Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

[Cerek the Barbaric]

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.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: 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.

Aaahhh, but it IS a "crime of character" when your slanted op-ed pieces are presented as unbiased truth and facts. It completely eliminates any trust the viewer can have in the validity of the facts being presented.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: font color=deepskyblue>Aaahhh, but it IS a "crime of character" when your slanted op-ed pieces are presented as unbiased truth and facts. It completely eliminates any trust the viewer can have in the validity of the facts being presented.

Ah, but you give your own biased opinion of Moore's work as presenting slanted opinion in the guise truth and facts as the truth or fact. So I'll just call it even with that regard.

Of course every "disputed" portion of BFC has been answered and those answers have been rebutted and those answers to answers have been rebutted to the point that it is largely irrelevant. Also, from what I have read the disputed portions of the film that can stand to scrunity take up, perhaps 3 minutes of a two hour film. Even if I bought your opinion and took it as my own, I would also look at the context and relativity of the disputed portions with the whole.

At the end of the day- Some folks are going to have an opinion like yours and other simply are not. Neither opinion is fact.

I just watched BFC today. In fact- Certainly Moore offered his opinion throughout the documentry, in the process of documenting the opinions of many, many others. Mixxed with the documented opinions were documented facts.

Regardless of these diversive opinions, Regardless of how loud the films detractor cry out their opinion "Is a Liar" or how loud the fans of the film cry their opinion- "Is not!" in my opinion it does not take away from the central question asked throughout the film-


Why is America so damn violent? Why does America have so much gun violence?

[ 05-09-2004, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Aaahhh, but it IS a "crime of character" when your slanted op-ed pieces are presented as unbiased truth and facts. It completely eliminates any trust the viewer can have in the validity of the facts being presented.

Ah, but you give your own biased opinion of Moore's work as presenting slanted opinion in the guise truth and facts as the truth or fact. So I'll just call it even with that regard.
[/QUOTE]Does Michael Moore make it known that the "facts" he is presenting are slanted to support his views? If so, then I give him credit for doing that. Of course, it isn't like anybody really expects him to present an unbiased account of the facts anyway. His reputation has preceeded him to the extent that everyone knows he slants the information presented in his films.

As for my own biased opinion, I've never made any pretense to the contrary. I probably have the same opinion of Michael Moore that you do of Rush Limbaugh (although it is possible you might actually like Rush more than I like Mike). I think he uses his films (and any public appearance he makes on behalf of his films) as his own personal political forum. I also think he goes out of his way to portray himself as a poor, helpless victim of whatever group opposes his latest work. And the argument he ALWAYS presents is "They are only mad at me because I'm telling the truth they don't want anybody to hear". So he paints himself as a champion of the underdog when he is a far cry from either adjective.

You say that the central question of BFC is "Why is America so violent?". Does Michael Moore actually offer any suggested answers to the question? I agree it is a worthwhile topic to discuss, but does he ever offer any opinion as to what the solution could be? Or is he just trying to figure out who to blame?

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Does Michael Moore make it known that the "facts" he is presenting are slanted to support his views?

Yes, but your opinion here you state as fact as designated by the are.
I must question this as a statement of fact. I think it is merely your opinion. I just saw the movie BFC today, I not read any of Moore's books. Aside from BFC the only other Moore film I have seen is Canadian Bacon-Hardly a high-water mark in political commentary.

But back to all the "skewwed" facts Moore presents in BFC- a couple of examples: He states some figures about handgun deaths in various countries- Are these facts skewwed to support his veiws? Or do these facts provoke the central question of the film....I guess that is a matter of opinion. Moore also mentions the fact that some of the bullets used in the Columbine massacre were bought easily at k-mart- With the help of some Columbine survivors he illustrates this fact and along the way provokes K-Mart to change policy-regardless are the facts skewwed because he illustrated them with a real-life example or does offering this fact simply lend to the question-why is there so much gun violence in America?
Another matter of opinion.

If so, then I give him credit for doing that. Of course, it isn't like anybody really expects him to present an unbiased account of the facts anyway. His reputation has preceeded him to the extent that everyone knows he slants the information presented in his films.

