The next step beyond Fascims is Corporatism

[WODIN]

Nothing Specious about facts.

Technically Miramax and Moore own the film. Disney holds only the distribution rights.

 

[Code]

Exactly, the right to distribute or NOT distribute.

It's specious to suggest that Disney is stopping Moore from writing his quasi-documentary on 9/11. When in fact they are merely stopping a movie they control from being released.

Moore can still do a speach circuit or a book about it.

Sure it would be filed under fiction, but he can still do so.

Nothing Specious about facts.

Technically Miramax and Moore own the film. Disney holds only the distribution rights.

 

[Lift Chief]

The question is... is disney not distributing the movie because it is not in their best interest to do so? More specifically, is it their choice, as a corporate entity with no unusual extraneous factors, to not distribute this movie?

Or are they not distributing it because they fear repercussions from the president's supporters- specifically, his brother? Obviously this would fall under the premise of "in their best interest", but this could be viewed as a form of indirect censorship if their fears are well founded. A case of the president's supporters using their power to try and stop a movie that criticizes the president to be distributed.

It seems, considering they invested the time and money in Moore, allowing him to produce this documentary, that they had every intention of distributing it, but now are afraid to as a result of the power presedential supporters have over their affairs.

Clearly it is well within Disney's rights to distribute whatever they see fit, but what that article was implying is that they are afraid to distribute it because of the president and his supporters. Obviously it goes without saying the essence of this country is free speech- even and especially if that criticizes the government and the president. It is unfortunate that the president and his supporters are able to suppress this.

And whether or not you like michael moore is beside the issue and it is moronic to even talk about whether you think he's a good film maker or not.

 

[Code]

THEY OWN IT.
It's not censorship.

If you owned pornographic pics of yourself, but chose not to put them on the internet. Is that censorship???

The question is... is disney not distributing the movie because it is not in their best interest to do so? More specifically, is it their choice, as a corporate entity with no unusual extraneous factors, to not distribute this movie?

Or are they not distributing it because they fear repercussions from the president's supporters- specifically, his brother? Obviously this would fall under the premise of "in their best interest", but this could be viewed as a form of indirect censorship if their fears are well founded. A case of the president's supporters using their power to try and stop a movie that criticizes the president to be distributed.

It seems, considering they invested the time and money in Moore, allowing him to produce this documentary, that they had every intention of distributing it, but now are afraid to as a result of the power presedential supporters have over their affairs.

Clearly it is well within Disney's rights to distribute whatever they see fit, but what that article was implying is that they are afraid to distribute it because of the president and his supporters. Obviously it goes without saying the essence of this country is free speech- even and especially if that criticizes the government and the president. It is unfortunate that the president and his supporters are able to suppress this.

And whether or not you like michael moore is beside the issue and it is moronic to even talk about whether you think he's a good film maker or not.

 

[Becoming]

If you owned pornographic pics of yourself, but chose not to put them on the internet. Is that censorship???

Oh shit, you had to go there... I see a huge upswing of assvatars coming our way...

BTW - the "motivations" behind it are all speculation by Moore... no one from disney has commented - maybe they just think it is a piece of crap... Maybe he doesn't mind drumming up a little publicity...

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

It's a marketing technique. Moore and Disney had secret talks beforehand to set this whole thing up. Then a week from now Disney will start selling Moore's poop at alarming rates.

:conspiracy:

 

[Code]

It's COMPLETELY valid. If they think the movie is shit and mostly fiction, like alot of people do, then the reason they aren't releasing is because it utter rot.

And whether or not you like michael moore is beside the issue and it is moronic to even talk about whether you think he's a good film maker or not.

 

[Lift Chief]

It's COMPLETELY valid. If they think the movie is shit and mostly fiction, like alot of people do, then the reason they aren't releasing is because it utter rot.

If they thought that why would the even produce it in the first place? Furthermore, they have distributed his films in the past so do you think they all the sudden have realized he sucks? What a retarded argument.

 

[Lift Chief]

THEY OWN IT.
It's not censorship.

If you owned pornographic pics of yourself, but chose not to put them on the internet. Is that censorship???

Sigh- as i said... im fully aware of the fact that they own it and therefore it cannot be true censorship. Again, as i said, the question is whether it is a type of indirect censorship caused by the significant pressure being put on disney by presidential supporters not to distribute the film?

I don't know how i can state my question more clearly.

 

[Code]

It's clear that the reason is moot.

I guess you just don't understand that if they owe no one an explanation.
It's theirs, if Moore wants he can buy it from them and get someone else to distribute it.

And just because they liked his previous flicks, doesn't mean they will think this one is good. The fact that not you think everyone makes a good product 100% of the time is retarded.

Sigh- as i said... im fully aware of the fact that they own it and therefore it cannot be true censorship. Again, as i said, the question is whether it is a type of indirect censorship caused by the significant pressure being put on disney by presidential supporters not to distribute the film?

I don't know how i can state my question more clearly.