geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
"what the bleep do we know" would fall into the same faux documentry type but that was probably made reasonably well (I haven't seen it).
What to do is Loose Change is released to theatres
- Thread starter Popeholden
- Start date
"what the bleep do we know" would fall into the same faux documentry type but that was probably made reasonably well (I haven't seen it).
someone correct me if I'm wrong, but i was informed in another forum that the history channel would air LC due to public demand. Does anyone know if this is true? If so we should all e-mail them and ask for it not to be aired seeing as virtually every scene in the movie has been debunked and airing it would only further their propoganda machine (people on the internet).
milesalpha
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Messages
- 375
Lots of problems still there though. Unlike LC it has a cast and crew. Very limited release, I don't think it ever got into 20 theaters. 10 million dollar gross (and it took 10 months to make that), good for a documentary but was not profitable until video sales, which were good...for a documentary. Someone who coughed up, say, 10 million quid, would have lost his shirt.
However, this is the classic "art house film" (have to say that with a bit of a capitalist sneer). There are hundreds released into a few theaters in major metropolitan centers every year so the odds of hitting big are very long. You need only look to its sequel which didn't even make it to 200,000 at the box office.
(just as an fyi, general agreement on Bleep was that it wasn't that well made, but was quirky and original enough to find an audience).
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
As far as I know, it was to air on the History Channel in Australia around the 5th anniversary last month but I didn't hear anything about it after that. There are some Aussies on this board, who will probably have further info on that.
I've never heard about it being scheduled to air in the U.S. or Canada, though, and its internet popularity seems to have waned considerably since the big build up to the 5th anniversary. As I - and others - have said on these forums, I think the video has run its course. All of the versions so far have been so full of errors, mistakes, deliberate deceits, distortions, and just plain unadulterated crap, that have been thoroughly debunked.
In the real world, you only get so many "do overs" before people stop paying attention, so I doubt that it will gain any further traction, or regain the traction that it had in the early days before it started being debunked.
Also, rival videos have been created. The conspiracy dollar is in high demand. 9/11 Mysteries seems to be the chief film that is vying for most of the 9/11 CT audience. Loose Change may go the way of Eric Huff&PuffShmit's Painful to Watch video (Painful Questions or something like that). It was originally hailed as THE 9/11 film. Now, Eric has resorted to almost giving it away in order to keep his name in the spotlight.
Dylan's only chance to maintain his high profile is to branch out and produce videos on other CTs. Alex Jones covers all NWO CTs. Even if he does poorly on a particular theory, he can always talk about another one.
Dylan's only chance to maintain his high profile is to branch out and produce videos on other CTs. Alex Jones covers all NWO CTs. Even if he does poorly on a particular theory, he can always talk about another one.
"The English laws on libel have traditionally favored the plaintiffs. A recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights (in the so-called "McLibel case") held that, on the (exceptional) facts of that case, the burden on the defendants in the English courts was too high. However, it is unlikely that the case will provoke any considerable change in substantive English law, despite strong academic criticism of the current position. [1]
In 1990, McDonald's Restaurants sued Morris & Steel (called the McLibel case) for libel. The original case lasted seven years, making it the longest-running court action in English history. Beginning in 1986, London Greenpeace, a small environmental campaigning group, distributed a pamphlet entitled What’s wrong with McDonald’s: Everything they don’t want you to know. The pamphlet claimed that the McDonald's corporation sells unhealthy food, exploits its work force, practices unethical marketing of its products towards children, is cruel to animals, needlessly uses up resources and creates pollution with its packaging and is responsible for destroying the South American rain forests. Although McDonald's won two hearings, the widespread public opinion against them turned the case into a matter of embarrassment for the company. McDonald's announced that it has no plans to collect the £40,000 it was awarded by the courts, and offered to pay the defendants to drop the case. Since then, certain aspects of the trial have been declared by the European Court of Human Rights to be in violation of the Convention on Human Rights."
"Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries.
