Documentaries - Page 2

Chocoholic · 10-27-2009, 2:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pachycephelosaurus

I actually just saw Monster Camp the other day without even having seen this thread. It was pretty interesting to see and hear these people, because without this movie I'd never even have known they existed.

A similar film I've seen is Darkon. It's about LARPers as well, and it's really well done. It examines the reasons that these people want to escape from reality the way that they do, and some of the characters are pretty fascinating. Plus it's funny to watch people running around yelling "SUMMON FIRE SPELL" and hitting eachother with foam sticks.

Best thing about Monster Camp was the Dream Moth. "HYPNOTIC GLARE!"

I'm going to check out Darkon. Monster Camp never really went in depth with why everyone took things so seriously. The deepest answer you got out of anyone was "I get along with these people."

Savaril · 10-29-2009, 2:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derelict

He's agnostic, not atheist, and says the only reason he dislikes it is because religion slams their beliefs down as fact and anyone who thinks otherwise is straight wrong.

I'd just like to pop in and correct this, since i'm a fag about this stuff and whatnot.

a=no, without, lacking
theos=deity, god, goddess
-ism/-ist= belief/believer
-ic=of, relating to, characterized by
gnosis=knowledge

Agnosticism refers to knowledge, while Atheism refers to belief.

(bill maher is both an agnostic and an atheist)

On a more related note, Walking with Monsters or anything else from that series of documentaries.

Hats of! · 10-29-2009, 3:16 PM

Agnosticism is basically the idea that you can't know anything for certain. We all count likelihoods. I'm an atheist, as in I don't believe that there is a god. I'm an anti-theist as in I don't want there to be a god. And I'm agnostic as I don't think we can know any thing, really, just assume that stuff is real or not.

And on documentaries. I personally love The Barbarian series Terry Jones (of Monty Python) did. I guess that's my favourite one. I've always hated how everyone so buy into the whole Rome was the centre of intellectual sophistication back in the day.

Derelict · 10-29-2009, 4:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savaril

I'd just like to pop in and correct this, since i'm a fag about this stuff and whatnot.

a=no, without, lacking
theos=deity, god, goddess
-ism/-ist= belief/believer
-ic=of, relating to, characterized by
gnosis=knowledge

Agnosticism refers to knowledge, while Atheism refers to belief.

(bill maher is both an agnostic and an atheist)

On a more related note, Walking with Monsters or anything else from that series of documentaries.

Right on, did not know that. I suppose he is technically both, but what I meant was pretty clear. He hates it for their certainty, when they have no reason to be certain. It supports ignorance, basically.

Antisaint · 10-29-2009, 7:14 PM

Or it provides a certainty that people need to be comfortable with their lives.

The problem I have with all documentaries is that they have a tendency to present information as fact, without showing the other side or revealing that their percentages are part of a larger whole. It's showing that facts can still lie if you manipulate them enough, and that people and statistics can't be trusted.

Arthenon · 10-31-2009, 1:44 AM

The problem I've always had with documentaries is that the asshole who's filming the thing puts his own spin on everything and gives you only one real side of a story.

Don't know if it's exactly a documentary, but the PBS Frontline on Afghanistan is interesting, probably more to me then others since I'm going there, but it was nice to see where I'm going. There's a shitload of pot in the Helmand province.

Derelict · 10-31-2009, 2:45 AM

Exactly why National Geographic is awesome. There aren't any biases or self-righteous opinions when you see a couple 200lb hippopotami getting it on.

pohhui · 10-31-2009, 8:05 AM

I really enjoyed The Union - The Business Behind Getting High (2007) -IMDB. It's about marijuana : why it is illegal, why it should be legal and how much better the world would be if it were. I suggest watching this if you do not know anything about marijuana or you are against it and you even don't know why.

I have actually surfed the forum for a couple of years now, but i signed on just to say this.

Shocklocks · 10-31-2009, 9:40 AM

Supersize me doesn't deserve to be classified as a documentary. It's a complete and utter load of horse shit.

Tweek · 10-31-2009, 10:13 AM

why is that?

Shocklocks · 10-31-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tweek

why is that?

