Michael Moore admits Disney Controversy a Publicity Stunt.

I have absolutely no love for the Bush administration, but sometimes I really wish the progressive movement would stop pandering to this propagandist douche

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901

Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.

Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001.

In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.

But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

Nobody in Hollywood doubts Fahrenheit 911 will find a US distributor. His last documentary, Bowling for Columbine , made for $3m (£1.7m), pulled in $22m at the US box office.

But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working. A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free expression.

Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]" but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract. And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for financing, not for distribution.

Click to expand...

Michael Moore is a liberal douche bag...I finally saw his "Bowling for Columbine" and he was attacking the wrong people.

His evidence started out well, but during the last 30mins of the movie, he was more Anti-Everything. Against Kmart for selling bullets? Kmart doesn't give a shit! They are just a store that sells to whomever.

Making Charleston Heston a bad guy was stupid too, Heston is just too old people. Let the man go!

But as for Michael Moore Vs. Disney now? Micheal Moore needs to take his fat ass and walk into on coming traffic

ClassicMode1985 said:

Michael Moore is a liberal douche bag...I finally saw his "Bowling for Columbine" and he was attacking the wrong people.

His evidence started out well, but during the last 30mins of the movie, he was more Anti-Everything. Against Kmart for selling bullets? Kmart doesn't give a shit! They are just a store that sells to whomever.

Making Charleston Heston a bad guy was stupid too, Heston is just too old people. Let the man go!

But as for Michael Moore Vs. Disney now? Micheal Moore needs to take his fat ass and walk into on coming traffic

Click to expand...

His liberalism isn't the problem, it's the fact that he's willing to do anything without any regard to intellectual honesty and factual accuracy to support his political agenda. He simply omits facts where convienient and will absolutely distort anything he possibly can to suit his overall objectives.

Every single one of his documentaries since "Roger & Me" contain so many
misrepresentations, half truths, and outright lies, now mix that in with the tone of pop culture pulp and 1930's era yellow journalism and you have an extremely effective propagandist who knows how to milk his target audience for all their worth.

A Comment not in regards to the substance

Do you people actually read the newspaper before discussing things on this site.

Oh wait, don't answer

Reason being is, when the NY Times reported on this story a few days ago, they, through their own journalist's research, mentioned that everyone involved knew about the fact a year ago.


So... Is this Brit paper the one who's bad at looking shit up? Oh wait, I forgot that the Brit newspapers are integrated into their respective biases (seriously).

Or are all of you bad at learning all the facts?

A comment on the substance:

Is anyone really surprised its about publicity?

Mel Gibson got everyone in the US to believe his movie was going to cause controversy before anyone had even seen it yet. He made it sound like, because it wasn't being nice to the Jews, no one would release it. Well, someone did.

Moore and Gibson did the exact same thing.

Of course, its easier to blame one or the other when you don't like the person

ClassicMode1985 said:

But as for Michael Moore Vs. Disney now? Micheal Moore needs to take his fat ass and walk into on coming traffic

Click to expand...

Maybe you can send him a death threat.

My problem with this film is that it could possibly tip the election in favor of Kerry. Now, I don't want Bush to be the next president, but this is just like the Spanish terror bombing that helped replace their gov't with pussies who would run from terrorists instead of fight them.

It may not kill a bunch of people, but it could tip the election, and that's bullshit. Of course, campaigning is also the same thing, but with the extremely poor light this movie will paint Bush in will give all the people who have now become aware that the movie exists, thus they will go see it, reason to vote possibly in a different direction. Thinking about it, it seems kind of scary that a single fat bastard could have this power.

He makes his movie 'documentary-ish' and when people, too stupid to realize it's NOT based in TRUTH see it, they will take it for fact.

If I were Disney, I'd release his movie... the DAY after elections. I bet THAT would piss his faggot fat ass off.

Bobak said:

A Comment not in regards to the substance

Do you people actually read the newspaper before discussing things on this site.

Oh wait, don't answer

Reason being is, when the NY Times reported on this story a few days ago, they, through their own journalist's research, mentioned that everyone involved knew about the fact a year ago.


