Disney forbidding dist of film

[GoofyB]

Thanks very much.

 

[Lebjwb]

To answer WDWHound regarding Disney's "right" to refuse distribution, it's called a contract. See the following:

Disney has a contractual agreement with Miramax principals Bob and Harvey Weinstein allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, such as an NC-17 rating or a budget of more than $30-35 million. Neither of which appears to be the case with Mr. Moores latest endeavor.

Attempting to break this contract puts Disney in an unfavorable light if they wish to play the "Neutral on Politics Card" and avoid upsetting their clients.

It makes them appear to be either A) Supportive of the Bush Administration or B) Fearful of the Bush Administration.

 

[cmehling]

People don’t get it do they?

I like to dream and think (hope) that Disney is a different kind of company that produces quality entertainment for families regardless of political affiliation.

Disney has in the past released many non-family friendly movies. While some in my opinion have been good – I think it’s sad for Disney…

I hope the next CEO of Disney has the vision and courage to return to Walt's dreams.

Michael Moore can peddle his crap elsewhere. I'd rather see Disney take a loss on this film at this point than risk any more credibility affiliating themselves with someone who is this controversial. The more controversy that is made here, the more Mr. Moore stands to make on this film. Too bad ME didn’t take this stand sooner.

Personally, I think the decision process is pretty simple. If Disney isn’t comfortable with affixing the world’s most popular icon on every product they produce, then maybe, they shouldn’t pursue it.

 

[rwodonnell]

I'm personally offended they call Moore a "comedian" in that article. Shouldn't that label be reserved for those that are funny?

 

[Snowgod]

I think that you all just don't get it. America is about creative freedom. MM is an artist who happens to cause controversy by his thought provoking films. He can cause quite a stir by pointing out things that people fear. We can watch films like Kill Bill but not allow a film that might upset people. We can support Guns, Sex and Violence but not thought.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by GoofyB
I guess I'll have to find that corp HQ address on my own.

It's not like it's hard to find the main address of the Walt Disney Company. One quick entry into Google will find it.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Snowgod
I think that you all just don't get it. America is about creative freedom. MM is an artist who happens to cause controversy by his thought provoking films. He can cause quite a stir by pointing out things that people fear. We can watch films like Kill Bill but not allow a film that might upset people. We can support Guns, Sex and Violence but not thought.

No, I think maybe you don't get it.

Michael Moore is not being denied any creative freedoms here. He has never been denied the freedom to write, produce, film and present his work. There is absolutely NO ONE stopping him from doing that. No one is saying the film can't be shown or it shouldn't be shown. They're simply saying that someone else has to distribute it. How does saying, "Thanks, but we'd rather not ... please take it to another studio" impinge MM's creative freedom? I'm sure Disney wasn't the only studio to turn him down.

 

[Kaelyn]

May I direct you to the concurring majority opinion written by Justice Scalia in the SUpreme Court case NEA v. Finley? Altho the party in question at that time was the government, the same pricinples apply: while no one can be denied the right to create in any way that they see fit, no one else can be compelled to fund, display, or distribute said creation.

It is all a publicity stunt anyway. The scheduling proximity of the "letter" to the Cannes film festival is too convenient. Miramax knew all along that this project would never be distributed by Disney.

 

[Kaelyn]

Oh, and I know that you were not refering to Mr. Moore as a moderate democrat. My statement still applies.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Lebjwb Eisner is harping that the film will cause JEB Bush to recind certain tax credits given to WDW and doesn't want to offend the White House.

Eisner is doing no such thing. That allegation comes from the Moore camp.

There have also been allegations that Disney does not want to get into the middle of a political controversy( but apparently it already has!) which would alienate segments of it's customers.

That's not an allegation, it's a fact.

From the New York Times article:

Disney chief executive Michael Eisner said Wednesday the company ``did not want a film in the middle of the political process where we're such a nonpartisan company and our guests, that participate in all of our attractions, do not look for us to take sides.''

Moore believes The Walt Disney Co. is worried the documentary would endanger tax breaks the company receives from Florida, where Bush's brother Jeb is governor and where Disney World is located.

``What tax break?'' Florida Gov. Jeb Bush responded. ``We don't give tax breaks, that I'm aware of, to Disney,'' Bush said. ``I appreciate the fact that Disney creates thousands and thousands of jobs in our state.''

