It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Seekerof
Personally, this all smells of a media set-up so as to build hype and demand to see this documentary...well done, I say.
Originally posted by Flinx
If Disney is so worried about being erm...."fair and balanced", why don't they just commision a film defending Bush or attacking Kerry? Doing this just makes them look like totalitarian, right-wing, thugish, corporate dicks.
Michael Moore is putting out a movie about HIS take on the Bush administration. It's up to the audience to decide whether or not the believe him. The Passion, was a movie about Mel Gibson's take on the death of Christ. I would liked to see the uproar if they had censored that piece of snuff.
Originally posted by CommonSense
Disney has no obligation to put out a second movie so Moore can air his rant. As a Disney shareholder, I'd go off the wall. Moore's movie is a loser. It' s a political statement he has every right to make -- but on his own dime -- not the shareholders.
You speak of censorship, do you know what it means? Only the government can engage in censorship. I covered this earlier in this thread. When a corporate entitiy (i.e. a business) or an individual acting on his own behalf decides they will not support something, that is their decision, a business decision -- it is not censorship.
With regard to Mel Gibson, he didn't seek someone else to pick up the bill as Moore did. He put his own money up -- at risk -- and took the chance. He could have lost $30 million on the film and the distribution company could have lost $25 million.
Moore's not willing to do that. He whines and wants someone else to take the risk. Not going to happen. He doesn't have the track record of success (Geee!! Wonder why?).
Why is it that just about every liberal I know wants someone else to pay the price of his soapbox!?!?
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
And Moore is whining now only to hype the pre-Cannes buzz. Many of us knew something was fishy was going on here.
[Edited on 5-5-2004 by SkepticOverlord]
Originally posted by Aelita
It's true any corporation should care about the shareholder's value and there is a law about that, so they do have the freedom to release or not release any product at all. So some argue that Disnay is just being apolitical.
In this case, however, not releasing the Moore's film is being even more political than releasing it. It's like telling the public -- "we saw the movie, it's harful influence for you people, you shouldn't watch it". Mind that most laypeople wouldn't even realize that it is distributed by Disney. It's not like Mickey Mouse will parade outside with Moore's sandwichboard. So I think they were not so much concerned about marketing issues as about scoring points with the incumbent.
Originally posted by Flinx
I've only got one question. Would you be opposed to Disney's blocking of a pro-Bush or anti-Kerry films? Now answer honestly....
I'll be honest! I don't like Moore that much. He tends to exaggerate and twist the facts. Thing is, I don't like Bush. I want him to lose to Kerry. However, he has all the odds stacked in his favor. So, I want this movie out because it hurts Bush's chances in November. How does it go....the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
P.S.- As a Disney shareholder, I'd be more upset at some of the crap movies Disney/Miramax have been putting out the last few years (j/k)