The Disney people aren’t censors, just nutless pukes with vanilla custard where their spinal columns should be.
Perhaps this will silence those who posit the existence of a liberal Hollywood cabal out to foist their perverted view of morality on an unsuspecting public. Then again, perhaps not.
Are you sure about that? From the New York Times, “But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America.”
That sure sounds like “prevention” to me.
Nice of you to judge the movie as having “many falsehoods and unproven accusations” without having seen it yet. :rolleyes:
As for the financial incentives involved, maybe you missed this part: “Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it [the movie] would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush’s brother, Jeb, is governor.”
By your argument, then, since Miramax was allowed to participate in the production for so long, Disney doesn’t have a problem with Moore or the movie himself – which undercuts your earlier point.
And if we stick with your hypothesis that Disney is only in this for the money, then the allegations that Disney is chickening out for fear of losing their Florida tax breaks gets even more credibility…
Moore is a :wally !
Disney isn’t trying to prevent the movie from being distributed. They just don’t want to distibute it themselves.
Drudge just posted this story:
It’s not as if Disney is dumb enough to pay to make a movie and then not have it be distributed. They just don’t want to be the ones who do the distribution, they wanted someone else to do it. That isn’t censorship. The movie isn’t being “prevented” from being distributed.
Nice of you to ignore the word “probably” in my sentance. I don’t see any reason to believe that his latest work won’t have many falsehoods and unproven accusations considering the track record of Moore to lie to make his case. I’ve heard the movie makes links between the Bush family and Bin-Laden’s family. Moore hates Bush enough that it is safe to say that he probably will go to great lengths to bash him without actually stopping to check his facts first.
Well, lets look at some more stuff from that new article on Drudge:
This whole controversy has erupted just days before the premire of the movie. It is being fueled by Moore himself, who wants publicity for his movie. Disney’s position on the matter has been clear to Moore for a year and he just made a stink now because the movies about to open and he wants publicity.
Anyone think that just maybe, Disney doesn’t think the bloody thing will make the margins?
I mean Moore’s as full of shit as a Xmas Turkey, so it maybe a credibility issue too, but seems to me there aint a whole lot of box office in documentaries.
Really?
According to this website, Bowling for Columbine grossed over $21.5 million in the United States, and a total of $40 million worldwide. Other websites, incluuding IMDb, give similar figures.
I know that’s not as much as a summer blockbuster, but it’s not exactly a figure to be sneezed at, either. Especially given that production costs are listed at around $4 million. That means that, in the US, the film grossed over five times its production cost. By contrast, The Matrix didn’t even triple its production costs in box office revenues, and the final episode in the Lord of the Rings series, The Return of the King, grossed just over four times its production budget.*
You might think that Moore is full of shit, but that probably won’t prevent the new movie from doing pretty well at the box office. As others have pointed out, controversy can help, rather than hinder a film’s receipts.
More financial incentive for Disney to supress the film:
And while IMO it’s premature to judge the movie without seeing it (or hearing the reviews) first, it appears that a lot of the material is simply a reiteration of stuff from this book, and I don’t see the Bush apologists making the case that it, too, contains “many falsehoods and unproven accusations”…
Somebody had better have a word with your mum about the family recipe. :eek:
I’m trying to find the Pit thread decrying the evil corporate censorship that occurred when Mel Gibson couldn’t find a distributor for “The Passion”, being denied by every major distribution outfit in the country, but I’m having trouble locating it. Can someone help me?
There is a huge difference between independantly making a film and not having it be bought for distribution (which isn’t even close to true; there was a not insignificant bidding war between Newmarket and the ‘prestige’ arms of several major studios over it) and making a film under an existing deal and then having it denied.
There… was… no… deal when Disney told him a year ago that they wouldn’t release it. Harvey Weinstein, defying explicit orders, still signed MM to a deal that wasn’t approved by his higher ups, and Disney, rather than kowtow to that self-inflated asshole, is sticking to their guns. Quite honestly, were this any other industry HW would’ve been canned so damned fast he wouldn’t have known what was happening.
So what are these “tax breaks” that Moore’s agent alludes to that will be jeopardized if Disney/Miramax releases the movie?
Moore knows that a) Disney isn’t going to let Miramax distribute it, b) it will get picked up (my guess is with Lion’s Gate like Dogma), and c) if he plays this “the evil Disney Corp. is being blackmailed by Jeb Bush into censoring me” card he’ll drum up a lot of free publicity and a big buzz at Cannes. My guess is that since he’s known a) (and prob b) for about a year now, it’s all about c).
Here’s an industry insider’s perspective. Excerpts:
I can’t say I have a whole lot of sympathy for Moore–especially since I don’t doubt for a second his film will get out there in one way or another eventually.
mhendo sez…
I wasn’t referring to BfC, (which btw was full of half truths and blather too) I was referring to a movie that none of us have seen, and that, it seems according to ArchiveGuy’s post, there was no deal for, and what’s more, the thing was made against the wishes of a parent company, who was footing the bill.
Larry…
Y’know, I always thought that “turdkey” was the wrong spelling, guess i’ve solved yet another family mystery. :eek:
In response to ArchiveGuy’s message, I think it depends on how the financial arrangements were between Moore, Miramax, and Disney. Is the Miramax budget directly tied in to Disney’s coffers, or are they kept separate, for instance? Heck, are we sure the $6 million was from Miramax, and not Weinstein himself?
That said, you and Mojo bring up some good points, especially regarding Moore’s financing of the film and the (probably deliberate) publicity-raising ruckus around it. While I can understand Moore’s goals, it’s stuff like this that lessens my support for the lugnut.
I’m well aware that you weren’t referring specifically to BfC, but your comment was a more general one, to wit:
That’s a general statement about the box office pull of documentaries. The point i was trying to make is that Bowling for Columbine demonstrates that there is, in fact, a fair bit of box office for certain documentaries.
Furthermore, the fact that you believe that BfC was “full of half truths and blather” is irrelevant. Another point i was trying to make is that the very controversy that surrounded the film was probably one of the reasons for its box office success. And, by extension, the controversy surrounding Moore’s new film could well increase it’s taking, irrespective of the merits of the fim itself.
Oh goody. Now Michael Moore can whine and complain some more.
I was under the impression that F911 was a distribution deal; I see now that I’m in error. However the bulk of my point remains in that it’s a different situation than The Passion of the Christ where Mel basically made the movie on a flyer. The controversy for TPotC was largely embraced (and fed in much the same manner) by Icon Productions (Mel’s production company) as well – it became The Movie The Jews Don’t Want You To See! A interesting coincidence here about the connection between the films. Miramax stepped in to finance the film after the original team backed out – namely Icon Productions!
From The Independant.
It looks like cmason32 wins the prize.
Their image these days seems to be that of an ineptitude. What with Eisener’s struggle to stay at the helm, the park’s troubles, Pixar’s decision to flee the ship, and a string of box office dissapointments, I’d think they’d jump at the chance to have a film with as much advance buzz and controversy as this. Hell, they could have even distanced themselves from it publicly and simply let Mirimax do it’s thing and still have reaped the reward. Just seems like bad business.
No matter. Somebody is gonna distribute this film, and make pretty penny doing it.