quote:

Originally posted by sufee_b Why doesnt Disney wipe there ass with the constitution?

Why don't you understand that this has nothing to do with the Constitution? Disney is a private company, and can do whatever they want with the film. They can wipe their ass with the only copy, should they so choose. Free speech has nothing to do with forcing a company to distribute your film. If Moore signed on to an exclusive agreement and Disney doesn't want to distribute it, it's Moore's own damn fault. If he wants to get his message out and isn't barred by something he signed, he can go do what Mel Gibson did.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Why don't you understand that this has nothing to do with the Constitution? Disney is a private company, and can do whatever they want with the film. They can wipe their ass with the only copy, should they so choose. Free speech has nothing to do with forcing a company to distribute your film. If Moore signed on to an exclusive agreement and Disney doesn't want to distribute it, it's Moore's own damn fault. If he wants to get his message out and isn't barred by something he signed, he can go do what Mel Gibson did.

nice job dude


someone got pwned

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Why don't you understand that this has nothing to do with the Constitution? Disney is a private company, and can do whatever they want with the film. They can wipe their ass with the only copy, should they so choose. Free speech has nothing to do with forcing a company to distribute your film. If Moore signed on to an exclusive agreement and Disney doesn't want to distribute it, it's Moore's own damn fault. If he wants to get his message out and isn't barred by something he signed, he can go do what Mel Gibson did.

written by michel moore himself:

quote:

Friends, I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter. Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 911." The reason? According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. The story is on page one of the Times and you can read it here (Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush). The whole story behind this (and other attempts) to kill our movie will be told in more detail as the days and weeks go on. For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge (well, OK, sorry -- it WILL upset them...big time. Did I mention it's a comedy?). All I can say is, thank God for Harvey Weinstein and Miramax who have stood by me during the entire production of this movie. There is much more to tell, but right now I am in the lab working on the print to take to the Cannes Film Festival next week (we have been chosen as one of the 18 films in competition). I will tell you this: Some people may be afraid of this movie because of what it will show. But there's nothing they can do about it now because it's done, it's awesome, and if I have anything to say about it, you'll see it this summer -- because, after all, it is a free country.

so after all, the government did play a role in this... which is what the constitution says something about...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew written by michel moore himself: so after all, the government did play a role in this... which is what the constitution says something about...

Nice try, but it's still not the government's choice. It's a private call by a business that apparently has "other" business considerations to take into account.

Bring a 1st Amendment action in court based on Moore's argument above, and there's a half-decent chance that Moore's lawyer would be sanctioned for wasting the court's time.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew written by michel moore himself: so after all, the government did play a role in this... which is what the constitution says something about...

Even still, I'd refer back to Imokurok's comments. Disney is a private company that owes no loyalty to and has no obligation to Michael Moore. If he's so hellbent on putting out another one of his movies, he can take the Mel Gibson route and fund it himself. I mean "according to the NY Times" doesn't prove jack shit. Who wrote the article that he's referring to? Maureen Dowd? Just because something is printed in a newspaper doesn't somehow make it the cornerstone of evidence/proof. The fact still remains that Disney owes no obligation to publish one of his films no matter how good/bad, true/false it is. Furthermore, Moore has no right to demand that they do so. Freedom is a 2 way street.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Nice try, but it's still not the government's choice. It's a private call by a business that apparently has "other" business considerations to take into account. Bring a 1st Amendment action in court based on Moore's argument above, and there's a half-decent chance that Moore's lawyer would be sanctioned for wasting the court's time.

Damn! You beat me to the punch!

quote:

Originally posted by tjpatel Report: Disney Blocking Anti-Bush Documentary LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore's documentary linking President Bush (news - web sites) with powerful Saudi families, including that of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), is stirring up controversy even before its release. That's if it even gets released. Hollywood trade paper Daily Variety said in its Wednesday edition that Walt Disney Co. has moved to prevent its Miramax Films unit from distributing "Fahrenheit 911." The Disney edict could herald the bloodiest political battle yet between Miramax's feisty co-chairman Harvey Weinstein and Disney CEO Michael Eisner, who oversaw the purchase of Miramax a decade ago, Daily Variety said. "Fahrenheit 911," Moore's follow-up to his Academy Award-winning film "Bowling for Columbine, will still premiere in competition at the Cannes Film Festival (news - web sites) in France later this month. Rumors had been circulating of a July release date in North America, but the film does not appear on Miramax's summer schedule, the paper said. It quoted a Miramax spokesman as saying that the company was "looking forward to resolving this amicably." Officials from Miramax and Disney were not immediately available for comment on the report.

