Zeitgeist?

Aenigma · Post by **Aenigma** » 2007-09-08 10:20pm

I watched this movie last night; found it very interesting. Thought I would post it here and open it up for commentary. I'm about to head out the door to meet someone, so I don't have time to give my opinion now (I'll do so later). The movie itself is, after the 10 minute opening overture, divided into three parts.

Part I- Myth of Jesus at is relates to previous myths
Part II- 9-11
Part III- Central Banking

Look forward to hearing your opinions.

Edit: forgot to post the link

Feil · Post by **Feil** » 2007-09-08 10:53pm

Nobody is going to watch a feature length film on nothing but some Redshirt's recommendation, particularly when it looks like it's nothing but conspiracy theory nonsense. Summarize its arguments for us, please.

That NOS Guy · Post by **That NOS Guy** » 2007-09-08 11:22pm

Jesus, 9/11, and Central banking?

It's greatly dissapointing that there are no dolphins in this conspiracy.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2007-09-09 12:35am

That NOS Guy wrote:Jesus, 9/11, and Central banking?

It's greatly dissapointing that there are no dolphins in this conspiracy.

Or are there?

*chatters excitedly*

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2007-09-09 12:44am

Ever since one moron on a message board used the word to a ridiculous extent, culminating in a single post with it appearing at least seven times (and not correctly using it once), the phrase "zeitgeist" has been revealed to me as the hallmark of someone talking about something they really shouldn't be.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2007-09-09 05:16am

It seems to be trying to expose 9/11 as a fraud. It seems to use Loose Change as a source of information. It seems reasonable to assume the other parts are not worth watching either. How exactly will this be interesting? An interesting insight into the mind of a deranged madman?

Exmoor Cat · Post by **Exmoor Cat** » 2007-09-09 10:25am

Straha wrote:
That NOS Guy wrote:Jesus, 9/11, and Central banking?

It's greatly dissapointing that there are no dolphins in this conspiracy.
Or are there?

*chatters excitedly*

By the sheer asence of reference, you can safely say they are involved.

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2007-09-09 12:40pm

I've seen this before. Part 1 isn't bad, although they don't mention the most interesting tidbits, like Jesus' divinity being decided upon under Constantine and such. Part 3 starts out interestingly enough, but quickly falls into insanity. Part 2 starts out insane.

Probably the most damning thing about the video is that it features a number of interviews and sound bites that have been poorly edited out of context. There many instances of very notable jumps in ambient noise and run-on words, particularly in Part 2.

EDIT: spelling

Drewcifer · Post by **Drewcifer** » 2007-09-09 01:49pm

If anyone is interested, I found an objective summary of the film: http://filmguide.wikia.com/wiki/Zeitgeist
Interestingly, it seems that this specific article was originally on Wikipedia, but was deleted due to lack of notability:

Wikipedia wrote:Self-published internet movie with no assertion of notability whatsoever, no reliable sources, no mainstream media attention, etc.

Is "filmiac" really a word?

Zeitgeist web site wrote: Zeitgeist was created as a non-profit filmiac expression [....]

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2007-09-09 02:32pm

Filmaic is a non-word used to describe the, ugh, filmyness of a movie. The movielike qualities of the thing being referred to. Filmaic is a quality, not a state, so something else can be filmaic. My dinner could be filmaic even, if it was truly like the ficitious uberdinners of french cinema (and if I was wearing a beret in order to back up the assertion). A day could be filmaic if it was a really great day, and a woman could be filmaic if you're a virgin.

Using it to refer TO a film is usually a red-flag that the film itself is going to be slightly abstract. This is because filmaic film is a non-entity, and it is never used that way. You can make filmaic art though, which is usually 'film art.' Otherwise known as basically arthouse film, or abstract film. If they want to create a filmaic 'expression' then you can be sure it won't even hold Michael Moore standards of movie conventions when it comes to evidence and sound logic.

I'm not sure how else to put it without just being derogatory, since the word itself is just a little ball of pretention anyway. It's one step less pretentious than cinema and like a few leagues less common-man than 'movie,' and is basically like a piano player refusing to be addressed as anything other than a pianist.

It does not bode well for the subject at hand.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2007-09-09 04:26pm

Drewcifer wrote:If anyone is interested, I found an objective summary of the film: http://filmguide.wikia.com/wiki/Zeitgeist
Interestingly, it seems that this specific article was originally on Wikipedia, but was deleted due to lack of notability:

Wikipedia wrote:Self-published internet movie with no assertion of notability whatsoever, no reliable sources, no mainstream media attention, etc.

[citation needed]

Drewcifer · Post by **Drewcifer** » 2007-09-09 09:18pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:[citation needed]

there's a meme in that somewhere...