Major Australian News Paper SLAMS Loose Change

[The Doc]

My nightly internet browsing showed up something very pleasing today :)

The Australian news paper "The Daily Telegraph" published a full page opinion/editorial article recently that absolutely slams Loose Change 2nd Edition.


http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,21671628-5001031,00.html
In other words, 9/11 is the greatest con since France tricked everyone into believing it was a nation of intellectuals. Loose Change 2 – the second version contains extra portions of stupidity – makes similar claims, all of them ridiculous, and easily demolished by the non-idiotic.

US magazine Popular Mechanics presented a useful takedown of 9/11 conspiracy theories a couple of years ago; seek it out online. Debra Burlingame, sister of the American Airlines pilot whose hijacked jet was smashed into the Pentagon, summarised the Loose Change view: "The only thing they seem to have gotten right about the September 11 attacks is the date when they occurred."


If my understanding is correct, this is probably Sydney's largest news paper?

It's good to see that our outrage was heard :)

Oh, it speaks volumes, all right. Following two days of online fury directed at Branson and Virgin Atlantic by various bloggers, the company issued this statement early yesterday: "We will not be showing Loose Change 2 on our aircraft. We don't show movies or documentaries that cause mass offence and there is a danger with this movie that viewers, although they have the choice over what to watch and when on our flights, may be offended."

[jhunter1163]

You could never say those things in the US. You'd be sued before the ink was dry. Gotta love the Aussie press. :D

[Orphia Nay]

Great find, The Doc! That was hilarious, and spot on. I feel proud to be an Aussie.

On Tuesday Virgin Atlantic revealed it would present among its onboard viewing options Loose Change 2, a revolting conspiracy fantasy – its makers prefer the description "documentary"...

The first version of the film (made by a trio of young student types) was assembled for only two grand, which is about, oh, $2000 more than it's worth.

Historical accuracy was of no concern to Rebecca Smith, Virgin Atlantic's manager of acquisitions and publishing, who seems more interested in the buzz generated by paranoid morons.

Loved the quotes from George Monbiot - I hadn't heard that he'd said that.

[Brainache]

The Daily Telegraph is a Murdoch paper. A bit tabloid, but not as bad as those English rags.
The Sydney Morning Herald is the more reputable of the Sydney Papers, but I think the Tele. has a bigger circulation.

[The Doc]

Loved the quotes from George Monbiot - I hadn't heard that he'd said that.

Same here :)

I love how they called it a "revolting conspiracy theorist fantasy" as well.

[soundaddicted]

But what do you think will happen when the uninitiated see reports that this film is getting complaints and being taken off certain mediums?

[The Doc]

But what do you think will happen when the uninitiated see reports that this film is getting complaints and being taken off certain mediums?

I would imagine that the "uninitiated" (by that I assume you mean the fence sitters) couldn't care less.

[soundaddicted]

I would imagine that the "uninitiated" (by that I assume you mean the fence sitters) couldn't care less.

Then you would imagine wrong. It's called human nature. When somebody who doesn't really know anything about 911 conspiracies hears this controversy their first response will be to go see the film. Ask any PR expert in the world...the best way to guarantee sales is to get your product banned somewhere.

[Mobyseven]

But what do you think will happen when the uninitiated see reports that this film is getting complaints and being taken off certain mediums?

I highly doubt the public are going to find fault in a company not showing a film depicting plane crashes on their planes.

So that's my two cents. What do YOU think will happen?

[Mobyseven]

Then you would imagine wrong. It's called human nature. When somebody who doesn't really know anything about 911 conspiracies hears this controversy their first response will be to go see the film. Ask any PR expert in the world...the best way to guarantee sales is to get your product banned somewhere.

Not true. In fact, more often than not getting a product banned somewhere has a negative impact...it's a rare case where a marketing firm are able to turn such a misfortune in their favour.

Besides which, the film hasn't been banned anywhere, so your point is a bit moot.

[soundaddicted]

I highly doubt the public are going to find fault in a company not showing a film depicting plane crashes on their planes.

So that's my two cents. What do YOU think will happen?

I think the general public will keep seeing the reports about the complaints this film is getting and think I must go and see that.

[The Doc]

Then you would imagine wrong. It's called human nature. When somebody who doesn't really know anything about 911 conspiracies hears this controversy their first response will be to go see the film. Ask any PR expert in the world...the best way to guarantee sales is to get your product banned somewhere.