Everybody knows this? I don't. I very much disagree. Certainly he offered up facts that lent to his question. Once again I state-saying that Moore skewwed facts to support his opinion is itself an opinion, just as much as myself saying that Moore offered facts that lent to the question raised in the film. Perhaps even offering clues to possible answers is my opinion. I do not state my opinion is fact. 2+2=4 is a fact. In BFC Moore offered opinions, asked for opinions and offered facts is also a fact. Whether or not he skewwed the facts remains an opinion. Which is my opinion of course.

As for my own biased opinion, I've never made any pretense to the contrary. I probably have the same opinion of Michael Moore that you do of Rush Limbaugh (although it is possible you might actually like Rush more than I like Mike). I think he uses his films (and any public appearance he makes on behalf of his films) as his own personal political forum. I also think he goes out of his way to portray himself as a poor, helpless victim of whatever group opposes his latest work. And the argument he ALWAYS presents is "They are only mad at me because I'm telling the truth they don't want anybody to hear". So he paints himself as a champion of the underdog when he is a far cry from either adjective.

Well you have a right to your opinion of Moore but it remains so long as people use their opinion attack him and his work in the very guise of fact no less, than he is, IMO, a victim- one who is readily able to defend himself. At the end of the day you ( and all his other vehement critcs) are still probably going to dislike him no matter what he says and others are going to see him as their champion for exactly what he says. Perhaps others like me don't care about the messenger so much either way, but pay attention to the message or in BFC case -pays attention to the question being asked and examines what the answer(s) might be.

Anyway-Repeating over and over he is this or that wont make it true. It is still merely opinion as much as Moore's opinions are simply opinions.

You say that the central question of BFC is "Why is America so violent?". Does Michael Moore actually offer any suggested answers to the question? I agree it is a worthwhile topic to discuss, but does he ever offer any opinion as to what the solution could be? Or is he just trying to figure out who to blame?

You say it is a good topic to discuss but at the same time lambast Moore for doing so. Which is it? Does a person offering a question to invoke discussion have to give an answer for the question to be valid. What if Moore giving a concrete answer was not the point of the film.

Moore asks the question and offers various facts and opinions (his and many other people's) that suggest possible answers but I did not take from the film that it was a work designed to promote solely his opinion at all. Dozens of people offered opinions, insights and perspectives in the film. He did ask the questions and obviously imprinted his answers in part, but I did not feel like I was being spoonfed two hours of Michael Moore's biased perspective nor did I feel like the film adequatley answered the question. It is such a large and serious question that a mere two hours do not do it justice no matter who is asking.

I do find it sad and ironic that people waste a ton of energy attacking Moore and the movie and basically ignore the question. Perhaps that in itself partially lends to the answer(s) to the film's premise. Maybe it is more convient to attack each other for our thoughts, questions, and opinions- in the process reject actually considering the questions and the answers that could lead to our society being a better, safer, more peaceful one.

[ 05-10-2004, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Chewbacca]

Oh and one other thing on the idea that offering facts to support an opinion or poase a question is somehow wrong.

That is the way it works or atleast that is how I learned to make a persuasive argument in speech and debate class. I will ask my Dad-he is a High School debate coach. If he tells me it is wrong to to use facts to pose a question or to make a persuasive argument I will concede that Moore is an evil doer, or at least takes the wrong approach to invoking thought and seeking answers to challenging questions and to persuading people to to understand his opinion- what ever that maybe.

Of course if this is true that means that every pundit and opinionator on everyside of every issue are basically wrong in their approach and the whole point of asking questions, making opinion, and having persusuasive debate is moot.

What is the point of having an opinion, or even a brain for that matter, if using either to compare other perspectives, analyze facts, and consider challenging questions is a wrong approach.

If this is the case we all may as well submit to the robots. Brave new world, 1984 and farenheit 451 are all based in the premise that, due to fear of reprisal, we wont question what is perceptively wrong, that we won't question authority and that we will accept the staus quo no matter how de-humanizing, un-humanizing, and anti-liberty and anti-justice for all it is.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Geez...I hope you don't get too light-headed while riding that high horse of yours.

