It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

POLITICS: Michael Moore Film Bashing Bush is Blocked from Distribution

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2004 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Hey! I'm really impressed. Of all the posts on this strory only flexipaul brought up censorship as an issue. My hat's off to the rest of you! flexipaul, censorship can only be carried out by the government, not by a private institution or an individual acting on his own behalf. What Disney has done is to rightly evaluate their participation in promoting Moore's picture. As a profit oriented institution, they owe it to their shareholders to back money-making ventures, not the political fantasies of someone just a little bit more than off-the-wall. I agree with your thought on free speech -- that's exactly what Disney used.


[Edited on 5/5/2004 by CommonSense]




posted on May, 5 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   

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.


seekerof


I am leaning towards this theory as well. This reeks of media hype.
If that is the case, then it is brilliant. Creating a demand for the movie would be quite an acheivement.........



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I made the same point on a different thread.





posted on May, 5 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I know one person who will use a little "Common Sense" and not waste money on a ticket!



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Michael Moore cannot shop his movie around at this point because he does not own it.
What needs to happen is MM to front the cash for his "documentaries" so that HE is in control of their release.
The same issue has plagued the music industry for decades.

People- Own your publishing rights!!!
There is no excuse for an established filmaker like MM to have to scrape money up from Miramax when he could have end-to-end control over his art.

Disney will sue if he does not comply so it looks like this movie is finished. Thanks Jeb, George W. and Michael Eisner. Way to limit free speech in the land of the free.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Hey looked what happened right after "Columbine"
was released. K-mart filed for Bankruptcy protection.
I guess they sold a lot of AMMO, til then
He's such a powerful entity in Hollywood! yuk yuk.

Truthfully, I think MOORE is full of himself.
He creates situations, that are portrayed as
unscripted actions.

It's not censorship, it's business. Lots of movies rot in the attic after production, or are released later.
Wasn't the "phonebooth" movie such a flick, After 911?

I am going to Disneyland for a few days next week.
I think I'll spend a few more bucks than origianlly planned!



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I reckon there are elements of truth to what Michael Moore discovers. I also reckon that Farenheit 911 would lose Bush the election, or at the very least Bush is worried that it will help him lose so he is effectively trying to prevent it being released in the USA.

Thats a good enough reason to try and get it released by whatever means.

If its just hype then good. I wan't to see it when I come to the USA in September.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Untill the 14th amendment is changed to specifically exclude corporations from being considered a person, disney and any corporation can do what they want and have the same rights as any person.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   

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.


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!?!?




posted on May, 5 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
www.marccooper.com Is bloviator Michael Moore making up stuff again? Sure looks like it.... Dissecting the current dust-up, it seems clear that Disney never intended to distribute Moore's film. Maybe the Mousketeers are cowards, but at least they are consistent. And Moore is whining now only to hype the pre-Cannes buzz. Sources report that Miramax never planned to release the Moore film, that it was always slated to come out through Lions Gate, as did the earlier Dogma. Many of us knew something was fishy was going on here. [Edited on 5-5-2004 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   

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!?!?



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)



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 04:50 PM
link   

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]


OK, so I think it's time for a little devious behavior. Let's dump the MM trash and replace it with a Jeff Daniels' Michigan classic "Escanaba in Da Moonlight". It will either be a smashing success at Cannes or we'll really know what the French are all about!






posted on May, 5 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Is bloviator Michael Moore making up stuff again? Article



"Publicity-hound Moores allegations about Disney ring false. ...it seems clear that Disney never intended to distribute Moore's film.... And Moore is whining now only to hype the pre-Cannes buzz."



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   

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.




Time Out!!!! Why would a shareholder want to pay for this? Quote: "
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. "

This is not about free speech as in Disney's going to pay for someone elses position. THEY DON"T HAVE TO!! THEY SHOULDN'T BE EXPECTED TO!!!

The management and the Board should be concerned with one thing, if Disney releases this jerk's (i.e. director's movie) how much will it cost to the shareholders in the future revenue (i.e. money people will give to Disney) for future movies to piss people off by backing this dawg! Why do I feel the average age of the ATS member has dropped from 34 to 12 ????




posted on May, 5 2004 @ 06:04 PM
link   

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)


As your own post indicates, you already have a bias. The fact is I would be equally pissed under your assumptions. Disney should not be on either side of a political issue. No network or TV station should be there either. I'll give you an ATS applause (worth 250 points) if you can tell me why.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 06:19 PM
link   
This is a perfect example of free speach and capitalism. I love yall yelling censorship. It amzes me how blind some of yall are and sheepish. Like stated above its a private business that can choose what they wanna distribute and what they dont want to. Its MM fault for goin this route. I would give he alot more respect if this truley was and idependent film. I know he has to have some cash for the books he wrote and Bowling. Also im sure that one rich democrat who is willing to give away all his money will back this movie. Im mean people MM is trying to pull one over on you. And this incident right here shows how snakish he really is. He would call foul if it was the other way around and write a book about it. Heck if disney did this to an anti kerry movie MM would be applauding them.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 06:22 PM
link   
sheese people, you dont get it do you? corporations have rights too, you complain about the government violating constitutional rights and all that, but when a corporation exercises their rights by doing something in their interest that you dont like you act as if they are part of the government and have to do what you want and have to be accountable to you.

do you expect that from your neighbor, or anyone you meet on the street? yea, you obviously dont so you shouldnt expect it from disney.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Hey Namehere, Great response! I really wonder what some people are thinking?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join