Disney says 'no' to Moore

[Basstrap]

From Michaelmoore.com

Wednesday, May 5th, 2004
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 and you can read it here (Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush).

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

 

[nbcrusader]

Nice. Wrap yourself up in a conspiracy involving a Bush. Michael Moore is such a victim.

It is more likely that a sloppy anti-Bush film would be a box office bomb

 

[melon]

Funny how this nation is starting to epitomize another (in)famous book.

"Freedom" is just starting to sound like another hollow Bush campaign promise. Between Disney and the Sinclair Broadcast Group, maybe it is about time we start reevaluating media ownership rules in this country, because the censorship that these large media conglomerates are starting to assert has become all the more apparent. I'm afraid to even analyze the censorship that they have asserted over their news networks. Viacom is the only one that seems to have a spine anymore. The rest are as hollow and scripted as their reality television.

Melon

 

[melon]

It is more likely that a sloppy anti-Bush film would be a box office bomb.

Haha...good one. This is certainly not the case, particularly when you look at the very low cost to make this film. It will not take much to recover their costs, even if it isn't successful by "Passion" standards.

Even if American audiences hate the movie, independent audiences, at minimum, will eat it up, not to mention Europe, which will eat up anything critical of Bush. This is just another fight between Disney and its strong-willed Miramax conquest. Miramax releases a lot of films that are critically-acclaimed and don't necessarily do as well in theaters. In fact, most of the DVDs I own are Miramax releases, coincidentally.

Seeing the success of "Bowling for Columbine," there is no reason why they wouldn't release this movie, except out of classic American disdain for dissent. America, for instance, was the only nation to censor "Eyes Wide Shut." So, yes, I do tend to think that the First Amendment, in the eyes of government and corpoate America, has become little more than a ruse to get people to fight their endless "war on terror," but they have little intent to actually follow through with it.

In capitalist speak, let the market decide whether this film is good or bad, not Disney.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

In capitalist speak, let the market decide whether this film is good or bad, not Disney.

When Disney is fronting the marketing and distribution costs, they are the market.

You will have this film in your DVD collection soon enough.

 

[melon]

When Disney is fronting the marketing and distribution costs, they are the market.

You will have this film in your DVD collection soon enough.

After having studied media for as long as I have, this would be considered a very safe investment, because this isn't like a Hollywood blockbuster. It isn't like they had to spend $100 million to make the movie and then spend another $100 million in merchandising, only to see a flop ("Treasure Island," anyone?).

Considering Moore's past success with "Bowling for Columbine," which, forget the political controversy--it was highly successful, considering the cost-revenue ratio. However, this is where I think that it probably *is* boiling down to Eisner fearing that Disney will lose their tax cuts or some other political repercussions from good ol' Jeb.

BTW, I don't own any Michael Moore DVDs. Miramax releases most of the French films that I own, and that is over half of my collection right there. Overall, though, Disney really should wait until the reaction of this film at Cannes. If it is very well-received, as expected, then they would be stupid to not let Miramax distribute it. But, then again, if it is about not wanting to poke a stick at Jeb, then we can see precisely what is wrong about media ownership rules in this nation.

Melon

 

[Klaus]

I still don't like Mr. Moores books or movies but some interesting facts here:

"Bowling for Columbine," cost 3 mio. $ and brought back 120 mio$! (same genre and a Oscar winner!) so the follow up "Fahrenheit 9/11" (Production costs: 6 mio. $, allready payed by miramax) Should be lucrative too.

Disneystatement:

...(the movie is) 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.

Miramax tries now to publish the movie with another partner in north-america (it's ok for disney to show the new movie outside the USA)

(data from: tagesschau.de )

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

America, for instance, was the only nation to censor "Eyes Wide Shut."

well that's a load of crap right there... the producers of eyes wide shut could've released the movie with an NC-17 rating. they wanted the R rating, so they were asked to cut it. if they cared more about the artistic value of the movie rather than it's commercial success, they would've just released it as is.

as for disney, i'm sure they saw a cut of the film before they came to this decision. they have the right to release whatever film they want. if i took my handy cam out and made myself a movie, and went to disney and asked them to release it, if they say no, it's no friggin violation of my first ammendment rights. from a business standpoint, they did not feel mr. moore's movie was good for their company. it's their right to do so. take your movie somewhere else.