I never attacked Moore for using unaltered facts to back up his position. I attacked him for omitting or "skewing" certain information presented in his films.

I gave one example from BFC, where Moore "chastised" the NRA for holding their annual convention in Denver just one month (IIRC) after the Columbine shootings. This was done purely to make the NRA appear like uncaring ogres. But Moore conveniently omits the fact that the annual convention is scheduled a year in advance and that the logistics prevent it from being moved to a brand new location with just one months notice (all the people planning to attend would have to cancel reservations made in Denver and try to book rooms at whatever new venue is chosen).

In his own rebuttal to Disney, he says that "6 million dollars of Disney's money was poured into the film". Technically, that is true - but it is a blantant misrepresentation of the facts. Moore is trying to imply that Disney actually supported the film for a year and then pulled the plug at the last minute. However, the facts as presented in the OP present a different account. "Disney" didn't pour a dime into the movie - Miramax did - and they did so against the express wishes of the parent company and Disney's CEO. So Moore is trying to make it appear that Disney actually supported the film with their own money when that is not the case. Again, it is just a subtle twisting of the actual facts. What Moore says is technically accurate, but the it gives a very false implication. And Moore deliberately omits or "turns" the facts to promote a certain viewpoint.

So when you ask your dad about presenting facts in a debate, make sure to ask him whether it's OK to omit certain relevant bits of information that may change what the facts support - or should the person actually present the facts in their entirety and adjust thier strategy accordingly.

The question of violence in America is a topic worthy of discussion, but there is no reason for Moore to go out of his way to cast the NRA in a bad light other than the fact that he doesn't like the NRA. He attacked the NRA in regards to their annual convention and also in the infamous "interview" with Charlton Heston (in which he used some creative editing from more than one interview to make it appear as if he soundly defeated all of Heston's points supporting the NRA).

Would the question of violence in America be weakened by NOT attacking the NRA in such a manner?

That is why I have a problem with Michael Moore, because it simply isn't possible to tell what is actual fact and what is being "skewed" to support his personal agenda.

[wellard]

A little aside from the who is right/wrong argument. The real winner is free publicity. And the more those from the extreme right who do not like one side or view of current political dramas being aired are playing into his clever hands by squealing so much. Mr Moore is using paranoia to his advantage and credit to him for that. Any oppression of free speech, however one sided that speech is, should always result in the oxygen of free publicity to deter people in the future from trying to asphyxiate it.

Now far from me to be macalivian (sp) but as much as Disney is squealing surely the free publicity the film is now getting will result in more profit for itself (via its subsidiary) yet it still gets to keep its hands clean allowing Disney to say to Bush inc. (Jeb (Florida) division) “Hey mate we tried to stop it so don’t mess with out tax cuts!”

Maybe Dis$$ney is the winner here

Edit for very poor spelling even by my standerds

[ 05-10-2004, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: wellard ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Geez...I hope you don't get too light-headed while riding that high horse of yours.

Hahahaha! A sure sign a discussion is going to hell is when one or more particpiants start acting like name-calling children. Well I would rather have my head in the clouds than buried in the sand.

I never attacked Moore for using unaltered facts to back up his position. I attacked him for omitting or "skewing" certain information presented in his films. I gave one example from BFC, where Moore "chastised" the NRA for holding their annual convention in Denver just one month (IIRC) after the Columbine shootings. This was done purely to make the NRA appear like uncaring ogres. But Moore conveniently omits the fact that the annual convention is scheduled a year in advance and that the logistics prevent it from being moved to a brand new location with just one months notice (all the people planning to attend would have to cancel reservations made in Denver and try to book rooms at whatever new venue is chosen).

You have ommitted the fact that the topic of the venue could have focused on the irresponsible use of handguns by minors to commit massacres. You also omit the fact that the meeting could have been canceled or postponed and the hardship endured by those with plans to attend could have deemed a sacrifice for the memeory of the 12 people slain by the wreckless use of a handgun. You also omit the fact that dozens of people protested the NRA's meeting so soon after Columbine making Moore's mention of it documentry in nature-regardless of his opinions of the matter. You also ommit the fact that the NRA, under the leadership of Charleton Heston has held meetings in other cities soon after handgun tragedies. By your own statements your ommissions make you no better than Moore.

