Disney to squash Fahrenheit 911 - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

kulrblind · 05-07-2004, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seaver
...he died in a piloting accident,

Huh. You don't say....

Stompy · 05-07-2004, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
I want this to be VERY clear: I am in NO WAY upset with anyone reporting FACTS.

The second part of your question I answer below:

BFC is not "mostly facts".

Check out www.bowlingfortruth.com and www.moorewatch.com .

After looking at the evidence presented about BFC, you can draw your own conclusions how "fact filled" F9/11 is bound to be.

As to Bush/Saudi's; Bush's family is in oil and has been for several generations, fer Chissakes! So of course the possibilities that they have connections to other big oil families is news to anyone??

Hahahaha, I like how that first site is trying to discredit Marilyn Manson and portray him as someone who could've potentially influenced kids to kill others

Ah well, such is politics. There's always an extreme with everything, hehe.

<i>Fans of Manson's work or not - looks at quotes and writings by the Columbine boys compared to Manson's lyrics - appears as though they shared a writer.</i>

That's a very ignorant and closed minded view, IMO. I'd love to see exactly WHAT writings they had appeared similiar to Manson's lyrics. His lyrics are purely political wrapped in religious dabblings, nothing more. Sounds no different than a closed minded Christian who thinks Marilyn Manson is bad because he ripped a bible up on stage.

(the other stuff is definitely interesting, but that one section in particular was rather absurd)

Lebell · 05-07-2004, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stompy
Hahahaha, I like how that first site is trying to discredit Marilyn Manson and portray him as someone who could've potentially influenced kids to kill others

Ah well, such is politics. There's always an extreme with everything, hehe.

You make it sound like that is an extremist site with no merit, which can safely be ignored, and you do it without any substance and without even addressing the points of the article you hold up.

Did you even READ that friggin' article?

At the heart of it:

Quote:

Dave Kopel from National Review:

"The litany of scapegoating (Lockheed Martin, the United States, the NRA) then abruptly shifts into the anti-scapegoating segments concerning bowling and Marilyn Manson"...."The 'scapegoat Lockheed and the NRA' segments serve as a perfect counterpoint to the "don't scapegoat bowling or Manson" segment. By leading the audience into fatuous scapegoating of Lockheed and the NRA, the film demonstrates the pervasiveness of scapegoating — even by people who denounce it."

Charlatan · 05-07-2004, 10:26 AM

You see, that is the difference between you and me, Lebell... Where you see him scapegoating LM, the USA and the NRA I saw him point out some ironies and leaving the conclusions to be drawn by the viewer...

(for the record I didn't like the way he ended the film with Chuck... that was tastless, but I won't discount the rest of the film beause of that...)

IMO what these anti-Moore sentiments all come down to is that no one likes to wear the emperor's new clothes

Lebell · 05-07-2004, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlatan
You see, that is the difference between you and me, Lebell... Where you see him scapegoating LM, the USA and the NRA I saw him point out some ironies and leaving the conclusions to be drawn by the viewer...

(for the record I didn't like the way he ended the film with Chuck... that was tastless, but I won't discount the rest of the film beause of that...)

IMO what these anti-Moore sentiments all come down to is that no one likes to wear the emperor's new clothes

Charlatan,

I am BIG on facts and the way Moore twisted and distorted them in BOC for his own political agenda has forever turned me against him.

From LM Waterton making "WMDs" to the inscription on the B52 to the clever editing to make it look like Heston said something he didn't say, Michael Moore is a fucking LIAR and the latest BS involving Disney and censorship and what Mikey really knew a year ago is just more proof of the fact.

I generally like your posts, but how you can continue to defend him, especially in light of the latest revelation, is beyond my understanding.

Charlatan · 05-07-2004, 11:14 AM

It isn't about Moore... it's about what isn't getting said in America (and by that I mean North American).

Perhaps he does fudge things to make the story work... perhaps he doesn't. I'm not interested in defending or attacking him on this.

What is sad is that a lot of what he investigates are increasingly valid topics to which not enough people pay attention.

Guns are a problem (OK the people who use the guns are a problem)...

Corporate theivery and corruption are a problem...

There are some very important questions about Bush and 9/11, etc that need asking...

Moore has an agenda of attacking the Corporate power structures and the Republicans that support that structure... You may not agree with his methods but you have to give him props for sticking to his guns and continuing to fight what he (and many who share his beliefs) believes to be the good fight.

james t kirk · 05-07-2004, 04:19 PM

I have seen all of Moore's movies and for the most part, they are pretty good.

The only part of BFC that I didn't like was the end when he harassed Charlie Heston. Charlie is a confused old man suffering from Alzheimers. He shouldn't have done that.

For me, the biggest prick in BFC was Dick Clark. Now he looked like more of an asshole than Heston even came close to.

