Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

[Oblivion437]

To call Moore a crusader for the Truth by any stretch of the term insults crusaders and the truth.

If Dave Hardy can bust Moore down like Moore busted Heston's chops, I'm sure the government can handle him, after all, this is the same group of fine folks who part of the lid on Kennedy for nearly 30 years...

[b]I would challenge anybody to say that America wasn't better off following the release of Bowling for Columbine for example.

America wasn't better off following the release of Bowling for Columbine.

[ 05-07-2004, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: America wasn't better off following the release of Bowling for Columbine.

I disagree.
Because BFC made us "bleeding heart liberal Europeans" realise that there are some "bleeding heart liberal" Americans" too, which greatly improved the opinion Europeans (especially intellectuals) had of the US.
Believe it or not, BFC was the base of a major opinion change in Europe. Many people now don't think badly about the US but only about the US government, which can be shrugged off easily in the near future when the government changes (be Bush reelected or not, it's only a matter of time). A lot of bad prejudice against the American people is gone and that's thanks to Mr. Moore and his movies.

[Khazadman Risen]

Well you better be prepared to hate the US for a while Faceman because the left in this country is self-destructing. Why else would they run a self-confessed war criminal for president.

[Oblivion437]

How does the ignorance of a bunch of people an ocean away make our lot over here better? It doesn't.

Bowling For Columbine hasn't improved America, but projected a false image of America. One is given the sense that Americans are a bunch of fringe-lunatics on the edge and ready to snap at any moment, that all gun owners are racist twits etcetera ad infinitum ad nauseum ad absurdum. Moore is a salesman, pure and simple. He doesn't care about the American people any more than John D. Rockefeller or James Pierpont Morgan did. He wants money, and selling people on 'radical' ideas based on shock-u-mentary styled pretenses happens to be big business.

It's as George Carlin said:

"The biggest industry in America today is the manufacturing, packaging, distribution and sale of bullshit. High quality bullshit, 100% pure American Grade A bullshit, but bullshit nonetheless."

[Donut]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: How does the ignorance of a bunch of people an ocean away make our lot over here better? It doesn't.

Priceless!!!

We're all ignorant I tell you!!

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: How does the ignorance of a bunch of people an ocean away make our lot over here better? It doesn't. Bowling For Columbine hasn't improved America, but projected a false image of America. One is given the sense that Americans are a bunch of fringe-lunatics on the edge and ready to snap at any moment, that all gun owners are racist twits etcetera ad infinitum ad nauseum ad absurdum. Moore is a salesman, pure and simple. He doesn't care about the American people any more than John D. Rockefeller or James Pierpont Morgan did. He wants money, and selling people on 'radical' ideas based on shock-u-mentary styled pretenses happens to be big business. It's as George Carlin said: "The biggest industry in America today is the manufacturing, packaging, distribution and sale of bullshit. High quality bullshit, 100% pure American Grade A bullshit, but bullshit nonetheless."

Ignorance of a bunch of people an ocean away?
*THIS* is why America has a bad image over there.

Interesting quote usage, by the way. I doubt Georgie himself would take either side in this debate, however.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Oblivion437: How does the ignorance of a bunch of people an ocean away make our lot over here better? It doesn't.

Priceless!!!

We're all ignorant I tell you!! [/QUOTE]Though you are trying to display whimsy wit, you're right. We are all ingnorant ..... about a great many things. There are many things that I am ignorant of, and since you are not omniscient, there are many things you are ignorant of.

Ignorance is lack of knowlege, and since knowlege is categorized by topic, ignorance itself is thereby topic specific. Even the most sheltered ingorant fool can teach a Nobel Prize winning Phd something.

Ignorance is lack of knowlege, not lack of intelligence. But surely you knew that.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: How does the ignorance of a bunch of people an ocean away make our lot over here better? It doesn't. Bowling For Columbine hasn't improved America, but projected a false image of America. One is given the sense that Americans are a bunch of fringe-lunatics on the edge and ready to snap at any moment, that all gun owners are racist twits etcetera ad infinitum ad nauseum ad absurdum. Moore is a salesman, pure and simple. He doesn't care about the American people any more than John D. Rockefeller or James Pierpont Morgan did. He wants money, and selling people on 'radical' ideas based on shock-u-mentary styled pretenses happens to be big business. It's as George Carlin said: "The biggest industry in America today is the manufacturing, packaging, distribution and sale of bullshit. High quality bullshit, 100% pure American Grade A bullshit, but bullshit nonetheless."

