Planet of the Humans 4

Some of you may have seen it. It is on YouTube now. Produced and directed by Jeff Gibbs, Executive Producer the activist and provocateur Michael Moore.

Goes in a different direction from other "documentaries" by Moore. Certainly not all factual, but is worth watching, IMHO.

 

[moltenmetal]

Full of tired old myths and nirvana fallacy-sodden garbage. A terrible missed opportunity to ask some real, meaningful, probing questions about how we're going to make the transition away from fossil fuels.

By all means watch it, but then look into the details more and see how you've been sold an ideologically slanted message. It will be a very worthwhile exercise in media literacy.

The myths, dated stuff and half-truths of a technical nature put forward in the movie are fairly well taken apart in this piece, if you ignore the ad hominem approach toward the filmmaker Gibbs himself which is unnecessary.

https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/

 

[JoshPlumSE]

An ideologically slanted message from Michael Moore?! Gasp! Never.... LOL

Love him or hate him, his documentaries are more entertaining than most other documentaries. However, he does have a reputation for not abiding by the typical rules documentaries are supposed to abide by (per the Academy of Motion Pictures).

 

[hokie66]

It was good entertainment value. The best parts are the portrayals of Al Gore and Bill McKibben. I don't think that pair will be giving the film good reviews.

 

[moltenmetal]

Moore's not the film maker- Jeff Gibbs is. Moore just put his marketing weight behind it. And yes, Moore doesn't believe in balance in journalism- he thinks he knows right from wrong and then thinks "journalism" is just reporting on the basis of that conclusion. He therefore makes propaganda pieces, not journalism. Popular with people who support his ideological position, unpopular with those who don't, but not a reliable source of information either way.

 

[IRstuff]

Moore, however, is a "documentary filmmaker," and not a journalist, at least, not now. In his bio, his journalism career ended with his firing from Mother Jones in 1986.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[hokie66]

Yes, Gibbs is the film maker, as I stated above. And you are right, Moore is a propagandist. But in the past, his propaganda has been complimentary of some of the characters who he has rubbished this time. Gave me a chuckle.

 

However, he Drumpf does have a reputation for not abiding by the typical rules documentaries POTUS are supposed to abide by (per the Academy of Motion Pictures constitution).

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

If you are going to demand MM abides by the 'norms' of journalism, then you should demand that the Koch Bros, Monsanto and ExxonMobil also abide by some norms. The former can only talk, the latter can and have bought your government.

Moore has gone rogue with this one though; I think he's started to believe his own press.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

FYI I wasn't calling on Michael Moore to obey the norms of journalism. But, of documentary film makers. Back when Roger and Me came out, it was criticized by a number of documentary film makers because it was edited in a way that incorrectly portrayed the time line.

Personally, I think it was done to make the movie more entertaining as opposed to truly trying to falsify the narrative. It's like when Star Wars or other major movies decide to edit it so that one scene is earlier in the movie so that the story is easier for the audience to follow. Or, to intercut two scenes to build dramatic tension. Apparently those sorts of things are frowned upon in documentary film making.... Or, at least they were in 1990.

I don't believe Roger & Me is the only time Michael Moore has been accused of this sort of thing either. It's just the one that I remember best because it's the movie that I liked the most.

 

As long as you understand Michael Moore is a provocateur. He’s done mostly good work up till now.

Folks get more upset about moviemakers altering the Star Wars timeline than they do about google and FB sucking out our brains. We've departed the Realosphere and entered the Cranium-Up-Colon Epoch.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[hokie66]

I do understand that Michael Moore is a provocateur, but I think this is the only good work he has done. In that regard, refer to your motto.

 

JoshPlumSE,
I meant 'you' in a general way, not to you in particular.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Ironic Metallurgist -

Yes, I understood what you meant. And, I very much agree with you about Michael Moore. He's a provocateur.

While Moore's way to the left of where I am politically, I enjoy listening to his perspective. And, he's genuinely entertaining. I don't know anything about Jeff Gibbs though.

I have to admit that I find all the quibbling about "accuracy" in this particular documentary kind of amusing. Makes me want to watch it more.

 

[moltenmetal]

Indeed, as I said- by all means watch it, absorb what Gibbs is trying to say and the stuff he presents as fact, and then get the real information. It's a valuable lesson in media literacy.

Moore has made a living ringing the confirmation bias of people with a particular ideological viewpoint. It's good business- he has a loyal following. And it's not that what he's saying doesn't have a point- there's always something valid in there. He's discovered of course that you get a better "ring" if you leave out the inconvenient stuff that makes people realize that there's another perspective worthy of considering, and that the truth likely lies to the left or right of his ideological position to some degree.

The same is true with Gibbs' criticism of renewable energy. He rightly points out that renewable energy is not without its impacts- environmental, societal, economic, political etc., that they have been politicized, hyped and marketed into something they are not and can never be, and have been used for private gain (nothing wrong with that last bit in my books at all- nor in Moore's- he's quite a rich man). They're real technologies, and hence cannot be compared against impossible perfection, but rather must be contrasted against what they replace. Gibbs utterly FAILS to do that. He compares them against his own failed idealism and finds them wanting. No surprise- he was living in a fantasy of his own construction.

 

[Craig_H]

Well said, moltenmetal.

The point that I found failing was that many of these renewable energy sources are geographically nuanced. Biomass may not make sense in some areas, and may be a major solution in others. There's an excess of wood waste nearby to me, and that's actually why sawmills have shut down there. The mills can't get rid of their waste as it's too far from those who process it. That obviously makes it a good opportunity to use that waste in the generation of electricity. Contrast that with a geographical area that does not have an excess of waste biomass, and where it would therefore be necessary to cut timber for the purposes of generation. The latter is what was portrayed in the film, and the former may now be thrown out with the proverbial bathwater.

 

If I told you how numerous and extreme the solutions necessary to our and the planet's survival are, they would have me sectioned.

(That comment got me censored on The Guardian.)

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[rb1957]

the planet's survival is assured and doesn't rely (luckily for it) on any biological agent; see George Carlin's "rants" on YT.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?