Title: NUMBER CRUNCHER
Print Status: Available
|
|
Buy now!
Comic ID #2953
Title: NUMBER CRUNCHER
Print Status: Available
Title: NUMBER CRUNCHER
Print Status: Available
Discussion (36) ¬
[ Comments RSS ]
Comment ¬
I like Michael Moore but I take everything he does with the same grains of salt I use with Rush Limbaugh. He takes things out of context and turns editing into his friend – just like those on the other side do.
Still, he’s a very effective documentary director and this one looks interesting.
Michael Moore can suck it.
And I’m a democrat.
Michael Moore can suck it.
And I’m a socialist.
The Recession almost made me glad I’m poor. No job, no house, no mortage, no loans, there’s nothing they can take from me, because I have nothing!
I don’t like Michael Moore as a person, but I am always interested by his films. I don’t “enjoy” them so to say, but they always seem to have something in them I want to see. I will probably wait for this one to come out on DVD though, I’m bad at cinemas + documentaries.
I gotta hand it to you Tom, I know you say this comic was a late update but it came out really, really well. I had to take a step back and think “What is it about this particular update that makes it look so good?!” I’m not sure if it’s your drawing skills improving, or coloring skills… I notice a nice touch in the backgrounds, but I really can’t put my finger on just what you did to make me notice how good this all came together. Well played!
You do realize that Michael Moore writes fiction, right?
Annnnnd the above comments just make me feel like I made the right choice when I put that movie in two of the smaller houses at my movie theater. I’m still trying to figure out why we got two prints in the first place.
Of course, I’ll find out this weekend if the audience of this strip is in any way representative of the audience at my theater.
Call me nutty, Jeff, but if Michael Moore wrote fiction, don’t you think he’d be up to his eyeballs in litigation by now?
A lot of people don’t like Moore and I would venture to guess he has some pretty high profile enemies. If they could find a way to shut him up, I’m sure they would.
Yes, Moore spins the truth to support his arguments. But he doesn’t lie. Suggesting otherwise is just lazy criticism.
Michael Moore presents one sided arguments.
Based on Previous Michael Moore work, I assume he is more against the titular star of his film.
If he’s against Capitalism—he’s hypocritical. He makes his living through capitalism.
Squishy,
I had thought about making a comic about the irony of Moore making money on his anti-capitalism sentiment. But I think he gets the irony.
I watched him on Countdown with Keith Olberman (I know, I know) and basically he said that no real change was going to come from his movie unless the villagers (us) start to revolt. Only then will the movie studios, the distributors, theaters, etc. say “Hey, this guys is upsetting the apple cart. We need to shut him down.”
In other words, so long as Moore is making money for someone, the powers that be don’t care about his message. A truer definition of capitalism in action I’m sure you will not find.
Incidentally, I don’t think Moore would white-wash capitalism as ALL bad. After all, everyone needs to make a living. But there’s making a living and there’s outright *greed*. Until we see the film, we can’t know for sure.
Mildly related comment– YEAH Merriweather Post Pavilion! (See panel 3)
Capitalism: A system that allows someone to amass a $50M+ fortune from criticizing the system which allows someone to amass a $50M+ fortune.
Michael Moore can suck it.
And I’m a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist.
Well like you said this film has unfortunate timing. I would much rather spend my money on the Toy Story 3 D double feature or “Zombieland”. My hubby really wants to see that but I’m not so sure I wanna see it. I suppose it could be funny with all the zombie killing. Mmmm brains! haha!
I’m just here to echo Carl’s sentiments of “Yeah Merriweather Post Pavillion!”
Oh, and I haven’t been able to take Michael Moore seriously as a filmmaker since that Oscar speech from a few years ago.
TJ, Good call about Moore’s Oscar acceptance speech. It was way over the top.
Rose, as a resident of Flint, I’m curious as to why you don’t like Moore. He presents himself as an advocate of the community, but do you feel he’s exploiting Flint in some way? I don’t want to put words in your mouth. But, like I said, I’m curious.
Michael Moore doesn’t suck. He swallows it whole.
I kid, I kid. He makes some interesting points but he has an agenda which colors his information. Just like everyone else. If only several corporations would just invest in Flint, Michigan and stabilize its local economy maybe he would make a light hearted romantic comedy.
