Freaking Right Wing Media.

[DoTheFandango]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._michael_moore

[Subjugation]

it's either a chilling example of censorship, or it's a brilliant example of marketing.

i can see disney (whose management has been under fire from all angles for the last year) not having the balls to release this movie, but on the other hand, i can see it just being a marketing stunt. trying to drum up a media blitz, piquing the public's curiosity, and then when the movie does get released, it will have had maximum public exposure.

after the passion of the chrizzle, i'd guess it's a publicity stunt.

[DoTheFandango]

it's either a chilling example of censorship, or it's a brilliant example of marketing.

i can see disney (whose management has been under fire from all angles for the last year) not having the balls to release this movie, but on the other hand, i can see it just being a marketing stunt. trying to drum up a media blitz, piquing the public's curiosity, and then when the movie does get released, it will have had maximum public exposure.

after the passion of the chrizzle, i'd guess it's a publicity stunt.

Either way it still is stupid as hell.

[bloodzombie]

I'm no expert in how movies get made and distributed, but I seriously doubt this is a publicity thing. Michael Eisner from Disney has been under heavy fire for a long time now, and almost got voted out by disney shareholders. Disney is passing up a huge movie here. Miramax will find a new distributor, and the new distributor will make a ton of money.

[Cylor]

You sound like an expert beez (or possibly a genius!).

[Subjugation]

chicks and fins write his name on thier breasts, so he must be doing something right.

[Nethila]

i predict the enoforce is going to post here

[Hoju]

he's a fat fuck anyways

[Richard Creager]

Hoju with the much needed revelation here.

[THE ENFORCER]

Miramax will find a new distributor, and the new distributor will make a ton of money.

I think Disney would take into account customer retention rates if they air the movie thats probably why they didnt want to air. (i.e they lose profits in the future)

[wadi]

he's a fat fuck anyways

RIGHT ON!

Honestly, he gives liberals a bad name. I heard him speak, and it was no better than a klan rally, only with hippies instead of skin heads.

[bloodzombie]

I think Disney would take into account customer retention rates if they air the movie thats probably why they didnt want to air. (i.e they lose profits in the future)

You think when people see a miramax movie they link it to disney and then say "they released a movie that insulted Bush, so I'm not gonna rent Bambi 2"?

I think it's more about them being located largely in Florida, and Jeb Bush being the governor of florida, and them being afraid of losing their tax breaks..
They also own ABC, so the all-powerful FCC can drop fines on them at will.

[geekbot]

it's either a chilling example of censorship, or it's a brilliant example of marketing.

I don't know why people think this is censorship. A radio DJ said the same thing- that it's 1st amendment blah blah blah. The first amendment prevents the government from silencing us or punishing us for speaking out against our own government.

Disney deciding Michael Moore's film is bad for their business is just capitalism. They want to keep up their "image" and protect their interests in their family-oriented businesses. I don't think we have any rights to use our employer's money to say anything other than what bossman wants us to say.

That said, maybe this is just business as usual:

"Heading into Cannes, you've got this whole controversy that people will be talking about ? Miramax not being able to release the film. It adds to the mystique of the film, it adds to the danger," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.

"With a lot of filmmakers, this would not be a good thing," he said. "When it comes to Michael Moore, there's not really a downside to him to have controversy."

[bloodzombie]

I don't know why people think this is censorship. A radio DJ said the same thing- that it's 1st amendment blah blah blah. The first amendment prevents the government from silencing us or punishing us for speaking out against our own government.

Disney deciding Michael Moore's film is bad for their business is just capitalism. They want to keep up their "image" and protect their interests in their family-oriented businesses. I don't think we have any rights to use our employer's money to say anything other than what bossman wants us to say.

That said, maybe this is just business as usual:

I think the problem comes in where the government has a lot of control over disney's ability to do business, and therefore, they might feel pressure to not release something like that.

[Subjugation]

I don't know why people think this is censorship. A radio DJ said the same thing- that it's 1st amendment blah blah blah. The first amendment prevents the government from silencing us or punishing us for speaking out against our own government.

i agree with you 100% about this not being a 1st amendment violation, it is not a free speech issue. but it's still corporate censorship, and the reason given is due to fears of political retaliation. if disney's concerns are sincere, i still find that disturbing.