Freedom of Speech, Censorship and Michael Moore

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Mon May 10, 2004 7:02 am

I dunno, I just keep on thinking about the general weirdness of the entire thing. See, all corporations that want to draw in a profit always think about that almighty bottom line, right? Like it or not, we know Moore's film is gonna rake in a lot of cash, and if it doesn't come out, it's a huge waste of money and time, and nobody wants that. Moore wants to release it through Miramax, not Disney, so what's the big problem?

Or am I totally missing something?

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Tue May 18, 2004 8:34 am

BBC: Moore film shows 'US Iraqi abuse'
BBC: Review: Fahrenheit 9/11

So they are showing 'Fahrenheit 9/11' at the Cannes Film festival. I for one can't wait for it to get to my local cinema. The reviews I have seen so far appears to be mixed, from nothing special to some sort of five star masterpiece.

JongWK · Post by **JongWK** » Tue May 18, 2004 4:06 pm

BBC: Moore film "favourite for prize" at Cannes

Time: A first look at "Fahrenheit 9/11"

ak404: Disney owns Miramax, it uses it to produce and release independent or "non-family" movies. A bedrock rule in the contract states that Disney may block a Miramax movie if it is NC-17 or over-budget.

Lion's Gate is a private distributor used by the two Miramax directors (both Democrats and pissed off with Disney's CEO Michael Eisner) to buy and release movies that Disney doesn't want to show. They did it a few years ago with a movie whose name escapes me at the moment, making a big profit out of it. Boo-hoo Eisner.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Mon May 24, 2004 9:39 am

Palm d´or winner.

They showed the same 20 second something clip over and over again. Was Bush really one vaccation 42% of the time before 9/11? That is quite alot, that would mean nearly ever other day was a holiday for him.

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Mon May 24, 2004 2:28 pm

Lion's Gate is a private distributor used by the two Miramax directors (both Democrats and pissed off with Disney's CEO Michael Eisner) to buy and release movies that Disney doesn't want to show. They did it a few years ago with a movie whose name escapes me at the moment, making a big profit out of it. Boo-hoo Eisner.

Jong, is this REALLY such a difficult concept?

The odds of this movie pissing off Disney customers is too high, and the return off the movie will be too low to make it a viable gamble. It's not like Moore is a cash cow or anything, I mean how many people are actually going to see his movie as opposed to say.... Shrek 2?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon May 24, 2004 4:51 pm

I have to agree with Eclipse. Moore's movies are a niche market compared to movies like Shrek 2, or even Scary Movie 3. Maybe you feel he has more to say than either of those movies, which is fine, but the sales figures reveall that most of the rest of the world doesn't.

JongWK · Post by **JongWK** » Mon May 24, 2004 5:00 pm

I don't know... it's still Michale Moore's Bush bashing, but it doesn't seem to be the usual self-promotion effort this time.

As for Bowling for Columbine: budget was $4 millions, earning $21,244,913 in American theaters (by May 11, 2003). Foreign ticket revenues were $35,564,473--and that's 2002 only, I guess Moore's little speech at the Oscars might have boosted sales. Examples are France, where it took more than $2 millions between X-Mas '02 and October 2003, or Spain (earned €2,100,316 after it's opening in April 2003).

It adds up for a nice chunk of money, especially when you see that it costed very little and they didn't have to advertise it too much (Moore and his opponents take care of that

). It's not a blockbuster, certainly, but still...

Also, consider this: you say Disney could alienate Bush supporters, but what about his opponents? Either way it could be a lose-lose situation for Disney, but they could still make some bucks.

Oh, just found out: the budget for Fahrenheit 9/11 was $6 millions. I think it will get an even better reception at the box office that Bowling for Columbine--it has already won in Cannes (which partially vindicates Moore) and everyone has heard of the movie without even an ad. Controversy sells.

EDIT: Variety reports $100 millions in DVD sales.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon May 24, 2004 5:03 pm

Dude, Shrek 2 opened to the tune of 104.5 million dollars in the US alone. Thats more than twice both those movies combined. Maybe its a nice chunk of change to us, but to the people in Hollywood Moore is no where near a top producer.

JongWK · Post by **JongWK** » Mon May 24, 2004 5:13 pm

Serious Paul wrote:I have to agree with Eclipse. Moore's movies are a niche market compared to movies like Shrek 2, or even Scary Movie 3. Maybe you feel he has more to say than either of those movies, which is fine, but the sales figures reveall that most of the rest of the world doesn't.

Problem is, how many of those movies came from Disney?

EDIT--> Correction: 2003 was not a box office flop for Disney as I thought, though most of the movies sucked.

