The Liberal Media Strikes Again - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

mikemover · #16 05-08-2004, 09:08 PM

Quote:

written by Michael Moore
So what will happen to my movie? I still don't know. What I do know is that I will make sure all of you see it by hook or crook. We are Americans. There are a lot of screwed up things about us right now, but one thing that most of us have in common is that we don't like someone telling us we can't see something. We despise censors, and the worst censors are those who would dare to limit thoughts and ideas and silence dissent. THAT is un-American. If I have to travel across the country and show it in city parks (or, as one person offered yesterday, to show it on the side of his house for the neighborhood to see), that is what I will do.

Whatever.

He may have a legitimate breach-of-contract complaint, but that's for the lawyers to handle.

It is NOT a freedom of speech issue. There is no "censorship" going on. He is COMPLETELY out of line by describing it as such. No one is Constitutionally guaranteed the right to have their movie distributed.

Mirimax/Disney are businesses, NOT government organizations or public forums. They are free to distribute or to NOT distribute films as they see fit.

If they have reason to think it will negatively affect their business in any way, then it makes sense that they would not want to be associated with it, regardless of the relevance to recent events, or the political slant of the movie's content.

They are in the movie business for PROFIT, after all...they are not in business to guarantee that loudmouth fata$$es like Moore can have a 6 million dollar soapbox.

Mike

Zeitgeist · #17 05-08-2004, 09:47 PM

WTF??

fj bertrand · #18 05-08-2004, 11:16 PM

Like I said, I LOVE how he torques 'em off.

mzsmbs · #19 05-09-2004, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by z, WTF??

Quote:

Originally posted by fj bertrand
Like I said, I LOVE how he torques 'em off.

Yup,

waytoo...

mzsmbs · #20 05-09-2004, 12:56 AM

Mike,

I think in your quote (the conclusion) Moore actually refers to these parts of his own letter (the discussion):

Quote:

Eisner said he would never let my film be distributed through Disney even though Mr. Eisner had not seen any footage or even read the outline of the film. Eisner told my agent that he did not want to anger Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. The movie, he believed, would complicate an already complicated situation with current and future Disney projects in Florida, and that many millions of dollars of tax breaks and incentives were at stake.

and this:

Quote:

"It is not in the best interests of our company to distribute a partisan political film that may offend some of our customers." Hmmm. Disney doesn't distribute work that has partisan politics? Disney distributes and syndicates the Sean Hannity radio show every day? I get to listen to Rush Limbaugh every day on Disney-owned WABC. I also seem to remember that Disney distributed a very partisan political movie during a Congressional election year, 1998—a film called The Big One... by, um... ME!
"Fahrenheit 9/11 is not the Disney brand; we put out family oriented films." So true. That's why the #1 Disney film in theaters right now is a film called, KILL BILL, VOL. 2. This excellent Miramax film, along with other classics like Pulp Fiction, have all been distributed by Disney. That's why Miramax exists -- to provide an ALTERNATIVE to the usual Disney fare. And, unless they were NC-17, Disney has distributed them.

"Mr. Moore is doing this as a publicity stunt." Michael Eisner reportedly said this the other day while he was at a publicity stunt cutting the ribbon for the new "Tower of Terror" ride (what a pleasant name considering what the country has gone through recently) at Disney's California Adventure Park.

I know that's a lot but it's all relevant and it sure smells like hypocrisy to me if not censorship plus playing partisan politics etc... on the part of Disney.

mikemover · #21 05-09-2004, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mzsmbs

I know that's a lot but it's all relevant and it sure smells like hypocrisy to me if not censorship plus playing partisan politics etc... on the part of Disney.

Hypocritical? Perhaps. Partisan? Probably.

But it is THEIR company, and they may be hypocritical and partisan in what they choose to release if they wish. If so, then they are far from being the first.

It is NOT censorship. This is not the FCC we're talking about. Disney is not a government organization. It is a private company that has made a business decision concerning a film that they do not wish to release under their name.

If they are in breach of their contract with Moore because of this decision, then I think Moore is entitled to financial compensation.

But does it fit the definition of "censorship"? NO.

