Disney to squash Fahrenheit 911
 

One of the Industry alerts I subscribe to just posted this notice...

If it is true, it will only be a matter of time before Miramax sells the rights to someone else as they did with House of a 1000 Corpses...

I find it interesting that should care...

DISNEY FORBIDDING DISTRIBUTION OF FILM THAT CRITICIZES BUSH: The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday. The film, Fahrenheit 911, links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis -- including the family of Osama bin Laden -- and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.

Probably just a publicity stunt to generate more revenue.

There are many films that are produced but don't get released. I don't have a problem with that. Here's where I have a problem:
Apparantly, "Disney executives denied that accusation, the paper said." as well, but this is a problem. Not "we want to support our president", but "we anticipate political retribution".

Films get produced and not released but not when the filmmaker's previous film was a smash hit AND and Oscar-winner...

My vote goes in the "fear of political retirbution" column.

Well Moore is back at it again, taking truths and spinning them around so badly they become falsities. I'm sure Bush has been in contact with bin Laden's family, the vast majority of them are west-friendly. Hell his oldest brother LIVED in America outside of San Antonio, he died in a piloting accident, unfortunately the family millions went to Osama. AHA! Texans are involved in the 9/11 plot! BOMB SAN ANTONIO!

Probably entirely accurate, but (a) the studio knew the content of the movie when they picked it up from Mel Gibson's company, and (b) that's not the reason they are giving for holding it back.

Nothing like pre-judging a film before you see it...:rolleyes:

quite honestly, i have the solid preconceived notion that this film will be just as false and manipulative as bowling for columbine was. i suppose that is judging a film before i've seen it... but i really don't care if that is so in this instance. i hypothesize that if there really were a factual basis for what he claims to prove in his movie... it would've been discovered long before now. there are just too many people interested in discrediting the President at levels higher than Mr. Moore for these supposed dramatic revelations to be uncovered by him for the first time.

what infuriates me about michael moore supporters is the pedestal they put him on. the way in which he presents whatever facts he cites are so obviously slanted... yet a lot of the more shrill liberal crowd give him as much credibility as CNN.

the only thing to admire about moore is his remarkable ability to promote himself. i don't think there is anyone else in popular culture with an equivalent combination of motivation, charisma, and shamelessness.

Why would you need to? Moore spins things just as much as Bush, if not more. Not even going to waste my time after watching his other film.

http://www.satirewire.com/news/0112/.../robertson.jpg

This man can charm the fangs off a snake. He's about as mainstream in popular culture as Michael Moore is, which is to say: not very.

Aletheia... i agree with what i feel to be the heart of your post, but i'd like to express something that bothers me about it.

you equated the bias of michael moore with that of the leader of the free world. WAYYY too much credit given. they just aren't on the same playing field. michael moore is a great entertainer (roger and me) and skilled manipulator... but the way he conducts himself and promotes his ideas doesn't put him in the same company as any President, GWB or otherwise.

How much sense would it make if i compared the bias of the most hateful right-wing hack to the bias of John Kerry? I'm no kerry supporter what-so-ever, but it is easily recognizable that their ideas and policies operate on a different level.

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.

Sparhawk,

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

that really cracked me up. your post made me think: ol' Pat is like the anti-Moore. Instead of shrill and loud he's a snake charmer. Moore will crush you with a sledgehammer, Pat will slit your throat.

either way, point taken. :p

:lol:

the AP is now reporting that Moore knew about Disney's decision not to distribute the film since May 2003.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040505/D82CMK380.html

the article speculates that this could be news manufactured by Moore in order to bring attention to his film's debut in Cannes next week.

that was my first reaction to this story... i guess we'll see how it all pans out.

Who da man?

Hint:
<--------

I heard on a interview with Michael Moore on NPR this morning. Moore said that Jeb Bush was going to give some kind of tax deal to Eisner, so Eisner doesnt want to jeopordise that deal.

Any publicity is good publicity as far as this goes.

Moore will find another distributor I am sure and the movie will make that much more money.

Thanks Disney

Moore is an asshole who gives liberals everywhere a bad name. It's going to be another comedy passed off as a documentary, just like Bowling for Columbine. I hope conservatives see him as representing liberals about as much as Coulter represents them.

Since the movie has yet to be realeased, I can't speak to what's in it, but the connection between the Bush family and Saudi Arabia's royal family is fairly well documented by many sources.

