Disney is EVIL - Censorship!

[bipolarbear]

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.

WHat do you mena by that ?

I'm actually a pretty big Michael Moore fan, but he never really offers a solution, he jsut sits around criticizing. I guess he hints htat becoming an extension of Canada wpould be good, but I'm not sure. I see this as a PR stunt to make it look as if he's fighting the good fight. In truth, his stuff gets quite old after a while. If you read stupid white men, and watch roger and me, and bowling for columbine, you've gotten all of his arguments that he has ever all wrapped up into one nice little media ball.
He never has a new opinion. Oh ok, he said no to war, but that was expected. He jsut rehashes his arguments. I began to read his new book, but got tired of all of his crpa after a while, b/c it was jsut liek Stupid WHite Men, but w/ different words.
One thing to never do, is to wattch the entire seaomn fo The Awful Truth. It's good to begin with, but it jsut becomes a bunch of what all of his documentaries are: Him stnading in some corporation's building's lobby, waiting to have somebody coem down and ignore him, and his sometimes loaded questions. It gets REALLLY boring. His corporate COPS section is funny though!

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Tingkai



So if Weinstein is to blame then Moore is justified in saying that he is being unfairly screwed. Moore entered into a contract with Miramax in good faith and delivered his side of the bargain. Now, Disney is forcing Miramax to screw him.

The victim here is Moore.

Please repeat after me: I'll go slow as to help you get the point Disney... refused... to... release... this... movie... before... any... deal... was... signed.

If Moore is being screwed by Weinstein then he should mention Weinstein and Miramax by name. Since he isn't, since his agent and he are laying the blame on Disney's shoulders, one can only logically assume that this is not a valid complaint but another publicity stunt, based upon half-truths and lies, in order to generate sympathy votes in his quest to win the Palm d'Or. (sp)

Moore might be a victim but is more likely a willing participant in Harvey Weinsteins power struggle with Michael Eisner. Given that Moore has been in the industry for nigh on 20 years, "innocence" is not a defense he can use lightly.

[JohnT]

Busted!

Looks like I was proven right again:

Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban'
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
07 May 2004


Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.

Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001.

In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.

But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

Nobody in Hollywood doubts Fahrenheit 911 will find a US distributor. His last documentary, Bowling for Columbine , made for $3m (£1.7m), pulled in $22m at the US box office.

But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working. A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free expression.

Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]" but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract. And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for financing, not for distribution.

Italics mine. Link.

[General Ludd]

Why does this excite you so, JohnT?

[JohnT]

I'm fascinated by the motion picture industry... it has always been a big interest of mine, and over a decade ago I was giving serious consideration of heading out to LA and seeing if I could break into it. Not as an actor or anything, just whatever would cross my lap.

Laura would've been an excellent casting director. We used to play a "game" where we would recast movies and her selections were, almost inerrently, spot on.

[-Jrabbit]

This brilliant PR ploy is clearly doing its job -- getting otherwise uncaring folks like us to discuss a film we haven't seen just before its premier.

It's similar to the Spiderman-on-the-bases fiirestorm of the past day or so in that respect.

In the end, the film will be released, with much more public awareness that it would normally receive (though hitting on this topic in an election year was going to hit a nerve anyway).

Anyone who seriously thinks MMoore is a victim in this transaction is being incredibly naive. This is a marketing campaign, plain and simple.

Disney evil? Duh! Of course -- at least in the sense that any multibillion $$ entertainment conglomerate is. But trying to equate their ability to get tax breaks with their distribution policies, policy on employee facial hair, or whatever, is just misdirection away from the "please talk about me" neediness that's at the heart of this.

I'm a Michael Moore fan -- I like troublemakeers who stir things up. But please, ppl, try to see this for what it is -- a desperate plea for attention, nothing Moore.

------------
SIDEBAR: [rant] I'm continually amazed at the perception that Miraxax is this "gritty little indy" film company. They have been big-money corporate schmucks for years now, and love to revel in their history. No one who puts out $100MM movies that debut on upwards of 4000 screens in the US is indy. They have put out some great stuff, but they're about as establishment as you can get. The "indy" vibe is pure image-mongering, not supportable by any objective measure of the term "independent film." [/rant]

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

How surprising, Moore lied? Say its not so. In light of his previous track record of intellectual honesty surely makes this a big let down.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Love that story, JohnT. Especially how it takes Moore's words out of context.

Gorani: What was your communication with Disney?

Moore: Almost a year ago after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent that he was upset that Miramax had made the film -- Disney owns Miramax -- and he will not distribute this film.

Miramax said don't worry about that, keep making the film, we'll keep funding it. The Disney money kept flowing to us for the last year. We finished the film last week, and we take it to the Cannes film festival next week.

