Moore Di$ney Cen$or$hip - Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 [Merged]
#126
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Not sure if this has been posted anywhere else, but...
Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt
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.
Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt
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.
#127
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
Actually it's still not applicable. Disney, as a company, has the right to NOT distribute whatever they feel like they don't want to. When this is actually proven to be some action that the United States Government commanded then perhaps it may be considered it. But for the time being a company has choosen that they do not want to distribute it because it may effect business in other aspects. Just like how the big studios passed on Passions. They felt that they would suffer from protestors. They, like disney, are making a business choice right now.
The issue here is Moore is not really liked in the public eye for many reasons. Passions had a market. Even if this does "wow" people in Cannes, that still doesn't mean the general public will give a rats ass about this and it wont generate big bucks like Passions did.
He still has the freedom of speech. Just not the soap box at disney to stand on and yell his comments. Simple matter is he will either have to find someone else to distribute or just let it sit in limbo. Freedom of speech isn't effected in any way and "Censorship" is still not used in a correct manner.
Capitolism at it's best.
Oh yeah.. Repost. can we get a merge up in the house with my thread which was created a minute before and has a better thread title. [/B]
Actually it's still not applicable. Disney, as a company, has the right to NOT distribute whatever they feel like they don't want to. When this is actually proven to be some action that the United States Government commanded then perhaps it may be considered it. But for the time being a company has choosen that they do not want to distribute it because it may effect business in other aspects. Just like how the big studios passed on Passions. They felt that they would suffer from protestors. They, like disney, are making a business choice right now.
The issue here is Moore is not really liked in the public eye for many reasons. Passions had a market. Even if this does "wow" people in Cannes, that still doesn't mean the general public will give a rats ass about this and it wont generate big bucks like Passions did.
He still has the freedom of speech. Just not the soap box at disney to stand on and yell his comments. Simple matter is he will either have to find someone else to distribute or just let it sit in limbo. Freedom of speech isn't effected in any way and "Censorship" is still not used in a correct manner.
Capitolism at it's best.
Oh yeah.. Repost. can we get a merge up in the house with my thread which was created a minute before and has a better thread title. [/B]
Maybe Disney does not want does not want to release a movie that is full of lies and cuts that make the point of the Director, the point of truth.
How may other films have been made, but never made it to the silver screen because the movie sucked. Ask Sylvester Stallone about that.
#128
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by johnglass
Not sure if this has been posted anywhere else, but...
Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt
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.
Not sure if this has been posted anywhere else, but...
Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt
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.
If it is true, there should be some "I was wrong" or "I'm sorry" postings coming to this thread.
#129
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Iron_Giant
If this is true, once again Moore lies, twists the truth for his own gain. This just what he did in BfC, I hope this wakes up the public.
If it is true, there should be some "I was wrong" or "I'm sorry" postings coming to this thread.
If this is true, once again Moore lies, twists the truth for his own gain. This just what he did in BfC, I hope this wakes up the public.
If it is true, there should be some "I was wrong" or "I'm sorry" postings coming to this thread.
#132
Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lost. Very lost.
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moore is taking advantage of a bad situation. It's not an awful situation, but it's unpleasant. When Moore gets hit, he hits back, usually in public.
The article saying he knew a year ago has no quote saying that. It says he was informed a year ago that Disney had issues with the film, and would not seek to distribute it. Apparently, Miramax was confident that disney's mind would change, and when notice went out that there was no change, only now after the completion of the film, Moore took the story public.
It's a smart move by Moore, and probably a little calculated, yes. But it is not deceptive, and it isn't deceitful. This is the point where talks broke down, and the decision was made. Disney's position never changed, but only now could they look at the film and say they weren't releasing it. Attention whore? Moore doesn't shy from attention, true. But his films are much less about him than about matters that concern him. And once again, just as he did with Bush's AWOL Nat'l Guard service, he's concerned with something with political ramifications, and he's not afraid to fight his way into public consciousness. Take it with a grain of salt or three, but before lauding this news story, note the phrasing. The headline isn't supported. Moore has been fighting to get this film out for a year, with Miramax. Now, oand only now, Disney's made that impossible. That's news. Moore's flare for self-promotion should be noted by us all, but from my reading, I don't see any need for apologies, except perhaps from the Independent for not supporting their headline.
Zijte blaze.
The article saying he knew a year ago has no quote saying that. It says he was informed a year ago that Disney had issues with the film, and would not seek to distribute it. Apparently, Miramax was confident that disney's mind would change, and when notice went out that there was no change, only now after the completion of the film, Moore took the story public.
It's a smart move by Moore, and probably a little calculated, yes. But it is not deceptive, and it isn't deceitful. This is the point where talks broke down, and the decision was made. Disney's position never changed, but only now could they look at the film and say they weren't releasing it. Attention whore? Moore doesn't shy from attention, true. But his films are much less about him than about matters that concern him. And once again, just as he did with Bush's AWOL Nat'l Guard service, he's concerned with something with political ramifications, and he's not afraid to fight his way into public consciousness. Take it with a grain of salt or three, but before lauding this news story, note the phrasing. The headline isn't supported. Moore has been fighting to get this film out for a year, with Miramax. Now, oand only now, Disney's made that impossible. That's news. Moore's flare for self-promotion should be noted by us all, but from my reading, I don't see any need for apologies, except perhaps from the Independent for not supporting their headline.
Zijte blaze.
