Stephen Joseph 0 Report post Posted May 7, 2004 Credit: News.Independent.Co.Uk See text in bold. I told you so. 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. 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
Guest cobainwasmurdered Report post Posted May 7, 2004 omg a director lied to get plublictiy for his film!?! I'm shocked. This would be the worst reason to dislike Moore considering how many times politicans and the like have bent or broken the truth to get attention. Moore's a dumbass and has said worse things but at least his "documentries" aresomewhat interesting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stephen Joseph 0 Report post Posted May 7, 2004 omg a director lied to get plublictiy for his film!?! I'm shocked. This would be the worst reason to dislike Moore considering how many times politicans and the like have bent or broken the truth to get attention. Moore's a dumbass and has said worse things but at least his "documentries" aresomewhat interesting. I agree CWM, they are interesting...I was just posting this in response to a thread earlier in this folder which was attacking disney for silencing moore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Ill One 0 Report post Posted May 7, 2004 I'm not surprised at all, but I was honestly looking forward to seeing it. Not that I'm a Moore mark by any stretch of the imagination- but I was interested to see how far he would've gone and everything esle. To quote South Park- "Rabble! Rabble-Rabble!" Moore hardly got his rise from the public, least I'm lead to think he thought it'd be a bigger reaction, so whatever. Screw him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hunger4unger Report post Posted May 7, 2004 Publicity is publicity - this has no ties with his ability to make GREAT films. I can't wait to see it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted May 8, 2004 Publicity is publicity - this has no ties with his ability to make GREAT films. I can't wait to see it. When dealing with Moore, I believe the more accurate phrase would be "Propaganda is propaganda". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 8, 2004 Publicity is publicity - this has no ties with his ability to make GREAT films. I can't wait to see it. When dealing with Moore, I believe the more accurate phrase would be "Propaganda is propaganda". And I love this usage of the plural in the phrase "great films". He hasn't made ONE great one yet. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 8, 2004 But... but ... Disney is CENSORING Mikey Moore. And he even has the same initials as Disney's most famous character, too... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted May 8, 2004 Publicity is publicity - this has no ties with his ability to make GREAT films. I can't wait to see it. When dealing with Moore, I believe the more accurate phrase would be "Propaganda is propaganda". Another phrase is "All propaganda is art, but not all art is propaganda." In that case Moore is likely to break new ground in making a shining example of artless propaganda. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hunger4unger Report post Posted May 10, 2004 Moore knew a year ago that Disney had reservations but the funding kept coming from Disney (SIX million dollars). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stephen Joseph 0 Report post Posted May 10, 2004 For PRODUCTION, NOT DISTRIBUTION Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hunger4unger Report post Posted May 10, 2004 So, if Disney didnt want to release the movie why did they cntinue to FUND it?! Doesn't make sense does it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stephen Joseph 0 Report post Posted May 10, 2004 Production is done through a subsidary. Distribution is done through Disney They're supposed to be independent business units. Why? By producing the movie, Miramax gets a stream of profits for Disney Disney, by having someone else release the movie, gets the profits but not the political baggage associated with a moore film Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 10, 2004 So, if Disney didnt want to release the movie why did they cntinue to FUND it?! Doesn't make sense does it? The funds came from Miramax, not Disney. Disney does not tell Miramax what they can or cannot spend money on. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hunger4unger Report post Posted May 10, 2004 Miramax is a sub division of Disney. It's a PART of Disney. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 10, 2004 Miramax is a sub division of Disney. It's a PART of Disney. And Disney doesn't control every dime they spend. Miramax doesn't get an "allowance" from Disney, nor does it have to report every dime it spends. Disney told Miramax not to do it --- and they did it anyway. Tough for Mikey. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hunger4unger Report post Posted May 10, 2004 Mikey get the movie out by hook or by crook regardless - so much for freedom! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 10, 2004 What do you get when you mix Mikey Moore and PETA? The answer is below... Link PETA ROLLS OUT "VEG EYE FOR THE FAT GUY" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Supersized Celebs Get Meatless Makeovers For Immediate Release: May 6, 2004 Contact: Michael McGraw 757-622-7382 New York — Fearing that some of today’s biggest celebrities are in danger of cutting their careers short with unhealthful lifestyles, PETA wants to help them slim down before they become too much of a good thing. Bravo! may have its "Fab Five," but PETA is tackling the "flab five" with its new "Veg Eye for the Fat Guy" Campaign in an effort to give these five larger-than-life stars a meat-free makeover that will help them look and feel like new men: Ruben Studdard — If "The Velvet Teddy Bear" doesn’t want to become known as "The Velveeta Teddy Bear," he might want to idle his meat and dairy intake. "Simon says" you can fly without wings if you eat more like a bird—lots of whole grains, nuts, and fruit. Luciano Pavarotti — This living legend is living large—he’s three tenors rolled into one! Aria worried about your cholesterol, Luciano? Pitch the prosciutto and start singing the praises of veggie pizza. Michael Moore — Looks like the Downsize This author has been doing too much supersizing. The awful truth is that animal products are packed