Disney blocking release of 9/11 film

[Mara]

The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax Films division from distributing Michael Moore’s documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which criticizes President Bush’s handling of Sept. 11 and connects the Bush family with Osama bin Laden’s.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4906829/

[Terry Penrod]

.


Yeah, I read that this morning too Mara. I take it that the head of Disney and the head of Miramax have a long running personal battle stemming from the takeover that seems to be the real reason for this conflict.

Moore on the other hand is generally at odds with truthful, unbiased documentary film making and is so obviously fulfilling an agenda and pandering to his core audience at this point that he has lost all touch with reality.

What is the saddest irony of it all is the fact that he lives the life of a pampered star and rakes in millions while supposedly standing up for "the little guy" by schlubbing around lethargically in rumpled old clothes and a baseball cap, going unshaven and basically trying to look like the typical working guy next door. IMO, that is 100% theatrical costuming and more of a caricature of what he believes that common folk wear and how they act. It has nothing at all to do with who he really is or how he really lives. As a result, I don't trust him as far as I could throw him - which based on his rather portly size is a total distance of exactly zero.

Cheers, Terry

.

[RangerRick]

It's so obvious on where Moore stands, and that is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, who is as left wing as they come. Just look at the 'documenteries' that he has done. There is a semblance of truth to them, but from his point of view, as slanted as that is.
You're very right Terry as to how he dresses for show. It's all a put on. I'm very curious to know about the house he lives in, where he's got his money invested, and type of car or cars he owns. Also what type of lifestyle he lives, and I'm not talking about the nitty gritty personal stuff(directed at Fzoul!) :p: .

[Terry Penrod]

.

I recall seeing some details and links on another web forum around a year ago about his primary residence, which sounded more like a palace than a house. Accurate or not, I assume that Moore lives a VERY comfortable lifestyle and wants for nothing.

That's fine though, since he is a noted movie star, a regular and quite popular TV personality and has a number of best selling books. He has earned his fortune like any other writer / actor / director by selling tickets, etc. I just can not fathom people actually falling for his public personna and adopting him as a legitimate voice for social justice and righteous political ideology when there are so many more deserving figures to admire. Same goes for most all entertainers - liberal, conservative or in between. They just don't merit that kind of immense respect and idolization IMO.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Kalbrecht]

Moore bullspit and bashing aside, this is another in the long line of dirty tactics by Eisner.

As much as I don't like the Weinsteins, or Moore, I have really grown to despise Eisner. He's nothing more than a puffed up bully boy with little more than his own pockets on mind.

Right now I see him as desparate to do anything to preserve the sanctity of the Disney image he is part of. I don't hink tax breaks are the reason, but more that Eisner can't afford to piss off supporters. Allowing Disney to be linked to a highly controversial view like Moore's is the wrong thing to do for Eisner's career.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Oh I think it is a lot more than just his career at stake Kalbrecht.

Disney has always been a family oriented, non political entertainment company. However, they have made some questionable recent buy-outs. But the products they have released have generally not been all that controversial. This one though is fully focused on a very hot issue, pointedly biased against one political party and during an already heated presidential election campaign. Worse, it is specfically concentrated on the most painful wound we have in this country, 9/11.

Even though the film would not be marketed directly under the Disney banner, there would still be high recognition and most likely some serious backlash from many of the conservative consumers that comprise the largest segment of their most lucrative market. I assume that Eisner has weighed that negative impact and decided that it is not the right kind of movie for Disney or any of its most visible divisions to release at this time. Can't say that I blame him for thinking that as it's probably right on the money.

Unbiased business decisions aside, I also believe that there is some residual bad blood between these two men and that certainly could have a bearing on the way both of them handle this issue.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Kalbrecht]

Oh I think it is a lot more than just his career at stake Kalbrecht.

*snip*

Oh I agree completely Terry, except for one small thing.

That would be excellent, logical corporate thinking, except that I have never believed that Eisner cares a whit about 'Disney' except as HIS Disney Empire. That's where it comes in as his career - he's already seen so much fightback against him recently, that he knows to travel a very conservative line right now. The Alamo debacle is still hanging over him, let alone the stockholder meetings from earlier this year.

The handling of this latest Miramax fight bears all the hallmarks of all his ridiculous decisions in the past - the way he lets his ego get in the way of dealing with Steve Jobs, Roy Disney, Stanley Gold and pretty much everyone connected to Disney in recent times. He has been willing to bring down the reputation of Disney in relation to Pixar, animation in general and a family oriented company all for his personal squabbles.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Oh no doubt he is a major a-hole. But I was just pointing out that even if a cooler head was at the helm and Eisner's well documented super ego wasn't involved, that the chief decision makers at Disney would probably come to the same conclusion about releasing this particular film at this particular time. It's just too hot, risky and controversial for them IMO. Just so NOT in keeping with Mickey, Minnie, Pluto, Tinkerbell and friends.

