Mel Gibson + Michael Moore = Movie?

[Chadzilla]

Variety reported that Moore is working out a deal with Mel Gibson's production company, Icon Productions, to finance "Fahrenheit 911."

Huh?  I was under the impression Gibson was a conservative.
Full details here...

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030328-032440-7289r

Something tells me this is gonna cause a ruckus.



Post Edited (04-01-03 14:16)

[andy80]

I don't know about Mel Gibson, but his dad believes the WTC was blown up by Americans.

[Chadzilla]

I've heard that the it was a Zionist plot theory is popular in some regions as well.  Gibson's dad is evidently a big holder of the Holocaust Never Happened Theory as well.  Ew.



Post Edited (04-01-03 14:39)

[Chris K.]

Well, when you shove money under Mel's stone-chizzeled, dumbfounded, well-groomed "Worship me, damn it" face what do you expect? Is he going to turn it down because he's an "artist" and stick with his Conservitive ways since Moore is a Liberal-Democrat? Or is Mel going to take it because he's a star who knows a good paycheck when he sees it and that he doesn't care about the style, quality, or substance of the project? Their is no right or wrong answer, but I am definately leaning towards the latter choice as I feel that's what Mel does best (or worse, take your pick). When you are a big star in such terrible tripe-ridden films, it's only the paycheck and nothing else. Some big performers do it for the money, regardless of the quality of the item that they are performing in as they believe that their "presence" can enhance the film's quality (however, it does not always work).

But if Mel accepts working alongside with Moore, it will show that the Hollywood stars are truely hypocrites. And considering Mel's themes of "I'll take it" attitude (i.e., THE PATRIOT and WHAT WOMEN WANT are perfect examples of Mel working on films with very little quality in them whatsoever, and Mel's acting can't save those films, at least in my opinion), especially for the amount he is paid these days, I wouldn't be suprised if Mel would jump at the chance to work with Moore. And who says Hollywood isn't in it for the money?

I do look forward to Mel's upcoming religious picture, I just can't wait to get a big laugh at it.

[Creepozoid]

Don't be trashing Mel folks. Aside from WHAT WOMEN WANT, he hasn't been in any bombs. He's also a fairly admirable person compared w/ the rest of Hollywood (still on his first wife). I'll dismiss this as a rumor but if it's true "God forgive you, Mel."

[Chadzilla]

Creepozoid wrote:

> Aside from WHAT WOMEN WANT, he
> hasn't been in any bombs.

Well, there was the Bird On A Wire fiasco he made with Goldie Hawn.  But hell, he's making an all new Mad Max movie!  Who-ho.

> He's also a fairly admirable person
> compared w/ the rest of Hollywood (still on his first wife).

Gibson seems, from all reports I've read, to be a really nice guy with a great sense of humor (he also does not seem to share his father's rather unorthodox views).  Why so many hate him?  Success, probably.  I'm interested in seeing how his religious epic turns out.

[Funk, E.]

Yeah... stop picking on Mel! ;-)
It's a nasty business making a living in Hollywood and you often have to pick which type of integrity you're going to stick to. Sell out as an artist so that you can keep your good nature or become a complete **** to have dibs on all the quality rolls? That's overly simplistic, but just like in war... moral lines become... flexible. People do what they have to in order to realize their dreams, some do that through ruthlessness, some through indiscression, some through manipulation, etc. He's successful and the sight of him as a human being doesn't make me sick, unlike Martha Stewart!

[lonecorndog]

From what I understand, Gibson's dad is something Mel tries to keep from the press as much as possible. Point being, I disagree with a lot my dad thinks too.

[Chris K.]

Sorry to disagree, but I feel Mel Gibson isn't that good of an actor. I thought he was pitiful in BRAVEHEART, he was unappealing in THE PATRIOT, and WHAT WOMEN WANT was a big ego-trip for him. Hell, I couldn't stand Mel in WE WERE SOLDIERS; Mel didn't have that "I'm in war-hell"-type face as the role would have served better to either Kurt Russell or Jeff Bridges. That said, with his upcoming religious picture it basically has Mel claiming he's "bigger than Jesus", as a college associate relayed to me and I'm inclined to agree.

Mind you, I don't dislike Mel because of success. I dislike him because he has no tallent to offer. Yet, I can tell I'm in the minority when I say all of this. I know I shouldn't pick on him, but I have to be honest on my opinions of the man.

