Disney blocks distribution of Moore's latest film

[zakur]

Story (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=5049033) Walt Disney Co. has barred its Miramax film studio from distributing a documentary by director Michael Moore that is critical of President Bush, Moore said on Wednesday.

The film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," focuses on how the Bush administration responded to the hijacking attacks on Sept. 11 and on ties between the Bush family and prominent Saudis, including the family of Osama bin Laden.

"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,"' Moore, known for confrontational documentaries offering sharp political commentary, said in a letter posted on his Web site.

Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik declined to comment on Disney's actions. But he said, "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."

Disney was not immediately available for comment.

[subgenius]

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040505/ZNYT02/405050426

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius
Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040505/ZNYT02/405050426

Yeah except you "accidentally" forgot to include this quote: "Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel." Also from the Reuters link "The New York Times quoted an unnamed Disney executive as saying that the company did not want to be involved in a politically controversial film. "

Of course you see a conspiracy right away, as does Mr. Moore: "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' " Well yes, it's called a contract, if you do not like it, do not sign it and distribute the movie yourself.

I don't see a conspiracy really, Moore can take this to another Distributor. Mel Gibson couldn't get anyone to distribute his film until a little company took it and I don't see that movie (Passion of the Christ) hurting.

[Millionframe]

From the article posted by subgenius:

"A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many."

"'It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle,' this executive said."

Hmmm, somehow I don't see "Kill Bill" catering to families of "all political stripes and believes." But thats just me maybe.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Of course you see a conspiracy right away, as does Mr. Moore: "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' " Well yes, it's called a contract, if you do not like it, do not sign it and distribute the movie yourself.

I don't see a conspiracy really, Moore can take this to another Distributor. Mel Gibson couldn't get anyone to distribute his film until a little company took it and I don't see that movie (Passion of the Christ) hurting.

As much as I have disagreed with Disney's corporate policies in the past, I have to agree here. Just making a film does not guarantee you automatic rights to have someone distribute it for you. As for those "monied interests," it's really wearing thin. Moore has had far more money under his control than the vast majority of people see in a lifetime.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

whats funny is the use of the word "blocked"


I mean the film is going to come out no matter what...


why can't they use the word "drops" ?

[subgenius]

For example, in Osceola County, Fla., Walt Disney World receives the farming break on 1,600 acres of pasture, timber and nurseries where it grows plants for its theme parks. The land, worth $194 million, is taxed as if it were worth $12.3 million, according to the county land records office. Disney spokeswoman Jacquee Polack said the company keeps a buffer of undeveloped land around the park, but she acknowledged some of this property will be developed.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001895212_shortland04.html

[Tony]

Originally posted by subgenius
For example, in Osceola County, Fla., Walt Disney World receives the farming break on 1,600 acres of pasture, timber and nurseries where it grows plants for its theme parks. The land, worth $194 million, is taxed as if it were worth $12.3 million, according to the county land records office. Disney spokeswoman Jacquee Polack said the company keeps a buffer of undeveloped land around the park, but she acknowledged some of this property will be developed.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001895212_shortland04.html


And what exactly is your problem with that?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius
For example, in Osceola County, Fla., Walt Disney World receives the farming break on 1,600 acres of pasture, timber and nurseries where it grows plants for its theme parks. The land, worth $194 million, is taxed as if it were worth $12.3 million, according to the county land records office. Disney spokeswoman Jacquee Polack said the company keeps a buffer of undeveloped land around the park, but she acknowledged some of this property will be developed.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001895212_shortland04.html

....and?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Millionframe
"The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many."

"'It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle,' this executive said."

Hmmm, somehow I don't see "Kill Bill" catering to families of "all political stripes and believes." But thats just me maybe.

A person may or may not like the movie "Kill Bill"; however, Kill Bill is a work of fiction, and people who don't like the movie are not likely to alter their actions (such as not visiting certain theme parks) in protest.