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/u...size-me-movie/

http://stanford.wellsphere.com/exerc...ng-soon/238955

Those only highlight a few of the retarded ideas. The one thing that pissed me off the most watching it was when he was harping on about "cheap fat laden foods" and then the two examples he uses are candy and soda. How much fucking research does it take to look on the back of a coke bottle and realize it doesn't have a single gram of fat in it.

SODA · 10-31-2009, 10:32 AM

Yeah because sugar totes doesn't become fat in your body, and eating mcdonalds for a year is a totally reasonable lifestyle choice.

Tweek · 10-31-2009, 10:39 AM

Snore. I can't believe I read all that, especially since it didn't tell me anything.

Shocklocks · 10-31-2009, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SODA

Yeah because sugar totes doesn't become fat in your body, and eating mcdonalds for a year is a totally reasonable lifestyle choice.

Except that totes doesn't have ANYTHING to do with any part of my post. How about you read the links instead of making completely irrelevant points.

Edit: I don't understand what you mean Tweek. What else do you need to know?

BmphP · 10-31-2009, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shocklocks

Except that totes doesn't have ANYTHING to do with any part of my post. How about you read the links instead of making completely irrelevant points.

Laugh out loud.

Shocklocks · 10-31-2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmphP

Laugh out loud.

What the fuck? I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. He states that soda is a food laden in fat. This isn't true. The fact that the sugar in it can be converted to body fat doesn't have anything to do with what i was talking about. It's completely irrelevant information.

Supersize Me the movie states the main reason for the huge weight increase/ liver damage etc is because the guy was on a diet high in SATURATED FATS. This is said over and over again as the major cause to all his problems. There are several interviews where they talk about healthy foods/alternatives. While it is true they advocate lower sugar the fundamental point about these diets is the fact that they are low fat.

The truth is quite simply that saturated fats don't do this. There is no correlation between dietary fat and body fat. Nor is there any evidence that dietary cholesterol leads to increased cholesterol in the body. Both points are said in those links. If that isn't enough for you do your own research.

On top of this he uses the fact that it took nearly a year of being on a low fat diet to get back to his original weight as further evidence of how bad the high fat diet was. In reality he could of done it alot quicker if he'd had a sane amount of fat in his diet.

Tweek · 10-31-2009, 11:58 AM

Oh. Well you could just chill out and remember that it is entertainment, not education, and that it is just some hippy on a crusade against an unhealthy food giant. Is that so bad?

Shocklocks · 10-31-2009, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tweek

Oh. Well you could just chill out and remember that it is entertainment, not education, and that it is just some hippy on a crusade against an unhealthy food giant. Is that so bad?

My initial point was merely that it didn't deserve to be called a documentary as that implies that is educational as opposed to just entertainment. It bugs me that so many people take him seriously even though he's just repeating old, outdated and thoroughly debunked theories. He even highlights the fact that the majority of people are fairly ignorant when it comes to nutrition/ scolds diet and supplament companies for spreading misleading information when all along the main point he's trying to get across to his audience is false.

USER WAS PUT IN TIMEOUT FOR THIS POST.
Reason: Weigh yourself. Eat nothing but mcdonalds for a month. Weigh yourself again. Then realize how retarded your argument is.

Derelict · 10-31-2009, 3:07 PM

I think you missed the point of the film, dude. If you eat McDonalds every day, it will eventually kill you. You can't argue against that.

LandMarkMoon · 10-31-2009, 9:48 PM

Also, if you eat only Mcdonalds everyday of your movie, you make a lot of money.

Allen · 11-01-2009, 1:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shocklocks

There is no correlation between dietary fat and body fat. Nor is there any evidence that dietary cholesterol leads to increased cholesterol in the body.

Okay bud. Whatever you say. because everyone knows that it's possible for these substances to just magically appear in your body

Shocklocks · 11-02-2009, 1:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allen

Okay bud. Whatever you say. because everyone knows that it's possible for these substances to just magically appear in your body

Right. Because saying that two things are unrelated means the only possible alternative is that dietary fat and high levels of LDL cholesterol just magically appear. Obviously they couldn't be caused by something else.

