Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Si82

Disney blocks "Fahrenheit 9/11"

Recommended Posts

Eisner donated a grand to George W Bush's campaign in 2000, although he also donated to Clinton in 96.

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooh. A grand. Mike E. must had to have skipped a dinner or two to save up enough for that contribution.

 

And speaking of the need to skip a dinner or two:

 

I really liked, Michael Moore's "The Big One"

 

So did I -- was one heck of an autobiography...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
Is bloviator Michael Moore making up stuff again?

 

Sure looks like it.

 

Just days from the opening of the Cannes Film Festival he’s basking in a wave of publicity that the Walt Disney Company is blocking subsidiary Miramax from distributing his new documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” on political grounds.

 

Publicity-hound Moore’s allegations about Disney ring false. The very same Disney Company -- through its Hyperion division-- just published Pacifica Radio host Amy Goodman’s new book “The Exception to the Rulers” – a volume brimming with just as much lefty fringe politics and anti-Bush theorizing as contained in Moore’s films. Indeed, Goodman's book is a blunder-buss assault on corporate media conglomerates-- like Disney!

 

The Mouse House seems sophisticated enough to put up with and even finance the slapshots by Goodman and Moore if a profit is to be made. Duh!

 

Dissecting the current dust-up, it seems clear that Disney never intended to distribute Moore's film. Maybe the Mousketeers are cowards, but at least they are consistent. And Moore is whining now only to hype the pre-Cannes buzz. Sources report that Miramax never planned to release the Moore film, that it was always slated to come out through Lions Gate, as did the earlier Dogma.

 

Below find an exclusive full text copy of the article by Andrew Gumbel which will appear in Thursday's London-based daily The Independent which quotes inside sources saying there is nothing new in Disney's red light, that Moore knew it was a no-go from the outset. After you've read Andrew's piece take a look at this L.A. Weekly column I wrote in March describing Moore as the Ann Coulter of the left.

 

By Andrew Gumbel

Los Angeles

 

Michael Moore, the establishment-bashing comedian and film-maker, accused the Walt Disney Company of political censorship yesterday because the company is refusing to distribute his latest documentary lambasting the Bush administration’s handling of national security since 11 September.

 

Controversy over the film, entitled Fahrenheit 911, erupted on the front page of the New York Times and elsewhere just days before Mr Moore is due to take the film to the Cannes Film Festival for its world premiere.

 

In an open letter to supporters, Mr Moore accused Disney of trying to kill the film, which is being produced by the Disney subsidiary Miramax, because the company was worried about its business interests in Florida and did not want to offend Governor Jeb Bush, the president’s brother.

 

“I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter,” he wrote. “For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge.”

 

Disney officials appeared to be caught off guard by this onslaught and denied that the company’s decision was motivated by political interests in Florida. They also pointed out they had made it clear a year ago that they wanted no involvement with Fahrenheit 911, which was picked up by Miramax against the wishes of its corporate parent.

 

Both the New York Times and Variety, the entertainment industry trade paper of record, suggested the flap over Mr Moore’s film could drive a further wedge between Michael Eisner, the Disney chairman, and the Weinstein brothers who run Miramax. The Weinsteins and Mr Eisner have been at loggerheads for some time, and speculation is rife in Hollywood that Miramax may prefer to find a new corporate sponsor when its contract with Disney comes up for renewal later this year.

 

In other quarters, the fortuitous timing of the controversy caused some people to wonder whether Mr Moore is really the victim of an attempted corporate muzzling, or whether he is deliberately creating a controversy where little or none exists to generate publicity and trigger a bidding war for the US distribution rights to the film, which have yet to be settled. “This seems almost too good to be true. I smell a rat,” said one well-placed Hollywood source with strong connections to both Disney and Miramax.

 

Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik remained tight-lipped, saying only: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."

 

Whatever the true story, the grizzled documentary-maker has once again put himself front and centre of a political row likely to inflame partisan passions on all sides. In 2001, he fought with his publishers, Harper Collins, over the publication of his anti-Bush book Stupid White Men, which Harper Collins felt was politically insensitive in the immediate wake of 11 September. The book was delayed but eventually released in its original form, becoming an overnight bestseller.

 

Last year, Mr Moore cried censorship again after his unabashedly political speech at the Oscars – he called Mr Bush a “fictitious” president who had just started the Iraq invasion for “fictitious reasons” -- was greeted with jeers and boos. His film about gun violence, Bowling for Columbine, had just picked up the Academy Award for Best Documentary and went on to gross $22 million in North America alone, from an original budget of about $3 million.

 

Fahrenheit 911 was conceived as a provocative project from the outset. It promises to blow the cover on the cosy connections between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family and show how the White House has only exposed Americans to greater danger, instead of protecting them, since the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon two and a half years ago.

