Disney Blocks Michael Moore's Anti-Bush Film

[DudeAsInCool]

Walt Disney has blocked Mirimax from distributing Michael Moore's new documentary 'Fahrenheit 911', which connects Bush to the family of Osama bin Laden, and is harshly critical of the President's actions concerning 911.

You can read Jim Rutenberg's full story in the NYTimes:

:read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?hp

[Bombardier]

Good for Disney!! :good job:

Michael Moore is downright mudslinging with that film :reallymad:

I cannot wait until the elections are over.

I don't think I can take another 6 months of political bullshit betwen Bush, Kerry, Michael Moore and anyone else who wants to sling mud instead of participating in a clean campaign.

Oh, well. That's America for you :rolleyes:

[method77]

I don't think I can take another 6 months of political bullshit betwen Bush, Kerry, Michael Moore and anyone else who wants to sling mud instead of participating in a clean campaign.        Oh, well. That's America for you

happens in every democratic country man, not only america

[cjules13]

I'm glad it's blocked too, but rest assured he'll find some way to get it out. His book was blocked for the longest time and he found a way around that.

I seriously dislike MM. He does do nothing but mudsling most of the time, and some of his "facts" and "stats" are downright inncorrect and SERIOUSLY mis-leading. A brainwasher himself just like those he's trying to expose.

Crap, crap.... and mega-crap.

:angry:

[Redneck4sure]

Moore is probably the biggest piece of crap in Hollywood IMHO. If his lips are moving.........he's lying.

[method77]

like it or not he should be free to say whatever he wants. America is supposed to be a free country

[Potato]

Yes, Moore's a dolt.

No, it's not really right of Disney to block its own company from releasing something.

[DudeAsInCool]

Yeah, he's a muckracker - but I want to see it :bigsmile:

...bet he mentions that the bin laden family membes in the us

were allowed to fly out without questioning on 911...nobody else

in the national press did until Vanity Fair..

[method77]

me too

[Redneck4sure]

like it or not he should be free to say whatever he wants. America is supposed to be a free country

ahh......yes. It is a free country and Moore can say whatever he wants. And since it is a free country the people in charge of the head company have the right to decide what they distributed with their name on it. He can take his money and make any movie he likes and if he can someone to distribute it and movie theatres to show it more power to him. I am free to say what I want but I don't expect someone to automatically pay for it, distribute it, advertise it and so on. That is the danger in monopolies. You only get one point of view.

[method77]

I guess you're right

[Redneck4sure]

It does make you wonder what they were thinking. They know how he is and yet they let him spend their money to make a film they don't want to be associated with. Did they just give a blank check to make a film and when it was finished take a look and decide no? It seems they would have an idea of what was being produced. I wish I had millions to throw away.

[DudeAsInCool]

That is the danger in monopolies. You only get one point of view.

True - but we are in no danger from Moore having a monopoly over a coroporation, or our minds, and Disney's decision is being done for 'political' reasons - they are chickenshit and dont want their family reputation impugned (even though its gullt by assoc, as the film would be distributed by Mirimax, a subsidiary)

[Redneck4sure]

I was not referring to Moore being the monopoly. I was referring to movie studios being the monopoly. As they continue to merge, you have fewer and fewer choices. When there is just one or two you will have little choice as to what you see. A very few people will decide for you. The more studios there are increases the chances that Moore will be able to get his movie distributed. I hate the guy but I also hate that choices are getting fewer. Not just in movies but in radio (clearchannel), retail (wal-mart), airlines, banks, and on and on it goes. I still think that Disney has the right to show or not show anything they choose. They are a corporation in business to make money. If they decide rightly or wrongly that it is not in their best interest to show this movie, then that is their call. I do not fault the studio for showing his other movies. I chose not to go see them. I also do not fault them for not showing this one. If you have a business would you want someone doing something that you thought would hurt your image, sales or whatever? As more mergers occur you will see more censorship. I see that as the bad thing. I support the little guy in most cases in order to do my part to slow the monopoly movement. It's kinda like the little old lady that pissed in the ocean. She said, "every little bit helps!"

[DudeAsInCool]

I was referring to movie studios being the monopoly. As they continue to merge, you have fewer and fewer choices. When there is just one or two you will have little choice as to what you see. A very few people will decide for you.

You are absolutely correct - the money changers have taken over our industry, and I for one am not happy about it AT all.

[Redneck4sure]

There are 2 ways to vote. One is at the ballot box. The other is at the cash register. When you purchase anything you have voted for that company and their policies. Environmental policy, outsourcing to foreign country policy, political sponsorships policy, labor practices policy, and on and on and on................

[DudeAsInCool]

My savings account is growing bigger, day by day... lol

[Redneck4sure]

so is my ammo cache.

[desdemona]

"But Moore said he believed the protection of tax cuts was the reason for the media conglomerate's position."

an excerpt from a similar article:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/05/news/fortu...dex.htm?cnn=yes

I tend to agree

[NullsRevenge]

Michael Moore is just one of many idiots in today's society using media coverage as the soapbox for his opinion which he promotes as fact.. But when it comes right down too it he will say anything to make a buck which as far as im concerned is all that people like him do. Which happens on both sides of the political spectrum.

