Moore admits Disney "ban" was a stunt

[Glocksman]

Michael Moore DID NOT LIE! Nor did he admit this was a publicity stunt [I'm looking at you, thread title]. Did anybody actually read the transcript from Poe?

True, I challenged people to provide a source showing him slandering Disney with false accusations, and Lord Poe's effort didn't really answer that challenge. Anyone else care to try?

Let's look at Moore's own words:

Disney Has Blocked the Distribution of My New Film...
by Michael Moore

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 9/11." 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.

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.

Yours,

Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com

Let's dissect this letter starting with the 'Florida tax breaks' allegation.

Moore quotes the NYT as reporting that the film will 'endanger' tax breaks and 'anger' the Florida governor and even goes on to mention that the story is on page one.

What Moore isn't telling you is that the source for the 'tax breaks' claim is his agent. Citing the Times article without mentioning that your agent is the source of the allegations in the article may not be a direct lie, but it certainly is intellectually dishonest.

Now let's look at his opening line where he mentions 'censorship obstacles'.

The fact of the matter is that Disney isn't censoring Moore. All they are doing is telling him to find another distributor, and they told him that a year ago,

Disney isn't locking the film up to prevent its showing.
Disney isn't prohibiting Miramax from shopping it around to other distributors.
Disney didn't stop Miramax from financing the film in the first place.

The film is made and it will get distributed. What this is really about is that Miramax and Moore will have to share the profits if Disney doesn't let Miramax distribute it themselves. In other words, it's about money.


Making a business decision not to distribute a film isn't censorship when Moore is free to distribute it via other distributors, and a BBC article quoted Hollywood analysts as saying that Moore wouldn't have any trouble finding a distributor willing to handle the film.

Moore's cry of censorship itself is a form of slander as it's both false and is harming Disney's reputation.

[Darth Wong]

snip

I may be mistaken, but his movie The Big One was all about Moore antagonizing executives who laid American workers off to take their business overseas, which is what the anti-outsourcing crowd calls "taking jobs away from Americans."

Unless he specifically stated that outsourcing is evil regardless of which nation you outsource to, I don't see how that changes anything. How does it refute the fact that his statements against outsourcing in "Roger and Me" clearly explained that his opposition was based on the fact that he perceived it as an action motivated by corporate greed, low wages, and loose regulations in the developing nations to which they were outsourcing?

[Darth Wong]

Thanks for the letter, Glocksman. Now I can see what people are talking about.

Let's dissect this letter starting with the 'Florida tax breaks' allegation.

Moore quotes the NYT as reporting that the film will 'endanger' tax breaks and 'anger' the Florida governor and even goes on to mention that the story is on page one.

What Moore isn't telling you is that the source for the 'tax breaks' claim is his agent. Citing the Times article without mentioning that your agent is the source of the allegations in the article may not be a direct lie, but it certainly is intellectually dishonest.

It's pretty weaselly, I agree. But it's not slander against Disney.

Now let's look at his opening line where he mentions 'censorship obstacles'.

The fact of the matter is that Disney isn't censoring Moore. All they are doing is telling him to find another distributor, and they told him that a year ago,

Disney isn't locking the film up to prevent its showing.
Disney isn't prohibiting Miramax from shopping it around to other distributors.
Disney didn't stop Miramax from financing the film in the first place.

The film is made and it will get distributed. What this is really about is that Miramax and Moore will have to share the profits if Disney doesn't let Miramax distribute it themselves. In other words, it's about money.


Making a business decision not to distribute a film isn't censorship when Moore is free to distribute it via other distributors, and a BBC article quoted Hollywood analysts as saying that Moore wouldn't have any trouble finding a distributor willing to handle the film.

Moore's cry of censorship itself is a form of slander as it's both false and is harming Disney's reputation.

It's a form of slander if you use the correct definition of "slander". Unfortunately, for better or worse, in Hollywood "censorship" is not defined correctly. I've lost count of the number of times people in Hollywood have interpreted refusal to fund something as "censorship", or even a harsh rating from the MPAA as a form of "censorship". Basically, anything which discourages the widespread release of a film in any way is considered "censorship" in Hollywood. It is, unfortunately, the way the word is commonly used there.

[Joe]

snip

I may be mistaken, but his movie The Big One was all about Moore antagonizing executives who laid American workers off to take their business overseas, which is what the anti-outsourcing crowd calls "taking jobs away from Americans."

Unless he specifically stated that outsourcing is evil regardless of which nation you outsource to, I don't see how that changes anything. How does it refute the fact that his statements against outsourcing in "Roger and Me" clearly explained that his opposition was based on the fact that he perceived it as an action motivated by corporate greed, low wages, and loose regulations in the developing nations to which they were outsourcing?