 

Mel Gibson’s production company, Icon, was originally involved but dropped out this time last year for unknown reasons. (Rumours of political pressure abound in the Moore camp, although Mr Gibson is conservative enough to have political misgivings of his own.)

 

Miramax then decided to pick up the $6 million production cost on its own. Despite the near-certainty of making a profit on the venture, this was done over the express opposition of Mr Eisner. “Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr Moore’s agent, Ari Emanuel, was quoted saying in the New York Times. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation [in Florida] and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."

 

Whether or not Florida was a factor, Disney certainly came under pressure from other quarters. Various conservative organisations threatened to boycott Disney, blasting the company, as one right-wing Internet activist put it, “for involving itself with this vile director and his offensive abuse of a national tragedy that is considered sacred to most Americans”.

 

At the same time, Miramax was bombarded with messages from the other side of the political fence praising the company for its support of Mr Moore.

 

Miramax would clearly like Disney to distribute the film in the United States, because it would avoid the need to share profits with another company. Miramax appears to have held out some hope that it could bring Mr Eisner around once the film was completed. There is no indication, however, that it was counting on this, or that Mr Eisner has somehow reneged on an earlier promise.

 

“The only thing that’s new here is in Disney’s reaffirmation of their previously stated position,” one well-placed source said on condition of anonymity. “Miramax never said it was distributing the film, even if people assumed it would find a way.”

 

The source also denied that Fahrenheit 911 was causing any significant personal friction between Mr Eisner and Mr Weinstein, pointing out that they could hardly be getting along worse as it is: “There’s plenty of other issues to have catfights over.”

 

Mr Moore was not immediately available to answer the charge that he was creating controversy for promotional purposes. He is still at work finalising the print to be shown at Cannes. -- +

http://marccooper.typepad.com/marccooper/2...and_moore_.html

 

Moore MAKING UP STUFF?!? HE NEVER DOES THAT!!!

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the heck of it:

 

>>

May 6, 2004 – Editorial, New York Times

Disney's Craven Behavior

 

Give the Walt Disney Company a gold medal for cowardice for blocking its Miramax division from distributing a film that criticizes President Bush and his family. A company that ought to be championing free expression has instead chosen to censor a documentary that clearly falls within the bounds of acceptable political commentary.

 

The documentary was prepared by Michael Moore, a controversial filmmaker who likes to skewer the rich and powerful. As described by Jim Rutenberg yesterday in The Times, the film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," links the Bush family with prominent Saudis, including the family of Osama bin Laden. It describes financial ties that go back three decades and explores the role of the government in evacuating relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The film was financed by Miramax and was expected to be released this summer.

 

Mr. Moore's agent said that Michael Eisner, Disney's chief executive, had expressed concern that the film might jeopardize tax breaks granted to Disney for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Jeb Bush is governor. If that is the reason for Disney's move, it would underscore the dangers of allowing huge conglomerates to gobble up diverse media companies.

 

On the other hand, a senior Disney executive says the real reason is that Disney caters to families of all political stripes and that many of them might be alienated by the film. Those families, of course, would not have to watch the documentary.

 

It is hard to say which rationale for blocking distribution is more depressing. But it is clear that Disney loves its bottom line more than the freedom of political discourse.

<<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah that website isn't biased IN THE LEAST...... :rolleyes:

You took the words out of my mouth regarding the post above me...

My post? I did not actually know that the New York Times was traditionally pro-Moore and anti-Disney. I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Mikey put his foot in his mouth, along with a rack of baby-back ribs, a plate of bacon and a quart of coleslaw (this article is from the link above)...

 

Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban'

 

By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles

 

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. EDIT: So the NY TIMES doesn't know what censorship means? Color me surprised.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: So the NY TIMES doesn't know what censorship means? Color me surprised.

Neither do you.

 

And what DOES "color me anything" mean?

 

Anyway, since this is the only Michael Moore thread right now I must say: I can't wait for this movie! Should be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moore MAKING UP STUFF?!? HE NEVER DOES THAT!!!

 

But it's DIFFERENT, Mike.

 

When you or I make stuff up, it's called "fantasy" or "fiction" or maybe even "lies".

 

When Mikey makes stuff up.....it's a DOCUMENTARY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moore MAKING UP STUFF?!? HE NEVER DOES THAT!!!

 

But it's DIFFERENT, Mike.

 

When you or I make stuff up, it's called "fantasy" or "fiction" or maybe even "lies".

 

When Mikey makes stuff up.....it's a DOCUMENTARY!

And a great movie! (or book)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: So the NY TIMES doesn't know what censorship means? Color me surprised.