This is because the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives strong protection to freedom of expression, which arose from the tradition of dissent in the American Revolution. For most of the history of the United States, constitutional protections of freedom of speech were not considered applicable to libel law. This changed with the landmark 1960s case of New York Times v. Sullivan, in which the Supreme Court of the United States modified the law of libel to be in accord with constitutional requirements. The court held that where a public figure was defamed, the plaintiff had to prove not just that an untruthful statement was made, but also that it was made with actual malice - that is, that it was made knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth. This decision and the ones that followed its lead created a major revolution in the doctrine of libel law.
One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel#Modern_law
Just thought it was an interesting difference, and something the LC boys might want to take into account.
In 1990, McDonald's Restaurants sued Morris & Steel (called the McLibel case) for libel. The original case lasted seven years, making it the longest-running court action in English history. Beginning in 1986, London Greenpeace, a small environmental campaigning group, distributed a pamphlet entitled What’s wrong with McDonald’s: Everything they don’t want you to know. The pamphlet claimed that the McDonald's corporation sells unhealthy food, exploits its work force, practices unethical marketing of its products towards children, is cruel to animals, needlessly uses up resources and creates pollution with its packaging and is responsible for destroying the South American rain forests. Although McDonald's won two hearings, the widespread public opinion against them turned the case into a matter of embarrassment for the company. McDonald's announced that it has no plans to collect the £40,000 it was awarded by the courts, and offered to pay the defendants to drop the case. Since then, certain aspects of the trial have been declared by the European Court of Human Rights to be in violation of the Convention on Human Rights."
"Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries.
This is because the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives strong protection to freedom of expression, which arose from the tradition of dissent in the American Revolution. For most of the history of the United States, constitutional protections of freedom of speech were not considered applicable to libel law. This changed with the landmark 1960s case of New York Times v. Sullivan, in which the Supreme Court of the United States modified the law of libel to be in accord with constitutional requirements. The court held that where a public figure was defamed, the plaintiff had to prove not just that an untruthful statement was made, but also that it was made with actual malice - that is, that it was made knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth. This decision and the ones that followed its lead created a major revolution in the doctrine of libel law.
One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel#Modern_law
Just thought it was an interesting difference, and something the LC boys might want to take into account.
I would also add that to sue a bunch of kids for their badly made internet vid would give un-due prominence to the claims therein and also make martyrs out of the loosechangers themselves.
Whereas releasing the film internationally via a distribution company would certainly make a much larger and more appealing target for legal action.
It would also open the film up to detailed critiques by other news media who would soon find Mr Gravy et al and be wanting to use your brilliant research in their own documentaries about the documentaries...so to speak.
I can't seethe BBC being all too pleased about being listed in the end credits of LC either....especially when the other suppliers of 'research' are 'you know who' and 'you know what'
Whereas releasing the film internationally via a distribution company would certainly make a much larger and more appealing target for legal action.
It would also open the film up to detailed critiques by other news media who would soon find Mr Gravy et al and be wanting to use your brilliant research in their own documentaries about the documentaries...so to speak.
I can't seethe BBC being all too pleased about being listed in the end credits of LC either....especially when the other suppliers of 'research' are 'you know who' and 'you know what'
monoman
Master baiter - I fish!
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 967
Why the dvd release then? Just stick it on a floppy disk. The rest of the space could be filled in with some old dos games.
Last edited:
911insideJob
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2006
- Messages
- 10
Edited by Darat:
Content in breach of Membership Agreement removed.
Last edited by a moderator:
monoman
Master baiter - I fish!
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 967
Fixed: I agree, I checked the profile. Said poster is definately not 32
911insideJob
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2006
- Messages
- 10
Edited by Darat:
Edited by Darat: Content in breach of Membership Agreement removed.
Last edited by a moderator:
911insideJob
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2006
- Messages
- 10
Edited by Darat:
Edited by Darat: Content in breach of Membership Agreement removed.
Last edited by a moderator:
ComsatAngel2017
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 897
Your last post gives one a Raging Clue.
Actually, its' grammy may be a perfectly nice person with intelligence and wit galore. Genes are funny that way.
pdoherty76
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 571
aw what did 911insidejob say. im missed it
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
Repeating it would be just as much a breach of the membership agreement as posting it in the first place. Which is a shame as I missed it too, and I'm a nosey bastard.
