Fahrenheit 911

IMO it sounds more like a freedom to look-closely-at-the-distribution-contract-you-signed issue.

From the NY Times article I read, it appears to be yet another internal pissing match at Disney. It also sounds like those of you overseas will have a better chance of seeing it than us in the US.

Not that I like Moore, but I do find his egotistical massaging of events in order to make a point entertaining.

I'm not sure Disney cares who sees the film (or whether it is released at all), and therefore I don't think it matters a hoot to them that this publicity will increase viewership. Rather, I think Disney, itself, wanted nothing to do with it (for various reasons which have been speculated upon here).

In any event, Moore has a enough clout to release the film himself, doesn't he?

Anyway, Bowling was great.

Judd

LOTF,HOTB eh?

Howard

I'd heard nothing of this down here - more info on http://www.michaelmoore.com/

I sure hope it comes out - I'm neither right nor left (or even centre), pleased to hear or at least pay some time and attention to a voice of reason in the wilderness that is world media.

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

This Disney case parallels last week's little Nightline episode in a disturbing way: in both cases a powerful media conglomerate is using its clout in a way that effectively inhibits anti-Bush administration programming. This is happening even if Justin is correct that Disney's motives are purely economic, as they may indeed be.

[For those who hadn't heard, last week an ABC newsprogram called "Nighline" telecast the names of all of the Americans killed in Iraq. This outraged a lot of right-wingers, who believed that listing all the dead American soldiers would undermine support for the war effort. A large broadcasting organization that owns several ABC stations refused to broadcast the show on their affiliate stations.]

Nothing that Moore or his agents say can be taken at face value. This flare up is a pre-release publicity stunt over a decision that was reportedly taken a year ago. I can quite understand Disney not wanting to distribute a political polemic, it doesn't mean the film won't get distributed in the US.

Paul

"Nothing that Moore or his agents say can be taken at face value."

Do you have some evidence for this claim, Paul Ranson, or should we just take what you say at face value?

Moore is notorious for his presentation skills, making fiction look like documentary. There are obssessives dismantling his work in great detail all over the place, some of them are almost as funny as Moore. Treat his work as light entertainment. As I think he himself suggests somewhere.

Anyway do you disbelieve the statements from Disney? Do you disbelieve Moore himself when he says that Disney decided not to distribute his new film a year ago?

Paul

Moore "Making fiction like documentary"
Bush making WOMD look like a real thing?

Never forget:-
Right wing = right
Left wing = wrong

Moore's a bit too much of a showman to be taken too seriously, the shame of it is there are so few voices from the opposition who have his profile in the US media.

Having said that, the fact that Disney are refusing to distribute his film is interesting news, worthy of public knowledge, regardless of whether they decided that a year ago or last week, and regardless of the marketing spin that fact is used for. It is an example of corporate political censorship, after all, and therefore A Bad Thing.

-- Ian

I don't understand the problem. If I take my new moose snuff movie to Disney and they decline to distribute is that 'corporate censorship'?

It's a real shame that Moore's such an easily demolished documentary maker, there's real stuff to be said and I think using the unexpurgated truth would be very much more effective.

Paul

quote:

---

If I take my new moose snuff movie to Disney and they decline to distribute is that 'corporate censorship'?

---

Yes. We may agree or disagree with the decision, but it's still an example of censorship, and therefore worthy of comment. And it seems to me that a powerful corporation like Disney should expect to be asked to justify its decisions if they're controversial.

You'll get no argument from me about Moore's failings, however.

-- Ian

quote:

---

If I take my new moose snuff movie to Disney and they decline to distribute is that 'corporate censorship'?

---

Yes of course it is 'corporate censorship' even though censorship may well be totally justified in the vast majority of peoples minds.
But this is not a “moose snuff movie” it appears to be merely the opinions of one man criticizing his political leader,
John.

Paul,
what exactly is a “MOOSE snuff movie”.
I understand the snuff bit. Could it be something like The Deer Hunter?
John.

"Nightmare on Elk Street"

quote:

---

We may agree or disagree with the decision, but it's still an example of censorship, and therefore worthy of comment.

---

But by that argument every film that Disney elects not to distribute is an example of censorship, equally any novel that doesn't get published.

Anyway I'm off to Canada with my camcorder to go moose mashing.

Paul

In the context of 9/11, and the well-known connections between the Bush family and Saudi business, this isn't quite equivalent to any old decision to not distribute any old film.

Give the mooses (meese?) hell.

-- Ian

So, a US release date of June 25 has been set.

I like what Bill Maher said on Larry King.

KING: "Apparently it was a big hit at the Cannes -- won the Cannes Film Festival."

MAHER: "Right. That's how much the world doesn't like George Bush. They gave Michael Moore an award for hating him."