[w4rma]

By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.

The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.

Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.

In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."

But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies.

"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."

Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's studio, backed out.

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said that Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."

Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.

A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company has the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deems their distribution to be against the interests of the company. Mr. Moore's film, the executive said, is deemed to be 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 could alienate many.

"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.

Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, although such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.

Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "

Mr. Moore's films, like "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," are often a political lightning rod, as he sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, "Bowling for Columbine," took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like "Stupid White Men," a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative.

Mr. Moore does not disagree that "Fahrenheit 911" is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. "If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine," he said.

Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's decision to help members of the bin Laden family leave the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.

Mr. Moore initially planned on producing the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but last May it pulled out.

"The project wasn't right for Icon," said Alan Nierob, a spokesman for Icon, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics.

Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had previously produced one of Mr. Moore's films, 1997's "The Big One." In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute the film.

While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive who spoke on condition of anonymity said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution -— which would ideally hoping happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html
Note Drudge (http://www.drudgereport.com/) has this article up as his headline on his site.

Alot seems to be going on here. Miramax owns North American distribution rights to the movie. Disney owns Miramax and is blocking Miramax from publishing the movie in North America. One of the reasons they give is they are afraid of economic retribution from Gov. Jeb Bush against Disney World.

[Nightcrawler]

Not to be smarmy, but the question begs to be asked: so what? A private company decides not to market a movie that may or may not be profitable for them.

Not seeing a problem.

It might "seem" like there's pressure from those in power, but unless there's solid proof it's all so much speculation.

And even if there was....well, yeah, people with power and influence use that influence to get what they want.

If "Farenheight 911" is anywhere near as good of a documentary as "Bowling for Columbine", then....well, there are other places the public could just as easily get that kind of disinformation.

[CEShooter]

You know, I support the 1st Amendment as much as the 2nd, but for some reason when I defend Moore's freedom of speech I always feel like I need a shower afterwards. I certainly hope Disney sticks to their guns on this one.

[HBK]

Michael Moore is an idiot. He doesn't know the first thing about a free and open society. What he does know is how to lie, as well as how to twist and distort the truth until it is a warped, useless falsehood. I hope Disney sticks to their guns, as was previously stated. The less air time he gets, the better.

[cordex]

Disney owns Miramax and is blocking Miramax from publishing the movie in North America. One of the reasons they give is they are afraid of economic retribution from Gov. Jeb Bush against Disney World.
Says who? This fear is based on what?

Claiming that Gov. Bush is using threats or intimidation against a company to keep them from exercising their right to freedom of the press is a serious allegation.

Unless this can be proven, I'm with Nightcrawler - "So what?"

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Disney owns Miramax and is blocking Miramax from publishing the movie in North America. One of the reasons they give is they are afraid of economic retribution from Gov. Jeb Bush against Disney World.

This doesn't hold up to even the barest scrutiny. Jeb Bush as Governor and putative candidate for the Presidency in 2008 is somehow going to go after one of the largest employers in his State?

Eisner is trying to keep as much ammo away from Roy Disney et al. as he can. Distributing Moore's latest propaganda piece wouldn't help that effort.

[Hkmp5sd]

Disney World is already in trouble and laying off employees, raising ticket prices, etc. The reason they are sitting on this film is because they see the pro-Bush/pro-war poll numbers and don't want to piss off half the US population in one shot. Bowling for Columbine was released believing that most Americans believe in "reasonable gun control" and hate the NRA, and still only made $22 million. Releasing an anti-Bush movie would be suicide right now.

[atek3]

Claiming that Gov. Bush is using threats or intimidation against a company to keep them from exercising their right to freedom of the press is a serious allegation.