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Disney-Michael-Moore.html

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Lebjwb
Too bad Disney who alledgedly instructed Miramax to cancel distribution of the film one year ago, didn't have the moxie to squash the controversy before all this. Another sign of Eisner's failure as a CEO.

Oh, really. Just how should they have "squashed the controversy before all this"?

Moore has made some important contributions in the past and ruffled alot of neocon feathers which is fine in my book. If I have to put up with Rush and the Bushies, then they should have to deal with Mr. Moore and his film.

As they will, when Moore gets another distributor, and takes advantage of this brouhaha which he has created.

Moderate Democrats like myself spend thousands at WDW each year too.

And moderate Democrats like myself have no problem with Disney doing what's best for Disney on these issues.

 

[Bob O]

If moore believed in his extremist propganda then why didnt he spend his own money to create it???
This is just another example of why disney needs to get rid of miramax. All the partnership with miramax brings is a further blight on the disney company and the values that the company had when Walt was around and the legagcy he left. Does anyone think miramax or moore give a sh*t about the reputation that the Disney company has tryed to cultivate over the years??

 

[Bob O]

For those who want to contact disney and applaud them for their actions, here is info-
Well, radical left-wing groups like MoveOn.org and
Democrats.com are FURIOUS. And they're telling their
members to contact Disney and DEMAND that "Farenheit 911"
be distributed across the country... at least in time for
the Presidential election. How non-partisan of them.

Disney is doing something RIGHT for a change. They need
to be encouraged in this action... and YOU need to thank
them NOW.

TAKE ACTION: Patriotic Americans across the country need
to contact Disney TODAY to thank them for doing the right
thing, and to encourage them to stay the course... Say NO
To Michael Moore! All of the phone calls and emails to
Disney and Eisner's office apparently have paid off, but
we MUST STAY THE COURSE!

Go to the official Disney website below to send a FREE
message, thanking them for refusing to distribute Michael
Moore's latest venomous anti-American tirade:

http://psc.disney.go.com/guestservices/contactus/comments.html
<a href="http://psc.disney.go.com/guestservices/contactus/comments.html"> AOL GO HERE </a>

You can also contact them here:

The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank, CA 91521
Phone: (818) 560-1000
Fax: (818) 560-1930

If you own any Disney stock, contact them here:

http://disney.go.com/corporate/investors/shareholder/contact.html
<a href="http://disney.go.com/corporate/investors/shareholder/contact.html"> AOL GO HERE </a>

NOTE: If you haven't heard the TRUTH about Michael Moore's
outrageous LIES and antics, here's where you can find more
info:

http://www.moorewatch.com/

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

http://www.BowlingForTruth.com/

http://www.MooreLies.com/

Be sure to forward this e-mail to everyone you know who is
outraged at lies propagated by radical liberals like Michael
Moore and his ilk, and would like to thank Disney for their
right-thinking stand. Thank you!

 

[Lebjwb]

From an Article featured in the Toronto Star;

Disney's Twilight Zone Tower of Terror was launched yesterday at its California Adventure Park. This $75 million (U.S.) thrill ride is designed to send folks screaming up and down a "phantom elevator" that, no matter which button you push, is always stuck on "Better have a change of underwear with you."

As scary as it may be, it's not as terrifying as yesterday's news that the giant infosportsentertainment conglomerate, which is no Mickey Mouse corporation, is blocking its Miramax division from distributing Michael Moore's latest documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.

Ironically, the title is an homage to Ray Bradbury's futuristic tale about a totalitarian state where books are burned and people are distracted with junky TV and pop culture.

The film connects the dots between the Bush dynasty and significant Saudis, including the bin Laden family, whose members were flown out of the U.S. when all planes were supposedly banned from American airspace in the days after Sept. 11.

There are many dots to be connected here, starting with a private equity fund called the Carlyle Group, which is a major defence contractor with business in ... Saudi Arabia.

In fact, CBC's the fifth estate did a dandy job of making all these connections last fall in its season opener which, coincidentally, ran again last night. That was the kind of documentary you'd never see on any Disney-owned channel, including ABC, because the Carlyle Group helped bail out Euro Disney in the mid-1990s. Not that there's a connection or anything, right?

Indeed, yesterday's New York Times reported that Disney is holding back the film because its Florida theme parks, which have suffered in the post-9/11 travel bust, could lose their tax breaks in Governor Jeb Bush country.

Whoever said that information is power got it wrong. Having power over information is where it's at. And, in today's merged and converged media world, fewer and fewer people have that power.

