Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
However, as we've all seen in the past, Michael Moore treats the truth like silly putty - something to be bent, twisted and manipulated to fit his needs.
|
While you do have the perfectly reasonable right to hold this opinion, I (and I am sure, many others) am not convinced- even after reading the various critisms, counter-critisms, and counter-counter-critisms of BFC. I do not think he is untruthful and, as far as making op-ed peices with a slant-that is hardly a crime of character.
So you may doubt Moore's word in this issue, based on your opinion of him and his work, but I would not expect everyone to have the same doubts.
My take on this current issue is this- Last year Moore recieved
informal word that his film may not get distribution as outlined in his contract. Now that the film is finished and is being screened that informal word became
official and
final so he decided to spill the beans.
I see nothing dubious about this turn of events.
As Moore points out in the letter I posted before, Various Disney-owned media outlets offer plenty of partisan content,( Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity) only from the otherside of the aisle from Moore. Mirimax also provides alot of films that can hardly be deemed "family entertainment" ( Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction and many others).
So the various reasons provided not to distribute the film dont stand up to scrunity. Considering the Moore's political leaning and the content of Farenheit 9/11 is is logical to deduce that Disney is reneging on their contract for political reasons rather than the flimsy reasons they have offered. [/QUOTE]
I actually agree, Chewbacca. Disney is just practicing some Corporate C.Y.A. in order to continue recieving the tax breaks and incentives they currently recieve. Is it "petty" for Jeb Bush to be so fickle about how the tax breaks are handled? Absolutely. But that isn't Disney's fault. They are just doing what they have to do to continue recieving those tax breaks and incentives...which would add up to a very substantial amount in Disney's case.
Bottom line is that distributing this film could potentially cost Disney several thousand dollars (perhaps even millions) in lost tax breaks and incentives. So it is in Disney's "best interests" to NOT distribute the film. That isn't "shitty" - that is just business. Jeb Bush may or may not be petty enough to "punish" Disney for distributing the film, but that is a very big chance for Disney to take. So they do what they have to do to avoid ruffling the feathers of the person controlling the tax break money strings.
As for Michael Moore and his manipulations of the "truth" - there have been PLENTY of criticisms regarding the manner in which scenes were edited in BFC and in the way certain things were presented. For instance, he tried to make a big deal out of the NRA holding their annual meeting in Denver shortly after the Columbine shootings. His goal was to make the NRA appear to be a bunch of insensitive clods. What he failed to mention is that a convention of that size is planned at least a year in advance and the shootings took place too close to the convention date for the NRA to consider moving to another location.
As far as Moore's "counter claims", it is just like his rebuttal to the Disney. He is implying that Disney poured $6 million dollars into Fareinheit 9/11 - which indicated to him there was no problem with the film. The truth is that the money came from Miramax (NOT Disney) and Disney had let him know from almost Day One they would NOT agree to distribute the film. You claim that was an "informal position" - but Eisner sounded pretty straight forward in his position on the film from the very beginning. The fact is that Eisner said they would not agree to distribute the film from the very beginning and when Moore found out they were serious, he started this latest publicity campaign to smear Disney and make himself appear to be the perpetual victim again.
THAT is why I have so much trouble with Michael Moore's version of "the truth". Which is really a shame. He does address controversial topics and presents issues that should be considered and discussed. But since he always puts his own personal slant on the information given - it is impossible to fully believe anything he says as being 100% true. I would give him a LOT more credibility if he DID do DOC-umentaries instead of SHOCK-umentaries (I loved that term). But since he insists on bending everything he does, there is no way to tell what the actual facts are.