Bulldrek v3.0

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 12:56 pm**

It seems that time of the year again. The always controversial Michael Moore has a new film ready for distribution, and people aren't making it easy for him to do so. Today, the BBC ran a story, also ran the NY Times, in which it said that Michael Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 9/11, which heavily criticised President Bush, was being blocked from distribution by Disney, the owners of Miramax, who were producing Moore's project. "According to the New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush."

My guess is that Disney's concerns aren't exactly warranted, since even Jeb Bush can't be that blatant and stupid in his retaliation. What are your thoughts?

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 1:27 pm**

Why is it I read these posts when I know it will jsut anger me more.

Bloody politicians.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 1:46 pm**

"Go back to bed, america, your government is in control again."

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 1:46 pm**

Why are you angry at the politicians? If I'm reading this right, Disney is afraid of what the man might do. Why is their paranoia cause for you to be angry at politicians (or even Jeb Bush, since he has yet to do what he's being accused of being capable of)

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 1:52 pm**

I agree with Willy. This is Disney, not Jeb. I suppose it's possible Jeb already made some midnight calls or something.

Then again, we're talking about Moore. I see nothing wrong with not publishing his crap. Now, if we could just get Rush banned from publishing books, life would so much nicer.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 1:56 pm**

Yeah, that's the crappiest aspect of the whole deal: No one here is doing anything illegal. Disney wants to self-censor, which is completely within their rights. The government isn't even involved, except as the party which is giving tax breaks to Disney.

I'm curious at the level of truth in the allegations against Disney. Given the subject matter of the film, it's painfully ironic that Disney is resorting to censorship.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 2:07 pm**

Moo: Hell, with all the people here on the forum, you should know that free speech means everyone can say what they damn well please. And accept the consequences. And, fortunately or unfortunately, that right to free speech covers Michael Moore as well.

[Edit] 32: Yes, it's amusing isn't it? You'd think they'd learn that censoring someone as... adept at getting publicity as Moore would make a huge deal out of it.

[/Edit]

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 2:14 pm**

Moo: Hell, with all the people here on the forum, you should know that free speech means everyone can say what they damn well please. And accept the consequences. And, fortunately or unfortunately, that right to free speech covers Michael Moore as well.

And your point is....?

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 2:18 pm**

Wether you disagree with Moore or not, he has a right to say what he wants.I think his film should be published. It will be anyway, sooner or later, and because of the controversy, it's going to be a success. Hm. Now there's a thought... This could be a massive PR ploy. It definetely worked for The Passion of the Christ (No other comparisons made, of any kind).

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 2:24 pm**

TLM wrote:[Edit] 32: Yes, it's amusing isn't it? You'd think they'd learn that censoring someone as... adept at getting publicity as Moore would make a huge deal out of it. [/Edit]

[voiceclass="MichaelMoore"]Yes! Everything is going exactly according to plan.[/voiceclass]

As has been indicated, Jeb Bush has done nothing at all. And in fact, the charges of what he MIGHT do are the word of a single guy repeating what he claims Eisner said.

Either way, the movie will come out anyway, and this story (and others) will only help it immensely. This story, whether it is valid or not, probably just netted Moore another couple fistfuls of cash.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 2:25 pm**

Wether you disagree with Moore or not, he has a right to say what he wants

Well see, I tend to disagree with that. Then again, I have problem with people who lie and twist the truth to serve their own ends. Far to many people accept Moore's claims as truth, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. It's the same with Rush, and frankly it disgusts me. I guess I'm just strange like that.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 2:25 pm**

Arg. TLM beat me to it. Damn ADD.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 2:31 pm**

Isn't Disney fairly...liberal as far as multinationals go?

And Moo, we all know Moore likes to put the spin on, just like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity. They're entertainers who're valued for their opinions...and not much else.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 2:35 pm**

MooCow wrote:
Wether you disagree with Moore or not, he has a right to say what he wants
Well see, I tend to disagree with that. Then again, I have problem with people who lie and twist the truth to serve their own ends. Far to many people accept Moore's claims as truth, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. It's the same with Rush, and frankly it disgusts me. I guess I'm just strange like that.

Dude, you just descirbed every single politician in the world. Of course Moore has an agenda, and he is pretty good at making people see the world his way. Does that make him inherently right? Of course not. Not more right than any other person out there with an agenda and a medium through which to express it. And since he will find a way to publish this film anyway, it's much smarter to play along, publish it, and not give him extra attention. For your next question: Will I go and see it? Sure I will. Will I check my scepticism at the door? No.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 2:39 pm**

And Moo, we all know Moore likes to put the spin on, just like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity. They're entertainers who're valued for their opinions...and not much else

The problem is that isn't true. Alot of people believe them straight up. And Moore goes far beyond the others (Though I guarantee you Rush would do it to if he weren't so ugly he'd break a camera). He does things like cut and paste interviews together to completely distort what people are saying.