They will see that the film was removed because it is outrageous and offensive. They will also keep that in mind when they watch it.

The vast majority of people, though, wouldn't go and watch the film just because it was stopped from being shown on Virgin airlines.

[soundaddicted]

Not true. In fact, more often than not getting a product banned somewhere has a negative impact...it's a rare case where a marketing firm are able to turn such a misfortune in their favour.

Besides which, the film hasn't been banned anywhere, so your point is a bit moot.

But as Sue Clark, the spokeswoman for the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), observes, any controversy attached to a film raises awareness of it and can serve to make it more interesting to audiences.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article1737328.ece

[Mobyseven]

I think the general public will keep seeing the reports about the complaints this film is getting and think I must go and see that.

That's not necessarily a good thing, and it isn't necessarily true.

If people are hearing about how bad, wrong and insulting a movie is, they might be tempted to see it, but they'll be watching it having already been informed that the film is essentially bollocks.

Also, this isn't some big budget film that has had a marketing campaign around for people to have heard of it. It isn't even at the movies. I'd say that greatly reduces the number of people who are going to try and track it down to see it.

[Mobyseven]

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article1737328.ece

If we're JUST talking about films then there is a better chance, yes. I was responding to your comments about 'products' in general.

And once again - Loose Change hasn't been banned anywhere.

[soundaddicted]

If we're JUST talking about films then there is a better chance, yes. I was responding to your comments about 'products' in general.

And once again - Loose Change hasn't been banned anywhere.

She didnt say banned. She said any controversy surrounding a film and you know she is right. That is why Dylan is so pleased. He knows that every time skeptics cause his film not to be shown he gets paid and gets more interest attracted to the film. I would never complain about what skeptics do, they are drumming up interest in the film.

[The Doc]

She didnt say banned. She said any controversy surrounding a film and you know she is right. That is why Dylan is so pleased. He knows that every time skeptics cause his film not to be shown he gets paid and gets more interest attracted to the film. I would never complain about what skeptics do, they are drumming up interest in the film.

I have put the true part in bold.

If this is his way of getting people interested in his film, he's not marketing very well. If skeptics inform you about the film, they also inform you that it is a load of garbage, and the people who then go and see the film will have this in their head the entire time.

If Dylan is solely in this to make money, I guess it's not such a bad thing for him. He is making himself look like a bit of an uneducated phoney at they same time though :)

[Orphia Nay]

The old "any publicity is good publicity" canard. Mostly spouted by those getting only bad publicity.

[soundaddicted]

Well you keep causing the controversy in the months leading up to Final Cut's release and I'll be pleased.

[jhunter1163]

As mentioned in another thread:

Why would Virgin pay for something they can get for free on Google Video?

[soundaddicted]

The old "any publicity is good publicity" canard. Mostly spouted by those getting only bad publicity.

And spouted by the spokeswoman for the organization that classifies every film in Britain.

[beachnut]

But what do you think will happen when the uninitiated see reports that this film is getting complaints and being taken off certain mediums?
They may think the documentary is really fictional lies.

good morning pdoh

[Orphia Nay]

Lots of bad publicity is still bad publicity. So, soundaddicted, do you think that Loose Change deserves bad publicity?

[soundaddicted]

Lots of bad publicity is still bad publicity. So, soundaddicted, do you think that Loose Change deserves bad publicity?

There is no such thing as bad publicity when you are selling a film. If the public feel that people are trying to suppress it they will flock to watch it. Just the mention of it being an internet film in these hit pieces will get people onto the net to watch it.

That is why dylan considers it 1-0 to him. You are providing free publicity that would normally cost him a fortune. Keep at it.

[beachnut]

Well you keep causing the controversy in the months leading up to Final Cut's release and I'll be pleased.
What? Why would anyone want to see a pack of lies and pay for it? There are zero facts or evidence in LC to support any of the false conclusions they try to push.

Got any facts that LC has to support anything? You have not even stated your story on 9/11. Why would someone show a documentary that is really fiction? How can you support a fact less presentation of lies?


Dylan's film is a fraud. He is money only, no facts just junk to make weak minded people fork over money. Dylan exposed his money preference and the truthers missed the money statement, as Dylan bragged about the money and did not care if people saw his fraud film. He even has fooled you.

[Mobyseven]

Soundaddicted:

Do you want to know the horrible, horrible truth? Well I'm going to tell you anyway, whether you like it or not.

