The worst documentary you have ever seen

[lacktheknack]

Probably Moore's "Sicko".

As he interviewed people extolling the virtues of the Canadian heath care system, our class was rolling in the aisles. ROLLING. Yes, we get that the American health system is screwed up, but come on, Michael. "No real wait time"? "Everything's covered"? Pull the other one, its got thousands and thousands of bells on it.

 

[lacktheknack]

I hate any documentary about Jesus or Biblical times in general which forget that the people of the Holy Lands of the time were not white, including Jesus himself. Sometimes they get some people who look the part, but no matter what Jesus, Moses, Abraham, even Adam always portrayed as a white dude. Even the ones which claim to go really deep into cultural information can't seem to address this blindingly obvious flaw. They'll make a true replica of a Roman crucifix or get handmade costumes made from authentic materials and techniques, but the principle cast will always be white.

Well, "Son of God" cast a Portuguese guy instead of an American, so... geographically closer? It's an improvement of some description anyways.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Anyway, I consider myself an agnostic, but there's a strain of anti-theism that really grinds my gears. It really shouldn't matter what you believe.

Eh, I would say it shouldn't matter 99% of the time. The only problem is when people try to get religious dogma into either law or into science classrooms.

Although I do agree that certain anti-theists are dickholes. I'm somewhat anti-theistic myself, but I occasionally hear stories about people protesting roadside crosses and stuff and I think... holy shit, that's horrible.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

There was a show on Discovery called Curiosity which managed to set a new, low bar for science documentaries. I'm fairly sure it had to dig a hole first to do it.

It opened with a documentary on what would happen if there was an alien invasion and how we would fight it...which talked to science fiction authors, but left out anybody who was actually in the military (and therefore knew something about how a modern military would fight back). So, the entire scenario played out like a bad b-movie.

Then there was the episode about Yellowstone national park and supervolcanos, which seemed to exist solely to terrify the viewer into thinking that Yellowstone could erupt any day now, and was probably going to (in reality, it has erupted three times, and the shortest interval thus far has been 660,000 years ago...so we've got 20,000 years to go before we reach the shortest interval, and around 220,000 to go before we reach the longest one).

But it may very well have peaked with its episode on the Titanic, which was so bad it was hysterically funny (and, in general, that's not the desired end result in a documentary about a major maritime disaster with a massive loss of life). Some highlights:

- The corridors of the Titanic are endless and channel The Twilight Zone.
- A boiler room subplot steals its story from Saw.
- Captain Smith and J. Bruce Ismay take turns doing Darth Vader impressions at each other.
- The on-screen action and the narration disagreeing to the point that the narrator talking about passengers noticing the silence of the engines occurs over a sleeping passenger who fails to wake up or notice anything at all.
- The narration being over-the-top to the point of actually describing the water coming in like an alien invasion.
- Jack Thayer's mother being made of light.

And that's just in the first hour.

 

[King Monarch]

The megalodon shark documentary one was a massive flop.

 

[Eddie the head]

Expelled. Fuck that documentary and fuck Ben Stine. He's a fucking prick, and I'm not saying that as someone who's never meet the guy. I am saying that as someone who meet the guy and thought he was a douche.

 

[vledleR]

Aside from Bowling for Columbine which had some interesting information, anything by Michael Moore. Dude's a hack and uses one-sided editing techniques to make a false narrative.

Even Bowling for Columbine was pretty sketchy. Right after the interview he did with Matt Stone, the movie showed this political cartoon that was done in a style that was very similar to South Park, hinting that Stone had something to do with it, but he didn't. He didn't even agree with the message of that cartoon and got a little pissed about it.

Also, according to Marilyn Manson, pretty much the second half of the movie was addressing subjects that Manson had talked about in the interview, but those subject that he talked about were edited out of the interview. The DVD extras showed extended interviews with many of the people in the movie, but not Manson, who had the most insightful things to say, according to damn near everyone.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Aside from Bowling for Columbine which had some interesting information, anything by Michael Moore. Dude's a hack and uses one-sided editing techniques to make a false narrative.

Even Bowling for Columbine was pretty sketchy. Right after the interview he did with Matt Stone, the movie showed this political cartoon that was done in a style that was very similar to South Park, hinting that Stone had something to do with it, but he didn't. He didn't even agree with the message of that cartoon and got a little pissed about it.

Also, according to Marilyn Manson, pretty much the second half of the movie was addressing subjects that Manson had talked about in the interview, but those subject that he talked about were edited out of the interview. The DVD extras showed extended interviews with many of the people in the movie, but not Manson, who had the most insightful things to say, according to damn near everyone.

Moore's best work was directing Rage Against the Machine video(s?)... I haven't watched Bowling for Columbine since it was released on video so I only half remember it but it was tame compared to the rest of the shit he put out. Everything since then was even worse of a hack job, rapidly declining with each iteration. I was kind of forced to watch one of them because I worked at a theater when it came out and was posted as semi-security because a guest had complained so I basically had to babysit the theater in case anyone acted up... and was subjected to that shit unwillingly. I would have rather been in any other theater that night.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

I like to take a moment to defend "soapbox" documentaries. I don't mind if the director is approaching the subject matter from a certain point of view. It's up to you to decide whether if he/she let their bias obscure the facts. With Michael Moore, all I hear from people who disagree with him are nitpicks. They haven't done anything to disprove his movies except to stamp their feet really loud and whine that he is bias.

Actually there are quite a few proven lies Michael Moore has told through his films. For example, in Bowling For Columbine, he presents a bank that hands you a rifle for making an account there. Moore makes it seem that they give you a gun as soon as you sign up.

