HomeEntertainmentOscar Passes On Fahrenheit 9/11 Oscar Passes On Fahrenheit 9/11 Kevin January 25, 2005 Entertainment 29 Comments A well deserved 0 nominations for Michael Moore’s pack of distortions and lies. (AP) Academey Award Nominees Announced Another American Hostage on Video Tape More Than Meets The Eye Share this:FacebookTwitterRedditEmailMoreLinkedInPinterestPrintTumblrPocket Related Posts I'm thinking this coach needs to be promoted Greatest Soundtrack Of All Time? Fascist Left-Wingers Trying to Force GM to Drop Kid Rock About The Author Kevin Kevin founded Wizbang in 2003. He still contributes occasionally and handles all the technical and design work for the site. 29 Comments -S- January 25, 2005 It…is…because…the dratted thing that Moore wrought is a monstrous non documentary masquereding thing. I mean, it fits no genre, is just a mess and at least I like to think that someone among the Academy finally woke up and realized they’d been duped by the “heat.” Heat associated with films drives Hollywood and the Academy into some sort of fervor that abandons often intelligent sense. Big box office and, wow, hot, a “good”, no, wait, “a great” film…and so it goes and sometime they get it right but a lot of times they don’t, and fall by the wayside of Sense into that sort of delusionary voting…for…heat. Moths to a flame. Moore has not created a documentary in “9/11” and anyone who attempts to continue to try to define his thing doesn’t know a genre from a Chevrolet. -S- January 25, 2005 But and rather, however, I am thinking that what’s planned is some sort of thing devoted to Moore by the Academy so watch out. The monster has not gone away and Hollywood and the Academy voters really are loathe to be shown to be wrong. So, I betchya they have something else planned. -S- January 25, 2005 And, while “Shrek 2” is wonderfully animated, excels technically, it is a very bad script, badly directed and badly edited and is a bad film, to my view. I was terribly disappointed by it, having really revered the first one, “Shrek”. “The Incredibles,” on the other hand, why, “Shrek 2” cannot hold a candle to “The Incredibles,” in all aspects. I think that “The Incredibles” is going to be considered among the best animated features ever produced, in the years to come. Debra January 25, 2005 Well put -S- No amount of makeover can mask the fat bastard for what he truly is…. An oportunistic pig with an agenda. He thinks that changing his style of dress and raking off that facial growth with a dull knife and putting on an ill fitted suit will net him something other than contempt from most. Sad to live in such a deluded state of mind. I for one am glad that he was snubbed. Leaves room for the ones who truly deserve the honor. Debra January 25, 2005 awww…. now ya went and did it -S- You just had to say that didn’t you? Henry January 25, 2005 He made a historical fiction movie. He took historical events and put his own personal spin on it. The part that made it so despicable was that he tried to claim it was a documentary. What a jackass. Debra January 25, 2005 of course now that i think about it, you are probably right! Leave them alone and they will do exaclty that. Plan some sort of tribute to the twit. I guess it’s a good thing I don’t watch award shows. I like to throw things 😉 Debra January 25, 2005 Henry..you are being too kind. A jackass has common sense and direction firstbrokenangel January 25, 2005 I can more than understand Michael Moore being snubbed; it shouldn’t have been released lately as a movie in the first place. As to the “Passion” so much work, so many years, 10 years of study went into that movie and out of all the movies I’ve ever seen, this one had me sitting forward in my seat with tears running down my face the whole time. I think it’s a damn shame it’s not on the list, that Mel Gibson and Jim Cavesial isn’t on the list. It is as disappointing as finding out “Seabiscuit” was also not nominated But then I have found he BEST movies were never nominated for anything and I own way over 1000 movies. Cindy Ira January 25, 2005 This is further proof that Cheney and Rove control Hollywood. Showing a liberal president in ‘”The West Wing” as far more of a nearly ideal man than Cheney and Rove would ever make GWB out to be is only a smokescreen for their nefarious… somthing, I’m not a DU’er so my vocabulary isn’t so abusive as it should be, I guess. somerville January 25, 2005 Moore shot himself in the foot by taking his movie out of the running of the documentary category so he could have a shot at