The movie by Moore will likely differ in several ways:
- Although a "documentary", his movie will likely be criticized for inaccuracies, much like Bowling for Columbine was, even though documetaries are supposed to be "truthful". Thus, its a little harder to ignore problems with it. (With Kill Bill, they could say "its only a movie", with Moore's movies, they might get criticized for supporting the "facts"). Also, the movie does have a political agenda, whereas Kill Bill did not
- People are likely to protest the movie (especially conservatives), and that could cause them to cancel their usage of other Disney products.

[Tmy]

This is the problem you get when you all big media conglomerates.

Teh guy won an oscar forhis last flick, normally that entitles you to release 3-4 bombs without raising an eyebrow. Who wouldnt want to release a contraversial film by a popular filmaker. (can you say Passion of the Christ??) Like him or nor Moore is a hot entity right now..

Its political.


And is he really "dropped". If so, he could be picked up by someone else. Or is Disney just puttinghim on the shelf.

[Millionframe]

Segnosaur:
I understand that "Kill Bill" is fiction. However, I think that Disney's claim; "...Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes..." is hypocritical considering that some might take the violence, albeit fake, in "Kill Bill" seriously, therefore Disney wouldn't be catering to them.
Apart from that, I'm unfairly hostile to Disney personally because it’s a massive corporation, and that gave way to over simplification. And I agree with what you wrote.

[c0rbin]

Does disney still do the "Gay Day" thing or something like that?

If so, it seems like politics takes a back seat to dollars, which, being that Disney is a corporation, makes sense to me.

As NTW pointed out, Moore's film was simply "dropped" not "blocked" and I am sure we will all get to hear MM's opinions on the facts.

[Tmy]

Can you order porn flicks at Disney owned hotels???

LEts say he was just "dropped". and can go elsewhere.
How about the timing. Can he possibly get a new distributer and release the film before the election??

[epepke]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Does disney still do the "Gay Day" thing or something like that?

Disney doesn't "do" Gay Day (it's Gay Days or Gay Week now). This is an entirely ad-hoc grass roots movement started by the members of the soc.motss USENET newsgroup. Gay people just show up and wear red to identify themselves.

I watched the original discussions of the first Gay Day on that newsgroup.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
whats funny is the use of the word "blocked"


I mean the film is going to come out no matter what...


why can't they use the word "drops" ?

Because it hasn't been dropped - not yet, anyway. Miramax want to distribute the film. Disney (who own Miramax) have told them they can't. They have been blocked.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tmy
Can you order porn flicks at Disney owned hotels???

Yes, but the image of Mickey and Minnie going at it is quite disturbing.

Actually reminds me of a joke Mom told:

Q: "Why did Mickey have Minnie committed?"
A: "Because she was f*****g Goofy."

(Hope you don't have to think about it too long to get it.)

[epepke]

Originally posted by subgenius
Yes, but the image of Mickey and Minnie going at it is quite disturbing.

I bet it's not as disturbing as the SM cartoon of Miss Piggy and Kermit that I saw in a Washington DC alternative newspaper.

Actually reminds me of a joke Mom told:

Q: "Why did Mickey have Minnie committed?"
A: "Because she was f*****g Goofy."

(Hope you don't have to think about it too long to get it.)

Not a problem, as I heard it about two decades ago.

[aerocontrols]

Publicity Stunt.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Publicity Stunt.
So Disney is going to relent and reap the profits?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius

So Disney is going to relent and reap the profits?

That's one option. They could also sell it at a profit to a different distributor.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


That's one option. They could also sell it at a profit to a different distributor.
Just trying to clarify your admirably brief post. Don't really think Disney is going to reverse their decision so I was confused.

[Grammatron]

Some more info from BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3685633.stm

"But Zenia Mucha, a Disney spokesman, said: "We advised both [Moore's] agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed. That decision stands."

[ssibal]

A big fuss is being made about nothing. If Disney does not want to distribute the film (or have the companies it owns distribute it) they do not have to! Period!