I will say I liked Mel in MAD MAX (the Austrailian version only, not the crappy U.S. re-dubbed cut), but basically that was it.

[Chris K.]

Funk, E. wrote:

> It's a nasty business making a living in Hollywood and you
> often have to pick which type of integrity you're going to
> stick to. Sell out as an artist so that you can keep your good
> nature or become a complete **** to have dibs on all the
> quality rolls? That's overly simplistic, but just like in
> war... moral lines become... flexible. People do what they have
> to in order to realize their dreams, some do that through
> ruthlessness, some through indiscression, some through
> manipulation, etc. He's successful and the sight of him as a
> human being doesn't make me sick, unlike Martha Stewart!

Well, I'll agree with you about Martha Stewart. But I think you missed my point Funk, E. Yes, it is a nasty business in Hollywood to make a living and sometimes you do what you have to do in order to realize you dreams, such as the small examples that you listed in that comment. But their is more to it.

Let's take a look at the "rumor" of Michael Moore and Mel Gibson going into co-production. Their are two choices that Mel has. One: Mel walks away from the deal due to the reputation of Moore being a "radical" Liberal-Democrat (and Moore's "thank you speech" at the Academy Awards ceremony still has some higher-up's in the industy and the audience very heated) and feels that it wouldn't fit with Mel's Conservitive party-reputation, and that's fine with me as I could care less about what political party Mel's in. The other choice: Mel decides to sign up due to Moore's film BOWLING FOR COLLUMBINE that was able to pull in a heafty amount of cash and an Academy Award for Best Documentary, and that this co-production could pull in some cash if it goes well. It's both a big gamble and a tough choice for Mel. Let's go back for a moment: it's a nast business in Hollywood and you have to resort to the "lowest common denominator" (i.e., ruthlessness, indiscression, manipulation, etc.) in order to get out there in "the business". Now, if this rumor is proven true and if Mel DOES sign up for a co-production with Moore then Mel will prove he is a hypocrite in the polictcal sense. Mel, as stated before, is a Conservitive-Republican. So Mel, the Conservitive-Republican, decides to go with Moore, the Liberal-Democrat. If Mel really didn't care about Moore's political angle, and Moore might think the same likewise, then it wouldn't be a big deal to either one of them. After all, money is to be made and they gotta' live, right? But the audience won't sympathise as it's known about Mel's political thoughts (he's for the war after all). And with Mel working with Moore, a man who is NOT for the war nor is he NOT for George Bush, it would hurt Mel's audience that he is working with a man who is not "for his and most of the audience's party" and make himself look like a hypocrite as well. Now think about it; a "right-winger" merging into co-production with a "left-winger". It would hurt him politcally, his social status, and possibly financially depending on the statue of their "project" (that is, if it's really true that they are going into co-production). And if you think it's wouldn't hurt Mel pollitically and finacially, as well as social status, take a look at "left-winger" Susan Sarandon and that her audience is beginning to dim after her political rantings. After all, the majority is for the war and Sarandon/minority isn't.

Personally, I don't think the audicence should judge a performer/celebrity by their political status. Yet, they are judged by it. I really don't want to look at this in a political sense, but with how the celebrities are turning from performers to politcal ideals it seems that's how it is. With Mel, I don't care what political party or ideals he's in as that's not how I judge his performace (that is, if he had a performance that could be judged-sorry, had to throw that in there) in film.

All in all, we just have to wait and see if this "rumor" is true.

[Funk, E.]

Okay... fair enough. Now lets give Mel and Moore credit for living in the real world. Do you follow/agree with/believe whole heartily line item, by line item everything everyone in your political party says or does?

If Mel is for the war and Moore is against do you think that they cannot agree that 9/11 was an uncalled for attack and a tragedy? Do you think possibly that two intelligent people might think “Hey, I could make a better, more balanced presentation of the subject matter if I have the other side available to counter my monochromatic tendencies?” or "Gee… since we’re going to open a huge gaping wound in the American Psyche maybe it would be good idea to make a movie that’s going to get everyone one the same page by being inclusive in our account?"

No, I don’t think it’ll hurt Mel one damn bit. In fact I think it’s an extremely astute political move on his part by being able to “meet in the middle” in the interest of progress. I cooperate with people of different religious and political views all the time, hell they're my friends. Politics isn't a with me or against me type of thing. It's a point of view, that's all and sometime balance is good.

[Creepozoid]

Funk, E. wrote:

> Okay... fair enough. Now lets give Mel and Moore credit for
> living in the real world.