Films that are promoted as works of fiction, when they generate controversy, often attract a larger viewing audience, simply because the amount of publicity that is generated makes people want to go see what all the fuss is about.

Films that are supposed to be documentaries however are a bit different. The nature of the controversy becomes important when the information in a film is supposed to be factual - sure, if the documentary is controversial because it is a hard hitting look at poverty in the heart of some western cities, people are more likely to go see it. However, if the reason the documentary is getting media attention is because it is poorly made and devoid of facts, then it is by no means a certainty that people are going to want to see it (in much the same way as a movie getting bad reviews can affect box-office). Also, having already been warned that the documentary is essentially bunk, the people who go to view it are more likely to identify the intellectual dishonesty present in the film.

Let's make one thing perfectly clear: The old "any publicity is good pulicity" myth is just that - a myth. Bad publicity loses elections. Bad publicity ruins box-office sales. And bad publicity can end a career (something I've seen firsthand - not that it was undeserved).

Will Dylan still be laughing when he realises his fifteen minutes of minor celebrity are over and he has to find a real job? Especially considering that while other people his age have spent years of their life studying to improve their chances in the job market, he has marked himself for life as the maker of "that insulting documentary about 9/11"?

[Orphia Nay]

Lots of bad publicity is still bad publicity. So, soundaddicted, do you think that Loose Change deserves bad publicity?

There is no such thing as bad publicity when you are selling a film. If the public feel that people are trying to suppress it they will flock to watch it. Just the mention of it being an internet film in these hit pieces will get people onto the net to watch it.

That is why dylan considers it 1-0 to him. You are providing free publicity that would normally cost him a fortune. Keep at it.


You are evading the question.

Do you think that Loose Change deserves bad publicity?

[soundaddicted]

Mobyseven please list the non factual things in Final Cut.

[soundaddicted]

You are evading the question.

Do you think that Loose Change deserves bad publicity?

I haven't seen it so how can I know? If you are referring to the older versions then yes I think they deserved bad publicity to encourage Dylan to remove factual errors.

[The Doc]

Mobyseven please list the non factual things in Final Cut.

We're talking about LC:2E. The article is about LC:2E and LC:2E was the one that Virgin now declines to show.

Stay on topic.

[Foolmewunz]

Mobyseven please list the non factual things in Final Cut.

Soundaddicted, please list anything in Final Cut.

Oh, that's right.... it'll be ready soon. We just spent nine months making a one minute trailer and leading a bunch of sheep by the nose. It's coming. Really! Any minute now we'll make an annoucement about an upcoming announcement that we'll have to cancel.

[soundaddicted]

We're talking about LC:2E.

Stay on topic.

No i'm talking about final cut. Thats the big release that this controversy will pique interest in.

Anyone who criticises final cut at this stage is doing so having not seen it.

[The Doc]

This whole "I know the film is false, and I know it is full of lies, but I still want people to be giving it publicity" gig is pretty lame.

[The Doc]

No i'm talking about final cut. Thats the big release that this controversy will pique interest in.

Anyone who criticises final cut at this stage is doing so having not seen it.

I don't give a damn what you are talking about. This article is talking about LC:2E. Virgin was talking about LC:2E. Everyone else in this thread is talking about LC:2E.

No one is criticizing Final Cut at this stage. The article is hammering LC:2E.

Again, stay on topic.

[soundaddicted]

Soundaddicted, please list anything in Final Cut.

Oh, that's right.... it'll be ready soon. We just spent nine months making a one minute trailer and leading a bunch of sheep by the nose. It's coming. Really! Any minute now we'll make an annoucement about an upcoming announcement that we'll have to cancel.

Making films takes time. Did you see the CGI in it? Thats a big investment. Final cut will happen.

[soundaddicted]

I don't give a damn what you are talking about. This article is talking about LC:2E. Virgin was talking about LC:2E. Everyone else in this thread is talking about LC:2E.

No one is criticizing Final Cut at this stage. The article is hammering LC:2E.

Again, stay on topic.


Well, maybe somebody should inform them that they are hammering the wrong film.

[soundaddicted]

Doc, it really is you from ATS isn't it? The tone is unmistakable.

[The Doc]

Well, maybe somebody should inform them that they are hammering the wrong film.

LC:2E is the latest edition of Loose Change, and it is factually, historically and ethically incorrect. It deserves every bit of bad publicity it gets.

The article is criticizing LC:2E because that is the one that was to be shown on the Virgin flights.

