Disney is EVIL - Censorship!

[Zkribbler]

Oh, the utter brilliance of this PR stunt.

Tons of free publicity, Jeb Bush (and prob'ly his brother) are made to look like bad guys; mega-gajillionaire Disney made to look like a helpless victim and; MM made to look like a free-speech hero. Later, when this documentary is release (whether by Miramax or whoever) people will actually go to see it.

I can hear Disney and MM dancing in the backroom now.

In the words of that great American Bugs Bunny:
SUCKERS!!

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by 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!

I wasn't being saracastic.

[JohnT]

I can hear Disney and MM dancing in the backroom now.

Excepting the fact that Disney will likely sell the movie back to the producer (as they did with "Dogma", another Miramax film), I'm not too sure what they'll be dancing about.

[Zero]

disney? censoring?

disneyfying our world?

:hmm:

[Kuciwalker]

I can understand why Disney wouldn't want to publish Moore. I find it extreme that Disney bullies a daughter company on this topic. But I do fail to see why privately-made censorship is morally superior than publicly-made censorship

The same reason why Ming is able to edit your posts. Whatever the company does, you can still say whatever you want. They aren't under any obligation to let YOU use THEIR airtime to broadcast your message, just like Mark and Dan are not obligated to let YOU post whatever you want on THEIR forums.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Excellent point, Spiffor. Their position is not consistent.

[Spiffor]

Skywalker: Well, this perspective is consistent (although it overlooks the essential role of media publishers for a message to reach an audience, meaning that a private censorship can be nearly as efficient - if not more - at silencing speech as public censorship).

And please edit your sig. I have no problem with you quoting me*. I have a problem with you pretending I say it is ok to kill a pregnant woman and her children. As you have read, I insisted in the thread that I condemned the barbarous action.

*actually, Plato has a misleading quote of me in his sig: the "I admit the Bushies haven't willingly manipulated intelligence" was preceded by a "for the sake of argument" which Plato conveniently forgot. By that time, I had never believed the Bushies were free of intelligence manipulation. Yet, since it's an actual quote, I don't ask for a correction. By the same token, I see nothing wrong in you suoting me. I see something wrong in you using a cowardly technique, making me look like meaning something I didn't mean
Edit: if you want to show the monster I really am, simply link to the thread. And people will make their minds while reading it.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Azazel

Legally, it is - it has distinct existence and ownership of assets and liabilities, and other legal powers (to sue or be sued, to enter into contracts) which are distinct and separate from any individual shareholder or employee.

It isn't fully a person, Michael. unless you can own stock in people.

In other words, corporations are ubermenscht rather than mere mortal people like us.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I must admit I never quite understood why our capitalists and libertarians find morally agreeable so many things from private interests, that they'll never accept from the State.

I can understand why Disney wouldn't want to publish Moore. I find it extreme that Disney bullies a daughter company on this topic. But I do fail to see why privately-made censorship is morally superior than publicly-made censorship

And you're a shining light of European political activity? God help you all.

Originally posted by Azazel
The corporation is not a person.

Laughable. The corporation is owned by people, and represents their combined interests for financial purposes. What, have the cyborgs taken over already?

Originally posted by Azazel


It isn't fully a person, legally.

As far as the money is concerned, it is.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Cash in your pocket, or cash not out of your pocket that otherwise would be, all adds up the same no matter what label you put on it.

Actually, there is a difference, a big one.

To pay tax you generally have to do something, like be profitable for instance. Reducing taxes is an incentive to do more, like profitable things.

A corporate subsidy often rewards doing nothing of value, or doing a lot of little value. You don't need to innovate or adapt, just suck the ***.

Large difference.

[Uncle Sparky]

Disney has always been evil.

We used to have an annual fundraiser for the Children's Hospital here in Winnipeg called "Pooh Day" after the AA Milne character Winnie the Pooh. I think I may have posted once before that the character of Winnie the Pooh was based on an actual orphan bear cub brought by a Winnipeg soldier to London, Eng. near the start of WW I.

Up until this year, the Disney Corp. supported the event. This year they said that if the hospital foundation
used any images or made references to the AA Milne characters (not just the Disnified versions of them) Disney would sue.

The fund raising event which included picnics, free entertainment and family activities has been renamed "Bear Day" and will continue this year... provided no-one here reports us to the Disney Gestapo !

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by 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!

No interviews? Funny, I saw him on BBC this morning. He also did interviews Tuesday.

Moore said that he and Miramax were trying to resolve the issue through negotiations with Disney. Miramax execs said the same thing. They didn't want to make it public while these talks were underway. That makes sense cause you don't want to piss of a megacorporation.

And the fact stands that Disney is the one trying to block the film.

[JohnT]

Let me quote from the article that Verto quoted. If it is incorrect, then my apologies:

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.

So, I guess he's just ducking American sources.

Moore said that he and Miramax were trying to resolve the issue through negotiations with Disney. Miramax execs said the same thing. They didn't want to make it public while these talks were underway. That makes sense cause you don't want to piss of a megacorporation.

The above doesn't make any sense. Miramax is owned by Disney, there is nothing to negotiate as far as they are concerned. Now Harvey Weinstein might have one of his famous 7 hour tantrums and throw his considerable weight around, but the fact is that his paycheck is signed in Orlando, not New York*.

Secondly, it was Moore who made it public in the first place. Having his agent crawl his ass, making him backtrack faster than the French during the blitzkrieg, doesn't absolve him of the responsiblity nor does it give him the "right" to say "well, we wanted to keep this secret."

Sorry, but again, MM is proving himself to be no friend of the truth.

Thirdly, Disney is not trying to "block" the film... they just don't want to release it under their banners. Believe it or not, this isn't that unusual... even Mel Gibson, a far bigger Hollywood player than MM could even dream of being, couldn't find distribution for his movie. Where were the cries of "censorship!" then? Oh, wait, The Passion wasn't a "real" movie, just a film for religious ****ers, right?

*you know what I mean.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Why is Moore working under disney?

Whats even better, is that some of the corporate entities hes knocking in the film, are funding it.

[JohnT]

Moore isn't working "under" Disney. Moore's production company, Dog Eat Dog Films, made the movie, as they've made all of Moores films and TV shows.

Moore inked a deal with Miramax for US distribution (interestingly enough, only one company is currently willing to distribute the film internationally, and that only in Spain) after Disney invoked it's right to control distribution under the Disney banners and told HW that they weren't going to be allowed to distribute the film.

Weinstein, in a typical Weinstein move, ignored the edict and signed the film anyway. He probably figured Eisner wasn't long for Disney, a miscalculation that could cost him dearly.

[Whoha]

[edit] erm, nevermind.[/edit]