Moore lives in the real world? :blink, blink:

[yaddo42]

Other Mel Gibson bombs:

MILLION DOLLAR HOTEL
ATTACK FORCE Z
AIR AMERICA
THE BOUNTY

I think it made money, but TEQUILA SUNRISE is pretty bad. I know LETHAL WEAPON 4 made money, and it's damn awful.

[Chris K.]

Funk, E. wrote:

> Okay... fair enough. Now lets give Mel and Moore credit for
> living in the real world. Do you follow/agree with/believe
> whole heartily line item, by line item everything everyone in
> your political party says or does?

Apparently, it seems that if you don't follow/agree with/believe with everyone in what your political party says or does then you will either be labeled a "trator", "coward" , "back-stabber", etc. Take a good look at Shan Hannity and Rush Limbaugh; they both pretty much follow/agree with/believe everyone and everything their political party says or does, NO QUESTIONS ASKED and if they have a member of their party that disagrees then you know what to expect.

Do I follow/agree with/believe everyone in my political party says or does?Frankly if you have read my comments in the other two "political" themed threads, I have nothing good to say about either party. Sometimes both sides do have some good points, but it rarely happens in my case. However, I will agree with you that Mel and Moore are at least living in the real world. Sadly, with the audience these days, they just can't seem to live in the real world at all.

> If Mel is for the war and Moore is against do you think that
> they cannot agree that 9/11 was an uncalled for attack and a
> tragedy? Do you think possibly that two intelligent people
> might think “Hey, I could make a better, more balanced
> presentation of the subject matter if I have the other side
> available to counter my monochromatic tendencies?” or "Gee…
> since we’re going to open a huge gaping wound in the American
> Psyche maybe it would be good idea to make a movie that’s going
> to get everyone one the same page by being inclusive in our
> account?"

Well, this is a tough one. Moore seems, at least to me, Hell bent with his political themes and seems to disagree about 9/11 (at least to my knowledge) sticking to his comments NO MATTER WHAT. I do feel that two intelligent people might think: “Hey, I could make a better, more balanced presentation of the subject matter if I have the other side available to counter my monochromatic tendencies?” or "Gee…since we’re going to open a huge gaping wound in the American Psyche maybe it would be good idea to make a movie that’s going to get everyone one the same page by being inclusive in our account?" But rarely, and I mean rarely, does that happen in this film-crazed world as most of it would be treated as "one-dimensional". However, George A. Romero's social commentaries in his films seem to tackle these two questions that you asked. If you want one Romero example, THE CRAZIES is one, but I digress.

> No, I don’t think it’ll hurt Mel one damn bit. In fact I
> think it’s an extremely astute political move on his part by
> being able to “meet in the middle” in the interest of progress.

Again, I'm a bit in-different with this one. The possibilities of Mel being hurt by this are so-so, but I still wouldn't doubt it. But, take a look at Martin Sheen and his disapproving of the war and President. Because of that, he is somewhat "threatened" with a boycott (I doubt it would pass though). Though it's no worry to Sheen as he has already narrated a documentary about World War 2. Proves that if you shove a paycheck under these celebrities noses they'll shut up. And if Mel is able to "meet in the middle", I will give him credit for that.

> I cooperate with people of different religious and political
> views all the time, hell they're my friends. Politics isn't a
> with me or against me type of thing. It's a point of view,
> that's all and sometime balance is good.

Well, I too cooperate with people of different religious and political views all the time and I have friends as well who have various religious/political views. I like getting into various points of view; it's what makes the world go round after all, to put it mildly. But when it gets out of hand with the typical name-calling and other insulting items, then...

But let me say Funk, E. that I was not giving a "put-down" to your earlier comments as you had an interesting point about "the business" and all that. I say this because your recent reply sounds as if you were kind of upset by my earlier response back to you. Let me say that it wasn't ment to put you down. Nonetheless, you asked some interesting questions.

And again, sorry for taking shots as Mel. I just don't see what's so great about him and I have to be honest about what I think about him, but maybe that's just me.

[Chris K.]

Sorry, I made a typing mistake in my sentence as I accidentally wrote: "I will agree with you that Mel and Moore are at least living in the real world".

Wrong statement as I was going to write: "Mel is indeed living in the real world, but Moore seems to be having some difficulty." Sorry about the mistake. Note to self: PROFREAD YOUR STATEMENTS, Chris!