Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

Page 528 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

thehog said:
Lemond’s rival camera crew is forever appearing in Gibney’s frame in his movie

Sure, it's because of LeMond. Couldn't possibly be because you regularly post things which are fairly unbelievable. Which turned out to be the case, as the LeMond film crew was apparently not filming the other film crew as you stated. If you'd simply have stated what was in the article, it's rather doubtful I'd have challenged you, as yes, LeMond does do some over the top stuff. But filming the film crew sounded like BS. And it apparently was.

I've long since ceased giving a **** about Armstrong enough to watch the Gibney movie. Don't know how y'all can keep up the interest.

Considering you haven't seen the movie, 'The Armstrong Lie', I'm not sure you're in position to provide an opinion.

Perhaps go see the film and we'll pick this up with my accurate quote and link. Thanks again.

I've seen the movie.

Even saw the World Premiere of it at the TIFF. Complete with Betsy and Jonathan there for Q+A.

And, I even asked them both questions, which they both answered.

So, I suggest that at least one of us participating here has done their homework.

What you have done, however, is take an overstatement ("LeMoond's rival crew is forever appearing...") and miscontrue it further.

To what end is clearly debatable.

However, the reason that Gibney uses any shot of LeMond's crew is crystal clear if you have seen the movie, and is employed as a device to underscore Gibney's message.

That message being that Gibney was originally duped. He originally shot the footage of LeMond's crew to underscore how some were trying to take down this "tale of wholesome redemption". Then, when he got wise, he opted to include the footage - saving it from the editing scrap pile - because it underscored how Gibney himself had been tricked by the best liar he's ever met.


As hthe interview article notes, "At the time, there was many a sceptic who could have put him right"

Including the footage of LeMond's crew was thus a device to point out the extent of how much Gibney was duped by Lance - the major sub-theme, arguably even the major theme of the movie - when the signs were obvious.

Dave.
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

D-Queued said:
That message being that Gibney was originally duped.

I find it very difficult to accept any argument that Gibney was duped. He chose a side. He chose to ignore the evidence. At the barest minimum he should have known enough to know he shouldn't be taking sides, the pro or the anti. Him saying he was duped, that's just blaming LA for his own errors. To take this back to where we began: Walsh was right in what he said about Gibney:

"[Gibney was] enjoying his ride with Lance, he was a friend of Lance's, he was kind of being sucked in, he was enjoying that celebrity connection. And I would say [to him], 'Alex, you just neglected your journalistic self for a few months, or for a year, whatever and you were sucked in by it. You were crazy, man.'"
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

thehog said:
Lemond’s rival camera crew is forever appearing in Gibney’s frame in his movie

Sure, it's because of LeMond. Couldn't possibly be because you regularly post things which are fairly unbelievable. Which turned out to be the case, as the LeMond film crew was apparently not filming the other film crew as you stated. If you'd simply have stated what was in the article, it's rather doubtful I'd have challenged you, as yes, LeMond does do some over the top stuff. But filming the film crew sounded like BS. And it apparently was.

I've long since ceased giving a **** about Armstrong enough to watch the Gibney movie. Don't know how y'all can keep up the interest.

Considering you haven't seen the movie, 'The Armstrong Lie', I'm not sure you're in position to provide an opinion.

Perhaps go see the film and we'll pick this up with my accurate quote and link. Thanks again.

Or you could just post some evidence to back up your assertion. Like a clip of the crew filming the crew, since it wasn't in the article you referenced. Or someone who would know, reliably making the same assertion. All I originally asked for was for you to back up your assertion. Which you haven't. Yet.

If you do I shall happily stand corrected and give you more of the benefit of the doubt in the future. PM me when you get it up there, I don't follow this thread in a timely fashion. I got pulled in by some comedy in the feedback forum on this occasion. Thanks.
 
