silentbob007

Of course you do. Moore wants the US to be Europe 2. Unfortunately, he forgot that most sequels suck.

My problem with Moore is not that he wants to express his viewpoints. My problem is that he expresses his viewpoints as fact using a medium that can readily support objectivity. As others have said, Bush (politicians in general) do this all of the time with political speeches and ads, but everyone KNOWS that they are slanted ... that is the point of their existance. It is probably Moore's smub, all-knowing attitude more than anything else that makes me dislike him ....

Rockmjd23

doesn't matter to me if i get to see it or not, im all set with contributing to the financial gain of someone who exploited the columbine tragedy to make money for himself. and it appears he's doing the same now with 9/11

steebo777

Actually he create these films to stimulate thinking and conversation (exactly what is happening in this thread right now), not for his own personal gain. If you've ever seen Moore speak at a Q&A, you can take one look at him and see he isn't all about 'exploited the columbine tragedy to make money for himself'. He's here to create arguments and questions with people, deal with it dude.

talemyn

What a pathetic goal . . .

Rockmjd23

which obviously he is doing very well, judging by this thread. But its just my feeling that its tasteless and i dont wish to see another of his "documentaries"

steebo777

Fair enough.

exm

My whole problem is that we live in a free country: we should be able to publish and see everything that is being made (obviously within the legal borders). Whether you like his work or not, for Di$ney to not release this movie is the wrong decision.

talemyn

He is free and welcome to release it, but if he isn't going to do it using his own means, then he is going to have to play by the rules of the people that he uses.

That's not unfair or wrong, that's business.

chanster

He can release it himself, hell he could have paid for it by himself. Instead he went to the studios to get financing. Once you do that, you are just a piece of property and it is their discretion. I'm not saying that's ideal, but thats how the movie industry works or any other business works.

Not releasing the film is a smart decision. Disney would piss off half the country, there would be calls for boycotts, over a movie that will probably make at most, $50 million or so. Thats really chump change for Disney.

Of course, the rest of their lineup has sucked ass, so maybe it is important.

Dimension X

Judging by this quote from the latest thread in the Other forum, Moore seems to think he shouldn't have to pay for it himself, or play by the rules.

Jason

I'm confused.

When Clear Channel claimed there was no connection between dropping Howard Stern from 6 stations and possible FCC fines or actions against CC, people discounted it out of hand. Surely they were censoring him to curry government favor and get CC friendly rulings from the FCC/congress.

When Disney claims there is no connection between refusing to distribute Farenheit 911 and engangering sweetheart tax deals with Jeb Bush, they get a free pass. Moore has no first amendment quibble, because he has no first amendment rights.

When it's speculated that Disney's refusal to release Song of the South is because of possible offense to a portion of the American public, they're universally criticized. People HAVE to be given the right to see this film, and it's NOT offensive.

When it's speculated that Disney's refusal to release Farenheit 911 is because of possible offense to a portion of the American public, it's seen as a smart business move.

exm

But Disney KNEW before they agreed to work with Moore what type of movies/docs he makes! And still, they signed up. My gut feeling is really that there are politics in play here.

necros

I, and I'm sure TONS of other folks, never even heard of the guy till he decided to cuss out the president for his oscar acceptance speech. Kinda like most people never knew who Ian McKellen was till he was Gandalf and Magneto, even though he's been in movies since the 60's acording to IMDB. Not that Ian is a flavor of the month like Moore is though.

That being said, I wish him all the luck in finding a new distributor or whatever he needs. He's sure to get it, it's kind of dumb to make a big stink about Disney not wanting to release it when...

1. Disney is dumb.
2. Disney prides themselves on stuff for kids & families and this has nothing to do with either, it's just an "I hate bush" movie.
3. There's plenty of other studios large and small that he can easily approach for distribution.

If it shows at Cannes and people love it, he'll have no problem. If people hate it, he'll blame Disney some more and say Bush told everyone to hate it and go cry about it on Bill Mahr's show.

MrN

A $50M box office take on a film that cost at most $10M for production and marketing? Chump change?

Quote:

Originally posted by necros

Disney prides themselves on stuff for kids & families and this has nothing to do with either, it's just an "I hate bush" movie.