It's one thing when The Daily Show does it. That's obviously a comedy show. However, Moore doesn't make it clear that his shows are comedies. He has no problem letting people believe that what he puts out is 100% true as he shows it. And it isn't.

I guess I'm just old fashioned.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 2:40 pm**

Dude, you just descirbed every single politician in the world

I also hate every politician in the world.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 2:52 pm**

I think he should stand outside the Disney stores and hand out free copies of the film to all that exits or perhaps get a handful of people standing out side Disneyworld (or is is Disneyland) in Florida and do the same.

It would be such a Moore thing to do. Talk about free publicity. Not to mention ever so slightly pissing of the mouse.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 3:29 pm**

ak404 wrote:Isn't Disney fairly...liberal as far as multinationals go?

Not exactly. My Aunt worked for them. I have never seen tighter control on employees from anywhere.

Oh and what I said about politicians, no they have not done anything yet, but it is because of them that this even becomes an issue.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 3:46 pm**

DV8 wrote:since even Jeb Bush can't be that blatant and stupid in his retaliation.

I would never underestimate the blatant stupidity of Jeb Bush.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 4:02 pm**

Mooron wrote:Then again, we're talking about Moore. I see nothing wrong with not publishing his crap.

Let me guess, you haven't read any of his books, right? Because they're packed to the brim with sources. Bowling for Colombine had a lot of those, too. Hell, the Awful Truth didn't do a bad job of backing itself up, either. Do you actually watch or read anything that Moore has done, or did you just hear somewhere that he was wrong and decided to stay retarded?

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 4:16 pm**

In this day of information, there are few people or organisations that can lie to the public, and keep it hidden. Michael Moore isn't one of them, so I completely believe that he publishes the truth. However, like all publishers not influential or clever enough to be able to lie, they aren't stating fact; they're highlighting certain parts of the truth while trying to have you overlook the rest. So while pro-Moore and con-Moore people don't have truth on their side any more than one another, they just have their opinion of Michael Moore's decision which parts of the truth he chooses to show.

Personally, I think Michael Moore is very clever in what he says, how he says it and who he says it to. Though I don't think he's a visionary, since he rarely, though not ever, says things that hadn't crossed my mind before, I do think that he's able to do something that many fanatics won't; apologise, and realise that you don't have to be right-wing, and you don't have to be left-wing. You can be a mixture those depending on the issue. Many people suffer from political deformation once they start categorising themselves as a republican or a democrat. Like Chris Rock said - and I know he's hardly a credible person to quote - "anyone who chooses a side before hearing the issue is fucking stupid."

Michael Moore is hardly left-wing, though many right-wing and conservatives accuse him of being that. He's definitely not a traditional right-wing, neither. He's a floater, which is why I think he's interesting. His Bowling for Columbine was controversial because his conclusion is that guns are bad - or so people think, and therefore label him a leftist which makes anything he says about Bush a leftist knee-jerk reaction, right?. Wrong. He's been a lifetime member of the NRA who says it's not guns that lead to so many gun-deaths in the United States, it's media induced fear that does it. There are many nations all around the world that have similar gun-laws as the United States, and still don't manage to rake in the amount of gun-deaths. Like Sal once correctly stated; tightening gun-laws hasn't done shit for the U.S. in terms of gun-deaths. It must be something else, and I like, and agree - though I can't verify - Michael Moore's conclusion.

I'm eagerly awaiting Fahrenheit 9/11, which I will watch with as much objectivism as I did Bowling for Columbine.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 4:24 pm**

Well, that's just the fucking thing, right? I'm firmly of the belief that Moore occupies the largest political demographic in the US: the moderates. I think he's a left-leaning moderate, but he's a moderate nonetheless.

Of course, just because he's willing to bag on both the GOP and Democrats, this doesn't make him totally honest.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 4:25 pm**

Let me guess, you haven't read any of his books, right? Because they're packed to the brim with sources. Bowling for Colombine had a lot of those, too. Hell, the Awful Truth didn't do a bad job of backing itself up, either. Do you actually watch or read anything that Moore has done, or did you just hear somewhere that he was wrong and decided to stay retarded?

