Michael Moore to film sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11

You mean there is more?

Published on November 12, 2004 By historyishere In Politics

Michael Moore has confirmed he is working on a sequel to F 9/11 called F 9/11 1/2 with the backing of Harvey Weinstein which will be ready in 2-3 years, which is going to be largely the same targets as the original film.

Moore's rationale, in his own words:

We want to get cameras rolling now and have it ready in two, three years. We want to document it. Fifty-one per cent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them. They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now. The official mourning period is over today and there is a silver lining - George W. Bush is prohibited by law from running (for presidency) again.

A good move or a bad one, you decide.

Comments (Page 5)

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 15, 2004

I think it is an endorsement. When they all show up to his film premiere. How is that an act of sympathy? It would be an act of sympathy if the Democrats think his movie is going to be unsuccessful, so they better go and cheer him up. Yet we know that is not the philosphy behind it. The reason the Democratic senators and representatives went to the preimere is to endorse the movie -- is to hope more people will see the movie and thus unseat George W. Bush. Do you really think there is any reason for a bunch of big name Democrats to organize a trip together and go see Fahrenheit 911 on the openeing day?

If a person shows up to watch Star Wars, Harry Porter or Lord of the Rings on the preimere, he is not the kind of person who sympathize these movies. For a established politican like Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosci, Bob Graham, Terry MuAuliffin to show up a movie, they are not sympathizing Moore. They are endorsing the movie and the movement. What is there to sympathize? It is the most successful movie Moore has.

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 15, 2004

I think it is an endorsement. When they all show up to his film premiere. How is that an act of sympathy? It would be an act of sympathy if the Democrats think his movie is going to be unsuccessful, so they better go and cheer him up. Yet we know that is not the philosphy behind it. The reason the Democratic senators and representatives went to the preimere is to endorse the movie -- is to hope more people will see the movie and thus unseat George W. Bush. Do you really think there is any reason for a bunch of big name Democrats to organize a trip together and go see Fahrenheit 911 on the openeing day?

If a person shows up to watch Star Wars, Harry Porter or Lord of the Rings on the preimere, he is not the kind of person who sympathize these movies. For established politicans like Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosci, Bob Graham, Terry MuAuliffin to show up a movie, they are not sympathizing Moore. They are endorsing the movie and the movement. What is there to sympathize? It is the most successful movie Moore has.

historyishere

on Nov 15, 2004

sym·pa·thize

1. To feel or express compassion, as for another's suffering; commiserate.
2. To share or understand the feelings or ideas of another: sympathized with the goals of the committee.
3. To be in accord; correspond.

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 15, 2004

endorse
/indorss/ (US & Law also indorse)

• verb 1 declare one’s public approval of. 2 sign (a cheque or bill of exchange) on the back to specify another as the payee or to accept responsibility for paying it. 3 Brit. enter an endorsement on (a driving licence).

<-- First defintion too..

It is clear that the Democratic establishment has "declared its public approval". It is unclear if the establishment "shares or understands the feeling or ideas of Michale Moore". In fact, most Democrat users here claimed that Democratic Party in fact do not agree with Moore deep down. Now, I am not going to speculate what they think deep down. I do know for facts that by going to the film preimer together openly and by inviting Moore to sit next to President Carter in the DNC, the Democratis establishment "pubically approves" of Moore. Undebatable facts.

You are making me look more correct every second. I am embarassed.

historyishere

on Nov 15, 2004

So you don't think that both the DNC and Michael Moore both wanting the defeat of Bush is a case of "sharing and understanding the feelings of another"?

I am embarassed.

Well, I know you misunderstood my meaning of sympathize in your first message after mine... but I don't think you need to be embarrassed about that.

kingbee

on Nov 15, 2004

You won't get to see Rush Limbaugh sit next to ex-Presdient in the Republican National Convention

not unless ghwbush has a good vicodin connect

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 15, 2004

So you don't think that both the DNC and Michael Moore both wanting the defeat of Bush is a case of "sharing and understanding the feelings of another"?