Is it anyone else's business what films they decide to release, and why? NO.

Don't like what they're doing? Vote with your wallet. Don't go see Disney or Mirimax releases.

Mike

mzsmbs · #22 05-09-2004, 12:19 PM

you're right mike. disney just seems to be funky business to me. no, it's not true censorship because it is not a gov entity but sure seems to be politacaly motivated and seems to me they are trying to keep it out.

as to moore or any one else. i just see them all through my rosy glasses anyway.

Botnst · #23 05-09-2004, 12:40 PM

Moore is an honorable man. They are all honorable men. Moore is a man seeking the truth, not a money-grubber like Eisner. Moore will do anything to promote his vision of social justice, unlike Eisner--who's only motive is maximizing profits for stockholders.

In his quest for justice, Moore may occasionally stretch the truth, but its all for a good cause. Whereas Eisner's sole motivation is transparent to everybody. No need to lie when your motives are transparently obvious.

Michael Moore may shade and color the truth a bit in order to bring attention to his vision of social justice, but that's a great motive that can overlook occasional misuse of truth. After all, what is truth? Michael Moore knows what truth is and that's why its okay for him to adjust perceptions about the truth. He serves a higher purpose. His own.

After all, Michael Moore is an honorable man.

Botnst

mzsmbs · #24 05-09-2004, 12:52 PM

4 sure.

Botnst · #25 05-09-2004, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheVirginiaDude
Moore is a blowhard, that produces movis that can only be called Libelous.

More has NOT facts or truths in his works and is far less accurate than the National Inquirer.

Moore is a big fat lieing blowhard who doesn't even know the meaning of the word honor.

Moore is going to burn in hell when his time on earth is up.

Read Julius Caesar Act III; Scene 2.

You know the part where Marc Antony begins, "Friends, Romans, Countrymen! Lend me your ears. I come to bury Caesar...".

Okay, so I'm not as good a writer as Shakespeare, but I do steal from the best. I thought since we were going for Moore's jugular, and Moore being a sort of a playwrite, it would be fun to castigate him with a bit of the Bard.

B

Botnst · #26 05-09-2004, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by w126
Shakespeare?? Methinks not !

Shakespeare started Halliburton.

B

mikemover · #27 05-09-2004, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Botnst
Moore is an honorable man. They are all honorable men. Moore is a man seeking the truth, not a money-grubber like Eisner. Moore will do anything to promote his vision of social justice, unlike Eisner--who's only motive is maximizing profits for stockholders.

In his quest for justice, Moore may occasionally stretch the truth, but its all for a good cause. Whereas Eisner's sole motivation is transparent to everybody. No need to lie when your motives are transparently obvious.

Michael Moore may shade and color the truth a bit in order to bring attention to his vision of social justice, but that's a great motive that can overlook occasional misuse of truth. After all, what is truth? Michael Moore knows what truth is and that's why its okay for him to adjust perceptions about the truth. He serves a higher purpose. His own.

After all, Michael Moore is an honorable man.

Botnst

hahahah.....Excellent!

Mike

koop · #28 05-09-2004, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheVirginiaDude

Moore is going to burn in hell when his time on earth is up.

Wow, sodomy and damnation. Imagine if you had seen one of his movies.

Actually, it is censorship, when the gov does it it's called prior restraint. (if I remember my 1st amendment class right) and while it's not illegal may give him a breach of contract action against disney, but as someone pointed out, it will be hard to prove damages if the movie does well. If it tanks, he might have a good case.

I just like to point out the failings of the liberal media (disney also owns ABC) and for the sheer enjoyment of a good Michael Moore post.

MTI · #29 05-09-2004, 03:37 PM

The polarizing of America, as depicted in last week's Doonesbury strips, is our greatest national weakness. It's a movie, fellas, it's just a movie.

davidmash · #30 05-09-2004, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheVirginiaDude
Moore deserves to be sodomised....but the thing is I bet he would like it.

He is almost as deserving of it as Michael Jackson if he is guilty of what he is acused of.

You mean you have not convicted Jackson yet? You've convicte everyone else with out any supporting evidence. Why stop now?