PDA

View Full Version : Should 911 Farenheit be released?


Mavdog
05-10-2004, 10:51 AM
Michael Moore's movie, 911 Farenheit, may not be distributed as Disney told its partner, Miramax, to drop it.

While the subject matter, which is reportedly about the ties between the Bush family and Saudi royalty as well as Moore's accusation that GWBush was able to prevent the 911 attack, is perhaps not the typical lighthearted Disney product it is a good question if the release should be blocked on the grounds that Disney does not want its name associated with Moore. If that were the case why did it finance the movie in the first place?

The dispute is going to create even more publicity for the movie and get more ticket buyers into the theatres. Isn't Disney playing right into the scenario that most benefits Moore?

Second, should a corp like Disney exercise its power to prevent a fim it doesn't like from being distributed? Is this not indirect censorship by the state?

I am not a Moore fan but I also do not see the need for his work to be shelved. Disney is making all the wrong moves on this one IMHO.

u2sarajevo
05-10-2004, 11:07 AM
Moore is an idiot.... however Disney's handling of this whole situation is even more stupid. Moore was told of this decision 6 months ago, however. He waited until the film festival to make it public however.

Either way, 1 idiot film producer, and 1 idiotic film publisher....

Bowling for Columbine was such a farce. I am sure this movie is no different.

madape
05-10-2004, 11:31 AM
Of course it should be released. However, it shouldn't be guaranteed distribution by Disney.

Disney doesn't have the power to prevent the film from being distributed. It's not even trying to do so. It just doesn't want anything to do with a film that it sees as a bad investment, morally objectionable, or whatever. This is how it should be. In America, corporations are granted the the freedom to make decisions they feel are in best interest. That's the way capitalism works.

But the dilusional conspiracy theorists on the left don't need to panic. The film will be distributed. Not by Disney, but by some other corporation with little to integrity to lose.

kg_veteran
05-10-2004, 11:35 AM
Second, should a corp like Disney exercise its power to prevent a fim it doesn't like from being distributed? Is this not indirect censorship by the state?

Indirect censorship by the state? Huh? Disney is not a governmental entity. They can't "censor" or violate constitutional rights.

Moore has no RIGHT to have his film distributed. He has to find a film company that is willing and able to distribute it for him. That's the way the free market works.

Mavdog
05-10-2004, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Second, should a corp like Disney exercise its power to prevent a fim it doesn't like from being distributed? Is this not indirect censorship by the state?

Indirect censorship by the state? Huh? Disney is not a governmental entity. They can't "censor" or violate constitutional rights.

Moore has no RIGHT to have his film distributed. He has to find a film company that is willing and able to distribute it for him. That's the way the free market works.

The accusation is that political pressure was put on Disney Corp. to stop the release of the film by its production company, Miramax, which is a subsidiary of Disney. If Disney determines that the fim will not be released, it can do so via its ownership of Miramax. If Miramax decides it will not be released (as it is the producer and controls such) it may never be exhibited.

That in effect is "indirect censorship by the state" if there was indeed pressure placed on Disney by the WH. There is no "free market" if there was this scenario played out, as the market was not allowed to enter into the equation.

kg_veteran
05-10-2004, 11:58 AM
Accusations are just that -- accusations. Still, madape is right. The film WILL be produced, just not by Disney.

Moore's an idiot trying to make himself into a martyr.

Snowman
05-10-2004, 12:02 PM
Second, should a corp like Disney exercise its power to prevent a fim it doesn't like from being distributed? Is this not indirect censorship by the state?


Sorry but this sounds like one of the absolutely ludicrous conspiracy therory statements made by Michael Moore. Disney is a publicly traded company with a fiscal responsibility to it's shareholders. It's corportate officers have to make what they believe is the best interests of the shareholders while staying within the law. There is no law which requires private industry to publish someone with a controversial dissenting opinion from that of the curent administration.

Disney may be making a bad business decision, but personally I don't think so. And Moore certainly has a right to express his opions no matter how oddball and off the wall they are. However it would be grossly unjust for anyone to suggest that Disney should be forced to publish his film in order to protect his freedom of speech.

