PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: ooseven on May 06, 2004, 12:16:19 AM
-
Disney \'blocks\' Moore documentary
Controversial director Michael Moore has said film studio Disney is refusing to release his new documentary, which heavily criticises President Bush.
Fahrenheit 911 was to be distributed by Miramax, a division of Disney.
But Disney has "officially decided to prohibit" Miramax from distributing the film, the director said on his website.
Moore, who won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine in 2003, questioned whether in a "free and open society" Disney should be making such a decision.
Fahrenheit 911 links Mr Bush with powerful families in Saudi Arabia, including that of Osama Bin Laden:rolleyes, and attacks his actions before and after 11 September.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3685633.stm
Love him or hate him you got to admit the film still should be at least distributed so that we can ... and i know this might seam like a strange concept now a days...
Make up our own mind on the points in the film
or does the Patriot Act V2.1 ban independent thought now ;)
/me runs and hides before someone call me un-patriotic because I sometime dare to question the state (UK).
-
I\'m guessing the Disney execs actually saw the film and made their decision from there. Moore\'s documentaries are heavily biased and this one will probably ream Bush as BFC reamed the NRA & gun industry.
One thing\'s for sure; Moore\'s eating up all the press against Bush and hopes it will just cause anticipation for his film. And he definitely wants it out in some form or another by summertime (read: before the election).
-
wow
-
^^^ spam spam spam spam spam!!!!! ;)
-
disney owns the distribution rights, hardly censorship
i call it good taste too, moore\'s a piece of shit
-
Moore deserves this, he chooses Disney? He should have seen it coming. ;)
-
Michael Moore should have stopped making films like this after Roger and Me. ;)
-
You mean to tell me that Michael Moore made a film criticising the Bush administration?!?! I am SHOCKED. SHOCKED I tell ya.
What did they think he was going to make, A pro-war propaganda film?
-
After he made the Mockumentary called "Bowling for Columbine"....I can\'t say I blame them for canning it. Roger will just have to distribute it out of his own money, a la Mel Gibson\'s The Passion.
-
From an editorial published in the New York Times:
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.
This film is still going to be run at the Cannes film festival. I predict it will be very well received, and the Europeans will have another reason to laugh their asses off at our ridiculous, backwards, conservative, corporate controlled and financed, absurd excuse for a "free society." When the Iranian clerics ban discussion of certain topics in their media, we call it censorship. When an american corporation bans discussion of certain topics in the media we call it... wait a minute. .... what do we call it again? :rolleyes:
-
Free? Yes, Michael Moore is free to distribute the film himself.
-
Shit. I want to see it.
-
I don\'t blame Disney for not distributing this. I actually commend them for it. If this guy wants to fill people\'s minds with propeganda, let him do it with his own money.
-
Originally posted by Titan
I don\'t blame Disney for not distributing this. I actually commend them for it. If this guy wants to fill people\'s minds with propeganda, let him do it with his own money.
So you\'re saying there should be no motion pictures funded by movie studios with any sort of political content? Or are you saying that you\'ve already prejudged this particular movie without having seen it, and you don\'t like what you\'re guessing the content will be, so you\'d like to make sure no one else can see it?
BTW, this movie will be distributed. An article in the Daily Variety today stated that Miramax has no concerns about finding another distributor. I\'ll post the article tomorrow if I have the time.
-
prejudged?
sure we can, michael moore (like i said) is a piece of shit. he makes money off people\'s insecurites. documentaries answer questions, not ask them.
-
Documentaries don\'t ask questions? :laughing: LOL! Sorry, that just ... made me laugh.
You are a spendthrift with words, mm. I guess it\'s easier to just dismiss him as "a piece of shit" than to listen to the points he\'s making.
:laughing:
-
Basically all just comes down to whether you happen to agree with his points or not. Those that do love him, those that don\'t hate him.
As for the idea that they should cut him off after Bowling for Columbine, why? The film was a success, it won an Oscar. Sure you might not have agreed with it, but that doesn\'t mean it wasn\'t a success.
And as for playing off people\'s insecurities, couldn\'t you say that about half the movies out there do the same? A plot isn\'t interesting if it doesn\'t make you react in some way, and that\'s one way to do that.
-
I thought BFC has its moments and really brought up a lot of interesting points, but as usual Moore took it to the extreme, exaggerating wherever he could. How many times did he replay "From my cold dead hands!!!"?
