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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2004 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seth Bullock
Remember that quote came fom Moore's agent. Not Disney, Eisner or even Moore himself. Disney said they did not want to be involved for other reasons.

It seems to me that Moore's agent may have watched to many of Mike's own films, in which such unsubstantiated "quotes" are rampant.

While Disney did deny the claim that tax breaks were behind their refusal to distribute the film, they also said that it would not be in their best interests to do so:

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 also noticed that the movie will be sold overseas. It is just being blocked in North America.

Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.


This controvery may be an attempt, by Miramax, to increase interest in the film, in order to offset the profit loss they will incur as a result of having to split profits with an outside distributor.

Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, but such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.

While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution, which would ideally happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.




posted on May, 6 2004 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Hang on a 'mo CommonSense! What does the govt. publish that they might want to censor, what i am tying to get at is that the corporations pump out the news (read trash) and the govt tells them what they can/can't print/broadcast..
Surely it would then be the govt. telling Disney not to put the film out, and not Disney "deciding" to take up the job of the broadcasting standards commission (or what ever name they give the propaganda/censor dept.).



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Corinthas
I think you've missed the point. It's bee said a few times in this thread. The only entity that can engage in censorship is the government. That's by definition. Individuals or corporations cannot engage in censorship. That's also by definition. They are merely expressing their right of free speech and freedom to associate.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 08:38 AM
link   

as quoted by mOjOm
If Mr. Eisner did in fact say anything along the lines of Not wanting to upset Jeb Bush because it may lead to Political 'favors' (Tax Breaks) being taken away from Disney Co. Florida.


First off mOjOm, your fingers work?
What search engine you using?

Found this in a matter of minutes, though it doesn't answer your question, per se'....but best I could find, in minutes.



Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said that Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would anger Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida and endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures there.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."

Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.

The Data Lounge

You had made mention of this earlier, probably because of the time of the exchange of the posts between you and I, it was not fully understood by me:

What concerns me is whether or not Eisner actually said something along the lines about not wanting to Offend Bush or Jeb or whatever. If that was a complete lie, then someone, including the NY Times, needs to start getting their facts straight before publishing them. Otherwise I would think someone is risking a possible lawsuit in printing 'False Statements' or something along those lines.


In doing a bit more looking, it appears form the cross-referencing on this, that it is Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Moore's agent, that has been making such claims. I have yet to see or find where Mr. Eisner has directly made such mentions. When I get more time, I will dig and cross-reference a bit more.




seekerof

[Edited on 6-5-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Is everyone forgetting the fact that Bowling for Columbine won an Oscar. So obviously a lot of people agree with his views. I personally thought it was well done and shows why the U.S. is so F*CKED up.

This latest incident is another example of how your freedoms are getting stripped away. I highly doubt that this latest venture would do poorly in the box office or would be an NC-17 rating. I believe those are the two stipulations that allow Disney to stop it's release.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH, do you people understand what that means.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
First off mOjOm, your fingers work?
What search engine you using?

Found this in a matter of minutes, though it doesn't answer your question, per se'....but best I could find, in minutes.


seekerof
[Edited on 6-5-2004 by Seekerof]


Search engine?? Who needs a search engine when I have people like you to do my thinking and research for me!!
kidding

Actually, I found part of my answer without even using the internet. This whole controversy is all over the news right now. I was watching it this morning and it showed Mr. Moore himself saying that the reason Disney won't distribute the movie is because of the 'Tax Break' thing. So, this time it came from the Horses mouth, so to speak.

It then showed Mr. Eisner saying that the reason they were not going to distribute the movie was because they didn't want to produce such a controversial movie during an Election Year.

Now, that is still a little on the questionable side IMO, as it isn't exactly denying the claims made by Mr. Moore, but isn't validating them either. It very well could be that the reason for not wanting to get involved with it during an Election Year is because what Mr. Moore said is actually true. Or it could be that he just doesn't want to be a part of it because it could turn into bad press and that kind of thing, who knows for sure.

Personally, I can understand why Mr. Eisner would want to avoid getting involved with a controversial film of this type in an effort to avoid tainting the Image of Disney Co. (Although IMO the Image since Walt died has been tainted pretty bad anyway.) So at the moment I'm still not able to decide exactly what is really going on or exactly who is 'playing' who in this whole ordeal. Something still doesn't seem right to me though, I just don't have a clear enough perspective yet of what is really going on and/or if someone is pulling someone else's stings at this point.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, do you people understand what that means.