So... Is this Brit paper the one who's bad at looking shit up? Oh wait, I forgot that the Brit newspapers are integrated into their respective biases (seriously).

Or are all of you bad at learning all the facts?

A comment on the substance:

Is anyone really surprised its about publicity?

Mel Gibson got everyone in the US to believe his movie was going to cause controversy before anyone had even seen it yet. He made it sound like, because it wasn't being nice to the Jews, no one would release it. Well, someone did.

Moore and Gibson did the exact same thing.

Of course, its easier to blame one or the other when you don't like the person

Click to expand...

I knew about the NYTimes article second hand, caught the tail end of the actual interview due to late night insomnia.

There's a CNN article too.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/06/moore.disney/

What Gibsion and Moore did was similar but I don't see it as being exact. Gibson probably realized at mid-point that feeding the controversy surrounding the movie was a good way to propel it. Meanwhile Moore tried to intentionally kickstart a controversy based marketing campaign.

I think the worth of posting this in the fact that Moore himself admitted that it was a manufactured stunt, not just citing allegations from his critics, or even from his own agent.

The other thing is that controversial or not I don't really see "The Passion" has having an overtly political agenda in itself, but that it was latched onto almost oppurtunistiically by tons of extremely vocal conservative, and that grew into being the "movement" surrounding that film. While Moore's project is an inherently political movie.

*accidental second post*

Bobak said:

Maybe you can send him a death threat.

Click to expand...

mwahahahaaa

Scanline said:

What Gibsion and Moore did was similar but I don't see it as being exact. Gibson probably realized at mid point that hijacking and feeding the controversy surrounding the movie was a good way to propel it. Meanwhile Moore tried to intentionally kickstart a controversy based marketing campaign.

I think the worth of posting this in the fact that Moore himself admitted that it was a manufactured stunt, not just citing allegations from his critics, or even from his own agent.

The other thing is that controversial or not I don't really see "The Passion" has having an overtly political agenda in itself, but that it was latched onto almost oppurtunistiically by tons of extremely vocal conservative, and that grew into being the "movement" surrounding that film. While Moore's project is an inherently political movie.

Click to expand...

I think that's a fair assesment -the only thing I differ with is when, exactly Gibson planned his antics as promotional.

I really think Gibson planned it early. the very first interview I ever saw where the movie was mentioned was well over a year ago when they the NY Times Magazine interviewed him about his splinter faith (off of the Catholic Church). He mentioned the movie in passing (without any solicitation) and said it would be controversial: only problem with that, no one had seen it yet. So when Mr. Gibson says he's making a controversial movie about Christ in an interview in mainstream media... well needless to say the ball got rolling. I think he did it from the start, and I think he was smart to do it. I think there were secondary reasons he may have started the whole "this may piss off Jewish people" thing: (1) inoculation: it would've been much worse as a surprise if people found it antisemetic, (2) maybe he was worried his own odd version of Catholicism would come into the limelight (and he's very protective of it, and yes, they're a sort of odd group that doesn't believe in the Pope or Vatican II).

There is a huge difference between The Passion and Farenheit 911...the difference being that the Anti-Defamation League, led by Abraham Foxman, ACTUALLY did have it out for Mel Gibson's movie. Whereas we've found out already, that Micheal Moore's claim was fraudulant, much like his movies.

slerch666 said:

My problem with this film is that it could possibly tip the election in favor of Kerry. Now, I don't want Bush to be the next president, but this is just like the Spanish terror bombing that helped replace their gov't with pussies who would run from terrorists instead of fight them.

Click to expand...

95 % of the spanish people were against entering the coalition from the start. ASS-nar ("nar" means fool in danish ) just wanted to suck Bush's cock along with my very own prime minister and Tony Blair, so he sent troops to Iraq. Don't you think it's natural for the people of Spain to react like this, when the fact that an assinine head of state who just wanted some homo action indirectly got innocent countrymen killed? And where were the terrorists in Iraq, before the country was invaded?

