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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, do you people understand what that means.
Originally posted by DEEZNUTZFREEDOM OF SPEECH, do you people understand what that means.
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.
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.
Seems that the New York Times was hustled/suckered?
seekerof
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.
Originally posted by CommonSense
namehere,
Can you clarify your last post? Quite frankly, I have no idea what you're trying to get at.
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]
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.
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.
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??
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...
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.