with fat and cholesterol. Before he gets too big for his britches, Moore should stay away from the stupid white meat and embrace tofu, the other "other white meat." John Goodman — TV’s West Wing guest star looks like he’s been indulging in a few too many buffalo wings. A favorite on both the big and small screens, Goodman will be too big for any screen if he doesn’t act fast. Here’s the skinny: Even skinless chicken contains about the same amount of cholesterol as beef and is 23 percent fat in terms of calorie percentages. The Raising Arizona star should do more grazing and less braising. John Madden — If this Monday Night Football host really wants to tackle his weight problem, he should take a page from the PETA playbook: Pass on the "turducken" and rush for the salad bar. And because eating meat clogs arteries to all organs (not just the heart), Madden may find that he scores more touchdowns off the playing field if he switches to a vegetarian diet. These lucky stars will be receiving PETA’s "Veg Eye for the Fat Guy" makeover kit, including copies of PETA’s vegetarian starter kit, which is chock-full of easy tips on how to switch from meaty to meatless, and The PETA Celebrity Cookbook, which makes vegetarian cooking super simple, as well as samples of delicious, low-fat veggie food, including "fib ribs," "fakin’ bacon," and Tofurky. Folks who have a chubby chum in need of a refrigerator redux can even sign them up on GoVeg.com to receive their very own free vegetarian starter kit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hunger4unger Report post Posted May 10, 2004 Who cares if Moore is fat? He's fat, so what? Doesn't make him any less intelligent or credible. The president is a moron, an idiot. That's obvious. Shouldn't that be more of a concern for people rather than Moore being a porker? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 10, 2004 This is a message board and me stating that Mikey Moore is fat is my own personal opinion. I don't need other input to back up what I think about Mikey Moore news - i've formed my opinion after watching him barely fit into his clothes on a regular basis for over three years. If you think that Mikey Moore's waistline troubles is not important then that's entirely up to you and although I disagree with that I don't think we can go any further as it's a matter of opinion. As I said, agree to disagree. Peace Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hunger4unger Report post Posted May 10, 2004 LOL! Nice one. I agree, he IS fat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 10, 2004 Mikey get the movie out by hook or by crook regardless - so much for freedom! This is all a publicity stunt by a press whore. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hunger4unger Report post Posted May 10, 2004 So Moore and Disney are in cahoots in order to publicize the movie? Moore has said that he would rather people were talking about the content of his movie and not the Disney thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 10, 2004 So Moore and Disney are in cahoots in order to publicize the movie? Moore has said that he would rather people were talking about the content of his movie and not the Disney thing. no --- Moore wants to find somebody to distribute his movie, so he invented a story to get a bidding war going. Yeah, Moore wishes people discussed his movie more than the controversy. SUUURE. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hunger4unger Report post Posted May 10, 2004 So the Miramax deal never actually happened and Moore LIED that he had a deal with Miramax to distribute his movie?! Moore is man of great integrity and although he WILL make a lot of money off this movie, I sincerely doubt that profit comes before his message. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 10, 2004 So the Miramax deal never actually happened and Moore LIED that he had a deal with Miramax to distribute his movie?! Disney told him a YEAR AGO they weren't going to release it. This isn't NEWS. Moore is man of great integrity and although he WILL make a lot of money off this movie, I sincerely doubt that profit comes before his message. BWA HA HA HA! Sad thing is, you aren't being ironic here. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted May 10, 2004 Moore is man of great integrity and although he WILL make a lot of money off this movie, I sincerely doubt that profit comes before his message. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 10, 2004 Man, there are some quotes that you just can't wait to see the reaction toward. Moore is man of great integrity and although he WILL make a lot of money off this movie, I sincerely doubt that profit comes before his message. Was one of those lines... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted May 10, 2004 Publicity is publicity - this has no ties with his ability to make GREAT films. I can't wait to see it. When dealing with Moore, I believe the more accurate phrase would be "Propaganda is propaganda". And I love this usage of the plural in the phrase "great films". He hasn't made ONE great one yet. -=Mike You've demonstrated time and time again that you're not exactly the best movie critic on this board... and your hatred for Moore really does hinder your ability to make any rational thought towards the man even when reviewing his movies. He could make a film on par with Casablanca, and you would still think it was crap simply because he's on your "must hate and criticize at all costs" list I mean fuck man... you spent several posts arguing that Bowling for Columbine didnt make any money, when its hands down the most successful and profitible documentary of all time... and when you were made aware of this you still said "well it still didn't make alot of money" even though, yes, yes it did... unless of course you're judging it on the Titanic profitable movie scale that says in order for a movie to be a success it must make upwards of $150 million That being said... yes, yes Moore is a fat, pathetic sack of shit but he's still a great filmmaker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Smues Report post Posted May 10, 2004 Bowling for Columbine didnt make any money, when its hands down the most successful and profitible documentary of all time Yes it was successful. But it is NOT a documentary. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
