Things have gotten so bad around factual dissemination in the news, videos and the internet that it’s getting really hard to know who to trust. I’d like to be able to trust something or someone.

the book on Michael Moore once and for all. It's sad. I used to admire him. But he's lost all credibility in the last decade or so.

both on the movie and the man

wonder what the backstory is here...

to help with promotion, also that film maker may have been paid by industry interests.

He has made some really powerful films over the years, but now he's lost whatever it was he had. I can't even listen to him anymore.

I used to admire him, but now when he comes on I change the channel or if I know he will be on I don't watch.

They ain't fighting for anyone but their own pocketbook anymore.

Gtfa

short excerpt from a lengthy post:

Point the first: Michael Moore didn't make this film. He is a producer, which means he had close to zero actual creative control over the end film, and he doesn't appear in it or narrate anything within it. Hating on it because of Michael Moore is like hating on the original Superman movie because you don't like the Salkinds.

Point the second: Many of the film's data points are clearly factually accurate. Actual filmmaker Jeff Gibbs comes across as a former true believer who realized there was a problem with his beliefs. He is not trying to sabotage green energy; he is trying to sabotage the greenwashing of energy systems that really aren't any better than what we've been using.

I think that if he "he had close to zero actual creative control over the end film" he certainly is putting his name out there in the branding of it:

The job of a producer is to line up resources and arrange things like distribution and marketing. Moore is using his name in those endeavours because a lot more people know who he is than know who Jeff Gibbs is.

But when producers get involved with the creative process in movieland, it's generally considered a bad sign because it means things are going pear-shaped. I watched the whole thing and I get no sense that Gibbs needed any creative help from Moore to make this movie.

The Salkinds pretty much left everyone alone to do their thing on Superman I, except for glomming on the ending from the simultaneously filmed Superman II because they weren't so sure there was going to be a Superman II. Then when there was, the Salkinds got really involved and things started to go seriously downhill.

Gibbs' fundamental point, that a lot of things are being sold as green which aren't green at all in order to snarf up tax credits and other incentives, is salient. The manufacture of semiconductors -- and all solar cells are semiconductors -- is incredibly toxic and dirty. The manufacture of big machines like wind turbines is toxic and dirty. The one thing that is very definitely green, reducing our endpoint energy usage, hardly gets a mention by the people pushing these technologies. The thing that is most green of all, not reproducing, is considered heresy.

"Some idea of what Gibbs was up to" seems to understate it a bit, don't you think?

Films are "presented" all the time by people who had little to do with their actual production. And a lot of that has to do with who has the money to make a distribution possible. Moore is that guy here.

Last edited Mon May 4, 2020, 07:19 AM - Edit history (1)

And it would be apparent to anyone, in or out of the industry, that if someone is "presenting" something, they are putting their personal endorsement on the product.

Or they could google the various roles and types of producers.

https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-does-a-producer-do/

Or this interview with Moore:

And so far I'm not hearing anything Jeff Gibbs says that I don't already agree with. Anger directed against Moore and the film sounds more and more like people shooting the messenger.

it has had well over 50 mil views on youtube.

Heck yes.

I haven't watched the film, but I agree with almost every word that ever came out of Micheal Moore's mouth.

There are a few of us who don't like the billionaires standing on our necks while they poison our planet for profit.

I think one can agree both that billionaires are standing on our necks and think that this film gets it wrong on climate change.

I'll believe the actual scientists, thanks. Just like I do when the climate change deniers get cheers for their propaganda. I'm more a fan of facts than any celebrity.

Michael Moore has more than enough money to mount his own independent campaign for POTUS - or even mayor or congress. Why do you think he hasn't?

that if we warm 2C over pre-industrial (which is 1750, not 1950) we'll start seeing broad areas of open arctic ocean getting insolation in July/August and various positive feedbacks will take significant further warming out of our hands, ensuring significant loss of biodiversity and human habitability.

That's essentially where we are right now, and after 40 years of talking about greener tech we haven't even managed to slow down the growth rate of our greenhouse gas emissions.

I can nitpick the film, they were a little hard on current solar and EV tech for example, but they were spot on regarding biomass and the giant lie it builds into any claim to renewable energy, among many other things.

I get the argument that people are going to give up if they actually understand what is required, but not doing what is required because it isn't understood doesn't even give people the option to try.

As well as the murder of Ron Goldman? Because white LA cops hate blacks and because limo drivers are never early or on time?

Every word?

And Nice to hear you agree with Moore when he said the only reason Obama was notable is because he is black.

Interesting flex, but I guess we all have our own views. Being a Democrat, I don’t agree with that, personally, but hey, different strokes and all that.

The Left should not be a font of untruths.

But conservatives ? Nahhhhhh.