Boo Merriweather Post Pavillion!
I’ve enjoyed the Michael Moore films I’ve seen, and I think I personally would get more out of the new one than zombies, romantic comedies, or kids movies I saw when they came out (and still own).
And I’m one who doesn’t care for politics.
I live in Flint Michigan… Yep, Buick Town… or used to be. I don’t like Michael Moore either… I won’t watch the new film.
@Tom: what you said about Moore i think is not only accurate but damn near brilliant. You scare me!
“Yes, Moore spins the truth to support his arguments. But he doesn’t lie.”
/applause.
Regarding why people dont like MMoore, id like to add this: (imho) There is a saying ive heard many times…The Truth Hurts. People who watch his docu-movies understand the message that there is a failing and corrupt system…wether its heathercare, government or even GM. Moore shows us this and we dont like it….
Well….That is what Moore does. He finds the truth and presents it in such a way that it hits people and makes them uncomfortable. Because we can all see that we as a people are part of a system and that system is failing, and has failed us time and time again.
So call him names, yell at the sky, complain to your cab driver…Moore always has a valid point and it hurts because you know your apart of it, and like Tom said, you know he is not lieing.
Moore is at best, a salacious filmmaker. At worst, Moore exploits his subjects for his own personal gain. I went to film school, understand the genre, and his films just don’t mesh with the classic documentary format. That may have been an attempt to redefine what Moore perceived as a stale genre, or it could be that it simply doesn’t work with the message he seeks to convey. I think Moore would find more traction presenting the evidence and letting the audience draw their own conclusions, than by repeatedly applying the conclusion he wants you to draw through blunt force trauma. He is the leftists own Alex Jones, peddling his own special brand of crazy. My favorite quote of the day was how Moore claims capitalism hasn’t helped him at all… Yet without capitalism, would we even know who he is? To say nothing of the millions he’s raked in, peddling his wares.
So, no. I am a filmmaker, and I won’t be supporting Moore’s movie.
Cameron,
I’ve never been to film school, so can you define what a classic documentary format is? I presume the idea is to basically turn the camera on and let the action unfold in front of you, free of bias?
Okay, so by that criteria, Moore is not a documentary filmmaker. But I guess my question is, “So what?”
I think people confuse the idea of bias-free film making as some form of journalism. People try to apply the principals of journalism to Moore’s work, but he’s not a journalist. And even if he WAS a journalist doesn’t make him exempt from making a point that others might find disagreable.
Edward R. Murrow’s is probably the most well-respected journalist of all time, but he wasn’t above using his influence to enact shame. Watch his televised documentary about migrant workers called Harvest of Shame sometime and tell me it isn’t biased.
In fact, it’s pretty much confirmed in his closing remarks:
“The migrants have no lobby. Only an enlightened, aroused and perhaps angered public opinion can do anything about the migrants. The people you have seen have the strength to harvest your fruit and vegetables. They do not have the strength to influence legislation. Maybe we do. Good night, and good luck.”
Please tell me what Moore does that is different.
I dislike him because his documentaries set up straw-man arguments.
I feel like “Bowling for Columbine” was like “Well, maybe I’m just the MINORITY that thinks unwed teenage mothers shouldn’t be forced to buy guns and shoot each other. Hmph!”
Be quiet, sir.
It’s just like “Religulous.” If they had left in more opposing viewpoints and seriously taken them into consideration or given them any weight at all in a healthy, adult debate, I would have enjoyed the movies and, sure, maybe ended up agreeing on some levels. I just don’t like smug people who smugly tell you how wrong anyone but them is.
AND SINCE IT’S MICHAEL MOORE, IT SHOULD BE CALLED “CHEESEBURGER: A LOVE STORY” AMIRITEGUYS?
Sorry I don’t know what came over me there.
Back in the day I was an avid Moore hater. As such, I picked up on a lot of really interesting film making techniques. Moore rarely lies, I’ll give you that, but he’s a master at putting a lot of very specific and context-free facts together in ways that make many people believe falsities.
I respect bias in film making and even journalism, I say get it out in the open instead of trying or pretending to hide it. If an audience member knows about the bias* a head of time they will have a better opportunity to interpret the information on their own, and maybe even actively seek out more information. Moore wears his bias on his sleeve and I respect that, but the problem comes again when he claims that he is proclaiming truth.
