Fahrenheit 911 - any chance of ever seeing it?

[Tim Casey]

I guess the Disney corporation has decided that we're not mature enough to judge Michael Moore's new film (highly critical of Bush) on its merits. My question is do you think we'll ever see it through some other channel, or can Disney effectively bury this film forever? I was actually looking forward to it.....

I'm also interested in anyone's thoughts about this type of action.

[mudbone]

Personally, I think it's pre-release hype.

mud-:D

[dcooper]

Even if it's distributed through underground channels (the Nation magazine has an online book store that markets politizied DVDs as well) it will see the light of day. There are enough Michael Moore fans out there that it will happen.

Mud's also probably right, the whole thing could be pre-release hype. Or it could be another demonstration of media censorship, like the Sinclair Group pre-empting the Nightline episode honoring the war dead.

[mudbone]

I may be correct. So far Disney hasn't made a statement only Moore has. Are we going to make a judgement hearing only one side of the argument?

mud-

[Tim Casey]

I didn't realize it was just Michael Moore reporting. I received an e-mail from Common Cause about it, and I read it in the news today. Both sources seemed to imply that it really was a Disney decision.

[mudbone]

I didn't realize it was just Michael Moore reporting. I received an e-mail from Common Cause about it, and I read it in the news today. Both sources seemed to imply that it really was a Disney decision.


There ya go. For now only Moore has spoken in the news reports I've seen.

mud-

[poweragemk]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html

Not implying that mud is wrong about it being hype, just that it appears that Disney and Miramax both have commented. (unless I'm missing something, here)

[mudbone]

Gimme some help, Michael. :laugh: I'm not registering at the NYT site. Gimme a paragraph where it contains a Disney statement.

mud-:D

[Michael St. Clair]

Just to be clear, Disney cannot block the distribution. The Weinsteins have the right to take it elsewhere just like how they took Dogma to Lion's Gate. The bros just make less money that way.

Disney has not decided that we can't handle it, they've decided that they can't handle it.

It'll be all over the P2P sharing if there is no North American deal by the time it is out in Europe.

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.

[poweragemk]

In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."

But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.

"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."

As you wish :D

[cliff barua]

I may be correct. So far Disney hasn't made a statement only Moore has. Are we going to make a judgement hearing only one side of the argument?

mud-

From CNN.com today: "We advised both (Moore's) agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," Zenia Mucha, a Disney spokeswoman, told the newspaper.

(The newspaper being the New York Times, and I don't know how recent this quote is).

Cliff

[mudbone]

As you wish :D


Thank you, sir.

So the issue is not that it won't be seen, just that Miramax won't distribute it.

mud-:D

[mudbone]

From CNN.com today: "We advised both (Moore's) agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," Zenia Mucha, a Disney spokeswoman, told the newspaper.

(The newspaper being the New York Times, and I don't know how recent this quote is).

Cliff

The news reports I saw were earlier than the NYT story.

mud-

[poweragemk]

Thank you, sir.

So the issue is not that it won't be seen, just that Miramax won't distribute it.

mud-:D

Yeah, they'd have to offload it. The chances of us not seeing it are, in actuality, VERY slim. This is a standard Hollywood occurrence (often for reasons other than politics), though. Good for the film in general - I'll bet that Miramax increased its asking price for US distro rights this morning :D

[mudbone]

Yeah, they'd have to offload it. The chances of us not seeing it are, in actuality, VERY slim. This is a standard Hollywood occurrence (often for reasons other than politics), though. Good for the film in general - I'll bet that Miramax increased its asking price for US distro rights this morning :D


Fly to France and see it at Cannes. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[cliff barua]

Thank you, sir.

So the issue is not that it won't be seen, just that Miramax won't distribute it.

mud-:D

No, the issue is that Disney (which owns Miramax) will NOT LET Miramax distribute it. It is likely to cause a battle between Miramax (who WANTS to distribute it) and Disney. It will be shown at the Cannes Film Festival next month, and I don't know who has the overseas distribution rights (to both the film and residuals such as DVD and video).

If Disney owns the rights (through Miramax's contract with Moore) and doesn't want it shown until after November (as the story implies Disney's wish to "stay neutral" leading up to the election), then it won't be shown (at least legally and domestically).

Cliff

[poweragemk]

Fly to France and see it at Cannes. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

:shake: After London I won't be flying overseas until my bank account recovers. Anyone got free tix to send me? :laugh:

[mudbone]

No, the issue is that Disney (which owns Miramax) will NOT LET Miramax distribute it. It is likely to cause a battle between Miramax (who WANTS to distribute it) and Disney. It will be shown at the Cannes Film Festival next month, and I don't know who has the overseas distribution rights (to both the film and residuals such as DVD and video).

If Disney owns the rights (through Miramax's contract with Moore) and doesn't want it shown until after November (as the story implies Disney's wish to "stay neutral" leading up to the election), then it won't be shown (at least legally and domestically).

Cliff


Gotcha. I'm sure you'll provide with a report. :D

mud-:D

[cliff barua]

Gotcha. I'm sure you'll provide with a report. :D

mud-:D

Yeah, whatever :rolleyes: .