[beachnut]

Doc, it really is you from ATS isn't it? The tone is unmistakable.
pdoh is that you, the lack of facts is unmistakable

30 to 50 posts a day, and short no fact stuff in each post

r u back 4 now?

[The Doc]

Doc, it really is you from ATS isn't it? The tone is unmistakable.

Yes, it is me. I don't frequent ATS anymore though, and have only made one post there this year.

Sorry for my "tone", but I tend to get a bit frustrated when people change the topic.

I'll keep it civil.

[Foolmewunz]

No i'm talking about final cut. Thats the big release that this controversy will pique interest in.

Anyone who criticises final cut at this stage is doing so having not seen it.

And what does that say about someone who blindly supports it without having seen it?

[Orphia Nay]

So you are supporting and criticising films you haven't seen. What is your interest in this? Do you have faith in the Truth Movement?

[beachnut]

Mobyseven please list the non factual things in Final Cut.
It appears FC will have Dr Thermite Jones in it. No facts with that.

I saw the exercises of 9/11, some more false information.

Unless Dylan comes out in FC and tells everyone he was wrong with his first films, we will most likely see more hearsay and lies.

Unless his teaser on FC is also a lie, these are the facts about the soon to be more lies of FC.

[Mobyseven]

There is no such thing as bad publicity when you are selling a film.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. So wrong.

There is most DEFINATELY such a thing as bad publicity when you are promoting a film. The first example that comes to mind is the redoing of the Spiderman teaser trailer just after 9/11, when they cut out the footage of Spiderman creating a web between the Twin Towers.

Do you know why they did that? Because it would have been very bad publicity.

Also, if a film is poorly made it is unlikely that it will attract large audiences. Film reviews are a form of publicity, and a poor review can greatly affect the box-office of a movie. I hate to break this to you, but Loose Change is NOT going to get a good review because it is not a very well made film. It is in fact a pretty good example of poor film making. And I'm not talking about the content of the film here, I'm talking about the editing, the voice-over, the quality of the film in general.

And if a film purporting to be a documentary is found to have basically no intellectual merit whatsoever, it is once again not going to find a very large audience at the cinema.

Do you understand yet why not all publicity is good?

[Arus808]

Mobyseven please list the non factual things in Final Cut.


list all the FACTUAL things in final cut.

[MG1962]

You got to love this bit. See down under we really do have our priorities right. We won the world cup, now it is time to take out the trash


YOU know this film is aiming at sub-mammal intellects when even British lefty George Monbiot, who believes almost anything about the menace of global warming, also rejects it.
"There is a virus sweeping the world," Monbiot wrote in February. "It infects opponents of the Bush Government, sucks their brains out through their eyes and turns them into gibbering idiots. Scarcely a day now passes without someone possessed by this sickness, eyes rolling, lips flecked with foam, trying to infect me.
"The disease is called Loose Change."

[Mobyseven]

Mobyseven please list the non factual things in Final Cut.

Well, being as I'm not from the future I can't do that. We were, after all, talking about LC:2E, the one that has Virgin has decided not to show.

It would also be good to note that having to have four(?) different versions of a documentary to correct factual errors is not something that the public would look kindly upon either.

[I Am He]

soundaddicted, can you please explain to me how not showing LC2 on an airliner is going to effect anything? After all I have not seen any of this not showing LC2 on any News Casts, it only seems to be an internet thing, and I hate to disappoint you but everyone does not have internet access. You have to remember (like it or not) a very small percentage of the people know anything about LC. And, another thing, how many people would of watched it while they were flying? Most of them are businessmen catching up on work or resting for the day ahead of them. You have to remember that world does not revolve around CTs like you trooffers do, they have a life.

I Am He

[Zep]

The Daily Tele is a bit of a fish-and-chip wrapper, and sometimes a bad film review creates more incentive to see it than anything else (bad publicity is good publicity).

But in this unique case, the subject is pretty much universally recognised, and the details well understood and have been chronicled almost as much as in the USA. Everyone from about age 5 upwards in 2001 understood and saw very clearly what happened in New York on that day. And please be assured: Even as far away as here in Australia, the shockwaves of sympathy were huge (did you know some Australians died in the 9-11 attacks? (http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/COUNTRY_CITIZENSHIP.htm)).

So this would be a typical reaction from most Australians, I expect.

