Disney is EVIL - Censorship!

[Az]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It isn't fully a person, Michael.

But it legally is, and that is all that counts .

It isn't fully a person, legally.

[GePap]

The question is, can Moore get a different distributor, or is he bound by contact to go with MIramax?

I think it would behove Miramax to quit Disney.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sava
What bothers me is that Jeb Bush is threatening to cancel Disney's tax breaks in Florida because of this.

Officially, Jeb isn't threatening to do anything. What is said behind closed doors is only rumored about. Disney shouldn't have those tax breaks anyway.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because they are fundamentally different.

But they are not. They are both organisations acting in the best interest of themselves or stakeholders.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The state isn't allowed to express a preference on who it likes and doesn't like.

What are you saying Imran? A state certainly is allowed to express preferences. For example the US has repeatedly expressed that it does not like Osama bin Laden. Other examples include stances on stem cell research, thoughts on certain imports, how other countries should behave, etc., etc.

[Gibsie]

I hope the film sees the light of day. Of course, we'll have to put up with the tagline, "THE FILM THEY TRIED TO BAN" when it does.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Why not? It's not like any other film company is any better. Under capitalism your choices are basically limited to working for the man or starving, or in this case, working with a giant media conglomerate or not being able to do the film.

You mean, like Mel Gibson?

[bipolarbear]

Disney is crap! It makes more sense for them to release the film, b/c they've been sucking crap ever since they started sucking crap, and that's a long time!
Disney is probably jsut trying to create more tension, and controversy so there will be more money inviolved. YThink about Gibson's recent pursuits.
One rule in showbiz, is the three c's
Controversey Creates Ca$h!
Think bout it
Elvis,
Kiss
Eminem
The Passion of Christ
ther's a million things, but I have to go to class.

[Az]

just a question: If a corporation is a person, why don't they pay income tax, but just the profits are taxed?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
You mean, like Mel Gibson?

A) Mel has a lot more money than Mike, being an heart throb and action star, etc.

B) Mel had a massive free marketting campaign in the Evangelist churches which enabled him to be able to distribute widely.

C) Mel was practiacly guaranteed a huge audience with whole churches buying up tickets.

[Verto]

By Andrew Gumbel

Los Angeles

Michael Moore, the establishment-bashing comedian and film-maker, accused the Walt Disney Company of political censorship yesterday because the company is refusing to distribute his latest documentary lambasting the Bush administration’s handling of national security since 11 September.

Controversy over the film, entitled Fahrenheit 911, erupted on the front page of the New York Times and elsewhere just days before Mr Moore is due to take the film to the Cannes Film Festival for its world premiere.

In an open letter to supporters, Mr Moore accused Disney of trying to kill the film, which is being produced by the Disney subsidiary Miramax, because the company was worried about its business interests in Florida and did not want to offend Governor Jeb Bush, the president’s brother.

“I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter,” he wrote. “For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge.”

Disney officials appeared to be caught off guard by this onslaught and denied that the company’s decision was motivated by political interests in Florida. They also pointed out they had made it clear a year ago that they wanted no involvement with Fahrenheit 911, which was picked up by Miramax against the wishes of its corporate parent. [My emphasis -ed.]

Both the New York Times and Variety, the entertainment industry trade paper of record, suggested the flap over Mr Moore’s film could drive a further wedge between Michael Eisner, the Disney chairman, and the Weinstein brothers who run Miramax. The Weinsteins and Mr Eisner have been at loggerheads for some time, and speculation is rife in Hollywood that Miramax may prefer to find a new corporate sponsor when its contract with Disney comes up for renewal later this year.

In other quarters, the fortuitous timing of the controversy caused some people to wonder whether Mr Moore is really the victim of an attempted corporate muzzling, or whether he is deliberately creating a controversy where little or none exists to generate publicity and trigger a bidding war for the US distribution rights to the film, which have yet to be settled. “This seems almost too good to be true. I smell a rat,” said one well-placed Hollywood source with strong connections to both Disney and Miramax.

Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik remained tight-lipped, saying only: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."

Whatever the true story, the grizzled documentary-maker has once again put himself front and centre of a political row likely to inflame partisan passions on all sides. In 2001, he fought with his publishers, Harper Collins, over the publication of his anti-Bush book Stupid White Men, which Harper Collins felt was politically insensitive in the immediate wake of 11 September. The book was delayed but eventually released in its original form, becoming an overnight bestseller.