Still for me, Roger and Me remains Moore's best work to date. It's funny though that he never really found himself within the sights of the neo-cons in the USA until he did BFC and took on America's fascination with guns. (Even moore was a life long member of the NRA.)

I look forward to his new movie and I am sure that there are going to be some thorny issues raised. Not the least of which will be how on 912 the only planes allowed in the air were carrying Saudi nationals out of the USA back home, and just what was said in those blacked out pages of the 911 report.

The bottom line is that 15 of 19 911 terrorists were Saudis, yet nothing happens to Saudi Arabia or the House of Saud. It's really quite unreal to watch.

Kadath · 05-07-2004, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Did you even READ that friggin' article?

Did you read the one I posted? Oh, wait...it was the same one you posted. I feel a little overlooked again, and I think I need a warm embrace from the iron fist.

irateplatypus · 05-07-2004, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlatan
Moore has an agenda of attacking the Corporate power structures and the Republicans that support that structure... You may not agree with his methods but you have to give him props for sticking to his guns and continuing to fight what he (and many who share his beliefs) believes to be the good fight.

i won't say that the issues moore deals with aren't relevant to our national wellbeing... but i don't think his raising them has anything to do with fighting a good fight. everything i've seen of michael moore leads me to believe that the only thing that concerns him is self-promotion.

analog · 05-07-2004, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by irateplatypus
moore is an entertainer and entrepeneur whose vehicle of choice is charged political messages. he deserves no less respect than his due for that role in society, but certainly no more.

I think that's the best way anyone has ever summed up exactly who and what Michael Moore is.

Zeld2.0 · 05-07-2004, 11:43 PM

Lemme begin by saying that everyone out there in the realm of politics is out for self-promotion and as thus Moore is just like any other activist or anyone involved in politics

I find all the bickering over a guy who is playing politics and making money to be a bit of a waste of time - he's doing what he wants, he's making money, he's getting people to argue thus drawing attention to his aims...

if you hate him that much, then don't do what he wants you to...

hammer4all · 05-09-2004, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
I want this to be VERY clear: I am in NO WAY upset with anyone reporting FACTS.

The second part of your question I answer below:

BFC is not "mostly facts".

Check out www.bowlingfortruth.com and www.moorewatch.com .

After looking at the evidence presented about BFC, you can draw your own conclusions how "fact filled" F9/11 is bound to be.

Well, since you brought up the wacko sites, I feel obligated to quote a small part of Mr. Moore's response.

Quote:

[...]

I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible. The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them.

Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them.

So, faced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film – or resorting to character assassination. They have chosen the latter. What a sad place to be.

[...]

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

Regarding the Disney situation, his description of events can be found here:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php

BlueGoose · 05-09-2004, 07:56 AM

If what he has shown has been proven debunk, why would we trust what he says about it?
"What? i've had my lawyers and 'fact-checkers' go through all of my stuff. Now they're really going to believe me." I don't know how Michael Moore saying something is true makes it true.

HarmlessRabbit · 05-09-2004, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueGoose
"What? i've had my lawyers and 'fact-checkers' go through all of my stuff. Now they're really going to believe me." I don't know how Michael Moore saying something is true makes it true.

You should apply a healthy skepticism like that to everything you see and read, not just Michael Moore.

Interestingly enough, I found the following story off mediachannel.org, a site linked-to by Michael Moore's site.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=518901

Quote:

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.

irateplatypus · 05-09-2004, 08:47 AM

moore's main problem with integrity isn't that he presents many facts that aren't true to some extent... it's that he presents those facts in a way that manipulates the truth.

i think it's quite a stretch to say that BFC was lie-free because no one bothered to drop a law-suit on him. that sounds like a self-important blowhard thing to say. if you've seen BFC, most of the people he picks are are bank/store managers, unsuspecting common people and a senile old man. with the exception of that particular senile old man, hardly the sort of people who would have the resources or desire to fight moore on a technicality.

HarmlessRabbit · 05-09-2004, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by irateplatypus
i think it's quite a stretch to say that BFC was lie-free because no one bothered to drop a law-suit on him. that sounds like a self-important blowhard thing to say. if you've seen BFC, most of the people he picks are are bank/store managers, unsuspecting common people and a senile old man. with the exception of that particular senile old man, hardly the sort of people who would have the resources to fight moore on a technicality.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I believe the NRA and Lockheed-Martin both have a few dollars to spare.

Also, the topic of his movie Roger & Me had a few dollars to spare as well.

I do believe that Moore fact-checked his movie with lawyers to make sure he was on the safe side of the law. That doesn't mean he didn't manipulate the facts.