Roger and Me is largely about Flint, Michigan, a factory town where lots of people lost their jobs when GM started moving some of its operations offshores. Anger over exporting jobs is pretty much implied throughout the whole thing.

[Darth Wong]

Roger and Me is largely about Flint, Michigan, a factory town where lots of people lost their jobs when GM started moving some of its operations offshores. Anger over exporting jobs is pretty much implied throughout the whole thing.

For the third time, it is explicitly stated in this film that this outsourcing is bad because they're moving to Mexico with its cheap wages and nonexistent worker protection laws. The fact that the film goes on about how bad the outsourcing is does not substantiate your claim that this is irrespective of where you outsource to.

Would you assume that Michael Moore would be just as angry if jobs moved from Flint MI to Houston TX?

[Glocksman]

If Moore put his money where his mouth is on autoworker jobs, he wouldn't be driving around Manhattan in the Mexican made Volkswagen New Beetle that he mentioned owning in one of his books.

[Joe]

Roger and Me is largely about Flint, Michigan, a factory town where lots of people lost their jobs when GM started moving some of its operations offshores. Anger over exporting jobs is pretty much implied throughout the whole thing.

For the third time, it is explicitly stated in this film that this outsourcing is bad because they're moving to Mexico with its cheap wages and nonexistent worker protection laws. The fact that the film goes on about how bad the outsourcing is does not substantiate your claim that this is irrespective of where you outsource to.

Would you assume that Michael Moore would be just as angry if jobs moved from Flint MI to Houston TX?

Yes, because the people in Flint, Michigan lost their jobs and had a pretty rough time for a whole because of it.

From his book Downsize This:

Are we insane or what? Why do we allow this to happen? It is wrong to make money off people's labor and then fire them after you've made it. It is immoral for a CEO to make millions of dollars when he has just destroyed the livelihood of 40,000 families. And it's just plain nuts to allow American companies to move factories overseas at the expense of our own people.

[Darth Wong]

If Moore put his money where his mouth is on autoworker jobs, he wouldn't be driving around Manhattan in the Mexican made Volkswagen New Beetle that he mentioned owning in one of his books.

Ha ha, now that's a good one. I'll accept that as a genuine example of hypocrisy on his part.

PS. I forgot to mention that Moore was a bit sneaky but again not outright slanderous in his statement that Disney officially denied distributorship for his film the week before he sent his letter. I'll agree that the letter was deceptive, but not outright slanderous.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, because the people in Flint, Michigan lost their jobs and had a pretty rough time for a whole because of it.

And he knows that wage pressures to other first-world nations are not the same as they are to developing nations.

From his book Downsize This:

Are we insane or what? Why do we allow this to happen? It is wrong to make money off people's labor and then fire them after you've made it. It is immoral for a CEO to make millions of dollars when he has just destroyed the livelihood of 40,000 families. And it's just plain nuts to allow American companies to move factories overseas at the expense of our own people.

I was unaware that a web design firm was a factory, or that Canada was overseas.

[Glocksman]

If Moore put his money where his mouth is on autoworker jobs, he wouldn't be driving around Manhattan in the Mexican made Volkswagen New Beetle that he mentioned owning in one of his books.

Ha ha, now that's a good one. I'll accept that as a genuine example of hypocrisy on his part.

PS. I forgot to mention that Moore was a bit sneaky but again not outright slanderous in his statement that Disney officially denied distributorship for his film the week before he sent his letter. I'll agree that the letter was deceptive, but not outright slanderous.

Stating that Disney refused to distribute the film isn't slander, as it's the truth.

The slanderous part comes where he equates censorship with being told to find another distributor.

[Lord Poe]

PS. I forgot to mention that Moore was a bit sneaky but again not outright slanderous in his statement that Disney officially denied distributorship for his film the week before he sent his letter. I'll agree that the letter was deceptive, but not outright slanderous.

Aw come on. This guy can disgust Lord Edam.

[MKSheppard]

snip

I may be mistaken, but his movie The Big One

God damn it, the finest alternate history I've read has it's title taken years
ago by that scumbag Moore.

[Kuja]

If Moore put his money where his mouth is on autoworker jobs, he wouldn't be driving around Manhattan in the Mexican made Volkswagen New Beetle that he mentioned owning in one of his books.

When it broke down, didn't he use it as an excuse to complain about the poor quality of American-made cars? I remember someone posting a snatch from one of his books to that effect...