 

[melon]

well that's a load of crap right there... the producers of eyes wide shut could've released the movie with an NC-17 rating. they wanted the R rating, so they were asked to cut it. if they cared more about the artistic value of the movie rather than it's commercial success, they would've just released it as is.

That was a decision made by Warner Bros., the distributor, not Kubrick. The uncensored NC-17 version is available on Region 2 (PAL/UK) DVD, but the Region 1 (NTSC/US) DVD is censored. I would have forgiven their censorship of the film had they released an uncut DVD for the U.S., but they didn't.

So much for "freedom," and, again, it makes me look disdainfully on the media ownership climate in this nation, along with the MPAA.

Melon

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

That was a decision made by Warner Bros., the distributor, not Kubrick. The uncensored NC-17 version is available on Region 2 (PAL/UK) DVD, but the Region 1 (NTSC/US) DVD is censored. I would have forgiven their censorship of the film had they released an uncut DVD for the U.S., but they didn't.

So much for "freedom."

Melon

again, did the government censor the film? or did warner brothers? since when did warner brothers run america?

 

[melon]

again, did the government censor the film? or did warner brothers? since when did warner brothers run america?

Reread what I said. I said that America was the only nation to censor the film; I did not say the government.

Fuck corporations.

Melon

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

alrighty then

 

[dazzledbylight]

short 'n "sweet" {to Disney, that is}

 

[Dreadsox]

Thank you Mickey Mouse!

I would be checking facts too before it is released!

 

[Dreadsox]

Michael...its not censorship when companies do not want to cuirculate your bag of lies. If the governement stopped you that would be censorship.

And one more thing, you human windbag, I have to ask why you cannot tell the truth in your own letter to your "fans".

Your agent was informed in MAY 2003 that they would not distribute it. You have a had a year to do something about it. Maybe you like generating your own negative press, to hype your piece of crap film to make more $$$$.

Shame on you liar!

 

[Basstrap]

I don't think it has anything to do with being released.
just distribution

 

[stammer476]

the censorship that these large media conglomerates are starting to assert has become all the more apparent

I don't really see this as an issue of censorship or the Bush backlash, but rather the fear of an American backlash. Chances are that the financial and Oscar success of Bowling for Columbine has encouraged Moore to make this next movie even more controversial and offensive. And of all issues to do make a controversial and offensive movie, he chose 9-11. Soon after its release nationwide, boycotts of Miramax & parent Disney would likely result, and even if the movie makes $100 million worldwide Disney doesn't want to deal with that hassle.

Disney owns the studios. Disney owns the rights. Disney owns it all. And if this movie is offensive enough to produce nationwide backlash and well-organized boycotts, I can see why they wouldn't want it to happen. As long as they own it, they have a right to make sure it doesn't come out under their name. Disney is not a newspaper or an art musem that has the obligation to give all opinions and interpretations the light of day. They're a company making money, and people don't give their money to corporations they find offensive.

 

[Rono]

Maybe Moore should call his movie, Finding Memo.

 

[stammer476]

"Freedom" is just starting to sound like another hollow Bush campaign promise

So one man's freedom is another man's P.R. suicide? Shouldn't Disney have the "freedom" to choose what movies it does and does not want released under its name?

Since when did "art" become the all-determining factor in what a major corporation chooses to post its signature on? This company wants $$$$, and it should have the "freedom" to decide what is the best way to make that money. Releasing a movie that will alienate potential $$$$ is bad business, plain and simple. Moore needs to quick whining and realize that if his movie is really something worthwhile, it will find its way to the big screen.

 

[Scarletwine]

It's censorship plain and simple. Even if you dislike Moore, his movie deserves to be distributed.

Melon is exactly correct media ownership is the real problem.

 

[melon]

So one man's freedom is another man's P.R. suicide? Shouldn't Disney have the "freedom" to choose what movies it does and does not want released under its name? Since when did "art" become the all-determining factor in what a major corporation chooses to post its signature on? This company wants $$$$, and it should have the "freedom" to decide what is the best way to make that money. Releasing a movie that will alienate potential $$$$ is bad business, plain and simple. Moore needs to quick whining and realize that if his movie is really something worthwhile, it will find its way to the big screen.

