Farenheit 9/11...Disney blew it.

[SnackyStacky]

Holy heck Batman! I agree with the Pirate!

I don't care what anyone's opinion of this piece is, Disney missed out. There are NEVER lines for movies in Buffalo. Not at mainstream theatres, let alone artsy movie houses.

There was a HUGE line.....I can't even give an accurate description of how long because I was driving by and not stopping, but there were TONS of people, and a limousine pulling up.

You can't fight with that kind of income that Disney SORELY needs. And I'd be interested to know how many of you that are bad-mouthing this movie have even seen it. I won't even involve myself in the "Michael Moore is trash" debate, just am curious as to how informed some of these opinions are.

 

[rwodonnell]

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
And I'd be interested to know how many of you that are bad-mouthing this movie have even seen it. I won't even involve myself in the "Michael Moore is trash" debate, just am curious as to how informed some of these opinions are.

Well I haven't seen the movie or trashed it here, but I can relate to those who are suspicious. If the man creating the so-called "documentary" has established a pattern of lies and half-truths, it is only natural to not want to hand him another 9 dollars. The old "fool me once..." proverb most certainly applies.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

Well the lines and sell outs have to do with the fact that the movie was purposefully released to only 500 screens. Most small releases play on at least 1000. Another smart move to get free publicity by selling out every showing.

 

[Chuck S]

And the demographics surely play a role, New York is certainly a more politically and socially liberal area than say Scottsdale, Arizona. I doubt it would have as much of an audience in more conservative areas. Not that full houses in NY is a BAD thing, but it needs to be considered when you are trying to fairly judge the financial success of a movie playing to full houses on a very limited number of screens.

 

[barreloflaughs]

OnWithTheShow wrote:

Well the lines and sell outs have to do with the fact that the movie was purposefully released to only 500 screens.

868 screens, actually. Regardless the film kicked major butt yesterday:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2004-06-25&p=.htm


rwodonnell mused:

If the man creating the so-called "documentary" has established a pattern of lies and half-truths, it is only natural to not want to hand him another 9 dollars.

No need to use the quotes when using the word documentary to describe this film. It is a documentary regardless of whether you accept its conclusions or not. Our own government defines documentary thusly:

'nonfiction motion picture film having a theme or viewpoint but drawing its material from actual events and using editing and sound to enhance the theme'.

Sounds like 'F 9/11' to me!

carl
barrel of laughs

 

[TiggerFreak]

barreloflaughs wrote:

'nonfiction motion picture film . . .

Now thats a barrel of laughs.

 

[barreloflaughs]

Now thats a barrel of laughs.

Don't shoot the messenger! Like I said, regardless of how you feel about the film's conclusions it IS a documentary.

I'm curious....which events depicted in the film do you feel are fictional?

carl
barrel of laughs

 

[punkin]

fictional events? why the existance of WMD in Iraq, of course.

 

[Mooobooks]

Yes, Disney missed out big time.
George W. Bush is a lying, sleazy, manipulative imbecile who came to power in a coup de tat orchestrated with the help of corrupt right-wing Supreme Court justices his father appointed.
The right wing Republicans who support George W. Bush and his religious agenda are helping to ruin the USA.
I'm always amused by those who immediately call anyone who criticizes those in power as "anti-American." You obviously have no idea what your rights as an American are, and why those rights make America different than the countries you routinely villify.
Kiss my grits!

 

[mom2rb]

We went and saw the movie today. It was great! The theater was packed and we live in Tom Delay's district. I don't think anyone should slam it unless they have seen it.

I can understand Disney not wanting to be a part of this movie because Disney should be for everyone. But they will miss out on alot of money.

 

[rwodonnell]

Originally posted by barreloflaughs
No need to use the quotes when using the word documentary to describe this film. It is a documentary regardless of whether you accept its conclusions or not. Our own government defines documentary thusly:

'nonfiction motion picture film having a theme or viewpoint but drawing its material from actual events and using editing and sound to enhance the theme'.

Well I don't have the advantage of using whatever source you found that definition in. Here's the relevent definition from the dictionary:

"Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film." (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary)

Out of curiousity, where did you get that definition? I find it curious that there is an allowance for "editing ... to enhance the theme". I wonder where the line is for editing? I mean certainly a lot of creative editing can be done to make any public figure say anything you want them to. (I have not seen the film in question, I am talking in generalities here.)

 

[rwodonnell]

Don't mean to overpost, but I just read the NY Times review, which had this comment on the film: "Mixing sober outrage with mischievous humor and blithely trampling the boundary between documentary and demagoguery ..." Obviously there is a lot more there in the review, some positive, some negative, but as this was relevant to the point about its status as a documentary, I pasted it. The whole review is here:
http://movies2.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/movies/23FAHR.html

 

[tiggersmom2]

I guess MM is counting on there isn't that many mental giants in the US, anybody watching this stuff obviously isn't.