BTW- YOu do know that Moore is a long time card carrying memeber of the NRA right? You do recall the beggining of the film where gun owners in the Michigan Militia were presented as the decent normal folk that they are rtaher than uncaring ogres.

In his own rebuttal to Disney, he says that "6 million dollars of Disney's money was poured into the film". Technically, that is true - but it is a blantant misrepresentation of the facts. Moore is trying to imply that Disney actually supported the film for a year and then pulled the plug at the last minute. However, the facts as presented in the OP present a different account. "Disney" didn't pour a dime into the movie - Miramax did - and they did so against the express wishes of the parent company and Disney's CEO. So Moore is trying to make it appear that Disney actually supported the film with their own money when that is not the case. Again, it is just a subtle twisting of the actual facts. What Moore says is technically accurate, but the it gives a very false implication. And Moore deliberately omits or "turns" the facts to promote a certain viewpoint.

In your opinion, or areyou the one on the high horse stating that your opinion is the only correct one?

The question of violence in America is a topic worthy of discussion, but there is no reason for Moore to go out of his way to cast the NRA in a bad light other than the fact that he doesn't like the NRA. He attacked the NRA in regards to their annual convention and also in the infamous "interview" with Charlton Heston (in which he used some creative editing from more than one interview to make it appear as if he soundly defeated all of Heston's points supporting the NRA). Would the question of violence in America be weakened by NOT attacking the NRA in such a manner?

So what? You disagree with how Moore portrayed the NRA (based on the NRA's decisions to have meeting in locales soon after a major handgun tragedies) Heston could have answered Moore's questions differently perhaps or even declined the interview in the first place. As far as editing goes-every film gets edited. Claiming that the editing was intentional to support an opinion is quite a stretch of the imagination if you ask me. Regardless- I didn't think Heston got his ass handed to him, but I do think he was hit with some hard questions about a complex quite unprepared. So in the end he backed out. No big deal IMO. Moore's critic's make mountains out of molehills with regards to these issues. Never do they consider having a Gun rally in Flint MI so soon after a six year old shot another six year old could maybe be insensitive. The NRA got its ass handed to it for good reason in my opinion.

That is why I have a problem with Michael Moore, because it simply isn't possible to tell what is actual fact and what is being "skewed" to support his personal agenda.

In your opinion.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Your assessment is spot on, wellard. Moore is using this supposed suppression of free speech as nothing more than a ploy to generate free publicity for his film that will debut next week (or the week after) at the Cannes Film Festival.

In an interview with CNN, Moore admits that he was told by Eisner a year ago that Disney didn't like the film and wouldn't distribute it. Here is a link to the transcript of that interview. Michael Moore Interview on CNN

However, despite the proclamations of Moore (and the implication of the title of this very thread), Disney did NOT "forbid" the movie to be distributed at all. They said that Moore was free to seek other distributors or to distribute it himself. All Disney said is that THEY wouldn't distribute.

So there is no squelching of free speech here. Moore is just generating another one of his storms in a teacup to generate interest and publicity for his film. Can't really blame him for that. Why pay for advertising when you can just cry "Free Speech Wolf" and get all the free advertising you want. It's actually a smart move on Moore's part.

Of course, such redundant hypothetical hysteria on Moore's part does reduce his credibility in the eyes of some (myself being foremost in this group). Michael Moore has also said that the Bush family will not like his movie...they will really not like it. Given his views on the Bush Administration - and his penchant for slanting certain facts in his past projects - I would have to view his latest movie with a very skeptical eye.

But you may also be right about Disney deciding to ride the wave of free publicity themselves. Miramax has said they will take the matter to mediation. If Disney were to lose, they could present a very good case to Cousin Jeb that they tried to avoid distributing the film but could not. Then they can still get the "tens of millions of dollars" (according to Moore) in tax breaks AND reap the rewards from the distribution of the movie. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.