Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Holden McGroin on May 05, 2004, 05:16:23 PM
-
Controversial director Michael Moore has said film studio Disney is refusing to release his new documentary, which heavily criticises President Bush.
Fahrenheit 911 was to be distributed by Miramax, a division of Disney.
But Disney has "officially decided to prohibit" Miramax from distributing the film, the director said on his website.
Moore, who won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine in 2003, questioned whether in a "free and open society" Disney should be making such a decision.
Aren't they free to make a business decision?
Perhaps they decided that Moore is a hack...
Or perhaps they are trying to stir up some controversy so when they finally do release it many will pay 12.50 to see what the fuss is all about...
-
Good name for a film. Presumably he has consulted Kurt V. Jr?
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Aren't they free to make a business decision?
your world is not that free, it belongs to money
and its logic, if my company will owen other company, sure there exist legal way, how to influence owened company
since you owen company for profit and not for goodness
does it make sense ?
-
Moore needs to start eating more lettuce and fewer animals.
What kind of bleeding heart is he anyway?
-
The best kind, Saur!
lada. I think I know what you are trying to say, but the profit motive has been part of humankind's history since the beginining of time. How much you are prepared to do to make a profit, well that's another question entirely.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by lada
your world is not that free, it belongs to money
and its logic, if my company will owen other company, sure there exist legal way, how to influence owened company
since you owen company for profit and not for goodness
does it make sense ?
Yes having everything be publicallyb owned like in communism really does help freedom... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by ravells
The best kind, Saur!
lada. I think I know what you are trying to say, but the profit motive has been part of humankind's history since the beginining of time. How much you are prepared to do to make a profit, well that's another question entirely.
Ravs
sure and i didnt say its wrong.
all i said is, that people are not that free as they appear to be.
In other words, they are slaves of many things.. money for example
when owned company do ignore mother company, i can imagine whole top management w/o job day later.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes having everything be publicallyb owned like in communism really does help freedom... :rolleyes:
if you say that, it must be true then
-
YES! lada!
What's the alternative?
Ravs
-
What is most disturbing about all this is this tidbit from MM's agent:
Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.
Yet Disney feels that Michael Savage is OK to support....interesting.
-
Originally posted by ravells
Good name for a film. Presumably he has consulted Kurt V. Jr?
Ravs
Now I'm confused. IIRC, Fahrenheit 451 was written by Bradbury.
-
Originally posted by lada
your world is not that free, it belongs to money...
One is (relatively) free to make a business decision, such as a restaurant deciding to serve Thai food.
This theoretical business, being in an Irish / Italian neighborhood, could suffer negative business consequences but the restaurant is free of government regulation regarding that decision.
Freedom means one can choose. Whether or not they are profitable choices is up to you.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Now I'm confused. IIRC, Fahrenheit 451 was written by Bradbury.
Quite right. I'm tired and a bit tipsy. All I'm good for is checking the provenances of Mr Black/txmx.
how sad is that?
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
how sad is that?
Ravs
Not so much. It saves me the trouble of trying to figure it out. :)
-
lol! :aok
Ravs
:aok aaaarrrrrhghhh!
-
WTG Mickey!
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
This theoretical business, being in an Irish / Italian neighborhood, could suffer negative business consequences but the restaurant is free of government regulation regarding that decision.
But in this case it sounds like Disney is not free of government regulation, as they're worried about losing their tax breaks over politics. That's not freedom.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
WTG Mickey!
:aok
Full article:
Disney Forbids Distribution of Moore Film
WASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.
The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.
Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.
In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."
But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.
"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."
Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's company, backed out.
Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.
"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."
Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.
A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many.
"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.
Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, but such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.
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?' "
Mr. Moore's films, like "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," are often a political lightning rod, as Mr. Moore sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, "Bowling for Columbine," took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like "Stupid White Men," a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative.
Mr. Moore does not disagree that "Fahrenheit 911" is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. "If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine," he said.
Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's role in the evacuation of relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.
Mr. Moore once planned to produce the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but "the project wasn't right for Icon," said Alan Nierob, an Icon spokesman, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics.
Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had distributed Mr. Moore's 1997 film, "The Big One." In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute it.
While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution, which would ideally happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
But in this case it sounds like Disney is not free of government regulation, as they're worried about losing their tax breaks over politics. That's not freedom.
The worry was voiced by a Moore croney as a possible explanation, not by a Disney source.
Disney said they wouldn't get behind F 911 from the start.
-
I don't blame Disney from walking away from this. They are already on a few fundie rightwing hate-lists for extending benefits to domestic partners.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The worry was voiced by a Moore croney as a possible explanation, not by a Disney source.
Disney said they wouldn't get behind F 911 from the start.
Why did Disney let its subsidiary Miramax take on the project? Seems like they would have avoided it from the beginning -- it's not like Moore's politics are a surprise to anyone.
-
I cant understand how Moore keeps getting work.
Every time I look at him the word "Clown" pops into my head
I just dont see how anyone can even begin to take him seriously reguardless of political affiliation. I'd be embarrassed to even be associated with him
And someone NEEDS to hand that boy a shaving kit.
Anyone whos beard comes in that badly at his age shouldnt even try LOL
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I cant understand how Moore keeps getting work.
'Columbine' cost like $5 million to make and pulled in over $100 million, that's why.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Why did Disney let its subsidiary Miramax take on the project? Seems like they would have avoided it from the beginning -- it's not like Moore's politics are a surprise to anyone.
Disney has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein.
This is a case of a pissing match between the Weinstien's and Disney CEO Eisner. Office politics may be more important than national politics in this case.
-
I don't know too much about the way the movie industry works, so I'll take your word for it.
Interesting. Thanks.
-
Moore's films and books make millions more then they cost. This is not a buisness decision. It is a political decision. They have the right to make it though.
-
Nothing wrong with someone stirring the pot..It's censorship that you should be worried about.
-
SUCKERS!
Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt
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.
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.
There's no business like show business...:rofl
(NOTE: The Bradbury book was Fahrenheit 451. The temperature at which books burn.)
-
What a dude!
Ravs
-
He Is a big fat babbling gas bag.
But he is an American in America and he has a right to make whatever kind of film he chooses.
And we have the right to go see it or not .
It's just that simple.
-
It'll be interesting to see if the lawyers get into it.
With 6 million of Disney's money (thru Miramax) spent to make it, Disney probably owns it, and therefore Eisner, not Moore, would make the final decision.
-
Hope you go and see the film Mr Black. It'll probably be thought provoking.
Holden: I reckon that he's probably got that base covered, but yes...It'll be intersting to see.
Ravs
-
This little controversy is gonna get the film a wider audience than it prolly originaly had.
Personally I aint too interested one way or another.
But Rip, do some of us a favour and don't wait to be asked to post your source for your rip-n-paste jobs. Just do it. You always include the city and the date, but never the actual source.
I can't even read yer ***** no more because of it.
Not only would it be a courtessy to us, it'd be a courtessy to the sources you're stealing from. It's probably illegal to even cut and paste in the first place. The least ya could do is give 'em credit.
Unless you got something to hide, I don't wanna read anything by the Washington Mooney Times or NewsMax. That may be why you don't post sources. But unless you're out to dupe us or something, let us make up our own minds on it.
-
Originally posted by ravells
Hope you go and see the film Mr Black. It'll probably be thought provoking.
Holden: I reckon that he's probably got that base covered, but yes...It'll be intersting to see.
Ravs
I saw Bowling for Columbine.
It hit home as i grew up not far from there and we played them in football.
Also my sistrer was there as crisis counsoler for jefferson county .
So i heard alot of things the news never reported.
I agreed with alot of what MM was trying to say in the film.
But I do not think that Guns in and of them selves are the villans.
It is the people and In this case two young men who for what ever reason did not get the help they need so badly.
I mean how could someone(the parents) have missed all of the signals.
And yes the fact that two teen age boys could get guns that easy is WAY wrong and I hope we will find the answers some day soon.