[Zep]

Making films takes time. Did you see the CGI in it? Thats a big investment. Final cut will happen.Well, that explains everything about LC:FC! No using "real" footage, just CGI in all the cartoon "facts" to support any fricken' storyline you like to dream up!

Hey! Did you know that if you stop walking, you can shoot yourself in the other foot too?

[NeoRicen]

That CGI while looking kinda nice is nothing a single person with decent training couldn't do with some time, and we all know they've had alot of that.

[soundaddicted]

I don't hold the Australian newspapers in high regard. I remember the incident when they airbrushed the photo of Martin Bryant after the Port Arthur Massacre.

[twinstead]

soundaddicted why do you keep side stepping the fundamental issue that so far, all versions of LC have been filled with factual errors, hyperbole, conjecture, and ideological bias that are shoved down our throats as a documentary?

Why should we even for a second think that the 'Final Cut' will be any different, and what do you have to say about a movement that puts out its message this way?

[T.A.M.]

I don't hold the Australian newspapers in high regard. I remember the incident when they airbrushed the photo of Martin Bryant after the Port Arthur Massacre.

So what "papers" do you hold in high regard.

Hopefully not AFP and prisonplanet...lol

TAM:)

[MG1962]

I don't hold the Australian newspapers in high regard. I remember the incident when they airbrushed the photo of Martin Bryant after the Port Arthur Massacre.


They?

Thats pretty broad. Do you want to narrow that down a bit. We have a lot of dailies here - Some are superior, some, like the Tele, are further towards the low end

[Zep]

I don't hold the Australian newspapers in high regard. I remember the incident when they airbrushed the photo of Martin Bryant after the Port Arthur Massacre.Probably at the behest of the New World Order and the Jooos. Typical.

Although it did make him look younger and sexier, don't you think? I know if I were a rampaging serial killer who just got caught, I'd want my tabloid photo-op to be the best I could get. But enough about Martin Bryant! He's so yesterday!

Please tell us all the facts you have to support the claims on LC:FC. That WOULD be fascinating.

[Mobyseven]

I don't hold the Australian newspapers in high regard. I remember the incident when they airbrushed the photo of Martin Bryant after the Port Arthur Massacre.

That's remarkably off topic, mind answering the questions?

Oh, and could you possibly cite a source for that Martin Bryant claim? And tell me what effect it could have possibly had on the incident?

[soundaddicted]

That's remarkably off topic, mind answering the questions?

Oh, and could you possibly cite a source for that Martin Bryant claim? And tell me what effect it could have possibly had on the incident?

Why do you want a source after saying its off topic?

Every newspaper in Australia published his photograph BEFORE witnesses had identified him, thus their stupid actions made any eyewitness testimony useless. One particular paper airbrushed his eyes to make him look more deranged. The entire australian press was criticised for its handling of the story.

[The Doc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Civilized Worm]

I think the general public will keep seeing the reports about the complaints this film is getting and think I must go and see that.


Yeah because that worked soooooooo well for Gigli didn't it!

[Brainache]

Why do you want a source after saying its off topic?

Every newspaper in Australia published his photograph BEFORE witnesses had identified him, thus their stupid actions made any eyewitness testimony useless. One particular paper airbrushed his eyes to make him look more deranged. The entire australian press was criticised for its handling of the story.

So because ten years ago some picture editors got creative when they shouldn't have, all editorials should be summarily dismissed?

I never read the Telly, but I'm fairly sure that it sometimes contains stories that aren't 100% BS.

[MG1962]

Why do you want a source after saying its off topic?

Every newspaper in Australia published his photograph BEFORE witnesses had identified him, thus their stupid actions made any eyewitness testimony useless. One particular paper airbrushed his eyes to make him look more deranged. The entire australian press was criticised for its handling of the story

Well unfortunately you just proved you actually have no idea at all what you are talking about.

[Brainache]

Yeah because that worked soooooooo well for Gigli didn't it!

And Ishtar, Heaven's Gate and Snakes On A Plane.

[Mobyseven]

Why do you want a source after saying its off topic?

Every newspaper in Australia published his photograph BEFORE witnesses had identified him, thus their stupid actions made any eyewitness testimony useless. One particular paper airbrushed his eyes to make him look more deranged. The entire australian press was criticised for its handling of the story.

I was quite young at the time, so I don't remember anything of that nature happening - can anyone me whether this is correct? It seems strange, considering they caught him red-handed (and quite literally on fire)...

And it still doesn't seem to have any bearing on the case. Or the topic at hand.