I don't know for sure. But I do know for sure that the DNC publically approved Moore's movie. You said it is not an endorsement but a sympathy movement, which makes no sense. Here is an exmaple for you to understand. Let's say someone strikes me in front of a movie threater. Does he dislike me? Probably. Did he publically attack me? Certainly. Does the DNC sympathize Moore by going to his movie preimere? Probably. Did the establishment pubically endorse his film? Certainly.

So what is your reason for thinking it is a sympathic action and not a endorsment? So, what is your reason for not understanding it is endorsment -- public displace of approval. Again, I am embarrassed.

Well, I know you misunderstood my meaning of sympathize in your first message after mine.

Hmm, I noticed you like to "guess" alot. First you guess the DNC sympathize Moore. Now...

jeblackstar

on Nov 15, 2004

Let's just face it. I am correct.

Wow, even more blatent arrogance than yelling at me for saying Cheers. You are not correct, the three people who were mentioned in your post, and the article, are not, or will not be soon, affiliated with the leadership of the Democratic Party. I think that pretty much sums up how well their own personal preferences meshed with the members of the party. As for wanting to google some assertion you made, I'm in the process of writing a book, I don't have time to google every little thing I disagree with, you on the other hand do, you make sweeping generalizations which do not speak for a majority of the party, and sound to the reasonable person like total dung. I called you on it. You've been reduced to making fun of me because I say cheers, now which one of us is using personal attacks?

CHEERS

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 15, 2004

First, who is Tom Daschle? Who is Nacy Pelosi? In case, you don't read news. They are the minority leaders for the Democrats in Senate and House. They are the top Democrat Leaders. They are in everyway the defintion of the speaking voice of the Democratic establishment and represent the establishment. Just like the facts that during the early Clinton years, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich were the Republican Party voices and were the respresentation of the Repubican leadership. The facts you said they were not afflicated with the Democratic Party Leadership is just down right annorance. They are the Democrat leaders in the Senate and the House for the love of God. (I feel like I am speaking to a 3 years old) They do speak for the party. Unless you don't understand the defintion of "minority leader".

If you are so busy to do a google search, then you should stop caring about my statement. I see you don't have logic at all. If you think my "assertion" is important, then do a stupid google search. If you think my "asseration" is not important, then stop pushing me for references. You are like a little 3 years old kid: I want candy. I want candy. Grow up. Be a man. Do your own google search. The facts that you didn't know about the Democratic establishment went on a merry-trip to Moore's film preimere is beyond me. It was all over the news. Not only you are not esbarassed about your lack of everyday knowledge, you went on about I have to prove something so simple and common to you. It is like proving to you that Bush has won his reelection. Can you just google a well-known fact? Your argument of "I don't have time" is just downright stupid and illogical. Yes. illogical and I am waiting for you to prove me otherwise. How long does will it take you to do an internet search on two words: "Fahrenheit and Daschle"? I think about 30 seconds. How long have you spent on bitching about me getting reference to you? Probably more than 5 minutes. So if you have time to complain, then you should have time to do something constructive like "do a search for yourself" or "read a newspaper once a day"

By the way, there is nothing arrogance about me commenting you on saying "Cheers". It is very British. It is like the phrase "Hola" is very spanish. Or the phases "Ya'all and Howdy" are very southern.

historyishere

on Nov 16, 2004

Let's say someone strikes me in front of a movie threater. Does he dislike me? Probably. Did he publically attack me? Certainly. Does the DNC sympathize Moore by going to his movie preimere? Probably. Did the establishment pubically endorse his film? Certainly.

That is a horrible analogy rhetorically speaking....

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 16, 2004

That is a horrible analogy rhetorically speaking....

You mean it is illogical? How so?

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 16, 2004

That is a horrible analogy rhetorically speaking....

Let me rephase it then:

Let's say I sent a lady a donzen roses. Do I really like her? Probably, but you won't know for sure. Did I publically show my affication to her? Yes. Does the DNC sympathize Moore by going a merry-trip to his movie premere? Probably, but you won't know for sure. Did the establisment endosed his film? Yes.

