Disney is EVIL - Censorship!

[JohnT]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


I don't know nothin' 'bout that...I came into this only defending Michael Moore.



Wait...maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. Didn't Disney say it wouldn't allow Miramax to distribute the film, because Miramax is owned by Disney? So then isn't Moore attacking the right company?

Moore claims that the deal was signed by Disney. It wasn't - it was signed by Miramax. Yes, Miramax is a subsidiary of Disney but as far as contracts are concerned, Moore's deal was with Miramax, not Disney. He's just playing off of peoples ignorance re: corporate law and structure in order to play the "poor me" card. It doesn't wash.

Also, he was told officially last May, by the CEO and President himself - you can't get any more official than that, EF. Plus, there's been nothing since then to indicate that Disney's position had or will change.

Ergo: manufactured controversy in order to gain sympathy votes for the Palm d'Or.

[JohnT]

And, in my opinion, MM isn't the bad guy in all this... it's Harvey Weinstein. I don't care for the way Moore is purposely misrepresenting the facts in this case, but if it weren't for Weinstein and his ego, he wouldn't be in this predicament.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

When corporate parents begin giving orders to its "independent" corporate subsidiaries, courts are much more likely to "pierce the corporate veil" and to hold the parent liable for the wrongful acts of the subsidiary

But why would Moore's lawyers do this? The ONLY reason you pierce the corporate veil is when you can't get your full damages from the first corporation. Miramax has enough money to cover Moore's damages.

Laws from various states differ, but in California, the amount of punitive damages is based in part upon the net worth of the defendant. In an MM v. Miramax lawsuit, MM's attorney could add in Disney's net worth to Miramax's net worth

But John T points out a more fundamental matter: If the MM-Miramax contract permits Disney to pull the plug on the deal (& I'll be this is the case), then Disney has done nothing legally wrong.

However, if some secretary decides to sue Miramax for sex harassment and discrimination, Disney's directing of Miramax's business decision vias-a-vis MM would give her attorneys a chance to drag Disney in as well.

[JohnT]

Disney has forced Miramax to pull the plug on a number of already-signed deals, most notably "Dogma".

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Ergo: manufactured controversy in order to gain sympathy votes for the Palm d'Or.

You don't often get to se 'ergo' in casual conversation...

[JohnT]

Thanks!

My next task will be to slip in the word "albeit" in one of Zylka's threads. Here's keeping his fingers crossed!

[Spiffor]

Is "albeit" an uncommon word?

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by JohnT
Also, he was told officially last May, by the CEO and President himself - you can't get any more official than that, EF. Plus, there's been nothing since then to indicate that Disney's position had or will change.

Perhaps Moore and co. were working on the assumption that there was a mere possibility than in the time between the inital rejection the people paying 6 million dollars for the movie would see sense and decide to distribute the film. People do change their minds in the real world (as opposed to in internet discussions about Michael Moore).

[JohnT]

The assumption was that Eisner would be out of Disney by this time and that Weinstein would get away with violating a direct order.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Is "albeit" an uncommon word?

Quote me the Zylka thread where it is used!

[Spiffor]

BTW, the only reason I don't use "albeit" is because I can never remember whether the correct style is "alebit he did this" or "albeit his actions". Which one is it?

[JohnT]

Main Entry: al·be·it
Pronunciation: ol-'bE-&t, al-
Function: conjunction
Etymology: Middle English, literally, all though it be
Date: 14th century
: conceding the fact that : even though

[The diplomat]

First, Moore's movie sounds like utter propaganda crap. Second, Disney owns Miramax and has every right to decide what movies get made or not.

[Spiffor]

Thanks John

Damn, I knew my English teacher was old, but 14th century?

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by JohnT
The assumption was that Eisner would be out of Disney by this time and that Weinstein would get away with violating a direct order.

That makes sense. I suppose Moore wouldn't have wanted to kick up a fuss last year as he would have forced Disney's hand and they'd have had to cut funding as well as refuse to distribute. So while it makse sense for him to wait, it doesn't make his case any better in this light (Although chastising him for waiting a year isn't the issue).