Rush Limbaugh's stuff is "packed to the brim with sources" too, I'm still fairly certain that John Kerry isn't the anti-christ. (And yes I have read some of his stuff, and I still maintain he's lying)

I think Deev is close. My problem is that selectively highlighting only certain parts of the truth in order to push forward your political agenda is the same as lying to me. I don't differentiate.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 4:32 pm**

Well, I suppose that makes us all liars, then.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 4:39 pm**

Well, I suppose that makes us all liars, then

Yep.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 5:31 pm**

Instant Cash wrote:Oh and what I said about politicians, no they have not done anything yet, but it is because of them that this even becomes an issue.

IF what Michael Eisner said about them as reported by a single Mirimax employee is actually true.

[edit to explain further]It could be that this becomes an issue, because some Mirimax employee wanted to attribute non-existant political motives to Disney's decision in order to hype what is already a controversial work.

Disney wants to maintain its clean, wholesome, traditional image. Therefore, it avoids blatant things that will tarnish that. It still produces and is conected to many smarmy things, but they try to do it under the radar or under the auspices of a subsidiary. But some things--like an NC-17 movie or a Michael Moore work about 9/11--are too inflamatory to let them even be vaguely associated with them. It is entirely possible that this move was NOT politically motivated, but people get to talking, and someone on the other side took idle speculation on motives and reported it as fact.[/edit]

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 5:47 pm**

The main problem with Michael Moore's and Rush Limbaugh's selective grazing of the truth is that the grand majority of Americans (and possibly people worldwide, for all I know) are lazy when it comes to getting thier information. Nobody actually wants to research any information for themselves, so they end up listenting to whomever makes the most noise and tells them pretty much the story that they want to hear.

But riddle me this--Why are we satisfied with living in a culture where such a rich history of fact obscuration has existed that we are A) afraid to tell the whole truth as it is, and B) feel we have beef up the facts to combat the other guy beefing up his facts?

Grr... The whole concept make me sick...

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2004 5:50 pm**

Because we have salad shooters and machine that open stuck jars for us.

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2004 1:21 am**

I watched Bowling for Columnbine and found it quite insightful and effective and bringing up questions. However, like everything on TV, I don't automatically jump in and accept it. You can say what you want about the masses. A crowd of people is as smart as the dumbest person, while individuals are calm rational and intelligent. Free speech, and all that considered I think the movie should be published and its none of the politicians business. This reminds me of that state congressman that wanted to ban dressing in anyway that revealed underwear. I mean, come on. The first step is censoring movies like this, then we move to censored clothing and fashion sense, then let's go ahead and knock off something else like what you can say to your friends. Where does it stop?

Oh, and incidently, if we EVER have a president named Jeb, shoot me. Please.

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2004 1:42 am**

DV8 wrote:In this day of information, there are few people or organisations that can lie to the public, and keep it hidden.

LIE or lie?

I think there is a difference. We are lied to all the time. Consumerism as a lifestyle is a lie, one of the greatest.

DV8 wrote:Michael Moore isn't one of them, so I completely believe that he publishes the truth.

Thankfully you follwed this with this:

DV8 wrote:However, like all publishers not influential or clever enough to be able to lie, they aren't stating fact; they're highlighting certain parts of the truth while trying to have you overlook the rest.

I was afraid for a second you'd taken leave of your senses.

DV8 wrote:Personally, I think Michael Moore is very clever in what he says, how he says it and who he says it to.

Yeah I will agree with that whole heartedly, more so after having seen him speak, and looked at him. A more physically repulsie speaker I couldn't think of. His speaking style isn't all that great for me personally.

Michael Moore is hardly left-wing, though many right-wing and conservatives accuse him of being that. He's definitely not a traditional right-wing, neither. He's a floater, which is why I think he's interesting.

I am not sure I agree with you, but its more a question of definition of terms than anything else.

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2004 3:18 am**

Deev wrote:However, like all publishers not influential or clever enough to be able to lie, they aren't stating fact; they're highlighting certain parts of the truth while trying to have you overlook the rest.

So very true, I watched Bowling for Columbine and in order to find something that ISN'T filled with half-truths and blatantly unprovable innuendos, I'm afraid you would have to fast forward to the credits.

TLM wrote:Wether you disagree with Moore or not, he has a right to say what he wants.

Absolutely, he has the right to say what he wants.

Just like Disney has the right to not publish it.

