Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

[Gnarf]

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.

Whether or not they have the "right" to do it doesn't affect whether or not it's a shitty thing to do.

[Night Stalker]

Which is the "shitty" thing to do? For a company to tell a movie maker that they will not distribute a movie? Or, for a movie maker that didn't like the answer he got a year ago to create a negative publicity stunt because the whiney brat didn't get his way a year ago, and the answer still hasn't changed? Hmmmmm .......

If Mr. Moore were so concerned about his message, he would have found investors that actually had intrest in distributing his spew. But no, all publicity, even negative publicity is the drug of choice for this narcassistic addict. He chooses to now smear Disney and try to bully them into distributing his "truth".

[Chewbacca]

Michael Moore's version of events:

Link

When You Wish Upon A Star… by Michael Moore


Dear Friends,

Thank you for all the incredible letters of support as my film crew and I once again slog our way through the corporate media madhouse. Does it ever end? Are we ever going to get control of our "free press" again? Can you wish upon a star?

The Disney spin machine has been working overtime dealing with this censorship debacle of theirs. I don't think they thought they would ever be outed. After all, they know that all of us are supposed to adhere to the unwritten Hollywood Code: Never tell the public how business is done here, never let them have a peek at the man behind the curtain.

Disney has been hoping for nearly a year that they could keep this thing quiet. As I promised on Wednesday, here are the details behind my sordid adventure with the Magic Kingdom:

In April of 2003, I signed a deal with Miramax, a division of the Walt Disney Co., to finance and distribute my next movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. (The original financier had backed out; I will tell that story at a later date.) In my contract it is stated that Miramax will distribute my film in the U.S. through Disney's distribution arm, Buena Vista Distribution. It also gives Miramax the rights to distribute and sell the movie around the world.

A month later, after shooting started, Michael Eisner insisted on meeting with my agent, Ari Emanuel. Eisner was furious that Miramax signed this deal with me. According to Mr. Emanuel, Eisner said he would never let my film be distributed through Disney even though Mr. Eisner had not seen any footage or even read the outline of the film. Eisner told my agent that he did not want to anger Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. The movie, he believed, would complicate an already complicated situation with current and future Disney projects in Florida, and that many millions of dollars of tax breaks and incentives were at stake.

But Michael Eisner did not call Miramax and tell them to stop my film. Not only that, for the next year, SIX MILLION dollars of DISNEY money continued to flow into the production of making my movie. Miramax assured me that there were no distribution problems with my film.

But then, a few weeks ago when Fahrenheit 9/11 was selected to be in the Cannes Film Festival, Disney sent a low-level production executive to New York to watch the film (to this day, Michael Eisner has not seen the film). This exec was enthusiastic throughout the viewing. He laughed, he cried and at the end he thanked us. "This film is explosive," he exclaimed, and we took that as a positive sign. But “explosive” for these guys is only a good word when it comes to blowing up things in movies. OUR kind of “explosive” is what they want to run from as fast as they can.

Miramax did their best to convince Disney to go ahead as planned with our film. Disney contractually can only stop Miramax from releasing a film if it has received an NC-17 rating (ours will be rated PG-13 or R).

According to yesterday's New York Times, the issue of whether to release Fahrenheit 9/11 was discussed at Disney's board meeting last week. It was decided that Disney should not distribute our movie.

Earlier this week we got the final, official call: Disney will not put out Fahrenheit 9/11. When the story broke in the New York Times, Disney, instead of telling the truth, turned into Pinocchio.

Here are my favorite nuggets that have come out of the mouths of their spinmeisters (roughly quoted):

"Michael Moore has known for a year that we will not distribute this movie, so this is not news." Yes, that is what I thought, too, except Disney kept sending us all that money to make the movie. Miramax said there was no problem. I got the idea that everything was fine.

"It is not in the best interests of our company to distribute a partisan political film that may offend some of our customers." Hmmm. Disney doesn't distribute work that has partisan politics? Disney distributes and syndicates the Sean Hannity radio show every day? I get to listen to Rush Limbaugh every day on Disney-owned WABC. I also seem to remember that Disney distributed a very partisan political movie during a Congressional election year, 1998—a film called The Big One… by, um… ME!

"Fahrenheit 9/11 is not the Disney brand; we put out family oriented films." So true. That's why the #1 Disney film in theaters right now is a film called, KILL BILL, VOL. 2. This excellent Miramax film, along with other classics like Pulp Fiction, have all been distributed by Disney. That's why Miramax exists -- to provide an ALTERNATIVE to the usual Disney fare. And, unless they were NC-17, Disney has distributed them.

