Disney moves to block Michael Moore's Summer release flick

[voicegy]

On May 4th, "controversial" filmmaker Michael Moore was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit Miramax from distributing Mr. Moore's new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11."

The film links the Bush family with prominent Saudis, including the family of Osama bin Laden. It describes financial ties that go back three decades and explores the role of the government in evacuating relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The film was financed by Miramax and was expected to be released this summer.

Michael Eisner, Disney's chief executive, had expressed concern that the film might jeopardize tax breaks granted to Disney for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Jeb Bush is governor.

New York Times Editorial:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?A1C452C38

Michael Moore's web site:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

[SlyHunter]

MICHAEL MOORE ADMITS DISNEY 'BAN' A STUNT

Filmmaker and waste of oxygen Michael Moore has admitted that he lied about Disney recently refusing to distribute his film. Anyone surprised? I didn't think so. Turns out there was no recent decision on the part of Disney to not put out his partisan, Bush-bashing picture....he was told over a year ago it wasn't going to happen. So much for the cries of censorship. Think the media will retract their stories? Of course not.

Moore admitted during an interview with CNN that he knew a long time ago Disney wasn't going to release it. This after he wrote a letter to his supporters saying he only found out Monday. So, he lied. Nothing new here...Michael Moore has been lying for years. Will the mainstream media call him on it?

Disney should sue him after that little publicity stunt. Why does anyone take this guy seriously?


http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Want the original source CNN look it up yourself. I posted a similar article yesterday in another thread about this very same subject. Disney told moore over a year ago they weren't going to distribute his product. It had nothing to do with politics, everything to do with their wholesome image. As a private company it is their right.

Me I got other priorities to deal with right now.

[voicegy]

I don't post things lightly, and if there is evidence that Mr. Moore pulled off a publicity stunt, I'll kill this post or post the evidence I've uncovered.

Sly, I did a CNN search for this, and only came up with a CNN related story saying basically the same thing as I originally posted:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/05/moore.disney/

I did find, however, a New Zealand news report repeating what you discovered at boortz.com

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3565069&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

I've written Mr. Moore's website asking for the truth behind these allegations. (of course, you have every right to snicker at what you may think will be the result - or non-result, of that inquiry) I'd like to see a direct reference from CNN regarding Mr. Moore’s admission - do you have a link?

Like I said, I don't take such things lightly, and, if given source materials (other than what the New Zealand press and boortz.com claim) I would have no problem whatsoever in publicly expressing my deep disappointment in Mr. Moore if his statement regarding Disney turns out, in fact, to be a cheap publicity stunt.

[Lyle]

I'd like to see a direct reference from CNN regarding Mr. Moore’s admission - do you have a link?
Here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/06/moore.disney/index.html) is a transcript of an interview that CNN's Hala Gorani did with Michael Moore. Looks like they get right to the point with the first question:
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.So if Moore was previously claiming that he didn't find out about this decision until May 4th (or whatever) it would appear that he's changed his tune. I don't know enough about the movie bidness to understand why Disney/Miramax would continue to fund a movie they didn't intend to distribute, but it does sound as though their position on that point was consistent.

[SlyHunter]

I don't post things lightly, and if there is evidence that Mr. Moore pulled off a publicity stunt, I'll kill this post or post the evidence I've uncovered.

Sly, I did a CNN search for this, and only came up with a CNN related story saying basically the same thing as I originally posted:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/05/moore.disney/

I did find, however, a New Zealand news report repeating what you discovered at boortz.com

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3565069&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

I've written Mr. Moore's website asking for the truth behind these allegations. (of course, you have every right to snicker at what you may think will be the result - or non-result, of that inquiry) I'd like to see a direct reference from CNN regarding Mr. Moore’s admission - do you have a link?

Like I said, I don't take such things lightly, and, if given source materials (other than what the New Zealand press and boortz.com claim) I would have no problem whatsoever in publicly expressing my deep disappointment in Mr. Moore if his statement regarding Disney turns out, in fact, to be a cheap publicity stunt.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901

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.


Closest I have come up to it.

[wwworry]

Is it true that they do not want to distribute it because they might lose federal and state tax breaks?

I do not recall any law showing how party affiliation would affect tax status.

What is this country, some sort of feudal kingdom?

[Sayhey]

Just how is knowing that Disney didn't want to distribute this film a year ago the same as Moore engaging in a "hoax." From what I understand, during that year negotiations took place to try to get Disney to move off its position and then on the 4th of May Moore learn of Disney's final decision. What possibly qualifies that as a hoax?

