Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to re: MM Honesty Test For Liberals

re: MM Honesty Test For Liberals
gbaikie — (archived)

"do you consider those Disney (what are usually called) nature documentaries that deliberately staged dramatic confrontations between bears and cougars, gave the wild animals names, etc. as fitting your definition of documentary? "

I'm not sure that Disney has ever done a documentary, and would surprised if they labeled them documentaries. But I agree that documentaries in general aren't done very well.

Ken Burns' documentaries seem pretty good and are entertaining. Ken Burn's documentaries could called inaccurate in the they glorify the topic. Jacque Cousteau was also successful in glorifying his topic [nature and particularly undersea- his later films weren't as good and were mostly about selling the "environmental cause"]. And history and nature documentaries in general are usually somewhat accurate, the problem is when have a current issue, there is strong tendency to sensationalize the topic as a cheap way to keep the audience interested or simply to whore your political views.
Now, "Apollo 13" was accurate and interesting documentary type movie- but the story was a natural because it had drama built into it.

Another documentary film is "Chariots of Fire". I first saw it in elementary school. I would guess it was probably one the strongest influence in making people fervorly believe in UFOs. I guess it goes without saying that conspiracy theories and pseudo science sells well.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (92 posts)