was just saying that not just anti-Bushers were going to see it. Last night I saw it with a guy who is going into the army and a girl going into the Marines. I agree that it's the flavor of the week.
I bet a lot of people in the blogsphere are going to watch it (even if they don't like Moore) just so they can post on it and argue with people about it.
Prediction: after about 4 weeks of folks pounding on the insane points-of-view in the movie and pointing out the lies, the dims will suddenly realize that it's making them look bad and start claiming again that only a fringe element of the party thinks like this.
This movie along with Moore's others are valuable documents - of the dissolution of a mind (Michael Moore's) and a movement (the liberal left and its encroachment into the Democrat party.) For that, I'll watch them.
The people that like Michael Moore's movie most likely are many who hated Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ", and the people who liked "The Passion of the Christ"* probably just about all hate Moore's movie. There must be some who dislike both (e.g., Objectivists), and a few who like both. It'd be rather interesting to find out. Hmmm....
(*I'm one of those who liked "The Passion of the Christ" -- and, if I do see any of Moore's movies, it will be purely on a "know your enemy" basis. Same as with Leni Reifenstahl's "Triumph of the Will", which glorified Nazi Germany, and D. W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation", which glorified the Ku Klux Klan.)
Yeah, well this one would be "The Passion of the Crass."
Well, I agree it's prob. more flavor of the month. Any film pumped like this for a month beforehand is going to get the curious along with the faithful. I mean, heck, remember, there were lines wrapped around the block for "Eyes Wide Shut."
What the larger story here is, IMHO, is how absolutely pathethic it is that the Democratic party seems to be pinning a lot of hopes on this (and, uh, what was that other movie called? The Day After Tomorrow?) Moore's not even a Democrat; as has been said before, he's a lefty equivalent of, say, Rush Limbaugh--an entertainer posing as an editorialist, or visa versa.
Which is OK, but how incredibly sad is it that the Democrats are using this as part of their strategy? Imagine if Bush's stragegy was to hand out free copies of Ann Coulter's new book, or something? Talk about a group looking for ideas. If Bush loses this election, well, dammit, he deserves to then--because the D's are so hapless, I almost feel sorry for them.
Oh, by the way, did anyone notice this blurb in the story on the linked site?
"NOTE: Box Office Mojo asked Michael Moore and company to comment for this story, but they wanted to screen the questions in advance. As policy, Box Office Mojo does not conduct interviews under such circumstances, so there will be no comment from them."
Ahh, nothing like leading by example.
I note that its per-screen average declined on each subsequent day...in other words, just about all the far-out freako lefties have seen it, and its rapidly dying at the box office. Given the very small number of theaters its being shown in, this would explain the "lines around the block" stuff...most theater owners didn't want to touch this crap with a ten foot pole and the few who did are getting every anti-Bush fanatic within 50 miles showing up...
Dani:
"The Passion of the Crass" -- good one. ha! ha! That says it.
It's just that I notice that both movies seem to have been discussed on just about every blog I'm reading for weeks on end. Difference is that the response to "The Passion of the Christ" was about half-and-half, while responses to this one are almost uniformly negative. I don't see anybody here really defending it. But, I guess that reflect the kinds of blogs I read. I prefer to keep it that way.
I think razors that don't work cost more than razors that work. We could ask Arafat.
"Which is OK, but how incredibly sad is it that the Democrats are using this as part of their strategy? Imagine if Bush's stragegy was to hand out free copies of Ann Coulter's new book, or something?"
I know, that really would be about the same. I don't know why they want to use this movie because I wouldn't think that even most Democrats would go as far as Moore goes.
Whew! For a second there I thought I'd fat-fingered my comment and put in biased. I've been known to leeve out a salient thought here and there (and considering how few I have - that's a real problem).
Since F911 is being seen a limited number of screens (compared to the competition) - that means they're 'packing them in'.
Just picture sitting elbow to elbow with a theatre full of Micheal Moore lookalikes - WOW - we really should encourage people to go see this - just the theatre experience would drive them nuts.
Gee, whiz. I'm glad you all have this forum so you can get out your anger against Michael Moore. Heck, you’re just doing your patriotic duty, defending the President from some over-employed donut-eater.
But I really do wonder . . . why do you all HATE Mike so much? I can see disagreement, but I sense some pretty strong negative energy here. I mean, I'm sure you know that he was one of the severest critics of Clinton Administration. Maybe it's because he didn't call names call him names like "Slick Willy". Maybe it's because his show "The Awful Truth" was on Bravo, and you all don't cotton to that elitist intellectual artsy-fartsy stuff (and, don't forget, it really is a GAY network, and we all know how Right-wingers feel about The GAYS)
Heck, Mike went after Clinton in Bowling for Columbine, citing the fact that the President launched a huge bombing raid in Bosnia on the same morning as the Columbine shooting.
I also don't understand your aversion to Mike's weight. Heck, I thought you all loved fat people--Rush Limbaugh, Tony Blakely, Larry Eagleberger, and John Sununu. Is it 'cause Mike doesn't shave and wears a ball cap? I mean, if it's an image thing, I can email him 1-2-3 and get it all fixed up. We liberals have to keep in pretty close contact, so we can maintain the conspiracy of the Liberal media.
I'm sure you don't hate Mike because he's a Democrat, because he's not. I know you're all smart enough to remember that Moore supported Ralph Nader in 2000 (the very candidate whom Bob Dole recently recommended as worth a look and quite interesting), and, heck, he probably swung the election towards YOUR guy!
You really ought to give Mike a break. It doesn't take a "lefty" to oppose he war in Iraq. Why, Pat Buchanan voiced his opposition every day on MSNBC's "Buchanan and Press" in the days leading up to the war. Don't believe me? It’s in writing in The American Conservative, in Mr. Buchanan's own words.
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
You know, maybe the reason why you all hate Mike so much is that you need a target (and he's a big one! LOL). It's hard to be confronted with the possibility that the "16 words" in the State of the Union Address were a bold-faced lie. Believe me; it grieved me to find out that Clinton lied about getting some oral in the Oval from an intern. I feel your pain. It's hard to find out that the man you trust has business buddies who are not of the best character. I was on pins and needles during Whitewater, until the Clintons were exonerated. I can only imagine how you must feel to know how far back the Bush relationship with the Saudis goes and that our President's now-defunct Arbusto Oil Company received large sums of money from the bin Laden family. I would be sick to my stomach if I were you. I wouldn't want to believe it.
You know, though, the Clinton/Lewinsky thing and the Bush/Saudi thing really aren't all that different. The Saudis like to cut off heads for fun, and Ms. Lewinsky evidently likes to . . . well, work on getting off a different head, if you catch my drift. Maybe we should ignore our differences and celebrate what we have in common.
We on the Left understand. Honestly. It's a heartbreaker to see your guy take it on the chin. You need to lash back. We had Rush and Newt (yet, another fat guy!). I just want you to know that we're here for you now, in your time of need. Mike knew he'd become a target, and so did all of us. For the benefit of the country, we can take it.
In a post back in March, Rosemary defended the practice of name-calling as a valid form of political discourse. She's right. Name-calling feels good. Keep doing it! Soon you'll feel much, much better. See how it's helped the terrorists who like to call us "infidels" and "oppressors"? The terrorists are stronger and bolder now than they ever have been.
But I have to warn you. If I were a Republican, I'd be so upset because you just proved President Clinton (please note the proper respect for the office of President) absolutely correct . . . That since the Right lacks a reasonable argument that would defeat the Left, the Right resorts to personal attacks and insults.
Take care,
mcallan