The journalists who wrote about Disney/Faranheit 911 are idiots

[dolstein]

Neither of the stories in the NY Times and the Washington Post mentioned the fact that the EXACT SAME THING happened with Kevin Smith's film, Dogma. That was a Miramax project, and again, Disney refused to allow Miramax to distribute the film, citing its controversial nature. Sorry folks, but this is NOTHING NEW, for Disney or the film industry in general. My, how quickly we forget that all of the major studios passed on Mel Gibson's film. In this case, Disney (through its subsidiary, Miramax), actually helped FINANCE Faranheit 911.

And does anyone remember what happened with Dogma? I do. When Miramax was prevented from releasing it, the Weinsteins set up their own distribution company to handle the film. They'll probably end up doing that with Farenheit 911. Either that or they'll strike a deal with Lions Gate (which distributed Happiness, another Miramax film Disney barred them from distributing) or a similar truly independent distribution company.

In the end, all this publicity will probably be good for the film. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the Cannes jury awarded it the top prize as a giant f*ck you to the Bush administration.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. BUT will it all come together in time for a pre-election release.

that's the concern here.

[bryant69]

3. yeah.

That's the ball game, is getting it out before the election. If they can delay it till next year, well, it might help with impeachment hearings, or criminal proceedings, but since neither is that likely, well, . . . i hope it comes out before the election.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[dolstein]

5. That's up to the Weinsteins

Right now I think it's primarily a question of money. I'm sure that a company like Lions Gate would jump at the opportunity to distribute the film. Bowling for Columbine was one of the highest grossing documentaries ever (possibly THE highest grossing). It all comes down to how much money the Weinsteins are willing to give up by partnering with a distribution company. Or how much of their own money they're willing to put at risk by setting up their own distribution company.

[wtmusic]

2. No, they wouldn't do that at Cannes

Cannes is in FRANCE!! (tee-hee)

[Tatiana]

4. Excellent points, dolstein! n/t

[Touchdown]

6. A note about Lion's Gate.

They are now a wholly owned subsidiary of Vivendi/Universal (swallowed up in 2001 or 2002)....Universal/MCA is in talks for GE/NBC to buy the studios/entertainment empire from the French water company, and that deal might go through before the summer. Fat chance of GE releasing F911.

MGM distributed BFC, and since they are at least for the time being a "smaller studio", or still relatively independant, they would probably jump at the chance to release another. Sony (Columbia/Tri Star) is looking into buying MGM/UA...but they also distributed Dogma, and own the video rights to it as well. Aside from Mallrats (Universal) it's the only Kevin Smith film Miramax hasn't distributed.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dolstein]

9. Did you read my post? Guess not.

I'm not defending what Disney did. I'm simply saying they've done this before, and the sky didn't fall. Dogma was distributed. Happiness was distributed. And yes, Farenheit will be distributed. The sky isn't falling. Corporate cowardice is nothing new. Just ask Kevin Smith. He'll tell you what it's like to be f*cked by the Mouse.

What I AM saying is that the journalists who wrote these stories are idiots. These stories neglect to mention the fact that Disney has refused distribution for two other films in the past five years. The case of Dogma is almost exactly the same as this one (Happiness also involved NC-17 issues). No competent journalist would have failed to mention this in their articles.

But since you obviously can't read past the headlines, I'll assume you didn't even bother to read these articles.

[mouse7]

16. I read it. You say reporters are idiots for covering Moore censorship

We've heard the "nothing to see here, move along" nonsense before. Matter of fact, we've see it from you before.

Arguing for refusal of distribution of a finished work is arguing in favor of an attempt at censorship. You are justifying censorship on the basis that censorship has happened before. People have been murdered before. Should journalists not cover murders? People have been tortured in war zones before. Are the reporters covering the torture in the Iraqi prisons "idiots" for covering the mess at the Iraqi prisons because torture has happened before?

The situation is entirely different for F-911 than Dogma, too. Films attacking organized religion aren't a real common occurance . Films documenting history are regularly released. There were much fewer case studies on the effect a film that attacked organized religion would have. The effects of the releases of documentaries have on a studio are well known.

[AP]

8. If you don't see the difference between sex (Kids), religion (Dogma) and

POLITICAL SPEECH, then can I refer you to the constitution?

I don't care if Disney wants to be prissy about religion and sex, but if they want to shut down political speech (even though, granted, the constitution doesn't apply to them) then I have no problem applying a different standard to them. The constitution would too if they were a government actor.

[dolstein]

11. Don't drag the First Amendment into this

The First Amendment applies to government action, not the action of corporations like Disney, or individuals like Bob and Harvey Weinstein.

Michael Moore new that Miranax was a Disney subsidiary when he asked Miramax for the money to complete his film. And the Weinsteins knew that Disney was a giant corporation, but they sold their independent company to Disney anyway. They've all made deals with the devil, so to speak. I guess they all expected to have their cake and eat it too. But that rarely happens.

[AP]

13. I repeat, I don't care if Disney wants to control public's access to sex

and criticism of religion, but I think that Americans have a right to be upset when the corporations which dominate the media landscape (7 companies control 90% of the information you received from TV, radio, film, and print) try to control what you know about politics and your elected officials, and Americans should be EXTRA-vigilant, in that case.

I said the consitution doesn't apply. But I also said the same thing the consitution worries about is the issue here.

Of course, Miramax and Moore knew this was a risk, and that's probably why the movie will still be released, and that's why this is good publicity.

But if, say, the movie DIDN"T get released, I think Americans would have every right to be totally pissed that a corporation is trying to limit access to information they need to make informed decisions about society and politics.

In fact, I can't think of anything that's more worth getting angry about.

[mouse7]

18. Corporate governance is trying to take place of US Government

Corporate media has limited the decision making to so few people that corporate moguls have more power than the government itself to control the flow of information.

The Constitution applies to Corporations, too, whether you like it or not.

[Hornito]

10. The Likudniks at Disney certainly don't want their boy (bush)

made to look bad before the election. And as we've seen at other media corporations where they have power, they care not a whit about our Constitution.

Hopefully, the Weinsteins will stand up for Moore's film, and our Constitution.

[dolstein]

12. What kind of crap is this?

Stop trying to blame Israel for everything you don't agree with.

[Hornito]

14. Uh oh. Picked a scab.....

n/t

[ieoeja]

15. Controversy: Best Advertisement Money Can't Buy (n/t)

[nomatrix]

17. Absolutely

Take Al Franken Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, a Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. Fox sued because they assumed "fair and balanced" was their "copyright". It gave his book free publicity.

Bring it on.