[SlyHunter]

FYI two threads are discussing this topic simultaneously http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=833168#post833168

A good quote from that other thread.
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20021208
http://www.moorelies.com/
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_11_24_archive.html#85712328
http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#MichaelMoore
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,56524,00.html

There's lots more out there.

[socokid]

"The bank scen was staged!"

Um, no it certainly was not. There's even an outtake video proving the above is a lie via a link found here (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/). But, it's one of the many lies being told about this film. Agenda driven? They just like to lie? Who knows, but please read this (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/). It shows most of those Columbine claims are just plain WRONG.

I too have read some of these site's claims, and many of those sites themselves not only have perpetuated literal lies, but point out what amount to be fairly minor instances compared to the true story and questions this film invokes.

And about his new film. If controversy from inept marketing tacticts outweighs it's content and discussion thereof, then we are truly a sad bunch of sheep. I, for one, feel I am capable of watching the film and making up my own mind. Trolling lies doesn't help. Please see my link above.

Good luck.

[IJ Reilly]

Just how is knowing that Disney didn't want to distribute this film a year ago the same as Moore engaging in a "hoax." From what I understand, during that year negotiations took place to try to get Disney to move off its position and then on the 4th of May Moore learn of Disney's final decision. What possibly qualifies that as a hoax?

I don't know what's going on here for a fact, but I do know that Moore is a master promoter. Disney just handed him a publicity bonanza, and he's going to milk it for every drop.

[bitfactory]

Just how is knowing that Disney didn't want to distribute this film a year ago the same as Moore engaging in a "hoax." From what I understand, during that year negotiations took place to try to get Disney to move off its position and then on the 4th of May Moore learn of Disney's final decision. What possibly qualifies that as a hoax?

"final decision"

buwahahahaha! that's hilarious.

he knew a year ago... end of story. he knows he'll find a distributor. he was looking for press, and he got it! duh.

[zimv20]

From what I understand, during that year negotiations took place to try to get Disney to move off its position
many times, in the business world, a manager told me to proceed on a project while, at the upper levels, a decision was being made on whether or not the project would even get implemented.

but the funding and go-ahead were still present, at least until a "final" decision was made. note that there is often more than one "final" decision.

[Juventuz]

Is it true that they do not want to distribute it because they might lose federal and state tax breaks?

I do not recall any law showing how party affiliation would affect tax status.

What is this country, some sort of feudal kingdom?

Actually it wasn't Eisner that said it, it was Moore's agent Avi Emanuel that made the quote.

[Sayhey]

"final decision"

buwahahahaha! that's hilarious.

he knew a year ago... end of story. he knows he'll find a distributor. he was looking for press, and he got it! duh.

He will find a distributor, however that does not relieve Disney from the responsibility of explaining why they see fit to try to censor Moore's film. Will Moore use this fight to get more publicity for his film? Undoubtedly. I don't see a problem with that. I do see a problem with the growing centralization of the decisions of what political views can get mass distribution in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals and corporations.

Moore is a polemicist and he uses an "aw shucks" form of questioning of assumptions that goes all the way back to Socrates. The ability to ask the questions and challenge authority in the way Moore does is a vitally important component to our democratic process. I can't understand those who view this process and, even if they disagree with Moore, have no concern for this action.

[zimv20]

Will Moore use this fight to get more publicity for his film? Undoubtedly.
and i bet he's now got an idea for his next film, too :-)

[voicegy]

SlyHunter, thank you for performing the courtesy of referring to each of these posts in the other. Perhaps I should have performed a more thorough search before posting, but now both of them, although with the similar topic, have lives of their own.

I am reading all the source material carefully, and all opinions and facts. So far, it seems to me to be a matter of language (Mr. Moore knew that the film may have been in trouble a year ago, but only this week was he told of the "final" decision - so that may justify his position and NOT make him out to be a "liar" per se.)

I'll continue to monitor the discussion(s). Appreciate your comments and relevant links and time spent.

[Lyle]

Actually it wasn't Eisner that said it, it was Moore's agent Avi Emanuel that made the quote.Right. In the CNN interview that I posted earlier in this thread, Michael Moore said:
"They [Disney] 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."However, Michael Eisner denies that claim in this story (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=industryNews&storyID=5053283) from Reuters:
"None of that was ever discussed," Eisner said. "It is totally not true."Here (http://www.iht.com/articles/518602.html) is a different story that quotes Florida's Governor Jeb Bush as well:
"We don't give tax breaks, that I'm aware of, to Disney," the governor said. "I appreciate the fact that Disney creates thousands and thousands of jobs in our state."