Actually, I think libel law is one area of law that isn't riddled by frivolous lawsuits, which is a good thing. I think things like political ads and michael moore documentaries and rush limbaugh, no matter how manipulative, should be given a pretty wide latitude to say what they want. People should make up their own minds, not let lawyers do it for them.

Anyway, I agree with your larger point but disagree with you on that detail.

BlueGoose · 05-09-2004, 09:03 AM

Quote:

The Bush administration and Big Business haven't sued Michael Moore for a couple reasons.

First, for a company to successfully prosecute a libel case, they have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the comments made influenced their customers and resulted in lost business. This isn't easy, and many businesses don't take the time to prosecute anyone who says anything about them.

Coke sucks. The Coca Cola company kills baby seals! There. Now is Coca Cola going to be pounding down my door? I doubt it.

Second, for a 'public figure' the burden of proof is actually much worse than it is for regular people. Like any politician for example. If I were to sue you for libel, all I would have to prove is that the others who experienced the comments would have a lowered opinion of me because of those comments.

For a public figure, it is necessary to prove malicious intent. Much more difficult to prove, because it requires knowledge of the intent behind the comments. Lying about somone to dash their reelection hopes isn't libel.

I'm just curious now, but what's the big deal about the prisoner abuse? The army found out about it in January and has been handling it internally. Now some pictures come out and we want Rumsfeld to step down? Why, because people who indirectly work for him commited war crimes?

I'd be willing to bet many of these people demanding the impeachment/stepping down are going to be voting for a confessed war criminal themselves in November...

That's what one of my lawyer-friends had to say in the aspect of libel and lawsuits. I don't have a working knowledge of it so that's just a quote from him on another forum on the subject.

hammer4all · 05-09-2004, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueGoose
If what he has shown has been proven debunk, why would we trust what he says about it?

Oh I dunno, maybe because it's not at all clear that it has been proven debunk.

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Interestingly enough, I found the following story off mediachannel.org, a site linked-to by Michael Moore's site.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=518901

Yeah--so what if it was a publicity stunt? That still doesn't change the fact Disney is refusing to distribute the film. How exactly do you bring attention to an issue of censorship without making it public and therefore a publicity stunt? This seems like a rather silly complaint to me.

BlueGoose · 05-09-2004, 05:54 PM

A lot of it has been proven flat out to be lies.

The publicity stunt is the fact that he initially said that he was just told it when he was told over a year go. Anyways, it's not censorship. Why should Disney distribute it if they don't want to? You're definitely twisting the meaning of "censorship". If the government was threatening Disney that if they distributed it they'd be attacked economically, then yes, that would be censorship. Disney making the decision to not distribute the movie is their choice and is not censorship.

hammer4all · 05-09-2004, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueGoose
If the government was threatening Disney that if they distributed it they'd be attacked economically, then yes, that would be censorship.

Quote:

A month later, after shooting started, Michael Eisner insisted on meeting with my agent, Ari Emanuel. Eisner was furious that Miramax signed this deal with me. According to Mr. Emanuel, Eisner said he would never let my film be distributed through Disney even though Mr. Eisner had not seen any footage or even read the outline of the film. Eisner told my agent that he did not want to anger Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. The movie, he believed, would complicate an already complicated situation with current and future Disney projects in Florida, and that many millions of dollars of tax breaks and incentives were at stake.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php

BINGO--using your definition.

BlueGoose · 05-09-2004, 07:40 PM

Ah... Cause Michael Moore is once more such a believable source.

ubertuber · 05-10-2004, 08:01 AM

Michael Eisner wrote this letter to the NY Times in response to their editorial slamming Disney for not distributing Moore's new movie:

Link to letter on NY Times website

Quote:

To the Editor:

You accuse the Walt Disney Company of cowardice and censorship because of its decision a year ago not to distribute Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11" (editorial, May 6). In fact, the cowardly thing would have been to be intimidated into distributing the film. We did not block its distribution. There are many avenues for Mr. Moore to pursue to get his film distributed.

Your accusations of stifling free expression are misplaced. The First Amendment does not say that The New York Times must print every article presented to it or that the Walt Disney Company must distribute every movie. If a government entity had blocked Mr. Moore's film from being released, that would have violated the First Amendment, and we would have quickly signed up to join any protest.

In the case of "Fahrenheit 9/11," we chose a path that was right for the company and its stakeholders.

The creation of intellectual product rises and falls on similar judgments by creative people and executives across America. We would hope that The Times would recognize that the Walt Disney Company has the same right of freedom of expression that it is advocating for Mr. Moore.