I think you need to look from Disney's point of view. Disney is NOT going to publish a film that is going to alienate and/or piss off a very sizable segment of their customer base. This is really a question of the bottom line, Disney stands to lose more money from pissed off customers than it would make from Moore's film.
I really have a tough time seeing where the hell every turns this into a first amendment issue. The first amendment doesn't mean that someone who disagrees with your movie MUST distribute it just because you have the right to free speech.

If you write a paper saying everything you don't like about this country and I disagree with you, you have no legal recourse to force me to hand that paper out for you.

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2004 3:30 am**

The Eclipse wrote:Absolutely, he has the right to say what he wants.

Just like Disney has the right to not publish it.

I think you need to look from Disney's point of view. Disney is NOT going to publish a film that is going to alienate and/or piss off a very sizable segment of their customer base. This is really a question of the bottom line, Disney stands to lose more money from pissed off customers than it would make from Moore's film.
I really have a tough time seeing where the hell every turns this into a first amendment issue. The first amendment doesn't mean that someone who disagrees with your movie MUST distribute it just because you have the right to free speech.

If you write a paper saying everything you don't like about this country and I disagree with you, you have no legal recourse to force me to hand that paper out for you.

An excellent point. However, kicking up a controversy about it is only going to make more people want to see what it's all about, and Moore can claim once again that his right to free speech is infringed <sp?>. Wether or not it is in the strict sense of the First Amendment is less important than the perception that his right is infringed. Personally, I think everyone is giving Moore too much credit. But he has one very excellent point:

Michael Moore wrote: Tell someone they can't watch something or read something, and they'll want to watch and read it even more

*

That's quite possibly what he's trying to do here. If he can give the perception that he's being censored because people in power or "Corporate America" don't want his message to get out, he'll win. Much better IMO to just release the film, and not make a racket about it. Actually, that's not true. Better to /not accept/ his project in the first place.

[Edit]* I'm not sure that this is the exact, literal wording, but I think it's close enough as makes no difference[/edit]

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2004 4:03 am**

TLM wrote:An excellent point. However, kicking up a controversy about it is only going to make more people want to see what it's all about, and Moore can claim once again that his right to free speech is infringed?

I think the audience who wants to see this is already there. I don't picture most people as going outside their bubbles-sorry maybe I am under estimating people here, but I don't. So the college age crowd, and former hippie/peacenik/hard core liberals will likely be the core audience.

Will the publicity generate some extra revenue? Sure-but nothing earth shattering in my opinion. People just don't like to watch movies about politics. Thats why Bowling for Columbine didn't beat whatever that years blockbuster was.

Whether or not it is in the strict sense of the First Amendment is less important than the perception that his right is infringed.

Very astute observation. I agree completely.

Michael Moore wrote: Tell someone they can't watch something or read something, and they'll want to watch and read it even more

*

That's quite possibly what he's trying to do here. If he can give the perception that he's being censored because people in power or "Corporate America" don't want his message to get out, he'll win.[/quote]

Except he won't. Like all demagogue's he has a limited lifespan on what he is selling. Same goes for weirdo's like Rush Limbaugh and the like.

Disney will keep him on tap, because he draws attention to their name on occassion, and in case he produces something of epic value (A cash cow is still a cash cow after all...) and he will keep his segment of the American audience, and eventually get old, and be replaced by the next model.

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2004 4:36 am**

TLM wrote:An excellent point. However, kicking up a controversy about it is only going to make more people want to see what it's all about

Maybe to the extremely ignorant or gullible. In line with what paul said, everyone who is even slightly interested in Moore's new movie is going to see it regardless of who the distributor is. And those who think Moore is a windbag hack, won't. The vast majority of people not part of the previous two demographics probably won't see it either, just because of the following facts:

A. Only masochists go to the movies to watch a documentary
B. Even good movies are struck down because of being too political (see: The Contender)
C. In order to be even slightly interested in some biased pundit's interpretation on the "facts" surrounding 9/11, you must first have a significant stake in what occurred. And while I think EVERYONE has a stake in the 9/11 attacks and the fallout from them, the majority of people are too apathetic to recognize it.

It takes some ambition to actually get your ass to the movie theater or the video rental store with the intention of watching moore's movie. It takes FAR less ambition to get pissed at Disney for attaching their name to a movie with a message that a significant share of Americans would be more than a little 'put off' about.

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2004 4:47 am**

I dunno, E. I think I'd go to the movies to watch Ken Burns's Civil War documentary - yeah, all of it.

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2004 5:15 am**

Yeah. Those documentaries are awesome. Only if I can watch it again...