[bitfactory]

Right. In the CNN interview that I posted earlier in this thread, Michael Moore said:
"They [Disney] 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."However, Michael Eisner denies that claim in this story (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=industryNews&storyID=5053283) from Reuters:
"None of that was ever discussed," Eisner said. "It is totally not true."Here (http://www.iht.com/articles/518602.html) is a different story that quotes Florida's Governor Jeb Bush as well:
"We don't give tax breaks, that I'm aware of, to Disney," the governor said. "I appreciate the fact that Disney creates thousands and thousands of jobs in our state."


folks - read the facts.... Moore has never let them get in the way of a good argument. the tax break thing is ridiculous, if not a total outright lie. but liberals love that kind of thing. i'm surprised he didn't blame it on Haliburton (well, he hasn't YET).

Disney doesn't want to get in the middle of a politically charged project since they cater to all kinds of people in their theme-parks. its not censorship, it's business... their business.

[Lyle]

Just how is knowing that Disney didn't want to distribute this film a year ago the same as Moore engaging in a "hoax" ... What possibly qualifies that as a hoax?I am not using the word "hoax" or "stunt" to describe what Moore did. I am merely noting that when Michael Moore makes this claim (from his web site (http://www.michaelmoore.com/)):
"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.'"
it is, at best, misleading, since he fails to mention (as he later did in the CNN interview) that they'd been informed of that decision a year earlier.
From what I understand, during that year negotiations took place to try to get Disney to move off its position and then on the 4th of May Moore learn of Disney's final decision.I don't doubt your word, but do have a link where someone (other than Moore, of course) says that such "negotiations" have been taking place?

[Lyle]

I don't know what's going on here for a fact, but I do know that Moore is a master promoter. Disney just handed him a publicity bonanza, and he's going to milk it for every drop.No argument there. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

This entire situation is your basic tempest in a tea pot, and a fully contrived one at that. I think its amusing that so many people profess to care about who distributes Michael Moore's film. I sure don't.

To me, it seems the people who are the most passionately interested about who said what and when are the people who most dislike Michael Moore and his work. They're entitled of course, but it seems, once again, that Moore has got his critics by the short and curlies -- and with every little tug, all of the booster rockets go off simultaneously. It's such a reliable affect. You can bet Moore, the old attention-hound, is loving every minute of it.

So go ahead, make his day. Far be it for me to stop you.

[zimv20]

the tax break thing is ridiculous, if not a total outright lie.
are you saying that state/local gov'ts giving tax breaks to businesses is a rare thing?

[Lyle]

I do see a problem with the growing centralization of the decisions of what political views can get mass distribution in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals and corporations.Definitely agree.

Moore is a polemicist and he uses an "aw shucks" form of questioning of assumptions that goes all the way back to Socrates. The ability to ask the questions and challenge authority in the way Moore does is a vitally important component to our democratic process. I can't understand those who view this process and, even if they disagree with Moore, have no concern for this action.
Oh, please. :p

He's a good filmmaker and a masterful self-promoter, which, as it turns out, is a good way to make a living. But let's not turn him into some kind of saint.

[IJ Reilly]

He's a good filmmaker and a masterful self-promoter, which, as it turns out, is a good way to make a living. But let's not turn him into some kind of saint.

Maybe not, but he's got the makings of a kind of folk hero. At least that's how I began to think of him during his TV Nation/Awful Truth days. Some of the stunts he pulled back then were priceless and unforgettable.

[Sayhey]

Oh, please. :p

He's a good filmmaker and a masterful self-promoter, which, as it turns out, is a good way to make a living. But let's not turn him into some kind of saint.

Hmmm... not quite sure where I called him a saint. If anything I'd call him a gadfly. A useful kind of character to have in a democracy. We need folks who point out when the emperor has no clothes. We also need folks who can point out in a thought provoking way our President's close ties to the Saudi royal family and the stupidity of some of his actions around 9/11. I don't particularly like it when people who own the megaphones in society try to shout down folks like Moore.

[zimv20]

We also need folks who can point out in a thought provoking way our President's close ties to the Saudi royal family and the stupidity of some of his actions around 9/11.
sayhey brings up an excellent point.

all these attacks are against mr. moore, none of them deal w/ the subject matter of the film. i'd be less concerned about mr. moore being shut down if there were others who were trumpeting the idea of looking at the bushes, the carlyle group, the bin ladens and the saudi royal family.

who else is doing this kind of investigation? certainly not the FBI or CIA, certainly not the mainstream media. put the film out and let the public be the judge. where's the harm in that?