the feature film category. Palmateer January 25, 2005 I wonder, might Mikey’s fortunes have been otherwise if Kerry had won the election? Eric January 25, 2005 If there is one thing Hollywood cares about it is audience. They saw the results of the election and they figured out that there were far more people that didn’t like F/911 than liked it. It may be Jesusland to them but there are 60 Million ticket buyers in Jesusland. bullwinkle January 25, 2005 One common error made in claims against Morre is that he referred to his movie as a documentary. He called it broad-based entertainment, only the mentality of the left would call it a documentary, if he called it that it would leave him open for lawsuits. Broad-based is exactly that, it could be interpreted as a parody, and that’s what kept him out of the courts and did away with the impossible chore of proving a single one of the lies and misrepresentations. He’s not stupid by any means, he’s also greedier than any of the capitalists he attacks. Once again, only the mindset of the left would accept him or his movies as anything other than trash. They want it to be true to validate their hatred of the right, so they acept anything that comes along, regardless of the fact that the only purpose of the movie was to make a profit from lying. Rob Hackney January 25, 2005 Good. I am glad that fat fucking baby eating scumbag won’t be rewarded for spouting off his wild views THIS TIME! HAHA! julie January 25, 2005 Moore shot himself in the foot by taking his movie out of the running of the documentary category so he could have a shot at the feature film category. I don’t think he could milk any more money out of that piece of crap even if he did win an Oscar. Wan’t he wants is recognition and acceptance by the mainstream. He want’s to be part of the establishment. How ironic. Just Me January 25, 2005 I almost think getting snubbed for Moore makes it into more of a news story than being nominated, because even if he got the nomination, it is extremely doubtful it would have won. I think it is a shame that The Passion got snubbed as well, but I think everyone expected that one, I am almost surprised it got the three minor nominations that it did, but I am not sure how relevant the Academy awards are anyway-after all Titanic won, and that was mostly a piece of chick flick tripe (and I am a chick who generally likes chick flicks). julie January 25, 2005 Just Me: At one time I would have agreed with you that there was no way a film like that could win, but I just don’t know anymore. As for the Titantic, there were a number of fine performances in supporting roles — by British actors portraying the crew and the ship’s architect. Unfortunately, this tends to get overlooked. Rod Stanton January 25, 2005 0 was too many! The fact it is talked about is beyond the pale. julie January 25, 2005 Well, Rod, hold on to your lunch: I am sure he will be a presnter. patrick January 25, 2005 I love this blog but have to warn you this was left in a comment about me on another blog by a conservative: Getting into an argument with a liberal will eventually diminish into: 1) Change of topic. 2) Quoting of Spongemike Sweatpants. 3) Discounting facts (of which they are truly scared) while making up their own. 4) Regurgitating something they memorized from the DNC website. and finally; 5) Name calling and running away. If name calling and makes one a liberal some of you are at-risk. by the way I enjoyed Micheal moore’s movie. I just wonder how this is going to tarnish the hollywood left wing pinko crowd’s image? One more thing if none of the good movies never get nominated as firstbrokenangel suggests, then this one has possibilities not being nominated. Just food for thought. Don Myers January 25, 2005 How many people are dead as a direct result of Mr. Bush’s lies: 15,000 or thereabouts How many people are dead as direct result of Mr. Moore’s lies: uh…that would be zero. For all the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothing in here, you’d think that Mr. Moore killed Bambi’s mother or something. Personally, I think y’all are afraid that your Beloved and Glorious Leader may be revealed for the charleton he is, so you keep screaming to drown out both Mr. Moore and your own lingering doubts. Patrick Chester January 26, 2005 No Donny, that would be you projecting your own personal fears upon the people you don’t like. HTH, HAND. bullwinkle January 26, 2005 How many are dead as direct result? Zero. How many are dead because his lies only encourage more terrorism and gives hope