Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="B_Master_Flash" data-source="post: 561925" data-attributes="member: 552262">Come on man, you know exactly what I&#039;m saying, don&#039;t make me break it down for you, and don&#039;t treat me like I&#039;m completely off topic.So you&#039;re point is that it hasn&#039;t earned the title of &quot;documentary&quot;?&nbsp; So what if it wasn&#039;t a double blind labratory test, its an interesting topic for a &quot;movie&quot;.&nbsp; Notice I have never even refered to this movie as a documentary so your argument over whether it&#039;s a documentary or not must be with someone else or else its just moot.&nbsp; I don&#039;t even see where you&#039;re going w/ that argument anyway, my whole point is that the movie isn&#039;t slander and most likely was not manipulated to create artificial results.&nbsp; If you want to look at it like a serious scientific test, you could look at it like this:Q:What happens when guy movie is about stops his regular diet and eats nothing but supersized McDonalds burger meals 3 times a day for a month?A:His health seriously deteriorates.I know I didn&#039;t bother to put that in any kind of scientific format so please dont point it out.&nbsp; The point is you can watch the movie and if you really are that critical, all the info you will get out of it is exactly what I wrote above, and you don&#039;t even have to be convinced of that.&nbsp; It should be treated as food for thought, not propaganda.&nbsp; If they would have made it out for McDonnalds to look like they intentionaly make their food to make people unhealthy, (something Michael Moore probably would have done), then I could understand complaining.&nbsp; In fact, this is what I would expect if Michael Moore would have made this film:1) Ambigous timeline; specificaly making it appear he got health problems before he actually did (without ever explecitly stating it)2) The main character harassing a McDonalds manager or owner about the content of their food with the film modified to make it look like the McDonalds employee was dodging his questions3) Some rediculous attemt to financialy tie McDonnalds to some &quot;Evil&quot; Corporation, most likely one that tests on animals or is known for animal crueltyWell you get the picture.&nbsp; Things like that definitley have no place in anything resembling a documentary, but I seriously sounds like this movie was void of them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="B_Master_Flash, post: 561925, member: 552262"] Come on man, you know exactly what I'm saying, don't make me break it down for you, and don't treat me like I'm completely off topic. So you're point is that it hasn't earned the title of "documentary"? So what if it wasn't a double blind labratory test, its an interesting topic for a "movie". Notice I have never even refered to this movie as a documentary so your argument over whether it's a documentary or not must be with someone else or else its just moot. I don't even see where you're going w/ that argument anyway, my whole point is that the movie isn't slander and most likely was not manipulated to create artificial results. If you want to look at it like a serious scientific test, you could look at it like this: Q: What happens when [I]guy movie is about[/I] stops his regular diet and eats nothing but supersized McDonalds burger meals 3 times a day for a month? A: His health seriously deteriorates. I know I didn't bother to put that in any kind of scientific format so please dont point it out. The point is you can watch the movie and if you really are that critical, all the info you will get out of it is exactly what I wrote above, and you don't even have to be convinced of that. It should be treated as food for thought, not propaganda. If they would have made it out for McDonnalds to look like they intentionaly make their food to make people unhealthy, (something Michael Moore probably would have done), then I could understand complaining. In fact, this is what I would expect if Michael Moore would have made this film: 1) Ambigous timeline; specificaly making it appear he got health problems before he actually did (without ever explecitly stating it) 2) The main character harassing a McDonalds manager or owner about the content of their food with the film modified to make it look like the McDonalds employee was dodging his questions 3) Some rediculous attemt to financialy tie McDonnalds to some "Evil" Corporation, most likely one that tests on animals or is known for animal cruelty Well you get the picture. Things like that definitley have no place in anything resembling a documentary, but I seriously sounds like this movie was void of them. [/QUOTE]

Verification