[wwworry]

Republicans will typicvally claim hypocrisy justifies all their misdeeds. For instance, Moore's exagerated claim of Disney censorship is worse or negates the Bush family's shadowy ties to Saudi Arabia (where most of the 9/11 attackers were from). Whether Kerry threw medals or ribbons away negates Bush and Cheney actively avoiding combat, drunk driving and/or support of the apartheid South Africa.

[IJ Reilly]

Republicans will typicvally claim hypocrisy justifies all their misdeeds. For instance, Moore's exagerated claim of Disney censorship is worse or negates the Bush family's shadowy ties to Saudi Arabia (where most of the 9/11 attackers were from). Whether Kerry threw medals or ribbons away negates Bush and Cheney actively avoiding combat, drunk driving and/or support of the apartheid South Africa.

More to the point, if the subject is unpleasant, try to change it anyway you can.

[voicegy]

Michael Moore has made some counterstatements to all the flack - a few excerpts here:

Popular statement: ""Michael Moore has known for a year that we will not distribute this movie, so this is not news."

Mike's response: Yes, that is what I thought, too, except Disney kept sending us all that money to make the movie. Miramax said there was no problem. I got the idea that everything was fine.

Disney Statement: "It is not in the best interests of our company to distribute a partisan political film that may offend some of our customers."

Mike's Response: Disney distributes and syndicates the Sean Hannity radio show every day. I get to listen to Rush Limbaugh every day on Disney-owned WABC. I also seem to remember that Disney distributed a very partisan political movie during a Congressional election year, 1998—a film called The Big One… by, um… ME!

Disney Statement: "Fahrenheit 9/11 is not the Disney brand; we put out family oriented films."

Mike's Response: That's why the #1 Disney film in theaters right now is a film called, KILL BILL, VOL. 2. This excellent Miramax film, along with other classics like Pulp Fiction, have all been distributed by Disney. That's why Miramax exists -- to provide an ALTERNATIVE to the usual Disney fare.

Given all that I've read on this subject, (and the rest of the information on Mike's web site, http://www.michaelmoore.com/,) plus this added statement by Mike: "NO filmmaker wants to go through this kind of controversy. It does NOT sell tickets - I can cite many examples of movies who have had to change distributors at the last minute and all have failed. I made this movie so people could see it as soon as possible. This is a huge and unwanted distraction," I personally believe that this was not a stunt on Mike's part, and am concerned about the Disney company's action(s).

[numediaman]

Disney set to U-turn on Miramax
Richard Thomson, Evening Standard
7 May 2004

DISNEY boss Michael Eisner is believed to be negotiating to sell 'independent' film studio Miramax back to its founder, Harvey Weinstein, only months after he failed to renew Walt Disney's lucrative contract with another movie partner, Pixar.

The move to sell Miramax is understood to reflect the virtual breakdown of the relationship between the Disney chief executive and Weinstein, who have conducted an on-again-off-again feud for several years.

When Weinstein suggested buying back the company several months ago, Eisner refused without referring it to the Disney board. But as Disney's relationship with Miramax has worsened, he appears to have changed his mind.

Conflict has been exacerbated by Eisner's refusal to allow Miramax to release a controversial film by Michael Moore that is critical of George Bush and his administration.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/business/articles/timid77912?source=

Grover Norquist, a right wing politico, once said that liberal journalists are journalists first and liberals second -- and that conservative journalists are conservatives first, and journalists second.

The same seems to be true of conservative business men. Disney's Eisner seems to be a conservative first, and a business man second. First he screws up his relationship with Steve Jobs and Pixar, and now he is screwing up his relationship with Miramax's Weinstein.

The result will be that Miramax will continue to thrive, Moore's film will make millions, and Disney is screwed. But Eisner is like Rumsfeld: no materr how he messes up he is never fired.

[LethalWolfe]

Michael Moore has made some counterstatements to all the flack - a few excerpts here:

Popular statement: ""Michael Moore has known for a year that we will not distribute this movie, so this is not news."

Mike's response: Yes, that is what I thought, too, except Disney kept sending us all that money to make the movie. Miramax said there was no problem. I got the idea that everything was fine.