 

[blackshirt]

Originally posted by Mooobooks
Yes, Disney missed out big time.
George W. Bush is a lying, sleazy, manipulative imbecile who came to power in a coup de tat orchestrated with the help of corrupt right-wing Supreme Court justices his father appointed.
The right wing Republicans who support George W. Bush and his religious agenda are helping to ruin the USA.
I'm always amused by those who immediately call anyone who criticizes those in power as "anti-American." You obviously have no idea what your rights as an American are, and why those rights make America different than the countries you routinely villify.
Kiss my grits!

No, tell us how you REALLY feel. By the way, the President has a MBA from one of the top universities in the nation. What are the credentials of Michael Mooreonic? Being that President Bush is an "imbecile", I am sure that you boast impressive credentials as well.

 

[barreloflaughs]

rwodonnell wrote:

Out of curiousity, where did you get that definition?

Here are a whole bunch of defintions for 'documentary' (including the one I quoted which is courtesy of the USEPA):

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&oi=defmore&q=define:documentary

I find it curious that there is an allowance for "editing ... to enhance the theme".

All films require editing. The documentary film editor can't help but introduce his/her bias into a film at some point. It is a film afterall, by its very nature a work of art. Just as a songwriter or painter inserts some of thier viewpoint into their art, a filmaker cannot help but introduce his/her bias into their art. This is especially true with the documentary.

I haven't seen the film either (or any of Moore's films, for that matter). It is worth noting that 'Bowling for Columbine' (another highly controversial film of Moore's) won an Oscar for Best Documentary. That being the case, it would seem that Hollywood sets the definition for documentary.

carl
barrel

 

[caseymaureen]

I agree with the earlier poster in wondering how many of you have actually seen the film, or any of Michael Moore's films for that matter? I agree that the film is one sided, and I agree that he definitely is trying to make a point, but what serious film isn't? I for one, no matter what my political standing is, would prefer to pay my ticket money to see a political viewpoint and its evidence than to see a shoot 'em up Hollywood blockbuster. At least a Michael Moore movie leaves you with something to think about. I believe that unless you know both sides of an issue you cannot possibly make an educated decision as to your own beliefs. I saw the film yesterday, in Annapolis, with my two conservative Republican parents and aunt, who all admitted that there were legitimate questions raised especially about the war in Iraq. We engaged in the kind of spirited discussion about government policies and politicians which I feel is extremely lacking today. Anyone who says that looking at other viewpoints, and thinking about and discussing our government is anti-American needs to remember what this country was founded on. We're not supposed to be blindly following a leader, and every single person has the right to their own beliefs, whether they agree with the President or not.
And, just for the record, all of the Annapolis showtimes ended up selling out, and when the film finished the entire theater erupted in cheers. I have never in my life seen that kind of reaction to a film.

 

[crusader]

I have no desire to financially endorse Michael Moore but that's beside the point. Knock yourselves out.

Under normal circumstances, I'd agree that Disney should let this junk be shown under the Miramax label but these aren't ordinary times for this company now are they?

Michael Eisner is under intense scrutiny and really can't afford to have his name resonating in the same sentence with Michael Moore over and over and over and over and over again through every publication or broadcast medium available to their competition.

This isn't a bad financial decision here. This is business politics at its' finest.

 

[TiggerFreak]

. . . when the film finished the entire theater erupted in cheers. I have never in my life seen that kind of reaction to a film.

Could it be because most of film indsutry's output these days is either so far off of mainstream or so pc that nobody can identify with the story/protagonists.


I remember audiences cheering at the end of many movies during the 60's and 70's. A college professor I had for a film class in the 80's, lamented that more people were viewing films at home and not in a theater. He felt that the participatory aspect of film viewing was dying in our culture.

 

[princesstommi]

I don't think Disney blew it. It's not <i>always</i> about money.

Despite my politics and/or thoughts about MM's movies, I think that this was just too big of a controversy for Disney to touch. I think the powers-that-be made a good call here. Although, as with so many other things - damned if you do, damned if you don't. If they released it, they would be lambasted by the right wing. Refusing to carry it, they are hit by the left. And now they are being called out for not carrying it because it would have made money. Whatever. Better for them to not be involved at all.

 

[Jakey]

Michael Moore's film is not a documentary. It's not a documentary if you are out making up the actual events you are also filming. And by no stretch of the imagination can one say that he properly presents both sides of the issues he's "documenting."

In "Bowling for Columbine" when he filmed a premeditated entrapment of Charlton Heston in Heston's own home, or took teenage victims of school shootings to K-Mart headquarters to try and give the bullets back, that is not a documentary. He made it all up! Just as he does in this and all of his films.

It is neither a documentary or a work of total fiction. It is Propaganda pure and simple. Why so many cannot see this for what it is mystifies me. MM is the Leni Riefenstahl of American film. Just as Hitler's filmmaker could never find work again, I hope MM someday soon suffers the same fate.