So, you haven't answered my question. Why do you think endorsement is not the suitable word, while sympathy is?

jeblackstar

on Nov 16, 2004

No, did the leadership of the democratic party, by the way, Daschle is out of a job come January, the head of the DNC will probably be out of a job soon, sympathize with Moore in his Bush bashing? Well, yeah, after all, most of us Democrats don't like Bush. Did the establishment endorse his film? No, that's silly, do you think we all got together at, say, the National Convention and voted for a plank to endorse Michael Moore? No, we didn't, the majority of the party was offended by the film.

Cheers

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 16, 2004

We are not talking if Daschle will be out of job or not. In other words, I am talking when the film was first launched, when the premiere first opened. Of couse, Daschle was in power. (I actually couldn't understand your first sentence, I think you accidently deleted something). Anyway, these people were in power when the film was out. It doesn't matter who was in power 10 years ago, it doesn't matter who will be in power 10 years later.

American leadership was responsible for what happened in Vietnam War, good or bad. Kennedy/Johson/Nixon were American president, although they are not in power NOW: they are all dead. Yet, American leadership are responsible for Vietname War because American presidents were in power at that particular time. Is Daschle going to be out of his job. Sure. But, he was the Senate minority leader when the film first came out. It doesn't matter what happen to Daschle later, he can be president or jobless, that is beyond the point. I am unsure why you keep bring up the fact that he lost his election and blieve therefore the Democratic Leadership did not endorse his film. According to your logic, American Leadership has nothing to do with Vietnam War because Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon are dead. Daschle was the Senate Democratic Leader and Nacy Pelosi was the House Democratic Leader when the film preimere was shown and when they decided to go to the premiere all together.

Did the Democratic establishment endorse Moore film. Yes. Have average joe Democrats all got together at a national convention and voted for that, no. But that doesn't mean the Establishment only act when there is a national convention. You don't seem to understand what an Establishment is. A republican or democratic establishment does not mean average joe repubicans or democrats. It means the elites: the one in power. What would election have anything to do with that? What exactly do you think when Dean said he want to take Democratic Party from the establishment to the people? If establishment means people, then Dean is one crazy guy, and all of his opponents sit there and not reacted must be stupid. I am giving you some link to help you understand the words: Democratic Establishment. In fact, do yourself a favor, type the words "Democratic Establishment" and learn what the words mean.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2003/11/17/democratic_establishment_worried_about_dean.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1203/p11s01-coop.htm

I will be generous, let's go with your defintion that "Moore is not endorsed by the Establishment until there is a national convention followed by an election." But if what you said is true, then the Democrat establishment has done nothing in decades. Because we all understanding the Democratic National Convention does not hold election. There is no general Democratic gathering followed by election for decades. So, according to your argument, the Democratic Estabishment has not yet performed an single act. Strange definition. I can win this debate using the correct defintion of Establishment or even your own strange defintion.

You said majority of the party was offended by the film. Really? Why don't you show me some proofs? Earlier, you were screaming about that I didn't provide you any source for my accusation. I showed you how I conclude my opinion later. So how do you conclude that statement of "most Democrats are offended by the film"? I can tell you there isn't a national poll done on Democrats reaction to the film. So are you making empty accusation with your own personal feeling?

I do remember Gallup did a poll on national reaction to the movie when it first started. I believe it was like 60-65% of the people dislike it. We know we are at a 50/50 nation. So it is reasonable to say most of the Bush voters hated the film. That will constitute about 50% of the population. In other words, only 10-15% of the 50% who voted for Kerry disliked the movie. That is 30% of the Democrats at most, and probably less. That is not majority of the party.

Has the opinion of Democrats changed since the movie first got out. Very likely. We changed our opinion as time progress. Dean was leading the Democratic primary and then people change their mind. Sure. Maybe it is possible that most Democrats now dislike the movie now. But that is not the point, is it? At the time when the movie playing on national screens, I bet most average job Democrats like it.

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 16, 2004

Let me be simplier for you, jeblackstar. Find out the meaning of "Democratic Establishment" before you respond. You said you are a professor university professor. I hope you don't teach any social science, especially not politics. I will shot myself in the head if a professor of political science does not even understand the words "Democratic Establishment".

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!