IMO Michael Moore is no more than a liberal biased shock jock with little to no real talent. I could care less if he ever got another film published. If he had but an ounce of real concrete evidence to his blatantly imaginary fabrications, then companies would be lining up to publish his work. Heck if he even had decent talent at making a quality entertaining film, then he'd have no problem. But just be cause he loves to make films of abyssmal quality about fabricated opinions that go against the current government is no reason to force a private industry to behave in a manner that is fiscally unsound as judged by the legally and lawfully corportate officers and board members of a publicly traded company.

Mavdog
05-10-2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Accusations are just that -- accusations. Still, madape is right. The film WILL be produced, just not by Disney.

The flm has already been produced by Miramax. Disney is stoping the film's distribution, which Miramax/Disney can prohibit as they own the rights. Studios distribute their own films, by law they just cannot control the exhibition.


Moore's an idiot trying to make himself into a martyr.

And Disney is certainly helping Moore wear the mantle of a martyr.

madape
05-10-2004, 12:31 PM
If this film doesn't get released, I'll eat my hat. Mirimax will either sell it or partner up with another distributor and get it done that way. The unfortunate truth is that there are hundreds of thousands of left wing freaks who would like nothing better than to dole out their hard-earned welfare dollars to see Bush get brutally slandered by Moore. Disney doesn't want anything to do with it's distribution, but that doesn't mean they won't make money off of it. They would just prefer to make their money without having their billion-dollar Disney brand tarnished. That's what we call a good business decision.

Speaking of money, Michael Moore wants more of yours, so get in line early.

Mavdog
05-10-2004, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by: Snowman
Second, should a corp like Disney exercise its power to prevent a fim it doesn't like from being distributed? Is this not indirect censorship by the state?


Sorry but this sounds like one of the absolutely ludicrous conspiracy therory statements made by Michael Moore. Disney is a publicly traded company with a fiscal responsibility to it's shareholders. It's corportate officers have to make what they believe is the best interests of the shareholders while staying within the law. There is no law which requires private industry to publish someone with a controversial dissenting opinion from that of the curent administration.

There are many who are very critical of the Disney officers (such as CALPERS) for NOT making its responsibilities to the shareholders their mission. Eisner almost wa thrown out for such, and Disney was the target of a takeover attempt due to the perception that these officers were derelict in their duties as officers of the corp.

The question is why would Miramax spend many millions of dollars to produce the film, a film which Miramax knew the script of as well as its message, only to place the film in its vault never to see the light of day (darkness of a theatre?).

You are correct that the decision makers at Disney do owe it to their stockholders to make the best decisons that would generate the highest level of profits to their company. The issue is if the decision to not allow for the release of this Moore film is a result of such deliberations which concluded the film would lose money, or if the decision was made due to influence/pressure from the White House. The former is certainly their duty, the latter is not.


Disney may be making a bad business decision, but personally I don't think so. And Moore certainly has a right to express his opions no matter how oddball and off the wall they are. However it would be grossly unjust for anyone to suggest that Disney should be forced to publish his film in order to protect his freedom of speech.

Likewise it would be grossly unjust if Disney were forced to NOT allow for the distribution of the film due to outside influences.


IMO Michael Moore is no more than a liberal biased shock jock with little to no real talent. I could care less if he ever got another film published. If he had but an ounce of real concrete evidence to his blatantly imaginary fabrications, then companies would be lining up to publish his work. Heck if he even had decent talent at making a quality entertaining film, then he'd have no problem. But just be cause he loves to make films of abyssmal quality about fabricated opinions that go against the current government is no reason to force a private industry to behave in a manner that is fiscally unsound as judged by the legally and lawfully corportate officers and board members of a publicly traded company.


All well and good if in fact there was no pressure on Disney from outside the company.

kg_veteran
05-10-2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Accusations are just that -- accusations. Still, madape is right. The film WILL be produced, just not by Disney.

The flm has already been produced by Miramax. Disney is stoping the film's distribution, which Miramax/Disney can prohibit as they own the rights. Studios distribute their own films, by law they just cannot control the exhibition.

I misspoke. I meant to say, "The film WILL be distributed, just not by Disney."


