Disney is EVIL - Censorship!

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by JohnT
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.

I think you got it right, and that's why Moore tried to keep things under wraps for the past year. He was probably hoping that Eisner's days were numbered too.

I wouldn't be surprised if Roy Disney was using this as ammo to attack Eisner.

As for interviews, this is from the New York Times story:
Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "

Who leaked the story? Moore told the BBC that he went public because someone leaked the info to the NY Times.

But again, the timing of the leak doesn't matter. Disney tried to block the film last year. If Disney succeeds then that sends a message to the rest of the industry and we all know the Hollywood types don't like taking chances. Other distributors, particularly those controlled by mega-corporations might well decide that if Disney is afraid of a backlash then they should be too.

[JohnT]

If Disney succeeds then that sends a message to the rest of the industry and we all know the Hollywood types don't like taking chances. Other distributors, particularly those controlled by mega-corporations might well decide that if Disney is afraid of a backlash then they should be too.

Which is precisely what happened to "The Passion." And they were proven wrong.

Look, this film will find a distributor, one capable of placing it in thousands of screens nationwide (if that's what the marketing plan calls for, that is). However, this cheap attempt at publicity and MM's comments about his "innocence" doesn't help his case. Gibson didn't whine to the press, he just busted his hump for over a year attending meetings and making pitches, until he got a deal with a company not 3 years old when he inked it, a company best known for being the distributor of such art-house films as "Memento", "Monster" and "Donnie Darko".

[Sava]

It seems like Disney is the one at fault here. On CNN last night, Moore says he has a contract from Miramax. If Disney didn't want to distribute the film, they shouldn't have entered in a contract with Moore.

[JohnT]

No, Sava, Weinstein inked a contract in violation of direct orders from Disney. Disney told them a YEAR ago that they were not going to release the movie, and Weinstein signed the deal anyway (in October, IIRC).

The one at fault here is Harvey Weinstein. To be honest, no surprise there.

[Sava]

Weinstein?

ZIONIST CONSPIRACY!

[JohnT]

Weinstein. Surely you know who he is?

[Sava]

yes I do

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Whoha



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

I think that he usually tries to trick some buisness into funding his movies. Wasn't one of them filmed under the guise of a book tour, paid for by barnes and noble that he ended up ragging on in the film?

[JohnT]

You're talking about "The Big One", a cheap shot so ill-received that it took 5 years for Moore to be able to release another movie.

[Spiffor]

Moore's fame due to The Big One is a significant reason of Bowling for Columbine's success.

[JohnT]

Moore's fame due to Roger and Me is a big reason for the success of his later career. Given that The Big One grossed under $700,000 for its entire theatrical run, one would be hard pressed to say that the success of it led to Bowling for Columbine.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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).

Nope, it can't be as efficient at all. Without the media, everyone would be even. With the media, some people are simply better at spreading their message.

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.

And yet you were arguing that it was OK.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JohnT
Moore's fame due to Roger and Me is a big reason for the success of his later career. Given that The Big One grossed under $700,000 for its entire theatrical run, one would be hard pressed to say that the success of it led to Bowling for Columbine.

Not necessarily success in theatres. I mean fame, especially among liberals who found a champion. It was a limited audience, but one that could be a strong force of word-of-mouth once Moore published a broader audience movie like Columbine.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kucinich
And yet you were arguing that it was OK.

Link to the thread.
People will decide if I argued it was OK to kill this pregnant woman and her four children, based on reading what I wrote, not some comment repeated like a mantra in every post you make.
And keep the quote if you want it. Since it is so vomitive, I fail to see why you need to add a comment behind it anyway.

[JohnT]

MM has been a "liberal champion" since R&Me, which grossed almost $7,000,000, unheard of for a documentary at that time. B4C grossed $21,000,000, fyi.

His worst showing was for "Canadian Bacon" a film that didn't even gross $200,000, which he then followed up with TB1, which didn't break $700,000.