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Mon May 24, 2004 8:28 pm

Also big budget feature films (especially Disney ones) routinely flop making little more than they cost to produce (even flops usually eventually drag in a few tens of millions eventually), but moore's films seem to be guaranteed ten-baggers. Sure someday they will start dropping off (or he will drop dead), but for now he is printing money.

If Disney and its subsidiaries had performed well under Eisners leadership my opinion as to the wisdom of his actions would be different, but the only measure by which he has performed well is his own paycheck.

PS Shrek 2 isn't a disney movie, it is a dreamworks one. Disney's best recent performer was Lilo & Stitch, was Liilo & Stitch 2 even in theatres? The other recent disney related hits were produced by Pixar, and thier exclusive association with Disney ended last year..

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon May 24, 2004 9:36 pm

I'd be willing to bet that even though the most recent Lilo&Stitch movie was straight to video it still out earned anything Micheal Moore's done. Even after production costs.

Look I am not berating the value of the guys work-some people like it, and I am fine with that. The facts are he is not Disney's biggest earner. Shrek 2 was an example of what Mainstream media considers an earner. The day Moor opens up with a 100 million plus weekend let me know and I'll change my mind about his ability to earn.

And like I said maybe he is earning a decent amonut, but compared to Hollywoods earners, of which Disney is only one, he is small potatoes. Mel Gibson commands more funds to wipe his ass, right or wrong.

AtemHutlrt · Post by **AtemHutlrt** » Mon May 24, 2004 10:37 pm

To my knowledge, Mike's never claimed to be a documentarian. His business is filming persuasive essays. To criticize his pictures for highlighting only supporting evidence, and, in general, trying to persuade us lowly plebes is kind of silly.

I really hate it when Burger King lies to me, and selectively highlights anecdotal evidence that suggests their fries are the tastiest. Seriously, you can't compete with Checkers.

*An irrelevant, tangential rant...The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences seriously needs to create a 'Best Nonfiction Feature' category to supplement the 'Best Documentary Feature' award. By my count, only one of this year's nominees should have qualified as a documentary, and that one just barely.

seriouspaul wrote:And like I said maybe he is earning a decent amonut, but compared to Hollywoods earners, of which Disney is only one, he is small potatoes. Mel Gibson commands more funds to wipe his ass, right or wrong.

Profit margin's the main thing that concerns the industry, and 'Bowling' did remarkably well. It actually profited at a ratio nearly identical to that of 'Finding Nemo', which was, quite easily, the biggest money maker in the history of The Mouse House.

'Fahrenheit' already won the Palm d'Or, which is nearly unprecedented for nonfiction pictures. It's going to be very successful.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon May 24, 2004 11:02 pm

AtemHutlrt wrote:Profit margin's the main thing that concerns the industry, and 'Bowling' did remarkably well. It actually profited at a ratio nearly identical to that of 'Finding Nemo', which was, quite easily, the biggest money maker in the history of The Mouse House.

Wait. Ratio, or margin?

AtemHutlrt wrote:'Fahrenheit' already won the Palm d'Or, which is nearly unprecedented for nonfiction pictures. It's going to be very successful.

Plus it's got all this free advertisement [which is good, since they don't really ever bother to advertise his movies, anyway].

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue May 25, 2004 12:35 am

Intresting. So he is doing better than I gave him credit for, but it is still not quite ready for prime time. However, earning 30% on a 20 million dollar project is a little different ball park wise, from 30% on 200 million dollars.

My own opinion of Moore is that nothing he has ever said I haven't generally already heard from someone I'm either friends with or whom posts here.

I'd actually be intrested in reading his life story however, as he is one of the ugliest people I have ever seen, with little to no charm in my book. How he ended up on TV is beyond me.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Tue May 25, 2004 1:10 am

Intresting. So he is doing better than I gave him credit for, but it is still not quite ready for prime time. However, earning 30% on a 20 million dollar project is a little different ball park wise, from 30% on 200 million dollars.

Yes and no. If you can make the same rate of return on a lot of smaller pics, then they're the safer bet than one big pic. One big project could flop; even if it works out on average, from year to year you could end up in a cash crunch. If you bet on lots of smaller projects, then even if one flops you're not out as much-- and you might stumble onto a "My Big Fat Greek Wedding", which blew the accountant's minds.

JongWK · Post by **JongWK** » Tue May 25, 2004 2:34 am

"Bowling..." costed $4 millions and probably earned something like $80 millions in theaters alone. That's a 20 to 1 ratio... how many blockbusters do you know can make it that good? It's the equivalent of Disney's The Alamo taking $2.4 billions in box office sales (the $120 million flop has earned less than $24 million in the US).

