Saw the Film -- Loved It!

So much fun watching an evil government getting its ass kicked.

The definition of terrorist depends on which side you're on, I guess.

Bin Laden: terrorist
Nathan Hale: Freedom Fighter
al-Zarqawi: terrorist
The guys at the Alamo: Freedom Fighters
9/11 Hijackers: terrorists
Boston Tea Partyers: Freedom Fighters
Timothy McVeigh: ??
Randy Weaver: ??
Erik Rudolph: ??
George Bush: ??


Anyone else see it yet? Favorite scenes? Thoughts?

3/21/2006 12:33:14 AM

at least 5 v for vendetta threads have already been deleted in entertainment

3/21/2006 12:47:36 AM

aaaah... but this is the SB!! which should only shorten the time it should take for the lockatation.

3/21/2006 12:51:25 AM

ibtl

3/21/2006 12:53:35 AM

Quote :

"the lockatation"

I know how important it is for some to point out thread issues. I'm not so interested in the film-making aspects of the flick, but more on the political ideas presented.

3/21/2006 12:56:45 AM

you cant decide whether Eric Rudolph was a terrorist or not?

you must be some fucking insane pro-lifer

3/21/2006 1:07:38 AM

I liked the story, but a lot of things were wrong with the movie as far as characterization, direction, and editing, if you ask me.

Then again, I saw the movie at Mission Valley, which I had just discovered sells beer. So maybe my judgement is not to be trusted.

All in all, though, I liked it, but let's not try to use it as some sort of libertarian propaganda piece, shall we?

3/21/2006 1:19:35 AM

...GrumpyGOP liked a film encouraging relativism over a topic as sensitive as terrorism? ::blink blink::

3/21/2006 1:25:05 AM

See, it's funny, because I always want to go ::blink blink:: when someone confuses my stances for relativisim.

I believe in moral absolutes. There are things that are wrong and there are things that are right. Admittedly, I'm more particular than that Kant wanker with his categorical imperative. Killing active enemies of freedom is always right. Killing friends of freedom is always wrong. How is that more relativistic than saying, "Killing is always wrong"? It is the same degree of absolutism with more specificity.

3/21/2006 1:29:41 AM

That'll take you far. Until you go killing a pesky fucker who extended freedom to some and took it from others. That's when your head goes pop.

3/21/2006 1:34:35 AM

You're still taking far too narrow a view of things, Gamey old pal.

You can't take freedom from A and to extend it to B. That would imply that A's freedom entailed encroaching on the rights of B; such a freedom does not exist in any meaningful way. Things might seem to defy that statement, but they do not. It might take great minds many years of thought to get beneath that illusion, but it is an illusion regardless.

[Edited on March 21, 2006 at 2:03 AM. Reason : ]

3/21/2006 1:38:29 AM

I'm not talking about exchanging freedom. I'm talking about a person who takes freedom from some, and who gives more freedom to others. It's not a zero sum.

3/21/2006 3:00:53 AM

i wanna watch this movie

3/21/2006 8:37:03 AM

YES CLEARLY THIS WAS MEANT TO PERFECTLY MIRROR REALITY

[Edited on March 21, 2006 at 9:00 AM. Reason : -]

3/21/2006 8:59:46 AM

Quote :

"you cant decide whether Eric Rudolph was a terrorist or not?"

I can decide just fine, thankyou. But there isn't complete agreement in our country about the terrorist status of Weaver, Rudolph, Mcveigh et al. It depends on points of view and who gets to write the official historical record.

(SOME SPOILER STUFF)

"What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, seen on every television... I want want everyone to remember, why they need us!"

I found this an especially chilling line from Chancellor Sutler. Next we see news stories about terrorists, and avian flu- all designed by the gov't to put fear into the populace. The plan was that a fearful populace will eagerly give up its liberty and cling to the tyranny of gov't for security.

3/21/2006 11:48:21 AM

the only people who don't think rudolph was a terrorist post prisonplanet articles on message boards

3/21/2006 12:15:43 PM

Quote :

"rudolph was a terrorist "

Let's look at the left-side of the question. Does everyone agree that the following are cold-blooded terrorists? ... The Chicago Seven, The Weathermen, PeTa, Earth Liberation Front, GreenPeace, George Soros, The UnaBomber.

Again, your point of view determines who is and who is not a terrorist.

3/21/2006 12:52:06 PM

this movie was faraheit 911

hugo weaving = micheal moore

do i need to spell it out for you people.

and plus EVERYONE IN THIS MOVIE WAS A TERRORIST, the predident, V, whatever....that bald chick

[Edited on March 21, 2006 at 12:59 PM. Reason : -]

3/21/2006 12:59:17 PM

I'm not quite clear on what your point is, Josh. But I still find the theme of giving up liberty for security very interesting in this film.

A reader of the original book noted:

Quote :

"It is ironic that Moore (the book's author) tells his story as a graphic novel because traditionally your comic book superhero is essentially a fascist vigilante. However, Moore succeeds in finding the perfect context to turn the traditional approach on its head. Most people have no conception of what is meant by the term "Fascism." They equate the idea with Hitler, although it was coined by Mussolini, and Hitler means Nazis, Anti-Semitism and Concentration Camps. Of course, Moore knows better. Fascism is based on the "struggle" for "order" wherein the ends justify all sorts of means. This dynamic clearly runs counter to the democratic ideals of "liberty" and "property." Historically, then, we are confronted with the monumental irony that although the Fascists lost World War II, the Cold War was on one level the triumph of Fascism, a period where we allowed all sorts of travesties, from the McCarthy witch hunts to Nixon's executive orders in the name of "national security." Moore brings the idea of fascism home. If you cannot recognize it in England's green and pleasant fields then you are never going to recognize it when it walks down Main Street in your hometown, U.S.A. Don't you think you should?"

3/21/2006 2:03:15 PM

the point is not IF the terrorists are bad, its IF your government is good

[Edited on March 21, 2006 at 2:05 PM. Reason : -]

3/21/2006 2:05:43 PM

Quote :

"Timothy McVeigh: ?? Terrorist Erik Rudolph: ?? Terrorist George Bush: ?? Terrorist"

I think a better way to put it would be to say that the powers that be always call their enemies terrorists whether they are or not.

As far as the movie goes though, I liked it. Basically It's another reminder that tyranny can only exist to the extent that we let it. A government, no matter how brutal, has only the power that its subjects are willing to give it. If they refuse to give in to fear, then it becomes powerless.

[Edited on March 22, 2006 at 4:20 AM. Reason : ']

3/22/2006 4:08:29 AM

^
Leading to the question: What will it take for this country to avoid descending into a complete facist state?

3/22/2006 10:40:23 AM

Whatever we've been doing for the last 200 years seems to have worked fairly well.

3/22/2006 1:06:04 PM

real elections.

a message brought to you by DIEBOLD

3/22/2006 2:54:27 PM

Quote :

"What will it take for this country to avoid descending into a complete facist state?"

The end of complacency-inspired apathy.

3/22/2006 6:51:19 PM

^
Bravo!

3/22/2006 10:09:40 PM