Last year, Mr Moore cried censorship again after his unabashedly political speech at the Oscars – he called Mr Bush a “fictitious” president who had just started the Iraq invasion for “fictitious reasons” -- was greeted with jeers and boos. His film about gun violence, Bowling for Columbine, had just picked up the Academy Award for Best Documentary and went on to gross $22 million in North America alone, from an original budget of about $3 million.

Fahrenheit 911 was conceived as a provocative project from the outset. It promises to blow the cover on the cosy connections between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family and show how the White House has only exposed Americans to greater danger, instead of protecting them, since the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon two and a half years ago.

Mel Gibson’s production company, Icon, was originally involved but dropped out this time last year for unknown reasons. (Rumours of political pressure abound in the Moore camp, although Mr Gibson is conservative enough to have political misgivings of his own.)

Miramax then decided to pick up the $6 million production cost on its own. Despite the near-certainty of making a profit on the venture, this was done over the express opposition of Mr Eisner. “Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr Moore’s agent, Ari Emanuel, was quoted saying in the New York Times. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation [in Florida] and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."

Whether or not Florida was a factor, Disney certainly came under pressure from other quarters. Various conservative organisations threatened to boycott Disney, blasting the company, as one right-wing Internet activist put it, “for involving itself with this vile director and his offensive abuse of a national tragedy that is considered sacred to most Americans”.

At the same time, Miramax was bombarded with messages from the other side of the political fence praising the company for its support of Mr Moore.

Miramax would clearly like Disney to distribute the film in the United States, because it would avoid the need to share profits with another company. Miramax appears to have held out some hope that it could bring Mr Eisner around once the film was completed. There is no indication, however, that it was counting on this, or that Mr Eisner has somehow reneged on an earlier promise.

“The only thing that’s new here is in Disney’s reaffirmation of their previously stated position,” one well-placed source said on condition of anonymity. “Miramax never said it was distributing the film, even if people assumed it would find a way.” [My emphasis- ed.]

The source also denied that Fahrenheit 911 was causing any significant personal friction between Mr Eisner and Mr Weinstein, pointing out that they could hardly be getting along worse as it is: “There’s plenty of other issues to have catfights over.”

Mr Moore was not immediately available to answer the charge that he was creating controversy for promotional purposes. He is still at work finalising the print to be shown at Cannes.

[JohnT]

Michael Moore, the establishment-bashing comedian and film-maker, accused the Walt Disney Company of political censorship yesterday.

And that's all you need to know. Jesus Christ, Mike, Disney made the decision a year ago! The very fact that he waited until two weeks before Cannes to whine about it shows him to be the unprincipled publicity whore that he is.

Then there's this:

In an open letter to supporters, Mr Moore accused Disney of trying to kill the film...

Mr Moore was not immediately available to answer the charge that he was creating controversy for promotional purposes.

Can anybody truly trust this guy on this issue?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by JohnT
The very fact that he waited until two weeks before Cannes to whine about it shows him to be the unprincipled publicity whore that he is.

Yeah, it's surprising he doesn't get along with all those movie execs. I would think he'd fit right in.

[JohnT]

Ludd, do yourself a favor and read the articles and not just the responses to them. Here, let me lay down the timeline:

May 2003: Disney informs Moore, Moore's agent, and Miramax that they will not distribute the film.

May 4th, 2004: Michael Moore publishes an open letter complaining of the Disney company's decision.

May 5th, 2004: MM is now "too busy" to answer embarrassing questions about the timing of the controversy (and his decision to sit on it for a year) because he is supposedly finishing post-production.

Puh-leeze!

[Verto]

I'm sure Moore's inevitable documentary on this situation will conveniently leave out the 356 day time lapse. He mastered that particular skill with Bowling for Columbine.

[JohnT]

My favorite Moore fudge was in his first (and still best) movie, Roger and Me. He showed a supposedly "uncaring" Ronald Reagan during a 1984 campaign stop in Flint, MI "ignoring" the plight of the workers in his speech.

Problem: He visited Flint in 1976, 3 years before GM shut down any plants and 8 years before the '84 elections.