There are a lot of other websites out there that do a much better job of providing counter-arguments (moorewatch.com for one) by people more eloquent than me. So I’ll just say this: I don’t like Moore’s politics, I disagree with his opinions, I do watch his movies, and I don’t think he actually understands what he talks about as much as he thinks he does.
*My bias: I’m an anarcho-capitalist with strong postmodern tendencies.
Hmm… okay. I get the smug thing (that’s a turn-off for me as well). I guess I just don’t find Moore smug.
As far as bias and proclaiming truth… well, the truth is relative, right? So, in Moore’s mind, he’s right. But is it his job to give equal time to a topic if what he’s trying to do is share his version of the truth?
Look, I’m not saying Moore is right 100% of the time. But I think a lot of people hear his name and see red.
Frankly, I don’t know what’s wrong with a little straw man opposition if it at least gets people to THINK about an issue. Too frequently do people drift through their lives without giving any consideration to the suffering of others.
Can anyone say, “Yes, corporations have the right to ship American jobs overseas.” “Yes, semi-automatic weapons should be accessible to children.” “Yes, our health care system is perfectly fine.”
That’s the thing about his new movie that I don’t understand the resistance to. Can you honestly say you’re pleased with how the bailout effort has been handled? Do you seriously believe that corporations should be able to make as much money as they want as amorally as they please without any legislation or repercussions for abuses?
I think the purpose of Moore’s films is to stir the pot – to illicit SOME reaction from the general populace, even if it’s hatred against him. Because it at least gets people TALKING about what matters. Otherwise, please feel free to roll over and let the powers that be take advantage of you. A populace subdued by fear or ignorance is very easy to rule indeed.
I’m a Democrat. I think Michael Moore is, at best, a polemist (which is something I don’t think he’d mind being called). At worst, he’s a propagandist. Either way, I have limited use for him. What bothers me most about his movies, though, is the way he exploits his subjects. In “Bowling for Columbine” he takes two of the Columbine suvivors (one in a wheelchair) to K-Mart to shame the company to stop selling weapons. In “Farenheigt 911”, he keeps coming back to a woman who lost her son in Iraq just so the audience can experience her pain again and again.
I realize there are ends/means questions here, as well as the matter of whether it is still exploitation if the subjects of the alledged explotation are cool with it. At the end of the day, to me it looks like innocent people being used. The only time I didn’t mind this tactic was in “Sicko” since Moore actually managed to get his subjects some help for once.
I’ll agree with you there, Steve.
Specifically, I found his exploitation of Charlton Heston in Bowling For Columbine particularly distasteful. Moore had hinged so much of his movie around cornering Heston like some kind of gun-nut white whale, he didn’t back off when clearly sitting across from an elderly gentleman in the early stages of Alzheimers.
I think Bowling For Columbine is one of Moore’s best movies — until that ending, which just left me with a sick feeling.
Michael Moore does lie. In Fahrenheit 9/11, Bowling for Columbine, Sicko: lies, lies and lies. There are truths, there’s spinning the truth, there’re bad conclusions, ignorance of history, and the Marx Irony, but to say he doesn’t often lie is said by someone who hasn’t done their homework.
Yes, American companies have a right to send their jobs overseas, like any foreign company has a right to send their jobs here. Yes, companies get to make as much money as they want; conversely, you get to spend as much money as you want shopping with these companies: how would you reconcile the difference between what you morally believe should be a limit versus what the consumer is willing to spend? Give the extra to the government; force them to spend it on charities; force them to pay employees more instead of give executives huge bonuses? Your moral outrage doesn’t get to become law, because you have no right to not be offended.
Don’t like the way a company is doing business? Don’t do business with that company. Think all companies are acting the same way? Then your own greed and wants and convenience allows you to justify still doing business with them, in which case your ethics are malleable and suspect to severe scrutiny when aiming it at anything else.
Has the bailout been handled well? There never should have been one in the first place. There shouldn’t have been one when Lee Iaccoca begged for one for Chrysler decades earlier, and there shouldn’t have been one now, and there never should have been any before and in between. Our government isn’t a bank, and it certainly shouldn’t be a forum in which one can complain about their bad financial choices and get a second chance, a free ride, or strong arm taxpayers to pay for any of it.