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2004 5:22 am**

I think everyone should just watch Faranheit, and then come to a conclusion off of their formidable opinions. If you don't don't want to watch the movie, nobody's forcing it. *shrug*

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2004 8:43 am**

I don't think it is a big secret or even any kind of one that Moore doesn't like Bush all that much. So why didn't he wait with the movie until the election is a bit closer then 6 months?

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2004 8:48 am**

Maybe he didn't have a choice. After disney turned him down its possible someone else told the story.

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2004 1:26 pm**

news.bbc.co.uk wrote:Disney has accused director Michael Moore of engineering a dispute about the release of his new film to gain maximum publicity for it.

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2004 6:44 pm**

Bush Bashing sells. How hard is that to see? I'll watch it.

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2004 7:28 pm**

This was in both the Wall Street Journal and on NPR this morning, and pretty much they both said the same thing: Mirimax (owned by Disney) told Moore that they're not releasing his film, and they said this a few months ago.

Now Moore is making a stink (and that's what he's good for), claiming that Mirimax can't do this because the only thing in the contract that says they can axe a film is if it gets an NC-17, or if it goes over a specific budget-limit, which he claims neither happened. So he's getting mad.

I personally like to see his films. We actually watched "Roger and Me" in my ethics class, and I thought it was hilarious. I've not caught his other films, but I want to. I figure he'll get someone to distribute it under an "indy" label and stick it to the supposed Man.

I have no idea if the Jeb Bush thing is for real, but it sounds plausible; considering the IRBs being issued in my city/state, IRBs are a big deal, but it's hard to reneg on them. Considering the shoestring Disney is running it's parks on, Loosing the tax abatements might hurt it's bottom line, but I'm not sure that they'd pull IRBs based on one Michael Moore film.

But then again... who knows?

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2004 8:56 am**

Guys, seriously; it's Miramax.

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2004 1:23 pm**

DV8 wrote:
news.bbc.co.uk wrote:Disney has accused director Michael Moore of engineering a dispute about the release of his new film to gain maximum publicity for it.

A follow up on the article linked above is right here. In summary, Disney is saying Moore has known for a year that Disney would not distribute the film.

Posted: **Sun May 09, 2004 9:59 pm**

If Moore's only arguement is that his free speech is being repressed, he's out of his mind. Just find a different distributor. Kevin Smith had the same problem with Miramax over Dogma, but evertually found a distributor in Lion's Gate. Someone out there will release the flick.

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2004 1:07 am**

Doesn't really matter. Miramax are likely in breach of contract and Moore will be able to take them to the curve. Even if it is (somehow) the case that Miramax are not obligated to release the film, they are likely holding it in a constructive trust. There doesn't seem to be much room to manuever. Miramax will almost certainly have to release this film.

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2004 1:37 am**

I SERIOUSLY DOUBT that Miramax has broken contract with Moore. What do you think is the most likely thing -- That a Disney lawyer intentionally overlooked a potential lawsuit? or that Moore is grandstanding to build publicity?

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2004 1:45 am**

You aren't considering the Eisner factor.

He is easily capable of blowing a measly few million dollars breaking a contract as stupidly as this... heck that is only a few days of his own salary.

The little blurb I read about this said the decision came down from on high at disney, the head of mirimax hates eisner and it supposedly reveling in yet another example of his incompetence.

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2004 1:47 am**

The Eclipse wrote:I SERIOUSLY DOUBT that Miramax has broken contract with Moore. What do you think is the most likely thing -- That a Disney lawyer intentionally overlooked a potential lawsuit? or that Moore is grandstanding to build publicity?

Granted I wouldn't trust Moore as a source at the best of times. However, if I were Disney I'd just ask what would cost me more: the potential damages for breach of contract or (if it's true) loss of government funds from Florida. If it would cost me more to publish I'd take the kick in the guts of the lawsuit or (more likely) sell the distribution rights to someone else, which is probably what Miramax will do.

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2004 1:58 am**

Remember though, it's Moore that brought up the entire florida perspective, therefore it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I don't think that the jeb bush/florida connection has a damn thing to do with this. I think it goes no further than Disney/Miramax not wanting to alienate part of their extremely diverse customer base. I think that by distributing this movie they stand to lose more money that Moore will /ever/ make for them.

But then again, I don't see Moore as the only potential scumbag. Disney may very well be using this as an attempt to prove themselves to the more conservative aspects of american society, something that has been ailing ever since Disneyland's "homosexual day" a couple years back.

Bulldrek v3.0

Freedom of Speech, Censorship and Michael Moore

Freedom of Speech, Censorship and Michael Moore

Re: Freedom of Speech, Censorship and Michael Moore