to the terorists that a good part of the American left considers them the equivalent of our Minute Men? Your guess is as good as mine, but it’s certain the number will keep growing. I suggest that you and your boy Mikey take a stroll down the street in any good sized city in the Sunni triangle, get out and meet your heros in person. I’ll gladly pay the air fare, we all know it’ll be one way ticket. People like you never think these things out Don. You could be a martyr for the cause you hold so dear. You sure don’t mind supporting them with your mouth, try using your neck. -S- January 26, 2005 bullwinkle: you’re very right about that, and that is that Moore, himself, initially and quite decidedly, in my read, described “F:9/11” as NOT a documentary. However, it was then picked up and promoted after boxoffice notice as being “a documentary” by the liberal press and DNC voters, trying to crusade upon and campaign with the film as “evidence” and all…mindlessly irrational reasoning, while Moore and Miramax seemed to have cashed in on the public misperception and run with it. I noticed that Moore began taking on a more serious, somewhat grandiose public appearance method about that time, as if he was a political hero, had “courage” to author some grand work of realism, while even himself initially stating quite the contrary about what he’d authored and who he was and why. Then, sadly, even sources such as the BBC News began the grandiose mantra of “9/11” as “documentary (I wrote and complained about that) and the liberal press began actually DEFFENDING the, um, ‘film’ as a “documentary” that it wasn’t. I even heard who I thought was a very strange Cary Fisher being interviewed a few weeks ago by O’Reilly on his broadcast on FOX, as sitting there decidedly as if from a grand perspective of filmmaking expertise, pronouncing the “9/11” thing by Moore as “it’s a documentary.” As if that decided that. It’s not a documentary, even Moore initially publicly touted his work as anything but, as himself as no documentarian, and yet later sortof put on the costume when it was insisted by liberal media and used by DNC campaigns as “illustration” and/or representation of their own skewed emotional distortions. This is a similar situation to, say, had “War of the Worlds” radio broadcast been allowed to remain as accepted “fact” by many who initially heard the broadcast and believed it to be true and accurate, and even many later who resisted the explanation that it was, in fact, theatre, fiction, entertainment only. Except in reverse, given that Moore never claimed he’d authored a documentary but only later appears to have allowed the false pretense about his, um, ‘film’ as if clothing himself in some safe territorial suit, protecting his falsehoods by way of supercape or whatever. But, shockingly, many insist still as of this day that the, um, ‘film’ is a documentary and you can hear various film industry types even now insist on that fact. It’s the mantra of, “if I say it enough, it’s got to be true.” -S- January 26, 2005 “Gnashing of teeth…” incredibly sad thing to read. What is actually shocking is why so many gullible folks are so easily misled by this sort of nonsense, and Moore included. If ever there was a case of a Pied Piper luring people into mindrot, it is Moore with willing and vulnerable liberals, all so eager to toss away country, freedoms and reality itself, just to make fun of everyone else. Or, try to. bullwinkle January 26, 2005 Gullible people? More like willing participants in spreading lies. Gullible would mean being stupid enough to believe the sun rises in the west. These people will be the first to assure they aren’t stupid, and while that’s extremely debatable, they do have the ability to read, type, and speak the language. They can do a selective Google search and prove to their own satisfaction any fallacy they WANT to be fact. Ask any cop, you can’t pull a confidence scam on someone that isn’t greedy. The people that claim that Michale Moore’s movies are true are driven by personal greed to be right. They even overlook the fact that he’ll turn on the left if they ever have a significant power to be worthy of a few dollars at the box office. Then they’ll all swear he’s lying trash. Don Myers January 26, 2005 I’ve been re-reading 1984 this week, and if you changed the word “Moore” to “Goldstein,” y’all would be great lil party members at the Two Minute Hate. And it would make just as much sense. bullwinkle January 26, 2005 Cool! A celebrity said I was right. Thanks -S-. BTW love your blog.