That's why it's time to do a little "hack and slash" on media ownership. You're correct; businesses only have one thing on their mind: $$$, even if that runs contrary to the public interest. Imagine that: "public interest." That's actually what the FCC was founded for: to ensure that the airwaves were for the "public interest" and not "corporate interest." No, all it is now is a tool for corporations to hack at old "public interest" regulations and Biblical fundamentalists to censor speech that they find offensive, even if they have been and are a minority of the population.

If Disney did not own Miramax, this furor would never have happened. It is time to start busting these media conglomerates into a million pieces, and Disney should be relegated to a historical curiosity.

Melon

 

[stammer476]

Let me first admit that I have little to no knowledge of how media ownership works. But it seems to me that if Disney owns the rights to Miramax which owns the rights to the F911, then Disney has the right to say what does and does not get released. Like I said before, they're not a newspaper or an art museum, they don't have an obligation for free speech. They're a company trying to make money, and if they think releasing an offensive (and as we've seen before, historically inaccurate) movie is going to alienate them from their money, of course they wouldn't release it. It doesn't take a business degree to figure that out.

I just don't understand why it is the obligation of Disney to release anything and everything it owns under the banner of "free speech." That constitutional right doesn't play a factor when someone else is footing the bill. Again, I don't know how all of this works, but why doesn't Moore just ditch Disney and go with someone else?

 

[Popmartijn]

Then again, why did Disney allow Miramax to produce the Moore movie from the beginning? I mean, they should've known what kind of documentary they were getting.

 

[Dreadsox]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/n...partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=

Pay attention to the story...not Mr. Moore's interpretation.

 

[Dreadsox]

Oh gee...surprise surprise, I am not the only one who noticied the trumped up bullshit Mr. Moore is spewing on his website.

[Q]Lies And Moore Lies [Updated]
Is bloviator Michael Moore making up stuff again?

Sure looks like it.

Just days from the opening of the Cannes Film Festival he?s basking in a wave of publicity that the Walt Disney Company is blocking subsidiary Miramax from distributing his new documentary ?Fahrenheit 9/11? on political grounds.

Publicity-hound Moore?s allegations about Disney ring false. The very same Disney Company -- through its Hyperion division-- just published Pacifica Radio host Amy Goodman?s new book ?The Exception to the Rulers? ? a volume brimming with just as much lefty fringe politics and anti-Bush theorizing as contained in Moore?s films. Indeed, Goodman's book is a blunder-buss assualt on corporate media conglomerates-- like Disney![/Q]

http://www.marccooper.com/

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]They also pointed out they had made it clear a year ago that they wanted no involvement with Fahrenheit 911, which was picked up by Miramax against the wishes of its corporate parent. [/Q]

[Q]?The only thing that?s new here is in Disney?s reaffirmation of their previously stated position,? one well-placed source said on condition of anonymity. ?Miramax never said it was distributing the film, even if people assumed it would find a way.? [/Q]

Nothing like some publicity before Cannes, to try and boost your movie.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

ABC News said he has known for over a year..he's a bit of a drama king

I would still see the movie though, because I think in spite of all his "flaws", he has an interesting, thought provoking perspective.

 

[verte76]

The upshot of the controversy is that a heck of alot of people will want to see the movie, just to see what the fuss is about. Perhaps this whole thing was scripted?

 

[kobayashi]

just as disney has the right to not distribute the film, moore has the right to publicize it.

while the distribution choice is that of disney and disney alone, the nature of media ownership at present in western democracies can have a censoring effect: concentrated ownership, often with diverse interests and deep political connections, has again and again proven to have a chilling effect on the nature of discourse which these media conglomerates choose to promote.

it is systemic and by design. mass appeal is also one of the unfortunate vices of moore's art form.

there is, of course, not complete censorship: consider the persistence of chomsky as well as moore. but these are people who exist, at best, on the fringes of the mainstream and thus, occassionally, turn to guerilla tactics for publicity-such as it appears moore may be doing, again.

when a system is intended to suppress certain points of view, alternative means will be employed to disseminate information.

 

[stammer476]

there is, of course, not complete censorship: consider the persistence of chomsky as well as moore. but these are people who exist, at best, on the fringes of the mainstream and thus, occassionally, turn to guerilla tactics for publicity-such as it appears moore may be doing, again.

when a system is intended to suppress certain points of view, alternative means will be employed to disseminate information. [/B]

Excellent summary, Kobayashi.