It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Disney Forbids Distribution of Film Criticizing Bush

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on May, 12 2004 @ 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
What's really amazing is that after your post is proven to be nothing but tripe because Michael Moore ADMITTED to CNN that he lied, you continue to defend him and yourself.

I have read the CNN interview and I don't see any admittance by Moore that he lied about anything. I also read it in comparison to the original NY Times article and none of the information is contradictory. Where in the CNN interview does Moore admit to lying about anything?

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
Now, since you seem incapable of COMPREHENDING what you posted, I'll go back and paraphrase what the article you posted the link to says. It says that Miramax was "funding the film", i.e., the filming. There was NEVER, repeat, NEVER, an agreement from either Miramax OR DISNEY to distribute the film, and Moore admits to that FACT.

Where has Moore said that Miramax had no contract to distribute the film? According to both the NY Times article and Moore, himself, Miramax did indeed have an agreement to finance the film in exchange for the distribution rights.

Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had distributed Mr. Moore's 1997 film, "The Big One." In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute it.

"In April of 2003, I signed a deal with Miramax, a division of the Walt Disney Co., to finance and distribute my next movie, Fahrenheit 9/11...In my contract it is stated that Miramax will distribute my film in the U.S. through Disney's distribution arm, Buena Vista Distribution. It also gives Miramax the rights to distribute and sell the movie around the world.

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction a previous post, you complained that, "Moore is wrong because Eisner says so!" . Well, although I don't much like Michael Eisner, I don't recall seeing anything proving him to be a liar. However, Michael Moore, on the other hand, has been proven time and time again to make fiction, not documentaries. I'm much more inclined to believe someone who has not had the reputation of lying than another who has been PROVEN to be one!

Perhaps you should THINK about the things you read, not just read them. Comprehension is a wonderful thing....

How deep have you looked, to see if Eisner is lying? What makes him anymore reputable than Moore. Eisner was just removed as chief executive officer of Walt Disney Co, due to a lack of confidence in him by the company's shareholders. I also looked into whether or not Disney was receiving tax breaks and rebates from Florida, and guess what? They are!!

In Osceola County, Fla., Walt Disney World receives the farming break on 1,600 acres of pasture, timber and nurseries where it grows plants for its theme parks. The land, worth $194 million, is taxed as if it were worth $12.3 million, according to the county land records office. Disney spokesman Jacquee Polack said the company keeps a buffer of undeveloped land around the park, but she acknowledged some of this property will be developed.

It wouldn't be the first time. Much of Celebration, Disney's planned community, is built on land that previously received the agricultural tax break.

If the Florida Entertainment Industry Growth Act passes the state Legislature this session, Central Florida will have in its grips an invaluable marketing tool to lure film producers to the region.

The House bill, sponsored by State Rep. Bruno Barreiro, R-Miami, would provide additional tax breaks and exemptions to qualified production companies.

Tax breaks would include a 30 percent refund on sales taxes paid for production purchases and services with a $100,000 limit for each production.
Saving 6 cents on a dollar during a production can translate into $1 million or $2 million in savings, points out Cibella.
Bill Warren, spokesman for Walt Disney World Resort, agrees. "We're very supportive of the concept of the sales tax exemption for producers. We've still got a long way to go to reach our full potential. Concepts like this can really help."

Orlando...has attracted projects such as...Disney's feature animation division and Disney/MGM Studios...

Now if you consider these facts in light of the statement from Disney regarding Moore's movie, it would appear that they may have more to lose, by pissing off the wrong people, then they are willing to admit.

Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film...

A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many.

"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.

I guess they forgot that Disney distributes and syndicates the Sean Hannity radio show every day, or that Rush Limbaugh broadcasts every day on the Disney-owned WABC. Do they consider KILL BILL, VOL. 1 & 2, or Pulp Fiction to be family friendly movies? I sure hope not!!

posted on May, 12 2004 @ 09:05 AM
THank you Jezebel for your wonderful insight. I don't understand why every American is not up in arms over this censorhip, caused indirectly by abuse of government power.

posted on May, 12 2004 @ 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Colonel
THank you Jezebel for your wonderful insight. I don't understand why every American is not up in arms over this censorhip, caused indirectly by abuse of government power.

I think you could attribute it more to Eisner's covering of his own ass rather than government abuse.

Eisner's not sittin pretty like he used to be. But in the end, Disney still retains the rights to the movie, so they still make money off of it.

They just are going to distribute it. They make money either way.

Isn't that what it's all about? Money?

new topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in