And any legal way of getting rid of Bush is a good way.

I'd also argue that comparing Moore's tactics to Gibson's is really a moot point. Moore proports to be a documentarian and as one getting caught in a bold faced lie he needs to be held at a different standard than someone making a movie.

Which doesn't really exist or need to eixst for someone who for filmmakers at large when dealing with traditional movies, especially when the movie is religiously themed.

Basically what I'm contending is that religion doesn't really have a strictly factual basis so when making a movie based on the bible or any purely fictional work the filmmaker's credibility isn't really relevent, but when classifying something as a documentary it's assumed to be factually grounded in reality, and this is where the credibility of a "documentarian" is absolutely relevant. This incident just serves to help highlight Michael Moore's already spotty credibility.

LOL.

Seriously, Michael Moore should run for office, he's already got this politics thing down pat. Well, either that or he's the biggest attention whore in history.

Kristian Meller said:

95 % of the spanish people were against entering the coalition from the start. ASS-nar ("nar" means fool in danish ) just wanted to suck Bush's cock along with my very own prime minister and Tony Blair, so he sent troops to Iraq. Don't you think it's natural for the people of Spain to react like this, when the fact that an assinine head of state who just wanted some homo action indirectly got innocent countrymen killed? And where were the terrorists in Iraq, before the country was invaded?

And any legal way of getting rid of Bush is a good way.

Click to expand...

I agree that getting rid of Bush is a good thing, but it should be left up to facts, not fiction, to give him Da Big Boot.

As far as Spain, in the big picture, it just looks like they ran away from the terrorists, basically giving them what they wanted. That's just my view/opinion on it. That's the way it looks, thus you basically ask the terrorists to strike again. Again, that's just my opinion.

Bobak said:

Maybe you can send him a death threat.

Click to expand...

C'mon Bobak, you know that's not what he meant at all.

You guys are all fucking idiots...and I could kick 99% of your asses.

Documentaries are NOT supposed to be objective. That's why they are documentaries. They are there to tell a side of the story. Salesman, one of the most influential documentaries of all time, exposed the corruption in the world of travelling Bible Salesmen and helped shed light on a horrible scam that was hurting many Americans every day.

Just because you don't agree with Moore's politics, you can't say that his work isn't documentary because it IS. Bowling for Columbine was a documentary and a damned good one, 90% of what was shown was accurate which is better than most. I don't agree with everything Moore does, nor do I agree with his political view per se, but he's good at what he does and the fact that he has tools like you all whining about a film that hasn't even come out yet shows how week minded consumers really are.

FACTS:

Moore signed a contract with Disney providing Miramax production and international distribution of the film. Buena Vista Dist. won the rights to distribute the film nationally.

Eisner saw that Miramax was making the film and told them to cancel the contract a year ago.

Disney STILL FUNDED the film until its completion as was set forth in the contract.

MORE FACTS FOR THE FUCKING IDIOTS ON THESE BOARDS:

Disney has always been a partisan company...maybe bi-partisan is a better word. Disney distributes Sean "I'm a cockmouth" Hannity and Rush "Al Franken's Toilet Paper" Limbaugh's radio shows nationwide. Disney also distributed Michael Moore's "The Big One" in 1998, a big Congressional election year. Disney is also an outspoken supporter of same sex marriage.

Disney's oversight of miramax is very limited. Under contract, Disney can only stop Miramax from releasing a film if it gets an NC-17 rating. Because Eisner is desperate for the tax breaks and incentives in Florida, he is willing to pay fines to Miramax in order to appease George's lil bro.

Plus, the independent is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Bitches.

BoriquaSNK said:

You guys are all fucking idiots...and I could kick 99% of your asses.

Documentaries are NOT supposed to be objective. That's why they are documentaries. They are there to tell a side of the story. Salesman, one of the most influential documentaries of all time, exposed the corruption in the world of travelling Bible Salesmen and helped shed light on a horrible scam that was hurting many Americans every day.