Knowing Moore, he will do his best to infer diabolical intent and will pose many questions without answers in the hopes that we will connect the dots to reveal a nefarious portrait of President Bush.

To those who agree with him, his movie will reveal truth. To those who disagree, his movie will be filled with distortions and half-truths. Either way, he's already gotten what he most wants: plenty of free publicity which will translate into more ticket sales.

I don't care about the politics involved much on this guy anymore anyways but put it simply...

For all the hate, the guy is a business genius - rake in the money by saying stuff no one wants to hear and create controversy - then let em bicker while you roll in the dough

Oh of course. Moore would make a very good republican. ;)

Oh, there are people who want to hear what he has to say...

Sure lots of sources, but I think we can stand to shine the light on this relationship a little bit more... I don't think the "average" American is aware how close of a relationship they have.

Um... he makes documentaries. Just because people don't agree with the conclusions doesn't suddenly make his film a fiction feature. If I write an essay that comes to conclusions you don't agree with that doesn't suddenly make it a novel...


I don't have a problem with people disliking Moore... a lot of people didn't like Socrates either... The Socratic method is an annoyingly effective tool.

Correction:

Moore makes political movies, not documentaries.

The Academy not withstanding, documentaries involve presenting things as they really are and letting the facts pursuade the viewer.

Moore does not do this.

Moore presents some facts, some spin and then proposes "questions" that are never answered but are intended to lead the viewer to a political/philosophical position that is at odds with the conclusions of most people who are in fact familiar with what Moore is slandering.

Just like America is forced to listen and take in what the administration/media dishes...why cant America take in what Moore is saying?
Why is he wrong for speaking his mind (a freedom we are supposedly dying for in Iraq)?
I believe that corporation do indeed run this world and how could you argue that Disney didnt spike the film out of fear or threat from the FLA gov?

right on lebell. the term "documentary" carries with it a scholarly weight that Moore's work does not possess.

once again, Moore isn't the freakin President. He doesn't, and shouldn't, even begin to approach the coverage and influence that the office of the Presidency holds... no matter who holds the job at a particular time. but even considering that, no one is forced to view anything in this country.

why do some make a martyr out of Moore? it has nothing to do with what America can or cannot take. let's get this clear, NO ONE is saying he is wrong for speaking his mind (although many would say that what his mind speaks is wrong).

Disney is a business, they have the perfect and unquestionable right to decide for themselves what they want to distribute. No one is guaranteed by some Constitutional right to have their film distribute by a multinational corporation. Just because a company refuses to invest millions in some indy filmmaker's pet project doesn't mean censorship.

What if i made a film, huh? Yeah, I'll go make a film about how Tom Daschle is cozy with the Fruit Yogurt lobby. Tom Daschle's nefarious ties to the yogurt industry would be finally brought to light! Dollars to donuts it wouldn't get a distributor... (unless the onion has a distribution wing :P). That's tough, but that is how it goes. My film would be complete rubbish, the industry would treat it accordingly.

the saving grace is that if the country really is run by corporations, then you can bet that at least one will pick the film up. it's a guaranteed dollar-maker. and i would argue that last point by pointing to the AP link listed above.

It seems as though the issue is clearly if Disney pulled out in fear of administration punishment. It really should not be about Moore at all. A martyr out of Moore.....uhhh maybe not but his actions really make GWB's actions and words stand on their own. GWB used "our freedoms" as one of the justifications for war (cant really remember the order they all popped up) and Moore is excercising his freedom of speech.

I think the biggest thing to come out of this thread is how there is a very strong possibility that the administration uses politics/tax to sway public opinion one way or the other in politics.

Miramax already invested the money. Disney is refusing to release the film, not fund it.

IT isn't an indy film, either. Miramax is a mainstream production studio.

One issue may be relevant here: should a corporation be able to buy things and then sit on them? I suppose one could argue the right to do that, but people defending such a "right" are singing a hollow tune to me.

It seems pretty obvious to me that one sells production rights to a studio with the belief that it will eventually be viewed by the public. If minds are changing now, Moore should be allowed to re-sell it to someone else (or release it over the net...oops).