Moore's an idiot trying to make himself into a martyr.

And Disney is certainly helping Moore wear the mantle of a martyr.[/quote]

I disagree. They're just refusing to continue to be a part of his stupidity.

Snowman
05-10-2004, 02:10 PM
You are correct that the decision makers at Disney do owe it to their stockholders to make the best decisons that would generate the highest level of profits to their company. The issue is if the decision to not allow for the release of this Moore film is a result of such deliberations which concluded the film would lose money, or if the decision was made due to influence/pressure from the White House. The former is certainly their duty, the latter is not.


1st of all the question is not as simple as to whether the company would lose money with the just the film, although they certainly could. There is always the effect that showing or not showing Moore's will have on the Disney brand name. By showing this moron's film, Disney could alienate a considerable portion of their customer base. Whether you think that this is or is not so is immaterial unless you're own voting stock in Disney, and even then you'll need to wait for the next election of board members to try and force a change. What counts is whether Disney's elected officers thinks of the situation.

Your grossly unsubstantiated accusation that this move was made primarily because of pressure from the White House has little more credibility than those who say that the moon is made of cheese and that the moon landings and scientific evidence are just part of a grand conspiracy by the dairy industry to keep the cheese prices up. Just becasue someone makes a accusation, does not make it true or even probable. It makes very little if any sense for the Bush administration to step in and put the thumb screws to Disney to kill this film. Any advantage to be gained by this move would be extremely slight at best. However the political risk in doing something like this and keeping is secret is incredibly high.

The only substantiatable facts are ones which defend the story that this was a legitimate business move made by Disney exectuives for what they thought was in the best interests of their company based solely upon business criteria and not on any alleged pressure from the White House. And while it is certainly possible that the White House did engineer this, it's equally possible that the world will end tomorrow. But if I went around making a big deal out of either theory, I would not expect to be believed or even taken seriously.

Mavdog
05-10-2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by: Snowman
You are correct that the decision makers at Disney do owe it to their stockholders to make the best decisons that would generate the highest level of profits to their company. The issue is if the decision to not allow for the release of this Moore film is a result of such deliberations which concluded the film would lose money, or if the decision was made due to influence/pressure from the White House. The former is certainly their duty, the latter is not.


1st of all the question is not as simple as to whether the company would lose money with the just the film, although they certainly could. There is always the effect that showing or not showing Moore's will have on the Disney brand name. By showing this moron's film, Disney could alienate a considerable portion of their customer base. Whether you think that this is or is not so is immaterial unless you're own voting stock in Disney, and even then you'll need to wait for the next election of board members to try and force a change. What counts is whether Disney's elected officers thinks of the situation.

Miramax does not have any "Disney" designation on it, and has produced/distributed many movies that do not follow the wholesome Disney image, see "Kill Bill" as an example. That's the role of Miramax, hence your argument that the release of 911 Fahrenheit would be negative to the Disney brand doesn't fly.


Your grossly unsubstantiated accusation that this move was made primarily because of pressure from the White House has little more credibility than those who say that the moon is made of cheese and that the moon landings and scientific evidence are just part of a grand conspiracy by the dairy industry to keep the cheese prices up. Just becasue someone makes a accusation, does not make it true or even probable. It makes very little if any sense for the Bush administration to step in and put the thumb screws to Disney to kill this film. Any advantage to be gained by this move would be extremely slight at best. However the political risk in doing something like this and keeping is secret is incredibly high.

The actions by Disney actually support the "grossly unsubstantiated accusation" made about the decision to not release the movie. You may allude to crazy urban legends to support your disbelief there was any undue pressure on Disney, but the fact that the considerable amount of money spent on producing the movie had been given to Moore with some level of agreement by Miramax parent Disney, to then be subsequently ordered by parent to shelve the movie leads most openminded people to ask why.


The only substantiatable facts are ones which defend the story that this was a legitimate business move made by Disney exectuives for what they thought was in the best interests of their company based solely upon business criteria and not on any alleged pressure from the White House. And while it is certainly possible that the White House did engineer this, it's equally possible that the world will end tomorrow. But if I went around making a big deal out of either theory, I would not expect to be believed or even taken seriously.

