Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

Disney is well within its rights here. They probably would not release The Bad Lieutenant either. If I make a film that no studios want, that does not make them against free expression.

Ironically, this little bit of press will make the film all the more popular once it comes out with some studio or another. For my tastes, the director is too interested in preaching to the choir, and he's too melodramatic to make great impact where it counts.

 

Folks, this is not censorship. Disney is acting to avoid the logical firestorm that will follow that nut Michael Moore and his mockumentary. In other words, it is the glorious free market a work. Michael Moore has never been a friend of the truth and cutting off that waste of money (as if any of his left-wing attack pieces mascerading as serious documentaries make any money at the box office) is a great move by Disney, which has given tons of money to the Hildabeast campaign.

 

If there is nothing to the allegation that Eisner was in part motivated by fear of a governmental backlash, the premise that this is censorship is almost impossible to assert with any certainty.

 

b-bob...please stop being reasonable. reason is not welcome in this forum!!!

 

I share the outrage...what kind of country do we live in when a corporation can just decide what they distribute? Perish the thought.

 

All this politicall sencorship reminds me of the movie "The Craddle Will Rock" its all looks so familiar.

 

Disney Bars Unit from Releasing Anti-Bush Film

By Peter Henderson and Derek Caney

LOS ANGELES/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Walt Disney Co. has barred its Miramax Films unit from releasing a controversial documentary about the Sept. 11 attacks by director Michael Moore (news) that criticizes President Bush (news - web sites), representatives of all sides said on Wednesday.

Moore, who won an Oscar for 2002's "Bowling for Columbine," said he was told of the decision only a day ago, but Disney said his agent had been told a year ago the company would not release the documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," which focuses on how the White House responded to the hijacking attacks and on ties between the Bush family and prominent Saudis.

A Disney spokeswoman called the timing of Moore's statement a publicity "stunt" ahead of the film's debut at the Cannes film festival (news - web sites) in France later this month.

The wrangling seemed set to boost interest in Moore's film, while also underscoring the sometimes stormy relationship between Disney Chief Executive Michael Eisner and the independent-minded head of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein.

"Yesterday, I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film," Moore said in a letter posted on his Web site.

Moore's Los Angeles-based agent, Ari Emanuel, told the New York Times Eisner had asked him not to sell the film to Miramax because it might jeopardize tax incentives Disney receives for its Walt Disney World theme park in Florida. The state's governor, Jeb Bush, is the president's brother.

But Eisner, speaking to reporters at Disneyland in southern California, called Emanuel's assertion "ridiculous."

"None of that was ever discussed," he said. "It is totally not true."

PUBLICITY STUNT?

"We dealt with this issue a year ago," Eisner added. "We informed the agency that represented the film. We informed all of our companies that we chose not to be involved with that particular film."

Emanuel declined to comment further, his spokesman said. Moore was not immediately available.

"This is nothing more than a PR (public relations) stunt on the part of the filmmaker," Disney spokeswoman Zenia Mucha said.

For its part, Miramax said it was still discussing the issue with Disney and hoped to resolve the matter amicably.

Disney, which bought Miramax in 1993, has a contract with the Miramax principals, Harvey and his brother Bob Weinstein, allowing Disney to prevent the unit from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an NC-17 rating.

Over the years, Weinstein and Eisner have clashed on various topics dealing with Miramax and its movies and Miramax releases like "Dogma" have generated controversy before.

A little controversy can go a long way toward making a low- budget, independent movie a hit. Mel Gibson (news)'s recent "The Passion of the Christ," for instance, received huge publicity ahead of its release over claims of anti-Semitism and then grossed over $364 million at domestic box offices.

Moore's "Columbine" was also derided by gun activists for its anti-gun message. That documentary went on to collect $22 million at domestic box offices, making it the highest grossing documentary of all-time.

The title of his new film is a play on the Ray Bradbury novel "Fahrenheit 451," a futuristic story about censorship.

 

In an interview on NPR yesterday, Moore stated that in the contract for the film there were only two reasons listed that would allow Miramax / Disney to NOT release the film.

The first was if the budget went over $30 million, Moore denied this claim and to my knowledge no one at Disney has stated that as a reason either.

The second reason was if the MPAA gave the film a rating of NC-17 and that did not happen either.