In a documentary on Michael Moore called "Michael Moore Hates America", by Michael Wilson, it shows how its not legally possible to do so. There's a waiting period of about a week. It shows the same bank employees giving a walkthrough of how Moore filmed the events in a manner that seemed odd and left hastily.

Its on YouTube, give it a watch.

Ther's also the issue of the editing of the Charles Heston interview he did. Full of forceful editing that shows a lot of staging.

Its not bias that has Michael Moore not like. Its his factual hack practices.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

I like to take a moment to defend "soapbox" documentaries. I don't mind if the director is approaching the subject matter from a certain point of view. It's up to you to decide whether if he/she let their bias obscure the facts. With Michael Moore, all I hear from people who disagree with him are nitpicks. They haven't done anything to disprove his movies except to stamp their feet really loud and whine that he is bias.

Actually there are quite a few proven lies Michael Moore has told through his films. For example, in Bowling For Columbine, he presents a bank that hands you a rifle for making an account there. Moore makes it seem that they give you a gun as soon as you sign up.

In a documentary on Michael Moore called "Michael Moore Hates America", by Michael Wilson, it shows how its not legally possible to do so. There's a waiting period of about a week. It shows the same bank employees giving a walkthrough of how Moore filmed the events in a manner that seemed odd and left hastily.

Its on YouTube, give it a watch.

Ther's also the issue of the editing of the Charles Heston interview he did. Full of forceful editing that shows a lot of staging.

Its not bias that has Michael Moore not like. Its his factual hack practices.

Of all the issues you could have with Moore, I think the gun at the bank is pretty much a non-issue. Most people would STILL be shocked that a bank is giving you a GUN for opening an account... the delay wouldn't be a factor.

I disagree. That bank has better background checks than most gun shops that very recent mass shooters got their weapons from. I also think lying in order to make a point takes away massively from it. Also, Moore's Bowling for Columbine completely ignore that the majority of mass shootings, like Columbine, are committed by people on psychiatric drugs.

Not I know that the correlation of mental illness doesn't mean causation of mass shootings. But I also realize that American media isn't interested in nuanced points. The misdiagnosis of mental illnesses, the over-prescription of psychiatric medicine, as well as the fact that people who have had reported prior mental episodes still being able to get guns and have no waiting period are all factors. Michael Moore just simplified the entire issue and manipulated facts for his point.

I don't disagree with Moore on his views, but I can't even take his films after Roger and Me seriously. Lying to show your point should always be called out.

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

There was this one Animal Planet documentary/docudrama about mermaids being supposedly real. It took about half an hour of a 2 hour show to actually start talking about the bullshit science they were peddling. I wasn't really expecting much, but as soon as aquatic ape theory was cited, I was done.

 

[GabeZhul]

There was this one Animal Planet documentary/docudrama about mermaids being supposedly real. It took about half an hour of a 2 hour show to actually start talking about the bullshit science they were peddling. I wasn't really expecting much, but as soon as aquatic ape theory was cited, I was done.

As with Room 237, I am preeeeetty sure it was a mockumentary. As in, it was a parody documentary making fun of cryptid hunters, they just didn't make it clear enough. Same thing happened with one of those Shark Week shows that revolved around this giant, submarine-sized megalodon that people thought was real because they only flashed a "This is fiction." disclaimer at the end of the show for about two seconds.

 

[Dalisclock]

Sun, sex and satan. It's a british documentary about the island of Jersey whereby the filmmaker explores the idea that the royal family and illuminati are using the island as a child farm for their sex rituals.

The premise is that Jersey is a hybrid of shadow over Innsmouth, resident evil four and the wickerman.The guy runs around a pleasant seaside town yelling questions about paedophile cults at bewildered holiday goers, claiming everyone's complicit in the conspiracy and too afraid to speak out, and running away from interviews halfway through because unseen off camera forces were amassing on their location, always ending with a breathy 'we managed to get out of there in the nick of time.'

Is this supposed to be a documentary or a film pretending to be a documentary(like the "Blair witch project" or others like that)? Because it sounds like it could be pretty entertaining, shitty horror movie.

 

[Dalisclock]

Anything that has the words "Secret nazi hitler super science weapon doomsday"

I remember seeing something like that at an air and space musuem, which had a Go-229, which was the Luftwaffe flying wing made out of wood. The video made the point that it had a small radar profile then most aircraft, which meant it could get closer to the British coast before being spotted by RADAR, which gave the RAF less time to respond. Which is fine, except that the video had people start talking about how IF the Luftwaffee had built more of these, and IF they had built the bomber versions of these and IF they had developed an Atomic bomb to deliver with these RADAR invisible bomber aircraft.....Can you see where I'm going with this?

At that point, one could add "Well, if the Nazis had a Death Star, they would have won the war that way", which is a hell of a lot easier then pointing out all the assumptions this video was making about how scary this could have been.

 

[Dalisclock]

Anything that has the words "Secret nazi hitler super science weapon doomsday"

All of those, there's like a billion of them

At best they're completely dumbed down and bland commentaries on things that weren't even thought as anything related to wunderwaffen at the time

At worst they're spout a bunch of conspiracy BS and just outright lies

I actually find those stories kind of interesting. Like the Ratte and Monster Supertanks. Hitler saw the plans and was like 'Aw shit dawg that's sick. MAKE A BILLION OF THEM.' and then as soon as he left, the guy in charge of production was like 'Cancel all of these orders because this shit is stupid as fuck.'

Y'know, paraphrasing.

Which makes it Ironic that Hitler was against the idea of arming his troops with the worlds first assault rifle, the StG-44. At least at first.