Zeitgeist

[samniTe]

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

[The Avon Lady]

Don't know if I'll have time to watch it but judging from the numbskulls and oddballs (http://www.google.com/search?q=zeitgeistmovie.com) who already have, I think I'll take my usual break to watch the Bold & The Beautiful instead. :p

UPDATE: Watched the first 6 minutes. Spoiler: organized religion is to blame for the world's ills. It wants to control the world and all of us. Yada, yada, yada. Suddenly the Bold & The Beatiful seems to be stunningly intelectual alongside such rat-trap.

UPDATE: Not that I necessaily disagree, but after 15 minutes through, it's so far a refutation against Christianity.

UPDATE: About 23 minutes in and we've switched over to Moses and the Age of Taurus and the Age of Aires and I'm just laughing. At least now I finally know what the age of Aquarius is. :yep: I had always wondered but didn't have Google to help me back in the flowerchild days. BTW, the movie's authors never thought about thinking in reverse. If there is a god and he created the sun, stars, moon, planets, seasons, etc., is there a logic and rationalle to their structures and timings, and if so, is there a message in them for the ultimate of beings in this world, mankind. But that would have required listening to a completely opposite opinion and thinking things through a bit more before producing a lengthy film.

[kiwi_2005]

Don't know if I'll have time to watch it but judging from the numbskulls and oddballs (http://www.google.com/search?q=zeitgeistmovie.com) who already have

I watched it :) saw it awhile back. Didn't put me of christainity or religeon for that matter. Kinda liked what they had to say. Then when it was over i thought about it for a few seconds, thought yeah whateva and loaded up SH4...:rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

Don't know if I'll have time to watch it but judging from the numbskulls and oddballs (http://www.google.com/search?q=zeitgeistmovie.com) who already have

I watched it :) saw it awhile back. Didn't put me of christainity or religeon for that matter. Kinda liked what they had to say. Then when it was over i thought about it for a few seconds, thought yeah whateva and loaded up SH4...:rotfl:
You're gonna burn for that! :rotfl:

At the 27 minute mark and they're yapping about the Gilgamesh Epic. Once discussed this here and linked to articles about it that not only show the major differences between it and the biblical story of Noah but also show that there's no indication that the Gilgamesh texts are a mythological offshoot of world history and not vice versa.

Cart.

Horse.

[The Avon Lady]

Didn't put me of christainity or religeon for that matter. Kinda liked what they had to say.
But it should make you think. You should consider whether you are able to rebut the claims made or not. In this point, I tend to agree with the film's authors.

However, ignorance itself does not make someone's claim or opinion wrong.

[Heibges]

This is the same stuff you would hear in any Freshman World History Survey or Comparative Religion class.

The only thing I didn't hear was about Zarathustra.:rotfl:

I would say they overestimate the power and simplify the development of the Catholic Church historically.

Also, they ignored the similarities with eastern religions and stories.

And I don't get the connection to 9-11?

[The Avon Lady]

And I don't get the connection to 9-11?
Well, ya see, if you start with Aquarius as the first zodiac sign, as in the Indo-European zodiac group, then Libra, the scales of justice, is the 9th in the list and Sagittarius, the Archer, is the 11th, meaning that it's all the US' fault and they deserved what they got.

:88)

[Heibges]

I finally got to the part about the financiers profiteering on wars. Duh. I think this is taught in US High School history. One of the reasons America became Isolationist were the war profiteering trials after WWI.

Trying to tie all three together is a stretch. It is like "Holy Blood Holy Grail".

I will say, in it's defense, that the "filmed documentary" from the BBC of HBHG, comes across as much more logical than the book.

[Chock]

It's an interesting (if long) film, and if you watch it all, you realise that the makers are perhaps not as smart as they would like to think they are.

This is because the film's ultimate goal is to try and 'open the eyes' of blinkered people who are fooled by the media in all its forms. But what the film-makers failed to take into account is, that if it was their goal to open the eyes of a generation fooled by fast food and instant media, and an 'I want it now culture' etc, etc, then making a two hour movie about it was not a smart way to go, as all that generation (i.e their target audience) would not have the patience to sit and watch such a film in the first place.

For a film that purports to understand the media and want to reveal how it controls us, their chosen methodology shows a staggering lack of understanding on how that media works. Which is rather ironic.

Although I'm no fan of religion, even I thought that the film offered a rather convoluted and over-simplified analysis of how religion organised developed. And having said that, I was getting bored with the monologue on something with which I essentially agree, so God alone knows (pun intended) how such a film is supposed to persuade people who hold views other than mine.

Next up in the film - following the religion part - is the 'worldwide conspiracy chapter'. Now, I don't doubt that there are indeed - and have been - some plots of this nature in the world, but to actually believe that a government or governments which make as many blunders as governments frequently do, could somehow suddenly manage to get its sh*t together so well that it could pull off a massively well-co-ordinated world-wide conspiracy, is... Well, clearly the film makers have never worked for a govt, department, for if they had have done so, they'd know that it's a goddam miracle if you can get two govt departments to agree on what colour paperclips they are going to use, let alone agree on some worldwide super-plan.

Ultimately, a lot of this part of the film comes over as having been made by someone who has watched that pile of tripe 'The Matrix' a few too many times.

Part three touches on the control of money, again with an oversimplified analysis of how economies work, which again damages the film's credibility to some degree. And while there is some truth in what the film concentrates on, it is again long-winded and frankly slightly patronising. Commenting that people make money out of wars, as though it is some kind of profound revelation, was a classic example of how to end your show with a whimper rather than a bang.

With the conclusion of the movie degenerating into some kind of new-age, let's all love one-another wish, this is made particularly laughable by the fact that of all the film soundtracks they could have chosen to rip off for their film at this point in the proceedings, they choose to use the Peter Gabriel soundtrack from the movie 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. Good soundtrack triple-album incidentally, but I guess the irony of the choice passed them by a little.

So, having watched it all, yes, I agree with some of the points it makes, other points however, are well into the 'tin foil hat wearing' conspiracy theory territory. I think the film would have been far more persuasive and worthwhile if it had made its conclusion and then said: And here is what you can do about it...

Worth a look if you have the time, simply because it is well-edited and nicely produced and contains (some) interesting ideas. But I'd give it six out of ten overall.

:D Chock