Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: It wasn't just a simple fact that the member's meeting was scheduled five years in advance. As a Non-Profit Organization incorporated in New York, they are required to hold annual member's meetings ... the equivelent of stock holder's meetings for C Corps. If the member's meeting cannot be held at the scheduled time a NonProfit in New York is required by law to inform the entire constituancy of the change no later than 10 prior to the meeting. The Columbine tragedy happened 11 days prior. There was no time to rechedule an event of that magnitude in less than 24 hours and still notify everyone. Oh, it also happened near the end of their fiscal year too, so they didn't have any leeway on that front either (Corporations under US law may define their tax year to be other than the standart calendar year). Mr Moore mentions none of this, and tries to mislead the viewer into thinking that the NRA had a Flash Rally just for the Columbine tragedy. Though the NRA did miss an opportunity to address the issue responsibly.

Thanks for that additional info, Night Stalker. I knew there were also some legal issues involved in determining why the meeting couldn't be rescheduled but I couldn't remember them.

You hit the nail on the head with my chief complaint against Moore, and that is that he deliberately presents things in a misleading fashion when it suits his purpose. But when the facts support his view, he presents them unaltered (such as the example Chewbacca gave about the sale of ammo at K-Mart). So supporters of Moore can point to the unaltered portions as evidence that he doesn't "skew" the facts. And those unaltered facts give false credibility to the subtle manipulations or omissions he makes with other facts.

Still, the NRA should have addressed the Columbine shootings by issueing a public denouncement of such actions and perhaps adding a public meeting to their agenda to allow the families and friends of the victims to come in and express their views. As Davros said, that would have won them MUCH more support in the public eye.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Davros: On the topic ofthis new movie - I weren't all that enthusiastic, but now I want to see the product that is making all the fuss [img]smile.gif[/img]

Which is exactly why Moore created this storm in a teacup in the first place. I may not like him, but I have to give him credit - he does know how to market his films and generate interest that normally wouldn't be there.

I don't care WHAT he says to the contrary - controversy SELLS - and he knows it.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Disney bought and paid for the movie it is Disney's to do with as they wish, Nobody in the U.S.A. or anywhere in this world can complain, unless of course YOU wish to give ME control over anything YOU HAVE bought and paid for. I doubt that you would be willing to do that, yet it seems that the liberals are the ones belly-aching about this, while THEY THEMSELVES would not alow others to have the same control over things that are under their(the Liberals) control. This is a perfect example of why I can't be a liberal.

Not exactly true. Disney collaborated on a project with Moore - Disney put up the financial capital - and Moore put up the intellectual capital.

They are *partners*, bound by a CONTRACT. If Disney wants to get out and can find a loophole in the contract that allows them to wash their hands of the project - that's fine but otherwise, they have a legal duty to live up to the promises that they have made.

Moore spent a year making the film and won't see a cent until the film is distributed - how would you feel if you were contracted to work for someone and at the end of the period they refused to allow you to get paid?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: Disney bought and paid for the movie it is Disney's to do with as they wish, Nobody in the U.S.A. or anywhere in this world can complain, unless of course YOU wish to give ME control over anything YOU HAVE bought and paid for. I doubt that you would be willing to do that, yet it seems that the liberals are the ones belly-aching about this, while THEY THEMSELVES would not alow others to have the same control over things that are under their(the Liberals) control. This is a perfect example of why I can't be a liberal.

Not exactly true. Disney collaborated on a project with Moore - Disney put up the financial capital - and Moore put up the intellectual capital.

They are *partners*, bound by a CONTRACT. If Disney wants to get out and can find a loophole in the contract that allows them to wash their hands of the project - that's fine but otherwise, they have a legal duty to live up to the promises that they have made.

Moore spent a year making the film and won't see a cent until the film is distributed - how would you feel if you were contracted to work for someone and at the end of the period they refused to allow you to get paid? [/QUOTE]Well ole smelly rodent (Skunk for those that might thunk that was an insult)
We shall see that is what lawyers are for. Until then this is all a bunch of piss'n moun'n. If Moore has Disney Bound, by such a CONTRACT then he should have an easy time in court, and I'd bet he would allready be in court. BUT I haven't heard of any court case, but rather a lot of belly-aching.

Oh by the way how does putting up FINANIAL CAPITAL(Money, Moo-la, Green, Jack) differ from...Oh what was that I wrote... OH yeah Disney BOUGHT AND PAID for the movie. BY your own admittion they paid for it(put up the financial capital).

I wouldn't do work and not get paid, this is the U.S.A. nobody can make you work and not get paid, but you can CHOSE TO DO SO of your own freewill. If you chose to do so don't come crying to me I have little simpathy for fools.

Now lest anyone try to come up with some arguement touting the merit of M.Moore, I don't give a RAT'S REAR END what M. Moore does. This is the U.S.A. he can do what ever his little bleeding heart desires as long as he doesn't break the law.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Mr Moore mentions none of this, and tries to mislead the viewer into thinking that the NRA had a Flash Rally just for the Columbine tragedy.