Actually the film was under Miramax. You may be right in saying its just an "I hate Bush" movie because there have been way too many movies with that message already.

chanster

Get it right. Miramax signed the deal with Moore. Not Disney.

They get a free pass until someone more credible that Michael Moore's agent, whose job it is to secure the best deal and most publicity, makes accusations regarding tax breaks.

Neeb

For the hard of hearing.

Anti-Shrub does not equal Anti-America.

But don't take my word for it, President Roosevelt, what would you like to add to this discussion?

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Ladies and Gentlemen, President Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States. All the way from the hereafter.

chanster

Its chump change if half of America gets pissed off enough not to buy Disney products, attend parks, watch ABC or attend other Disney movies. Chump change.

MrN

Half of America didn't vote for Bush did they? Zing!

Seriously though, I think Disney has had more controversial policies (Gay days at the theme parks) and Miramax/Dimension has released edgier/violent movies (take your pick) - the supposed backlash is very hypothetical.

Neeb

Not hard. Question authority. Support gay marriage, free thought, free expression, dancing, comedy, music, and art.

Don't burn books.

Question whether there is a god. Demand a separation of church and state like our Founding Fathers intended. Tell people the PASSION sucked and Mel Gibson is an SM freak (yeah, like that's totally out there).

Call Dick Cheney a sleazeball draft-dodging warmonger. Don't equate service in the NG in the 1970s with actual combat.

Insist on a balanced budget.

Call your local congressmen and senators.

Insist on environmental protection laws.

Think for yourself.

chanster

First off, all those edgier films are not straight in your face bashing of the President of the United States in a political election year.

Its the job of executives to take hypotheticals and plan around them. If this movie with a relatively small upside for a company like Disney has the potential to create major P.R. problems, you avoid it.

Now a smart executive would take into account the small shitstorm that this decision has created and balance it with the shitstorm the actual movie would produce.

I'm betting that Disney decided to take the hit now, before the summer travel season really peaks, and the movie hasn't been seen yet.

chanster

Good god, this is a bunch of garbage.

Bobby Shalom

Good debate...

DrJay I think you summed it up very nicely. At least for me, an unapologetic lefty.

I don't love Moore, I find him a bit of a huckster. However I am grateful that he is carrying on about the issues he does. It seems more often than not I hear right-wing rhetoric spewed in my media, and I gotta say, I feel right wingers yell a little more loudly on average than lefties, IMO.

Bush is a master of twisting public perception through the media. Double barrels aimed at him is fine by me.

Disney doesn't have to distribute this movie. It just scares me that within this capitalistic society, there are a handful of corporations that control all of the streams of mainstream communication. Business decisions and censorship can be the same thing.

With all this villainous talk of socialism, hopefully we can find a new McCarthy out there, and clean up this god awful godless Hollywood scum.

Jason

RMSpuhler

A couple of notes:

1) The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. It does not guarantee a large audience. Moore can say whatever he wants, but unless he's going to distribute the film himself, he's going to have to play nice with others. Often, that means compromise.

2) This isn't new vis a vis the Disney-Miramax relationship. Dogma was sold off to Lion's Gate. Priest almost was way back in 1994. If I recall correctly, that was one of the flashpoints for the religious boycott of Disney themeparks in the mid-90s (along with "Gay Day" or whatever else).

3) I don't weep for Moore at all. I'm sure Miramax has folks lined up around the block to distribute the film. I'm sure, for instance, MGM would love to see another quick-n-easy $25mil profit like I think it did on Bowling.... However, if this wasn't a Michael Moore project, but rather one of some unknown filmmaker, would we be hearing about it? Would there be any other possible outlets? Those are the cases that are devastating. That's not to say that Disney is in the wrong or acting illegally so much as heartless.

RS

badger1997

Wow, somebody who would like that quote and find it an accurate portrayal of Bowling for Columbine in my opinion either hasn't seen the film or didn't get it. The film was not about how the second amendment is bad. It looks beyond that. In my opinion that movie isn't even about the second amendment per se, but more about the culture of fear in the United States and violence. The easiest way for people who don't want to talk about that issue to divert the conversation is to stand on the second amendment.