I'm going to ignore your introducing statement and still disagree.
BFC does NOT present all gun owners as a group of racist, lunatic, right-wingers.
1. It would be a far stretch to present them as a small number of "gun-nuts" in a country where there's about 1 gun/inhabitant.
2. It's clearly stated that Canada has a lot of guns while presenting Canadians as a bunch of very peaceful people (Unfair or not, but gun owners are not attacked here specifically

IMHO the movie raises the issue the US has with violence, be it fictional or very real.
"WHY do [Americans] kill each other at this rate" is the question MM repeatedly asks and comes up with a lot of possible answers which he then procures to discover don't necessarily apply.
The film doesn't give any answers or come to any conclusions on this issue - which may be viewed as a weakness or as a strong point from different POVs.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Faceman: quote: Originally posted by Khazadman Risen: And by the way, it turns out this whole Disney thing is just another lie cooked up by Moore to get publicity for his latest piece of junk. He's known for a year that Disney was not going to distribute it.

And how has he been producing the film then? Did Miramax just give him an "Okay we're gonna make the movie, but you'll have to know that we won't distribute it. Please take it elsewhere when it actually starts to make money"
Sources please!
[/QUOTE]All the sources you need are provided in the opening post, Faceman. Here is the relevant excerpt...

Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.

In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."

But 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.

"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. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

"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."

I know it is really hard to believe that Michael Moore would falsely portray himself as a hapless victim of a Big Business Corporation just to generate publicity for himself and his latest film, but stranger things have happened.

As for all the outrage over Disney's decision, their right to make such a decision is also summed up in one line from the opening post...

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.

Some of you may disagree with the decision, but ANY corporation has the innate right to establish and enforce policies that protect the corporations best interests.

[ 05-08-2004, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Faceman: quote: Originally posted by Oblivion437: America wasn't better off following the release of Bowling for Columbine.

I disagree.
Because BFC made us "bleeding heart liberal Europeans" realise that there are some "bleeding heart liberal" Americans" too, which greatly improved the opinion Europeans (especially intellectuals) had of the US.
Believe it or not, BFC was the base of a major opinion change in Europe. Many people now don't think badly about the US but only about the US government, which can be shrugged off easily in the near future when the government changes (be Bush reelected or not, it's only a matter of time). A lot of bad prejudice against the American people is gone and that's thanks to Mr. Moore and his movies. [/QUOTE]Touche.

Oblivion, it doesn't matter whether you think Moore is right or wrong, a nutter or not, the point is that in the US the tendency is instinctively not to watch or even consider that some points raised might have credibility. This is unhealthy in the extreme as countless political philosophers have pointed out, perhaps the most noted that comes to mind being Mill.

As for your 'ignorant people across the ocean' comment, the European's are still willing to consider alternative points of view. Hence, "give us evidence that Saddam has WMD's and we'll help" for example. The American's in contrast, weren't willing to accept that he might not have any at all.

As for the comments about American's being false portrayed as ignorant by BFC, large swathes of the population are. Especially in the small, god-fearing towns that make up the bulk of middle America. My tutor for international relations has just come to the UK from teaching the same subject in America for several years, and he is amazed at how ignorant the average student he taught was about the rest of the world. It's hard for news from the next state to get on your TV in the US, let alone the rest of the world. When world news does appear, it's through blinkered and distorted eyes.

I would also like to consider myself as not being ignorant, having spent several months in America at various points in my life, and I have to say that the 'ignorant American' stereotype does seem to be accurate, and also that the 'bleeding heart liberal' seems to be the most informed type of American. I know schoolteachers who didn't realise that Britain was an island, but thought it was attached to mainland Europe. People think that Saddam masterminded September 11th because the government linked him to Al-Qaeda. People fall back on patriotism as a substitute for original thinking.

I just watched a news report which went to the hometown of Lynndie England and asked local residents what they thought, and their answers were apalling. Things like "well, people forget about the atrocities in World War Two" (which is relavent how?) and "this is them trying to show us as the bad guys. but we're not." It is this stubborn refusal to believe that the world view of the US as the 'bad guy' could be founded in some truth that is most damaging. All this taking place with the "patriotic shoe shop" (actual sign!!) in the background.

Sure, some people are indoctrinated to hate the US, obviously this isn't a valid viewpoint. But most Europeans are well-educated and have easy access to unbiased media sources yet large amounts would view America as the 'bad guy'. Even if you don't accept that this number of people must be right, the big failure is when you don't even examine the validity of their views.

Instead, dissenting voices are branded taboo - witness the vicious backlash amongst some of the American public against the French for example. Also the portrayal of the Arabic world as being almost sub-human and who's protests against American actions are brushed aside as if they don't matter. Of course, what the average american has never been told is that there have been several hugely succesful Arabic and Islamic empires before America was a twinkle in a pilgrim's eye. Civilization was born there and they have a rich history. Just because their culture is so different, doesn't mean it's automatically inferior.

But i digress. BFC was good for America because it gave the rest of the world hope that there are some people inside America who may yet consider alternate views, understand the need for the US to consider others in its foreign policy and ultimately make the world a safer place.