And just what "substantiatable facts..which defend...a legitimate business move" are there? The fact that Miramax films do not have the word or logo of its parent Disney anywhere on the film? The fact that if the film were to be released it would not say Disney Co. anywhere on or in it? The fact that if the film had already been produced the studio will not see ANY return on its investment, and would be a huge black hole of money, while if it were relaesed the studio could actually make its money back or at the very least a portion of those monies spent to produce the film?

Snowman
05-10-2004, 02:55 PM
Miramax does not have any "Disney" designation on it, and has produced/distributed many movies that do not follow the wholesome Disney image, see "Kill Bill" as an example. That's the role of Miramax, hence your argument that the release of 911 Fahrenheit would be negative to the Disney brand doesn't fly.


Actually it is fairly common knowledge that Disney own's Miramax and has caught flack from producing unwholesome movies in the past. This is nothing new, and Disney executives have acted in several different ways, not always following the same strategy. But it's highly probable that many more people would be outraged over the gross insensitivity and bald face defamations contained in Moore's work than in any other single unwholesome film that Disney has produced. Moore's work is deinitely more of a lightning rod for criticism and group action than "Kill Bill" for example. Now whether this backlash would be more than Disney would have made on the film if it released it, can only be speculated. But it is certainly not inconsistent with the many business decisions that essentially throw away millions of dollars in investment because of a percieved threat of risk.

Your main error is that you attempt to simplify things too much in dealing with corportate america. From almost a decade and a half of business experience dealing with Fortune 500 companies, I can tell you with utmost assuredity that many decisions are made for what most people would not consider valid business reasons. Many do not make sense to those in the know with much of the insider information of working in the company and being intimately familiar with the facts. It is far more concievable that the decision was made because of some person reason than pressure by the government. Moore has pissed off more people than most people know. Many of these pissed off people are in executive postions.

Now all that being said, I can honestly say that a strong business case could be made to support the decision that Disney made. Sure strong business cases could be made to proceed with distributing the film, but that doesn't mean that there are valid business reason to with hold distribution. The money that Disney has already spent on this film would certainly be a negative factor in distributing the film, however it would not be the desiding factor if there was any evidence that executives had that would make it seem to them (you and I don't count here) that a potential major hit to the Disney brand could occur if Miramax release this film. It is also highly probably that this information could contain knowledge that is highly confidential and therefore would not be release to the public. This is a fairly regular scenario in corporate America. And I've seen smaller companies than Disney through away several times as much money as spent on Moore's film because of a percieved risk to the business as a whole. In fact in my job I regular make judgements of this sort based upon risk criteria that is not published to the public because of it's confidentiality.

The only thing that we know of any surety is that Disney is refusing to release Moore's film through Miramax. It would take an extremely high partisan intuitive jump to link the government in to this decision. The risk/reward ratio for the Bush administration is such that any such move would be highly idiotic. And it is beyond credibility that not one credible member of the media has unearthed any substantiatible facts linking the government to this action. All there is is supposition.

Mavdog
05-10-2004, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by: Snowman
Miramax does not have any "Disney" designation on it, and has produced/distributed many movies that do not follow the wholesome Disney image, see "Kill Bill" as an example. That's the role of Miramax, hence your argument that the release of 911 Fahrenheit would be negative to the Disney brand doesn't fly.


Actually it is fairly common knowledge that Disney own's Miramax and has caught flack from producing unwholesome movies in the past. This is nothing new, and Disney executives have acted in several different ways, not always following the same strategy. But it's highly probable that many more people would be outraged over the gross insensitivity and bald face defamations contained in Moore's work than in any other single unwholesome film that Disney has produced. Moore's work is deinitely more of a lightning rod for criticism and group action than "Kill Bill" for example. Now whether this backlash would be more than Disney would have made on the film if it released it, can only be speculated. But it is certainly not inconsistent with the many business decisions that essentially throw away millions of dollars in investment because of a percieved threat of risk.

Funny that you haven't seen the movie yet you have the ability to classify it as containing "gross insensitivity and bald face defamations". Second, what makes you feel that the average person has "fairly common knowledge that Disney owns Miramax"?

Cos. that are well run do not "throw away millions in investment", they make those decisions early on , while in this case the decision was made AFTER the fact. If Disney was so concerned about an association with Moore whu was the decision made to fund the production inthe first place? Clearly Disney did not see the potential "lightning rod for criticism" at that time, and nothing has changed since that initial decision...except perhaps a phone call from someone who doesn't want to have the movie released.


[Your main error is that you attempt to simplify things too much in dealing with corportate america. From almost a decade and a half of business experience dealing with Fortune 500 companies, I can tell you with utmost assuredity that many decisions are made for what most people would not consider valid business reasons. Many do not make sense to those in the know with much of the insider information of working in the company and being intimately familiar with the facts. It is far more concievable that the decision was made because of some person reason than pressure by the government. Moore has pissed off more people than most people know. Many of these pissed off people are in executive postions.

I'll counter that "decade and a half" with over two decades you youngster you...

Those people "in executive positions" would have said to not produce the movie when the cap budget was first proposed. This last second decision to not distribute the film is what causes independently thinking people to ask why.


Now all that being said, I can honestly say that a strong business case could be made to support the decision that Disney made. Sure strong business cases could be made to proceed with distributing the film, but that doesn't mean that there are valid business reason to with hold distribution. The money that Disney has already spent on this film would certainly be a negative factor in distributing the film, however it would not be the desiding factor if there was any evidence that executives had that would make it seem to them (you and I don't count here) that a potential major hit to the Disney brand could occur if Miramax release this film. It is also highly probably that this information could contain knowledge that is highly confidential and therefore would not be release to the public. This is a fairly regular scenario in corporate America. And I've seen smaller companies than Disney through away several times as much money as spent on Moore's film because of a percieved risk to the business as a whole. In fact in my job I regular make judgements of this sort based upon risk criteria that is not published to the public because of it's confidentiality.

You're stretching to justify what is most likely a politically motivated decision.


The only thing that we know of any surety is that Disney is refusing to release Moore's film through Miramax. It would take an extremely high partisan intuitive jump to link the government in to this decision. The risk/reward ratio for the Bush administration is such that any such move would be highly idiotic. And it is beyond credibility that not one credible member of the media has unearthed any substantiatible facts linking the government to this action. All there is is supposition.

The decision to not distribute, after the decision was made to produce, is quisical to say the least. many films are produced and after screenings not distributed; however this specific film was not screened to ascertain the public's reaction, therefore the commercial viability has never been quantified. It certainly appears that Disney does not want Moore's work to reach the theaters.

The only thing that we know of any surety is that the decision to not allow for the distribution of Moore's film was have been politically motivated. The basis for that decision is what we are asking, if that decision was made internally or externally.

kg_veteran
05-10-2004, 03:51 PM
We DON'T know that the decision was politically motivated. It could have been economically motivated. Or motivated, as LRB described above, by personal reasons unbeknownst to us.

The bottom line is that Disney CAN walk away if they want to and refuse to distribute.

Moore will just have to deal with it.

Mavdog
05-10-2004, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
We DON'T know that the decision was politically motivated. It could have been economically motivated. Or motivated, as LRB described above, by personal reasons unbeknownst to us.

In this case it is accurate to say that political and economic motivations are interrelated.

"personal reasons" is not accurate however.

kg_veteran
05-10-2004, 04:12 PM
You can keep repeating yourself if you want. You still have nothing demonstrating what their reasoning was.

I'm done talking about this. This is like debating the social significance of the movie Gigli. Not worth the bandwidth.

Snowman
05-10-2004, 04:16 PM
Funny that you haven't seen the movie yet you have the ability to classify it as containing "gross insensitivity and bald face defamations". Second, what makes you feel that the average person has "fairly common knowledge that Disney owns Miramax"?


I didn't listen to Howard Stern today, but I can say with absolute confidence that his show contained a great deal of insensitive shock material. This is what he does and what he has a well documented history of doing. Nor is there any good reason to believe that this might have changed. The same can be said for Michael Moore.

There have been numerous articles in public magazines, newspapers, and other media outlets over the last 5 years. This makes it fairly common. That does not mean that the average person will most likely be able to tell who which company owns Miramax, but you can be damn sure that the average newspaper reporter will include the parent company in any article dealing with a controversial movie, which this one is almost assuredly.


Cos. that are well run do not "throw away millions in investment", they make those decisions early on , while in this case the decision was made AFTER the fact. If Disney was so concerned about an association with Moore whu was the decision made to fund the production inthe first place? Clearly Disney did not see the potential "lightning rod for criticism" at that time, and nothing has changed since that initial decision...except perhaps a phone call from someone who doesn't want to have the movie released.


While this might sound good in some ivory tower college book, it does not match the real world facts. In 1997, GTE spent several million dollars to temporarily move 5,000 employees so that 1,000 corporate executives could have better temporary housing until there permanent building was created in Irving. There were numerous last minute changes in this process. Yet GTE successfully mergered with Bell Atlantic and a few other companies to form Verison and did quite well after that debacle. There are tons of highly documented instances of these types of decisions by the Fortune 500 companies. In IT alone the Fortune 500 throw at least 100's of millions of dollars away in projects with no realized value to the company. Many of these projects fail do to last minute decisions that go against the plan in effect. Sure these companies can't throw millions away every time or even most of the time and still be a goine concern. However it does happen often. To say otherwise is to ignore well documented facts. I will not argue with you that your proposal is how things should work, because I would agree totally that it should. However it is not how it does work. In the case of Moore's movie it may not have been entirely possible. In all likely hood the finished product differs considerably from the proposal that was originally funded. This would be the norm for any project the magnitude of a feature length film, especially one which supposedly incorporates such artistic elements.


Those people "in executive positions" would have said to not produce the movie when the cap budget was first proposed. This last second decision to not distribute the film is what causes independently thinking people to ask why.


Not necessarily the case. Executives reverse themselves almost as often as politicians, which is quite often. And the final product was most likely differnt by a nonsignificant amount than the proposal which was originally approved. It is also quite concievable that the same people who made the original decision weren't the ones who made the last decision. Turnover in positions occurs, often very frequently in corporate America especially when reorginizations are considered.


You're stretching to justify what is most likely a politically motivated decision.

Actually this is just as applicable if not more so to your argument.


The decision to not distribute, after the decision was made to produce, is quisical to say the least. many films are produced and after screenings not distributed; however this specific film was not screened to ascertain the public's reaction, therefore the commercial viability has never been quantified. It certainly appears that Disney does not want Moore's work to reach the theaters.


Yes, the decision was quisical. No argument there. And no it didn't follow the normal course of films in the screening process. But that is not inconsitent with many decision made by corporate America, and the entertainment industry in particular. Just because it normally doesn't happen, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen with any regularity at all. There are always exceptions.


The only thing that we know of any surety is that the decision to not allow for the distribution of Moore's film was have been politically motivated. The basis for that decision is what we are asking, if that decision was made internally or externally.

Well I'll have to whole heartedly disagree with you there. If you mean politically motivated that it was done to further the interest of a paticular politican party or elected politician, then I see no compelling evidence to suggest that this is the only possible reason. Now there well could have been organized groups of citizens or even political pacts which put pressure on Disney with threats of retaliation in lobbying, bad publicity, and asking for boycotts of Disney products. But that is hardly pressure put on by the government. This is a right of private citizens to take action.

Mavdog
05-10-2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by: Snowman
Funny that you haven't seen the movie yet you have the ability to classify it as containing "gross insensitivity and bald face defamations". Second, what makes you feel that the average person has "fairly common knowledge that Disney owns Miramax"?


I didn't listen to Howard Stern today, but I can say with absolute confidence that his show contained a great deal of insensitive shock material. This is what he does and what he has a well documented history of doing. Nor is there any good reason to believe that this might have changed. The same can be said for Michael Moore.

You cannot assume that Moore defames GWBush. If his work is factually based there would not be any defamation.


There have been numerous articles in public magazines, newspapers, and other media outlets over the last 5 years. This makes it fairly common. That does not mean that the average person will most likely be able to tell who which company owns Miramax, but you can be damn sure that the average newspaper reporter will include the parent company in any article dealing with a controversial movie, which this one is almost assuredly.

Very presumptive.


Cos. that are well run do not "throw away millions in investment", they make those decisions early on , while in this case the decision was made AFTER the fact. If Disney was so concerned about an association with Moore whu was the decision made to fund the production inthe first place? Clearly Disney did not see the potential "lightning rod for criticism" at that time, and nothing has changed since that initial decision...except perhaps a phone call from someone who doesn't want to have the movie released.


While this might sound good in some ivory tower college book, it does not match the real world facts. In 1997, GTE spent several million dollars to temporarily move 5,000 employees so that 1,000 corporate executives could have better temporary housing until there permanent building was created in Irving. There were numerous last minute changes in this process. Yet GTE successfully mergered with Bell Atlantic and a few other companies to form Verison and did quite well after that debacle. There are tons of highly documented instances of these types of decisions by the Fortune 500 companies. In IT alone the Fortune 500 throw at least 100's of millions of dollars away in projects with no realized value to the company. Many of these projects fail do to last minute decisions that go against the plan in effect. Sure these companies can't throw millions away every time or even most of the time and still be a goine concern. However it does happen often. To say otherwise is to ignore well documented facts. I will not argue with you that your proposal is how things should work, because I would agree totally that it should. However it is not how it does work. In the case of Moore's movie it may not have been entirely possible. In all likely hood the finished product differs considerably from the proposal that was originally funded. This would be the norm for any project the magnitude of a feature length film, especially one which supposedly incorporates such artistic elements.

You are confusing decisions that are made but need to be altered due to a change in reality with this decision to invest in a movie that did not change, nor did the facts around it change. Huge difference.


Those people "in executive positions" would have said to not produce the movie when the cap budget was first proposed. This last second decision to not distribute the film is what causes independently thinking people to ask why.


Not necessarily the case. Executives reverse themselves almost as often as politicians, which is quite often. And the final product was most likely differnt by a nonsignificant amount than the proposal which was originally approved. It is also quite concievable that the same people who made the original decision weren't the ones who made the last decision. Turnover in positions occurs, often very frequently in corporate America especially when reorginizations are considered.

Just as you cite Howard Stern as someone whom you can predict, so it is with Moore. You are grasping for rationale IMHO.


You're stretching to justify what is most likely a politically motivated decision.

Actually this is just as applicable if not more so to your argument.

Not in the least. If my assertion is proven correct, or your assertion is proven correct, both are politically motivated decisions. Mine is an externally motivated decision, yours is an internally motivated ecision, but both are political in basis.


The decision to not distribute, after the decision was made to produce, is quisical to say the least. many films are produced and after screenings not distributed; however this specific film was not screened to ascertain the public's reaction, therefore the commercial viability has never been quantified. It certainly appears that Disney does not want Moore's work to reach the theaters.


Yes, the decision was quisical. No argument there. And no it didn't follow the normal course of films in the screening process. But that is not inconsitent with many decision made by corporate America, and the entertainment industry in particular. Just because it normally doesn't happen, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen with any regularity at all. There are always exceptions.

Exceptions are based on factors influencing that decision as well.


The only thing that we know of any surety is that the decision to not allow for the distribution of Moore's film was have been politically motivated. The basis for that decision is what we are asking, if that decision was made internally or externally.

Well I'll have to whole heartedly disagree with you there. If you mean politically motivated that it was done to further the interest of a paticular politican party or elected politician, then I see no compelling evidence to suggest that this is the only possible reason. Now there well could have been organized groups of citizens or even political pacts which put pressure on Disney with threats of retaliation in lobbying, bad publicity, and asking for boycotts of Disney products. But that is hardly pressure put on by the government. This is a right of private citizens to take action.

No, I am saying that the decision was politically motivated either thru 1) pressure from outside the company due to the perceived affect on a political candidate, or 2) decisions internally that the company does not want to be involved with a controversial film such as this. Either way the motivation was political.

Snowman
05-10-2004, 05:17 PM
Well this is it for me. We are getting no where with this debate. The only facts in this case is that there are preciously few verifiable facts of any time. There isn't even the name of the person who supposedly made the decision. And yet you imply that the Bush ordered this film canned, but show no proof of any substance other than that you don't understand why Disney made this decision. Essentially your argument is because you don't understand why Disney would can a film they spent millions of dollars on, and that film potentially spoke ill of Bush (remember we don't really know the contents of the film as you have pointed out), therefore Bush must have ordered Disney to can this. Wow, talk about a major assumption.

Using the same logic it must have been the democratic party that ordered the space shuttle blown up in 1986 to make Reagan look bad. Because I don't understand why the space shuttle would blow up unless a sabatoge devise was planted on it and the dems had the most to gain by blowing it up. I'll have to look up who was the lead democrat then and all we have to do is get the murder charges ready. i/expressions/rolleye.gif

Murphy3
05-10-2004, 06:28 PM
Moore's a good director...he just shouldn't direct documentaries. As a member of the left, I'm ashamed when someone groups me in a class that includes someone that so dishonestly distorts the facts to incite the public.

Drbio
05-10-2004, 06:39 PM
Moore is no talent goon.

Murphy3
05-10-2004, 06:48 PM
It takes talent to get people into an uproar all the time. It's just unfortunate that it's so misguided.

dude1394
05-10-2004, 06:53 PM
Claiming that the "government" is somehow putting pressue on disney to NOT distribute his film is as much of a fantasy as michael moore's ridiculous screeds. Someone might actually care if he had any redeeming qualities.

And corporations have responsibily to adhere to the mores' of society just like anyone else. Just because hollywood has so few scruples doesn't mean that a company shouldn't exercise some.

reeds
05-12-2004, 01:51 PM
Yes, release the movie already- the more Bush bashing the better..

LRB
05-12-2004, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by: reeds
Yes, release the movie already- the more Bush bashing the better..

Yeah I guess Bush is doing such a great job that all his detractors can do is just make fictional things up and spread inuendo.

i/expressions/rolleye.gif

reeds
05-12-2004, 03:43 PM
lol..good one

madape
05-13-2004, 02:23 PM
UPDATE - Weinsteins, Disney near deal on "Fahrenheit 9/11"
Wednesday May 12, 7:43 pm ET


(Recasts, adds Disney comment, background)
LOS ANGELES, May 12 (Reuters) - The Walt Disney Co. (NYSEi/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gifIS - News) and the co-chiefs of Miramax Films are near a deal that would allow director Michael Moore to find a new distributor for his controversial documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," company officials said on Wednesday.

ADVERTISEMENT


Disney, Miramax's parent company, had refused to release the film that chronicles America's reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks and links U.S. President George W. Bush's family and prominent Saudis that include the family of Osama bin Laden.

The film is set to premiere at the Cannes film festival, which began on Wednesday in the French Riviera city.

Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said Disney had agreed to sell rights to Moore's film to Miramax co-chief executives Harvey Weinstein and his brother Bob Weinstein, who could then go out and find a new distributor.

A Disney spokeswoman, however, characterized the parties as still being in negotiations.

"We are very happy that Disney has agreed to sell 'Fahrenheit 9/11' to Bob and Harvey," Hiltzik said in a statement. "Bob and Harvey look forward to promptly completing this transaction."

Said Disney spokeswoman Zenia Mucha: "Disney has offered to sell Miramax's interest in the film to either a third party or Harvey and Bob."

Hiltzik said the terms offered by the Weinsteins were similar to a 1999 deal for the movie "Dogma," in which director Kevin Smith challenged Catholic doctrines, raising the ire of some church groups.

In that arrangement, the Weinsteins bought the rights to "Dogma" from Miramax with Disney's agreement, and then signed their own deal to have independent film company Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. (Toronto:LGF.TO - News) release the movie to theaters.

Disney's decision, which it said it had made a full year ago, spurred headlines last week when Moore, the filmmaker behind 2002's Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," went public with the comapny's refusal to distribute his film.

A spokesman for Moore said he was not immediately available to comment.
-----------------------------------------------

Get in line early. Don't forget to bring your wallet.

LRB
05-13-2004, 02:39 PM
Damn it!!! Looks like Big Brother is losing out to Uncle George (Washington). i/expressions/rolleye.gif