Kenneth R.
Cináed
Hah, another set of retards with too much time on their hands, with lots of ignorant masses to convince.
Zeitgeist - The Movie!!!
- Thread starter proulxski
- Start date
Uhmmm....Okay!
I really enjoyed it, wheter you chose to gain something from this documentary, or ignore it is one thing, but its undeniable that it was well done!
I really enjoyed it, wheter you chose to gain something from this documentary, or ignore it is one thing, but its undeniable that it was well done!
Yngvai X
Dark Emperor
And bubblegum pop music is among the most well produced music out there, doesn't mean the content isn't shit.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Precisely. Nobody has better lawyers than the church of scientology. Doesn't mean they aren't psychopathic ballsacks.
This documentary, along with just about every other documentary of this type, are not meant to prove every little tidbit of information they present.
I stated earlier on how society keeps the majority of people too busy and occupied with all of the grudges of life. Most people don't have time to study and research things on their own, disallowing them to be able to think for themselves in most cases. This, for example, is the main reason politics are so dirty and societies basically allow government to pick which few candidates we have to choose from as president. These documentaries are meant to get to straight to the point of what they are trying to say without going into specific details with how they came up with every little fact and figure of their theory. If they did it that way it would turn a 2 hour movie into a 20 hour one! What they are doing is showing people something important that they should care about by using some information to correlate why their point is logical. Once people are interested, they hope people might care enough to spend some of their little free time researching the facts and ideas on their own and become more educated. Hell, it even states at the beginning of this documentary that once one is educated enough on the subject matter at hand, all the things that they talk about in the movie will already be obvious to you without even watching it. I can almost personally vouch this true. If it is all about what I think it is about then I know I have already understood everything about it a long time ago. But, I haven't watched it all and cannot say that for certain yet.
A movie is meant to be produced in such a way that it does not stray too far away from the subject at hand. They can't waste their time going into every detail of the study of religion, sociology, science, psychology, and history all to make sure you are 100% sure what they are saying is true. It is basically impossible in this case since it is not merely facts and statistics that they use to come to their theory. A lot of what their theory comes off of is their understanding and knowledge of different feilds of study, such as those I just previously mentioned. They hope that with this composite presentation of their ideas that people will be encouraged to learn these things for themselves. They definately don't expect anyone to blindly believe them because that is the exact reason why things, such as the problems they are adressing, even exist in the first place; people blindly trusting and believing what they are told without educating themselves to form their own opinions.
I stated earlier on how society keeps the majority of people too busy and occupied with all of the grudges of life. Most people don't have time to study and research things on their own, disallowing them to be able to think for themselves in most cases. This, for example, is the main reason politics are so dirty and societies basically allow government to pick which few candidates we have to choose from as president. These documentaries are meant to get to straight to the point of what they are trying to say without going into specific details with how they came up with every little fact and figure of their theory. If they did it that way it would turn a 2 hour movie into a 20 hour one! What they are doing is showing people something important that they should care about by using some information to correlate why their point is logical. Once people are interested, they hope people might care enough to spend some of their little free time researching the facts and ideas on their own and become more educated. Hell, it even states at the beginning of this documentary that once one is educated enough on the subject matter at hand, all the things that they talk about in the movie will already be obvious to you without even watching it. I can almost personally vouch this true. If it is all about what I think it is about then I know I have already understood everything about it a long time ago. But, I haven't watched it all and cannot say that for certain yet.
A movie is meant to be produced in such a way that it does not stray too far away from the subject at hand. They can't waste their time going into every detail of the study of religion, sociology, science, psychology, and history all to make sure you are 100% sure what they are saying is true. It is basically impossible in this case since it is not merely facts and statistics that they use to come to their theory. A lot of what their theory comes off of is their understanding and knowledge of different feilds of study, such as those I just previously mentioned. They hope that with this composite presentation of their ideas that people will be encouraged to learn these things for themselves. They definately don't expect anyone to blindly believe them because that is the exact reason why things, such as the problems they are adressing, even exist in the first place; people blindly trusting and believing what they are told without educating themselves to form their own opinions.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
The recap for quickminded folks: SXJ is basically saying-
1. Present the conclusion. Ignore the evidence.
2. Be ambiguous, vague, and beat around the bush.
3. Restate the conclusion. Make sure to do this lots of times.
4. Yeah, I SXJ, saw this film, loved it, and am now defending it with my feeble mind, after it enslaved me.
5. Remember kids, when making a documentary, it's important not to delve too deeply or fully explore any topic, question or idea. See steps 1 and 3. Look at the History Channel or B-side Nicholas Cage movies for great examples.
1. Present the conclusion. Ignore the evidence.
2. Be ambiguous, vague, and beat around the bush.
3. Restate the conclusion. Make sure to do this lots of times.
4. Yeah, I SXJ, saw this film, loved it, and am now defending it with my feeble mind, after it enslaved me.
5. Remember kids, when making a documentary, it's important not to delve too deeply or fully explore any topic, question or idea. See steps 1 and 3. Look at the History Channel or B-side Nicholas Cage movies for great examples.
They didn't ignore any evidence, they brought forward alot of evidence that I was not aware of. And just because he found it interesting, doesn't mean he is feeble minded. If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say it dude!
bored 20-somethings
+film editing software
+too much time on the bad parts of the internet
+too much free time
=Zeitgeist movie
@Ken: Do you mean to tell me that there were elements of Ghostrider not supported by evidence?