Not saying that was the case hear, but this kinda behavior is far from unknown in this country. Pharmacuetical companies will NEVER under ANY circumstance question or publicly critize the FDA. To do so would be economic suicide as all it takes is one self-serving bureaucrat to "indefinately delay" the introduction of a blockbuster drug to send their stock price tumbling down. So everyone in the industry kowtows the FDA line.
I don't see it crazy at all that a multi-billion dollar company that likely donates millions to each political party would try to avoid angering the ruling party. If they released a movie angering the GOP, they'd have to spend on campaign contributions FAR more than they'd earn from a theatrical release just to win back the political favor of the GOP.
I bet the movie is a bunch of lies, but now I want to see it anyway.
preferably in someway without sending a wooden nickel to the slimeball moore.

atek3

[Feanaro]

I'm with the "so what?" crowd. A company decides that releasing a certain movie would hurt it's profits because it goes against the trend and would likely be business suicide.

"At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "

Since when did Moore advocate a free society? Oh, a free society where he can make any movie he wants, even if it would be a bad business decision, but where law abiding citizens cannot own firearms. It costs money to make a movie. It can also affect the interests and holdings of a company. A business exists to make money. Michael Moore can take his money, fund the film and show it anywhere he pleases. His First Amendment rights are not being violated, he can still distribute information anyway he pleases, if he can afford it.

[Nightcrawler]

You have a right, as protected by the Constitution, to express your opinion, be it through film, the written word, or oral address.

However, you don't have a "right" to be published. Disney isn't violating Mr. Moore's rights by not distributing his film.

Because, you have a right to express your opinion. No one else is under any obligation to listen, though.

Regardless, this is probably an economic decision that has more to do with the internal conflicts and troubles over at Disney than it does with any conspiracy on the part of the Republican Party.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So, like, we're s'posed to feel sorry for Michael Moore, or something?:confused:

[Khornet]

that the Left's idea of a "right" is always somehow a right to be given something, to be bankrolled. Real human rights consist mainly of being left alone, not supported by someone else's money.

[boofus]

Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech or the press.

The 1st amendment doesn't even come into play here.

Campaign finance reform however is another story...

[Foreign Devil]

I get the feeling that "harshly criticizes President Bush" means "engages in bizarre conspiracy theories about President Bush".

[buzz_knox]

Possibly Disney does not want to get caught up in another Bowling for Columbine fiasco.

[Harry Tuttle]

[ding ding ding]Campaign finance reform however is another story...[/ding ding ding]

Mayhaps Disney does not want to be seeen as Kerry campaign tool in an election year.
The fallout from that could be taxing...

[Obiwan]

Could it be that while Miramax only cares about the $$$$

Disney actually has standards....:confused:

No...gotta be some conspiracy :D

[Ktulu]

The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore

Good!

[capt_happypants]

I'm certain that Moore can find another company to distribute the film, or use his own funds to release it.

Then again, it could be those neo-conservative Jooooooos! :neener:

[Sean Smith]

Not to be smarmy, but the question begs to be asked: so what? A private company decides not to market a movie that may or may not be profitable for them.

Bingo. There is no right to have corporations distribute your movie for you.

[Beav]

Yup, another person that could care less since it's Moore.

BTW- If you go to www.IMDB.com you'll find that Bowling is the second highest rated documentary right now. *sigh*
Well I'm off to sign up and cast my vote. ;)

[Khornet]

did I read you right? That we'd tolerate suppression of free speech as long as it's Michael Moore's speech?

[DonP]

I always thought Moore's claim to fame was that he was an "Indie" film maker and therefore was free from the shackles and "corporate think" that lesser film makers had to deal with.

It's an independent film, let him work the phones to find art houses in major cities to run the film, just like other Indies have to do.

It's been said before; you have the freedom to speak, you don't have a right to be heard or published. Most people don't understand that.

The real bottom line is Moore desparately needs these kinds of pseudo-conspiracies to prove to his kool aid drinking fan base that the Bush Cabal is truly running their lives and only he can tell the real story before they take him out.

He'll leverage this little dust up (which I truly believe is a financial issue. $22 million in revenue ain't crap, considering the promotional expenses) and turn it into another "The man is oppressing me" series of speeches on Air America (is that still on anyway) or the Daily Show et al.

"The Awful Truth", to borrow his own line, is that Moore lives in a Lily White gated compound on Long Island that is well into 7 figures. He trots the old baseball cap crap out to impress the less discerning masses that buy into the phony populist garbage he spews. He's about as much a man of the people as John Forbes Kerry or Teddy Kennedy.