[corplinx]

Wow, Michael Moore cashed in bigtime on Columbine; I'm glad at least one company won't let him cash in on 911. Now if only the country music industry would do the same thing to Toby Keith.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Some more info from BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3685633.stm

"But Zenia Mucha, a Disney spokesman, said: "We advised both [Moore's] agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed. That decision stands."

So Disney said from day 1 that they wouldn't distribute the film? And Moore went with Miramax anyway?

Sounds like a publicity stunt to me.

Now the only question is whether Moore will manage to get Disney to reverse itself or whether he'll sue them.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Interesting reading (http://marccooper.typepad.com/marccooper/2004/05/lies_and_moore_.html) on the publicity stunt angle.

Looks like insiders are saying that Moore always intended to have Lion's Gate release it.

MattJ

[zakur]

Disney's Trap (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2004/mft04050606.htm) Congratulations on walking into a giant mouse trap, Disney. In such a politically charged climate, it's no surprise that media outlets have pounced on the story. Moore, who is well known for his outspoken positions, is publicly crying censorship.

Disney, of course, is under no obligation to allow distribution, but it should have come up with a better reason for its choice. Rather than insulate the company from controversy, its decision to block the film's release simply because it may alienate some customers places it right in the middle of a political firestorm. If Disney digs in its heels, this debate will probably rage through November and beyond, generating plenty of the kind of buzz that the firm just doesn't need.

The rhetoric over the power of giant media conglomerates had already reached a fever pitch before this episode. If the House of Mouse is naive enough to believe that this situation won't create a backlash, it's living in Fantasyland.

[Hexxenhammer]

Disney should have left well enough alone. Joe Sixpack doesn't know Disney owns Miramax. It's not like at the beginning of a Miramax movie you see the castle and Tinkerbell and all that.

[aerocontrols]

Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901)

[corplinx]

There was a review of F-911 posted on AICN. From the review, the movie sounds like pure kookery on par with a movie about the bilderbergs, trilateral commission, or the new world order.

Mind you, the review could have been a plant. However, if it is accurate then I doubt the Moore flick will get any major distributor. Maybe it will get relegated to being sold at booths at democrat rallies the way the new world order folks sell their to the extremists at GOP rallies.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Disney should have left well enough alone. Joe Sixpack doesn't know Disney owns Miramax. It's not like at the beginning of a Miramax movie you see the castle and Tinkerbell and all that.

Perhaps not, but given the polarization in U.S. politics right now, I'm sure the Miramax/Disney link would end up getting better publisized to enough Joe Sixpacks to cause them at least a little grief.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by subgenius
Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040505/ZNYT02/405050426


Well, the BIG hole in this conspiracy theory is that Disney do not enjoy "exclusive tax breaks". They employ accountants to minimise their tax subject to the law. The same laws that apply to and are used by other firms and individuals in Florida.


So the conspiracy theory is based on the belief that Jeb Bush would punish everybody because he is annoyed at Disney.

Why is it that conspiracy theories are always based on the most absurd premises?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901)

This appears to be a superior theory. I don't find myself asking:

"What? Michael Moore try to manufacture a publicity stunt involving the peopls' crusader versus nasty corporation and conservative politicians?"

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Drooper
Well, the BIG hole in this conspiracy theory is that Disney do not enjoy "exclusive tax breaks". They employ accountants to minimise their tax subject to the law. The same laws that apply to and are used by other firms and individuals in Florida.

I'm pretty sure that the 'exclusive tax breaks' portion of the theory is sound. I believe that Disney has an exclusive deal with regard to the land that Disneyworld sits on. This dates back to when Disneyworld was built.

Someone else can fill in the details, but I remember seeing something about it on a news show long ago.

MattJ

[corplinx]

I wouldn't be surprised of Moore realized that a documentary about Bush/Saudi/Oil conspiracy theories would never find a distributor unless it he could manufacture a big controversy and thus ensure a audience. Mel Gibson says what?