MICHAEL D. EISNER
Chief Exec., Walt Disney Company
Burbank, Calif., May 7, 2004

I think Eisner has a good point - that distributing this movie would amount to making a statement, and Disney has a right to determine which statements they wish to make. If Moore's new movie doesn't fit with that plan, so be it. He specifically says that there are other avenues for Moore to get his film distributed. So... Go to it. But based on the fact that they are open to Moore finding other distribution channels and that Moore knew about this before, I'd call it a publicity stunt. My only remaining question is, why did Miramax agree to produce the film in the first place?

Stompy · 05-10-2004, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueGoose
Ah... Cause Michael Moore is once more such a believable source.

Is Miramax not owned by Disney? It is!

The top movie a few weeks ago was...? Kill Bill!

Did Eisner not make claims that Disney ONLY releases family films? That he did.

Is Disney contradicting themselves? Indeed.

The only thing I can't verify based on Moore's response to Disney's claims that this news is over a year old is the fact that they released his movie The Big One: http://imdb.com/title/tt0124295/. Did they or did they not release it?

I've never seen the movie, but is it a partisan political movie? I'm thinking yes.

...so what again isn't believable, or are you just referring to him in general? Just curious, because I thought his reponse (found here: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php) was pretty well stated.. except his little complaint about Disney naming their ride "Tower of Terror" (which was up long before 9/11 ever happened).. reminds me of those freaks who wanted Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers renamed because it reminded them of 9/11

irateplatypus · 05-10-2004, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stompy
The only thing I can't verify based on Moore's response to Disney's claims that this news is over a year old is the fact that they released his movie The Big One: http://imdb.com/title/tt0124295/. Did they or did they not release it?

No one has verified his claims that Disney feared political retribution for distributing the film either.

HarmlessRabbit · 05-10-2004, 02:24 PM

I think from reviewing this thread that people are confused.

Disney is not preventing the film from being distributed. They are merely backing out as the distributor of the film. No one is claiming that there was a contract in place binding them to do so.

Disney will still make a bundle off the film as an investor.

So what's the big deal? There was no contract. Someone will pick up the distribution and make a bundle, especially now that the film is controversial. No free-speech rights were harmed. No puppies were killed.

Freedom of Speech does not mean that I have to listen.

hammer4all · 05-10-2004, 02:43 PM

Quote:

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.

http://www.fair.org/activism/disney-moore-update.html

ChrisJericho · 05-10-2004, 02:55 PM

Meh, I won't pay money to see this film, but if I can download it for free somewhere I'll probably wtach it.

charms · 05-10-2004, 06:22 PM

Which is more likely? A publicity stunt? In Hollywood!? Or Moore being 'silenced' by a vast conspiracy? We'll ignore, for the time being, the NYT's charge of 'censorship.' Last time I checked, there was no constitutionally guaranteed right to have your film distributed by Disney.

This whole 'scandal' has emerged right before the Cannes Film Festival due to some comments by Michael Moore's agent/publicist. Doesn't that cast some doubt on the motivation behind the claims? Does the cornerstone company of the $21 billion Florida tourism industry receive tax breaks? Sure, of course. Is Jeb Bush the governor of Florida? Yes. Well there you go, that obviously proves that Bush and Eisner are in bed together. Classic Moore -- open-ended implications based on circumstantial evidence.

Why don't I believe that Eisner is intimidated by the Bushes? I don't know, maybe it's because he's donated money to John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Patrck Leahy, Barbara Boxer, Fritz Hollings, Bob Kerrey, Jean Carnahan, Dick Gephardt, Dianne Feinstein, Bill Bradley, Frank Lautenberg, and Barbara Mikulski. (www.opensecrets.org). Shall we dissect Weinstein's donation portfolio? How would it make any sense for Disney to finance Moore's movie through its subsidiary Miramax if they had no intention of releasing it? They knew exactly what Moore was making and chose to finance it.

Why won't Disney release it? Because they don't want to politicize the flagship brand. The film is sure to ignite a firestorm of front-page controversy that they don't want to be in the middle of because they don't want to alienate half of their potential customers.

hammer4all · 05-11-2004, 01:16 PM

A "vast conspiracy" is not necessary here to silence Moore. Simple conflicts of interest will do. When Disney's reasons for not distributing the film fall apart, it is only rational to look for other motives. Today, Democracy Now! dedicated a whole show into looking at the Disney-Saudi and Bush-Saudi relationships (which have been well documented btw). However, if you have already read the FAIR press release I quoted above, no new information was explored between Disney and the Saudi royal family.

http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl?issue=20040511

charms · 05-11-2004, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hammer4all
A "vast conspiracy" is not necessary here to silence Moore. Simple conflicts of interest will do. When Disney's reasons for not distributing the film fall apart, it is only rational to look for other motives. Today, Democracy Now! dedicated a whole show into looking at the Disney-Saudi and Bush-Saudi relationships (which have been well documented btw). However, if you have already read the FAIR press release I quoted above, no new information was explored between Disney and the Saudi royal family.

http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl?issue=20040511

Disney does whatever makes them money. If they released Moore's film, there is a substantial risk of protests and boycotts by the right-wing, particularly in what is already a highly-charged election year. A few years ago, the Southern Baptist Convention began a much publicized boycott of Disney for its policy towards homosexuals. Why would Disney, who sells happy, wholesome, all-American, family schmaltz, put their name on a product that will likely be labeled un-American by the right wing? It's bad business.

