Seems like propaganda movie is the only type of documentary we left with.
What "several sides of the story"-type docs did you watch?
Trump declined to be interviewed for the film.
Some of his cronies didn't seem particularly eager to be filmed either.
I cut my finger. That's tragedy. A man walks into an open sewer and dies. That's comedy.
Name one inaccuracy? Trump ruins lives to make a buck and when they resist he acts like a spoiled child. Take away the silver spoon he was born with and his contacts and he'd be the crazy guy working at a 7/11. He has no skills other than ego and contacts. If you inherit tens of millions there's no trick to making money. Hell if all he ever did was buy Apple stock he'd be worth far more than he is now which proves he has no special skills. Most of his assets are listed as his brand. A blowhard with a bad rug. Not exactly Disney now is it?
shareIt was an objective documentary. It is other side that refused to state their side, so he ran with the only side he actually had. he did not privide any lies or subjected opinions.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
Ideally yes you should have both sides on camera but as with most documentaries dealing with large corporations they decide that to say nothing is their best defence. This is the same as with the excellent Black Fish that came out this year. Some stories still need telling even if you can't tell them in the best way.
shareThere's no such thing as an objective documentary.
AND STOP WRITING IN ALL CAPS
Working in the movie business since -92
You're an idiot.
shareNice comeback.
Working in the movie business since -92
There's no such thing as an objective documentary.
Everything from selecting cases and sources to filming and editing is dependent of point of view. There's no such thing as objectivity unless you're severely deluded.
I suspect that by "objective documentaries" you really mean documentaries which don't conflict with your world view.
Working in the movie business since -92
Why am I talking to a moron but ok
2. Neutral (bias free), relating to, or based on verifiable evidence or facts instead of on attitude, belief, or opinion. Opposite of subjective.
You really have no clue what you're talking about so I'll leave it at that. You do know that film making isn't a natural science? What an idiot...
Working in the movie business since -92
I see the money you spent on charm school was wasted.
Notwithstanding that, if only one side is prepared to tell their story, that does not prove that the documentary was flawed. And if we only make docs where both sides tell their story, most of the wrongdoers will rely on their right to silence to make sure no docs can be made.
Any reasonable person watching any doc like this clearly has to say to themselves, "They were given a chance to respond but didn't, and for that reason, I cannot dispute the objectivity of this film"
Oh, another moron, great. Or most probably the 'director' himself.
shareI see that the money you spent on Charm School didn't do you a lot of good.
I have a theory about people who gratuitously abuse complete strangers on the web. I think they are little men who are always being bitchslapped and this is the only way they can display their "machismo". I assume that you don't behave like this in public, unless you have a predilection for hospital food.
Notwithstanding my need to teach you manners, you need to look in a dictionary, where you will find that the word, "Objective" is not defined as "agreeing with sseuth or Donald Trump".
As for your suspicions that I am the director, I am not sure why you would come to that conclusion, unless of course, you are Donald Trump?
It's good that lack of logic even makes the moron create a piece of crap he calls a 'theory' :)
In fact, the lack of logic makes him write every single message here.
I am having trouble understanding the latter part of your rant. Are you suggesting that the more you reply to the messages in this thread, the more illogical you are. If that is the case, you should take a look at the number of replies you have made.
And by the way, the theory I refer to is not my own, but is held by quite a lot of people, to explain the cowardice of trolls such as yourself. Go on. Make the most of it. Show us how much of a real man you are by abusing people on the web, before you go home to your trailer and a spanking from your momma.
And by the way, just to educate you again, lack of logic is not defined as a failure to agree with yourself.
You should look up "Libel Tourism", and you will find that Britain has the most litigant friendly Libel laws in the world. To give you some idea of these, if I sue you for libel, I don't have to prove that I was libelled, you have have to prove that I wasn't. To give you some idea of this, you can have a magazine in Albania that has a print run of say 1,000 copies, where one Albanian says something unpleasant about another Albanian, and as long as you can show that the magazine was read in the UK, you can have the case heard in the UK and a potential multi-million pound award.
I can accept the point that you cannot have a totally objective doc if one party refuses to take part, but you can be pretty sure that if there was any dishonesty on the part of the film-maker, Trump would be suing the gonads off of them.
Incidentally, do you not find it strange that govs and police forces the world over are now employing media gurus to show them in a better light, but in this case, even though it is quite clear that their image has been tarnished, they have said nothing to "put the record straight"?