Just because you don't agree with Moore's politics, you can't say that his work isn't documentary because it IS. Bowling for Columbine was a documentary and a damned good one, 90% of what was shown was accurate which is better than most. I don't agree with everything Moore does, nor do I agree with his political view per se, but he's good at what he does and the fact that he has tools like you all whining about a film that hasn't even come out yet shows how week minded consumers really are.

Click to expand...

Call them flabbergasters if it makes you feel like you're more intelligent that the rest of us - but in the end they're just turds masquerading as responsible journalism.

FACTS:

Moore signed a contract with Disney providing Miramax production and international distribution of the film. Buena Vista Dist. won the rights to distribute the film nationally.

Eisner saw that Miramax was making the film and told them to cancel the contract a year ago.

Disney STILL FUNDED the film until its completion as was set forth in the contract.

MORE FACTS FOR THE FUCKING IDIOTS ON THESE BOARDS:

Disney has always been a partisan company...maybe bi-partisan is a better word. Disney distributes Sean "I'm a cockmouth" Hannity and Rush "Al Franken's Toilet Paper" Limbaugh's radio shows nationwide. Disney also distributed Michael Moore's "The Big One" in 1998, a big Congressional election year. Disney is also an outspoken supporter of same sex marriage.

Disney's oversight of miramax is very limited. Under contract, Disney can only stop Miramax from releasing a film if it gets an NC-17 rating. Because Eisner is desperate for the tax breaks and incentives in Florida, he is willing to pay fines to Miramax in order to appease George's lil bro.

Plus, the independent is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Bitches.

Click to expand...

Our taxes don't support Disney - so they're free to not produce any pictures they wish, and they're free to support whatever pictures they wish. That's why they call this a free country.

for as great as i think Michael Moore is
i do see him as verry manipulative and this is his magor flaw
his books are much better then his movies he tends to loose the points in his films when he trys to make them short enough for the generel public
bowling for columbine could have been great if it wasnt condenced into one giant anti gun film ( not that im pro gun but i didnt agree with his tatics with that film)

but i do agree with alot that he sez although at times i can see manny flaws in his ways of trying to solve things
but thats just the same as any other political minded person not one has got it completely right yet and nor will anyone
not untill people finally get there heads out there asses and realize that we need to act as a whole and not as a bunch of separated retards is shit going to finally get better in this shit hole of a country

Flint > Compton

you know it Dashy

Micheal Moore should be shot and killed.

I don't say this because he bashes Bush. I don't like Bush that much aside from how funny he can be on accident. But I could really give a fuck less about who's in office until I turn 18 (January 2005).

I say MM should be executed because he's so annoying and he's EVERYWHERE. He looks like someone who was picked on in high school, he needs to end himself.

BoriquaSNK said:

You guys are all fucking idiots...and I could kick 99% of your asses.

Documentaries are NOT supposed to be objective. That's why they are documentaries. They are there to tell a side of the story. Salesman, one of the most influential documentaries of all time, exposed the corruption in the world of travelling Bible Salesmen and helped shed light on a horrible scam that was hurting many Americans every day.

Just because you don't agree with Moore's politics, you can't say that his work isn't documentary because it IS. Bowling for Columbine was a documentary and a damned good one, 90% of what was shown was accurate which is better than most. I don't agree with everything Moore does, nor do I agree with his political view per se, but he's good at what he does and the fact that he has tools like you all whining about a film that hasn't even come out yet shows how week minded consumers really are.

Click to expand...

Documentaries also aren't supposed to contain outlandish distortions or brazenly manipulated footage, once they do they end up crossing the line and become propaganda films.

Documentaries are supposed to present a case or opinion based on clear factual evidence, that's where "Roger & Me" and "Bowling for Columbine" fail, not that they present a controverisal opinion or topic, but that they both contain a willful misrepresentation of facts. He does things no responsible documentarian would dream of doing, his works are psuedo-documentarial pulp films and nothing more.

His films are entertaining I won't deny that, infact as far as entertianment value goes "Bowling for Columbine" was amazing, but his works are anything but accurate, he's has a long list of questionable practices.