Truth is relative? Perspective is relative, but truth never is, Tom. Facts are facts, and truth is truth. If you’re proclaiming something that you believe is true, but it isn’t, it makes you delusional. If you’re proclaiming something as truth that you know to be false, it makes you a liar. *shrug*
Yes, documentaries are supposed to document reality. The best documentaries I’ve ever seen are ones that seek to ask a question rather than make a statement. Everyone learns more, and our preconceptions are challenged. Of course, there are some who adhere to the notion that by even pointing a camera at the subject, you’re altering reality and forcing an artificial perspective on the topic. That may be, but otherwise, we’d have no documentaries at all. 😉
That said, the basic premise of “Capitalism” that Moore is assailing – the bank bailouts – is the antithesis of capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t reward failure – it allows businesses to fail so that others can be successful and rise up to take up the slack. Taking tax dollars to prop up a failed business, bank, or yes – homeowner – is more Marxist than Capitalist. Ironically, I’m on his side in wanting our money back – for all the wrong reasons. 🙂
I think the point is, Moore casts his opposition, as you point out, as wanting AK-47’s for kindergartners, or believing there’s nothing wrong with our medical system. But that’s not true – we do believe in owning guns for self defense – both from criminals, and the possibility of a corrupt government seeking to take our rights away, as our founding fathers faced. We believe the health care system is flawed, and that steps need to be taken to improve the system – we just don’t believe throwing the baby out with the bath water and putting it under direct government control is the answer. Government involvement in our financial system has led us to where we are today – why would we want that involvement in health care, or anything else for that matter?
I dunno. If government-run health care is so bad, why is it the health-care members of Congress receives so much better than what’s available to their constituents?
Tom
Because those with power use it to their own ends. If you belive that universal coverage would end up being anywhere near as good as what congress recives, you are deluded.
I never said that universal coverage would be as good as what Congress receives. I’m only pointing out that a government-run healthcare package exists and that members of Congress currently take advantage of it.
If Congress could deliver a healthcare option even HALF as good as what they already receive, millions of people would instantly be better off.
I’m a hardcore liberal who thinks that Michael Moore is basically right in most of his movies. However, in order to seem respectable and not like one of those liberals, I am also required to insert the phrase “Michael Moore is a big fat idiot and I don’t like him” in every other paragraph of my review.
(If you don’t get the joke, you probably haven’t seen this long but interesting article yet.)
Having said all that, it’s Michael Moore. Chances are you already know whether or not you like his movies and some guys screaming otherwise on the internets are probably not going to change much. And that’s sad, because he actually goes after the rich people who tanked our economy and got away with it.
The whole “how can he diss capitalism when he himself has made money” argument is pretty stupid as well. He’s encouraged people to pirate his stuff in the past if they can’t pay for it, and even if he didn’t, how does that affect his argument? You might as well call Al Gore a liar for wanting to lower carbon emissions when he himself is made of carbon.
Dammit, I’m arguing politics on the internet again. I swore to myself I wouldn’t do this.
Tom
It’s not a matter of how good the coverage would be. This is the US government we’re talking about here. Just look at what medical coverage they already provide. Medicare and Medicaid are both bankrupt. The VA has been a mess for decades, with the recent Walter Reed scandal only the latest. Fact is I just don’t trust the government to have that much control over my health care. I feel a large expansion of Medicaid would be a better choice to cover those that are uninsured, then a plan that would compete with private insurance.
Lurker A.
More like calling Al Gore a hypocrite for wanting to lower carbon emissions, when he himself flies in a private jet.
As far as the Michael Moore question, I am one of the few people that find his opinions and methods disagreeable, but have respect for him as a person. If you are familiar with the documentor Evan Maloney, he attempted the same ambush style interview that Michael Moore uses against him. In the interview Michael Moore admitted to using quotes out of order, or out of context to skew the truth and make his points. He was very open about the way manipulates the truth in his movies, and wished Evan Maloney luck getting his own opposing views in film. I’m forced to respect someone that is that honest and secure about themselves and their views.
I’d like to point out to other archive divers that merely calling someone a liar doesn’t make it say.
Merely saying “lies lies lies!” doesn’t actually make it true – even one single example would help, and make you sound like you actually have a point, rather than sound like calling anyone who disagrees with you is a liar.