***Official SUPER SIZE ME Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[BridgetJZ]

I was talking about the guy above my last post, about people who are out for a buck have better things to do.

 

[Michael Reuben]

That would be me. And now that I know your post was directed to me, I've re-read it, but I still can't make any more sense out of it than Lew could.

M.

 

[BrettB]

Here is the TV show she is refering to.

 

[Michael Reuben]

OK, I've looked at the link. Still not sure what the relevance is to any of the substantive points about Super Size Me discussed above.

M.

 

[Edwin-S]

Spurlock is hosting a new show that puts people in role reversals. It seems like she is making an allusion that Spurlock's primary motive for making "Supersize Me" was for self-promotion. The film made a lot of money and put Spurlock in the public eye, thus allowing him to become host to a regular series. As a host he stands to make a lot of money if the show succeeds; therefore, everything he has done has been for self-promotion purposes or sensationalism, rather than for informative purposes.

At least that is what her comments suggest to my mind. It doesn't really make sense though, because Spurlock could not guarantee that his film would even find a receptive audience; therefore, it dilutes any argument that he is primarily a sensationalist. At least that is how I see it.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

You make it sound like anyone who can make a documentary that targets a large profitable American corporation is an automatic pass to stardom and $$$. Contrary, it is not that easy. If that is the case then, where are all the copycats that followed it.

If Super Size Me did not have any merits at all, it would have easily gone into oblivion and not have gotten a distribution contract at Sundance. But the fact that it had something substanstive to say has gotten the film a lot farther than Spurlock had probably dreamt.

In addition, and not to sound elitist, the target audience for a documentary are far more discriminating than your average moviegoer. If Spurlock was peddling nothing but BS, his target audience would have caught on to this really quickly.

Besides, I am not aware that Sundance is now known to be the film festival of all film festivals to unload a documentary and make a quick buck.

~Edwin

 

[Michael Reuben]

Yes, that's exactly the point I was trying to make.

M.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Indeed. Submitting his film for viewing at Sundance was a big risk and a challenge. Having been personally involved in running a film festival, it is not that easy for a film to be selected for public screening.

At Sundance, they receive more than 5,500 film submissions each year. Each film is vying for that special public screening and unfortunately, only a couple hundred films, if that, get selected. Here is a copy of Sundance's submission form.

A quick buck? I seriously doubt it.

~Edwin

 

[Jack Briggs]

I seriously doubt it, too, Edwin. But some people here...

 

[Michael Reuben]

And not all of those get picked up for distribution. And of those that get distributed, only a few get major attention outside the arthouse circuit and wind up doing significant box office.

If making money is your goal, documentary filmmaking isn't the way to go.

M.

 

[Holadem]

Dammit, now I have to reconsider my career again .

--
H

 

[Brad E]

Here's a teacher in Canada that did the Mcdonalds diet for 30 days and lost 17 pounds.


Now there's a teacher going the extra mile. I'm glad he did it because objectivity was clearly lacking in Supersize Me.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Edmont...pf-948447.html