+film editing software
+too much time on the bad parts of the internet
+too much free time
=Zeitgeist movie
@Ken: Do you mean to tell me that there were elements of Ghostrider not supported by evidence?
Yngvai X
Dark Emperor
Evidence usually means having some source to back it up, to which this film lacks a lot. Research Horus and you'll find a lot of the claims made about him to connect him to Jesus are not even there, or extremely loose at best. Just because its dressed up in a slick documentary doesn't make it credible.
edit: also about the 9/11 conspiracy part, using eyewitness accounts of a catastrophe are hardly something to go on. Do you think an average person knows exactly what a bomb blast sounds like enough to credibly say they heard an explosion? Never mind that they heard it while in an extremely chaotic, disorientating situation.
besides....don't you think Chtulu would have silenced these insolent fools long before they could uncover His plot?
I don't deny that Ygnvai.... I'm just saying its interesting, I never said "OMG THIS FILM IS TOTALLY TRUE, OMGZ RELIGION IS A JOKE. OMGZ BOMBS WHERE PLANTED IN THE TRADE CENTERS OMGZ" I'm just simply saying it was well done, and opens your eyes to something differ, wheter true or not no one can say. I never said I agreed with everything they stated!
Kenneth R.
Cináed
You saying it was "well done" and "opens your eyes" does imply that you feel there was something to learn from it. I staunchly disagree, unless you learned yet another hilarious way to snowball people with lies.
You see, the problem with this kind of "documentary" as I have begun to express before, is that 1. Because the topic is too broad to cover in the allotted time segment (call this first point Poor conception 2. The ambitious little critters try to cram as much of the broad umbrella topic in as they can which leads to (two, Cursory exploration) which in turn presents 3., to anyone more critical than a lemming or a mime-zombie, (three: Myriad unsupported claims) And to finish it all off, unsupported claims are irrational to put stock in, resulting in 4. Compulsory disbelief, or to be more accurate, opinion unaffected. Which brings me back to 1. Poor conception. If you're making a documentary, and you can't show or establish anything at all because you chose a scope too broad to fit in the time allowed, and then attempt to merely tour the circus of conclusions without any supporting evidence, you aren't documenting anything and you aren't convincing anybody of anything besides hear-say, unless, as mentioned, your audience will believe any word you say. In which case, they're more demented than you the producer, and deserve whatever consequence arises from buying your bullshit.
You see, the problem with this kind of "documentary" as I have begun to express before, is that 1. Because the topic is too broad to cover in the allotted time segment (call this first point Poor conception 2. The ambitious little critters try to cram as much of the broad umbrella topic in as they can which leads to (two, Cursory exploration) which in turn presents 3., to anyone more critical than a lemming or a mime-zombie, (three: Myriad unsupported claims) And to finish it all off, unsupported claims are irrational to put stock in, resulting in 4. Compulsory disbelief, or to be more accurate, opinion unaffected. Which brings me back to 1. Poor conception. If you're making a documentary, and you can't show or establish anything at all because you chose a scope too broad to fit in the time allowed, and then attempt to merely tour the circus of conclusions without any supporting evidence, you aren't documenting anything and you aren't convincing anybody of anything besides hear-say, unless, as mentioned, your audience will believe any word you say. In which case, they're more demented than you the producer, and deserve whatever consequence arises from buying your bullshit.
First of all, I already stated that I have not watched any of it except the first part. I don't know what kinds of claims they are trying to make, all I know is from the opening it seemed to me that it was about how religion was established and is used all for the benefit of a few who desire to control the world/population. Second, I stated that these documentaries are more meant to encourage people not to believe everything they are fed (even these docs themselves) by showing them other sides of things. Lastly, like I said already, they don't show every little piece of evidence that brought about their ideas because 20 hour movies can't really be called movies. Moreso they would be called taking some college classes...
ToastedOveries
Stranger in the night
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Ok, so basically my 5 point summary above was correct. Cool. And you haven't even watched it but you're already assuming.
ToastedOveries
Stranger in the night
its an interesting piece, very thought provoking, i liked it, watched it from start to stop easily.
Do i believe what it says? i do, with a pinch of salt, ill allways believe theres more sides to the story than we're told, its human nature, and we experience that everyday. But i do think some of the argues it presents, are slightly implausible.
More important i think, is the message of individuality and freedom that it promotes, which is something that we need to all think about i think, and that all that we are is created by the society that we live in.
Do i believe what it says? i do, with a pinch of salt, ill allways believe theres more sides to the story than we're told, its human nature, and we experience that everyday. But i do think some of the argues it presents, are slightly implausible.
More important i think, is the message of individuality and freedom that it promotes, which is something that we need to all think about i think, and that all that we are is created by the society that we live in.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
You mean it promotes an overall message that encourages people to not let the norms of society tell them what to think or believe?
See Ken? This response here is the perfect example of the point I was making. Maybe they don't prove everything they talk about, but it encourages people to think, and that is something that we really need to do in our society today. Whether there is anything totally untrue in it is not known to me as I have not wathced it. I think I am just going to finally watch it all now that I have some time and see for myself.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Awww. Pat yourself on the back and give yourself a candy. Even though you didn't "wathced" it. Nice that you've dropped your more... tenuous claims and stuck with "it makes people think". Yes, yes it probably does. You should stick with that and just dump the argument about length and detail, since it holds about as much water as a sieve.
Similar threads
