Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Davros: I hear on the news that they got a distributor for the film - the Wienstein (sp) boys came through [img]smile.gif[/img]

Which just goes to prove my original point - that this was nothing more than a publicity stunt by Michael Moore from the gitgo.

I'm quite sure that filmmakers DO have to find different distributors far more often than one might think - the only difference is they usually don't make a national case out of it - especially when they knew a year in advance that they would have to seek a different distributor once the film was finished.

Classic storm in a teacup designed to generate interest and increase ticket sales...oh, and take a potshot at Disney in the process. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

All of which it accomplished rather well, Cerek. Moore is an expert manipulator of the media -- which is why is lies are all the more dangerous. I wouldn't mind what he does if he was up front about his misrepresentations. I'd still watch him if he were just anti-Bush. But taking that bias and then splicing and dicing history and the facts to make them look different they are is what goes over the top. The faux image of honesty kills me.

[Davros]

So I will put you two boys down for tickets then - will I?

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Davros: I've got a desert I can sell ya TL . All the good land is pretty much taken around these here parts hombre [img]smile.gif[/img] .

Well I've got some swampland in Florida and some prime urban property right in prestigious Los Angeles* that you could use...

*In South Central, above a bowling alley and below another bowling alley, and surrounded by gang bangers and crack houses.

Yorick, you said Bowling For Columbine was a great film. Not because it was brilliantly shot, edited and presented (which it was, but unlike controversial films by Orson Welles and Oliver Stone, it just wasn't good in the end) and you also said that I got my understanding from watching TV. That was a gross assumption and you should have known better. Now, I don't know what the hell you've 'learned' in your time in America, but if you think Bowling For Columbine represents any kind of insight into America at all, I'm afraid that you missed something. If travelling to places and visiting them brings this kind of insight, which I would say has the depth of field of a telephoto lens, I'm afraid your demand that I travel to Australia is moot.

Also, if you don't want me to apply my logic to an Australian situation, don't apply your Australian logic through your vote to an American situation. You voting for gun control inconveniences and endagers me and if I get hurt because I was disarmed by the law, I'm going to personally blame you for voting in favor of that law.

Now, the following document doesn't apply to Australia, Britain, Germany, Russia, Jamaica, or any other country, it does however apply to America...

Just the Facts on gun control, in America. I thought this source would be a fitting close to that particular argument.

Finally, quite a few critics who have reviewed the film, including those who gave BfC positive reviews, had bad things to say about Farenheit 9/11, which included sort of a 'wet firecracker' effect due the lack of serious visceral appeal in the film, and a lot of fluff matter that Moore never substantiated. Sounds a lot like BfC, but it doesn't sell something people want to believe in.

[ 06-05-2004, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

[Davros]

WOOHOO

[Oblivion437]

Actually, to avoid offending bog-dwellers, we now refer to swampland as wetlands.

[Lanesra]

[quote]Originally posted by Oblivion437:

[qb] Also, if you don't want me to apply my logic to an Australian situation, don't apply your Australian logic through your vote to an American situation. You voting for gun control inconveniences and endagers me and if I get hurt because I was disarmed by the law, I'm going to personally blame you for voting in favor of that law.

So, if Yorick gets shot in NY, can he blame you ?

[ 06-06-2004, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Lanesra ]

[Oblivion437]

No, because I wouldn't advocate the gun control laws (NYC is ridiculous, in all practical sense, it is impossible, completely so, to even get a permit to own a pistol, despite the fact that the constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms) that disarmed him and made him unable to properly defend himself when attacked. Suppose he did have a pistol or SBR (Short Barreled Rifle, like a Colt Commando, but semi-automatic) and did draw but got shot anyways. Well, I would have advocated the law that protected his right to keep that weapon on him, but unless that put him in that situation, I'm afraid I'd still be blood-free.

[Yorick]

As a resident of New York City, I think the laws of NYC are more my business than yours, and I think I'm perfectly entitled to voice my support for gun controls in a city that, were it filled with guns, would be a much more dangerous jungle than it already can be.

My opinions about Bowling for Columbine have been formulated from the time I've spent in the 20 states of the USA I've been in over the last 3 years, and also from canvassing opinions from the number of Americans I watched the film with.

Unlike yourself, I am living in the nation I am speculating about, you have never stepped foot in my country.

The time when I was mugged in NYC, there was no violence, and I actually got my wallet back, with nothing taken from it. Had I pulled a gun, or attempted a violent response, someone would have gotten hurt or killed.

Violence is not the way.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: All of which it accomplished rather well, Cerek. Moore is an expert manipulator of the media -- which is why is lies are all the more dangerous. I wouldn't mind what he does if he was up front about his misrepresentations. I'd still watch him if he were just anti-Bush. But taking that bias and then splicing and dicing history and the facts to make them look different they are is what goes over the top. The faux image of honesty kills me.

Thanks, Timber. You summed up my own reasons for disliking and distrusting Michael Moore perfectly. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]