Neither do you.

*snicker*

 

Censorship is removing content from something. Disney doesn't want to release the film period. Big difference.

 

Remember, New York is the same state that put Hillary in an elected office.

 

and denial of Moore's right to free expression.

 

Oh, please....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: So the NY TIMES doesn't know what censorship means? Color me surprised.

Neither do you.

Yes I do, thank you.

 

Disney not wanting to distribute Mikey film is not censorship.

 

Now if G.W. HITLER would forbid a Mikey film to be broadcast in America because it says naughty things about hime, then I would be willing to use the "c" word.

 

And what DOES "color me anything" mean?

 

It means you go to a Home Deopt, buy a gallon of "surprised" paint color, spread me out on a canvass and let the brush do it's magic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
Moore MAKING UP STUFF?!? HE NEVER DOES THAT!!!

 

But it's DIFFERENT, Mike.

 

When you or I make stuff up, it's called "fantasy" or "fiction" or maybe even "lies".

 

When Mikey makes stuff up.....it's a DOCUMENTARY!

And a great movie! (or book)

Moore and "great movie"?

 

Man, phrases that NEVER go together.

 

Like Moore and "six-pack abs"

My post? I did not actually know that the New York Times was traditionally pro-Moore and anti-Disney. I apologize.

Don't worry. Experience is the best teacher.

-=Mike

...Well, I did like "Canadian Bacon" --- but the man has been on a serious crap streak for the past, oh, 10 or so years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JMA

Put me down as another "Liberal Against Michael Moore." The guy just comes off as a real douche.

 

We don't need guys like him on our side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: So the NY TIMES doesn't know what censorship means? Color me surprised.

Neither do you.

Yes I do, thank you.

 

Disney not wanting to distribute Mikey film is not censorship.

 

Now if G.W. HITLER would forbid a Mikey film to be broadcast in America because it says naughty things about hime, then I would be willing to use the "c" word.

I think "censorship" in its technical meaning refers to altered or removed content. Not allowing the film to be released at all would be another term, I believe.

 

Regardless, accusing Disney of "censorship" and infringing on freedom of speech has as much merit as a film distribution company that wouldn't want to distribute The Passion as "infringing on freedom of religion." Companies within a free market are free to use their own ideals or objections to content to guide their business decisions if they see fit.

 

Plus, Moore and his lawyer knew this might happen in advance, so fuck 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oooooooooooooooooooooooooh. A grand. Mike E. must had to have skipped a dinner or two to save up enough for that contribution.

I suspect it was because Gore had that midget troll travelling around with him saying that movie studios needed censorship and regulation.

 

Looking at Eisner's other contributions (Florida Republican congressperson, SoCal Demo congressperson [which MECHA ties like our old friend Cruz], etc, I suspect Eisner just throws a little handy donation out to whoever would be better for business.

 

 

Now, when it comes to buying congresspeople through lobbying (witness some of the more crazy proposals on countering piracy that's resulted through that) they're a lot more blatant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Well, I did like "Canadian Bacon" --- but the man has been on a serious crap streak for the past, oh, 10 or so years.

Strike three.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the lastest:

 

"CANNES (Hollywood Reporter) - A handful of distributors are interested in picking up Michael Moore's controversial documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," which Walt Disney Co. refused to allow its Miramax parent to release.

 

According to several sources close to the situation, the outfits leading the pack are Universal Pictures' specialty division Focus Features and Newmarket Films, which distributed Mel Gibson's equally controversial "The Passion of the Christ" in North America.

 

Miramax chiefs Bob and Harvey Weinstein said Wednesday they are finalizing a deal with Disney to spend $5 million-$6 million of their own money to buy back Miramax's interest in the film, which explores the relationship between the Bush family and Saudi Arabia as well as America's foreign policy post-Sept. 11.

 

With "9/11" scheduled to have its world premiere at the Cannes Film Festival Monday, the Croisette was abuzz with speculation that a new deal might be struck before the festival ends the following Saturday.

 

Lions Gate Films could be a contender as well, according to several sources, because that indie banner has previously rolled out such too-hot-to-handle Miramax fare as "Dogma." In their statement acknowledging the current discussions with Disney, the Weinsteins specifically mentioned "providing Disney a term sheet based on the deal previously done on 'Dogma."'

 

Lions Gate has not yet screened "9/11," but both Focus and Newmarket took a look at Moore's film before Cannes opened Wednesday.

 

One indie insider further said that Miramax could now be exploring a deal with a major studio and possibly looking to split up the film's theatrical, DVD and television rights among various interests. The film's DVD rights could prove particularly lucrative for such a property.

 

A Miramax representative declined comment on the film's possible bidders.

 

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×