Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" gets US release date - June 25

[Atahualpa]

My bandwidth is limited to 3GB per quarter and I only have ~500MB left for this month.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
What we have here is the attempt to suppress objectionable information. Why is it so ridiculous to call it censorship?

Um, no, it's not an attempt to do so, as has been explained. Disney didn't suppress or delete anything. If that was their aim, why on earth would they have sold the rights back to the Weinsteins?

They just didn't want to release the movie under their aegis. And that's the perogative of every private business. I think it was a bad business move, but it's hardly something to start screaming "censorship!" over.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do you know for a fact that Moore does not have any kind of contractual obligations with Miramax for this film?

Does that matter? Is every breach of contract case censorship? I don't think so.

isn't it quite obvious that the company tried to stop the film for its message, not depending on its profitability? Shouldn't this be a case for concern?

In Disney's mind it did depend on profitability. Disney wants to market themselves as a non-offensive company to everyone. I guess they figured in the long run releasing this movie would hurt that image that they have cultivated.

Um, no, it's not an attempt to do so, as has been explained. Disney didn't suppress or delete anything. If that was their aim, why on earth would they have sold the rights back to the Weinsteins?

They just didn't want to release the movie under their aegis. And that's the perogative of every private business. I think it was a bad business move, but it's hardly something to start screaming "censorship!" over.

Well put . If Disney was 'censoring' this film, they'd prevent anyone else from releasing the movie, but that isn't the case here. They have nothing against Moore, they just don't want his controversial film to be under their banner.

[GePap]

Boris to the rescue!

[Atahualpa]

Um, no, it's not an attempt to do so, as has been explained. Disney didn't suppress or delete anything. If that was their aim, why on earth would they have sold the rights back to the Weinsteins?

You are right they did. I should have used past tense, sorry.

Just think that I am referring to a hypothetical situation. The discussion is still valid under those circumstances.
It was their movie right? IF they choosed to keep and hide it, some people still think that would be okay, because its their property after all, while I think its not.

The way Disney acted now that they sold it, is okay. If they dont want to publish it, at least they should give the chance to someone else to do it. (that goes to DinoDoc's question as well if he still bothers to read)

[Atahualpa]

If Disney was 'censoring' this film, they'd prevent anyone else from releasing the movie, but that isn't the case here.

true, its not the case here.

To my defense I want to say that I posted under the assumption that they did not sell it, kept it and trashed it. Under this assumption I think its valid to use the term censorship given the definition for this word.

[Chemical Ollie]

I think Moore is rich enough to start his own distribution company. But this talk of censorship fits him like a hand in a glove, to prove how evil the big corporations are.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
To my defense I want to say that I posted under the assumption that they did not sell it, kept it and trashed it. Under this assumption I think its valid to use the term censorship given the definition for this word.

That's why the thread was titled "Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" gets US release date."

[Imran Siddiqui]

But this talk of censorship fits him like a hand in a glove, to prove how evil the big corporations are.

Bingo! He's playing this as propaganda.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That's why the thread was titled "Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" gets US release date."

Not only that, but Atahualpa's first post in the thread notes how he's looking forward to see it, so I don't see how he can claim he was under the impression Disney had suppressed and "trashed" the film.

I hear the furious sound of backpedaling...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Atahualpa


true, its not the case here.

To my defense I want to say that I posted under the assumption that they did not sell it, kept it and trashed it. Under this assumption I think its valid to use the term censorship given the definition for this word.

Disney has every right to censor its product. They could have bought and buried this movie, and it is their right to do so. In the USA, the government does not have the right to do what private citizens or companies can do. It seems to me that you're caught up in a word that is changing definition i.e. 'censorship' is coming to refer to only government actions.

[SpencerH]

I'm surprised by some of the people who dont appear to appreciate Moores docudramas.

[MrFun]

I really don't care to hear any blabberings from any extremists -- left or right.


And this notion of censorship, as others have already pointed out, is ridiculous.

[Boris Godunov]

Moore makes entertaining movies, simple as that. I've yet to not be entertained by his films. He knows what he's doing in the filmmaking department, and all the advance reviews say that this is his best film to date. So I'm there.

[MrFun]

to each his own