We can sit here and play endless rhetorical frisbee with examples of right-wing and left-wing associations, but guilt by association ultimately falls short of conclusive. Do they employ John Stossel? Sure, they also employ George Stephanopoulos. Incidentally, Stossel is more accurately described as a libertarian than a conservative.

Do they have Saudi investors? Sure, they also have Jewish investors, Democrat investors, Republican investors, Christian investors,.... We can concoct any guilt by association theory we want. Eisner donates money to Democrats. What's that prove? Nothing.

If Eisner didn't want Michael Moore to make a movie, he wouldn't have helped finance it in the first place. The decision not to distribute allows Disney/Miramax to make lots of money from the sale of the distribution rights, generate lots of publicity, yet still maintain enough insulation to protect the Disney brand. It's called hedging your portfolio.

hammer4all · 05-11-2004, 06:08 PM

Look, there is a clear double standard here: It's perfectly alright for Disney to run 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh followed by 3 hours of Sean Hannity, but as soon as we're talking about something left-wing that's "bad business." The fact that you would attribute lift-wing to Stephanopoulos just shows what progressives like me are up against. Btw, I didn't mention this last time, but your own link shows that Eisner and Disney donate about as much to Republicans as they do Democrats. So I wish you would stop implying that the money only flows one direction.

irateplatypus · 05-11-2004, 06:58 PM

hammer4all, i completely disagree with you about there being a double standard... so i'll only follow this logic in order to try to get some common ground with you.

but, if there is a double standard... who cares? any corporation is entirely within its rights to publish what they choose to publish.
moore isn't entitled to any distribution as it pertains to his legal rights. companies are free to choose to invest in distributing his work or free to choose to decline the opportunity. because disney chooses some opportunities over moore says much more of the nature of mr. moore's work than it does about the scruples of disney/miramax.

and to me, the choice that Disney has made to publish/promote conservative programs and withdraw from liberal ones (a choice you are saying they're making, not i) is a SINGLE standard... not a double one.

charms · 05-11-2004, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hammer4all
Look, there is a clear double standard here: It's perfectly alright for Disney to run 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh followed by 3 hours of Sean Hannity, but as soon as we're talking about something left-wing that's "bad business." The fact that you would attribute lift-wing to Stephanopoulos just shows what progressives like me are up against. Btw, I didn't mention this last time, but your own link shows that Eisner and Disney donate about as much to Republicans as they do Democrats. So I wish you would stop implying that the money only flows one direction.

Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are good business because they make oodles of money for Disney and don't cause boycotts or excessive damage to Disney's reputation. The public at large simply doesn't associate Disney with Rush Limbaugh, even if they should. If you'd like to change that, organize a protest, boycott Disney and its advertisers, and cost them more than they gain from airing Hannity/Limbaugh. Rush will be gone faster than you can say "prescription painkillers."

Or, go listen to Air America or Democracy Now and buy absolutely everything they advertise. In time, they'll make enough money to finance and distribute any movie you desire.

Moore is bad business because the Christian right is effective at organizing boycotts, e.g. the Dixie Chicks. A boycott of Disney's film, television, entertainment, and amusement industries is far more costly than the potential profits from Moore's movie. Eisner, who is fresh off a bitter internal power struggle and a hostile takeover attempt by Comcast, is understandably risk averse. The rewards of backing Moore simply don't outweigh the potential risks. Risk vs. rewards, basic finance.

I pointed out Stephanopoulos because he is a former member of Democratic administration, which some would assume makes Disney guilty of liberal bias by association. Personally, I don't, which is the primary tenet of my argument. Whether he is progressive enough for you is immaterial to the discussion. However, the fact that you and FAIR call Stossel a conservative shows you what libertarians are up against.

My link to the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity (as opposed to your link to the partisan FAIR), shows that Eisner has a preference towards donating to Democrats, particularly when it comes to Senators and Presidential candidates. Like any responsible investor, he donates some money to Republicans in order to hedge his influence portfolio. Harvey Weinstein donates exclusively to Democrats.