Then again, nobody from their BoD called and asked for my advice - especially Eisner.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Kalbrecht]

.

Oh no doubt he is a major a-hole. But I was just pointing out that even if a cooler head was at the helm and Eisner's well documented super ego wasn't involved, that the chief decision makers at Disney would probably come to the same conclusion about releasing this particular film at this particular time. It's just too hot, risky and controversial for them IMO. Just so NOT in keeping with Mickey, Minnie, Pluto, Tinkerbell and friends.

Then again, nobody from their BoD called and asked for my advice - especially Eisner.

Cheers, Terry

.

What? Eisner's even trying to block you out, now, Terry? That B**TARD!

I'm not sure how much I agree with you on the cooler heads making a similar decision. Miramax has released fairly controversial movies before, as well as quite violent movies, most of which really don't keep in line with the Disney image.

The timing is the most likely reason for any corporate to shunt F_911 backwards in time, but I would think Weinstein would have been able to push it through and get it released.

I'm really thinking personal vendetta here.

Hmmm, oh well, noone is asking my advice either. I mean look at us - such 'experts' and we're left out in the cold!

[DanTheManPR]

Miramax has released fairly controversial movies before, as well as quite violent movies, most of which really don't keep in line with the Disney image.

Like "Gangs of New York". Doesn't seem like a Disney flick, does it?

[Terry Penrod]

.

Of course Miramax has released many non-family films and some may have been a bit controversial. But this one is intended to be a documentary. The subject matter is very controversial and very sensitive. But most of all, it is the timing that would cause the most problems and Disney's core audience tends to get all up in arms even in non-election years, when we have not been attacked by terrorists and everything looks rosey on the domestic front.

What they have in essence is a conflict of interests between Disney's audience and Miramax's. They wanted their soft, cartoon fantasy land cake and their hard-edged, adult audience cake and thery wanted to eat them too. That's why I said they have made some questionable business decisions / buy-outs / mergers in the past and now it is coming back to haunt them.

In the end though, it was Eisner who spearheaded this acquisition and evidently there was and still is some hard feelings between the two studio heads. So whatever the reasons for this latest controversy, it is still his / their fault anyway.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Kalbrecht]

.

Of course Miramax has released many non-family films and some may have been a bit controversial. But this one is intended to be a documentary.

Cheers, Terry

.

Wait, Michael Moore makes documentaries?

*bows* thank you, thank you.

Anyway - yeah. I agree completely Terry.

But the PLOT THICKENS!

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901

Michael Moore decides that he IS really a whiny little b*tch and stir the pot.

So I, for one, would like to apologise to Michael Eisner for the stuff I have said about him.

In this one instance. This whole brouhaha is Moore's sick fantasy, not Eisner's.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Media Whore is an iffy term to be using here on these family-friendly forums and I apologize in advance if anyone is offended by it. But in this case, I can think of no more fitting one to use to describe Moore at this point. He really is a glutton for attention, a shameless hype artist, and his political and personal agendas are just so transparent - and IMO at direct odds with each other most of the time.

Remember too that a number of years ago, I genuinely respected his early attempts to right wrongs and take "the man" down by exposing some pretty nasty stuff. He was actually quite funny, a very good writer, an effective director and I think at first, reasonably sincere, But in recent years, he has become a truly annoying and biased-to-the-extreme media mongering little dweeb who causes more trouble than he's worth.

You know, I would feel exactly the same way if his politics were reversed and he was leading witch hunts against prominent, far left wing fanatics who are IMO no better than the staunchest, most inflexible, ultra conservative right wingers. Both are equally stupid and equally counter-productive to actually finding sane, fair, practical solutions to our most common problems. At this point, I know not a single human being over the age of 12 with half a brain and any decent education at all that still falls for either set of patented, canned diatribe. That may be partly due to the fact that I generally seek other reasonable people in life who are also at least partially open to other ideas in tandem with the advent of the net - which has, by its very nature, opened up a global public debate on every issue of every kind.

The result is that all people who are in anyway looking for truthful answers and who try to stay informed, have long since been made intimately aware of all our many flaws as a species and all the specific problems we face today. We simply do not need to be told the same things again, over and over, especially by self-appointed pundits of either the radical right or left. What we do need is a concensus that we MUST work together, despite our often sharp differences. Because that really is the only way will will ever overcome our most serious obstacles.

Unrealistic you say?

Nonsense.

It is the height of pragmatic thought as it is the truth. All other opinions about how we might go about overcoming these things are based on either a heavily biased agenda, outright ignorance, personal greed or the biggest reason of all - apathy.

Get past those four sad facts of life that keep us from coming together as a complete and wholesome species with a uinifed singularity of purpose and we would be able to eliminate most all our man-made problems and solve many of those created by nature.

Cheers, Terry

.