I think "The Passion of Christ" has a better ratio, but it's not a blockbuster per se.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Tue May 25, 2004 3:10 am

Serious Paul wrote:My own opinion of Moore is that nothing he has ever said I haven't generally already heard from someone I'm either friends with or whom posts here.

I'd actually be intrested in reading his life story however, as he is one of the ugliest people I have ever seen, with little to no charm in my book. How he ended up on TV is beyond me.

Since when have any pundits on the left or right said anything original, Paul? Hannity, Limbaugh (either of 'em), Coulter, Franken? I mean, the guys who live for research like Hoffer, Zinn, and Finkelstein, they might have original stuff to say, but they're not pundits, they're academics. Punditry is anti-academia: its purpose is not to educate the mind but to reinforce opinions. The job of a pundit is to take certain threads of popular thought, connect the dots, and regurgitate them with a nice presentation onto a public that already knows this shit. That's why it's so easy to understand: we know this already, and we feel smart because somebody else simply repeats it to us and a lot of other people. It doesn't matter if you or a friend said it, but if one of the talking heads say it, then you're made. It's really all about peer review: any leftie can make a movie, but that doesn't mean it's gonna be seen. But if Michael Moore does it...

As for looks and charm...you know, I'm eagerly awaiting the day when America experiences its first image backlash and gets into a period of post-superficiality (to take a line from Ellis).

"Hey, that guy's fat and ugly, he must be stupid and destined for failure."

I suppose then, that if Moore went out and got some excercise and plastic surgery, he'd be superficial and vain. Dude, he's fat, ugly, confident, and to the best of my knowledge, he knows it (since it's hard to deny you're fat when you have to order clothes); that's so much better than being a body fascist, IMO.

And to go a bit OT, you guys realize that folks like Lincoln (ugly), Roosevelt (either of them, one was huge, the other had polio), Taft (fat), Madison (not married, maybe a closted homosexual), and Coolidge (not charming) would never be elected President if Americans were as superficial back then as they are now?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue May 25, 2004 4:42 am

ak404 wrote:And to go a bit OT, you guys realize that folks like Lincoln (ugly), Roosevelt (either of them, one was huge, the other had polio), Taft (fat), Madison (not married, maybe a closted homosexual), and Coolidge (not charming) would never be elected President if Americans were as superficial back then as they are now?

It has nothing to do with their superficiality, but rather to do with the modern widespread visibility of politicians.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Tue May 25, 2004 5:34 am

Earl, I don't suppose you've scanned over the Lincoln versus Douglass debates? That was like an hour and a half...if you were rushing it. You do realize, of course, that that was just a senatorial debate and that debates between Presidential candidates would no doubt be even longer. However, politicians nowadays are built up on sound bytes and very short debates.

No, American attention spans have gotten shorter, they've become more superficial - for example, Dukakis's height, Quayle's intellect, Stockdale's senility and incoherency - all of these undermine the fact that politicians are supposed to think for a living. I mean, for fuck's sake, since when did our politicians have to be pleasing to the eye to be considered electable?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue May 25, 2004 5:41 am

Why, since TV was invented, and before that, when photographs started getting widely distributed. I guess what I'm trying to say is that this short attention span, this superficiality, these things are effects of the increased availability of information in our age. Media has defined how presidents are elected.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Tue May 25, 2004 8:25 am

Comparing box office revenue between Farenheit and Shrek2 is a bit odd, after all the target demographic for the pictures are not the same. Farenheit will appeal to one or two groups while Shrek2 is all over the place, I doubt many kids and families will go and see F911 but they'll drag themselves into the dark for Shrek2.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Tue May 25, 2004 12:08 pm

Hm. Lorg has a point about the slightly deceptive nature of Disney films in general: sure, they're for kids, but they're dragging their parents along with 'em, even if the parent doesn't wanna see the movie. (i.e., the torture of the Pokemon films) At, what, $8 a ticket (?) that tends to add up.

Just an observation there.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri May 28, 2004 11:41 am

ak404 wrote:Since when have any pundits on the left or right said anything original, Paul?

I never claimed that they did, in fact all I said was he wasn't the first person saying this stuff, or even the best. I don't think that statement was to be construed that any other television pundit was somehow better than him.

is anti-academia: its purpose is not to educate the mind but to reinforce opinions. The job of a pundit is to take certain threads of popular thought, connect the dots, and regurgitate them with a nice presentation onto a public that already knows this shit. That's why it's so easy to understand: we know this already, and we feel smart because somebody else simply repeats it to us and a lot of other people. It doesn't matter if you or a friend said it, but if one of the talking heads say it, then you're made.

