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.

Huh. You don't say.... ;)

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 :rolleyes:

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)

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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

BINGO--using your definition.

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

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

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?

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 :rolleyes:

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

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. :)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Irateplatypus-you clearly do not understand what libel is.

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.

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?

uh oh... we got a live one here!


well, i suppose disney's motives are financial. if distributing moore's movie would lead to boycotts or bad publicity... then it is in disney's financial interest to not to do it. sure, they would probably make a boatload on the film... but could easily lose much more in other arenas because of the distribution.

i'm not necessarily against moore's messages... some of them i am i suppose, but certainly not all. what i certainly am against is moore's shameless self promotion, the way he (i believe) unfairly manipulates people's emotions and presents half an issue.

so, to address you directly... i have some issues with moore's style and message, but i'm not against the whole thing. but you're probably right, i am against the messenger in to a certain degree. in fact, i think i'm more averse to the messenger than the actual message. moore markets himself and his personality much more than any other documentary (and i use that term lightly) producer... he is selling his charisma as much as his issues, so i don't think an opinion of the messenger is entirely out of order.