That, right there, sums it all up. Moore has been around block, he knows how "the system" works. Disney not distributing his film is not a surprise in the least bit to him. Of course Disney is going to keep funding the film once they already started. You can't make your money back if you don't have a finished product. Disney might sit on it for years and then release it straight to DVD. Or they might sell it to someone else. I don't know, but like I said, they can't make any money on an unfished product. Moore certainly knows that and knows that continued funding is in no way, shape, or form a guarantee of distribution especially after your distributor said it wasn't going to distribute the move. The movie "Knockaround Guys" (with Vin Diesel) sat on a shelf for 3 or 4 years and wasn't released until Diesel became a big enough box office draw. If Diesel never became a star the movie would probably still be on the shelf. There are lots of projects that get made but, for whatever reason, get shelved and never see the light of day.

Anyway, Moore knew there was, at the very least, a strong chance that Disney would not release the film, but what is he supposed to do? Stop making it? Of course not. You keep making the film and you cross that bridge when you get to it. So now his is crossing that bridge screaming at the top of his lungs that "the man" is keeping him down. Of course Moore likes the press and the controversy. He is all about controversy.


Lethal

[SlyHunter]

The result will be that Miramax will continue to thrive, Moore's film will make millions, and Disney is screwed. But Eisner is like Rumsfeld: no materr how he messes up he is never fired.
I heard a rumor on TV that they were thinking of replacing Eisner with Mel Gibson.

don't waste your time asking for a link, I'm not playing that game anymore.

[IJ Reilly]

Of course Moore likes the press and the controversy. He is all about controversy.

Exactly. Methinks Mr. Moore protests too much -- but it's part of his schtick, so I'd hardly expect him to change. I hope he finds a distributor, though, because I'd like to see his film.

[zimv20]

Disney might sit on it for years and then release it straight to DVD.
i'm wondering if they would "decide" to release it around mid-november

[Neserk]

but liberals love that kind of thing.

Sterotype much? When ever I read a comment like this I automatically discount anything in the post.

[LethalWolfe]

i'm wondering if they would "decide" to release it around mid-november


You know what they say, "Timing is everything." ;)

I remember last year "Bowling" was supposed to hit DVD in late April or early May but after Moore's comments at the Oscars he got enough press coverage that "Bowling" stayed in theaters and didn't hit DVD until late August. Poor guy, he's always suffering due to controversy...


Lethal

[sethypoo]

Miramax did their best to convince Disney to go ahead as planned with our film. Disney contractually can only stop Miramax from releasing a film if it has received an NC-17 rating (ours will be rated PG-13 or R).

I found this on Michael Moore website, in his message to his readers section.

Wait, does this mean that so long as the movie does not get a NC-17 rating that the film will still be released or what?

I am so confused..... :confused:

[Voltron]

NEW YORK -- Miramax power duo Bob and Harvey Weinstein's fractious negotiations to renew their contracts at Disney beyond 2005 have hit a Pixar-like impasse.

Disney this week apparently rejected Miramax's proposal to buy Moore's controversial film back for $6 million plus costs in order to find a new distributor.

Disney evidently preferred to keep any share of the upside with a third-party distributor. In the past, Miramax has been able to buy back similar "too-hot-to-handle" titles, as it did with "Kids" and "Dogma."

But the stalemate with Disney CEO Michael Eisner over future terms for the Miramax team dates back long before the Moore controversy.

At the heart of the tussle with the Mouse House are differing philosophical views as to the right size and scope for Miramax: The unit's budget, for example, is currently capped at $700 million a year, an amount Eisner apparently is looking to scale back but the Weinsteins would like to see at least maintained.

Disney brass last fall rejected a Miramax proposal to bring in $450 million in outside financing from Goldman Sachs (effectively setting up an equity fund with a revolving credit line) in a bid to both reduce Disney's capital exposure to Miramax's film slate while supplementing the company's budget beyond the level Disney was willing to commit to.

If the two sides fail to agree, Miramax could theoretically try to buy back the company and its 500-title library from Disney (something Disney has repeatedly rejected) or indeed actively seek indie financing and distribution for future production.

People close to Miramax insist the Weinsteins are looking only for the same terms in a new deal that they have under the current arrangement. Disney made the terms an issue by trying to negotiate down key production terms and compensation.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1940&u=/variety/20040511/va_fi_ne/miramax_pulling_a_pixar__05_112004&printer=1
Glad I don't have any Disney Stock.

[G4scott]

Well, I think we can all agree that Disney is screwed on this one...

Granted moore's "documentaries" are more works of fiction than fact... I can see why Eisner wouldn't want a Disney company to distribute such a controversial film during times like these. Besides, it's not like he can't find some liberal millionaire who owns a film distribution company that would take care of it. I mean, come on, this is hollywood...

moore just takes advantage of whatever he can get his paws on, and he's certainly doing it with this, as he did his oscar speech (which he should've never made, since the movie technically never qualified to win an academy award...)