Dietary fat is the result of eating at a caloric excess and having an unhealthy level/balance of certain hormones in the body(mainly insulin.) It has absolutely nothing to do with saturated fat. Saying eating fats causes fatness is the exact same as saying eating food causes fatness.

The idea that foods high in cholesterol are what contribute to unhealthy cholesterol levels is extremely outdated. There have been many case studies on populations with diets high in saturated fats and they've proven to have a a lot lower risk of the diseases apparently associated with high cholesterol opposed to nations with diets high in processed carbohydrates and trans fats. I suggest you watch the two videos here: http://stanford.wellsphere.com/exerc...ng-soon/238955

Derelict · 11-02-2009, 2:43 AM

Are you literally retarded? Eating McDonalds for 30 days will get you sick. The point of the film was fast-food is not healthy food and should not be treated as a reasonable diet. You are a fucking moron if you think it was a stupid documentary because of some random idiot point of view.

Shocklocks · 11-02-2009, 3:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derelict

Are you literally retarded? Eating McDonalds for 30 days will get you sick. The point of the film was fast-food is not healthy food and should not be treated as a reasonable diet. You are a fucking moron if you think it was a stupid documentary because of some random idiot point of view.

I'm sorry but anyone who needs a fucking film to tell that eating fast food for a month is unhealthy is the one who is literally retarded. Not me. I don't understand why you people are getting so god damn hung up on that one point when it doesn't have dick to do with what I'm talking about. The flaws in the film are these:

1) He doesn't make any attempt to make healthy choices. If he wanted to access whether or not Mc Donalds could be treated as a reasonable diet he could of eaten the healthy options. There are people who have eaten nothing but food offered directly over the counter by Mc Donalds for 30days and not gained weight/had any negative health effects. By his logic I could go into a supermarket and get nothing but piss, smokes and processed carb meals and then claim that they made me sick.

2) He cuts back on his exercise to the level of an average overweight American. One of the key reasons for obesity is the fact that people don't exercise enough. Obviously if someone goes from maintaining a fairly active lifestyle to becoming completely sedentary they will put on weight. If he wanted to prove it was solely the food that was causing the problem he should of at the very least maintained the 30minutes a day of exercise recommended by the government.

3) The conclusions they reached after doing the experiment were completely wrong. In the film they blamed the high saturated fats in his diet for causing all of the health problems. Those who recreated the experiment did so with diets higher in saturated fats and didn't have any negative effects. On top of that the foods they ate over the counter at Mc Donalds are actually healthier then the majority of home cooked/brought meals in most Western House holds.

TLDR: You're all missing the point entirely. The movie is fucking retarded. If you want a proper documentary check out "Fat Head." It challenges alot of the BS from Supersize me and actually gives people relevant information about nutrition.

Tweek · 11-02-2009, 3:36 AM

thats fascinating

Shocklocks · 11-02-2009, 3:47 AM

Yep. Shame on me for discussing a documentary in a thread about documentaries.

Derelict · 11-02-2009, 4:50 AM

So basically what you're saying is that you're arguing an arbitrary point irrelevant to anything anyone else has said in any part of this thread?

ilovebrownies · 11-02-2009, 5:19 AM

Also, hamburgers aren't made of ham, so your argument is invalid.

Shocklocks · 11-02-2009, 5:29 AM

Buddy, I ain't trying to argue with anyone. People said that Supersize me was a good documentary, I said it wasn't, Tweek asked me why so I explained it. Everything else is just people who havn't actually bothered reading my posts or people with little knowledge about nutrition arguing with me for the sake of arguing. I'm not trying to be arrogant but I do actually do a degree in bio chemistry engineering and my first year was broad enough to encompass some food engineering so I do know more then your average person about the topic. On top of this I have been on a diet high in saturated fats and protein in the past when I first started out barbell training at my university and I know first hand how wrong the movie is.

