Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

desertjedi · Post by **desertjedi** » 2004-05-05 01:59pm

Isn't Florida a vacation spot without Disney there anyways? THere are still other attractions like the beach (which is not the same along other parts of the east coast) or other amusement parks? But I digress, I'm sure Disney is a pot of gold for Florida. Distributing this film can be considerd an act of political partisanship when the controversial film IS centered on politics. I would assume the last thing that Disney would want is to labeled as Democrat or Republican friendly because it would alienate one section of the population and they want to make the most amount of money possible.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-05-05 02:43pm

IMHO, this has more to do with Roy Disney, the stockholder vote, and Eisner not wanting to give Roy more ammo to use than it does with politics.

Sure, Bowling made some money, but it was also controversial.
This film promises to be even more controversial. The last thing Eisner needs to do is embroil Disney in the shitstorm this film is sure to ignite.

Besides, considering Moore's target audience, this is the best publicity he could hope for.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-05-05 03:12pm

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

What other films that Miramax or Disney have produced might set off this kind of firestorm?

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.

And you think Bush couldn't make life harder for Disney? I doubt they'd ever let the sniping become too significant, but the Drudge report, which first aired the news, mentioned Jeb specifically.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-05 03:24pm

Axis Kast wrote: What other films that Miramax or Disney have produced might set off this kind of firestorm?

The Magdalene Sisters, Dogma, Priest...do I really need to go on?

Controversial films are distrubutors FAVORITE kind of films because they have the tendency to attract huge crowds (just look at the box office results for Passion of the Christ to see what I'm talking about). Moore's previous film enjoyed just such a situation and took in over $100 million of pure profit for its distributor, not to mention an Oscar. Please do tell why anyone might NOT want to market Moore's films with a success record like that except for personal reasons?

And you think Bush couldn't make life harder for Disney? I doubt they'd ever let the sniping become too significant, but the Drudge report, which first aired the news, mentioned Jeb specifically.

Oh, Jeb Bush could indeed make life hard for Disney. The problem for Jeb is that Disney is capable of making life equally hard for him.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-05 03:30pm

Glocksman wrote:IMHO, this has more to do with Roy Disney, the stockholder vote, and Eisner not wanting to give Roy more ammo to use than it does with politics.

Roy Disney is not about to start alienating people by coming down on Eisner for NOT censoring a movie. If anything, this gives him a hell of a lot more ammo to work with since Eisner decided to axe what was automatically going to be a highly profitable production without any good cause. That isn't exactly a sound business decision.

Sure, Bowling made some money, but it was also controversial.
This film promises to be even more controversial. The last thing Eisner needs to do is embroil Disney in the shitstorm this film is sure to ignite.

Hardly. Miramax has had a long history with controversial films and since Disney isn't in there micromanaging them, they have always had to deal with their own flak seperate from Disney. There is no reason for Disney to be concerned about such a thing except for possibly the personal political preferences of its CEO.

Besides, considering Moore's target audience, this is the best publicity he could hope for.

True, but the timing here is HIGHLY suspect. They are dumping the film right before it is set to premiere at Cannes, and Moore might have a hard time arranging to get it screened in so short a time with a different distributor. True, not being at Cannes won't kill the film, but it certainly is a slap in the face for Moore and his film.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-05 03:33pm

desertjedi wrote:Isn't Florida a vacation spot without Disney there anyways? THere are still other attractions like the beach (which is not the same along other parts of the east coast) or other amusement parks? But I digress, I'm sure Disney is a pot of gold for Florida. Distributing this film can be considerd an act of political partisanship when the controversial film IS centered on politics. I would assume the last thing that Disney would want is to labeled as Democrat or Republican friendly because it would alienate one section of the population and they want to make the most amount of money possible.

So we should have partisan film distribution companies now?

Give me a fucking break.

Disney isn't held accountable for the content of their films and you know it. They can publish hardcore conservative documentaries just the same as hardcore liberal ones and not be held liable for the content by any rational human being who realizes that they are the distributor, not the director.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-05-05 03:47pm

desertjedi wrote:Isn't Florida a vacation spot without Disney there anyways? THere are still other attractions like the beach (which is not the same along other parts of the east coast) or other amusement parks?