ETA -Well, I don't expect a reply now that he's banned. But can someone tell me what he was talking about with the airbrushing thing?

[Civilized Worm]

And Ishtar, Heaven's Gate and Snakes On A Plane.


Well OK so it did kind of work for SoaP.

[Shrinker]

ETA -Well, I don't expect a reply now that he's banned. But can someone tell me what he was talking about with the airbrushing thing?

There's some CT style ranting and pictures here...
http://home.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/portarthur.html

[Gravy]

There is no such thing as bad publicity when you are selling a film.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299930/trivia.

[MG1962]

So he got banned huh?

Well - I checked a couple of front pages from 29th, and none carry photos of Bryant. Our dailies publish in the morning, so it would have been at least the 30th before a photo could be released.

What the front pages of some of the papers said

http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/290496au.htm

The Australian Is a national broadheet

http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/290496ex.htm

Is a local Tasmanian paper - I have never read it so cant comment on quality or content

In Australia it is only illegal show images of a suspect or accused in the state the person is being charged. We have very strict laws about reporting on matters before the court.

But the point is, no one was really sure who the gunman was till the seige finished and that was well after the papers had to go to press.

[CptColumbo]

Let's say you and a friend are in a restaurant and he/she takes a bit of their food and says, "this tastes like [rule 8]." Are you going to want to try it for yourself? When I hear that a book that is supposedly non-fiction is not very well researched and is meant to create a controversy, I don't feel the need to run out and buy it.

IMO the type of person who would seek to see LC after this article have already seen it, or don't know how to use the internet.

[Unfit4Command]

"In other words, 9/11 is the greatest con since France tricked everyone into believing it was a nation of intellectuals."

lmao.

[CptColumbo]

Could that be the fastest finding of a pdoh sock?

[The Silver Shadow]

Did pdoh recently say that he was going to stop coming to JREF? So much for that...

[The Doc]

Who called it first? :) (I think)

[WildCat]

Who called it first? :) (I think)
As soon as he went into the claim that WTC 7 was brought down so it would be out of the way for rescue effort my pd'oh detector went off.

[Brainster]

Tim Blair, the writer of the piece, is probably the most famous blogger in Australia. He's got a keen wit as you can see.

[Civilized Worm]

"In other words, 9/11 is the greatest con since France tricked everyone into believing it was a nation of intellectuals."

lmao.


LOL! Good old francophobia, the world's most acceptable prejudice.

[slugmancs]

Tim Blair, the writer of the piece, is probably the most famous blogger in Australia. He's got a keen wit as you can see.

Tim Blair, clearly the cousin of Tony Blair, therefore anything he writes is pro government (just using twoofer logic when discrediting something)...

[Comsat Angel]

Damn, pdoh's been banned already? I had my rebuffs all ready. Why does he bother to keep coming over here?
If he wanted to know what was factual about any LC version, then I reckon "It will have the date 9/11 in it" is about all you can say.
As for bad publicity making people want to see a film - no. No. Not at all. Sorry, pdoh, that only happens over at The Agony Booth. In real life, as mentioned above, Heaven's Gate, Ishtar, Last Action Hero, The Postman, Cleopatra, Inchon, Battlefield Earth (con't page 96) were sunk by bad publicity. This bad publicity convinced people to stay away in very large numbers.
As for your frankly stoopid comment that making a film makes time (No! Really?), may I remind you that LCFC was "90%" complete last year, that it was due to be released in late March, then over the summer blockbuster season, and then autumn - in fact that it's release date displays more slippage than a roller-skating hog on an ice-rink.

[The Doc]

On the note of publicity.

There is a big difference between types of bad publicity. Someone seeing bad publicity for a movie because it contains extreme violence and graphic sex scenes will likely draw a few people in, sure. Just look at what happened with Kill Bill.

However, if someone sees bad publicity in the sense that the film is factually, historically and ethically incorrect and is very poorly made with a horrible soundtrack and an annoying voice over... people aren't going to want to see it.

[kookbreaker]

Did pdoh recently say that he was going to stop coming to JREF? So much for that...

What? You mean P'doh lied? What a shock, I say, what a shock!

[kookbreaker]

On the note of publicity.

There is a big difference between types of bad publicity. Someone seeing bad publicity for a movie because it contains extreme violence and graphic sex scenes will likely draw a few people in, sure. Just look at what happened with Kill Bill.

