chanster

Boo hoo, Michael Moore takes Disney's money, and now he gripes about it.

You sleep with dogs, you get fleas Michael.

DRG

But as far as the sudden mainstream Hollywood interest in his work outside of the usual political avenues, he is a "flavor of the month".

GuessWho

So, a studio is passing on the distribution of a movie. And?

Doesn't this happen 100 times a day?

Hiro11

Exactly. Like a lot of news items, this looks like a juicy story at the outset but when you really look at the details it's not news, it's just spin. Moore is a master at playing the One Honest Man who is constantly under attack from the Vast Right Wing Conspriracy and this is him exploiting his image.

Moore wants to make money, nothing wrong with that.
Disney wants to make money, nothing wrong with that.

JoeyOhhhh

renaldow

Jack, your thread's get no respect! This one is already on page 2!

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=362443

Shannon Nutt

"Flavor of the Month"? Moore's been around in the spotlight for 15 years!

Shannon Nutt

Disney's contract with Miramax says they can ONLY refuse to release a movie if it exceeded it's budget or gets an NC17 rating.

It is censorship because Disney is preventing Miramax from distrubiting it - after agreeing to let Miramax produce the thing. This is NOT like Passion of the Christ where no one wanted to produce it. The ONLY reason for Disney's stance is the CONTENT OF THE FILM - that's censorship!

And BTW, I thought people got banned around here for personally attacking other posters?!

Mike Lowrey

So you two like being lied to?

The problem with Michael Moore's work is that he calls them documentaries, which implies a truthful, factual informative piece of journalism, if you will. The trouble is that he fabricates, twists, and maliciously edits events to promote and favor his [misguided] political viewpoint. And the problem with that is that the naive public will go out and watch these "documentaries" and view them as the truth.

Bowling... was proven to have numerous out-right fabrications in it and the good ol' Academy saw fit to give Moore an Oscar for it.

Michael Moore is a self-admitted Socialist, all the while making his millions on the graces of American capitalism. Moore hates what America stands for, but has no qualms about exploiting it for his own gain.

I wouldn't lose any sleep if Moore would kindly move over to Paris or Canne, to live out the rest of his pitiful self-loathing life.

BassDude

Yes..and people die every day. But if they are shot in broad daylight in front of a Kwik E Mart, it's news. If Disney dropped the film cuz it sucked, etc...no biggie. If the quote above about Florida tax benefits is true, it's news. (And sucks...IMHO)

Mike Lowrey

And about his claims of censorship, it's just laughable. Disney is a private company. They are not othe government. They have every right to ban distribution of any film they see fit. If Disney fears back-lash from the American public, they have every right to make this decision.

Also, I'd like to add that when I was in High School back in 1990 or so, I was forced to watch Roger and Me in my economics class. Had I known then, what I know now about Moore, I would have walked out of class.

al_bundy

censorship is only when the government tries to silence a private citizen from publishing something. One of the articles that I read states that disney is afraid of losing tax breaks if this movie is released because jeb is governor. This may construed as censorship if Jeb Bush explicitly threatened Disney.

If Disney doesn't want to distribute the movie for other reasons then there isn't any censorship since it is a matter between private parties. By your logic every private media company must distribute everything that someone requests it to or else it's censorship.

Achtung

I'm sorry but your right-wing views have what exactly to do with this thread's topic?

MrN

Not the first time something like this has happened. Miramax will just sell it to another distributor and it'll come out, much like Dogma did.

Achtung

Nope.

Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing
/'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

Anytime a studio does not want to release a movie due to what they feel is objectionable content, not due to business reasons, it is indeed considered censorship.

al_bundy

either way there is nothing wrong unless it is the government doing it. Moore could have financed it himself if he wanted true artistic freedom.

Achtung

Oh its definitely well within their rights as a corporation to decide what to distribute, no argument there. I'm sure studios reject films for content all the time. Moore just has a reputation for being controversial, which makes this newsworthy.

I definitely look forward to seeing it, as I enjoyed BFC, as did several of my friends, some liberal and some conservative.

eXcentris

Objectionable content means part of your customer base gets pissed. If you feel that the backlash from said pissed customers outweighs the potential financial gains then that sounds like a business reason to me. Corporations make these types of decisions everyday of the week, it's called capitalism, not censorship.

MrN

Thats a dangerous viewpoint if I ever heard one. Governments usually censor to protect themselves. How is that different from corporations doing the same thing? Especially in a capitalist society where the private sector controls so much of what is seen and heard?

Here's a scenario for you: Moore finds another distributor. Disney/ABC refuses to run ads for the film. Censorship or no?

Groucho

No. It's a free market...ABC can run whatever ads they deem fit.

Achtung

Capitalism is the end, but censorship is still the means. Suppressing content for any motive, be it political, cultural, or economic, is still considered censorship.

I wish people would stop treating it like its a dirty word though. No one is implying that the ACLU will be busting through Disney's doors tomorrow. Miramax has distributed plenty of controversial films before, and now they are deciding not to. Based on the success of Bowling for Columbine, Moore shouldn't have any trouble finding a new distributor if he needs to.

MrN

I don't know if you're missing my point - I'm not saying its not within their rights to deny any ads. (Except political perhaps.)
Just that it is censorship if they are stopping free-flow of information over public forms of distribution.

Groucho

That's painting with too broad a brush. Using your definition, if Barnes and Noble pulls a book from its shelves because it isn't selling well, it's "Censorship."

majorjoe23

Really? So is my Disney stock fake or something? It's a publicly owned company.

al_bundy

no and all the media outlets refuse to run ads for various things all the time because they may deem them offensive to their customers. when is the last time you saw an anti-abortion ad with the remains of a fetus?

Is it censorship to disallow drinking in beer ads? What about the fact that no TV station will air an ad for liquor?

Another thing is that MM had Disney finance the movie. It's not his movie any more. Maybe he should have pulled a Mel Gibson and financed his movie himself?