07-05-2004 11:45									#121
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: I'm sure Moore's inevitable documentary on this situation will conveniently leave out the 356 day time lapse. He mastered that particular skill with Bowling for Columbine.

WHat do you mena by that ?

I'm actually a pretty big Michael Moore fan, but he never really offers a solution, he jsut sits around criticizing. I guess he hints htat becoming an extension of Canada wpould be good, but I'm not sure. I see this as a PR stunt to make it look as if he's fighting the good fight. In truth, his stuff gets quite old after a while. If you read stupid white men, and watch roger and me, and bowling for columbine, you've gotten all of his arguments that he has ever all wrapped up into one nice little media ball.
He never has a new opinion. Oh ok, he said no to war, but that was expected. He jsut rehashes his arguments. I began to read his new book, but got tired of all of his crpa after a while, b/c it was jsut liek Stupid WHite Men, but w/ different words.
One thing to never do, is to wattch the entire seaomn fo The Awful Truth. It's good to begin with, but it jsut becomes a bunch of what all of his documentaries are: Him stnading in some corporation's building's lobby, waiting to have somebody coem down and ignore him, and his sometimes loaded questions. It gets REALLLY boring. His corporate COPS section is funny though!

	07-05-2004 17:40									#122
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai So if Weinstein is to blame then Moore is justified in saying that he is being unfairly screwed. Moore entered into a contract with Miramax in good faith and delivered his side of the bargain. Now, Disney is forcing Miramax to screw him. The victim here is Moore.

Please repeat after me: I'll go slow as to help you get the point Disney... refused... to... release... this... movie... before... any... deal... was... signed.

If Moore is being screwed by Weinstein then he should mention Weinstein and Miramax by name. Since he isn't, since his agent and he are laying the blame on Disney's shoulders, one can only logically assume that this is not a valid complaint but another publicity stunt, based upon half-truths and lies, in order to generate sympathy votes in his quest to win the Palm d'Or. (sp)

Moore might be a victim but is more likely a willing participant in Harvey Weinsteins power struggle with Michael Eisner. Given that Moore has been in the industry for nigh on 20 years, "innocence" is not a defense he can use lightly.

	07-05-2004 18:06									#123
	Busted! Support Apolyton

Looks like I was proven right again:

quote: Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban' By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles 07 May 2004 Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it. The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival. Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001. In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax. But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it." Nobody in Hollywood doubts Fahrenheit 911 will find a US distributor. His last documentary, Bowling for Columbine , made for $3m (£1.7m), pulled in $22m at the US box office. But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working. A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free expression. Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]" but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract. And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for financing, not for distribution.

Italics mine. Link.

	07-05-2004 18:10									#124
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Why does this excite you so, JohnT?

	07-05-2004 18:14									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I'm fascinated by the motion picture industry... it has always been a big interest of mine, and over a decade ago I was giving serious consideration of heading out to LA and seeing if I could break into it. Not as an actor or anything, just whatever would cross my lap.

Laura would've been an excellent casting director. We used to play a "game" where we would recast movies and her selections were, almost inerrently, spot on.

	07-05-2004 18:24									#126
	Full PM-box? Change here!

This brilliant PR ploy is clearly doing its job -- getting otherwise uncaring folks like us to discuss a film we haven't seen just before its premier.

It's similar to the Spiderman-on-the-bases fiirestorm of the past day or so in that respect.

In the end, the film will be released, with much more public awareness that it would normally receive (though hitting on this topic in an election year was going to hit a nerve anyway).

Anyone who seriously thinks MMoore is a victim in this transaction is being incredibly naive. This is a marketing campaign, plain and simple.

Disney evil? Duh! Of course -- at least in the sense that any multibillion $$ entertainment conglomerate is. But trying to equate their ability to get tax breaks with their distribution policies, policy on employee facial hair, or whatever, is just misdirection away from the "please talk about me" neediness that's at the heart of this.

I'm a Michael Moore fan -- I like troublemakeers who stir things up. But please, ppl, try to see this for what it is -- a desperate plea for attention, nothing Moore.

------------
SIDEBAR: [rant] I'm continually amazed at the perception that Miraxax is this "gritty little indy" film company. They have been big-money corporate schmucks for years now, and love to revel in their history. No one who puts out $100MM movies that debut on upwards of 4000 screens in the US is indy. They have put out some great stuff, but they're about as establishment as you can get. The "indy" vibe is pure image-mongering, not supportable by any objective measure of the term "independent film." [/rant]

	07-05-2004 18:31									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

How surprising, Moore lied? Say its not so. In light of his previous track record of intellectual honesty surely makes this a big let down.

	07-05-2004 20:13									#128
	Got spare money?

