Who was gullible enough to believe the Disney ban was a stunt?

[genius]

Poll question: Who was gullible enough to believe the Disney ban was a stunt?

Who cares if Moore knew Disney had objections? Miramax was the company with which Moore was doing business and Miramax had convinced him not to worry about Disney. Moore's problem was that he underestimated the relationship between Disney and Jeb Bush.

Regardless of their objections, it was pure censorship and worse for Disney to order Miramax not to distribute "Fahrenheit 911."

[kiahzero]

1. Um, factually wrong

Disney prohibited Miramax from distributing Dogma.

[vi5]

2. I believe there were two previous instances of disney refusing..

..to distribute a Miramax film. The one I know definitely was Dogma, the Kevin Smith movie. That had to be sold to Lion's Gate so it could be distributed because Disney refused to distribute it.

I'm almost positive there has been one other one since Disney bought Miramax, but the movie eludes me.

[mike_c]

3. not voting, but just a comment for the sake of accuracy...

...Disney has at least twice declined to allow Miramax to distribute films-- sorry, I don't recall the names but I read recently that Lions Gate distributed one of the two (the other was distributed by someone else). Look for Lions Gate to pick up distribution of F-911, IMO. As outrageous as Disney's action might be, I seriously doubt that Moore will have difficulty finding a distributor unless Miramax both refuses to distribute the film and refuses to sell the rights. THAT would amount to obvious censorship, but I just don't see that as very likely. This is ultimately little more than a blip in the road for Moore and F-911.

on edit: as kiahzero noted, Dogma was the film distributed by Lions Gate, IIRC.

[robbedvoter]

5. I hope you are right - but it has nothing to do with the "stunt" accusatio

in the article. Moore stated nothing but facts and Disney confirmed it.

[robbedvoter]

4. Posted it on the long LBN thread

Don't expect anyone to admit to being fooled.

[hang a left]

11. I'll admit it. It was the first thought that popped into my head.

After buying in to that Fox suit on the Al Franken Liars book. I don't believe anything I read in the press anymore. I always question what is being hidden or spun.

[TrogL]

6. Loaded question

I wouldn't answer a poll this biased.

[karabekian]

7. what about his own words?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3565069&thesection=news&thesubsection=world
">Michael Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt

Strait from the liars mouth:
"Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

Sounds like a stunt to me

[genius]

9. He does not want Disney to distribute it. He wants Miramax,

an independent subsidiary, to distribute it. The head of Miramax (a Democrat) was convinced he could do this and convinced Moore.

[Sterling]

14. link is invalid.

I think that "quote" was brought up yesterday and turned out not to be a quote.

[TexasMexican]

8. Its not a stunt?

:shrug:

[Cocoa]

10. I think it's a stunt

or something like a stunt.

But if you're talking about the headline that said Moore admitted this, I'd agree that that headline was wrong, he never even came close to admitting it was a stunt, all he said was that he'd known all along that Disney said they wouldn't release it.

[hughee99]

12. so...

If he knew Disney wouldn't release it more than a year ago, would Moore expressing his outrage now be considered a stunt? If the article was accurate, then none of this would have been a suprise to him. He would have known for many months that he would have to seek an outside distribution deal. As to "censorship", he's free to complain that Disney is censoring him, but didn't they at least fund his movie via Miramax? If they were truly interested in censoring him, wouldn't they have not even funded his project? It sounds like Disney was looking to get $ for his movie without the hassle that may come with distributing it, as he will now have to split the profits between the producer (Miramax) and the distributor (probably Lion's Gate).

[Sterling]

15. Sometimes companies buy products to shelve them.

It happens in the record industry a lot. It is easy to see how that kinda thing would happen when a political film is in question and the corporate interests are as close to the politicians involved as in this case.

[quinnox]

13. raises hand (sheepishly)

lol

[karabekian]

16. come on

this is a stunt designed to get publicity for his movie. It worked beautifully too. Nothing wrong with that now is there.