Disney blocks distribution of Moore's latest film

[zakur]

Story

Walt Disney Co. has barred its Miramax film studio from distributing a documentary by director Michael Moore that is critical of President Bush, Moore said on Wednesday.

The film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," focuses on how the Bush administration responded to the hijacking attacks on Sept. 11 and on ties between the Bush family and prominent Saudis, including the family of Osama bin Laden.

"Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, 'Fahrenheit 9/11,"' Moore, known for confrontational documentaries offering sharp political commentary, said in a letter posted on his Web site.

Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik declined to comment on Disney's actions. But he said, "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."

Disney was not immediately available for comment.

 

[subgenius]

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."
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040505/ZNYT02/405050426

 

[Grammatron]

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."
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040505/ZNYT02/405050426

Yeah except you "accidentally" forgot to include this quote: "Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel." Also from the Reuters link "The New York Times quoted an unnamed Disney executive as saying that the company did not want to be involved in a politically controversial film. "

Of course you see a conspiracy right away, as does Mr. Moore: "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' " Well yes, it's called a contract, if you do not like it, do not sign it and distribute the movie yourself.

I don't see a conspiracy really, Moore can take this to another Distributor. Mel Gibson couldn't get anyone to distribute his film until a little company took it and I don't see that movie (Passion of the Christ) hurting.

 

[Millionframe]

From the article posted by subgenius:

"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. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many."

"'It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle,' this executive said."

Hmmm, somehow I don't see "Kill Bill" catering to families of "all political stripes and believes." But thats just me maybe.

 

[epepke]

Of course you see a conspiracy right away, as does Mr. Moore: "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' " Well yes, it's called a contract, if you do not like it, do not sign it and distribute the movie yourself.

I don't see a conspiracy really, Moore can take this to another Distributor. Mel Gibson couldn't get anyone to distribute his film until a little company took it and I don't see that movie (Passion of the Christ) hurting.

As much as I have disagreed with Disney's corporate policies in the past, I have to agree here. Just making a film does not guarantee you automatic rights to have someone distribute it for you. As for those "monied interests," it's really wearing thin. Moore has had far more money under his control than the vast majority of people see in a lifetime.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

whats funny is the use of the word "blocked"


I mean the film is going to come out no matter what...


why can't they use the word "drops" ?

 

[subgenius]

For example, in Osceola County, Fla., Walt Disney World receives the farming break on 1,600 acres of pasture, timber and nurseries where it grows plants for its theme parks. The land, worth $194 million, is taxed as if it were worth $12.3 million, according to the county land records office. Disney spokeswoman Jacquee Polack said the company keeps a buffer of undeveloped land around the park, but she acknowledged some of this property will be developed.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001895212_shortland04.html

 

[Tony]

For example, in Osceola County, Fla., Walt Disney World receives the farming break on 1,600 acres of pasture, timber and nurseries where it grows plants for its theme parks. The land, worth $194 million, is taxed as if it were worth $12.3 million, according to the county land records office. Disney spokeswoman Jacquee Polack said the company keeps a buffer of undeveloped land around the park, but she acknowledged some of this property will be developed.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001895212_shortland04.html

And what exactly is your problem with that?

 

[Grammatron]

For example, in Osceola County, Fla., Walt Disney World receives the farming break on 1,600 acres of pasture, timber and nurseries where it grows plants for its theme parks. The land, worth $194 million, is taxed as if it were worth $12.3 million, according to the county land records office. Disney spokeswoman Jacquee Polack said the company keeps a buffer of undeveloped land around the park, but she acknowledged some of this property will be developed.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001895212_shortland04.html

....and?

 

[Segnosaur]

"The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many."

"'It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle,' this executive said."

Hmmm, somehow I don't see "Kill Bill" catering to families of "all political stripes and believes." But thats just me maybe.

A person may or may not like the movie "Kill Bill"; however, Kill Bill is a work of fiction, and people who don't like the movie are not likely to alter their actions (such as not visiting certain theme parks) in protest.

The movie by Moore will likely differ in several ways:
- Although a "documentary", his movie will likely be criticized for inaccuracies, much like Bowling for Columbine was, even though documetaries are supposed to be "truthful". Thus, its a little harder to ignore problems with it. (With Kill Bill, they could say "its only a movie", with Moore's movies, they might get criticized for supporting the "facts"). Also, the movie does have a political agenda, whereas Kill Bill did not
- People are likely to protest the movie (especially conservatives), and that could cause them to cancel their usage of other Disney products.

 

[Tmy]

This is the problem you get when you all big media conglomerates.

Teh guy won an oscar forhis last flick, normally that entitles you to release 3-4 bombs without raising an eyebrow. Who wouldnt want to release a contraversial film by a popular filmaker. (can you say Passion of the Christ??) Like him or nor Moore is a hot entity right now..

Its political.


And is he really "dropped". If so, he could be picked up by someone else. Or is Disney just puttinghim on the shelf.

 

[Millionframe]

Segnosaur:
I understand that "Kill Bill" is fiction. However, I think that Disney's claim; "...Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes..." is hypocritical considering that some might take the violence, albeit fake, in "Kill Bill" seriously, therefore Disney wouldn't be catering to them.
Apart from that, I'm unfairly hostile to Disney personally because it’s a massive corporation, and that gave way to over simplification. And I agree with what you wrote.

 

[c0rbin]

Does disney still do the "Gay Day" thing or something like that?

If so, it seems like politics takes a back seat to dollars, which, being that Disney is a corporation, makes sense to me.

As NTW pointed out, Moore's film was simply "dropped" not "blocked" and I am sure we will all get to hear MM's opinions on the facts.

 

[Tmy]

Can you order porn flicks at Disney owned hotels???

LEts say he was just "dropped". and can go elsewhere.
How about the timing. Can he possibly get a new distributer and release the film before the election??

 

[epepke]

Does disney still do the "Gay Day" thing or something like that?

Disney doesn't "do" Gay Day (it's Gay Days or Gay Week now). This is an entirely ad-hoc grass roots movement started by the members of the soc.motss USENET newsgroup. Gay people just show up and wear red to identify themselves.

I watched the original discussions of the first Gay Day on that newsgroup.

 

[richardm]

whats funny is the use of the word "blocked"


I mean the film is going to come out no matter what...


why can't they use the word "drops" ?

Because it hasn't been dropped - not yet, anyway. Miramax want to distribute the film. Disney (who own Miramax) have told them they can't. They have been blocked.

 

[subgenius]

Can you order porn flicks at Disney owned hotels???

Yes, but the image of Mickey and Minnie going at it is quite disturbing.

Actually reminds me of a joke Mom told:

Q: "Why did Mickey have Minnie committed?"
A: "Because she was f*****g Goofy."

(Hope you don't have to think about it too long to get it.)

 

[epepke]

Yes, but the image of Mickey and Minnie going at it is quite disturbing.

I bet it's not as disturbing as the SM cartoon of Miss Piggy and Kermit that I saw in a Washington DC alternative newspaper.

Actually reminds me of a joke Mom told:

Q: "Why did Mickey have Minnie committed?"
A: "Because she was f*****g Goofy."

(Hope you don't have to think about it too long to get it.)

Not a problem, as I heard it about two decades ago.

 

[aerocontrols]

Publicity Stunt.

 

[subgenius]

Publicity Stunt.

So Disney is going to relent and reap the profits?