mmhardy Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Producted on a budget of a "buck ninty-eight" and many bottle drives. Maybe it should be renamed "The Last Eagle Scout Project" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 PCHS is for Petty County High School - you can see it in one of the scenes. The movie looks to be very anti-Obama. The altered pledge, the "never let a good crisis go to waste", the congressman shutting down the Boy Scouts. A very David-and-Goliath story in the end, so it appears. Hard to tell how it portrays the BSA, in the end. A silly, clumsy group, or final defenders of the Constitution? I agree it looks low budget. Coming to theaters September, 2010. Leaving theaters October, 2010 (if it makes it that long) Coming to DVD November, 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutingagain Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 If this thing ever makes it to the theatres I'll be suprised. It might actually get finished. And more likely will be shown at a few local Tea Party rallies. As far as the threat coming from within...that's probably true. Just not sure which side it's coming from. SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Wait a minute, there has been two outright knocks on this thread about "tea partiers" and I have a question. What have tea partiers done that any anti-current administration protest groups have not done in the past to deserve such shots? They may be with merit, I just found it odd there would be two such references where prevoius there had been very few if any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 SMT, I watched the trailer a couple of times also and it is pretty clear that the director did not intend "a very negative portrayal of Boy Scouts", just the opposite, he intended a very negative portrayal of everyone except the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts seem to be portrayed as the last best hope of America in "a world gone mad." Actually I think the film isn't really "about" the Boy Scouts so much as being about the director's bleak vision of America's future, with the Boy Scouts as sort of the vehicle for showing what's wrong and how it can be fixed. I don't buy into the vision, though. As for tea parties, I prefer coffee myself. I think it's worth noting though that (as BrentAllen mentioned) the film seems to take a direct shot at President Obama, with the change to the words of the pledge of allegiance so that the students are pledging allegiance to the President instead of the flag. And sure, there have been films that took shots at past presidents, including President Bush. But one thing that can be said for Michael Moore is that in criticizing President Bush, he left the Boy Scouts out of it, unlike this director.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shriscov Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Scouting attracts a cross-section of America and it's nice to see that reflected over and over again online. For what it's worth, Michael Moore is an Eagle Scout and had this to say, among other things, on his website: >Winding up his time with the Scouts, Moore reflected on his years in Troop 154 in the Tall >Pines Council. "I'm very proud of the fact that I'm an Eagle Scout. I got a lot out of >it," he said. "Take these values you're learning in Scouts and hang on to them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalicoPenn Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 OGE, No one has ever openly brought a semi-automtic weapon to an anti-administration rally before - especially when the President is speaking just blocks away. No one has ever been stupid enough to hold up signs saying "Keep government out of my Medicare" before. No one has ever inflated their claims to the number of people present in such a belief defying manner before (yes - others have inflated their claims but they chose a number and stuck with it - this bunch acted more like one of Jon Lovitzes characters on Saturday Night Live as they disputed the 60,000 to 70,000 estimate by the fire department when they started claiming 250,000 people and worked their way up to a claim of 2 million). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 I didnt know every anti-administration protest was researched and documented well enough to back up your assertions but I will beleive you. I don't deny what went on at Tea Parties, but to say nothing of the sort every happened before seems to stretch credibility. People on both fringes are lunatics And here I thought they were Americans who were exercising their First Ammendment Right to Freedom of Speech I did not realize Tea Partiers were the first group to supersize their numbers to media Do we know if they paid people to show up and demonstrate? It has been known to occur and I think any "cause" that has paid protestors is a crock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 OGE, You didn't get the memo? It was all those imaginary tea party voters who put Scott Brown in office. I still haven't figured out how they did it (get imaginary people to vote, that is.) On a side note, the crowds here in Georgia at gun shows are larger than they have ever been, even during the time of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Lines 300 yards long to get in, AR-15 type rifles selling like hot cakes, ammunition selling out during the first few hours of the shows. Primers, powder and bullets are hard to find. The economy may be in the tank, but Obama has done a great job keeping the gun and ammunition industries running at 110%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Brent, I will complete this hijack, although we can certainly talk more about the movie as well, but... Just what do the people buying all that ammo think? That they have to lay in cases of shotgun shells and 30-06 ammo so they protect themselves from the government? Do I see myself with my neighbors blocking off the neighborhood with partially paid for SUV's and rally against a M1-A2 Abrams? Or Bradleys even? I am a Shooting Sports Director and an NRA Instructor in Shotgun, Rifle, Pistol and Muzzleloader. I am as staunch a defensed of the 2nd amendment as I can be but I am not sure I am going to ever use my firearms against US authorities be they local police, National Guard or regular Military. The people of Mass. elected Scott Brown, now, because the balance of power has shifted by 1, 1 mind you the President's health care package is seen to be in jeopardy. The reform that has been categorized as absolutely required, the reform that says we must fundamentally change a huge portion of our economy and the citizenry is demanding it gets derailed because of one man? Thats it? One vote? If only one vote can upset the applecart, how solid was the argument in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 A little interwebs searching shows that the movie is directed by a Kels Goodman. He is an LDS filmmaker. Here is his extended resume from IMBD. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0329144/resume Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutingagain Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 "Do we know if they paid people to show up and demonstrate?" Well I don't know if they were paid, but after talking to some Scot Brown sign holders in town the weekend before the election...well lets just say that quite a few did not sound much like Matt Damon. Not that there's anything wrong with that. SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 OGE, They think that Obama will sign some UN Small Arms treaty that will circumvent the 2nd Amendment, by limiting ammo and/or components. Obama has stated he is in favor of bringing back the Assault Weapons Ban. They fear liberals will put limits on the amount of ammo and/or components a person can own. I am an NRA Life Member, NRA Rifle Instructor, Classified High Power Competitor, Classified Long Range Competitor. The High Power crowd is one of the most conservative groups of gun owners (just shy of Class 3 owners). At High Power matches, the conversation will come up occassionaly about what we each would do if the US Government decided to confiscate all firearms. Would you turn them over? Would you hide them? Would you resist? For you, is that your final answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Brent, I thought I was on your side, I guess not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Boyce Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 It seems like paranoid hysteria to me. Reminiscent of Cold War anti-communism propaganda, but jacked up a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now