Comments on: Curious New 'Religulous' Clip

By: jflaugher

jflaugher — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:02:16 +0000

First of all, religion has had thousands of years to make its case. So I would say the religious point of view is already known. Second, you don't need to present both sides equally if one side is absurd. If there was a group of people living in the world today who believed that the earth was flat, a documentary would not be obligated to present their side as a valid point of view.

By: tbone79

tbone79 — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:10:54 +0000

Hate to burst your bubble but there's been research done to show that religious people actually do have lower IQ's. To ignore science and base your life decisions on a book that was written over 1000 years ago is pretty idiotic. I'm not saying that ALL religious people are idiots but when you figure how many people have died over the history of time in the name of "god" it does seem pretty dumb.

By: GodFreeAndHappy

GodFreeAndHappy — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:56:16 +0000

That's because you see dead people. Shhhh.

Hate? How very religious of you.

By: hauntedtony

hauntedtony — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:43:43 +0000

i hate mr. maher

By: GodFreeAndHappy

GodFreeAndHappy — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:52:16 +0000

I don't think there needs to be a debate. Religion is a waste of time. It should be mocked. It's goofy stuff.

By: bradbrevet

bradbrevet — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:37:41 +0000

I don't think this film will raise any issues that aren't already out there. Personally, I am not beholden to any religion and if I had to classify myself (which I hate doing) I would say I am an agnostic. I don't have any opinion of Bill Maher and I do think this film will definitely point out the hypocrisy of religion, I just thought the clip above seemed a bit more like mocking in its tone rather than actually trying to get to the source of the debate. My point being that constructive criticism and intelligent debate never starts by mocking the subject matter. It may end up there when both sides get frustrated, but not from the start.

By: GodFreeAndHappy

GodFreeAndHappy — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:24:48 +0000

If you're point is to show how hypocritcal religion is, who can you not have a viewpoint? It's funny! Here's a guy saying that in Islam women have equal right to men, and yet they should over up every inch of exposed skin, and then he LIES says men are wearing them in Iraq.

Religion is stupid. Bill is just showing the obvious.

By: flerk

flerk — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:49:01 +0000

davidfrank said: If subjectivity is inherent in a documentary film (which I believe it is) then isn't almost every documentary an agenda film of some sort?

It's a good point. I guess all documentarians, when they decide to make a doc about a subject tend to already have an idea of what is what. But when subjectivity takes over objectivity, a doc can loose it's, for lack of a better word, credibility. Biased opinion from the maker is probably the easiest way to ruin a point. Even when a point is as obvious and as agreeable as Moore's in Fahrenheit 9/11. But I guess you are right as well. I guess it's just personal preference of what a documentary should be like.

By: davidfrank

davidfrank — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:24:11 +0000

flerk said: For me a documentary looses a lot of credibility when it's an agenda film.

If subjectivity is inherent in a documentary film (which I believe it is) then isn't almost every documentary an agenda film of some sort?

As for your other points, I don't totally disagree…well except that I personally like Fahrenheit 9/11, but that's not a big deal.

By: flerk

flerk — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:50:51 +0000

davidfrank said: I have to sort of disagree with you on this point. This is a statement Michael Moore gets nailed with a lot. People have a tendency to think a documentary is a piece of straight news journalism that they should expect to find on Nightline. Not so. I think it's best to think of documentaries more akin to an Op-Ed piece, something presenting an argument. I'm not saying docs shouldn't show both sides–to me that usually strengthens an argument–but nonetheless the idea that a documentary Must be fair or balanced or objective has always been ludicrous to me.

For me a documentary looses a lot of credibility when it's an agenda film. I like Michael Mooere. I always enjoy his work and he is an important director. But I didn't like Fahrenheit 9/11 and not because I'm pro Bush. Far from it. I hate the guy and I hate his politics. I agree with Moore and all his points, but by being one-sided the documentary lost its credibility.

Bill Maher is doing the same thing, and he is also using the Borat tactic, only difference is that Maher is not funny. He comes out of it as an arrogant arse. He should decide if he want to make a doc or a film like Borat. In this case, where he only wants to make fun and try to embarass people the Borat way would be more succesfull.

By: ravidlaz

ravidlaz — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:10:38 +0000

I think that Bill Maher is such a prick! I would love to slap that permanent smirk off his face. He does make me laugh sometimes though. For some reason, this clip reminds me of Borat. I don't think that this is going to be funny, and I don't think that many people are going to find it funny, except maybe people that only believe in science. I have a couple of atheist friends that would laugh at this asshole. I guess that's his audience. I know I'm not going to watch it.

By: bradbrevet

bradbrevet — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:43:52 +0000

I wouldn't say it is so much a statement about Michael Moore as much as it is a fact. He throws out a lot of accusations and never presents the other side. I agree, a documentary can be whatever you want it to be, but if you really want to sway the people that it is best to sway then you should do your best to present a more solid case, which was the major flaw with SICKO.

By: davidfrank

davidfrank — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:15:25 +0000

flerk said: but when a documentary only shows one side of the case it's not a documentary any more.

I have to sort of disagree with you on this point. This is a statement Michael Moore gets nailed with a lot. People have a tendency to think a documentary is a piece of straight news journalism that they should expect to find on Nightline. Not so. I think it's best to think of documentaries more akin to an Op-Ed piece, something presenting an argument. I'm not saying docs shouldn't show both sides–to me that usually strengthens an argument–but nonetheless the idea that a documentary Must be fair or balanced or objective has always been ludicrous to me.

By: flerk

flerk — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:46:10 +0000

I find this whole project as mocking. This is Bill Maher who is trying to show that religion is stupid. It's of course his right to believe that but when a documentary only shows one side of the case it's not a documentary any more. I have not seen the documentary yet so maybe Maher has shown both sides of the case, which I highly doubt, but the trailers and clips I have seen so far is nothing more then mocking and treats religious people as morons. Maybe the finished product is different but I have my doubts.