#133
Originally posted by chanster
Give me a break. Nice way to try and spin this. Moore invited the "controversy" - he is now exposed once again as an attention whore.
Give me a break. Nice way to try and spin this. Moore invited the "controversy" - he is now exposed once again as an attention whore.
I'm not spinning anything. It just seems to me that the rightwing DVDTalk members are outraged and redfaced at every possible thing Michael Moore does, but issues regarding dubya get passed without concern.
So take it however you want.
#134
DVD Talk Godfather
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well to be fair, I'm open to a lot of things Moore says. I have defended his actions many times. But this is stupid. He spun his web of lies to get on the front page of the paper for being denied distribution when he already knew he wasn't getting it from disney.
#135
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by docF94
Moore is taking advantage of a bad situation. It's not an awful situation, but it's unpleasant. When Moore gets hit, he hits back, usually in public.
The article saying he knew a year ago has no quote saying that. It says he was informed a year ago that Disney had issues with the film, and would not seek to distribute it. Apparently, Miramax was confident that disney's mind would change, and when notice went out that there was no change, only now after the completion of the film, Moore took the story public.
It's a smart move by Moore, and probably a little calculated, yes. But it is not deceptive, and it isn't deceitful. This is the point where talks broke down, and the decision was made. Disney's position never changed, but only now could they look at the film and say they weren't releasing it. Attention whore? Moore doesn't shy from attention, true. But his films are much less about him than about matters that concern him. And once again, just as he did with Bush's AWOL Nat'l Guard service, he's concerned with something with political ramifications, and he's not afraid to fight his way into public consciousness. Take it with a grain of salt or three, but before lauding this news story, note the phrasing. The headline isn't supported. Moore has been fighting to get this film out for a year, with Miramax. Now, oand only now, Disney's made that impossible. That's news. Moore's flare for self-promotion should be noted by us all, but from my reading, I don't see any need for apologies, except perhaps from the Independent for not supporting their headline.
Zijte blaze.
Moore is taking advantage of a bad situation. It's not an awful situation, but it's unpleasant. When Moore gets hit, he hits back, usually in public.
The article saying he knew a year ago has no quote saying that. It says he was informed a year ago that Disney had issues with the film, and would not seek to distribute it. Apparently, Miramax was confident that disney's mind would change, and when notice went out that there was no change, only now after the completion of the film, Moore took the story public.
It's a smart move by Moore, and probably a little calculated, yes. But it is not deceptive, and it isn't deceitful. This is the point where talks broke down, and the decision was made. Disney's position never changed, but only now could they look at the film and say they weren't releasing it. Attention whore? Moore doesn't shy from attention, true. But his films are much less about him than about matters that concern him. And once again, just as he did with Bush's AWOL Nat'l Guard service, he's concerned with something with political ramifications, and he's not afraid to fight his way into public consciousness. Take it with a grain of salt or three, but before lauding this news story, note the phrasing. The headline isn't supported. Moore has been fighting to get this film out for a year, with Miramax. Now, oand only now, Disney's made that impossible. That's news. Moore's flare for self-promotion should be noted by us all, but from my reading, I don't see any need for apologies, except perhaps from the Independent for not supporting their headline.
Zijte blaze.
All Moore has to do is produce the Contract and then we will believe him. But, my bet is that there is no contract, he must be editing his own words to make it sound the way he wants it to sound.
#136
Banned
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
Well to be fair, I'm open to a lot of things Moore says. I have defended his actions many times. But this is stupid. He spun his web of lies to get on the front page of the paper for being denied distribution when he already knew he wasn't getting it from disney.
Well to be fair, I'm open to a lot of things Moore says. I have defended his actions many times. But this is stupid. He spun his web of lies to get on the front page of the paper for being denied distribution when he already knew he wasn't getting it from disney.
#137
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Mike Lowrey
Hey, that's one hellava line.
Couldn't be any truer.
Folks who flock to Michael Moore's films are expecting to see just what? To be filled with Left-wing propaganda.
I like a quote I read about Moore's Bowling for Coumbine. The quote said, "Michael Moore is using the First Amendment to crap on the Second Amendment."
Hey, that's one hellava line.
Couldn't be any truer.
Folks who flock to Michael Moore's films are expecting to see just what? To be filled with Left-wing propaganda.
I like a quote I read about Moore's Bowling for Coumbine. The quote said, "Michael Moore is using the First Amendment to crap on the Second Amendment."
It makes me very uneasy whenever one big company swallows another big company to become and even bigger company ala AOL/Time Warner. Couple these facts with the reality that 99% of the wealth of this country is controlled by 1% of the people scares the hell out of me and really pisses me off.
Moore is not anti-Republican, he is anti-big business and government.
The problem is that now with Bush in office the lines between the heads of state and heads of corporations are blurring.
This is of course a whole seperate thing from our philandering, lying former president whom Moore had a LOT to say about in Angry White Men...
Bottom line to remember is that there is Moore's "truth" and the right wing's "truth" and the REAL truth is somewhere inbetween. Don't be a zealot, think for yourself.
Last edited by Qui Gon Jim; 05-07-04 at 12:20 PM.
#139
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Culver City, CA, USA
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Qui Gon Jim
I wonder if all the anti-Moore bashers have ever sat through BFC. If you watch the film, it is not an anti-Bush agenda piece, it is not even an anti NRA piece.
I wonder if all the anti-Moore bashers have ever sat through BFC. If you watch the film, it is not an anti-Bush agenda piece, it is not even an anti NRA piece.
RS