[ReadyontheRight]

That we'd tolerate suppression of free speech as long as it's Michael Moore's speech?

Who is supressing Michael Moore's freedom of speech? They made a business decision not to purchase and distribute his product.

[flatrock]

The subject of this thread is misleading. Disney said right from the start that they didn't want this film distributed under their name or under the name of one of their divisions. They weren't even the first distributor to choose not to distribute the film.

They are's keeping the film from being distributed other than by choosing not to be the ones that distribute it.

Moore already gets lots of free press, and has considerably more oppertunities to get his opinion heard than the rest of us. It's pretty sad that he wants to make it sound like his freedom of speech is being infringed upon.

It's not like his "documenteries" are unbiased reportings on facts.

It should be a pretty clear sign that when a liberal organization like Disney doesn't want to distribute your propaganda that you've stepped over the line and lost your credibility.

[Beav]

did I read you right?

No not really, but make no mistake I don't like the man.

That we'd tolerate suppression of free speech as long as it's Michael Moore's speech?

If he was being locked away or gagged then I would have a problem. It would make me sick but yes I would have a problem with it. But like said already this was a business decision brought on by his own controversial subject matter. Much like Stern getting booted once the fines started stacking up. Much like I would get sent home or maybe fired if I showed up at work with a Pro-Life T shirt on casual Friday.

[dischord]

If anything, Moore is attempting to violate Disney's free speech by trying to force Disney to "say" something it doesn't want to say -- it's just a more complex version of someone trying to force w4rma to place a Bush2004! sign on his lawn.

In reality, it depends on what Moore's contract says.

[Mute]

Maybe Disney just doesn't want to be associated with releasing a fictional work as an alleged documentary.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

:scrutiny:

Only the left has a "right" to be heard. If Disney doesn't want to play, they can take their ball and go home. Moore can jump up and down all he wants.

[Sean Smith]

Much like Stern getting booted once the fines started stacking up.

Actually, Stern has much more basis for complaining about his rights being violated than Moore does. Because it is the GOVERNMENT making him (potentially) unprofitable, by fining him based on vaguely defined standards that you get to evade if you are Oprah. Disney just doesn't want to do business with Moore because they think he is a twit.

Censorship-by-proxy is very different from a business deciding not do business with you... without any evident government pressure.

[killermarmot]

Ya know F$#@ disney. I blame them for 70% of the misconceptions and biases in our society today. Ya got cinderela and anerexic chicks wanting gigantic 100,000 dollar weddings, Bambi and brother bear making every hunter seem like a drunk red neck poacher, snow white makes every croan seem like ....an ....evil...croan, Mulan makes monguls look bad..... I'm done

And on Moore I'd heard he was having alot of trouble coming up with data he could scew enough for his black senationalist needs and was resorting to making things up and making baseless insults as in Bowling. I'd agree with the sentiment that Disney is woried this one will tank. I mean the connection between Bush and the Bin Laden family? Yeah they're both wealthy oil families, I'm sure there are alot of very important international leaders that the Bin Ladens know.

[DadOfThree]

If Michael Moore believes in his film and no company is willing to back it and show it, he should do what Mel Gibson did and sink 20 or 30 million dollars out of his own pocket into the movie. That way when it makes $100 million at the box office he won't have to share the profits. Of course the risk would be all his as well. Put up or shut up.

[flatrock]

Every time I read over this I'm more amazed that people buy into Moore's B. S.

Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades.

You mean a family that's involved in the oil busines has fincial connections to prominent Saudi families? I wonder why that would be?

He said it closely explores the government's decision to help members of the bin Laden family leave the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks.

You mean the family that has long disavoud Osama Bin Laden's actions and politics? How dare the government help those people leave the country where they might be in danger of reprisals for the actions of a relative they have no influence over?

The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.

You mean there are some people fighting in a foreign country that's obscenely hot, and takes them far away from their families that are dissillusioned? I wonder how many soldiers he interviewed before he found the ones with the views he wanted? I've talked to soldiers who have come home from Iraq. I haven't met one yet that thinks we should pull out and leave Iraq to fall into chaos. However, I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find some soldiers there that object to the war.