No third week comeback for The Program as its UK box office woes continue. This is worse that watching Sam Bennett struggle to hold on to the lanterne rouge at the Tour:

CS-2gEqXIAAvHgG.png:large
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

red_flanders said:
thehog said:
Lemond’s rival camera crew is forever appearing in Gibney’s frame in his movie

Sure, it's because of LeMond. Couldn't possibly be because you regularly post things which are fairly unbelievable. Which turned out to be the case, as the LeMond film crew was apparently not filming the other film crew as you stated. If you'd simply have stated what was in the article, it's rather doubtful I'd have challenged you, as yes, LeMond does do some over the top stuff. But filming the film crew sounded like BS. And it apparently was.

I've long since ceased giving a **** about Armstrong enough to watch the Gibney movie. Don't know how y'all can keep up the interest.

Considering you haven't seen the movie, 'The Armstrong Lie', I'm not sure you're in position to provide an opinion.

Perhaps go see the film and we'll pick this up with my accurate quote and link. Thanks again.

Or you could just post some evidence to back up your assertion. Like a clip of the crew filming the crew, since it wasn't in the article you referenced. Or someone who would know, reliably making the same assertion. All I originally asked for was for you to back up your assertion. Which you haven't. Yet.

If you do I shall happily stand corrected and give you more of the benefit of the doubt in the future. PM me when you get it up there, I don't follow this thread in a timely fashion. I got pulled in by some comedy in the feedback forum on this occasion. Thanks.

I posted a link to the film a few posts back. Clearly you didn't see it. It's in movie, you need to watch the film, I really can't help you if you don't wish to watch it.

No harm done, it's clear you're just trolling.
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

fmk_RoI said:
D-Queued said:
That message being that Gibney was originally duped.

I find it very difficult to accept any argument that Gibney was duped. He chose a side. He chose to ignore the evidence. At the barest minimum he should have known enough to know he shouldn't be taking sides, the pro or the anti. Him saying he was duped, that's just blaming LA for his own errors. To take this back to where he began: Walsh was right in what he said about Gibney:

"[Gibney was] enjoying his ride with Lance, he was a friend of Lance's, he was kind of being sucked in, he was enjoying that celebrity connection. And I would say [to him], 'Alex, you just neglected your journalistic self for a few months, or for a year, whatever and you were sucked in by it. You were crazy, man.'"

Now THAT, my friends, is Lance Armstrong’s argument in a nutshell. Everybody knew he was a doper, so the statute of limitations ran out a long time ago.

I don't buy it. I believe Gibney when he says he was duped. Lance's talent as a liar was remarkable.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Wow that is dire. Is Walsh still talking this bomb up? :rolleyes:

Maybe he doesn't know. By now he's probably blocked everybody likely to mention it on Twitter.

The bigger question: does LA know? Its Texas opening is tonight, maybe someone should tell him how much it's tanked so he doesn't waste his time by going along...
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

MarkvW said:
fmk_RoI said:
D-Queued said:
That message being that Gibney was originally duped.

I find it very difficult to accept any argument that Gibney was duped. He chose a side. He chose to ignore the evidence. At the barest minimum he should have known enough to know he shouldn't be taking sides, the pro or the anti. Him saying he was duped, that's just blaming LA for his own errors. To take this back to where he began: Walsh was right in what he said about Gibney:

"[Gibney was] enjoying his ride with Lance, he was a friend of Lance's, he was kind of being sucked in, he was enjoying that celebrity connection. And I would say [to him], 'Alex, you just neglected your journalistic self for a few months, or for a year, whatever and you were sucked in by it. You were crazy, man.'"

Now THAT, my friends, is Lance Armstrong’s argument in a nutshell. Everybody knew he was a doper, so the statute of limitations ran out a long time ago.

I don't buy it. I believe Gibney when he says he was duped. Lance's talent as a liar was remarkable.

Yes, remarkable. But, by 2009, most every intelligent person with any kind of sense of this should have realized the liar and his lies.

Thus, fmk_Rol has a good and valid point.

So did Gibney's The Armstrong Lie include a white lie by Gibney himself?

One where LeMond was half-embraced, while also purposefully half derided?

Like the lessons from fanboys, it is increasingly hard to believe that intelligent people could have been or would still have been duped by that point in time. There was lots of open evidence available.