Wonder if Bush's people made a couple of calls to the bigwigs at Disney. I am actually even gaining an interest in Michael Moore's productions. With all that has taken place with Bush, Moore's works don't seem so far-fetched as they once did to me.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Wonder if Bush's people made a couple of calls to the bigwigs at Disney. I am actually even gaining an interest in Michael Moore's productions. With all that has taken place with Bush, Moore's works don't seem so far-fetched as they once did to me.

The problem is, I question whether any real "new" material would be coming out in the film. Anyone with a little interest in Moore's plot already knows full well the connection between Bush and the Arab royal families, as well as possible implications.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Nice try, but it's still not the government's choice. It's a private call by a business that apparently has "other" business considerations to take into account. Bring a 1st Amendment action in court based on Moore's argument above, and there's a half-decent chance that Moore's lawyer would be sanctioned for wasting the court's time.

even though it shouldn't hold in a court, i still think it's wrong. in a way it's like saying, sure you are aloud to distribute it, but we will punish you after you do it.

government punishment for distributing a film = censuring in a way, imo.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Wonder if Bush's people made a couple of calls to the bigwigs at Disney. I am actually even gaining an interest in Michael Moore's productions. With all that has taken place with Bush, Moore's works don't seem so far-fetched as they once did to me.

Anything Moore touches is the kiss of death. He'll skew the facts in such a way that the right will be able to credibly attack his main points (and rightfully so) and drive a wedge between moderates who may be trying to objectively analyze the issue. My prediction is that the film will infuriate lefty criticism of bush and draw the usual lefty praise for Moore, some moderates may be initially swayed by some things they didn't know, the righties will start pointing out the fallacies of Moore's film, and once the moderates hear the other side they'll become suspicious/wary of the leftist criticism of Bush.

quote:

The problem is, I question whether any real "new" material would be coming out in the film. Anyone with a little interest in Moore's plot already knows full well the connection between Bush and the Arab royal families, as well as possible implications.

Personally I think that a strong connection between the Bush and Saudi family would have very little impact on my vote for him (if i were to hypothetically vote for him) simply because I'm a realist about it. I wouldn't doubt for a minute that every american president we vote into office is going to want to maintain extremely strong ties to a country that is a major contributor to the lifeblood of our country and is also one of the most influential voices in OPEC. The Saudi governemnt is not going to want to do anything to fuck up our relationship. But at the same time they can't appear to be bending to our will or "helping" us out of fear of extremist lashbacks from within their own country. Therefore I anticipate there are significant amounts of back door dealing between our two countries in an effort to acheive common goals, and I can't imagine things operating any other way under any other administration.

So I guess to sum up my argument ... secret dealings with the Saudis are going to be a fact of life, somewhat similar to the secret dealings between Israel and Jordan since Israel's inception or Israel and Egypt post Arab-Israeli wars.

___________________
Retro ...

Ok come now people ... enough is enough. Even ardent Moore supporters should be offended by this. I hope this is the final nail in the coffin that irreparably destroys any public belief in Moore's credibility.

quote:

Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban' By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles 07 May 2004 Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it. The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival. Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001. In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax. But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it." Nobody in Hollywood doubts Fahrenheit 911 will find a US distributor. His last documentary, Bowling for Columbine , made for $3m (£1.7m), pulled in $22m at the US box office. But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working. A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free expression. Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]" but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract. And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for financing, not for distribution. http://news.independent.co.uk/world...sp?story=518901

Any bets as to whether the revelation of Moore's 'publicity stunt' will be as thoroughly covered by the media as his initial Disney 'conspiracy' claims?

___________________
Retro ...

Nice catch. That story was up on Drudge for a little while before but now its gone. What a loser.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!