"Mr. Moore is doing this as a publicity stunt." Michael Eisner reportedly said this the other day while he was at a publicity stunt cutting the ribbon for the new "Tower of Terror" ride (what a pleasant name considering what the country has gone through recently) at Disney's California Adventure Park. Let me tell you something: NO filmmaker wants to go through this kind of controversy. It does NOT sell tickets (I can cite many examples of movies who have had to change distributors at the last minute and all have failed). I made this movie so people could see it as soon as possible. This is a huge and unwanted distraction. I want people discussing the issues raised in my film, not some inside Hollywood fracas surrounding who is going to ship the prints to the theaters. Plus, I think it is fairly safe to say that Fahrenheit 9/11 has a good chance of doing just fine, considering that my last movie set a box office record and the subject matter (Bush, the War on Terror, the War in Iraq) is at the forefront of most people's minds.

So what will happen to my movie? I still don't know. What I do know is that I will make sure all of you see it by hook or crook. We are Americans. There are a lot of screwed up things about us right now, but one thing that most of us have in common is that we don't like someone telling us we can't see something. We despise censors, and the worst censors are those who would dare to limit thoughts and ideas and silence dissent. THAT is un-American. If I have to travel across the country and show it in city parks (or, as one person offered yesterday, to show it on the side of his house for the neighborhood to see), that is what I will do.

More to come, stay tuned.

Yours,
Michael Moore
*******************

So Disney is evidently reneging on a contractual agreement( THATS SHITTY) allegdely so as to not piss of their political masters. (THAT IS ALSO SHITTY)

Disney did sign a contract to distribute and did pay millions of dollars in production.... So why has Mr. Moore been made the bad guy here?

[Faceman]

Apparently it's aruguable if this was a publicity stun by Mr. Moore or not. Let's just say it sheds a bad light on his seriosity which I never considered very high for starters. This is why I almost never use his movies or books to support an argument in a discussion.
However it's this lack of seriosity and the fact that he delivers his ideas (part of which I happen to share) to the public most effectively.
MM is one of the little lefties I know that does not go for self-destruction but has adopted the right's way of fighting: "The end justifies the means"
While I do not really agree with that (I AM a bit self-destructive ) I am kind of gald someone manages to get this ideas out to the public.

But up to another issue that bugs me:

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: 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. 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.

Okay, let me get this straight:
Disney does not want to distribute the film, because this could upset Jeb Bush who will then become pretty petty and (ab)use his power to harm Disney exonomically, right?
Are there some regulations deciding who gets a tax break? Like LAWS or certain rules? Is Jeb Bush the elected governor or is he the friggin KING of Florida???
It's bad enough if a media company is punished for upsetting thos in power. It's even worse if they decide to self-censor to avoid that. But OPENLY USE IT AS AN EXCUSE?

Who exactly decides which companies get which tax breaks? And how is that done?
Does Disney have a right to get those tax breaks or would it have been a blurrily legal favor from Mr. Bush?
And if the first, how would Jeb Bush sabotage their tax breaks without breaking the law?

[ 05-09-2004, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

[Gnarf]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Which is the "shitty" thing to do? For a company to tell a movie maker that they will not distribute a movie? Or, for a movie maker that didn't like the answer he got a year ago to create a negative publicity stunt because the whiney brat didn't get his way a year ago, and the answer still hasn't changed? Hmmmmm .......

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.

I honestly did not know that Moore was a part of the Miramax leadership.

I'm kinda happy it turned out this way tho. Disney pays for the movie, yet they don't have the balls to, not distribute it, but let Miramax distribute it, then Moore uses this for what it's worth [img]smile.gif[/img]

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Which is the "shitty" thing to do? For a company to tell a movie maker that they will not distribute a movie? Or, for a movie maker that didn't like the answer he got a year ago to create a negative publicity stunt because the whiney brat didn't get his way a year ago, and the answer still hasn't changed? Hmmmmm ....... If Mr. Moore were so concerned about his message, he would have found investors that actually had intrest in distributing his spew. But no, all publicity, even negative publicity is the drug of choice for this narcassistic addict. He chooses to now smear Disney and try to bully them into distributing his "truth".

No, i quite agree with you here. In theory there is nothing sh**ty about a company not wishing to distribute a film if they think it's bad for their image, but surely the problem is the 'cronyism' that goes on with this Bush administration, especially now it seems to reach even to the sub-state level?