It is particularly hard to believe that anyone could have been duped with the kind of access that Gibney had - and even more unlikely that he could have been duped given his typical documentary POV.

Knowingly choosing to ignore the evidence, perhaps. And, looking to cast aspersions on those, like LeMond, who would undermine the fairy tale he planned to weave about wholesome redemption.

LeMond was a device Gibney originally intended to employ for audience derision.

It is obviously difficult to completely turn a negative into a positive - even when you pull a 180 on your film's message. The damage had already been 'wrapped' (sic) in the original footage.

It also isn't clear if Gibney still harbored any ill-will, or any sort of personal negative judgement, towards LeMond and his film crew. Thus, by inclusion in the revised film's viewpoint, he elevates LeMond's film crew and LeMond's quixotic joust while at the same time allowing the opportunity for derision given that it is impossible to erase the originally intended POV from the original filming.

Now, someone can cut and paste all of this into their Film School paper on this and other documentary films.

With the inclusion of the LeMond film crew, we have a great example of how documentary filmmakers can and will still present the product of a distorted lens. Through their choice of scene selection, filming techniques and editing (let alone lighting, sound, etc.) they can and will perpetuate fiction when allegedly promoting a non-fiction.

Dave.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
Wow that is dire. Is Walsh still talking this bomb up? :rolleyes:

Maybe he doesn't know. By now he's probably blocked everybody likely to mention it on Twitter.

The bigger question: does LA know? Its Texas opening is tonight, maybe someone should tell him how much it's tanked so he doesn't waste his time by going along...

I guess Walsh's dreams of taking Hollywood are over :rolleyes:
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
Wow that is dire. Is Walsh still talking this bomb up? :rolleyes:

Maybe he doesn't know. By now he's probably blocked everybody likely to mention it on Twitter.

The bigger question: does LA know? Its Texas opening is tonight, maybe someone should tell him how much it's tanked so he doesn't waste his time by going along...

I guess Walsh's dreams of taking Hollywood are over :rolleyes:

That depends on Murdoch and whether Sky roll out something for the big screen...... ;)
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

thehog said:
red_flanders said:
thehog said:
Lemond’s rival camera crew is forever appearing in Gibney’s frame in his movie

Sure, it's because of LeMond. Couldn't possibly be because you regularly post things which are fairly unbelievable. Which turned out to be the case, as the LeMond film crew was apparently not filming the other film crew as you stated. If you'd simply have stated what was in the article, it's rather doubtful I'd have challenged you, as yes, LeMond does do some over the top stuff. But filming the film crew sounded like BS. And it apparently was.

I've long since ceased giving a **** about Armstrong enough to watch the Gibney movie. Don't know how y'all can keep up the interest.

Considering you haven't seen the movie, 'The Armstrong Lie', I'm not sure you're in position to provide an opinion.

Perhaps go see the film and we'll pick this up with my accurate quote and link. Thanks again.

Or you could just post some evidence to back up your assertion. Like a clip of the crew filming the crew, since it wasn't in the article you referenced. Or someone who would know, reliably making the same assertion. All I originally asked for was for you to back up your assertion. Which you haven't. Yet.

If you do I shall happily stand corrected and give you more of the benefit of the doubt in the future. PM me when you get it up there, I don't follow this thread in a timely fashion. I got pulled in by some comedy in the feedback forum on this occasion. Thanks.

I posted a link to the film a few posts back. Clearly you didn't see it. It's in movie, you need to watch the film, I really can't help you if you don't wish to watch it.

No harm done, it's clear you're just trolling.

Despite the fact that those who have watched have said there isn't anything like that in the film.

Keep digging.
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

red_flanders said:
...

Despite the fact that those who have watched have said there isn't anything like that in the film.

Keep digging.

Thanks red. I think we are all wise to the agenda being pursued here.

D-Queued said:
...

Yes, remarkable. But, by 2009, most every intelligent person with any kind of sense of this should have realized the liar and his lies.

...