The man is going to distribute his film one way or another.

Disney in now tied to it whether they like it or not. No matter what happens from this time forward they are linked to it. As far as squashing it in the first place....somewhere along the line this idea was presented to the powers that be at Disney. They knew they were dealing with a controversial figure in the form of Moore, but they gave it the go ahead anyways. Regardless of the films content...Moore clearly causes a stir so why not turn them down from the begining. Stupid if you want to avoid controversy isn't it?

And once again for my friend Kaelyn...IT'S CALLED A CONTRACT....

Disney has a contractual agreement with Miramax principals Bob and Harvey Weinstein allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, such as an NC-17 rating or a budget of more than $30-35 million. Neither of which appears to be the case with Mr. Moores latest endeavor.


Oh and Bob O I know that the Constitution is a bit annoying to you, just because you ask questions and challenge ideas and Authority does not make you un-patriotic. A group of fine gentlemen did the same thing in 1776 as I recall.

 

[rwodonnell]

As scary as it may be, it's not as terrifying as yesterday's news that the giant infosportsentertainment conglomerate, which is no Mickey Mouse corporation, is blocking its Miramax division from distributing Michael Moore's latest documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.

Terrifying? Talk about hyperbole. Can we please get some sanity on the left side please to debate this? Or is that impossible?

Indeed, yesterday's New York Times reported that Disney is holding back the film because its Florida theme parks, which have suffered in the post-9/11 travel bust, could lose their tax breaks in Governor Jeb Bush country.

Did the New York Times really report this, or did they report that Michael Moore said this? Obviously a huge difference.

I'm having trouble knowing what part of your post is from the Star and what is yours, so I will attribute this error to them out of kindness. But that is a huge error (unless the Times truly did report this, which I very much doubt.)

Oh and Bob O I know that the Constitution is a bit annoying to you, just because you ask questions and challenge ideas and Authority does not make you un-patriotic. A group of fine gentlemen did the same thing in 1776 as I recall.

Please spare us the out of context grand-standing. There is nothing in the constitution forcing any corporation to distribute content it doesn't want to. It's as simple as that.

 

[cmehling]

Using some of the same arguements here regarding censorship, makes me wonder if the local bar down the street from me is committing censorship as well. I can order a Miller, but the owner of the bar refuses to carry Bud. How dare they?!?!

Perhaps Mr. Moore can do a documentary on that someday.

 

[MDDisneyFan]

from lebjwb:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And once again for my friend Kaelyn...IT'S CALLED A CONTRACT....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before we bash each other about the contract - none of us have read the contract and don't know what the exact terms were. I would suspect that the legal folks at Disney have put a clause that allows them to block distribution of a movie for more reasons than have been listed within this thread.

One more note. . . . . What was reported in the New York Times was that Moore's Agent was saying that Disney was concerned about Florida tax breaks. No one at Disney made that comment.

 

[Lebjwb]

"TAKE ACTION: Patriotic Americans across the country need
to contact Disney TODAY to thank them for doing the right
thing, and to encourage them to stay the course... Say NO
To Michael Moore! All of the phone calls and emails to
Disney and Eisner's office apparently have paid off, but
we MUST STAY THE COURSE!"


The inference here is that if you have a differing view point you are un-patriotic....FAR from grandstanding. Spare me the condecending attitude.

"One more note. . . . . What was reported in the New York Times was that Moore's Agent was saying that Disney was concerned about Florida tax breaks. No one at Disney made that comment.'

Glad to see that you were there during the above conversation...please enlighten us further.

 

[dcentity2000]

Patriotism is always in danger of becoming racism. Loving one's country is good, closing your mind is not...

A country should always be subject to criticism; that's the only way it can improve. That America is criticised in this movie is no bad thing and it should act as a medium by which concerns can be quickly addressed. I don't believe that there is genuine concern about the effect of the movie upon the war machine as America is a mature country, happily free from the restraints of self shame and readiness to back away from a cause (comparitively speaking) and people know that.

If we are unable to take criticism we are indeed well on the path to loving oursleves more than our neighbour.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION :
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
You are surprised when the remaining cow drops dead.

THE TALIBAN :
You have two cows.
You turn them both loose in the Afghan countryside and they both die. You blame the godless American infidels.



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

And yes, I can criticise my country.

Rain, sheep, too much in the way of clouds



Rich::