The point of my argument is that Disney's decision not to distribute Moore's film is likely economic, not ideological. Disney isn't blocking distribution, it's simply choosing not to distribute it themselves. Moore has seized the opportunity to publicize his movie (right before Cannes) and launch a bidding war for its distribution. It's a far simpler explanation which doesn't require Arab investors or tax breaks, just a realization that Disney likes money and Moore likes publicity.

hammer4all · 05-11-2004, 11:49 PM

Well I think you're partly right, but there is more it. Corporate media conglomerates tend to have lots of right-wing personalities not only because of money, but because they are less likely to upset advertisers and/or the general status quo. Conservatives tend to be much more corporate friendly then progressives. It's much too complicated for me to explain here, but if you're interested, I highly recommend this documentary.

Democracy Now! is not like any other news organization. They are independent--they don't advertise or accept donations from corporations or governments. The program is entirely funded by listeners so they are much freer to report on whatever they want.

Charlatan · 05-12-2004, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
I think from reviewing this thread that people are confused.

Disney is not preventing the film from being distributed. They are merely backing out as the distributor of the film. No one is claiming that there was a contract in place binding them to do so.

Disney will still make a bundle off the film as an investor.

So what's the big deal? There was no contract. Someone will pick up the distribution and make a bundle, especially now that the film is controversial. No free-speech rights were harmed. No puppies were killed.

Freedom of Speech does not mean that I have to listen.

Thank you for pointing this out again... I hadn't looked in on this thread in a while and was starting to pull out my hair when I saw your post...

Someone else will distribute the thing... While there is a case to argue they have a double standard, this isn't a case of censorship.

Locobot · 05-12-2004, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by irateplatypus
any corporation is entirely within its rights to publish what they choose to publish.
moore isn't entitled to any distribution as it pertains to his legal rights. companies are free to choose to invest in distributing his work or free to choose to decline the opportunity.

True irateplatypus, but then isn't Mr. Moore also entitled to exercise his free speech rights to garner publicity from Disney's decline? What is the actual nature of your qualm? You don't deny the political motives of Disney's move, or that they declined to distribute the film yet you claim Mr. Moore wasn't censored? Or are you just taking this opportunity to bash Moore because you disagree with his message?

BTW Moore's first film "Roger & Me" is considered a classic of the documentary genre. It's a groundbreaking example of guerilla film making. A less competant director might have portrayed the sheriff, driving around evicting people all day as evil or amoral, instead of as an okay guy doing his job as Moore does. The "pets or meat" segment is simutaneously hilarious, sad, and disgusting. Must see.

irateplatypus · 05-12-2004, 04:37 PM

locobot,

keep in mind the post you are referring to was strictly on a hypothetical level because i disagreed with the premise's on which the previous posts had being laid.

that being said... certainly moore has a right to promote his movie. why do so many draw the line from disapproval of a statement to the opinion that the statement shouldn't be allowed?

the problem with moore in these instances is that it appears that he has manufactured or manipulated the situation in a way that is untrue. publicly accusing the disney company of censorship with the motivation of keeping political ties is a very serious thing to say. if those accusations aren't proven (and they haven't been, and i doubt they will), then moore has gone from promotion to libel. there is a difference, a very distinct (and legal) difference.

Locobot · 05-13-2004, 05:37 PM

Irateplatypus-you clearly do not understand what libel is.

irateplatypus · 05-13-2004, 06:11 PM

li·bel:

1. a: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.

b: The act of presenting such material to the public.

2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.

looked it up for good measure, that's exactly what i mean. moore brought up accusations that are damaging to disney's reputation. if you prefer the word slander, then i'll go with that also.

Locobot · 05-13-2004, 06:31 PM

Nice dictionary definition. Libel as pertaining to law is dependant on someone saying something they know to be false. Under your definition Disney is also guilty of libel. If Disney's motives aren't political than what Irateplatypus do you suppose they are? Did Eisner have a bad day? Did the seven dwarfs nix it based on a bad chicken bone throw? We know Moore's films are profitable so that's not it. Any insight here Irateplatypus? Or are you, like the anti-Bowling For Columbine sites posted above, unable to argue with Moore's message, attacking the messanger?

05-07-2004, 10:26 AM	#44 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	You see, that is the difference between you and me, Lebell... Where you see him scapegoating LM, the USA and the NRA I saw him point out some ironies and leaving the conclusions to be drawn by the viewer... (for the record I didn't like the way he ended the film with Chuck... that was tastless, but I won't discount the rest of the film beause of that...) IMO what these anti-Moore sentiments all come down to is that no one likes to wear the emperor's new clothes __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

05-07-2004, 11:14 AM	#46 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	It isn't about Moore... it's about what isn't getting said in America (and by that I mean North American). Perhaps he does fudge things to make the story work... perhaps he doesn't. I'm not interested in defending or attacking him on this. What is sad is that a lot of what he investigates are increasingly valid topics to which not enough people pay attention. Guns are a problem (OK the people who use the guns are a problem)... Corporate theivery and corruption are a problem... There are some very important questions about Bush and 9/11, etc that need asking... Moore has an agenda of attacking the Corporate power structures and the Republicans that support that structure... You may not agree with his methods but you have to give him props for sticking to his guns and continuing to fight what he (and many who share his beliefs) believes to be the good fight. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