It's only been mentioned numerous times in this thread that "freedom of speech" doesn't apply in this case. Moore does not own the distribution rights which is normally the case with movies, books, recordings, etc.. Miramax/Disney owns those rights and they can distribute or not as they please. Michael sold his rights to make a profit. That's how most artists (using the term loosely here) make a living.

Moore is enjoying all the freedom of speech he wants right now on his website and in the media and no one has denied him of that. Miramax/Disney have no obligation to Moore to be used as a sounding board for his beliefs. The First Amendment doesn't apply here.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZFREEDOM OF SPEECH, do you people understand what that means.


do you? only the GOVERNMENT has to abide by the constitution, not the citizens or corporations(which by law are considered individuals because both a person and group of persons act as one entity .



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 08:50 PM
link   
namehere,
Can you clarify your last post? Quite frankly, I have no idea what you're trying to get at.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Just ran across this:
Michael Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt

Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.



Seems that the New York Times was hustled/suckered?




seekerof



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outland

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, do you people understand what that means.

It's only been mentioned numerous times in this thread that "freedom of speech" doesn't apply in this case. Moore does not own the distribution rights which is normally the case with movies, books, recordings, etc.. Miramax/Disney owns those rights and they can distribute or not as they please. Michael sold his rights to make a profit. That's how most artists (using the term loosely here) make a living.

Moore is enjoying all the freedom of speech he wants right now on his website and in the media and no one has denied him of that. Miramax/Disney have no obligation to Moore to be used as a sounding board for his beliefs. The First Amendment doesn't apply here.


Yes, it does. When the government applies financial pressure to an individual or corpration to chill a certain type of speech, then the First Amendment comes in. YOu repugnants ALWAYS leave out part of the argument, making your argument the typical lie that it is.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   


Seems that the New York Times was hustled/suckered?


seekerof


Yup!! Although they weren't the only ones who got duped into making a media event out of this thing. Like I said earlier, that same viewpoint was being played all over the news nation wide along with the other Big Stories, Iraqi Photos, Murders, etc. I wonder if the media will now come out with a new report about how it was a 'Stunt' and admit that they were all played as pawns in the game??

This doesn't exactly look good on Moore's behalf now though. Pulling such tricks just to get noticed is somewhat expected for a 'Nobody' who is looking for that one big exposure or something, but Moore is already known and wouldn't have trouble finding exposure for the things he has to say. He's risking his reputation of being a 'Straight Shooter', which is not something he can afford to lose. His approach of getting to the Truth and clearing away the B.S. and Lies IS his chosen Platform. If he's not careful he's going to wind up being viewed as just as much of a Propagandist as all the other 'Spin Doctors' out there.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Michael Moore is brilliant. Controversy follows him around Film Festivals and Award Ceremonies, people talk about him and banning his content, there is even more Bush-Disney "conspiracy" uncovered, discussion forums are abuzz with flame wars, and people go to see his movie - all on a decidedly limited PR budget and low-fi strategy. Brilliant.



Media analysis is not all that difficult.



Hey, has anyone heard from member "postings" lately? He was doing some research into media ownership and would find this thread interesting.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CommonSense
namehere,
Can you clarify your last post? Quite frankly, I have no idea what you're trying to get at.


ok, sorry, i'll try to explain better, corporations are run by a group of people so it has the same protection as a person because of this.

before 1889 corporations didnt have the same right as a person untill they decided to fight it by using the 14th amendment as part of their argument, read about Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company or even about corporate personhood, if i didnt explain it good enough.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Just ran across this:
Michael Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt

Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.

You just ran across it?
Dude, seriously...how hard and long did you have to dig through questionable resources to finally come up with a newspaper on the other side of the globe willing to spin THAT completely innoccuous CNN interview into: "Mike Moore Admits Stunt"

The New Zealand Herald???
Skimming for Kevin Sorbo sightings or interviews with LOTR Hobbit #2?

Funny, the CNN interview didn't take it the way your paper did. I didn't take it that way when I saw it. The interviewer certainly didn't write it up that way...CNN

Even reading your article which is nothing but an editorialization of quotes from the CNN interview...


But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

...I still don't see Micheal Moore "admitting stunt".

But maybe it is a stunt. A stunt to pressure Disney, just like he's been doing for the past year...but did he admit that? Nope.

Anyway, just picking on the assumption of that article's headline. If it is a stunt to stick it to Disney in the press like I'm starting to surmise...good for him.

