Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Disney Blocking Distribution of Film Documentary (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Author Topic: Disney Blocking Distribution of Film Documentary
Gerard S. Cohen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 975
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: Sep 2001


 - posted 05-05-2004 07:41 AM      Profile for Gerard S. Cohen   Email Gerard S. Cohen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Disney is blocking Miramax's distribution of a new documentary by the maker of "Bowling for Columbine", that was first offered but rejected by Gibson's Icon production group.
The film, "Fahrenheit 911," is scheduled to be shown at the Cannes Festival.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 5, 2004
Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.

The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.

Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.

In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."

But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.

"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."

Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's company, backed out.

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."

Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.

A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many.

"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.

Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, but such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.

Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "

Mr. Moore's films, like "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," are often a political lightning rod, as Mr. Moore sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, "Bowling for Columbine," took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like "Stupid White Men," a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative.

Mr. Moore does not disagree that "Fahrenheit 911" is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. "If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine," he said.

Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's role in the evacuation of relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.

Mr. Moore once planned to produce the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but "the project wasn't right for Icon," said Alan Nierob, an Icon spokesman, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics.

Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had distributed Mr. Moore's 1997 film, "The Big One." In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute it.

While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution, which would ideally happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it here

 |  IP: Logged

Dennis Benjamin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1445
From: Denton, MD
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 05-05-2004 08:17 AM      Profile for Dennis Benjamin   Author's Homepage   Email Dennis Benjamin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I met Mr. Moore right after his "Roger and Me" film came out - he seemed like a nice guy. While I do not agree with his views 100% -his films do make good documentaries and valid points about whatever subject they are covering. I feel that his tirade at the Oscars should have been cut from the broadcast. Anyways - let the man release his film. All this controversy will just bring it more money.. Plus if they don't want it released - there has to be some truth to it...

 |  IP: Logged

Bill Enos
Film God

Posts: 2081
From: Richmond, Virginia, USA
Registered: Apr 2000


 - posted 05-05-2004 08:19 AM      Profile for Bill Enos   Email Bill Enos   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If F911 grosses similar to Columbine, 22 million is chump change to Disney and they think it's not worth the heat they'll get in being associated with it. After expenses, that 22 mil. is what, 5 or 6 mil at best? A regular Disney release can generate that in the first 30 minutes of an opening day.

Moore needs a smaller distributor where these amounts will be important.

 |  IP: Logged

Thomas Procyk
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1842
From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 05-05-2004 12:31 PM      Profile for Thomas Procyk   Email Thomas Procyk   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Bite your tongue, Bill! Let's not forget The Alamo. [Smile]
Or for that matter, Teenage Drama Queen and Teacher's Pet.

I really hope this gets released. Just for the fact that I'm curious as to what "evidence" Mr. Moore claims he has about the whole ordeal. It will probably be like his other movies: "The world is fucked up. Thank you and goodnight." Although I really enjoyed his TV shows, the short time they were on before the networks couldn't handle the controversy.

Maybe once it builds up more controversy -- and Jim Cavizel gets thrown in there somewhere -- NewMarket will reconsider. [Smile]

=TMP=

 |  IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

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


 - posted 05-05-2004 01:14 PM      Profile for Bill Gabel   Email Bill Gabel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I ran "Fahrenheit 911" last week for Mr. Moore and friends. It was a very good documentary on the subject in the style of "Bowling for Columbine" and "Roger and Me". When Mr. Moore was shopping "Bowling.." to the studios, we did a screening for Harvey. He passed on the film and it went over to UA.

Maybe Mr. Moore should make his next film "Eisner and Me".

 |  IP: Logged

Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003


 - posted 05-05-2004 01:24 PM      Profile for Aaron Garman   Email Aaron Garman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This is all rather silly. Just distribute the film and let people see it. Why should Disney dictate what we see? Let the people make up their own mind.

AJG

 |  IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

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


 - posted 05-05-2004 01:40 PM      Profile for Bill Gabel   Email Bill Gabel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If Disney releases the film, it is afraid that it may loss some very nice tax breaks it gets from the state of Florida. It not only talks about 911 but the Florida election (Gov. Jeb Bush). If it was any other state it would be no problem, but its Florida (Disney World).

Eisner is just trying to do damage control. [Wink]

 |  IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

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


 - posted 05-05-2004 03:37 PM      Profile for Mark J. Marshall     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Aaron Garman
Why should Disney dictate what we see?
Why should you dictate what Disney will and will not be associated with?? Disney isn't saying you can't see it. Just that they don't want to be associated with it.

It's a smart move for Disney IMO. They have enough controversy on their plate at the moment. Don't worry, some other Hollywood lib will pick it up I'm sure.

