Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-05-05 10:34am

I've seen the pressure hit Bush hard lately, I'm not seeing Bush win this easily if at all. From the polls it seems Bush and Kerry are near equal, but I'd have to check them again.

Bush with a slight lead beyond the statistical margin of error right now, I think.

desertjedi · Post by **desertjedi** » 2004-05-05 10:35am

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. When it comes to private coporations or their subsidaries funding various projects, sometimes we see them, sometimes we don't. Plus, if the Mike doesn't like it, I'm sure there will be distributors lining up to get a shot at it.

As for the anti-Bush sentiment running rampant here, I can't bring myself to vote for Kerry. I just can't stand the thought of giving up more of our national soverignty to the United Nations and the thought of giving them Iraq really doesn't bode well for us or the Iraqi people (Oil for Food

)

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-05-05 10:49am

Good Points, another reason why I can't vote for Kerry, but... the Patroit Acts? Extended? That's the straw man, that's really the damn straw!

desertjedi · Post by **desertjedi** » 2004-05-05 10:55am

I know I know, the Patriot Act scares me to. I'm hoping Rumsfield will not be part of the Administration next term (If there is one).

desertjedi · Post by **desertjedi** » 2004-05-05 10:56am

I don't want to cause a hijacking so I'm done talking about the Patriot Act or Rumsfield on this thread.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-05 10:59am

Oh joy. Oh rapture.

Moore's created another movie. I don't even need to see it to know how things are going to go down:

It will get released, god knows how.

The Right Wingers will go apeshit.

This forum will erupt into a vulturing horde that scream down on those who support it in even the slightest.

Sorta like last time. And the fucker stole the title from an actual good work of fiction.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-05-05 10:59am

Rumsfeld is Defense, he had nothing to do with the Patriot Act. The man you're looking for is John Ashcroft, although he really had little to do with its passage, either. It's just his job to enforce it.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-05 11:00am

Joe wrote:Rumsfeld is Defense, he had nothing to do with the Patriot Act. The man you're looking for is John Ashcroft, although he really had little to do with its passage, either. It's just his job to enforce it.

'Little to do with it's passage'? He created the thing.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-05-05 11:06am

SirNitram wrote:
Joe wrote:Rumsfeld is Defense, he had nothing to do with the Patriot Act. The man you're looking for is John Ashcroft, although he really had little to do with its passage, either. It's just his job to enforce it.
'Little to do with it's passage'? He created the thing.

Viet Dinh authored it.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-05 11:07am

Joe wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
Joe wrote:Rumsfeld is Defense, he had nothing to do with the Patriot Act. The man you're looking for is John Ashcroft, although he really had little to do with its passage, either. It's just his job to enforce it.
'Little to do with it's passage'? He created the thing.
Viet Dinh authored it.

Are you sure? I've heard Ashcroft referred to as it's creator on more than one occasion by folks at CNN.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-05-05 11:26am

There are several reasons Disney cancelled the film. Take your pick:

1. Disney probably doesn't want to become an icon of political partisanship; association with Moore's clearly bitter criticisms of the President of the United States (and therefore the party for whom he speaks) could potentially do that.

2. Disney probably doesn't want to offend Jeb Bush, who's state gives them massive tax breaks.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2004-05-05 11:27am

I'm surprised that Disney would bankroll a film like that in the first place, never mind refusing to distribute it.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-05-05 11:31am

Joe and Nitram... Here is what I could find....

Creator of Patriot Act Criticizes Enemy Combatant Detentions
Viet Dinh is a law professor and former top aide to Attorney General John Ashcroft. He is largely credited with being the author or chief architect of the Patriot Act.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004515.html

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-05-05 11:31am

SirNitram wrote:
Joe wrote:
SirNitram wrote: 'Little to do with it's passage'? He created the thing.
Viet Dinh authored it.
Are you sure? I've heard Ashcroft referred to as it's creator on more than one occasion by folks at CNN.

Positive.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-05 11:32am

theski wrote:Joe and Nitram... Here is what I could find....

Creator of Patriot Act Criticizes Enemy Combatant Detentions
Viet Dinh is a law professor and former top aide to Attorney General John Ashcroft. He is largely credited with being the author or chief architect of the Patriot Act.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004515.html

Many thanks.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-05-05 12:33pm

frigidmagi wrote:
I can't vote for someone who wants to extent the P.A. But I won't vote for an asshole who thought it was could to hang with Jane Fonda and badmouth his brothers in uniform.

Just because she was several metres away in a dense crowd at a protest does not mean he 'hung out' with her, or even knew her well at all.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-05-05 12:43pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:I'm surprised that Disney would bankroll a film like that in the first place, never mind refusing to distribute it.

Well you have to remember that MIRAMAX brought us Kevin Smith movies and Tarantino movies IIRC.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-05-05 12:46pm

Crown wrote:
AdmiralKanos wrote:I'm surprised that Disney would bankroll a film like that in the first place, never mind refusing to distribute it.
Well you have to remember that MIRAMAX brought us Kevin Smith movies and Tarantino movies IIRC.

I think that history has shown that Miramax has no idea what the hell it is doing.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-05-05 12:54pm

I never really understood why so many people absolutely hate Miramax with such a passion. Yeah maybe the Weinsteins are kind of greedy, but Miramax has given us some pretty good films in my opinion. And they piss the fundies off.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-05-05 12:57pm

Joe wrote:I never really understood why so many people absolutely hate Miramax with such a passion. Yeah maybe the Weinsteins are kind of greedy, but Miramax has given us some pretty good films in my opinion. And they piss the fundies off.

Dogma being a good example of one of those movies that got the fundies goat.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-05-05 01:05pm

Joe wrote:I never really understood why so many people absolutely hate Miramax with such a passion. Yeah maybe the Weinsteins are kind of greedy, but Miramax has given us some pretty good films in my opinion. And they piss the fundies off.

Here.

Cosmic Average · Post by **Cosmic Average** » 2004-05-05 01:13pm

frigidmagi wrote:You know, the whole of Oklahoma was saying that about Clinton... Alot of us still don't understand why he's do popular.

I'm from Oklahoma, nearly everyone I know votes Democrat. So who 's this 'us'?

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-05-05 01:27pm

I'm annoyed, but not too surprised. After all, MSNBC axed Donahue even though he had the highest ratings of any show on that channel.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-05 01:35pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:I'm surprised that Disney would bankroll a film like that in the first place, never mind refusing to distribute it.

It isn't Disney, it's Miramax, Disney just happens to own them.

And to everyone else, before you think that Disney might just be refusing to distribute for other reason that are not political, consider the following:

1) Moore's last film cost $3 million to make and took in over $120 million in theater and DVD sales.

2) Moore's last film was critically hailed and won an Oscar, something that is a huge bit of prestige for both Disney and Miramax.

3) Disney DOES NOT typically get involved in what films Miramax will or will not distribute. Sure the CAN, but the hardly ever do, especially not before the film has even premiered at Cannes.

Do you people really think politics has nothing to do with this?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-05 01:39pm

Axis Kast wrote: 1. Disney probably doesn't want to become an icon of political partisanship; association with Moore's clearly bitter criticisms of the President of the United States (and therefore the party for whom he speaks) could potentially do that.

Distributing a potentially controversial film is hardly an act of political partisanship.

2. Disney probably doesn't want to offend Jeb Bush, who's state gives them massive tax breaks.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Jeb Bush wouldn't DARE to try getting back at Disney for a film by cutting into Disney World. It's still a huge tourist attraction in a state in which a large part of its economy relies on said tourism. Bush couldn't afford pissing off Disney or potentially getting them to relocate to another state.