I'll readily agree with that, and admit I hadn't put that much thought into it all.

As for looks and charm...you know, I'm eagerly awaiting the day when America experiences its first image backlash and gets into a period of post-superficiality (to take a line from Ellis).

"Hey, that guy's fat and ugly, he must be stupid and destined for failure."

I wouldn't try holding your breath while you wait.

This is my point exactly, by the way. How many people do you think underestimate him based on his appearence? Its surprising to me, in the culure we have today, that he has been this successful.

I suppose then, that if Moore went out and got some excercise and plastic surgery, he'd be superficial and vain.

Some sort of guilt peeking out here, guy? I never suggested he was less because he looks like me, only my surprise that someone like me could be on TV-I don't have the 50 cent look, or the Bradd Pitt. Niether does he. When I look at the vast wasteland that is TV, it still surprises me to see real people on TV, and not made for TV people.

Maybe you're not so surprised, sorry I am so naive I guess.

By the way, you realize Lincoln, Roosevelt (Teddy), Taft and Madison were pre TV right? You also realize FDR was frightened to allow TV, or papers have pictures of him in his chair, afraid what that image might convey?

You are looking at entirely different age and then attempting to compare them. You are correct, in todays arena they'd be out a job, and quick. Lucky(?) for them and us(?) that they weren't bound by the rules of modern politics.

However, politicians nowadays are built up on sound bytes and very short debates.

And?

should we politcally legislate intellect? Yea! You have my vote! Good luck.

...since when did our politicians have to be pleasing to the eye to be considered electable?

Since JFK. Blame him. Fucking pretty boy!

Jong WK wrote:"Bowling..." costed $4 millions and probably earned something like $80 millions in theaters alone. That's a 20 to 1 ratio... how many blockbusters do you know can make it that good?

Well Blockbusters, by their very definition Jong....well tell you what, do you think that Star Wars, the LOTR, Harry Potter and Lethal Weapon are blockbusters? Rarity I guess is in the eye of the beholder...

lorg wrote:Comparing box office revenue between Farenheit and Shrek2 is a bit odd, after all the target demographic for the pictures are not the same.

Yeah that was my point. Again I am not saying his product is somehow less, it just doesn't have the market that major films do. Is that bad? Maybe not. Maybe its better all "the really smart people" watch this. Maybe its better the rest of us pass.

In the end its not that big of a deal anyways.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri May 28, 2004 4:43 pm

ak404 wrote:Hm. Lorg has a point about the slightly deceptive nature of Disney films in general: sure, they're for kids, but they're dragging their parents along with 'em, even if the parent doesn't wanna see the movie. (i.e., the torture of the Pokemon films) At, what, $8 a ticket (?) that tends to add up.

What? That's retarded. That's not deceptive in any way, shape, or form. What's more, Disney films are increasingly for adult audiences as well, to the point where I make certain to watch them before I let children see them.

JongWK · Post by **JongWK** » Fri May 28, 2004 6:05 pm

BBC News: Moore has film of US hostage Berg

BBC News wrote:Film director Michael Moore says he has interview footage of slain US hostage Nick Berg that was not used in his anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.

Cipher · Post by **Cipher** » Fri May 28, 2004 6:20 pm

AtemHutlrt wrote:To my knowledge, Mike's never claimed to be a documentarian. His business is filming persuasive essays. To criticize his pictures for highlighting only supporting evidence, and, in general, trying to persuade us lowly plebes is kind of silly.

I think that walking onstage and accepting a "Best Documentary" statuette from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences counts as an implicit claim to objectivity.

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Fri May 28, 2004 6:23 pm

Oh, just found out: the budget for Fahrenheit 9/11 was $6 millions. I think it will get an even better reception at the box office that Bowling for Columbine--it has already won in Cannes (which partially vindicates Moore

ROFLMAO!

Now THERE is credibility, the Cannes film festival.

Had Moore not released his movie, all someone would have had to do is record 74 minutes of static and white noise and label the tape "I hate George Bush". And it would definitely be a contender to win Cannes.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat May 29, 2004 12:35 am

Can I say I love Cipher in a totally Platonic fashion? No, really.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Sat May 29, 2004 1:31 am

The Eclipse wrote:Now THERE is credibility, the Cannes film festival.

Well yeah, it is. Typically things that win the Cannes Film Festival are <a href=http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Can ... quality</a>, although sometimes controversial. A lot of great movies get showcased there, and although you may not like a movie about a transexual with a one inch penis who sings in a punk band, that doesn't make it a bad movie.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat May 29, 2004 6:03 am

I think that counts as a point for the Elf, there.