SODA · 11-02-2009, 7:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shocklocks

I'm sorry but anyone who needs a fucking film to tell that eating fast food for a month is unhealthy is the one who is literally retarded. Not me. I don't understand why you people are getting so god damn hung up on that one point when it doesn't have dick to do with what I'm talking about. The flaws in the film are these:

1) He doesn't make any attempt to make healthy choices. If he wanted to access whether or not Mc Donalds could be treated as a reasonable diet he could of eaten the healthy options. There are people who have eaten nothing but food offered directly over the counter by Mc Donalds for 30days and not gained weight/had any negative health effects. By his logic I could go into a supermarket and get nothing but piss, smokes and processed carb meals and then claim that they made me sick.

The point was to emulate someone who was eating mcdonalds everyday, LIKE SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO. You can't claim mcdonalds food is healthy because if you remove the bun, condiments, and dont eat the french fries or soda it isn't as bad for you. Seriously, I think you may actually be retarded.

2) He cuts back on his exercise to the level of an average overweight American. One of the key reasons for obesity is the fact that people don't exercise enough. Obviously if someone goes from maintaining a fairly active lifestyle to becoming completely sedentary they will put on weight. If he wanted to prove it was solely the food that was causing the problem he should of at the very least maintained the 30minutes a day of exercise recommended by the government.

FACT: The vast majority of Americans do not excersize. Once again he was showing how it ISN'T a healthy lifestyle to eat mcdonals everyday.

3) The conclusions they reached after doing the experiment were completely wrong. In the film they blamed the high saturated fats in his diet for causing all of the health problems. Those who recreated the experiment did so with diets higher in saturated fats and didn't have any negative effects. On top of that the foods they ate over the counter at Mc Donalds are actually healthier then the majority of home cooked/brought meals in most Western House holds.
This is a bullshit point. None of the food at mcdonalds is designed with health in mind. They want the cheapest they can produce because their margins are so small.
TLDR: You're all missing the point entirely. The movie is fucking retarded. If you want a proper documentary check out "Fat Head." It challenges alot of the BS from Supersize me and actually gives people relevant information about nutrition.
Or maybe, just maybe, since you are the only one who with a different opinion you could be *GASP* a retard.

SODA · 11-02-2009, 7:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shocklocks

Buddy, I ain't trying to argue with anyone. People said that Supersize me was a good documentary, I said it wasn't, Tweek asked me why so I explained it. Everything else is just people who havn't actually bothered reading my posts or people with little knowledge about nutrition arguing with me for the sake of arguing. I'm not trying to be arrogant but I do actually do a degree in bio chemistry engineering and my first year was broad enough to encompass some food engineering so I do know more then your average person about the topic. On top of this I have been on a diet high in saturated fats and protein in the past when I first started out barbell training at my university and I know first hand how wrong the movie is.

You are fucking retarded if you think the movie was showing that saturated fats were bad and not that McDonald's food as a whole is bad.

Shocklocks · 11-02-2009, 10:03 AM

Quote:

You are fucking retarded if you think the movie was showing that saturated fats were bad and not that McDonald's food as a whole is bad.

Use your head. The theory was that Mc donalds food as a whole is bad yes. That doesn't create content for an entire fucking movie. The key points in the movie were "How bad is it for you?" and "Why is it so bad?"

How bad is impossible to determine because he doesn't just start eating Mc donalds. He completely changes his lifestyle from fairly active to Sedentary. Yes it is a fact that alot of American's don't exercise but this is a completely irrelevant. If he really wanted to test the effects of a Mcdiet vs a regular diet for an average American he should of adopted the sedentary lifestyle a couple months beforehand. In a proper experiment only 1 variable should change.

As for why it's so bad. As I've already explained numerous times they completely fucked this up. This completely defeats the educational part of the documentary. The only true conclusion was that his theory was indeed right. Eating complete shit for a month isn't healthy. Real ground breaking science there.

This is the last time I'm going to bother posting in this thread. I've explained my points thoroughly. I'm not going to continue to dumb down each point everytime someone attacks the semantics just for the sake of arguing.

SODA · 11-02-2009, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shocklocks

Use your head. The theory was that Mc donalds food as a whole is bad yes. That doesn't create content for an entire fucking movie. The key points in the movie were "How bad is it for you?" and "Why is it so bad?"