Dave.

Nice post Dave.

Dave.
 
Re:

MarkvW said:
The reference to a vague "agenda" is ridiculous. Lighten up.

And there is no need to bait hoggie.


Hilarious isn't it? It's like tailwind part 2! :rolleyes:

Like I said, one mention of LeMond and his recording devices sends people into gaga land.

It's there in the movie and the links. LeMond paid a film crew to film a film crew filming Armstrong. I know it's hard for some to digest because It's Armstrong like behaviour from our Greg. Doesn't mean it didn't happen despite the protests and attempts to water it down.
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

fmk_RoI said:
"[Gibney was] enjoying his ride with Lance, he was a friend of Lance's, he was kind of being sucked in, he was enjoying that celebrity connection. And I would say [to him], 'Alex, you just neglected your journalistic self for a few months, or for a year, whatever and you were sucked in by it. You were crazy, man.'"

:D No way.
Walsh wrote this about someone else?
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
MarkvW said:
The reference to a vague "agenda" is ridiculous. Lighten up.

And there is no need to bait hoggie.


Hilarious isn't it? It's like tailwind part 2! :rolleyes:

Like I said, one mention of LeMond and his recording devices sends people into gaga land.

It's there in the movie and the links. LeMond paid a film crew to film a film crew filming Armstrong. I know it's hard for some to digest because It's Armstrong like behaviour from our Greg. Doesn't mean it didn't happen despite the protests and attempts to water it down.

You got any photoshop skills Hog? You need to put your former avatar into a hiding place amongst the leaves of your current avatar. :p
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

D-Queued said:
So did Gibney's The Armstrong Lie include a white lie by Gibney himself?

One where LeMond was half-embraced, while also purposefully half derided?

Like the lessons from fanboys, it is increasingly hard to believe that intelligent people could have been or would still have been duped by that point in time. There was lots of open evidence available.

It is particularly hard to believe that anyone could have been duped with the kind of access that Gibney had - and even more unlikely that he could have been duped given his typical documentary POV.

Knowingly choosing to ignore the evidence, perhaps. And, looking to cast aspersions on those, like LeMond, who would undermine the fairy tale he planned to weave about wholesome redemption.

LeMond was a device Gibney originally intended to employ for audience derision.

It is obviously difficult to completely turn a negative into a positive - even when you pull a 180 on your film's message. The damage had already been 'wrapped' (sic) in the original footage.

It also isn't clear if Gibney still harbored any ill-will, or any sort of personal negative judgement, towards LeMond and his film crew. Thus, by inclusion in the revised film's viewpoint, he elevates LeMond's film crew and LeMond's quixotic joust while at the same time allowing the opportunity for derision given that it is impossible to erase the originally intended POV from the original filming.

Now, someone can cut and paste all of this into their Film School paper on this and other documentary films.

With the inclusion of the LeMond film crew, we have a great example of how documentary filmmakers can and will still present the product of a distorted lens. Through their choice of scene selection, filming techniques and editing (let alone lighting, sound, etc.) they can and will perpetuate fiction when allegedly promoting a non-fiction.

This doesn't really need a reply but is worth repeating cause it shows what cycling fans can see if they don't just go "Yay! Bikes!" when watching cycling films. (Or "Boo! Hiss!" whenever anything with LA in it appears.)
 
Re: Re:

Beech Mtn said:
thehog said:
MarkvW said:
The reference to a vague "agenda" is ridiculous. Lighten up.

And there is no need to bait hoggie.


Hilarious isn't it? It's like tailwind part 2! :rolleyes:

Like I said, one mention of LeMond and his recording devices sends people into gaga land.

It's there in the movie and the links. LeMond paid a film crew to film a film crew filming Armstrong. I know it's hard for some to digest because It's Armstrong like behavior from our Greg. Doesn't mean it didn't happen despite the protests and attempts to water it down.

You got any photoshop skills Hog? You need to put your former avatar into a hiding place amongst the leaves of your current avatar. :p

The old microphone hidden in the plant trick! :rolleyes: