The latest M. Moore film "Fahrenheit 911" is about the obvious connection between Bush and the Bin Lauden terrorist and Mirimax (Disney) is doing it's best to kill it. http://cbsnews.com/stories/stories/2004/05/entertainment/main615648.shtml
At some point you would think people would wake up and say "what the F?" The hypocrisy of this country makes me sick. We have to make a stand and show that we do still value the freedoms we love to cite as the defining value of our country. Disney should be boycotted and villified. But it won't happen.
This summer’s biggest blockbuster will be great! Michael Moore’s new movie Fahrenheit 911 which investigates links between the Bush & the Saudi families is stirring political controversy. Disney, Miramax and Jeb are all involved. I’m anticipating that they will only help create a tremendous amount of hype for this movie. Don't worry, this movie WILL be released in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said. The implications of it being censored in NA would be too great. I can't even imagine that happening. Disney's not stupid. They know this very well. Michael Eisner is just going through the motions so he can tell Jeb that "Disney did everything it can" to stop the movie.
dsdsds do you work for micheal moore or something? lol. Maybe it was just a stunt to keep Moores 'extreme' sort of image going. It might be floundering by now, he needs to do something 'fresh' to make everyone notice him again. Of course, thats sort of a bit capitalist etc...
It's not Moore & Co. creating all the hype. If Disney would never have objected to its distribution, the movie would not have gotten the publicity it is currently getting. Your reasoning is "logically unsound".
A film made by Michael Moore? The name of the maker already tells me that this film is more about propaganda than any other purpose. Michael Moore has the right to make his film but Disney also has the right to not endorse it. I agree with Disney on this because Disney is about entertainment, not propaganda.
Listen to your Bush for propaganda and spin. Michael Moore always backs up his info with references..I guess you've never read one of his books.
I would recommend, Guess Who, that you try the first chapter of his book, Dude, Where's My Country? You don't even have to flip to the back of the book for the notes on that particular chapter; all 97 of them are included as footnotes instead of endnotes. Yes, he's capable of brilliant propaganda, but that's only if we include facts that we don't appreciate the reality of as "propaganda." Only in the US do we defeat free expression by discrediting free expression as "propaganda." It's art. You don't like art, live without art. Go ahead; I dare you. Disney should have thought about that before acquiring Mirimax, which was and is a haven for statistically-deviant expression. But Disney did not. Because Disney is not about entertainment. It is about money. What utopiate America are we discussing where businesses exist for the reasons of their industry? The idea that "Disney is about entertainment, not propaganda" reminds me of another secondhand Disney scandal from fourteen years ago when Disney was about entertainment, not degradation. Of course, Pretty Woman has still gone on to provide Disney, through its subsidiaries, with much revenue, so no harm done. Artists are about art. Disney, like any business enterprise, is about money. Which makes this maneuver against Michael Moore exceedingly puzzling. Disney's action against the film is more political than the film itself can be, and will only serve to enhance its impact. And we must remember to give credit where credit is due. Logically Unsound fulfills the moniker: I think that anyone who might undertake such an argument seriously would be proposing a breaking of Moore's pattern. His civil disobedience, agit-prop stunts, and protest actions generally leave no room for doubt: • Taking Columbine survivors to K-Mart headquarters to ask the company to stop selling bullets. • Sponsored a beach-landing by Jeannine Garofalo and volunteers to protest a private beach. (TV Nation) • Sponsored writer/director Rusty Cundeiff's bid to buy black slaves in Mississippi. (TV Nation) Subtle fraud just wouldn't be consistent with Moore's modus operandi. Check this out, though ... I'm still not sure this is actually satire: Houston Review. Looking at the site's current front page (May 5, #104), I still can't tell.
tiassa, Enough said. Now it is free expression and no longer propaganda? Art? I do like all arts including this art that you are referring to which appears amusing. So Disney acquired Mirimax. Does this mean Disney owns Mirimax? If yes, then if Disney does not like the "statisticlly-deviant expression" then Disney can change it. I agree that Disney is about money but by entertainment. Also, most of its audience are kids so I think it is appropriate to leave kids out of politics.
Disney's primary audience may be children (although I think that is subject to debate as well), but Miramax produces a wide range of films including Clerks, Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, three films that are not appropriate for children either. I do not think that is a valid argument in this instance. :m: Peace.
My, an implication of the incumbent in the 9/11 terror attacks! How groundbreaking! I have never heard such an accusation before! Perhaps you could elucidate as to what this "obvious connection" is to the rest of us sheep?
In theory, then, is it possible to make a documentary about events that bear political implications without creating "propaganda"? In this specific case, only the content of the movie itself will reveal the answer. But I don't think of Robin Williams' jokes about the cocaine--as funny and possibly disarming as they are--to be propaganda. Doonesbury isn't propaganda. Dr. Seuss making up lies in cartoon from during World War II? Admittedly propaganda. Who am I to argue with that? There's a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon--a classic--in which they read that Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses, and wonder exactly what that means. The television thinks to itself, "It means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet." Propaganda? What doctrine or set of principles will Moore be advancing? What if ... and just work with me here ... what if the content of the film and its allegations are true? Propaganda? The Muppet Show? Propaganda? Temple of the Dog? Propaganda? "Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto. Mata ah-oo hima de." Propaganda? (Actually, that's better asked of the rest of the album.) And I'm glad. It's a harrowing thought, an artless world. But anything we don't like is somehow propaganda; have you ever noticed? Mel Gibson's not raising propaganda against the Jews; now, the Bible itself is another question entirely. (See Pagels, Elane: The Origin of Satan, an excellent volume.) Films like Jeffrey and Birdcage were called "propaganda" (liberal, gay). Reading the names of war dead on television is apparently "propaganda" (liberal, anti-war/"pro-terror"). In the end, almost any artistic or creative product is propaganda by a certain definition. To the other, in the sinister context usually given the word, I just think you're closing yourself off to something a little too early. If Joel Schumacher can make a good film from time to time, then Michael Moore can eventually make one that sucks. We'll see what happens. But in the meantime ... what if what he alleges is true, and in proper context? Is it still propaganda? The counterattack, in the meantime, is chilling:
Actually, Disney does not have this right. They are contractually bound to distribute it, since Miramax has agreed to distribute it. The contract between Disney and Miramax stipulates that a film must be either over-budget or rated NC-17 for Disney to forcibly block Miramax from distributing it. This is not the case with Moore's film. Disney is in breach of contract. Disney is about homogenous lifestyle branding for children and adults. It's not about "entertainment". It's about packaging and selling lifestyles and fantastical dreams for those who lack the imagination to do so themselves. Because of that, Disney - and every other major consumer corporation - *is* about propaganda. The doctrine they are spreading is the doctrine of consumerism and corporate "branding".
Again, this movie WILL be released. The more they try to block it, the gretater its ultimate success. At the end, everyone will be happy including Disney who, I imagine, are getting a cut of the profits. (Maybe Jeb and is bro will be a little ticked.)
Doh! I was just going to post this... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Disney Blocks Distribution of Moore Film But anyways... Yeah... I guess americans don't live in a democracy, do they...? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! From website: "According to The New York Times, which first reported the story Wednesday, "Fahrenheit 9/11" describes decades-old financial links between the Bush family and prominent Saudi Arabian families. The film says the government helped members of bin Laden's family leave the United States after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." Not surprising... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, we do live in a democracy and this is why the U.S. government that represents its citizens did not stop Moore from making his film and did not stop Disney from blocking the film. This conflict between Disney and Moore is strictly between these two and again, the U.S. government did not stop either of them from doing anything! I guess you wished that the U.S. government should have prevented Disney from blocking Moore film? Since when does Moore have his freedom but disney does not?
[nodding head up and down] Oh yep. Yes. Certainly... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! [/nodding head up and down] Anyways... Did the government represent the citizens when the US went to war with Iraq....? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ok. Please tell me why would Disney be concerned enough with this film to censor it? How can they benefit with that at all!? Not only that, but why would the government censor it, if it were the case? Wouldn't the government gain much more the Disney (or actually, preserve itself)? Oh well... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yep. As I recall the polls showed that most people living within the US supported the war. Disney has an image to maintain. They normally produce childrens movie, or family movies; the second they make something that'll piss people off, they'll start losing money. The Government hasn't censored it; Disney has.
