Disney blocking release of new Michael Moore film

Pages : 1 [2] 3

skinsfanthru&thru
05-06-2004, 01:43 PM
ouch, spoken like true conservatives.

Can anyone deny that Disney has an agenda here in choosing to not distribute this film?

if u were the head of disney, would u wish to release a heavily one sided political movie about a very sensitive subject, especially during an election year?
i had heard the thing about disney telling moore a year ago on headline news and in the interview he didn't deny it being true about him knowing miramax wouldn't be releasing his movie for about a year, but he did say the past few days because of this, his phones have been ringing off the hook. this guy from day one has sounded like someone who'd do anything to get his movies publicity as long as it helped him make more money. if he's so intent on uncovering "political conspiracies" why hasn't he made any movies about waco?

JoeRedskin
05-06-2004, 01:52 PM
if he's so intent on uncovering "political conspiracies" why hasn't he made any movies about waco?

Because there was no conspiracy at Waco. None at all. Forget you ever heard the terms "conspiracy" and "Waco" in the same sentence.

You have been warned.

:laughing-

Carnage
05-06-2004, 02:47 PM
If you have to suppress free infomation to aid your cause, the cause needs to be examined more.

Daseal
05-06-2004, 03:39 PM
Well, Disney doesn't exactly have their hands completely clean when it comes to image. They are the producers of such movies as Pulp Fiction (that's appealing to a young audience!) Kill Bill, SHAOLIN SOCCER!!!! (hurray!), Prozac nation, Train Spotting, Reservoir Dogs. Many of these movies are extremely violent, some I have no idea about (Shaolin soccer!) but I know most are heavily influenced by drugs and violence.

Bowling for Columbine was done by MGM studios, which if I'm not mistaken is also a Disney studio.

I understand their reasons for not wanting to release it, but they should have known when taking it, after reading the script and gotten the basic gist that he was going to devestate the Bush's since there's an obvious connection between their family and the Bin Laden family. I don't blame them for not releasing it, but I feel they should sell the right to another studio with some balls.

This has nothing to do with Disney's image to uphold, it has to do with their tax status. They don't want to get loaded down with taxes by Sir Jeb. Don't try to make it out like they are trying to protect their lovely self-image even though they put out movies constantly littered with drugs, sex, and violenece.

I for one want to see it, and often times Michael Moore goes over the top, but you can't take anything anyone says when it comes to politics fully to heart. He does unravel quite a few of very nice tidbits, and it seems conservatives are more afraid of him than anything.

I'm suprised Jeb hasn't attacked Disney yet, seeing as how they give their gay workers benefits as if they were married. That's an outrage, in Jesus's eyes you know! Or at least that's how the Bush family thinks.

JoeRedskin
05-06-2004, 05:16 PM
I understand their reasons for not wanting to release it, but they should have known when taking it, after reading the script and gotten the basic gist that he was going to devestate the Bush's since there's an obvious connection between their family and the Bin Laden family. I don't blame them for not releasing it, but I feel they should sell the right to another studio with some balls.

Not having read the contract (and not being an entertainmen lawyer), I can't be sure BUT I would assume that, as part of any contract between Disney and Moore, Disney bought the rights to be the exclusive owner of anything produced by Moore. If another studio wants to pony up the cash, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Disney sold the rights. But, as Disney has a significant economic interest and possible risk in doing so, the price to do so would probably be high. Still, if Moore can convince somebody else to make the offer, more power to him.



This has nothing to do with Disney's image to uphold, it has to do with their tax status. They don't want to get loaded down with taxes by Sir Jeb. Don't try to make it out like they are trying to protect their lovely self-image even though they put out movies constantly littered with drugs, sex, and violenece.

Fine, whether it's for direct (tax) or indirect (image) economic considerations, the choice is Disney's. Moore sold them that right when he signed the contract. Again, by selling them the right to publish or not publish his work, Moore took the risk that they would choose not to publish his work in return for a nice payout, top of the line name recognition, excellent distribution system, and significant advertising back up. If he wanted complete control over the release, he could have attempted to negotiate it with Disney OR signed with another company which wouldn't have had some of the benefits inherent to Disney corp but would have given him greater control.

My point is not that Disney is trying to protect their self image, rather it's that Moore entered into a contract with Disney in which each side got benefits and took risks. One of the risks Moore took is that Disney would choose not to publish his works. Disney took the risk that they would get nothing of value to them in return for their investment in Moore.



He does unravel quite a few of very nice tidbits, and it seems conservatives are more afraid of him than anything.

Afraid? No. Tired of having to point out, discuss and otherwise debunk his radically one sided view? Yes.



I'm suprised Jeb hasn't attacked Disney yet, seeing as how they give their gay workers benefits as if they were married. That's an outrage, in Jesus's eyes you know! Or at least that's how the Bush family thinks.

Couldn't resist the chance to make an obligatory, gratuitous, and off-topic swipe at a Bush could you?:thumb:

JWsleep
05-06-2004, 06:47 PM
Um, check this out:

Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901)

skinsfanthru&thru
05-06-2004, 07:11 PM
Um, check this out:

Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901)

somehow this will still be seen by political bandwagon jumpers as disney trying to keep moore from speaking his "mind."

but this just confirms that moore is only in it to make the most money possible on the worst situations that aren't caused by democratic leadership.

Daseal
05-06-2004, 08:16 PM
It's a good move by Moore. We're all talking about it, aren't we?

MTK
05-07-2004, 08:29 AM
If that was his intention it sure worked, it definitely drummed up some controversy.

JoeRedskin
05-07-2004, 08:35 AM
Controversy? What controversy? I thought we were all in agreement. Heck, me and Daseal agree on everything. :laughing-

EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum