You guys don't seem to understand that it is soooo critical for Disney's success to sleep with the government. example1 I also found this which is a comprehensive look at how critical it is for big business to lobby.
Ahhh... well as I recall, most people weren't supporting the war. Americans did eventually started supporting it, but in the beginning, it was a no no... Why would that movie piss people off? Because people can't stand hearing the truth? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And I recall most americans saying that they didn't voted for that bastard! But ince we seem not to get into an agreement, what about the "Patriot Act"? Do you think that is democratic at all? Oh, so people are submissive to the government. I wonder why? Maybe it is because they are brainwashed in school to think that they live in the greatest country in the planet and that the governemtn is always "protecting" its citien with "national security"...? :bugeye: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
TS: Prove to me that people like to have their opinions fucked with. As for Disney blocking this movie, which is what I’m talking about (Disney not the Government); it’s their right. If they think that it’ll cause a big upset in profits or blah-blah then they can choose not to distribute it. This is not about free speech, this is about money. Now, as for my memory, it may not be the best, but to my knowledge most of the people that I know (Not some poll- people I know) supported the war with Iraq. Now, stop trying to drag me off-topic by bringing up other things like the patriot act. Nice try, though. Trying to lure a moderator into a debate/flame war. Bring all this other irrelevant stuff into this conversation just so you can flame or debase me, nice try. To bad it won't work. When did you trun into a raving maniac?
That's not what I said. I said that people's opinions are shaped by the government and the media. Yes, it is always about money... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And most of the people that I know of and that frequent sciforums didn't support the war... It's not off-topic. We were discussing wheter the US is truly democratic or not, and the "patriot act" is a clear example that the US is not democratic. Well, that's not really my intention. I think this is a very simple debate. I just hope you understand that I'm debating democracy and ethics through simple examples. I'm not debating about Disney at all, if you pay attention to my words. My focus is what may be behind things such as Disney not releasing that movie, which could be quite profitable as ome of those webites have shown. Of course it could be an image problem, but as omeone else pointed out, Disney doesn't produce only children kind of movie, so it's more probable that the underlining problem is something else. When another person abused me and I had to pay more money to that person because of what that person called "justice"... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, that's what you get for living in a highly liberal area. I live in a highly republican area, so most of the people that I know supported the war. And I don't count sciforums. I was discussing whether or not Disney has the right to block the film from distribution and why they're doing it; I wasn't talking about the government. So please do tell me how Disney blocking a film proves that the US ins't as democratic as it claims? I am paying attention to your words, I'm also paying attention to the smilies you're using. When you use the rolling eyes smilies it makes it appear that you're being a smartass, if you're not, then I'm sorry.
What if there is good reason to kill it? I'm no big fan of Disney, but Michael Moore? How is he more than a socialist propagandist? I think it's fair that if a company doesn't want socialist propaganda to represent them, they can pull the plug. Unless he signed a retarded contract, he'll likely get someone to distribute the thing. If he thinks it's that important, he can cough up some of his own dough to make it. I don't see why disney should be reviled for this. Maybe you have other reasons.
After thinking about it for a bit, it's likely that he really believes in what he's doing. To me, his dogged socialist diatribe comes across and thick with propaganda, and will continue to do so... however, I get a little fuzzy on labelling something propaganda when someone really really believes it. Hmm. Yeah nevermind. It's still propaganda - but that's not a bad thing if you're hep to the socialism deal I suppose. From my perspective, bad, from socialist - not. Regardless, disney is free to reject his crap and if there are consequences, they'll have to pay them.
First of all, if you guys would bother to read the articles, Disney may not have any legal ground to "stop" the movie (although the goliath can by intimidation - Miramax will be commiting suicide if it goes to court against Disney). Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating. Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route. Secondly, Disney is exercising its democratic right to block its film. US "democracy" is challenged when we look at why Disney is blocking it: 1. will make the Florida Governor angry - thereby jeapordizing future incentives for the company. (that's capitalism at work) 2. Distributing a movie which critisizes the government will be perceived by the American public as unpatriotic. This is undemocratic. If an individual or a powerful company feels like he needs to conform and support the government and the will of the government, then that's not democracy. Imagine no American company decides to distribute the movie based on fear of upsetting the government .. we'd have censorship.
This theory doesn't work. You forget that some companies will distribute material no matter what people may think. Not to mention the internet. If Mr. Moore really wanted to distribute this film all he has to do is upload it. And yes, I know that some things are not published through fear (The ads that compared Hitler to Bush – they can be found on memoryhole.org).
i like this one better: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901 of course he'll find a distributor. his "creative editting" is hugely popular with the paranoid left, so someone is sure to pick it up to sell it to them.
From FOX? Curious - from FOX News, of all sources: Gibson Pal 'Signed Deal' to Finance Moore Movie. I'm not sure what part of the article to cite. So ... let's try the bullet list: • . . . before Miramax was involved in "Fahrenheit 9/11," the project had a different godfather. That was Bruce Davey, the Australian-born producer who runs Mel Gibson's company, Icon Productions. • About two weeks later, Davey and Icon informed Moore and his agent, Ari Emanuel, that they were backing out of the project . . . . Icon would have been vulnerable to a possible breach-of-contract action from Moore had it not been for some fast diplomacy on the party of Emanuel. I'm told the very next thing he did when he heard that Icon was backing out was to call Miramax's Harvey Weinstein, with whom Moore had worked in the past. • . . . not only did Davey make the $5 million deal with Moore, but that when it was announced, Gibson got calls from Republican friends urging him to back out of it right away. • Miramax . . . merely stepped in and swapped their own contract for Icon's . . . "Harvey saved everyone a lot of grief," says an insider. "It could have gotten very ugly." • What finally drove Gibson and Davey to renege on their deal? Does it have anything to do with a report this week in the New York Post that there are a group of investors who want Gibson to replace Eisner as president of Disney? It should also be mentioned that neither Michael Eisner nor former Sen. George Mitchell, who is currently running Disney, have seen the film.
Ok. We were jut discusing two different things... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! When I use the "rooleyes" I'm just chilling out I-hope-you-understand... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sometimes M. Moore is like Abbie Hoffman reincarnated.....in the way he uses humor and good spirt to inspire his political views and suggest change. I really like what he stands for ....
As you probably read in the Arts forum Michael Moore won the Palme D'Ore at Cannes this weekend for Fahrenheit 9/11. Quentine Taratino had this to say: "When I was on stage with Michael Moore, I knew all this politics crap would be brought up" .. So "I just whispered in his ear and said, `I just want you to know it was not because of the politics that you won this award,'" Tarantino said. "`You won it because we thought it was the best film that we saw.'" Now - How can one vote for a film (especially a documentary) if they completely disagree with it's content? It's a politically charged documentary with some humor mocking the current administration. Tjhs movie is probably about the American foreign policy and Admin. and today, you either love it or hate it. If 6 of 10 judges hated bush, they definetly voted for the movie. Although I agree with many of his views, I don't really see anything "Artistic" in Bowling for Columbine -- And I'm assuming Fahrenheit 9/11 is the same type of movie. I just don't understand how a non-fiction movie can win this award. I'm looking forward to watching it not for it's artistic or entertainment value but for its informative view point. Also, Michael Moore was caught saying this: "If I wanted to make a political speech, I'd run for office," Moore told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "I'm a filmmaker, and I wanted to make a movie for people to go see it." I love you mike, but PLEASE -- That was a "political statement you just made.
