Since when does “We will not pay for you to speak your opinion” equal censorship? Michael Moore is throwing that word around too freely IMO. He insists that the freedom to speak his mind is so important that a non-government owned company should pay so that everyone can hear him, yet he denies Disney the right to say “We don’t want to fund this or put our name to it”. I don’t think the reasons for their decision are important or relevant. They’ve decided that this isn’t how they want to spend their money. End of story.
I feel compelled to add that I used to admire MM. The book-signing incident was the beginning of the end for that.
Well, to me it seems quite clear that the person who made the decision to pay him to make the film isn’t the same person who made the decision not to distribute the film.
Michael Moore’s quoted letter says that Miramax financed the film, that a month later Michael Eisner of Disney stated that Disney would never distribute the film, and that though Miramax continued to provide finance, neither Michael Eisner nor Disney ever made an additional statement regarding a change in the plans to refuse to distribute the movie. Miramax said there was no distribution problem, but it sounds as though they were not in a position to make that assurance.
Moore’s fault is the spin he’s putting on it. “Help! I’m being opressed!”. There are many words one could use to describe this situation. Powerstruggle. Poor communication. Opposing viewpoints. I don’t see that the word “censorship” has any relevance whatsoever, and implies an intent that I don’t see coming from Disney.
This may be slightly off subject, but has Ray Bradbury said anything about Moore adapting the title of his book for this flick(I won’t call it a documentary)?