How bad is impossible to determine because he doesn't just start eating Mc donalds. He completely changes his lifestyle from fairly active to Sedentary. Yes it is a fact that alot of American's don't exercise but this is a completely irrelevant. If he really wanted to test the effects of a Mcdiet vs a regular diet for an average American he should of adopted the sedentary lifestyle a couple months beforehand. In a proper experiment only 1 variable should change.

As for why it's so bad. As I've already explained numerous times they completely fucked this up. This completely defeats the educational part of the documentary. The only true conclusion was that his theory was indeed right. Eating complete shit for a month isn't healthy. Real ground breaking science there.

This is the last time I'm going to bother posting in this thread. I've explained my points thoroughly. I'm not going to continue to dumb down each point everytime someone attacks the semantics just for the sake of arguing.

You are retarded.

Wyatt · 11-02-2009, 1:33 PM

Change the subject. If this continues, both parties involved will be banned. Neither one of you are going to change your mind.

SchwarzerRitter · 11-02-2009, 1:37 PM

Animals Are Beautiful People is great. It is a documentary about animals in a desert. I like most when some guy tries to mimic an ostrich.

Chocoholic · 11-03-2009, 1:36 PM

What The Bleep Do We Know?!

It's a documentary on quantum physics and the connection to consciousness. It presents the idea that weall create and impact our own reality. There's no way you can really prove anything in here but it had some really interesting things in it. One idea was that we can get addicted to certain emotions and will subconsciously create situations so we can end up feeling these emotions. Another part talked about this Japanese scientist's experiments with water crystals in which samples from the same water source were given different words/thoughts and the shapes of their crystals changed.

SODA · 11-04-2009, 7:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocoholic

What The Bleep Do We Know?!

It's a documentary on quantum physics and the connection to consciousness. It presents the idea that weall create and impact our own reality. There's no way you can really prove anything in here but it had some really interesting things in it. One idea was that we can get addicted to certain emotions and will subconsciously create situations so we can end up feeling these emotions. Another part talked about this Japanese scientist's experiments with water crystals in which samples from the same water source were given different words/thoughts and the shapes of their crystals changed.

Now that is something that isn't a documentary. It is a feature length bullshit off. All the people in the film have "degrees" from their own "university". The only good things that came out of it were the dr. quantum bits that get posted on youtube. The rest is all pseudoscience and bullshit.

See the wikipedia page for more info on why it isn't science in any way shape or form. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_th...e_Know!%3F

I was really excited for a documentary when i watched it, then severely disappointed when people tried to convince me we could make water molecules do what we want.

Chocoholic · 11-04-2009, 1:09 PM

Hey, I watched it in a philosophy class. I'm not exactly basing it on its scientifical merit. I didn't exactly know what to call it but didn't really want to create a thread about it. I thought this would be as good a place as any to put it in here.

I just thought it raised some interesting ideas, such as the point about people being addicted to emotions. From a scientific standpoint it makes some sense. Emotions are really just different chemical reactions in your brain right? And isn't that how people get addicted to things like alcohol? From the chemical reactions? I'm not a scientist or anything so I could be wrong.

They brought up the whole thing of how we can't really feel anything either since atoms never actually touch. I remember a teacher telling me that before but not thinking much of it.

The movie's at least worth watching just for this scene:

SODA · 11-04-2009, 1:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocoholic

I just thought it raised some interesting ideas, such as the point about people being addicted to emotions. From a scientific standpoint it makes some sense

Except it isn't backed up in any empirical (re: scientific) way.

It is pseudoscience plain and simple. Blaming depressed people for being depressed is not only retarded it is dangerous.

The whole movie was put together by a bunch of new age hippies.

The fact that is was shown in a school is even more disconcerting.

Chocoholic · 11-04-2009, 1:29 PM

It was a philosphy class at a college and was shown for the exact reasons you said; to show an idea that was fairly new. We watched it when we started the chapter on quantum physics so it fit in nicely to the unit. Seeing as how quantum physics are weird as hell.

It's worth a watch for some of the ideas it presents but yeah, I wouldn't actually consider the stuff in here as hard fact. But it's interesting to think about.