Disney, in the meantime, is getting screwed by trying to control what films they distribute...

[zimv20]

I can see why Eisner wouldn't want a Disney company to distribute such a controversial film during times like these.
guess what i'm on about when i mention Kill Bill Volumes 1 and 2, Hellraiser:Deader, Dracula 3:Legacy and Waking Up in Reno.

[SPG]

Granted moore's "documentaries" are more works of fiction than fact...
Biased? Perhaps. Fiction? Hardly. All the alleged outing of Michael Moores films has been proven to be a complete load of BS. Just because Michael Moore has control over the film and is able to ask the questions that get people saying embarassing things that you don't agree with doesn't mean that it is fiction.

I can see why Eisner wouldn't want a Disney company to distribute such a controversial film during times like these.
Exactly the point Michael Moore is making. As a media company Disney has certain responsibilities and censoring voices is not one of them. Especially in "times like these".

Besides, it's not like he can't find some liberal millionaire who owns a film distribution company that would take care of it. I mean, come on, this is hollywood...
He did find a liberal millionaire who owns a film company...Harvey Weinstein of Miramax, although they are based in New York, not Hollywood.

moore just takes advantage of whatever he can get his paws on,
When life gives you lemons, you can make lemonade. Do you really expect Michael Moore to roll over and say "oh well, Disney is too scared to piss off Jeb Bush and lose their tax breaks, guess I'll just throw the movie I've been working on for over a year in the trash can." What would you do?

and he's certainly doing it with this, as he did his oscar speech (which he should've never made, since the movie technically never qualified to win an academy award...)
WTF are you blathering about? It was nominated and it won. BTW, did you happen to notice that Michael Moore was right?

Disney, in the meantime, is getting screwed by trying to control what films they distribute...
No, they're getting some bad press for a bad decision. Censorship is wrong. Partisan censorship is even more wrong.

[zimv20]

it's not like he can't find some liberal millionaire who owns a film distribution company that would take care of it.
and guess what...

link (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/8651148.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp&1c)


Posted on Wed, May. 12, 2004

Miramax chiefs to buy Moore's Sept. 11 documentary from Disney

ANTHONY BREZNICAN
Associated Press

LOS ANGELES - After the Walt Disney Co. blocked its Miramax Films division from releasing Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," Miramax chiefs Bob and Harvey Weinstein said Wednesday they plan to buy back the movie and distribute it themselves.

Moore's potentially inflammatory film criticizes President Bush's handling of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and connects the Bush family with Osama bin Laden's.

Disney chief executive Michael Eisner said last week that the company "did not want a film in the middle of the political process" because he believed that theme park and entertainment consumers "do not look for us to take sides."

Moore has speculated that Disney was worried the documentary would alienate Bush's brother Jeb, who is governor of Florida, where Disney World is located.

Miramax co-founder Harvey Weinstein spent about $6 million on the film. He and his brother would have to repay Disney for the investment, and would likely insist on a deal that cuts Disney out of any future profits.

The brothers, who have a notoriously thorny relationship with their Disney parent company, would not be able to distribute the movie through Miramax. They would have to find a third-party company to handle that.

A similar deal was worked out in 1999 when Disney forced Miramax to give up filmmaker Kevin Smith's "Dogma," which took an irreverent approach to Catholicism with modern prophets, angels and apostles in a bid to stop the end of the world. Lions Gate Films eventually picked up "Dogma."

"We're very happy that Disney has agreed to sell 'Fahrenheit 9/11' to Bob and Harvey," Miramax Films said in a press release. "Bob and Harvey are giving Disney a term sheet based on the deal previously done on 'Dogma.' Bob and Harvey look forward to promptly completing this transaction."

Eisner confirmed the planned deal Wednesday afternoon in a conference call with financial analysts. He also lamented the negative press he and Disney received by refusing the film. "There's not much that we can do with Miramax that's not carried in the press," he said.

On the same day in France, "Fahrenheit 9/11" was making its world premiere on as one of 18 films screening in competition at the Cannes Film Festival, where many new movies find business partners for distribution.

Moore did not immediately return a call for comment.

The confrontational director won an Academy Award for his 2002 documentary "Bowling for Columbine," about the Columbine High School shooting and U.S. gun control policy. The film earned $21.5 million at the box office, making it the highest-grossing documentary ever.


btw, since when did a film about delving into business relationships automatically appeal only to "liberals?"

don't you want to know about cozy relationships between the bushes and bin ladens?

[Sayhey]

Found this on line. So much for Disney avoiding political controversy in an election year.