You're argument is basically summed up as "Well whatever liberties he decides to take with the facts and whatever he decides to willingly misrepresent is fine because other filmmakers have done it in the past." is just blatantly foolish.

I mean in effect given the same principal applied to another situation, that on a hypothetical basis it would be morally defensible for Bush to lie to the public because countless American presidents have done so in the past.

The fact is that even people who can be catagorized as extremely sympathetic towards his political positions are criticial of his methods. That itself denotes that there's something wrong despite the fact that just as many are willing to look past his credibilty problems or ignore them completely because they agree with him.

The other thing is that calling everyone in this thread "a fucking idiot" doesn't nessicarily denote intellectual superiority.

ClassicMode1985 said:

Michael Moore is a liberal douche bag...I finally saw his "Bowling for Columbine" and he was attacking the wrong people.

His evidence started out well, but during the last 30mins of the movie, he was more Anti-Everything. Against Kmart for selling bullets? Kmart doesn't give a shit! They are just a store that sells to whomever.

Making Charleston Heston a bad guy was stupid too, Heston is just too old people. Let the man go!

But as for Michael Moore Vs. Disney now? Micheal Moore needs to take his fat ass and walk into on coming traffic

Click to expand...

You can buy bullets in a supermarket!! that's just sick.

smokey said:

You can buy bullets in a supermarket!! that's just sick.

Click to expand...

Its not really a "Grocery store" style supermarket. It's a giant "We sell everything you'd ever want" store. Think a department store but much, much, much bigger. Its like Walmart or Target. So yeah, they carry sporting goods -so when they carry guns they're hunting rifles and such.

Scanline said:

Documentaries also aren't supposed to contain outlandish distortions or brazenly manipulated footage, once they do they end up crossing the line and become propaganda films.

Documentaries are supposed to present a case or opinion based on clear factual evidence, that's where "Roger & Me" and "Bowling for Columbine" fail, not that they present a controverisal opinion or topic, but that they both contain a willful misrepresentation of facts. He does things no responsible documentarian would dream of doing, his works are psuedo-documentarial pulp films and nothing more.

His films are entertaining I won't deny that, infact as far as entertianment value goes "Bowling for Columbine" was amazing, but his works are anything but accurate, he's has a long list of questionable practices.

You're argument is basically summed up as "Well whatever liberties he decides to take with the facts and whatever he decides to willingly misrepresent is fine because other filmmakers have done it in the past." is just blatantly foolish.

I mean in effect given the same principal applied to another situation, that on a hypothetical basis it would be morally defensible for Bush to lie to the public because countless American presidents have done so in the past.

The fact is that even people who can be catagorized as extremely sympathetic towards his political positions are criticial of his methods. That itself denotes that there's something wrong despite the fact that just as many are willing to look past his credibilty problems or ignore them completely because they agree with him.

The other thing is that calling everyone in this thread "a fucking idiot" doesn't nessicarily denote intellectual superiority.

Click to expand...

I think you have a reason to not like his documentary, but I'll defend that fact that it is, in fact, a documentary until the end.

You can make a documentary into propaganda, just like you can make a fictional movie into propaganda -but both movies need to be based in some genre/style -and Moore's is documentary.

things like "Slant", "mistated fact", and the like are reasons to not like the end result, but not challenge its very style.

I went to USC and took a number of film classes there, and I can tell you none of those profs would challenge the fact that the film was a documentary -again, this is not bringing opinions on substance into the equation.

That's why the people in the industry were laughing when all these knee-jerk websites appeared after the Oscars, challenging the Oscar on the basis that the movie "wasn't a documentary". The Academy's heard plenty of criticism for movies they've picked before, but to be told they don't know what a documentary is... well, it's stupid. And I agree because its clear the the people criticising in that way have no real background studying or working in film.

For a movie to get nominated in the first place, its selected by group that includes all former living Oscar winners in that category. So if you want to challenge every single, Oscar winning documentarian out there... You'll lose.