The imdb has a story that big bad evil capitalist fat-cat Michael Eisner is going to force Miramax to donate 60% of the net profits of Moore’s screed to an as yet unnamed charity.
No word as yet from the stout ‘director’ as to whether he’ll follow suit, but somehow I doubt it (luxury Manhattan condos, limousines, twinkies, private school for your kid, and 1[sup]st[/sup] class airfare to every America hating country ain’t cheap…)
So is Eisner just trying to save face having been seen as wanting to ‘censor’ it? This isn’t going to indear him to Disney’s shareholders, after seeming to have almost shelved a money-maker, then giving most of the money away.
“After Disney refused to allow Miramax to distribute the film and Michael Moore accused Disney of censorship, discussions between Miramax founders Bob and Harvey Weinstein and Disney Chairman Michael Eisner, in the words of the Journal, “took on the stern parent-naughty child tone that has characterized many moments between the parties over the years.””
Does that answer your question, or did you want to shove your foot a little further up Moore’s ass?
I don’t see how the OP’s question is contradicted by that sentence.
Saving face could be a large part of Eisner’s motive… so could appeasing the Florida GOP and governor.
That’s 60% of the “net” profit, btw. I am reminded of the creative bookkeeping that decided that Eddie Murphy’s movie Coming To America, was somehow a loss for the studio after costs were deducted.
And DISNEY decides the charity? Not Moore? Not the producers, the Weinsteins? Who brokered that contract deal?
I meant in the eyes of the public and (even more) Disney stockholders, not the Weinsteins. His opinion of them isn’t going to change.
There was a lot of speculation that if F9/11 was a hit then it would signal Eisner’s ouster as having been a bad financial decision. Is this really any better?
Who gives a rat’s ass? I wouldn’t think less of Moore if he blew all his money on coke and hookers and blackjack. He made the money, as long as he pays his taxes, it’s all good as far as I’m concerned.
He’s not St. Francis. He never took a vow of poverty so there’s no reason he should have to give all his money away and wear a hairshirt.
I am really glad to hear about this, I only wish Moore was doing it himself. Moore is rich already and I think he wants Bush out more than he wants more money, so I had thought it would have been a great idea for him to say up front that he was donating all of his net profit from the movie to a charity, preferably something like a charity for the families of soldiers killed in Iraq. Why? Because one of the things you often hear as a reason people who do not share his views will not go see his movie is because they are giving him money and in effect supporting him. He would probably significantly increase his viewership if people thought of the ticket price as a contribution to the families of soldiers rather than a deposit into Moore’s account.
I dunno, flight. I kinda doubt that those who have made a point of not supporting Moore with their money would up and see any movie that he was involved in even if the proceeds went directly to, say, the RNC. Besides, Moore makes movies. People who make movies are supposed to be groveling degenerates. Hell, have you ever seen the Muppets in a cocaine and heroin induced frenzy? Makes Moore and his luxury apartment look positively Capra-esque. Basically, this OP seems to be much ado about nothing.
That’s exactly why I haven’t seen the movie yet. I want Bush out of office as much as any of them, but that can’t make me automatically like Michael Moore or his using the events of 9/11 to make money, and I refuse to give him a dime for it. If he really cared more about helping to drive Bush out of office instead of making a few bucks, he would have pushed for his movie to air on television rather than in a $10 theater.
…and this 60% to SOME UNNAMED charity bs doesn’t make me feel any more comfortable. For all I know, it could be the “help Michael Moore feed his family” fund.
Um… You know he doesn’t get like 20 percent of each ticket sale, right? I’m sure if its in the theater longer or something he might get a few more bucks, but isn’t most of it (even the amount of time it’ll be in theaters) decided FAR in advance?