On the television network that his company owns, Disney CEO Michael Eisner dismissed the idea that forbidding Disney subsidiary Miramax to distribute a controversial new documentary by Michael Moore was a form of censorship. "We informed both the agency that represented the film and all of our companies that we just didn't want to be in the middle of a politically-oriented film during an election year," he told ABC World News Tonight (5/5/04), referring to Moore's Fahrenheit 911, which examines the connections between the Bush family and the House of Saud that rules Saudi Arabia.

On its face, Eisner's statement will have a chilling effect. A major movie studio with an announced policy of only releasing apolitical films, in an election year or any other year, will discourage filmmakers from tackling important themes and impoverish the American political debate. (That Moore and Miramax were given advance warning of this policy hardly mitigates its censorious impact.)

But Eisner's statement cannot be taken at face value, because Disney, through its various subsidiaries, is one of the largest distributors of political, often highly partisan media content in the country-- virtually all of it right-wing. Consider:

Almost all of Disney's major talk radio stations-- WABC in New York, WMAL in D.C., WLS in Chicago, WBAP in Dallas/Ft. Worth and KSFO in San Francisco-- broadcast Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Indeed, WABC is considered the home station for both of these shows, which promote an unremitting Republican political agenda. (Disney's KABC in L.A. carries Hannity, but has Bill O'Reilly instead of Limbaugh.) Disney's news/talk stations are dominated by a variety of other partisan Republican hosts, both local and national, including Laura Ingraham, Larry Elder and Matt Drudge.

Disney's Family Channel carries Pat Robertson's 700 Club, which routinely equates Christianity with Republican causes. After the September 11 attacks, Robertson's guest Jerry Falwell (9/13/01) blamed the attacks on those who "make God mad": "the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America." Robertson's response was, "I totally concur." It's hard to imagine that anything in Moore's film will be more controversial than that.

Disney's ABC News prominently features John Stossel, who, though not explicitly partisan, advocates for a conservative philosophy in almost all his work: "It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market," he has explained (Oregonian, 10/26/94). No journalist is allowed to advocate for a balancing point of view on ABC's news programs.

Given the considerable amount of right-wing material distributed by Disney, much of it openly promoting Republican candidates and issues, it's impossible to believe that Disney is preventing Miramax from distributing Fahrenheit 911 because, as a Disney executive told the New York Times (5/5/04), "It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle." Disney, in fact, makes a great deal of money off of highly charged partisan political battles, although it generally provides access to only one side of the war.

So what is the real reason it won't distribute Moore's movie? The explanation that Moore's agent said he was offered by Eisner-- that Disney was afraid of losing tax breaks from Florida Gov. Jeb Bush-- is more persuasive than Eisner's obviously false public rationale. But more relevant may be Disney's financial involvement with a member of the same Saudi family whose connections to the Bush dynasty are investigated by Moore. Prince Al-Walid bin Talal, a billionaire investor who is a grandson of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd, became a major investor in Disney's Eurodisney theme park when it was in financial trouble, and may be asked to bail out the troubled project again.

It's not unprecedented for Disney to respond favorably to a political request from its Saudi business partner; when Disney's EPCOT Center planned to describe Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in an exhibit on Israeli culture, Al-Walid says that he had personally asked Eisner to intervene in the decision. That same week, Disney announced that the pavilion would not refer to Jerusalem as Israel's capital (BBC, 9/14/99).

Whatever the true motive of Disney's decision to reject Moore's film, it's not the one that Eisner and other company spokespersons are advancing in public. Journalists covering the issue should go beyond Disney's transparent PR stance and explore the real motivations involved. link (http://www.fair.org/activism/disney-moore-update.html)

[Neserk]

But wasn't Disney one of the first large corps. to give benefits to same sex partners? That isn't very right wing...

[Sayhey]

But wasn't Disney one of the first large corps. to give benefits to same sex partners? That isn't very right wing...

First, the Disney corporation has a very long history of very conservative politics dating back to the days of founder, Walt Disney. Though that has in some ways changed under Eisner it doesn't make them flaming liberals.

Second, the point is more about the hypocrisy of Disney and Eisner, who are more than willing to make money off many right-wing commentators in this election year, but are not willing to allow the distribution of a left, liberal one. Eisner may very well not agree with Limbaugh, et al but he isn't trying to silence them in this election cycle.

[Neserk]

First, the Disney corporation has a very long history of very conservative politics dating back to the days of founder, Walt Disney. Though that has in some ways changed under Eisner it doesn't make them flaming liberals.