Hey, I have an idea... Maybe Michael Moore could sink a few million dollars of his own money into distributing it, and keep all the profits for himself. I'm confident he'll make it all back.

 |  IP: Logged

Bruce Hansen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 847
From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 05-05-2004 05:08 PM      Profile for Bruce Hansen   Email Bruce Hansen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I wonder if comrade Eisner will be burning books next?

 |  IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

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


 - posted 05-05-2004 06:52 PM      Profile for Mark J. Marshall     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Huh??

 |  IP: Logged

Kamakshipalya Dhananjay
Expert Film Handler

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


 - posted 05-06-2004 03:07 AM      Profile for Kamakshipalya Dhananjay   Email Kamakshipalya Dhananjay   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Double Post. Erased by Moderator.

[ 05-08-2004, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Rachel Gilardi ]

 |  IP: Logged

Kamakshipalya Dhananjay
Expert Film Handler

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


 - posted 05-06-2004 03:10 AM      Profile for Kamakshipalya Dhananjay   Email Kamakshipalya Dhananjay   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
So we have a blockbuster to look forward to...

I am sure all of this controversy will help this documentary.

Like it all happened for 'PASSION OF CHRIST'.
Note that 'PASSION' was predicted by many to take atleast 600 million overseas but is unlikely to cross 250 million there. While the general proporation of overseas gross for a Hollywood film is roughly the same as the North American taking, anybody can, seeing it is not so, fairly say that what helped this film in the US was just the controversy surrounding it from the beginning.

So, looks like this documentary too is getting just the right start !

what is the duration of this documentary ?
And whats the cost of making it ?

It looks so disgusting that Disney had no better explanation to offer for the refusal than its obligation not to displease the Governor in Florida who happens to be the brother of President Bush. What a trash of a corporation ?
Do such corporations really deserve those tax breaks anyway ? Somebody should figure out a way to reform Disney for now.

 |  IP: Logged

Dan Lyons
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 698
From: Seal Beach, CA
Registered: Sep 2002


 - posted 05-06-2004 04:35 AM      Profile for Dan Lyons   Email Dan Lyons   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Bruce Hansen
I wonder if comrade Eisner will be burning books next?
Good one Bruce! For anyone who hasn't seen the film whose name is being played with, Fahrenheit 451, I feel sorry for you. [Wink]
Fantastic film, go rent the dvd!!

danny

 |  IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 05-06-2004 07:20 AM      Profile for Stephen Furley   Email Stephen Furley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Mark wrote:
quote: Mark J. Marshall
Why should you dictate what Disney will and will not be associated with?? Disney isn't saying you can't see it. Just that they don't want to be associated with it.

I'm not clear what is happening here; are Disney simply deciding that they don't wish to distribute this film, or that they fear financial reprisals if they do? If the latter, is there any evidence that these fears are justified?

If it was the case that politicians were 'leaning on' a company to surpress material that they would rather not see released, then that would be quite wrong. Politicians can of course adopt policies which they feel will increase their popularity, and their chances of being elected, reduce taxes, increase spending on certain services, set up a ministry of silly walks, or whatever, but to say that they will offer different treatment to those who do, or do not support them is another matter.

Is this really happening, or is it just what Disney fear might happen? Is that fear justified?

He then wrote:
quote: Mark J. Marshall
It's a smart move for Disney IMO. They have enough controversy on their plate at the moment. Don't worry, some other Hollywood lib will pick it up I'm sure.
On this point I disagree. It's not just a question of what Disney is doing, but of how this is *perceived* in the country. The story is not 'Disney declines to distribute film', but rather 'Disney refuses to let Miramax distribute film'. Disney may own Miramax, but would most people even know that? I agree that what has happened is not censorship, but could well be perceived in that way. If this happens, then it is not going to do Disney any good, and could do them serious harm.

Equally, if it is perceived, rightly or wrongly, that politicians are putting pressure on a company to ristrict distribution of a film, then this could have serious consequnces for the politicians. people tend not to like politicians doing that sort of thing.

Whatever the real facts are, this is unlikely to affect the distribution of the film; if Miramax don't release it, then somebody else will. This may not be so easy for a less well known film maker. Whatever the facts are, I doubt that this business will do Disney, ar anyone else, any good.

 |  IP: Logged

Pete Apruzzese
Film Handler

Posts: 13
From: Mountain Lakes, NJ, USA
Registered: Sep 2002


 - posted 05-06-2004 08:27 AM      Profile for Pete Apruzzese   Author's Homepage   Email Pete Apruzzese   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It's a very well-timed publicity stunt designed to gain a new distribution deal in America, there is no spectre of censorship anywhere.

Disney told Miramax *one year ago* that they did not want to distribute the film - Harvey and the gang went ahead anyway, so any cries of foul on their part are unjustified. Moore, in his usual way, has timed this "news" to coincide with the Cannes screenings, which will now be even more of an "event". He is using the world press to get a new deal, it's a smart tactic from a very shrewd operator.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.