Cliff

[CardinalFang]

Wow, the partisan overtones in this thread are intense. ;) It's not what is being said, it's what is NOT being said... :laugh:

[AKA]

The Weinsteins are usually good about helping their filmmakers out when things like this happen. It happened to Dogma in 1999 when the Catholic League cried foul, and Bob and Harv shopped it over to Lions Gate.

Hopefully, something similar will happen here. I really want to see this movie.

[cliff barua]

Wow, the partisan overtones in this thread are intense. ;) It's not what is being said, it's what is NOT being said... :laugh:

That's so "veiled" :) (my new favourite word; actually in this Forum, it BELONGS to me). Yet, as you've stated, this Forum is one of 40 veils.

Cliff :)

[Steve Hoffman]

Just read this thread.

What's the big deal? I'm sure he'll get another distributor. He owns (most) of his films. Things like this happen all the time, DOGMA being a good example.

Until we get to see the film, how can we tell what's in it? Michael Moore is an interesting guy; he likes to stir the crap and then sit back and watch the reaction (like one or two of our members). Probably in the case the crap needed stirring, but we won't really know until we can see the movie. Basically, it's a free country and anyone can make a movie about anything they want---If it's interesting, someone will distribute it. It's probably in the contract that the distributor can refuse distribution if they feel the film is "lacking". If not, anything could be turned in and the company would go broke releasing turkeys..

What is this Cliff thing about 40 veils? It's been a long day so can you spell it out for me in plain English? Thanks.

[cliff barua]

Just read this thread.

What is this Cliff thing about 40 veils? It's been a long day so can you spell it out for me in plain English? Thanks.

Sure thing, Steve (I assume it's o.k. for me to respond since it's your site). You stated in the Tillman thread the ONLY reason why political threads or posts can't or shouldn't happen (i.e. Forum MUSIC fans turning on each other because of non-musical (such as political) disagreements). And I think that we all appreciate what a tough job the Gorts have in legislating this philosophy.

Your country (I'm in Canada) and indeed the world is a very polarized place right now, especially due to events that have transpired over the last few years (Bush's election win, 9-11 and the Iraq War, not to mention the ongoing Middle East peace situation). Of course, the Forum is a microcosm of that.

My reference to "veils" is due to the fact that whenever I post anything in a thread that has usually ALREADY become political, Gort Bob admonishes me for posting a "veiled" political comment (which, in all sincerity, is news to me). My reference to the "40 veils" is the fact that from other member's posts as well as some PM's I've received, some members are clearly convinced that a good number of the Gorts patrolling for "political posts" are (to put it mildly) on the conservative or right wing side of the political fence. I don't know if there's an unwritten policy about Gorts publicly admonishing each other but there's a Gort in this thread who's obviously a neo-con who drops "veiled" political references in many of his posts, simply followed by a :D . IMHO, there's an obvious double standard. I have now decided to follow the recommended Forum rule and report such posts to the Gorts.

There are also other neo-con Forum members who openly preach jingoism and neo-patriotism (again, take a look at the Tillman thread) and it is apparently quite o.k. I understand that there's more of a patriotic fever in the good ole U.S. of A these days, but to non-Americans (like myself), these posts are as political (if not moreso) than anything I've written. The Tillman thread talked about his heroism (which I concurred with, being familiar with his NFL career and his sacrifices, both moneywise and maritally). The thread then went on about all the other "heroes", etc. Daved64 (a fellow Canadian and friend, I would say - we've exchanged stuff offline) offered solace to losses on both sides. I commended him for his thoughts. A neo-con jumped all over us, and the inevitable "veiled" chide came from Gort Bob. Of course, Grant for daring to have a different take on the whole thing (not opposing Tillman but threadcrapping, nonetheless I guess) was taken to task and made to stand in the corner.

You've suggested that people just go and start their own thread. And I believe that you're sincere about this. So if I start a thread about the heroic Iraqi boy that had both of his arms blown off, lost most of his family and now lives in London, I wouldn't have Mudbone all over my a*s??

Sorry to vent, Steve. You run a great site here and it's helped me learn about a lot of great recordings and perhaps I should just be thankful for that and not sweat the stuff about politics. I'm sure, along with Grant, I'm one of the perceived "crap-starters" that you refer to. But it becomes real frustrating when there's a such an obvious double-standard on issues that cause emotions to run so high in 2004.

I'll put the issue to rest now (well I won't be around for close to a month anyway :) ) but if anyone wants other members to come forward (who are seeing the same things I do, i.e. neo-con Gorts conveniently regulating the "political" debates), I'll gladly ask a few people to contact HZ with their feelings. By the way, I have spoken to HZ about this before. I also appreciate that he's pretty busy just keeping this place running and with his own job. It's the "political patrol staff" that I have a problem with.

In closing, I will say that there are several Gorts (Dave, Bob, Andrew among others) who provide excellent information on all the other Forums (especially Music and Visual Arts).

Respectfully,

Cliff :)

[JohnG]

sounds like Mel Gibson's problems getting a distributor for "The Passion Of The Christ"....that turned out well for him. :D