Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Disney Blocking Distribution of Film Documentary

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Disney Blocking Distribution of Film Documentary (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Disney Blocking Distribution of Film Documentary

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 05-17-2004 05:21 PM

quote:
Looks like this very well will become a controversy-fueled box-office take ala Passion!

All the more reason to finance the distribution himself, and put his money where his mouth is ala Mel Gibson.

| IP: Logged

Rob Butler
Film Handler

Posts: 91
From: Westford, MA, USA
Registered: Mar 2004

posted 05-17-2004 06:00 PM

STRAIGHT FROM THE SOURCE...

quote:

Friday, May 7th, 2004
When You Wish Upon A Star… by Michael Moore

Dear Friends,

Thank you for all the incredible letters of support as my film crew and I once again slog our way through the corporate media madhouse. Does it ever end? Are we ever going to get control of our "free press" again? Can you wish upon a star?

The Disney spin machine has been working overtime dealing with this censorship debacle of theirs. I don't think they thought they would ever be outed. After all, they know that all of us are supposed to adhere to the unwritten Hollywood Code: Never tell the public how business is done here, never let them have a peek at the man behind the curtain.

Disney has been hoping for nearly a year that they could keep this thing quiet. As I promised on Wednesday, here are the details behind my sordid adventure with the Magic Kingdom:

In April of 2003, I signed a deal with Miramax, a division of the Walt Disney Co., to finance and distribute my next movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. (The original financier had backed out; I will tell that story at a later date.) In my contract it is stated that Miramax will distribute my film in the U.S. through Disney's distribution arm, Buena Vista Distribution. It also gives Miramax the rights to distribute and sell the movie around the world.

A month later, after shooting started, Michael Eisner insisted on meeting with my agent, Ari Emanuel. Eisner was furious that Miramax signed this deal with me. According to Mr. Emanuel, 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.

But Michael Eisner did not call Miramax and tell them to stop my film. Not only that, for the next year, SIX MILLION dollars of DISNEY money continued to flow into the production of making my movie. Miramax assured me that there were no distribution problems with my film.

But then, a few weeks ago when Fahrenheit 9/11 was selected to be in the Cannes Film Festival, Disney sent a low-level production executive to New York to watch the film (to this day, Michael Eisner has not seen the film). This exec was enthusiastic throughout the viewing. He laughed, he cried and at the end he thanked us. "This film is explosive," he exclaimed, and we took that as a positive sign. But “explosive” for these guys is only a good word when it comes to blowing up things in movies. OUR kind of “explosive” is what they want to run from as fast as they can.

Miramax did their best to convince Disney to go ahead as planned with our film. Disney contractually can only stop Miramax from releasing a film if it has received an NC-17 rating (ours will be rated PG-13 or R).

According to yesterday's New York Times, the issue of whether to release Fahrenheit 9/11 was discussed at Disney's board meeting last week. It was decided that Disney should not distribute our movie.

Quoted from www.michaelmoore.com

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 05-17-2004 06:31 PM

quote: Rob Butler
Are we ever going to get control of our "free press" again?

I'm confused. Is Michael saying that he lost control of Hollyw... er, we (the citizens of the U.S., I guess) lost control of Dis... er, uh...

Hmm. Ok. Let me back up...

Is he saying that Disney is part of the PRESS? Or that Hollywood is part of the press?? Or what the hell is he saying? I'm lost.

quote: Rob Butler
The Disney spin machine has been working overtime dealing with this censorship debacle of theirs.

Censorship debacle? I didn't know that a corporation could censor anything. I thought that censorship was something that came from a government. Am I wrong? I suppose I could be.

I'm not sure what the deal is with this guy, and I'm only trying to understand his point, but if he's implyng that Disney is a) a government capable of censorship, and b) part of the press, I think he may have spent too much time in the Magic Kingdom.

Dear Mr. Eisner:

As long as everyone else is asking you to stop censoring their movie in your goverment controlled press, how about bringing Song of the South out of it's "permanent retirement" status. It would be great for a whole new generation of children to learn where the song "Zip A Dee Doo Da" came from.

Thanks.

Sincerley,
Mark Marshall

| IP: Logged

Tim Lockridge
Film Handler

Posts: 20
From: Indiana, USA
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 05-17-2004 10:42 PM

from dictionary.com

censoring
n 1: counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy [syn: censorship, security review] 2: deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances [syn: censorship]

Nowhere in that definition does it say that the censor must be a government organization.

Also, I think the point that Moore tries to make is that 1.) Disney promised him something and didn't deliver, 2.) even after they were upset with the situation they continued to fund his project, and 3.) Michael Eisner -- in an uproar over for the film -- has never seen it. Sure, Disney is a company and they have to look out for their bottom line. Moore, however, suggests that Eisner is making a decision to block the film (or "censor" it) without ever seeing it. If I was a filmmaker or employee, I would be upset too.