Love that story, JohnT. Especially how it takes Moore's words out of context.

quote: Gorani: What was your communication with Disney? Moore: Almost a year ago after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent that he was upset that Miramax had made the film -- Disney owns Miramax -- and he will not distribute this film. Miramax said don't worry about that, keep making the film, we'll keep funding it. The Disney money kept flowing to us for the last year. We finished the film last week, and we take it to the Cannes film festival next week. On Monday of this week we got final word from Disney that they will not distribute the film. They told my agent they did not want to upset the Bush family, particularly Gov. Bush of Florida because Disney was up for a number of tax incentives, abatements ... whatever. The risk of losing this -- we're talking about tens of millions of dollars -- they didn't want to risk it over a little documentary. Arguing Disney's point, Michael Eisner said, look we don't want to take part in a partisan film right before the election in America. So to be fair to the company, if they feel it hurts their bottom line, why haven't they the right to say they don't want to distribute it? Our media companies are invested with the public trust. That trust states that they're there to allow all voices to be heard. We live in a free and open society where dissent is not to be stifled or silenced. They have violated that trust. We have only got a few studios left, right, and if we get to a point where they can decide that only these voices can be heard, how free and open is our society at that point? So Disney signed a contract to distribute this, they got cold feet, they're afraid. Yes, the Bushes will not like this movie ... they will really not like this movie. Because we're going to show things like they haven't seen before about the Bush family, about the war in Iraq and a number of other things. So what's your next step? You don't have a distributor now but you've had so much publicity in the last few days out of this, you've probably had people calling you to say they're willing to distribute this movie and internationally will it be seen? The good news is that internationally we already have distributors in much of the world. So it will be seen outside of America for sure some time this year. But I hope it doesn't happen where an American film maker makes a film about America and it can't be seen in America. What is the message to the rest of the world then? It's not a good message so I'm hopeful we'll shortly have an American distributor. One good thing about Americans regardless of their political stripe is that they don't like to be told they can't see something -- that's what Disney has said. And I'm pretty confident we'll prevail here.

What moron would turn down money to make a movie even if he knew that it wouldn't necessarily be distributed by said conglomerate. And since he had a contract (at least with Miramax, probably with Disney), why wouldn't he expect to be able to release it? Miramax has, from time to time, established private distribution companies like it did for 'Kids'.

	07-05-2004 20:19									#129
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous Love that story, JohnT. Especially how it takes Moore's words out of context.

How is it out of context when that is exactly what he said word for word? The only suprise is that Miramax funded the thing over the wishes of their owner. I wonder if anyone will get sacked.

	07-05-2004 20:20									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I can't completely call Disney evil...they did give Howard Dean a $20,000 campaign contribution...I don't know how much they gave Bush, but I know it doesn't rank in the top 20 (Microsoft, however, gave Bush twice as much as it did Kerry).

	07-05-2004 20:21									#131
	Get a bigger avatar today!

It is out of context because Miramax's intentions led Moore to believe that the movie would be made, and if made, it would be distributed.

	07-05-2004 20:37									#132
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous Love that story, JohnT. Especially how it takes Moore's words out of context. What moron would turn down money to make a movie even if he knew that it wouldn't necessarily be distributed by said conglomerate. And since he had a contract (at least with Miramax, probably with Disney), why wouldn't he expect to be able to release it? Miramax has, from time to time, established private distribution companies like it did for 'Kids'.

Please, EF, don't embarrass yourself further. This article does nothing to dispute my assertion that Harvey Weinstein is using MM as a pawn in a power struggle with Eisner. It does nothing to disprove the fact that Disney refused a year ago to distribute the film. All it does is show that MM has a hard problem stating the facts:

Disney did not sign a distribution agreement for the film as claimed.

Miramax didn't even sign a production deal with Moore, just a financing arrangement between Miramax and Dog Eat Dog Films. DEDF is in charge of production, Miramax just supplied the financing.

Production on the film didn't even begin until June of last year, so MM assertion that the film was "already in production" when the deal was signed is, again, false.

His constant switching of the "Disney" and "Miramax" names is also indicative of his inability to tell the truth - he claims that "Disney" was going to distribute it when, in fact, his deal was with Miramax. You might think that it doesn't matter, but in this industry, credit is everything and MM is purposely fudging who supposedly agreed to what in order to paint Disney in an unflattering light.

	07-05-2004 20:40									#133
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous It is out of context because Miramax's intentions led Moore to believe that the movie would be made, and if made, it would be distributed.

Moore knows better than that, though. You're sounding like MM is some outsider getting screwed by the system when in fact he's as inside as inside can be.

Moore can read a contract as well as anybody else. Given that the contract was NOT, repeat, NOT a distribution agreement, your assertion that he was "led to believe" doesn't wash at all.

	07-05-2004 22:34									#134
	Inflate your Upload Space

Here's MM's very own website quote:

quote: 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."

Then from CNN

quote: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

	07-05-2004 22:54									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: This article does nothing to dispute my assertion that Harvey Weinstein is using MM as a pawn in a power struggle with Eisner.

I don't know nothin' 'bout that...I came into this only defending Michael Moore.

quote: His constant switching of the "Disney" and "Miramax" names is also indicative of his inability to tell the truth - he claims that "Disney" was going to distribute it when, in fact, his deal was with Miramax.