There are plenty of things to do without heading to Disney World ... but Disney is the goldmine.

desertjedi · Post by **desertjedi** » 2004-05-05 04:24pm

The films that you listed (Dogma, Priest, etc..) those where controversial films, but they didn't have the strong political tones that Moore's film possesses. Disney may not want their name associated with Moore or in POLITICS AT ALL.

I don't remember saying there shoud be partisan movie distributors nor did I ever say there should be. Maybe I had mispoken when I said, "Distributing this film can be considerd an act of political partisanship when the controversial film IS centered on politics. "

I should have said, "Distributing this film could be misconstrued as a partisan move."

Do I think it is? No. But it's not my decision to make. All this attention will only help Moore's film anyway and trying to predict what a "rational human being" thinks is like trying to guess tonight's lotto munbers.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-05-05 04:41pm

simple answer: it's disney's company. they don't have to put out anything they don't want to, whatever their reason happens to be.

desertjedi · Post by **desertjedi** » 2004-05-05 04:47pm

Man can I butcher the english language or what? LOL

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-05 05:05pm

Vohu Manah wrote:Are we entirely surprised by this considering what Disney had become in the last twenty years?

Perhaps this is a sign that Disney as we knew it from the '50s is
coming back, after that really bad vote of no confidence in Eisner,
who turned Disney into a commercialized corpse of it's former self...

Now all we need is for them to produce

Donald Duck in "In Your Face, Osama"

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-05-05 05:41pm

desertjedi wrote:The films that you listed (Dogma, Priest, etc..) those where controversial films, but they didn't have the strong political tones that Moore's film possesses. Disney may not want their name associated with Moore or in POLITICS AT ALL.

You're telling me that Dogma's "Strict, structured religious systems will be the death of us all" message doesn't have political overtones?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-05 05:56pm

desertjedi wrote:The films that you listed (Dogma, Priest, etc..) those where controversial films, but they didn't have the strong political tones that Moore's film possesses. Disney may not want their name associated with Moore or in POLITICS AT ALL.

Let me get this straight, you are suggesting that people consider politics more inviolate than religion?

I should have said, "Distributing this film could be misconstrued as a partisan move."

Oh really? And how is distributing a film a partisan move? Especially when Disney is merely the owner of the company distributing it (Touchstone for example will release movies that are too "adult" for the traditional Disney brand).

Do I think it is? No. But it's not my decision to make. All this attention will only help Moore's film anyway and trying to predict what a "rational human being" thinks is like trying to guess tonight's lotto munbers.

The fact that Eisner is making a concentrated effort to quash the film's popularity is the issue here. The fact that it might become even more controversial (and thus popular) as a side effect is irrelvent to the discussion of the correctness of this act of censorship.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-05 05:58pm

Darth_Zod wrote:simple answer: it's disney's company. they don't have to put out anything they don't want to, whatever their reason happens to be.

No one is questioning the legality of what they are doing. The question is WHY are they chosing to censor this film when Miramax has been allowed to publish pretty much anything they want without interferance from Disney Executives? Why is Eisner so interested in this particular title?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-05 06:13pm

Maybe because Moore is a nut......

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-05 06:55pm

MKSheppard wrote:Maybe because Moore is a nut......

So what if he is? That doesn't answer the question, considering he's aparently good enough to win Hollywood's highest honors, and more importantly, he is a money winner of the finest variety.

desertjedi · Post by **desertjedi** » 2004-05-05 07:02pm

People have been asking if Disney has been distributing Kill Bill, why not Moore's movie or how can distributing this film be misconstrued as a partisan move? Well maybe it's the political subject manner in the movie. I don't remember hearing The Bride or Bill say, "Bush stole the election, Clinton caused 9-11" or anything of the sort. Distributing this film means that someone somewhere in the company gave their OK to this movie and since this person is an employee of Disney, they are in fact representing Disney's interests.

On MSNBC, Eisner said Disney “did not want a film in the middle of the political process where we’re such a nonpartisan company and our guests, that participate in all of our attractions, do not look for us to take sides."

Sounds like they didn't want their name in POLITICS... not left wing politics... not right wing politics... just politics period. That would be a reason not to distribute this movie.