I disagree with this assessment. I did not get the impression at all that Moore was trying to make it out like the NRA rally materialized out of thin air just for the tragedy-not at all. As for the initial footage showing the "cold dead hands" speech- here are Moore's comments-

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims "from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced in narration. It is Heston's most well-recognized NRA image – hoisting the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, as he has done at virtually every political appearance on behalf of the NRA (before and since Columbine). I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun owners" which they "wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the phone.". Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it?

Now one can assume that this footage being shown before the post-Columbine footage was done intentionally as an attempt to mislead the vewier

***or***

One can assume that perhaps it seemed approriate to introduce the NRA into this segemnt of the film using one of the most well know clips concerning the group. I would guess it is all in the eye of the beholder.

Regardless- like I stated before the 'disputed' parts of the film are very small in relation to the whole and are all a matter of perception and opinion- ....in my opinion.

Finally on a more general note- Moore's take on claims he manipulates facts through-out the film:
(same link as above)

I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible. The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them. Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them. So, faced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film – or resorting to character assassination. They have chosen the latter. What a sad place to be.

So like I said before- The film has facts and the film has opinions. We are left with our devices to accept or reject the opinions offered and of course are free to make our own. I expect more of the same from Farenheit 9/11.

[Chewbacca]

Cerek- I recommend seeing BFC- even if you hate Moore. At the worst you may find yourself not thinking *totally* negative of the film even in light of some of the harsher opinions people have offered and at best you will feel totally vindicated in your opinion of him and the film.

Either way- seeing it for oyurself is the only way to really make firm your perspective and see if the hype about the film- both pro and con lives up. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

It seems that Disney is allowing for Farenhiet 9/11 distribution rights to be sold: Link
********************


According to Reuters, Disney and the co-chiefs of Miramax Films are near a deal that would allow director Michael Moore to find a new distributor for his controversial documentary Fahrenheit 911.
Disney, Miramax’s parent company, had refused to release the film because it links US President George Bush to prominent Saudis, including the family of Osama bin Laden. The film also criticises the government for its actions before and after the Sept 11 terrorist attacks.

Miramax spokesperson Matthew Hiltzik said that Disney had agreed to sell rights to Moore’s film to Miramax co-chief executives Harvey Weinstein and his brother Bob Weinstein, who could then find a new distributor for the film.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Oh by the way how does putting up FINANIAL CAPITAL(Money, Moo-la, Green, Jack) differ from...Oh what was that I wrote... OH yeah Disney BOUGHT AND PAID for the movie. BY your own admittion they paid for it(put up the financial capital). I wouldn't do work and not get paid, this is the U.S.A. nobody can make you work and not get paid, but you can CHOSE TO DO SO of your own freewill. If you chose to do so don't come crying to me I have little simpathy for fools.

But there are a lot of these fools , contractors for example. They do the work and get paid afterwards. Translated to their situation "putting up financial capital" would mean paying for the tools and materials during the course of the work but NOT including paying for the work itself that is until the job is done.
It's quite common in business for a department store e.g. to receive a shipment from their supplier and pay only after a given amount of time (after which the goods hopefully have been resold already).
So, as I understand it, Disney put their money into the film and Moore did the work, but as long as the film is not distributed he's not going to get paid for it. If I missed something please correct me.

[Davros]

I don't blame people for not wanting to see it, and I don't blame people for wanting to see it (the film that is).

At the end of the day we know it will make it to the cinema's, because the rights of freedom of speech and expression are as enshrined in the constitution as is the right to own a death dealing chunk of metal that spews bullets.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible. The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them. Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them. So, faced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film – or resorting to character assassination. They have chosen the latter. What a sad place to be.

This is nothing more than a big spin-job by Moore. Pretending to be "terrified" of the NRA just as he claimed that the LAST thing he wanted for the new film was the controversy of having to look for a new distributer. And I point yet again that - in his interview to CNN - he claimed that Disney had "poured over 6 million dollars" into the film, which led him to believe that Disney was perfectly happy with the film.

But the truth - by his own admission - is that Michael Eisner told him a YEAR ago that Disney WOULD NOT distribute his film. But Moore's agent made a deal with Miramax (against Eisner's wishes) and pursued the film with the Disney subsidiary anyway. I believe Moore was planning the whole time to pull this publicity stunt. His "concerns" about having to seek a new distributor are secondary, because NOTHING sells a "documentary" like the allegation that Corporate America is trying to suppress the filmmakers Right to Free Speech. We've already seen one example on this board of a person saying "Well, I wasn't interested in the film until all this hullabaloo started...now I might just have to go see what all the fuss is about." THIS has been Moore's intention from the very beginning (in my opinion, of course ).

I've mentioned several times already that Moore's statement about "Disney pouring money into the film" is technically correct (since Miramax is a subsidiary of Disney), however, the funding NEVER came from the Disney Corporation directly (as Moore implies) and he has known from the very beginning that Disney was not going to distribute the film.

So Moore can also claim that every statement he has made about Disney and the distribution of the new film is also "indisputable fact", but the misleading nature of his statement about Disney's funding of the film is easy to see.

So I don't buy his claims that "every statement" in BFC is indisputable fact either. Moore likes to portray himself as just an ordinary Joe trying to make a little film about an important topic. He also pretends to be frightened or intimidated by Disney and the NRA, when the cold hard fact is that almost all of his films have generated some level of controversy. And those that didn't generate it on their own got a little "boost" from Moore to increase the interest in the film.