On Monday of this week we got final word from Disney that they will not distribute the film. They told my agent they did not want to upset the Bush family, particularly Gov. Bush of Florida because Disney was up for a number of tax incentives, abatements ... whatever. The risk of losing this -- we're talking about tens of millions of dollars -- they didn't want to risk it over a little documentary.

Arguing Disney's point, Michael Eisner said, look we don't want to take part in a partisan film right before the election in America. So to be fair to the company, if they feel it hurts their bottom line, why haven't they the right to say they don't want to distribute it?

Our media companies are invested with the public trust. That trust states that they're there to allow all voices to be heard. We live in a free and open society where dissent is not to be stifled or silenced. They have violated that trust. We have only got a few studios left, right, and if we get to a point where they can decide that only these voices can be heard, how free and open is our society at that point?

So Disney signed a contract to distribute this, they got cold feet, they're afraid. Yes, the Bushes will not like this movie ... they will really not like this movie. Because we're going to show things like they haven't seen before about the Bush family, about the war in Iraq and a number of other things.

So what's your next step? You don't have a distributor now but you've had so much publicity in the last few days out of this, you've probably had people calling you to say they're willing to distribute this movie and internationally will it be seen?

The good news is that internationally we already have distributors in much of the world. So it will be seen outside of America for sure some time this year. But I hope it doesn't happen where an American film maker makes a film about America and it can't be seen in America.

What is the message to the rest of the world then? It's not a good message so I'm hopeful we'll shortly have an American distributor. One good thing about Americans regardless of their political stripe is that they don't like to be told they can't see something -- that's what Disney has said. And I'm pretty confident we'll prevail here.

What moron would turn down money to make a movie even if he knew that it wouldn't necessarily be distributed by said conglomerate. And since he had a contract (at least with Miramax, probably with Disney), why wouldn't he expect to be able to release it? Miramax has, from time to time, established private distribution companies like it did for 'Kids'.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Love that story, JohnT. Especially how it takes Moore's words out of context.

How is it out of context when that is exactly what he said word for word? The only suprise is that Miramax funded the thing over the wishes of their owner. I wonder if anyone will get sacked.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

I can't completely call Disney evil...they did give Howard Dean a $20,000 campaign contribution...I don't know how much they gave Bush, but I know it doesn't rank in the top 20 (Microsoft, however, gave Bush twice as much as it did Kerry).

[The Emperor Fabulous]

It is out of context because Miramax's intentions led Moore to believe that the movie would be made, and if made, it would be distributed.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Love that story, JohnT. Especially how it takes Moore's words out of context.



What moron would turn down money to make a movie even if he knew that it wouldn't necessarily be distributed by said conglomerate. And since he had a contract (at least with Miramax, probably with Disney), why wouldn't he expect to be able to release it? Miramax has, from time to time, established private distribution companies like it did for 'Kids'.

Please, EF, don't embarrass yourself further. This article does nothing to dispute my assertion that Harvey Weinstein is using MM as a pawn in a power struggle with Eisner. It does nothing to disprove the fact that Disney refused a year ago to distribute the film. All it does is show that MM has a hard problem stating the facts:

Disney did not sign a distribution agreement for the film as claimed.

Miramax didn't even sign a production deal with Moore, just a financing arrangement between Miramax and Dog Eat Dog Films. DEDF is in charge of production, Miramax just supplied the financing.

Production on the film didn't even begin until June of last year, so MM assertion that the film was "already in production" when the deal was signed is, again, false.

His constant switching of the "Disney" and "Miramax" names is also indicative of his inability to tell the truth - he claims that "Disney" was going to distribute it when, in fact, his deal was with Miramax. You might think that it doesn't matter, but in this industry, credit is everything and MM is purposely fudging who supposedly agreed to what in order to paint Disney in an unflattering light.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
It is out of context because Miramax's intentions led Moore to believe that the movie would be made, and if made, it would be distributed.

Moore knows better than that, though. You're sounding like MM is some outsider getting screwed by the system when in fact he's as inside as inside can be.

Moore can read a contract as well as anybody else. Given that the contract was NOT, repeat, NOT a distribution agreement, your assertion that he was "led to believe" doesn't wash at all.

[JohnT]

Here's MM's very own website quote:

Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Then from CNN

"Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

[The Emperor Fabulous]

This article does nothing to dispute my assertion that Harvey Weinstein is using MM as a pawn in a power struggle with Eisner.

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

His constant switching of the "Disney" and "Miramax" names is also indicative of his inability to tell the truth - he claims that "Disney" was going to distribute it when, in fact, his deal was with Miramax.

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?

From CNN: A statement from Disney subsidiary Miramax -- which was to distribute the film in the U.S. -- said it was discussing the issue with Disney.

So then it IS Miramax to be distributing, but it is DISNEY that is blocking the release. Why shouldn't Moore come out swinging against this?

Plus, Moore isn't lying in those two statements. Let's bold a different word, shall we?

Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Is that a lie?