Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Yorick: You need to visit the place. So that's two on your list. Australia and New York. Surely you can come and visit New York. It's only a few hours away right? Then you could see for yourself how ineffective those gun laws are.

Yorick come on down to Bama where we pass out bullets like candy and every day in the fall there are 10,000's of guns being shot and carried around, (execpt on Saturday for 3 hours when the Crimson Tide is playing football) We got 10 year olds that can shoot the eye out of a buzzard from 250 yards.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I am unsure what makes you think I agree with BFC's "overall message" and 'central truth. For one thing I am unclear what BFC's "overall message" or "central truth" actually are and I have actually seen the film. Another thing is this accusation that I have "overlooked" falsehood out of some sort of sympathy with M. Moore. My objection is that Moore's alleged 'falsehoods' are unproven, though I have seen some heavily biased, hyperbole filled attempts. Just because folks repeat the opinion "Moore is a Liar" doesn't make it true or a fact. It is lack of credible, objective, critically skeptical, evidence- not sympathy- that has formed my opinion of the film.

Well, there has been plenty of evidence provided that Moore used editing techniques to create misleading scenes in the movie. You don't feel bothered or misled by these "creative editing" techniques (which is basically what I said in my previous response). That's fine. I don't feel "misled" when I watch Bill O'Reilly either - but at least I do recognize the spin he is putting on his stories.

As for the accusation that "Moore is a Liar" is nothing more than opinion...that's just being blind to the facts. Forget Bfc. Forget F 9/11. I have repeatedly pointed out where Moore told an outright LIE in his interview regarding the "controversy" of Disney refusing to distribute the film. Moore claims he thought everything was "OK" and he had no idea Disney didn't want to distribute the film. That's just utter bullshit because Moore's agent was told a YEAR in advance that Disney WOULD NOT distribute the film under any circumstances. Yes, Miramax chose to fund the film anyway - despite Eisner's explicit directive that they NOT fund it. And Miramax exec's said they would try to change Eisner's mind and "hoped" they could reach an agreement. But Moore doesn't mention ANY of that. In the interview, he presents it as if he had NO IDEA there was ANY controversy about his film whatsoever. That is fact, not opinion. I provided a link to the interview and cut-n-pasted the relevant statements in my response. You keep asking for "unbiased" sources that Moore lies. Well I've used his own words...that's about as "unbiased" as you can get. The documentation and the spin Moore put on this upcoming film is right there for you to see in black and white (or whatever font color you choose to use). You told me I should put my dislike for Moore aside and view BfC on my own. I'm asking you to do the same thing. Put your agreement with Moore aside and look at the interview and the words he uses, then contrast that with the fact that he knew well in advance this was going to happen.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: So what if they scaled down thier meeting, they still had one. So what if was planned in advanced or required by law in another state. I fail to see how ommitting this in the film constitutes deception. Another NON-ISSUE.

If it is a NON-ISSUE, then why did Moore even bother to put it in his film? What reason did he have to even mention the NRA having a meeting in Denver just a few days after the Columbine Tragedy. As you said yourself, it is a NON-ISSUE because the timing of the meeting in relation to the shooting at the school was nothing more than a very unfortunate circumstance. But Moore does make it a point to highlight the NRA Annual Meeting in Denver (which had been planned a year in advance as required by law - a fact that is highly relevant to the time and location of the meeting), and he splices footage from two separate meetings and combine it as one. Again, why bother to do that? If the meeting in Denver really WAS an example of gross callousness by the NRA, surely that point could have stood on it's own without any editing or splicing. But if he is going to mention the meeting in Denver in relation to the Columbine Shooting - and he is presenting his film as a documentary or representative of the truth - then he should have also mentioned that the meeting had been planned a year ahead of time and that NRA is required by law to hold such a meeting every year.

I agree that - due to the special circumstances - the NRA should have at least tried to delay the meeting for a month or two and schedule it in a different city - but you are talking about a HUGE conference that requires a great deal of planning ahead of time (which is why the location is chosen a year in advance). It may have simply been logistically impossible for them to move the meeting to different venue or delay the date of the meeting. I agree wholeheartedly that they should have tried to do both of these...but I also acknowledge that it simply may not have been possible.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: None of these things seem to matter to the citizens protesting (who Moores critics always conviently omit from their critism of the film-takes on to know one?) outside the rally, it didnt matter the Mayor if Denver who asked the NRA to cancel their meeting, so why should it matter to me, whether it was in the film or not?

What makes you think the protesting citizens had any knowledge that the meeting was planned a year in advance and was required by law? I didn't know it until I read the earlier thread about BfC. I agree that it wouldn't have mattered to them even if they had known those facts, but I think it is highly unlikely that more than a few of them were actually aware of the facts to begin with.

The mayor, on the other hand, probably DID know the meeting was booked a year ahead of time and was required by law. But I agree with his plea to the NRA to cancel the meeting due to the special circumstances involved. As I said before, if EVER there was a time for the NRA to try to bend the rules, THAT was it. And I DO fault them for not at least TRYING to exhaust every possible avenue of delaying and moving the meeting.

[Ziroc]

Thread is getting way too big, start a new one please .


PS: Michael Moore is a one-sided WILD Liberal. I believe his lies and spin as much as I believe Rush Limbaugh. Spin is spin, and does NO ONE good. It's extremely sad any human is that one sided. Becoming BLIND because of party belief.

When one lies enough, they begin to believe their lies. (and make a movie about them) [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]