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Sat May 29, 2004 6:51 am

I don't think all the movies cannes awards are what I'd call "quality". I think that Cannes is just as likely to award a steaming pile of shit while defending it's inclusion by pointing out that is ALSO occasionally awards 'quality' movies.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Sat May 29, 2004 3:58 pm

In which case, I think you're retarded.

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Sat May 29, 2004 9:25 pm

This coming from a guy who has been seen wearing a spider-man costume.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat May 29, 2004 9:33 pm

Hmmm, an intresting quote from an article on the Cannes Film Festival, and Moore.

It was the first documentary to win the top prize since Jacques Cousteau's The Silent World in 1956.

Taken from this article.

I'd say the middle is ground is more likely-I'm willing to bet that not every Cannes winner has been what some of us would define as quality, but the flip side is I am sure that some of the things I wouldn't like probably have merit I just don't see.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun May 30, 2004 11:09 pm

Looks like some will distribute it after all.

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Mon May 31, 2004 12:43 am

Not bad, works out well for all parties. Moore gets distribution, Disney gets six million dollars, Miramax gets to take the gamble of this movie turning a profit.

JongWK · Post by **JongWK** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:31 pm

CNN: Moore's '9/11' to be released June 25

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:40 pm

Will be interesting to see if there is a Moore effect in the polls.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 5:37 pm

Anyone besides me think that Eisner is gonna suffer for this?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 7:31 pm

No, not in a significant way.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 7:10 am

Eisner going to suffer for it? I seriously doubt that, being the mouse puppetmaster that he is I'm sure he has enough distance between himself and Moore.

Exactly how and why do you think he'll suffer for this?

The movie trailer came out: Fahrenheit 911 trailers

Havn't seen this in any english speaking news but apparently they did an interview with Bradbury (F451) and he didn't think to highly of Moore.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:14 pm

So I occasionally read Underworld Forums and found this to be highly amusing and relevant to this discussion. The thread was entitled something like Fox News review of F911...

Arcanum V wrote:If Moore is serious about spreading his political message and serious about revealing whatever sinister conspiracy he thinks he's found, why doesn't he post his movie on his Web site and let us download it for free? If this "information" that he's got is so critical to the future existence of democracy, why do we have to pay $10 to see it? He keeps telling us to "see the film and decide for ourselves," but if we do that, he's already got our money no matter what we decide. If he puts on his Web site with a PayPal link, then we could watch it for free and decide for ourselves. If we like what we see, then we can send him the price of admission.*

Having us pay to see his movie in theaters alongside Shrek 2 and Chronicles of Riddick encourages us to think of him as an entertainer out to make a buck rather than as a journalist out to reveal the Truth.

*Just be sure to send it in Canadian currency, so his offshored Web site host and film distributor can handle it!

I love this guy.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 6:39 am

What is so wrong about wanting to make money off something that you put a lot of work into, which will reach a larger audience if you actually pay money for it rather than a very limited one if you just release it online?

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 8:10 am

Lets apply it to Ann Coulter:
If [Coulter] is serious about spreading [her] political message and serious about revealing whatever sinister [left wing] conspiracy [she] thinks [she']s found, why doesn't [she] post [her book - Treason] on [her] Web site and let us download it for free? If this "information" that [she's] got is so critical to the future existence of democracy, why do we have to pay $10 to [read] it? [She] keeps telling us to "[read the book] and decide for ourselves," but if we do that,[she's] already got our money no matter what we decide. If [she] puts on his Web site with a PayPal link, then we could watch it for free and decide for ourselves. If we like what we see, then we can send [her] the [retail] price.

I don't necessarily like what Moore says, but it seems every other commentator - particularly republican scumfucks like Sean Hannity - gets a pass while he's expected to give everything away.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:02 am

Exactly, so go and see the movie you fucking cheepskates.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 10:55 am

I didn't pay for anything Ann Coulter wrote/produced either. (I have no idea who she is.)

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 11:03 am

What are you trying to say?

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 11:07 am

Serious Paul wrote:I didn't pay for anything Ann Coulter wrote/produced either. (I have no idea who she is.)

You lucky bastard. To use some of the new wonderful phrases I learned from reading the Word usage thread (is cunt a bad word ...). Ann Coulter is a hyper conservative cum guzzling gutterslut that wrote a few books that are so horrible I'm surprised the ink stuck to the pages.

Paying for information? We do it all the time, buying books, magazines, papers and cable tv etc etc .. So why shouldn't I pay ten bucks to see a movie ?

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 11:59 am

Coulter is great entertainment.

"I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn't."

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:21 pm

(I have no idea who she is.)

Basically she's Michael Moore, only conservative, blonde, and relatively attractive.