05-09-2004, 08:47 AM	#55 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	moore's main problem with integrity isn't that he presents many facts that aren't true to some extent... it's that he presents those facts in a way that manipulates the truth. i think it's quite a stretch to say that BFC was lie-free because no one bothered to drop a law-suit on him. that sounds like a self-important blowhard thing to say. if you've seen BFC, most of the people he picks are are bank/store managers, unsuspecting common people and a senile old man. with the exception of that particular senile old man, hardly the sort of people who would have the resources or desire to fight moore on a technicality. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 05-09-2004 at 08:50 AM..

05-10-2004, 02:55 PM	#67 (permalink)
ChrisJericho eat more fruit Location: Seattle	Meh, I won't pay money to see this film, but if I can download it for free somewhere I'll probably wtach it. __________________ "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows us that faith proves nothing." - Friedrich Nietzsche

05-11-2004, 06:58 PM	#72 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	hammer4all, i completely disagree with you about there being a double standard... so i'll only follow this logic in order to try to get some common ground with you. but, if there is a double standard... who cares? any corporation is entirely within its rights to publish what they choose to publish. moore isn't entitled to any distribution as it pertains to his legal rights. companies are free to choose to invest in distributing his work or free to choose to decline the opportunity. because disney chooses some opportunities over moore says much more of the nature of mr. moore's work than it does about the scruples of disney/miramax. and to me, the choice that Disney has made to publish/promote conservative programs and withdraw from liberal ones (a choice you are saying they're making, not i) is a SINGLE standard... not a double one. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

05-07-2004, 04:19 PM	#47 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	I have seen all of Moore's movies and for the most part, they are pretty good. The only part of BFC that I didn't like was the end when he harassed Charlie Heston. Charlie is a confused old man suffering from Alzheimers. He shouldn't have done that. For me, the biggest prick in BFC was Dick Clark. Now he looked like more of an asshole than Heston even came close to. Still for me, Roger and Me remains Moore's best work to date. It's funny though that he never really found himself within the sights of the neo-cons in the USA until he did BFC and took on America's fascination with guns. (Even moore was a life long member of the NRA.) I look forward to his new movie and I am sure that there are going to be some thorny issues raised. Not the least of which will be how on 912 the only planes allowed in the air were carrying Saudi nationals out of the USA back home, and just what was said in those blacked out pages of the 911 report. The bottom line is that 15 of 19 911 terrorists were Saudis, yet nothing happens to Saudi Arabia or the House of Saud. It's really quite unreal to watch.

05-07-2004, 11:43 PM	#51 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Lemme begin by saying that everyone out there in the realm of politics is out for self-promotion and as thus Moore is just like any other activist or anyone involved in politics I find all the bickering over a guy who is playing politics and making money to be a bit of a waste of time - he's doing what he wants, he's making money, he's getting people to argue thus drawing attention to his aims... if you hate him that much, then don't do what he wants you to...

05-09-2004, 07:56 AM	#53 (permalink)
BlueGoose Banned Location: Texas - The state that all other states wish they could be	If what he has shown has been proven debunk, why would we trust what he says about it? "What? i've had my lawyers and 'fact-checkers' go through all of my stuff. Now they're really going to believe me." I don't know how Michael Moore saying something is true makes it true.

05-09-2004, 05:54 PM	#59 (permalink)
BlueGoose Banned Location: Texas - The state that all other states wish they could be	A lot of it has been proven flat out to be lies. The publicity stunt is the fact that he initially said that he was just told it when he was told over a year go. Anyways, it's not censorship. Why should Disney distribute it if they don't want to? You're definitely twisting the meaning of "censorship". If the government was threatening Disney that if they distributed it they'd be attacked economically, then yes, that would be censorship. Disney making the decision to not distribute the movie is their choice and is not censorship.

05-09-2004, 07:40 PM	#61 (permalink)
BlueGoose Banned Location: Texas - The state that all other states wish they could be	Ah... Cause Michael Moore is once more such a believable source.

05-10-2004, 02:24 PM	#65 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	I think from reviewing this thread that people are confused. Disney is not preventing the film from being distributed. They are merely backing out as the distributor of the film. No one is claiming that there was a contract in place binding them to do so. Disney will still make a bundle off the film as an investor. So what's the big deal? There was no contract. Someone will pick up the distribution and make a bundle, especially now that the film is controversial. No free-speech rights were harmed. No puppies were killed. Freedom of Speech does not mean that I have to listen.

