Making a Murderer (Netflix) - New info

Column_sl said:

I'll take this point by point because clearly you are reading whatever you want into what anyone says

Click to expand...

I'll explain that from my perspective this is how our interaction went:

Column_sl said:

...if everything in this Documentary is accurate and the Documentarian didn't edit out any key moments in that courtroom's history.

Click to expand...

So, I felt the reasonable response was to ask you to provide all the key moments and inaccuracies the documentary was leaving out.

And your response was:

Column_sl said:

You are asking me to take the Documentary at face value with no follow up research.

Click to expand...

I literally asked you a question about the follow up research you seem to indicate you would need to take the documentary seriously, and you claim I'm asking you to take the documentary seriously without any additional information.

I'm sorry if you think that qualifies as my "reading whatever you want into what anyone says" but literally, you said you'd have believed the documentary only if they'd included the things you seem to be indicating you know they left out, but can't be assed to actually research to see if they left anything out.

I guess I just didn't get what your point was other than everything is biased, man, and people can try to discuss something as much as they want but how can we ever truly know anything enough to discuss it, you dig?

Jive Turkey_sl said:

They might not have had interviews to go on, but even the in-court footage is highly slanted toward the defence

Click to expand...

The in-court footage was highly slanted toward the subject of the documentary. The documentary wasn't about how even the worst, most corrupt, underhanded prosecution and local law enforcement still sometimes do things right. What would you have included in the documentary that wasn't included? And how would that have further informed the audience of the subject at hand?

I mean, you've at least read and researched this case and greater situation. In a documentary that seemed to very clearly, to anyone with any competent level of comprehension seemed to be about failings of the justice system, what should they have presented that they didn't to those ends? Or better, what has anyone found was admitted that showed this story didn't actually have enough failings to be made the subject of a documentary?

It's not like a Million Little Pieces where we later found out that memoir was largely fabricated and then all one had left to discuss was the definitions and nature of creative nonfiction and what is truth and what is fiction. If there was some smoking gun out there that proved the documentary was unfairly one-sided and doesn't have merit to present the topics it did then wouldn't we have heard about that by now? Wouldn't someone have come forward with hard evidence presented in trial that proved beyond reasonable doubt Avery was the murderer and justified the jury's verdict and given everyone cause to slam the documentary as bias?

Instead, what we've gotten is a few people who will argue and dismiss the documentary and discussion under the guise everything is always inherently bias. And we've gotten a few people who will make their minds up about things after admitting they haven't seen the documentary or seeming to base what they know on assumptions of knowledge that they can't be bothered to research or verify. Kinda the same way multiple people at multiple stages seemed to do in this case that led to exposing so much that is wrong with the justice system in America.

edit: holy crap forum server is dying. double post and all.

Maester Chuk_sl said:

i dont understand why the filmmakers should go out of their way to dig up dirt on avery when the doc is intended to show how he was railroaded by the county. you can still be fair while having a bias. the prosecution had their chance to give their side of the case and declined. thats their bad. they cant complain after the doc comes out because it shows mostly one side

Click to expand...

And if they had done this, some of the same people would just come and say that proves how bias and manipulative they're being by trying to present an unsympathetic hero to con people into rooting for redemption.

In short, there is always a non-argument on an anti-subject that some people will argue just to be a part of a discussion.

Column_sl said:

The thing you are missing is this is not only a news story. This is a film series, and in that effect it is open to many discussions not only on what is in the film series itself ,but how it was made.

This is the TV/Film forum . If you want to start a thread about the case that only discusses it then feel free in the proper forum.

Click to expand...

I have no problem discussing how a film is made. My personal annoyance is the people who think their ignorance of a subject somehow proves they're knowledgeable under some bullshit pseudo-philosophical guise. Like if you don't know something you're justified in being ignorant because nothing can be truly known. Yeah, philosophical bullshit that basically just means someone is an ignorant twat wanting to hear themselves talk or get hard riling up others.

Like saying saying documentaries are all bias, so they have to presume the jury had information we didn't get to justify their decision. When ironically that supposed logic actually flies in the fact of the very subject of the documentary regarding reasonable doubt. The documentary showed stuff directly from the case that most people seem to believe raises reasonable doubt, and with reasonable doubt you're not supposed to convict. So the fact the jury did and that people then take the stance there just must have been more evidence a bias documentary left out is amazing to me. It's a phenomenon directly supportive of the very point the documentary was making about people being self-serving and fallible and almost more irresponsible with power the more power they have. This sort of ignorance and false reasoning is exactly what the documentary documents, and in terrifying fashion, that is then reinforced and demonstrated in the discussions of the very subject.

So, no, I wouldn't want to discourage that discussion at all.

Column_sl said:

The Documentary has many reasons to be made..... 2) To exonerate Steven in the Public's eye....

Click to expand...

I would say you're backward engineering an agenda. You're watching something, noticing the reaction, and then presuming intention from the onset by the producers of something that caused the reaction. I'd like to see what evidence, fact or logic you have to attribute the public reaction you describe in number 2 with an intention of the film makers.

Could it be that that's simply the natural public reaction to the documenting of real life events? Could it be they were fair and accurate and that just happened to be the result?

What if, after exhausting all his appeals, Avery confessed. Do you think the film makers would have excluded that? The bias you cite and agenda you're attributing to the film makers would make one think such a smoking gun would have been excluded, because him confessing would have gone against their intentional agenda to exonerate Steven in the public eye.

Does anyone believe they would have failed to include a confession if they had access to one? I don't think anyone reasonable thinks they would have left that out. Because I don't think anyone reasonable thinks they had a per-defined agenda going into making the film. I think most people recognize the story went where it went because that was just how the story went, and if Avery WAS convicted of murder and the evidence was solid and actually supported that they would have still made the documentary, because it still would have been an engaging and interesting story.

Oh, but let me guess, we can't argue what didn't happen? But if we can't argue they wouldn't have excluded a confession because it didn't happen, then why argue them including what did happen is bias and pushing an agenda that can only be pointed to by retrospectively attributing intention out of a reaction. Especially when the people screaming bias and unfair admit any bias wouldn't actually change what everyone seems to agree are severe injustices. At that point, the only reason to keep claiming bias and unfairness is to invent controversy to support ones own self-serving bias or agenda.

I guess I'm a dick because, if nothing else, I'm not ready to give these two amateur film makers so much credit. To try to contend that 10 years ago they started a documentary with a set agenda.... Yeah, right. Or, maybe they're the real murderers and this is all a huge cover up, because they're just that fucking good at manipulating the public.

Column_sl said:

Actually that has nothing to do with all Documentaries being biased to different degrees. It can have all the evidence ,and still be edited to be skewed extremely Biased in the Film makers agenda.

You clearly are extremely ignorant on how films are made so I'll argue you all day on this topic.

What's funny is you are so out of ideas to argue about you literally took my out clause on a opinion I made to paint this whole picture that I'm implying the Film maker is conning us.

Of course I've never made that statement, only "If" other factual information should come to light that I am not aware of I have the right to revise that opinion.



Which is pretty much a projection of yourself, because you can clearly tell you don't know the first thing about Film making yet you are trying to argue about it.

Cute tho. Projection is a hell of a thing

Click to expand...

Ah, I get it. I'm just putting words in your mouth and am ignorant and I doesn't deserve a response to the actual subject because I'm the one not discussing it and you'll show me by only discussing the fact I'm not discussing the discussion and you're technically right anyway and I don't know anything about anything so I lose and you win.

Fuck me, I've been Columned!