Disney save Bush

BlitzKrieg

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?ei=5062&en=89983012bdce5ec0&ex=1084334400&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=




Disney stop michel moore's new film? OMG!!! What f*cken twats...


but it makes sense in a election year. But still makes me wanna watch no more disney films...

flogen

But still makes me wanna watch no more disney films...

Brother Bear did that for me :P (as did Pixar's split from the company)

seriously though, this is bound to give Moore another thing to use against Bush... if theyre is nothing true here, let the people see it and let Moore be embarresed.
Disney are spineless, but what do you expect from big buisnesses who fear losing tax breaks from Bush??

We'll get to see it, either by internet release or other.

Flogen

BlitzKrieg

oops...


It seems this topic is in full swing on the politics board...so i guess you should go there...




Unless you wanna talk about it from a film point of view?

ixoy

Well I'm the one who posted it on the Politics board. Just for your information: Disney aren't distributing it in North America. The overseas distrubtion rights have been sorted so we'll get to see it. Americans can too if Miramax (owned by Disney) find an alternate distributor. The downside to that being they'll have to take a profit cut.

Kain

i'd love to see that movie. Just to see how much Moore is going to take the piss out of Bush.

begbie

I didn't even see "bowling for columbine". Documentary movies just ain't for me. :dunno:

egan007

Originally posted by begbie
I didn't even see "bowling for columbine". Documentary movies just ain't for me. :dunno:

we are not talking wildlife documentary here...
you should really watch bowling for columbine - it's a documentary/comedy/tragedy all rolled into one..

the link he makes in his new film is in his book - dude wheres my country - so it's amazing how there was no problem publishing it, yet there is a problem with it on the screen.

It demonstrates how 'TV' can rule in america.

weemcd

yawn, its very much "the in thing" to slag off bush theese days, i really think its time people started thinking for themsevles instead of bush is an idiot. the american public elected the sutpid bastard so they only have themselves to blame

Chinafoot

Originally posted by weemcd
the american public elected the sutpid bastard so they only have themselves to blame

yea but unfortunatley the rest of us have to suffer too. most pwerful nation in the world remember.

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by weemcd
the american public elected the sutpid bastard so they only have themselves to blame

Actually, they didn't.
They elected Al Gore, but Bush got presidency in some sneaky little way.

ObeyGiant

Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban'

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.

-- source

Hands up who else is on the verge of losing their shit with Michael Moore?

egan007

Hands up who else is on the verge of losing their shit with Michael Moore? [/B]

Not me - He had to do what he had to do...
the only way you can beat a sneaky bas*ard like bush is by being a sneaky bas*ard

This article does say that "he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it" - so whether it be a decsion made yesterday or a year ago Disiney still blocked it

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by egan007
Not me - He had to do what he had to do...
the only way you can beat a sneaky bas*ard like bush is by being a sneaky bas*ard

Personally, I can't really trust anyone who uses sneaky, underhanded tactics to try and criticise someone for using sneaky, underhanded tactics.

But I'm odd like that.

Originally posted by egan007
This article does say that "he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it" - so whether it be a decsion made yesterday or a year ago Disiney still blocked it

As you say - they had to do what they had to do. Disney did not get to be one of the dominant corporations by being completely altruistic - they are a for-profit company, and have shareholders to protect. This is not being "spineless", this is just basic business sense - don't willfully do something to damage your (already flagging) business.

This furore being kicked up right now, to make them look like they just pulled the rug out from under Moore's feet at the last minute just strikes me as being pretty close to libellous.

ObeyGiant

And it's probably worth pointing out that Disney just refused to help distribute the film. They still funded production of the film.

egan007

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
And it's probably worth pointing out that Disney just refused to help distribute the film. They still funded production of the film.

Why fund the production and not distribute?

Moore makes no secret of his intentions. He makes it quite clear from day one that he as anti Bush and Anti Corporate America.
Seems to be to be a bad business decision by Disney to get involved...they knew what was comming.

If pleasing shareholders is the primary goal then stay away from controversial documentaries and make more finding Nemo

beardedchicken

Originally posted by Karl Hungus
Actually, they didn't.
They elected Al Gore, but Bush got presidency in some sneaky little way.

even leaving aside the allegations of vote tampering and disenfranchisement of large swathes of the democrat grassroots support, (ie. some sneaky little way), the way the american electoral system is organised, with the electoral college, it means that the winner of the popular vote isn't necessarily the one who wins the election, so you're right in that more people voted for al gore, but bush won the presidency, but that's just the "innocent" answer.

Johnny Versace

Slightly OT, but do a search for Michael Moore articles on salon.com, and it makes you realise he's not quite the ordinary, caring man he makes himself out to be.

For example, a lot of the issues he has are personal, in a you-fired-me-years-ago-and-I'm-still-bitter kind of way.

It's interesting.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by egan007
Why fund the production and not distribute?

Well, there's a few reasons for this, and you can take your pick as to which one you choose to accept as an answer.
1. Disney don't really have that much control over Miramax. They have the power to tell them what films not to distribute, but they don't have the power to tell them what films not to fund.
2. Miramax signed Moore for a multi-picture deal before (or maybe even after) Bowling for Columbine. I can't find anything on the internet for this, but I'd be very surprised if they didn't do this.
3. Disney wanted to have at least some of the pie. By funding but not distributing, they get the profits from the movie and get to tell their shareholders they were protecting them. Double bonus.

I would reckon the truth would maybe be a combination of the above.

I think I should also point out that we were in a similar situation when Disney refused to allow Miramax distribute "Dogma" and "Kids".

Originally posted by egan007
If pleasing shareholders is the primary goal then stay away from controversial documentaries and make more finding Nemo

If they'd stuck to just making kid's movies, they wouldn't be the global corporation they are today.

egan007

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Well, there's a few reasons for this, and you can take your pick as to which one you choose to accept as an answer.
1. Disney don't really have that much control over Miramax. They have the power to tell them what films not to distribute, but they don't have the power to tell them what films not to fund.
2. Miramax signed Moore for a multi-picture deal before (or maybe even after) Bowling for Columbine. I can't find anything on the internet for this, but I'd be very surprised if they didn't do this.
3. Disney wanted to have at least some of the pie. By funding but not distributing, they get the profits from the movie and get to tell their shareholders they were protecting them. Double bonus.

I would reckon the truth would maybe be a combination of the above.

I think I should also point out that we were in a similar situation when Disney refused to allow Miramax distribute "Dogma" and "Kids".


If they'd stuck to just making kid's movies, they wouldn't be the global corporation they are today.

Ok - well they knowingly bought Miramax that have been known for being center left rather than right wing like disney.

and

Disney were made by kids films

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by egan007
Ok - well they knowingly bought Miramax that have been known for being center left rather than right wing like disney.

Exactly. And they've generally had no problem releasing anything put out by Miramax - in over 10 years, they've used their right as owners to block just two (now three) movies, that I am aware of. And in all three cases, I can see Disney's point that these films are potentially damaging to its business and its brand.

Originally posted by egan007
Disney were made by kids films

Why exactly are you repeating this? I've already addressed this, by saying that they wouldn't be the global corporation they are today if they'd stuck to making kid's movies and didn't expand into other areas too.

I do believe that John Millius called Michael Moore a fraudelant asshole. the reason being that he tries to make himself out to be the peoples hero when in fact hes a multi millionaire who gets driven everywhere in limos and only makes his documentaries to get back at people he has a grudge against.

ObeyGiant

John Milius is one of those people that, in spite of all my left-leaning political beliefs, I can't help but admire. Anyone else in a similar boat?