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Michael Moore's version of events: Link When You Wish Upon A Star… by Michael Moore Dear Friends, Thank you for all the incredible letters of support as my film crew and I once again slog our way through the corporate media madhouse. Does it ever end? Are we ever going to get control of our "free press" again? Can you wish upon a star? The Disney spin machine has been working overtime dealing with this censorship debacle of theirs. I don't think they thought they would ever be outed. After all, they know that all of us are supposed to adhere to the unwritten Hollywood Code: Never tell the public how business is done here, never let them have a peek at the man behind the curtain. Disney has been hoping for nearly a year that they could keep this thing quiet. As I promised on Wednesday, here are the details behind my sordid adventure with the Magic Kingdom: In April of 2003, I signed a deal with Miramax, a division of the Walt Disney Co., to finance and distribute my next movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. (The original financier had backed out; I will tell that story at a later date.) In my contract it is stated that Miramax will distribute my film in the U.S. through Disney's distribution arm, Buena Vista Distribution. It also gives Miramax the rights to distribute and sell the movie around the world. A month later, after shooting started, Michael Eisner insisted on meeting with my agent, Ari Emanuel. Eisner was furious that Miramax signed this deal with me. According to Mr. Emanuel, Eisner said he would never let my film be distributed through Disney even though Mr. Eisner had not seen any footage or even read the outline of the film. Eisner told my agent that he did not want to anger Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. The movie, he believed, would complicate an already complicated situation with current and future Disney projects in Florida, and that many millions of dollars of tax breaks and incentives were at stake. But Michael Eisner did not call Miramax and tell them to stop my film. Not only that, for the next year, SIX MILLION dollars of DISNEY money continued to flow into the production of making my movie. Miramax assured me that there were no distribution problems with my film. But then, a few weeks ago when Fahrenheit 9/11 was selected to be in the Cannes Film Festival, Disney sent a low-level production executive to New York to watch the film (to this day, Michael Eisner has not seen the film). This exec was enthusiastic throughout the viewing. He laughed, he cried and at the end he thanked us. "This film is explosive," he exclaimed, and we took that as a positive sign. But “explosive” for these guys is only a good word when it comes to blowing up things in movies. OUR kind of “explosive” is what they want to run from as fast as they can. Miramax did their best to convince Disney to go ahead as planned with our film. Disney contractually can only stop Miramax from releasing a film if it has received an NC-17 rating (ours will be rated PG-13 or R). According to yesterday's New York Times, the issue of whether to release Fahrenheit 9/11 was discussed at Disney's board meeting last week. It was decided that Disney should not distribute our movie. Earlier this week we got the final, official call: Disney will not put out Fahrenheit 9/11. When the story broke in the New York Times, Disney, instead of telling the truth, turned into Pinocchio. Here are my favorite nuggets that have come out of the mouths of their spinmeisters (roughly quoted): "Michael Moore has known for a year that we will not distribute this movie, so this is not news." Yes, that is what I thought, too, except Disney kept sending us all that money to make the movie. Miramax said there was no problem. I got the idea that everything was fine. "It is not in the best interests of our company to distribute a partisan political film that may offend some of our customers." Hmmm. Disney doesn't distribute work that has partisan politics? Disney distributes and syndicates the Sean Hannity radio show every day? I get to listen to Rush Limbaugh every day on Disney-owned WABC. I also seem to remember that Disney distributed a very partisan political movie during a Congressional election year, 1998—a film called The Big One… by, um… ME! "Fahrenheit 9/11 is not the Disney brand; we put out family oriented films." So true. That's why the #1 Disney film in theaters right now is a film called, KILL BILL, VOL. 2. This excellent Miramax film, along with other classics like Pulp Fiction, have all been distributed by Disney. That's why Miramax exists -- to provide an ALTERNATIVE to the usual Disney fare. And, unless they were NC-17, Disney has distributed them. "Mr. Moore is doing this as a publicity stunt." Michael Eisner reportedly said this the other day while he was at a publicity stunt cutting the ribbon for the new "Tower of Terror" ride (what a pleasant name considering what the country has gone through recently) at Disney's California Adventure Park. Let me tell you something: NO filmmaker wants to go through this kind of controversy. It does NOT sell tickets (I can cite many examples of movies who have had to change distributors at the last minute and all have failed). I made this movie so people could see it as soon as possible. This is a huge and unwanted distraction. I want people discussing the issues raised in my film, not some inside Hollywood fracas surrounding who is going to ship the prints to the theaters. Plus, I think it is fairly safe to say that Fahrenheit 9/11 has a good chance of doing just fine, considering that my last movie set a box office record and the subject matter (Bush, the War on Terror, the War in Iraq) is at the forefront of most people's minds. So what will happen to my movie? I still don't know. What I do know is that I will make sure all of you see it by hook or crook. We are Americans. There are a lot of screwed up things about us right now, but one thing that most of us have in common is that we don't like someone telling us we can't see something. We despise censors, and the worst censors are those who would dare to limit thoughts and ideas and silence dissent. THAT is un-American. If I have to travel across the country and show it in city parks (or, as one person offered yesterday, to show it on the side of his house for the neighborhood to see), that is what I will do. More to come, stay tuned. Yours, Michael Moore ******************* So Disney is evidently reneging on a contractual agreement( THATS SHITTY) allegdely so as to not piss of their political masters. (THAT IS ALSO SHITTY) Disney did sign a contract to distribute and did pay millions of dollars in production.... So why has Mr. Moore been made the bad guy here?

