Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Truthful answers to a dishonest test

Weaseling and Waffling Not Needed
Mark Eby — (archived)

The old there's no such thing as truth arguement. Whether you liked it or not is subjective. Some people seem to. I can see why your answer is vague, but don't agree it had to be.

The other two questions are far more objective. Documentary is an art form in making it interesting and visually appealing. It is not supposed to be an artform of propaganda. That wasn't a hard question. Whether you think it qualifies as a documentary or not says something about your standards for a documentary. Evading the question says something else. Why are you afraid to comit to an answer on that and the fair and objective question? We all have our biases and will judge whether something is fair or balanced differently, but how another person judges the same thing does lets you measure their difference from your view.

My view of the film is obviously based on a limited exposure. My feelings are based on the promo adds and the "praise" of those who liked the film or recomemnded it. As someone who watched events unfold closely, I felt like what I saw and heard about the movie represented a very biased view and there was no way my dollars were going to support such distortions. It's quite obvious that a lot of people felt that way. It's very possible that such limited exposure can be misleading, but please tell me why you would promote the film in such a way if you weren't trying to make similar points with the whole film. Doesn't make sense to alienate half the potential audience with an inaccurate promotion.

Regards,
Mark

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (92 posts)