Second, the point is more about the hypocrisy of Disney and Eisner, who are more than willing to make money off many right-wing commentators in this election year, but are not willing to allow the distribution of a left, liberal one. Eisner may very well not agree with Limbaugh, et al but he isn't trying to silence them in this election cycle.


But isn't Disney the first major corp. to make benefits transferable to same sex couples???

[numediaman]

Cannes applauds anti-Bush film

Monday, May 17, 2004 Posted: 10:42 AM EDT (1442 GMT)

CANNES, France -- Michael Moore's controversial anti-Bush film "Fahrenheit 9/11" has debuted at the Cannes Film Festival to resounding applause from film critics.

Moore, who is facing an uphill battle to get his movie into U.S. theaters this summer as planned, offers a relentless critique of the Bush administration both before and after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

"You see so many movies after they've been hyped to heaven and they turn out to be complete crap, but this is a powerful film," Baz Bamigboye, a film columnist for London's Daily Mail newspaper, told The Associated Press.

"It would be a shame if Americans didn't get to see this movie about important stuff happening in their own backyard."

Even Moore's skeptics seemed impressed.

"I have a problematic relationship with some of Michael Moore's work. There's no such job as a standup journalist," said James Rocchi, film critic for DVD rental company Netflix.

But Rocchi said "Fahrenheit 9/11" contains powerful segments about losses on both sides of the Iraq war and the grief of American and Iraqi families.

"This film is at its best when it is most direct and speaks from the heart, when it shows lives torn apart," Rocchi told AP.

The film links Bush with powerful Saudi families, including that of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/17/moore.film/index.html

Apparently revenge feels good:

[IJ Reilly]

Mike could stand to lose a little weight, don't you think? :eek:

[Sayhey]

But isn't Disney the first major corp. to make benefits transferable to same sex couples???

Neserk,

sorry I didn't see this post earlier. It is essentially the same post as one I responded to, but I guess you thought I didn't answer your question. Yes, Disney did become one of the early corporations to reach an agreement with its unions to allow domestic partner benefits. I guess I wasn't explicit enough in my answer. This does not make Disney a bastion of liberalism in corporate America. I've negotiated such agreements with companies, and I assure you they reached the settlements not through a commitment to a liberal cause, but through a need for labor peace. I would expect the same can be said of Disney. I think the double standard shown by Eisner around the Moore film vs. their ownership and promotion of right-wing radio, etc. is more indicative of where they stand politically.

[Neserk]

. Yes, Disney did become one of the early corporations to reach an agreement with its unions to allow domestic partner benefits. I guess I wasn't explicit enough in my answer. This does not make Disney a bastion of liberalism in corporate America. .

Its a start.

[SPG]

Mike could stand to lose a little weight, don't you think? :eek:
...and George could stand to gain a little bit of brains, what's your point?


Actually I agree. Mike does need to slim down a bit, it just ain't healthy and we need him alive and kicking.

[IJ Reilly]

...and George could stand to gain a little bit of brains, what's your point?

Actually I agree. Mike does need to slim down a bit, it just ain't healthy and we need him alive and kicking.

At least we know he's not starving.

[Sayhey]

Its a start.

OK.... what's your point? If it's that Disney isn't the worst company in the world, then I agree. That falls under the category of "damning with faint praise." If it is that Disney must be a liberal leaning company because they signed a contract that has domestic partner benefits in it, then I must disagree. I think the evidence is all against such a reading of the company. On point of the thread, the conduct of Disney in the case of Moore's film shows that it has no commitment to distributing films that express controversial views - that is if they are left or progressive views; they have no problem distributing Rush's diatribes.

[IJ Reilly]

OK.... what's your point? If it's that Disney isn't the worst company in the world, then I agree. That falls under the category of "damning with faint praise." If it is that Disney must be a liberal leaning company because they signed a contract that has domestic partner benefits in it, then I must disagree. I think the evidence is all against such a reading of the company. On point of the thread, the conduct of Disney in the case of Moore's film shows that it has no commitment to distributing films that express controversial views - that is if they are left or progressive views; they have no problem distributing Rush's diatribes.

Oh, but Moore's films come with pictures, and we know how important they are, compared to mere words.

[Sayhey]

Oh, but Moore's films come with pictures, and we know how important they are, compared to mere words.

Indeed, IJ, that is precisely the point of this action. Moore's film has the possibility to have an impact on the thinking of millions of Americans that tens of thousands of newspaper articles could never have. Although people, like our dear Sec. of Defense and the President, should not have to have things explained in pictures, there is no doubt of the power of the medium. Disney is very well aware of that fact.