Do I think Moore is really looking closely at these things? His past history doesn't show proof of him investigating the facts carefully. He finds things that he can put in a context where they appear to support the message he wants to provide, and then calls it a documentery. Then he does his fighting for the common man dance, and tries to make more millions off of the movie so he can afford his lavish lifestyle.

He's a fraud who makes money off of stupid people.

The real stoy here is that Harvey Weinstein completely ignored his duties to the stockholders of Miramax by buying this movie after being told by Disney that he couldn't distribute it. In stead of doing his duty to those stockholders he bought the film to advance his own personal political goals.

Now Miramax has a considerable amount of money tied up in a film that they will have to split the profits from with a different distributor. Even if the movie does bring in a considerable amount of money, it's unlikely that Miramax will make a reasonable profit for the resources they've invested.

The stockholders should be calling for his removal. If he wants to push his social adgenda with his own money, that's his right. When he does so with the money of a public company, he's abusing the trust of the stockholders.

[Lord Grey Boots]

Given Moore's record for being "creative" in his movies, wanna bet those "soldiers" are NOT in Iraq or Afghanistan, and are NOT soldiers?

[killermarmot]

that's probably a pretty safe bet

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Whatever happenned to the Anti-Moore film? Wasn't that guy looking for donations to get it to distribution?

[Obiwan]

Late breaking revelations that Mr. Moore is full of it???


http://www.marccooper.com/


"Disney officials appeared to be caught off guard by this onslaught and denied that the company’s decision was motivated by political interests in Florida. 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"

"Mr Moore was not immediately available to answer the charge that he was creating controversy for promotional purposes. He is still at work finalising the print to be shown at Cannes."

shock......horror:what:

[greyhound]

The real bottom line is Moore desparately needs these kinds of pseudo-conspiracies to prove to his kool aid drinking fan base that the Bush Cabal is truly running their lives and only he can tell the real story before they take him out.

Bingo! He hoped it would play this way all along. The "Vast Right Wing Conspiricy" strikes again......

Then again, the "Progressives (not Liberals)" carping about "The Passion" pretty much killed any success that film had, eh?

[LD]

Disney pretty much has a lock on the cartoon industry. However, just because Michael Moore looks like Porkey Pig, speaks like a Daffy Duck, and acts like Foghorn Leghorn doesn't mean that Disney is mandated to distribute his cartoonish antics.

IMHO, Yosemite Sam has Mikey Moore beat hands down.

[Unlucky]

The BBC spent about 5 minutes on this story tonight, showing how much time they give to the leftist, anti-gun agenda and their willingness to give their fellow travelers on this side of the Pond a boost.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

The BBC spent about 5 minutes on this story tonight,

That is pathetic. :(

[Hkmp5sd]

and acts like Foghorn Leghorn

I can't believe you cut down Foghorn like that! :) Comparing Moore to him.

You do know of course that all of the cartoon characters you listed are from Looney Toons/Warner Brothers and not Disney.:)

[Stebalo]

1) The only source for this accusation that Disney is afraid of pissing off the Bush's is Michael Moore's agent. Disney has denied this accusation. Moore knew 1 year ago Miramax wasn't going to distribute this film.

But in a statement Wednesday, Disney spokeswoman Zenia Mucha said Moore has known since May 2003 that Miramax would not release his film. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040505/D82CMK380.html)

This is all an attempt for some free publicity going into the Cannes Film Festival where Moore is hoping to win honors for this vicious attack piece. If you read the original NY Times piece on this, Moore's agent is the only quoted source making the accusation that this is somehow connected to Jeb Bush. Many secondary sources are quoting that though as the New York Times statement, implying that paper endorses the accusation.

2) The anti-Moore film is due for release about the same time as Farenheit 911. The film is called "Michael Moore Hates America" and the web page is

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

[glocksman]

Interestingly enough, Moore's letter to his 'friends' mentions the Times article and uses it for 'proof' of his allegations of Disney bending to Bush pressure>

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.

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


Notice how he doesn't mention that the 'source' quoted in the NYT article is his own agent.


Moore is incapable of being honest.