Sorry, I read your thread title too fast…
For the last couple years, I’ve heard about Michael Moore’s new film “Fahrenheit 911” and have looked forward to its release (hoping it would come out before November 2004). Generally, I’m a Michael Moore fan. I liked “Bowling for Columbine” and “Stupid White Men”. Occasionally, the man turns into an embarrassing liberal blowhole. Disney blocking the release of the movie is ridiculous:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php
Does Disney know who Michael Moore’s audience is? The subject matter in the movie has been known to most of us for years (the Bush-Saudi connection etc.) Who is going to get angered over this? Last I checked, not many card carrying Republicans are Michael Moore fans. I just bought a T-shirt that says “America is scary”. As the weeks go by, it becomes more and more true.
I think it would be useful if someone a bit more “in the know” would fill us in with some more details.
The fact remains that Disney entered a contractual agreement with its own subsidiary. IA most certainly NAL, but I can imagine that such contracts would be standard whenever a company buys another one. That Disney owns Miramax does not relieve them of their contractual obligations.
Yes, but this OP is much better.
I am inclined to agree.
Although I’d still like to see Weinstien and Eisner in a steel cage death match. That’s one of those things that no matter WHO wins, I got my money’s worth…
One wonders why this is news now.
It wouldn’t happen to have anything to do with the upcoming Cannes film festival, now would it? :rolleyes:
That’s an interesting summary of the law of contract, but I wonder if it’s entirely accurate …
Eh, you’re right. However, the fact that this decision was made a year ago without anybody demurring is very, very telling.
It’s possible that there’s been a certain amount of demurring going on, but that it’s only become newsworthy due to the imminent release of the film at Cannes …
It probably does, but probably not for the reasons you think.
Rather than simply being some sort of publicity stunt for Cannes, it it reasonable to surmise that this issue is surfacing now because many Americans (journalists and the public) are in the habit of keeping an eye on the Cannes film festival to see what is going to be released in the United States in the future.
And now, we find that a film is going to be shown at Cannes that addresses some of the most important issues being faced by the United States, to wit, its relationship with Saudi Arabia and the Bush administration’s actions before and after 9/11. Furthermore, while the French audience will get to see this film about American politics, Americans will not get to see it.
Note that the issue of whether this is a “good” or a “bad” film is not even relevant to my argument. The fact is that when a film about America will be shown outside of the United States, but not in the United States, then this is likely to be news in the United States, especially in the days or weeks leading up to the film’s first public screening.
There were two threads on this topic in the Pit. I have merged them into one thread.
Lynn
For the Straight Dope
One thing is for sure, if you want to make sure no one sees a movie, make sure that you raise a controversy about it. That strategy clearly worked for The Passion of the Christ.
The problem in this case, of course, is that while the controversy might indeed cause more (rather than fewer) Americans to want to see the film, it will be irrelevant if the film is never actually released in the United States.
Just out of interest, does anyone know the ins and outs of how movie distribution works? If Disney indeed wins this battles, and prevents Miramax from distributing the film in the US, what other options are there for getting the movie released in America? Is it possible that we will simply never see this film in the US?
Folks, this isn’t the first time Disney has bullied Miramax into not releasing a film. They did the same thing to Kevin Smith and “Dogma”. What happened then, and could likely happen now, is that the distribution rights get sold back to the production company, and then they find a new distributor (like Kevin Smith did in letting Lions Gate distribute “Dogma”.)
Is it right that Disney is doing this? Not really. Do I understand it? Yes, because Disney has a corporate image to protect. Also, there’s the issue of Disney owning ABC as well. If one arm of the Walt Disney Company is releasing a film that attacks the Administration, it calls into question the impartiality of the news department of another arm of Disney.
I’m sure Moore is shouting, “Yes! YES!” at the controversy. cmason is absolutely right: controversy is about the best thing you can do for a film/book in order to make sure everyone wants to see it.
In fact, if I were just a little more cynical, I might wonder whether this is a moneymaking ploy by Disney.
But I’m not quite that cynical yet. Ask me again tomorrow.
Daniel
Sheesh, nowadays Disney can’t even do the megalomanaical soulless greedbag corporation thing right anymore.
Look, I’ve seen how they operate. The only color they care about is green, and their only god is the Almighty Dollar. Especially now, in light of their financial woes. They don’t give a damn about the quality of their movies; the recent flurry of direct-to-video sequels alone destroys that myth. Let’s not forget that a sizable (and growing) chunk of America absolutely loves Michael Moore, and the recent flap over Bowling For Columbine was because it won an Oscar.
This is a golden opportunity to run a thought-provoking movie that’ll drum up a ton of controversy and make a ton of money, and the only people it’ll tick off likely hated them to begin with. I mean, what’s their problem?
Anyone catch this part…
Of course, this is Moore’s agent talking, but still, this seems the most likely driver behind Disney’s reasoning.
First of all this thread title is wrong. From what I saw on the news just now, Disney isn’t preventing Mirimax from distributing the movie. A more accurate title would be: Disney isn’t helping Mirimax distribute “Fahrenheit 911”!
My take on this is as follows:
Disney owns Mirimax. So, if this movie is successful Disney stands to profit by that. By starting this controversy, Disney has generated a lot of hype for the movie, and lots of free publicity.
So, by taking this stand, Disney distances itself from a known liar and the many falsehoods and unproven accusations that his latest movie probably makes against the president. In the meantime, they are helping to promote it for $0. It’s a win-win.
If Disney had a real problem with Moore, then they wouldn’t have let Mirimax make his movie in the first place.
Although Disney may not release the film under their distribution deal, I doubt that they can prevent Moore from shopping the project to other companies. I don’t know whether these contracts are “right of first refusal” deals, but a film maker would have to be a moron to lock themselves into a contract wherein if the distributer refused to release the movie they would be barred from seeking other deals.