And remember that interview with the drunken redneck? Not only was he interviewed when drunk, but Moore gave him about 10-15 minutes of him on screen. He really picks the worst of the worst when he goes after a subject. The shock therapy method to get people\'s attention doesn\'t work on me, but it does for many. I like my healthy cynicism. ;)
This is a free country and I think Moore should release his documentary, but not at the expense of hurting Disney.
-
It like current reality TV shows - its all in the editing to either dramatize certain situations or make people look bad. Michael Moore is no genius and even you have to admit Core, he takes a very slanted approach on issues.
-
Michael Moore says distributors are lining up after Disney drops his film
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20040506/ca_pr_on_en/film_disney_michael_moore_1
Michael Moore Film Gets UK Release Deal -Paper
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040507/film_nm/arts_britain_moore_dc_3
-
Miramax also refused to release the Kevin Smith film Dogma when it came out so this hardly a political issue. So much for the whole Bush backed conspiracy theory...
-
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901
Disney financed it but said they would not distribute it.....all this was said one year ago. But Michael is telling his fans that it just happened.
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."
-
Timing is everything ;)
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Timing is everything ;)
In Bowling for Columbine - editing (which included timing) is everything! What a farce. Moore should relinquish his award since it was not really a documentary.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
In Bowling for Columbine - editing (which included timing) is everything! What a farce. Moore should relinquish his award since it was not really a documentary.
People love to make statements like that, but never provide examples. When some reactionary website lists a carefully compiled list of "errors" or "deceptions," every one one of them is effectively refuted by Moore and his STAFF of RESEARCHERS who checked every fact before there are included in his books and films.
This whole fantasy about how Moore\'s films are innacurate is just a smoke screen whipped up rabid conservatives who simply don\'t like the points Moore is making. They don\'t like the content, so they try to discredit the source. It\'s utterly lame in my opinion.
If you don\'t like the fact that movies are made of edited scenes that are stitched together to create an entertaining progression of events, then what do you suggest? Maybe Moore should just switch to filming pages of a textbook?
Instead of attacking the messenger, why don\'t you attack the message if you can.
-
effectively refuted by Moore
Uh...no. He didn\'t answer all the questions. Spinning the truth is not what documentaries are about.
-
"Spinning the truth..." Is that where you tell the truth, but make it entertaining? If so, then Moore is guilty.
You need to start providing examples, rather than blindly repeating what every other conservative pundit yaps to each other like an echo chamber.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
"Spinning the truth..." Is that where you tell the truth, but make it entertaining? If so, then Moore is guilty.
You need to start providing examples, rather than blindly repeating what every other conservative pundit yaps to each other like an echo chamber.
I\'ll provide the link when I find it....AGAIN. This won\'t be the first time I provided it here.
-
It would be cool if you could state what YOU found inaccurate or misrepresented in his films, instead of just posting a link to someone else\'s analysis. Have you seen his films?
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
It would be cool if you could state what YOU found inaccurate or misrepresented in his films, instead of just posting a link to someone else\'s analysis. Have you seen his films?
Ya really think I have time to watch the movie and the fly to the areas he\'s been to and interview the people....just for you?
-
I\'m trying to figure out if you\'ve at least watched the movies. If so, perhaps you noticed something you didn\'t like about it. Then you tell me and we discuss it. That\'s how a movie review usually works.
One thing I can\'t stand it when people say "Michael Moore is shit" or "his movies are inaccurate," but they haven\'t made any effort to evaluate the movie themselves. They just heard from someone else that they shouldn\'t like it. I\'m not saying that is you. I\'m just trying to start this conversation on a stable footing.
-
I really don\'t get this whole arguement that his films aren\'t documentaries. Since when was it decided that a documentary can\'t have a spin on it or can\'t be trying to convey a message with what it\'s showing? Many documentaries do this, it just isn\'t always as strong or clear a point as in Moore\'s. If they aren\'t documentaries, why don\'t you tell me what they are?
And all in all, I basically agree with all that Coredweller is saying. It\'s easy to go and look up a site that has errors that may or may not even be valid in his documentary, but when and if you saw it yourself, what did you take away, what did you hate so much about it besides maybe that he was presenting a different opinion from yours? If you haven\'t seen it at all, you have no reason to be insulting it, and if you did, that\'s what would really interest me, what it was that you personally found wrong about it.