This isnt censorship, a person doesnt need to have to have a major movie company to put out a flim, people dont because they wouldnt be able to cover the cost of a national release, especially marketing. But it has been done, the most recent successful one without a major studio behind it was The Passion.

Mirimax also releases all of Kevin Smith's movies(Rent "Clerks" if you havent seen it) and also Kill Bill so i dont think it has to do about keeping the family image either.

[DudeAsInCool]

Mirimax also releases all of Kevin Smith's movies(Rent "Clerks" if you havent seen it) and also Kill Bill so i dont think it has to do about keeping the family image either.

You are corrrect. Chairman Michael Eisner said that Disney is non-partisan and that they did not want to release the film in the middle of an election year. A Disney spokesman said that Moore has known this for sometime--the implication being he is using the controversy to promote the film.

On a sidenote, I've heard that Moore does not treat his employees well....which makes me suspect of his compassionate qualities.

However, he is an effective documentarian--he does get a reaction from his films. And his work is far from being just a series of opinions--he is a skillful editor. He is a muckraker, but this does not mean that its all lies, either. He just tends to use exaggeration to make his points... And if those points lead to debate, then the real truth can emerge from there...

The truth is that the rest of the national press has not delved very deeply into the Bush family connections to the Saudis or Bin Laden family--and I still want to know why the Bin Laden family in American was allowed to fly out of the country right after 911 without questioning, when the rest of the airports were shut down. I bet you Moore at least covers this aspect, which is more than i can say for the NY or LA Times or the Washington, Post, Chicago Tribune, etc. If nothing else, Moore is provocative... and in times where the press tends to senstationalize as much as he does, at least he provides a different point of view, of which he takes no prisoners...

[NullsRevenge]

He is a muckraker, but this does not mean that its all lies, either. He just tends to use exaggeration to make his points... And if those points lead to debate, then the real truth can emerge from there...

The truth is that the rest of the national press has not delved very deeply into the Bush family connections to the Saudis or Bin Laden family. I bet you Moore at least covers this aspect, which is more than i can say for the NY or LA Times or the Washington, Post, Chicago Tribune, etc. If nothing else, Moore is provocative... and in times where the press tends to senstationalize as much as he does, at least he provides a different point of view, of which he takes no prisoners...

His use of "creative editing" to fabricate a more positive arguement to his view is really no different than lieing IMHO. Giving a few mins to people who say things that he agrees with and with sad or light music and then cut to the sound byte of someone he doesnt like with a noticeable much darker tone of music. It doesnt take long to figure out what he is doing if you pay attention to the techincal details.

Spike Lee doesnt do any of the tricks that Moore does and he is a much more acclaimed , respected and effective.

The press has been highly critical of the Saudis for years now.. These things were covered although they didnt become a media circus as other events. I dont think that "debate brings the truth out" all debates have mainly scripted answers made in advance anyways. And when someone doesnt want to admit the truth they just change the subject or go on about same old partisan attacks that have been going around for a while that everyone has herd.

If anything Moore actually hurts the issue he trying to promote because i think many people are well aware of his extreemist views and he lost any crediblity he has had to the general public long ago so i dont think anyone that doesnt have the same views as him is going to take him or his point of view seriously.

My opinion is that he isnt performing a public service of any kind and will say anything to "shock" people to buy his book or films. No different than Shock Jocks on the radio who do stupid things to get listeners.

[DudeAsInCool]

My opinion is that he isnt performing a public service of any kind and will say anything to "shock" people to buy his book or films. No different than Shock Jocks on the radio who do stupid things to get listeners.

You are not alone. However, he did win an Academy Award for his work, and I think that puts him above the 'shock jock' category. Love him or hate him, he is an effective communicator and isnt afraid to touch controversial subjects. I wish he could raise his objectity level to say that of 'Frontline' or Barbara Kopple--but he one of the only documentarians to raise touchy subjects--and I thank him for that, even if what I view I have to take with a grain of salt.

[Redneck4sure]

That some of his wacky and extremely biased crap could get an academy award for a documentary instead of a fictional work is a travesty. If I were a winner of an academy award in prior years for a documentary, I would be insulted.

[NullsRevenge]

What touchy subject has he really rasied? Anti-Bush Criticism which is put out daily, the debate on guns which has been raised numberous times, just like columbine. Every issue he brought up has been a widely known one well before. Which its simple why he chooses the topics he does, because he will get more attention and therefore will sell more books or films. If it means making alot of money i bet you and anyone else would lose any fear of touching contraversal issues real quick..

You are right he is effective at his propoganda.

He won the academy award last year really because he was Anti-Bush and the academy voters made up of people in hollywood which are known to be skewed to the left as a way really to take a shot at Bush to some degree. It means that his peers in Hollywood thought he was the best but they are just one group of people.