It seems Al Gore’s “so-called” factual documentary needed a little help from the Hollywood fictional movie “The Day After Tomorrow”. Take a look. http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/22/abc-s-20-20-gore-used-fictional-film-clip-inconvenient-truth

At the end of the video from the link above, they ask the question..."Is it wrong for a documentary to use a fabricated Hollywood shot to make a point even if there's science behind it?"

I don't think it's wrong, as long as they got permission to use it and give the proper credits. I've watched many "end of the world" documentaries on channels like PBS, DiscoveryChannel, and National Geographic. I've seen them use clips from movies like Deep Impact and Armageddon to dramatize what could happen if a meteor hit the planet. I didn't see people making a big deal about them. Why now? Or is it only wrong when the subject matter is controversial?

Don't get me wrong...I could care less about Al Gore. I'm just questioning the media's selective criticism on something that makers of documentaries have been doing for years.

I dont recall Inconvenient Truth mentioning that the Iceburg shots were dramatizations from "Day After Tommorow". Including such shots as dramatizations borrowed from fiction obviously would not have the same impact on the viewing audience. The real answer about the push back is the amount of $$$$$ being legislated against the U.S. economy. I don't think Volcano, Twister, or Harmagedon made any such demands of the U.S. economy.

I'll admit that I never saw Al's documentary and probably never will.
However, viewing the shot in question, I would hardly describe it as having any "impact" value. It's just an aerial shot of a glacier. Those do exist and I'm betting they used it because it was cheaper than actually flying up north (or far south) to film one.

It's even worse than that! This is a little known fact because the evil liberals are so good at hiding the facts. But Al Gore and Al Quiada have the same first name. That proves that global climate change is fake and that we had no choice to invade Iraq!

Honestly, who cares? Whatever gets people to rethink their consumer driven lives for a second and buy things packaged in recyclable materials instead of non-biodegradable plastic and Styrofoam, isn't bad. Anything that drives invention to look forward to a time when we can live on this planet without destroying it isn't bad. The human race has been operating like locusts for thousands of years. We move into an area, start using all it's resources and depleting it's reserves, and when an area is tapped out we start importing from another. Eventually the resources will run out. Who cares where he got his footage? It raised awareness, and that's all that really matters.

So this is basically the Noble Lie theory, as pointed out on one of the religious threads? In essence, lies told to produce a noble result are OK? Don't get me wrong, I'm for it, I just want to be sure those who promote it are promoting religion as well.

Originally Posted by cbwm

So this is basically the Noble Lie theory, as pointed out on one of the religious threads?

You actually remembered a concept I pointed out. Did you ever research about Leo Strauss and the people who practiced his philosophy like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The people who have recently practiced their "noble lie".

Lets not forget people like Al Gore and his minions as well

Really. They studied under Strauss and adopted the neocon philosophy? Or are you just doing the usual - trying to let the Republicans off the hook but claiming the Democrats do the same?

You don't have to study under tiger woods to play golf. I'm merely following up on the earlier post by someone who said, who cares whether Al Gore put fictitious studio generated photography of icebergs melting into his "Documentary". so long as it gets people thinking the right way. That is, after all, the subject of the thread. If your claims that Cheney and Bush are professional students of the same philosophy hold true, it only proves the point that no single political party holds a patent on the production of BS. I've always felt Michael Moore was the godfather that particular activity, and hes not even a politician.

Nice man!!!

So either your saying icebergs don't melt or that using a made up picture of them melting means they don't melt.

Of course, you think all science is political opinion.

Originally Posted by joder

So either your saying icebergs don't melt or that using a made up picture of them melting means they don't melt.

Of course, you think all science is political opinion.

Now now, Strawman alert. Regarding the use of dramatic Iceberg melting scenes from an environmental scare movie like Day After Tommorow, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, so long as you label the imagery as a dramatization and give credit to the movie, or remove the title "Documentary" from your film. Any of the above would be honest. Anything else would be a lie(like the movie in its current format), leaving us to debate the nobility of it.

You have to admit it loses some of its potency having to put in captions this clip was taken from the movie "The Day After Tomorrow"

I watched the Day After Tomorrow. Good science fiction movie. Haven't watched Gore's film and don't plan to. I don't get my science from movies.

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

You have to admit it loses some of its potency having to put in captions this clip was taken from the movie "The Day After Tomorrow"

Not that dramatic potency has ever been a factor of scientific merit.

hahaha funny, i find it amusing when guy get caught for the stupidest things

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

It seems Al Gore’s “so-called” factual documentary needed a little help from the Hollywood fictional movie “The Day After Tomorrow”. Take a look.

Speaking of real facts, the rate Greenland's ice sheet is melting has doubled in the last 5 years. Being obsessed with Al Gore doesn't make that any less true or any less worrisome.