-
As much as I hate censorship, I hate more when people use the word and don\'t know what it means.. Disney owns the release right\'s, okay? If they own those rights, that gives them the right to release it or not release it. That is their choice, as a business. Now, censorship, would be them releasing it and editing out important parts of it to serve a general purpose, but they aren\'t doing that. Instead, they are simply acting on their rights to release or not release.
-
exactly
-
I am just waiting on someone to argue my point, but we all know I am right. It is not censorship.
Do you people realize how many films are funded and not released? There are a bunch, even one\'s with big name actors. I don\'t see you people crying censorship on that, but instead, this is Michael Moore and it just has to be censorship, right?
Seriously, this has nothing to do with "Land of the free", "cenorship" or any of that NON-SENSE. This is a simple case of a company making a choice not to release a film, but in the process of this, somehow , some of you people have decided to spin doctor this into a cenorship story.
-
You don\'t understand Giga, if he makes more usernames more people will agree with him.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I am just waiting on someone to argue my point, but we all know I am right. It is not censorship.
Do you people realize how many films are funded and not released? There are a bunch, even one\'s with big name actors. I don\'t see you people crying censorship on that, but instead, this is Michael Moore and it just has to be censorship, right?
Seriously, this has nothing to do with "Land of the free", "cenorship" or any of that NON-SENSE. This is a simple case of a company making a choice not to release a film, but in the process of this, somehow , some of you people have decided to spin doctor this into a cenorship story.
Wow you certainly are proud of yourself, making two posts to repeat the same point.
It hasn\'t been proven what Disney\'s motivation was for backing out of their distribution agreement with Miramax. They could have made the decision because they see themselves as catering primarily to redneck middle america, and they don\'t want to be accused of being liberal. That seems to be what you all want to believe, and if it\'s true, then it is spineless, shortsighted, and weak, but not exactly censorship. The situation would be no different from those of other films that are axed by their studios as you mentioned above.
HOWEVER, if Disney reached the decision because they were concerned that distributing a political film that was critical of GW Bush would piss of his brother the governor of Florida, and endanger the corporate welfare they\'re receiving from that state, then I believe there is a definite tinge of censorship about it. What do you call it when a Governor exerts direct or indirect pressure to have a film shelved because he doesn\'t like the content? Do you want a government official telling you that you shouldn\'t see something?
I know many of you don\'t care about this because you don\'t like Michael Moore, you\'ve never seen his movies, and you don\'t plan to see this one. However, try to reverse the situation and tell me how you\'d feel if it was a film containing conservative viewpoints, funded by a corporation based in Vermont, and that corporation backed out of a distribution deal because they were afraid Gov Howard Dean would cut off their tax breaks.
(I know it\'s hard to imagine, but give it a try :p) I don\'t know why people like you, L-I-C, find it so easy to applaud this kind of back-stabbing corporate decision making.
-
Originally posted by THX
You don\'t understand Giga, if he makes more usernames more people will agree with him.
And those people will be himself. BTW, he\'s becoming the next BS2girl.
-
What recent works from him have you viewed Cored? I haven\'t seen anything from Moore, thus why I\'m not joining the debate. I\'m about 100% positive I\'ll disagree but I still want to check it all out.
-
*shrug* I never had a problem with Miramax choosing not to distribute the film. It\'s really their loss, since they funded it and now won\'t see a return on that funding. I can see why Moore would make a big deal about it considering the political reasons surrounding it, but whatever. It\'s not like it won\'t be released and not like people won\'t see it anyway.
-
It\'s a really easy way for him to get free advertising for his film and it\'s working like a charm.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
One thing I can\'t stand it when people say "Michael Moore is shit" or "his movies are inaccurate," but they haven\'t made any effort to evaluate the movie themselves. They just heard from someone else that they shouldn\'t like it. I\'m not saying that is you. I\'m just trying to start this conversation on a stable footing.
I place "Bowling" in the crap bin along with "JFK". I\'d rather watch "Grease".
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
I place "Bowling" in the crap bin along with "JFK". I\'d rather watch "Grease".
I think we already knew you felt that way. I was trying to find out WHY.
BTW, you believe in the Warren Commission Report? :laughing:
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
I think we already knew you felt that way. I was trying to find out WHY.
BTW, you believe in the Warren Commission Report? :laughing:
As much as I give credibility to Moore and "JFK". :p