Talk:Bowling for Columbine/Archive 1

message: I removed the following line from the article.
:However this is hardly new; almost all 'spontaneous' scenes from documentaries are staged.
This claim is unbelievable.  Are even many scenes in documentaries staged?  A good many consist largely of file footage, commentary, and interviews.  And how many claim to be spontaneous but aren't?  Only a severely watered-down version of this would be credible. VV 06:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Almost all" documentary scenes staged? 

message: Looking through IMDB, I've attempted to verify the information about gross, particularly the assertion that BfC was the highest-grossing documentary until Fahrenheit 9/11 came along.  Here's the results:
Business Data for Bowling for Columbine - Shows a budget of $4M, and a gross of "$21,244,913 (USA) (11 May 2003)".
Business Data for Everest - No budget listed, but a gross of "$76,447,420 (USA) (30 July 2000)".
Business Data for Jackass - Shows a budget of $5M, and a gross of "$64,267,897 (USA) (12 January 2003)".
Unless I'm missing something here, it would appear that BfC does not in fact hold this distinction of highest-grossing documentary.  I'm removing this content: "Until it was eclipsed by Moore's own Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004, Bowling for Columbine was the highest grossing non-music documentary feature of all time."
This change can be reverted if someone finds a mistake. 192.52.57.34
:The New York Times ran an article on July 5 about the growing commercial impact of documentaries.  (All you can still get for free is the first 50 words: "The record-breaking success of Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' may mark a turning point in the acceptance of documentaries by audiences as mass entertainment and by movie distributors as potential profit ... This anti-Bush documentary is merely the latest and most successful of many feature-length documentaries that have hit it big.")  The article had a pre-Fahrenheit 9/11 chart that listed Bowling for Columbine at the top.  The Times heading used the word "feature" -- Everest was only 44 minutes long, so it wasn't a feature-length film.  As for Jackass, I don't think it was even mentioned in the article.  You're correct that IMDb classifies it as a documentary.  The Times evidently didn't, and I wouldn't either.  Just because it's not fiction doesn't make it a documentary.  A documentary can present its subject from a definite point of view, like Moore's films and like Triumph of the Will, but it must at least have a subject.  Finally, the sentence that was in the article also specified "non-music" because Woodstock, for example, grossed more.  The sentence was modified through edits by several people, and I think it should be restored. JamesMLane 00:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the other "records" should at least be mentioned, to put Bowling for Columbine's accomplishment in perspective.  It seems to be by a rather narrow definition that BfC was the highest-grossing documentary.  Fahrenheit 9/11 will probably break all the records anyway, so there's no loss of prestige in telling the truth here.  I'm not sure how one classifies a documentary officially, but these other films are classified as "documentary" in IMDB, and there is no "feature-length" caveat in the article as it stands now.  192.52.57.34 20:07, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I inserted an appropriately qualified statement a couple weeks ago, but someone else took it out.  The current version gives BfC #1 status in certain countries, which might be true.  Perhaps the polite and civilized British are less fond of Jackass than we vulgar Americans are.  As for a narrow definition, I think it's legitimate to compare BfC with other "serious" documentaries.  Jackass is solely entertainment, not information, and although a movie like Woodstock is factual, people don't go see it to be enlightened.  I don't know the story on Everest -- it has a high gross but it was only 44 minutes long, so was it perhaps shown in conjunction with another movie?  If so, that would complicate the calculation.  I'm just left with a strong feeling that Bowling for Columbine did better than any previous film of its type.  We ought to find a way to convey that fact. JamesMLane 20:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross 

message: I removed the following passage because it's vague and unspecific, and I don't think it should be in the article without some kind of evidence, or links to websites that make such a claim. 
:In addition some have claimed that scenes that appear spontaneous in the documentary are in fact carefully staged. The same was said about his earlier documentary, Roger & Me.
The Singing Badger 14:08, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Staging of 'spontaneous' scenes

message: What does this line mean?...
"While few argue that the gunshot homicide rate is higher in the US than in other countries,"
Does it mean few argue for Moore's views, or does it mean few argue against them?
It seems ambiguous to me, though there is a definate leaning towards the interpretation that it is dificult to agree with Moore.
I don't know if this is what the author of this sentence was getting at, because then it shouldn't have started with "while." GWC Autumn 59 2004 18.05 EST
"Charlton Heston, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease and was allegedly interviewed under false pretenses;" - what false pretenses? How can you be interviewed under false pretenses? I'm confused on this issue, could someone clear it up?
Okay, here's a thing I remember about this film: it draws up the idea of a mysterious black male being the suspect for many crimes and then suggests that this archetype is just a scapegoat of "the culture of fear".  Correct me if I'm wrong on this.  The problem I have with this, and I don't see it in file though I haven't read all the discussion, is that blacks represent 50% of gun crimes whilst are only 13% of the US population.  These statistics are from memory but I can find the newspaper article that stated them.  If you factor that in then the US isn't doing nearly so badly in gun crime.  This is apparently what Heston is referring to when he makes some comment about cultures or diversity what-have-you during the interview.  Moore uses his typical interview style of asking leading questions and jumping people's answers.  It makes for entertainment but you'll notice he only does it with the people he's already not on the side of.  
I'm not a member of the NRA, I'm British and believe in gun control.  However, I'm also concerned that statistics such as these often get suppressed by governments (the EU for example) when they present upsetting conclusions.  We have a developing gun-culture on this side of the Atlantic and it is predominantly associated with young urban black males.  Whatever one can argue of the background causes (e.g. deprivation, alienation), the demographics are neatly avoided in this film.    I don't see how a problem can be solved when one refuses to acknowledge it.  --82.38.227.149 18:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: I removed the paragraph in the pro-gun criticism section about the cartoon. This cartoon is obviously meant as satire and not to be taken seriously. Therefore it can contain some factual inaccuracies, such as a white family shooting each other when a firecracker goes off. This cartoon is not meant to be taken as fact, it is pointed satire and exaggeration. Can't some people take a joke?
A viewer would see the cartoon as satire, but would also assume that it is meant to satirize some real event and would be led to a false conclusion about what this event was. Ken Arromdee 8 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)
:you really think people are that stupid?, to not recognize satire from truth?... hmm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.113.119.186 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 14 February 2006  (UTC)
::If he won't answer that, I will. Yes, I think Moore's target audience, IE the choir he's preaching to, is exactly that stupid. -RannXXV 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph in pro-gun criticism 

message: I removed the following sentence from the article:
In essence, Moore seeks to knock down the quick and easy excuses ("pins") like video games or Marilyn Manson and break past all that to expose the truth behind it all.
This paragraph was self-contradictory; first, it says the bowling metaphor represents the build up of frustration leading to a destructive event, and then, this sentence says Moore is knocking down our illusions about the causes of violence in America like bowling pins.  Pick a metaphor and stick with it.  The second one's a bit of a stretch.  In essence, I just scattered the contradictions in that paragraph like bowling pins being knocked down by a bowling ball.
this article is pretty much just a lot of criticisms. dont get me wrong im not saying any of the criticisms are unfair but looking at this page all i really see is "critisism from.., criticisms from.., more criticisms.... im not sure if its biased in favor of a conservative view but its just not a very in depth look at the movie its justabout the controversy
Criticise is about all you can do.  The movie didn't have any depth.24.10.102.46 06:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bowling Metaphor