When asked by Michelle Norris about the charge that this may be a publicity stunt, Moore simply stated "you called me..."

 

Man...did Disney ever let itself be played by Moore on this.

If Moore made the film Miramax knew he was making, then they really should distribute it. Sounds like Miramax went against Disney's edict in signing the movie. The Miramax guys who did this should be brought to task by Disney. But Moore hasn't really done anything wrong here -- except make bad movies!

Expect him to milk the publicity for all it's worth. Disney put itself over a barrel and handed Moore the paddle.

 

No. I don't think Moore has done anything wrong, either, except maybe make accusations (or let his people make such accusations) about the timing of their knowledge or the motives behind Disney's long-time refusal to distribute this film.

Harvey Weinstein is the guy who financed a movie knowing that his bosses weren't going to let him use the Disney distribution system for it.

This movie will do just fine through some other distributor. Harvey shouldn't have bought the movie without the okay of his bosses.

 

But what does Miramax's contract with Disney say (or actually what does Weinstein's contract with Disney say)? Weinstein never got Disney's approval to release the film in the first place. It appears Weinstein contracted to do more than he was authorized to do.

 

If Moore signed with Miramax in good faith. And delivered his end of the bargain. Isn't he dead on being pissed at Disney for blocking distribution?

 

Other than pretending that he just heard about this yesterday, I think he's got a right to be upset. I fully believe that Weinstein probably told Moore or his representatives that he could change Disney's mind and get them to release the film when it first came out about a year ago that Disney wasn't going to do so.

He'll get a chance to distribute it elsewhere, and it will likely be on as more screens than it otherwise would.

Disney has been upfront since the get-go, and they're being painted as the bad guys and ascribed motives that may or may not be true (and Moore's people are messing with the timing. I read about how Disney wasn't going to release the movie several months ago. You can't tell me that I found out before Michael Moore did), and that shouldn't be done.

 

Moore's exploiting the timing is really standard operating procedure for him. I would expect nothing less. I'm a bit surprised Disney didn't see it coming.

 

The real story here, to me, is how badly Eisner's botched this whole thing. He should have arranged an alternate disribution deal behind the scenes a long time ago. If needed he could have spun it as 'We felt the film needed far more attention than we could give it at this point in our release schedule,' you know, some bs like that.

I think it's pretty clear that two things are going to happen. One, Moore is going to whine incessantly for the next three years about how how the facists at Disney are censoring him - horrible PR for Eisner. Two, all of this publicity is going to ensure that the film does well at the box office once it inevitably finds a distributor, and many Disney stake holders are going to be pissed at the lost revenue. Either way you look at it, Roy Disney wins, Eisner loses.

 

Moore's next project: The Mouse That Wouldn't Roar.


All kidding aside, and I am not in any way saying this is probable, but if Moore isn't completely lying, and Eisner did cite fear of governmental repercussions as a reason for nixing this, would that change anyone here's mind about what this does and does not represent? ( Was gonna use betoken, but rimbaud has me on my toes as far as getting into a rut.)

 

Disney can distribute any movie it wants. Their companies, their rules.

The problem is the media monopoly. There are only like 10 "major" players in the gargantuan media industry. Ten like-minded rich white men make all the decisions. If these 10 men think something is too "controversial," then the project is effectively censored. There are no other mainstream outlets.

Add fear of government reprisal, and almost anything beyond the mainstream is effectively censored.

 

I see what you're saying (LSD, anyone?), but that ultimately reflects on Eisner as a worm. His alleged fear does not porve that the Bush family or the administration goes after people (I believe other evidence porves that beyond a doubt).

I'm not trying to be annoying, but this kind of crap happens all the time in the movie industry.

"Oh, I can *totally* convince the parent company to distribute Random Hearts II, Harrison. You're gold, baby! This is going to be your biggest film since Witness!"

I just cannot get around the fact that this is a business decision, made for whatever reason Disney wants. CEO has an upset stomach, fears political controversy, reads his horroscope. Whatever. It's their gig and their decision. Moore can take his hyperbolic, useless film elsewhere. Like someone else won't distribute it now? (I definitely want to see it, btw, but it won't convert anybody).

 

Politics is all about timing.

Don't act like you did not know this.