I also wanted to point out the irony of the film's title. Regardless of whether Disney has the right to cancel the film, they are censoring it. Fahrenheit 451 -- woot, woot!

the distributor of a film still invests lots of money into a film... in the case of documentaries the costs of distributing and promoting a film often outstrips the production budget.

you're right about it not being an indy film. i posted that with the perception that moore was an indy filmmaker in general... but a lot of his productions have had mainstream studios behind them. my apologies for posting something erroneous.

that is an interesting issue: whether or not a corporation can or should be able to buy media like this and then sit on it. as deep as those implications may be, that isn't what is taking place here. moore is free to shop around and will certainly find somebody to link up with.

i'm no lawyer, but i'm pretty sure that is a standard contract item... that if the distributing party chooses not to support the film, the producer is free from his obligations.

It all depends on what the contract says that Miramax has with Moore... That aside, it looks like Disney and Miramax are happy to see someone else distribute the film.

Disney is just being cautious and doesn't want to ruffle feathers... just like when they made Miramax squash the release of Kevin Smith's Dogma because they were afraid they might anger the Christian wallet...

I don't care who releases the film as long as Disney doesn't just shelve the film.


Political Film... Documentary... same bloody thing!
Four years of film school and 10 years in the film industry... I think I know what the definition of Documentary is, thanks.

By the way... the film is considered an independant film. Miramax did not produce the film, they provided some bridge financing in return for the distribution rights (read it in the trades don't have the source handy). Michael Moore's company (Dog Eat Dog Films ) is the producer of record.

Even if Miramax did produce it they aren't technically considered a major but a mini-major

/splitting hairs

Sadly, I would have thought so too.

Its all legal technical mumbo-jumbo BS now anyways trying to figure out what the contract says and what not

Personally i hate Disney and Eisner too so whatever happens make it big!

Wow, that was remarkably snide!


No one has linked this yet...

TomAto - Tomaato

A "political film" by any other name is still a Documentary. Get over it.

I'm not very aware of Bush' link to the Saudis, but a co-worker of mine is.

Those against Moore, are you upset that he's bringing these facts about the President out into the open?

Why all the negativity about Bowling for Columbine? Most of what was presented in that movie are facts. Sure, the open ended questions that really have no answer could put bias on the viewer as to which side to take, but the facts are still there.

Do you not agree that the local news reports on nothing but unnecessary fear inciting stories? It happens every night.

If he were to bring out facts linking Bush to the Saudis, would you be able to disprove all of them and discredit Moore? It's easy to say he's a piece of trash liberal, but I don't see anyone rebutting these facts, which if anything, gives him more credit than anyone else.

Before someone flies off the handle and labels me a liberal loving whatever, there are things I'm liberal about, and there are things I'm conservative about, but by no means do I consider myself on either side. Conservatives constantly lie about liberals while liberals constantly lie about conservatives.

The difference here is... most of the information presented are facts that can be verified. It's not like he's making this story up.

Yeah, he might be making a big publicity stunt, but... it doesn't change the facts that will be presented in the movie.

Also, if someone doesn't mind explaining, what is the supposed link to Bush and the Saudis?

Do other "Documentaries" need this kind of publicity?

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

So can you admit that Mikey is just a self promoting narcisistic publicity hound who doesn't care about telling the truth so long as the "right" people are hurt, or will you defend him to the end?

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??

You have an extremely high view of Documentaries. They are not any different from any other filmed product and as such publicity is publicity.

Should a controvercial non-ficiton author not try to generate publicity just because he is the author of non-fiction?



I don't believe I have yet defended him in this thread. You must have me confused with someone else... I started this thread because I found it interesting that Disney was shelving a film that was clearly going to make money...

Personally I don't see Michael Moore in the negative light that many on this board have of him. I don't have a problem with self-promotion per se. Nacisism is a bit harsh. Publicity hound? I don't have a problem with that... filmmakers live on publicity. If people don't know about your film, not many people see your films.

Moore is clearly on a crusade to stick it to the "man". Do I agree with him everytime. No. Do I find him funny, yes. I find Denis Miller funny too.

Facts, spin and questions. I have no problem with this. A good storyteller does this all the time. Again, the Socratic method, while annoying is quite effective. The fact that people are questioning things is useful.

I say there should be more of this type of filmmaking shaking things up.



(and yes I said storyteller... all good Documentarians are good storytellers)

the only "fact" for those of us here on TFP is that none of us have seen the movie yet. this movie may be a departure (doubtful) from his usual manipulative style, but i'm not banking on it.