Michael Moore Gets World's Biggest Bonner
 

In a story distributed to the press with little purpose other than to put the filmmaker in the limelight so he gets an Oscar nomination:

oh bonner, I thought you meant boner. :rotfl:

you're not the only one rotfl

That has to be the funniest thread title ever! :lol:

pics?

But England doesn't have a gun problem.

Isn't it a bit ironic that someone named Pants doesn't know how to spell boner? ;)

Re: Michael Moore Gets World's Biggest Bonner
 

Doesn't this sound just a weeee bit paranoid?

The categories BFC will most likely be nominated always have sparse choices to begin with, and a relatively high profile person like Moore is a shoe in for a nomination. It's no different than Pixar being nominated for (and usually winning) best animated short every year.

Heh, I hear gun nuts all the time saying they want to kill him.

Besides, he doesn't need any press, who are they going to nominate over him? there aren't exactly hundreds of popular documentries out there.

What irony that would be for Michael Moore to die by the bullet.

Oh, I thought the thread title was a misspelling of the word "bonnet" and took it to mean Mr. Moore just got a new hat.

Re: Michael Moore Gets World's Biggest Bonner
 

all i can say to this is: -ohbfrank-

I mean puh-leeze....so is this all part of that vast left-wing Scottish conspiracy?!!??!?!

Not really if it's first degree... if he shot himself accidently, or was shot by one of his kids, or coincidently shot by some nut who didn't know who he was... then yes.

Ah yes, the biggest too, I've seen it and it's TOTALLY to die for.

Say what?

It's made up. Anything for Publicity.

Yeah, I thought England doesn' t have a gun problem, that's only an American problem.

I should probably stay out of this thread after making a jackass out of my self, but I would like to point out that he was considered a shoe in for the oscar with Roger and Me and then the film didn't even get nominated!

Oh yes it does.

from here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2190483.stm

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2246966.stm

A successful documentary is the "kiss of death" for the Oscars. If your documentary makes money, gets critical acclaim, and is seen by more than a handful of people you can forget about a nomination. Roger and Me, Hoop Dreams, etc. If you want to win the Oscar for Best Documentary make sure:

1. Nobody sees it.

2. It's about the Holocaust.

Also, Crumb wasn't nominated.

And Moore making an anti-gun movie, then being threatened by gun violence isn't ironic. That's like (and I'm just comparing situations, not the people involved) saying it's ironic that Martin Luther King Jr. fought for civil rights, only to be killed by a racist.

You couldn't be more right. But why do you think that is? Are the academy voters in the doc catagory jealous of success or something?

Roger Ebert certainly thinks so. There is an elitism amongst artists (of all mediums) that once your work becomes palpable to the mainstream, you must have “sold out” and therefore your art is less legitimate than the guy who is living in near-poverty (nevermind that he usually has rich parents that will bail him out at the first sign of real trouble). Note that this attitude only applies to OTHER artists, when YOU become successful it’s because of hard work, determination, blah blah blah.

Another trend with the Academy Awards is to weigh subject matter over actual artistic merit. So, if you make a great documentary about kids playing basketball, I can trump you anytime I want with my documentary about the Holocaust…regardless of its quality. This happens in all categories, of course, not just Best Documentary.

You may be right, but this perception of artistic integrety runs 180 degrees of the rest of the accademy which frequently rewards "sell outs".

I would tend to feel your second point is the more likely, that they don't judge the movie by its "filmic" merits, but by its subject. Therefore, the best doc ever made about a comic book artist would lose to the worst Holocaust doc ever made.

Pants, you made a very good point. I think that a stunt like you suggested wouldn't make any difference to that and so still say that it would be pointless to make one.

What?


On another note, I do believe this film will get a nomination because, like I said, in the eyes of the acadamy, the subject of the film will merit it a nom.

It's like ten thousand spoons, when all you need is a knife.