However, if someone sees bad publicity in the sense that the film is factually, historically and ethically incorrect and is very poorly made with a horrible soundtrack and an annoying voice over... people aren't going to want to see it.

Although not a film, a good example of this would be the book 'Million Little Pieces'. Before the contrversy, nobody outside the Oprah bookclub heard of the book. Afterwards, it was all over the media.

Yet sales of the book plummeted.

[Civilized Worm]

P'doh is over on the SLC comments denying that that was his sock. What I'd like to know is how he knew about it if he hasn't been here lately.

[Mobyseven]

What? You mean P'doh lied? What a sock, I say, what a sock!

Fixed that for you! ;)

[slingblade]

You could never say those things in the US. You'd be sued before the ink was dry. Gotta love the Aussie press. :D

Wait. I need to back up for a moment. I don't think anyone commented on this, so I will.

Are the things said in the Aussie press true? Then yes, you most certainly can say those things in the U.S. and not be sued for it.

The chief defense anyone has against a charge of libel is that the comments are true.

But if the comments made in the Aussie press aren't true...what is anyone cheering about?

[PhantomWolf]

I quite liked these bits....

American leftoid Matt Taibbi complained in Rolling Stone that the "truthers", as they're known, give "supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change d . . .wads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes."
YOU know this film is aiming at sub-mammal intellects when even British lefty George Monbiot, who believes almost anything about the menace of global warming, also rejects it.

"There is a virus sweeping the world," Monbiot wrote in February. "It infects opponents of the Bush Government, sucks their brains out through their eyes and turns them into gibbering idiots. Scarcely a day now passes without someone possessed by this sickness, eyes rolling, lips flecked with foam, trying to infect me.

"The disease is called Loose Change."

[Mobyseven]

Wait. I need to back up for a moment. I don't think anyone commented on this, so I will.

Are the things said in the Aussie press true? Then yes, you most certainly can say those things in the U.S. and not be sued for it.

The chief defense anyone has against a charge of libel is that the comments are true.

But if the comments made in the Aussie press aren't true...what is anyone cheering about?

That's a fair point, actually. Libel laws in Australia, from memory because I haven't officially studied this yet, make it easier for the plaintiff in a case to recover than in the US. Of course, if what you say is true, ain't nothing no one no-how gonna stop you.

[The Great Hairy One]

I was quite young at the time, so I don't remember anything of that nature happening - can anyone me whether this is correct? It seems strange, considering they caught him red-handed (and quite literally on fire)...

And it still doesn't seem to have any bearing on the case. Or the topic at hand.

ETA -Well, I don't expect a reply now that he's banned. But can someone tell me what he was talking about with the airbrushing thing?


There were a group of people who claimed that Martin Bryant was innocent, and the whole thing was done by Australian SAS personnel to enable Howard to ban guns. This is one of their arguments, that Bryant's photo (heavily edited) was posted in the national media, ensuring that he would not get a fair trial.

A complete load of smoldering nostril pickings, of course.

That's a fair point, actually. Libel laws in Australia, from memory because I haven't officially studied this yet, make it easier for the plaintiff in a case to recover than in the US. Of course, if what you say is true, ain't nothing no one no-how gonna stop you.


Dylan and the rest of those mentioned would have to travel to Oz, and prove under Aussie law that they were financially hurt here. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so this is only my general knowledge of the issue. Also, the laws are different from state to state, IIRC (although take this with a grain of salt, I am no expert).

Cheers,
TGHO

[FactCheck]

That's exactly the way this nonsense should be treated. Treating these con men like poor lost souls only helps the con.

[Mobyseven]

There were a group of people who claimed that Martin Bryant was innocent, and the whole thing was done by Australian SAS personnel to enable Howard to ban guns. This is one of their arguments, that Bryant's photo (heavily edited) was posted in the national media, ensuring that he would not get a fair trial.

A complete load of smoldering nostril pickings, of course.

Thought as much. Had heard the conspiracies, but hadn't heard that bit of 'evidence' until now.

Dylan and the rest of those mentioned would have to travel to Oz, and prove under Aussie law that they were financially hurt here. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so this is only my general knowledge of the issue. Also, the laws are different from state to state, IIRC (although take this with a grain of salt, I am no expert).


You are very correct - state to state the laws vary (here in Victorian the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) sets out the law).

And it seems as though I may have been wrong about making it harder to recover too, at least in Victoria. But you're correct with what you say about Dylan and suing in a Australian court.