Wait...maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. Didn't Disney say it wouldn't allow Miramax to distribute the film, because Miramax is owned by Disney? So then isn't Moore attacking the right company?

From CNN: A statement from Disney subsidiary Miramax -- which was to distribute the film in the U.S. -- said it was discussing the issue with Disney.

So then it IS Miramax to be distributing, but it is DISNEY that is blocking the release. Why shouldn't Moore come out swinging against this?

Plus, Moore isn't lying in those two statements. Let's bold a different word, shall we?

quote: 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."

Is that a lie?

	07-05-2004 23:10									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous I don't know nothin' 'bout that...I came into this only defending Michael Moore. Wait...maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. Didn't Disney say it wouldn't allow Miramax to distribute the film, because Miramax is owned by Disney? So then isn't Moore attacking the right company?

Moore claims that the deal was signed by Disney. It wasn't - it was signed by Miramax. Yes, Miramax is a subsidiary of Disney but as far as contracts are concerned, Moore's deal was with Miramax, not Disney. He's just playing off of peoples ignorance re: corporate law and structure in order to play the "poor me" card. It doesn't wash.

Also, he was told officially last May, by the CEO and President himself - you can't get any more official than that, EF. Plus, there's been nothing since then to indicate that Disney's position had or will change.

Ergo: manufactured controversy in order to gain sympathy votes for the Palm d'Or.

	07-05-2004 23:31									#137
	Remove this text

And, in my opinion, MM isn't the bad guy in all this... it's Harvey Weinstein. I don't care for the way Moore is purposely misrepresenting the facts in this case, but if it weren't for Weinstein and his ego, he wouldn't be in this predicament.

Last edited by JohnT on 08-05-2004 at 00:50

	08-05-2004 00:26									#138
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: When corporate parents begin giving orders to its "independent" corporate subsidiaries, courts are much more likely to "pierce the corporate veil" and to hold the parent liable for the wrongful acts of the subsidiary But why would Moore's lawyers do this? The ONLY reason you pierce the corporate veil is when you can't get your full damages from the first corporation. Miramax has enough money to cover Moore's damages.

Laws from various states differ, but in California, the amount of punitive damages is based in part upon the net worth of the defendant. In an MM v. Miramax lawsuit, MM's attorney could add in Disney's net worth to Miramax's net worth

But John T points out a more fundamental matter: If the MM-Miramax contract permits Disney to pull the plug on the deal (& I'll be this is the case), then Disney has done nothing legally wrong.

However, if some secretary decides to sue Miramax for sex harassment and discrimination, Disney's directing of Miramax's business decision vias-a-vis MM would give her attorneys a chance to drag Disney in as well.

	08-05-2004 00:50									#139
	Support Apolyton

Disney has forced Miramax to pull the plug on a number of already-signed deals, most notably "Dogma".

	08-05-2004 01:07									#140
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Ergo: manufactured controversy in order to gain sympathy votes for the Palm d'Or.

You don't often get to se 'ergo' in casual conversation...

	08-05-2004 01:19									#141
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Thanks!

My next task will be to slip in the word "albeit" in one of Zylka's threads. Here's keeping his fingers crossed!

	08-05-2004 01:35									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Is "albeit" an uncommon word?

	08-05-2004 01:40									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Also, he was told officially last May, by the CEO and President himself - you can't get any more official than that, EF. Plus, there's been nothing since then to indicate that Disney's position had or will change.

Perhaps Moore and co. were working on the assumption that there was a mere possibility than in the time between the inital rejection the people paying 6 million dollars for the movie would see sense and decide to distribute the film. People do change their minds in the real world (as opposed to in internet discussions about Michael Moore).

	08-05-2004 01:46									#144
	Put an end to popups!

The assumption was that Eisner would be out of Disney by this time and that Weinstein would get away with violating a direct order.

	08-05-2004 01:47									#145
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Is "albeit" an uncommon word?

Quote me the Zylka thread where it is used!

	08-05-2004 01:56									#146
	Put an end to popups!

BTW, the only reason I don't use "albeit" is because I can never remember whether the correct style is "alebit he did this" or "albeit his actions". Which one is it?

	08-05-2004 02:04									#147
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Main Entry: al·be·it Pronunciation: ol-'bE-&t, al- Function: conjunction Etymology: Middle English, literally, all though it be Date: 14th century : conceding the fact that : even though

	08-05-2004 02:12									#148
	Tired of ads?

First, Moore's movie sounds like utter propaganda crap. Second, Disney owns Miramax and has every right to decide what movies get made or not.

	08-05-2004 02:14									#149
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Thanks John

Damn, I knew my English teacher was old, but 14th century?

	08-05-2004 02:18									#150
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by JohnT The assumption was that Eisner would be out of Disney by this time and that Weinstein would get away with violating a direct order.

That makes sense. I suppose Moore wouldn't have wanted to kick up a fuss last year as he would have forced Disney's hand and they'd have had to cut funding as well as refuse to distribute. So while it makse sense for him to wait, it doesn't make his case any better in this light (Although chastising him for waiting a year isn't the issue).