It's about time the left started using the media like the cheap whore the right does.

[Edited on 6-5-2004 by RANT]



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
[Yes, it does. When the government applies financial pressure to an individual or corpration to chill a certain type of speech, then the First Amendment comes in. YOu repugnants ALWAYS leave out part of the argument, making your argument the typical lie that it is.


If you read the whole thread it is very apparent that no financial pressure was put on Disney. The only lie here is the one told by Moore and his agent.

You seem to only see lies when it suits your purpose.

I think the real reason behind this is the inaccuracies in Moore's earlier work, and Disney's desire to avoid the controversy.



[Edited on 6-5-2004 by Seth Bullock]



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 12:10 AM
link   
The Micheal Moore and Disney Show has how many possible objectives Rant?
Both, Eisner and Moore, are surely rubbing their collective hands together in glee over this.
Why? Let's see what the over-dramatized hype has possible done:

* Whatever Moore does with this film/documentary will undoubtedly give Eisner/Disney a 'cut' off the profits. They do own rights to the film/documentary.
* Eisner/Disney gets 'victimization' rights and thus allows Eisner to take liberal 'pot-shots' at Gov. JebB. How? It allows Eisner/Disney the ability to claim that Jeb is going to raise Disney's taxes?
* Moore gets increased hype for his film/documentary through public relations manipulation(s)....as already indicated.
* With the hype comes demand and increased interest to see what all the "controversy" is about. This will also undoubtedly attract a possible distributor.
* Disney and Eisner is and are in deep shyte financial problems. As such, this 'stunt' may give Eisner breathing room and quite possibly save his job and lucrative salary.

Stunt...hype....he said....they didn't say.....
Really doesn't matter....you see MMoore lives on "cause and effect" and this situation is perfect example of it. Just the more money that will go into his pocket by those who so deem his information as truth and likewise pay to see his 'stuff'.
Knock yourself out dude....it is after all, capitolism at work, which MMoore so desparately claims that he hates.....all the while whistling to the bank and laughing his ass off.





seekerof



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Yes, it does. When the government applies financial pressure to an individual or corpration to chill a certain type of speech, then the First Amendment comes in. YOu repugnants ALWAYS leave out part of the argument, making your argument the typical lie that it is.


From an alledged "repugnant" to a supposed "LIEberal", I will explain this as plainly as I can....

First: "Government financial pressure" was only an alledged reason, eagerly chomped on by conspiracy fans and Bush-hating LIEberals.

Second: Disney/Miramax (D/M) legally owe no freedom of speech to Moore. They have the full legal right to present "entertainment" that fits their intent and refuse that which does not, regardless if they paid for it, regardless of their reasoning. Moore sold his rights to D/M so he has no further say in the matter.

Any material that D/M distributes can reflect on their own image. To say that D/M is stepping on Moore's 1st Ammendment rights by refusing distribution would be the same as saying that D/M has no right to it's own image. That would be absurdly incorrect.

D/M has rights to it's image as any other business does. If your employer demanded that you wear a suit and tie while on their time, an arguement of wearing jeans and a t-shirt as "freedom of expression" wouldn't get you very far since you, as their employee, are a part of their image.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm
Yup!! Although they weren't the only ones who got duped into making a media event out of this thing. Like I said earlier, that same viewpoint was being played all over the news nation wide along with the other Big Stories, Iraqi Photos, Murders, etc. I wonder if the media will now come out with a new report about how it was a 'Stunt' and admit that they were all played as pawns in the game??

The NY Times wasn't duped into anything. They have a statement in their article from Disney, stating that they had told Moore's agent AND Miramax in May of '03 that they didn't want to distribute it.

We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."

Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's company, backed out.

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax...
"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said... www.nytimes.com...


As to whether or not this hubbub is a ploy to garner interest in the movie, I'm sure it is, at least in part. It seems to me like Moore's agent and Miramax thought they could convince Disney to change their minds, and agree to let Miramax distribute it in the states.

Mr. Moore once planned to produce the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but "the project wasn't right for Icon,"...
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.

While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution, which would ideally happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.

Obviously, Miramax was aware of the problem, yet they still chose to finance and produce the movie. I think they couldn't alleviate Disney's fear of losing their conservative audience, because of the film, so they are rallying Moore's audience in order to force Disney's hand. They know that if there is a loud enough cry oif protest from those interested in seeing the movie, Disney will undoubtebly acquiesce. As an anticipated bonus, the media attention will also add to their box office draw.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join