I always thought that the only group that could attempt to "censor" someone (yes censorship is wrong) is the government and of course they wouldn't get away with it. If a business decides they do not want themselves or their subsidiaries to distribute this film is not censorship because Moore could easily find ANOTHER distribubtor. If Disney said they were going to keep any other company from distributing this film, that would be censorship.

Quote from CNN:
"In May 2003, The Walt Disney Company communicated to Miramax and Mr. Moore's representatives that Miramax would not be the distributor of his film," Zenia Mucha, a Disney spokeswoman, said in a statement.

"Contrary to his assertions, Mr. Moore has had and continues to have every opportunity to either find another distributor or distribute the film himself," Mucha said.
End quote

That quote from CNN means Moore knew Disney or it's subsidaries weren't going to distribute this movie a year ago. It's awfully coincidental that he should bring this up to the press so close to the Cannes Film Festival.

desertjedi · Post by **desertjedi** » 2004-05-05 07:07pm

Unfortunately that's all the 2 cents I can put into this subject since this is the end of my work week and I'm going home so enjoy each other's company...

Post by **RogueIce** » 2004-05-05 07:17pm

IIRC, didn't Moore make an ass of himself at the Oscars? And aren't the Oscars aired on ABC? And isn't ABC owned by Disney?

Convulted act of revenge, baby!

Ok, I'll go back to my corner now. But I thought someone should try and throw in a joke in this thread.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-05-05 10:41pm

MKSheppard wrote:Maybe because Moore is a nut......

[snip]

I think you totally missed his point.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-05-06 12:04am

desertjedi wrote: Quote from CNN:
"In May 2003, The Walt Disney Company communicated to Miramax and Mr. Moore's representatives that Miramax would not be the distributor of his film," Zenia Mucha, a Disney spokeswoman, said in a statement.

"Contrary to his assertions, Mr. Moore has had and continues to have every opportunity to either find another distributor or distribute the film himself," Mucha said.
End quote

That quote from CNN means Moore knew Disney or it's subsidaries weren't going to distribute this movie a year ago. It's awfully coincidental that he should bring this up to the press so close to the Cannes Film Festival.

You mean to say that Moore waited until now to bring this up just for some cheap publicity?

I don't believe it.

Moore had a year to either find another distributor or do a Mel Gibson and distribute it himself. Instead of doing that, he chooses to play the 'Disney's censoring me' blame game.

It's just more of Moore's bullshit and yet another example of Moore's intellectual dishonesty.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-05-06 01:06am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I thought the United States had freedom of speech. Oh well.

The Constitution only provides that Congress shall make no law abridging said right... nothing in there about studios deciding not to release some director's film.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-06 01:07am

Glocksman wrote: You mean to say that Moore waited until now to bring this up just for some cheap publicity?

I don't believe it.

Moore had a year to either find another distributor or do a Mel Gibson and distribute it himself. Instead of doing that, he chooses to play the 'Disney's censoring me' blame game.

It's just more of Moore's bullshit and yet another example of Moore's intellectual dishonesty.

Although that isn't the sort of thing that Moore might be above, that really isn't what happened here. The comment from a year ago had nothing to do with the final decision which was made by Eisner within the last week. Aparently, the CEO of Miramax is pissed over Eisner throwing his weight around on this and never seriously expected Disney to get involved.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-05-06 01:10am

Maybe this is purely Eisner politically disagreeing with the film and deciding to silence it?

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-05-06 01:37am

Durandal wrote:
desertjedi wrote:The films that you listed (Dogma, Priest, etc..) those where controversial films, but they didn't have the strong political tones that Moore's film possesses. Disney may not want their name associated with Moore or in POLITICS AT ALL.
You're telling me that Dogma's "Strict, structured religious systems will be the death of us all" message doesn't have political overtones?

It does, but Dogma's generalized "Beware the dangers of structured religions" is part of the reason that it's easier to accept. Reasonable people could see that the Catholic Church in the film was symbolic of structured religions in general. If the messege had been "Catholicism is evil and will be the death of us all" it would probably have never seen the light of day, or would have faced a hell of a lot more fire for it.

It's like comparing Huck Finn to "Lies and the Lying Liars..." In the former you can accept Twain's views presented because he does so in a way that entertains and manages to get the point across without directly challenging the viewer, but instead uses the story to advance his arguments. The latter chooses to make specific attacks the meat of the book, and thus alienates a lot of people in this way.