Michael Moore gives his side of the story and - SURPRISE SURPRISE - he portrays himself as a hapless victim of Big Business Corporate America...just like I said he was doing in my previous post before this "rebuttal" was posted.

Dang...I should start my own psychic hotline

For those who don't see the SPIN Michael Moore is putting on this, the $6,000,000 dollars of "Disney money" was actually the money provide by Miramax to finance the film. Michael Moore admits that Eisner (the head honcho at Disney) told him last year that the film wouldn't be distributed. Eisner also told Moore's agent NOT to pitch the film to Miramax, but he did anyway - and the executives at Miramax (not Disney) made the decision to finance the film. If you go back and read the original post again, the first couple of paragraphs address the fact that the Miramax execs hoped they could change the mind of the Disney execs regarding distribution of the film. They even said that it may have to go to mediation, but they hoped to avoid that route.

So what happened is that Miramax financed a film they knew the parent company did not approve of - and now everybody is pretended to be shocked and apalled at Disney's supposedly "last minute" decision to not distribute the film.

The part I really like is when Michael Moore claims he never wanted this controversy surrounding his film. Yeah, right. And the Dixie Chicks are gonna sing "God Bless America" at the Inaugeration when President Bush gets re-elected.

Also, Moore says that his contract specifically states that his film cannot be denied distribution unless it receives a rating of NC-17. Wrong again, Mikey. Disney stated that they reserve the right to not distribute films under certain circumstances. These circumstances usually include the NC-17 rating or "objectionable content". The bottom line is that Disney does reserve the right to deny distribution of a film they think will hurt their image - and Disney gets to decide which films fall into this category, NOT Miramax and especially not Michael Moore.

This is nothing but another spin-job by Michael Moore to create extra publicity for his latest film. If Disney really were as "shitty" as everybody is claiming, they could legally prevent the movie from being shown AT ALL - since Miramax DOES own the distribution rights to the film. Disney could just put a Corporate Clamp-Down on the entire project and not allow it to be released at all. However, all Disney has done is say that they will not allow THEIR company to distribute it. Miramax is free to sell the distribution rights to another company.

Despite Michael Moore's pitiful wailing about how badly that will hurt the film, I feel confident he will be able to generate enough publicity and interest in his film to convince people to go see it.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Disney could just put a Corporate Clamp-Down on the entire project and not allow it to be released at all.

It doesn't work that way - had Disney been able to prevent it, it would already have done so. Many people labour under the impression that a parent company has full control of the workings of the subsidiary - they do not (although the parent company can *certainly* make life difficult for the subsidiary) - and in this instance, there are legal contractual obligations to live up to as well.

If Moore's film gets the viewer rating he expects, then Disney is legally obliged to distribute the film.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Disney could just put a Corporate Clamp-Down on the entire project and not allow it to be released at all.

It doesn't work that way - had Disney been able to prevent it, it would already have done so. Many people labour under the impression that a parent company has full control of the workings of the subsidiary - they do not (although the parent company can *certainly* make life difficult for the subsidiary) - and in this instance, there are legal contractual obligations to live up to as well.

If Moore's film gets the viewer rating he expects, then Disney is legally obliged to distribute the film.
[/QUOTE]Well, IF Moore's contract with Miramax does specifically state that the NC-17 rating is the only reason that Miramax or Disney could refuse distribution, he might have a case.

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.

[Chewbacca]

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.