Moore can fly off the deep end sometimes, but, based on Roger & Me and Bowling For Columbine, I think he really does try to look out for the interests of the little guy. And with megaconglomerates like Disney dominating such a large amount of American business and the mainstream perception, I think Moore's voice really needs to be heard.

Besides, Disney has to realize that they're doing the same thing that FOX News did to Al Franken... by causing such an uproar they're only fueling public interest. I look for Fahrenheit 9/11 to easily become the highest grossing documentary.

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 05-17-2004 10:52 PM

I think the confusion may stem from people trying to invoke the First Amendment which is only about government and agents of government. If government isn't involved then there are no First Amendment issues. It's not unlawful for someone else to censor something if they can.

However I don't think that applies here. It would if the parent company was going to take the film and sit on it but Moore and the Weinsteins are free to take it to another distributor. This is mostly about publicity and I think Moore may have even admitted this at Cannes. Good for him; he knows how to work the system. I look forward to seeing the film with some other logo in front of it; perhaps Lions Gate.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 05-17-2004 11:26 PM

quote: Tim Lockridge
Moore, however, suggests that Eisner is making a decision to block the film (or "censor" it) without ever seeing it.

Wrong. Eisner is saying that Disney wants no part of distributing it. Eisner is not saying that they won't let it be distributed.

This is one of those left/right discussions that's not going to go anywhere, so I'm done with this thread. Adios.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-18-2004 12:03 AM

I'm not one to endorse censorship, but I agree with Steve's point of view. This isn't really a censorship thing, it is a matter of commercial enterprize.

Disney has to weigh the risks of distributing this film. Remember when "The Last Temptation of Christ" was released? The religious right in America gave Lew Wasserman's staff at Universal Pictures all kinds of hell. As touchy and unpredictable as the whole Iraq situation is, and with it being an election year, Disney might see distributing "Farenheit 9/11" as just not being worth the risk.

Add to that the loose cannon style of Michael Moore. That's all the more reason for any executive who has to answer to board members and shareholders all the more nervous. Moore makes incredibly good points in his films. But he is also guilty of shameless spin as well. Hell, he even makes Oliver Stone seem "fair and balanced" by comparison.

I still want to see the movie though.

| IP: Logged

Kamakshipalya Dhananjay
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 190
From: Bangalore, India
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 05-18-2004 12:53 AM

OK. It is now decided.

I am going to be one of the first person to watch this movie/documentary/shortie when it will hit screens in the US. And I wont care whether they would want to carry this movie into INDIA. I will travel all the distance and will watch this there. I feel sorry I missed the chance to go to Cannes. And Moore has no more screenings scheduled anywhere else there.

| IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 05-18-2004 09:32 AM

I've been screening it for the last four days here in NYC.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 05-18-2004 10:44 AM

quote: Bill Gabel
I've been screening it for the last four days here in NYC.

So that's why the 9/11 Commission is meeting in NYC this week. [Big Grin]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/18/911.commission/index.html

quote:
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The 9/11 commission convened the first of two days of public hearings Tuesday in New York...

Maybe they SHOULD be invited to see it. [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 05-18-2004 01:49 PM

quote: Kamakshipalya Dhananjay
What is the duration of this documentary?

It's runs 121 minutes.

quote: Kamakshipalya Dhananjay
And whats the cost of making it?

It cost 6 Million dollars.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 05-18-2004 06:16 PM

Michael Moore is a self-serving but entertaining buffoon. I wouldn't believe anything he says, but he's fun to listen to sometimes.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-18-2004 07:20 PM

I'll probably wait for the DVD rental disc. Moore videotapes much of his stuff these days, and videotape is far more suited to TV than a big movie screen.

But, I still do want to see the show. I'm just willing to wait a few months longer than anyone else interested in it. And realistically, I think that number of "interested viewers" is likely a small, niche audience. Most of the general public usually runs the other way when it comes to political discussion.

| IP: Logged

Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 05-18-2004 08:19 PM

now without arguing the merits of anything, it's clear that this doc is most relevant in the coming months before the election. if i were one of those voting people, i think it would be worth seeing it beforehand rather than later.

and whether or not this situation amounts to censorship (i'm not privy to anything but it appears it doesn't), it's a damn shame if the very relevance of the film prevents people from seeing it.

this phenomenon isn't restricted to political films. it seems the more provincial a community is, the less likely it is that its people will have access to films that might challenge their values. i suppose it's a no-brainer, commercially speaking, but it's still sad. it's more important not to offend than to take a chance. safety over potency.

carl

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-19-2004 08:55 AM

Poor Michael Moore. He hates himself so much that he won't be satisfied until all other white, American men are filled with the same self-loathing. He must hate himself even more this year because of things like... his strong endorsement of Howard Dean (and the fact that Moore's enthusiasm just didn't light a fire under anyone else). It goes well beyond political discussion and straight to Moore's personal foundation. Now he's promising to tell all about what's wrong with Disney (as if any of us will find an anti-Disney piece to be bold and original). I'm looking forward to how he'll prove that Disney's evil ways have somehow ruined the city of Flint.

And this man thinks that other average white men are paranoid.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.