His new movie, “Slacker Uprising”, will be available for free download starting September 23rd.
http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/movies/27903154.html
Glad to see he’s finally figured out a fair price for his productions.
I’ll watch it and buy the DVD as well. He’ll easily make the money he spent to make it back. Moore makes films in an attempt to change the world, not to make a pile of money. He has had the top-grossing documentary film of all time, won the Oscar - some people understand that it is possible to have “enough” money. IMO, half the evil in this world is due to people never realizing that they have enough.
From the article:
Translation: The movie sucks, and he couldn’t find anyone willing to release it for him. But he spent $2 million on that turkey, and he wants someone to see it, even if he has to post the damn thing on YouTube.
Even if you don’t like Michael Moore, that doesn’t really make any sense. Moore’s films have a devoted audience and cost very little to produce; SOMEONE would distribute it for him, since it’s going to make some money.
Nonsense. If he released it in theaters, he’d make his negative and advertising costs back from the faithful in the first weekend even if it was terrible. Moore hasn’t have a flop since his sole attempt at a non-documentary, Canadian Bacon. “Bowling for Columbine”? 22 Mil. “Fahrenheit 9/11”? 119 mil. “Sicko”? 24.5 mil.
I can only think that your definition of “sucks” is “anything that Michael Moore does”. What will be amusing is to see if David Zucker’s “An American Carol” does any business.
Awesome. The only way I’d watch one of his movies is if I was certain he’d make no money from it.
Why are you so certain?
You know that if you rent a film, the filmmaker doesn’t get any portion of that money? The rental place buys a copy outright, then rents it out. When it is no longer renting, they sell it at a discount. So Michael Moore makes money from seeing the film in the theater, and gets a portion from the sale of the DVD. But after that, you can rent it at your local video store, assured that he is not going to make one cent from it.
Note: Blockbuster may have a revenue-sharing deal with studios. As if I needed another reason to no rent from Blockbuster.
But by renting it I encourage them to buy a copy. 
I’m pre-emptively ranting about how we won’t be able to download it in Canada. All the good shit is blocked off for us, those bastards.
What if I come over to your house with my already purchased copy and show it to you? When are you free?
You and that guy who wrote Ecclesiastes.
Any time. If you want to come to New York from Chicago, I’ll make sure to accomodate you. 
That’s quite the gap between 1 and 3…
$20 million is astounding for any documentary. “Hoop Dreams” made $7 million. “Young At Heart”, an audience-pleasing documentary about old folks singing rock’n’roll - the least political film imaginable - is on course to make $5 million. The massively popular “The Aristocrats” made $6.3 million. The usual take is more like the $40 thousand that “America The Beautiful” pulled down.
Michael Moore is the most successful documentary filmmaker in history. If he isn’t, tell me who is.
Greg MacGillivray, who directed Everest, which has grossed over $100 million, To Fly!, which has been showing non-stop at the National Air and Space Museum since 1976, where it’s been seen by more than 100 million people, and 20 other IMAX films over the last 30 years.
IMAX films, which are certainly documentaries, are usually categorized separately or not listed at all in box office listings. There are several other IMAX films that have grossed more than $100 million.
And a nebulous “more than $100 million” for a shorter film, shown in a dedicated theater, for more than 20 years somehow negates Moore’s genuine cultural phenomena shown in thousands of theaters to millions of people over a period of weeks in what way? I’ll grant that Mr. MacGillivray’s film might have have made more money, and been seen by more people, but only using the same measure under which “Deep Throat” made more money and was seen by more people than “Titanic”.
Sorry for not qualifying my claim with “documentary filmmaker making films shown in regular theaters, shown on 35mm like any other film, excluding films that are shown in museums and will be shown even if there are no patrons in the theater”. My apologies.
Sorry. I forgot that IMAX films shown in museums are just like porn. :rolleyes:
(BTW, about half of all IMAX theaters in North America are now located in multiplexes.)
As for the “nebulous” $100 million, see here, Box Office Mojo’s page on Everest, which shows it has made $128 million. I believe that figure may actually be years out of date.
Sorry I wasn’t able to read your mind and understand your bizarre and counterintuitive definition of “success,” which apparently is “no longer financially viable after a few weeks in theaters,” as opposed to “still in demand decades after opening,” as is the case with To Fly!, Everest, and many others of MacGillivray’s films. And “making less money, as long as it’s in the right kind of theater.”
Finally, remind me exactly where I “negated” Moore’s accomplishments or talents as a filmmaker. You asked for a more successful documentary filmmaker, and I provided an answer. MacGillivray has been in the business longer than Moore, has made more films which have been seen more people, and made more money than Moore’s. All these facts don’t take one whit away from Moore’s accomplishments or his “cultural phenomena.”
But by any reasonable and ordinary definitions of the terms “success,” “documentary,” and “filmmaker,” MacGillivray is a more successful documentary filmmaker than Moore.
Wait?! He’s now PAYING us to see his films? Meh, I still wont see it.