05-10-2004, 06:22 PM	#68 (permalink)
charms Upright	Which is more likely? A publicity stunt? In Hollywood!? Or Moore being 'silenced' by a vast conspiracy? We'll ignore, for the time being, the NYT's charge of 'censorship.' Last time I checked, there was no constitutionally guaranteed right to have your film distributed by Disney. This whole 'scandal' has emerged right before the Cannes Film Festival due to some comments by Michael Moore's agent/publicist. Doesn't that cast some doubt on the motivation behind the claims? Does the cornerstone company of the $21 billion Florida tourism industry receive tax breaks? Sure, of course. Is Jeb Bush the governor of Florida? Yes. Well there you go, that obviously proves that Bush and Eisner are in bed together. Classic Moore -- open-ended implications based on circumstantial evidence. Why don't I believe that Eisner is intimidated by the Bushes? I don't know, maybe it's because he's donated money to John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Patrck Leahy, Barbara Boxer, Fritz Hollings, Bob Kerrey, Jean Carnahan, Dick Gephardt, Dianne Feinstein, Bill Bradley, Frank Lautenberg, and Barbara Mikulski. (www.opensecrets.org). Shall we dissect Weinstein's donation portfolio? How would it make any sense for Disney to finance Moore's movie through its subsidiary Miramax if they had no intention of releasing it? They knew exactly what Moore was making and chose to finance it. Why won't Disney release it? Because they don't want to politicize the flagship brand. The film is sure to ignite a firestorm of front-page controversy that they don't want to be in the middle of because they don't want to alienate half of their potential customers.

05-11-2004, 01:16 PM	#69 (permalink)
hammer4all Insane	A "vast conspiracy" is not necessary here to silence Moore. Simple conflicts of interest will do. When Disney's reasons for not distributing the film fall apart, it is only rational to look for other motives. Today, Democracy Now! dedicated a whole show into looking at the Disney-Saudi and Bush-Saudi relationships (which have been well documented btw). However, if you have already read the FAIR press release I quoted above, no new information was explored between Disney and the Saudi royal family. http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl?issue=20040511

05-11-2004, 06:08 PM	#71 (permalink)
hammer4all Insane	Look, there is a clear double standard here: It's perfectly alright for Disney to run 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh followed by 3 hours of Sean Hannity, but as soon as we're talking about something left-wing that's "bad business." The fact that you would attribute lift-wing to Stephanopoulos just shows what progressives like me are up against. Btw, I didn't mention this last time, but your own link shows that Eisner and Disney donate about as much to Republicans as they do Democrats. So I wish you would stop implying that the money only flows one direction.

05-11-2004, 11:49 PM	#74 (permalink)
hammer4all Insane	Well I think you're partly right, but there is more it. Corporate media conglomerates tend to have lots of right-wing personalities not only because of money, but because they are less likely to upset advertisers and/or the general status quo. Conservatives tend to be much more corporate friendly then progressives. It's much too complicated for me to explain here, but if you're interested, I highly recommend this documentary. Democracy Now! is not like any other news organization. They are independent--they don't advertise or accept donations from corporations or governments. The program is entirely funded by listeners so they are much freer to report on whatever they want.

05-12-2004, 04:37 PM	#77 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	locobot, keep in mind the post you are referring to was strictly on a hypothetical level because i disagreed with the premise's on which the previous posts had being laid. that being said... certainly moore has a right to promote his movie. why do so many draw the line from disapproval of a statement to the opinion that the statement shouldn't be allowed? the problem with moore in these instances is that it appears that he has manufactured or manipulated the situation in a way that is untrue. publicly accusing the disney company of censorship with the motivation of keeping political ties is a very serious thing to say. if those accusations aren't proven (and they haven't been, and i doubt they will), then moore has gone from promotion to libel. there is a difference, a very distinct (and legal) difference. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

05-13-2004, 05:37 PM	#78 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	Irateplatypus-you clearly do not understand what libel is.

05-13-2004, 06:11 PM	#79 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	li·bel: 1. a: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. b: The act of presenting such material to the public. 2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court. looked it up for good measure, that's exactly what i mean. moore brought up accusations that are damaging to disney's reputation. if you prefer the word slander, then i'll go with that also. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

05-13-2004, 06:31 PM	#80 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	Nice dictionary definition. Libel as pertaining to law is dependant on someone saying something they know to be false. Under your definition Disney is also guilty of libel. If Disney's motives aren't political than what Irateplatypus do you suppose they are? Did Eisner have a bad day? Did the seven dwarfs nix it based on a bad chicken bone throw? We know Moore's films are profitable so that's not it. Any insight here Irateplatypus? Or are you, like the anti-Bowling For Columbine sites posted above, unable to argue with Moore's message, attacking the messanger?