Question about "Farenheit 911"

[Bluzmann57]

Assuming that all the talk is true about the owners of Miramax finding a distributor for the film, what makes people think that any of the major theater chains will pick it up? "Bowling for Columbine" had a long run here, but it was at the "Brew and View", which is nowhere as big and powerful as the major chains. I think it would be better for this film to be seen by as many people as possible, and people tend to go to larger/more high tech theaters for entertainment. Are the major chains in bushco's pocket as well? They may be. National Amusements, General Cinemas, etc. are huge corporations, and I'm to the point where I absolutely do not trust those type of businesses. Hopefully I'm wrong, but not too sure. Do I need to be fitted for a tin foil hat?

[Az]

1. There are small outlets willing to run this

Particularly if the major chains are not willing. The word of mouth will create a massive demand and the small owners will reap the benefits if the major outlets opt out.

[supernova]

5. Yes. Repeated viewings

in small theatres for months is just as good a revenue stream as a handful of blockbuster weekends at, say, Carmike theatres.

[bryant69]

2. It's a Documentary

The controversy might get it in some big theaters, but for the most part it will be an arthouse film. Still, word of mouth might get more people looking to see it, even if they have to go to a different theater than normal.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[cheezus]

3. They care more about $$$ then their agenda

F911 looks like it's going to make a boatload of money. I could see theaters not showing movies based on their political content if they were going to be box office losers. However, this is America- bottom line above all!

[Tina H]

4. I don't know . . .

if Moore's movie cause people to see what tight corporate control of movie theatres has done to the art of cinema, then there may be a silver lining here.

If the movie runs from July 4 to November 1, then there will be a lot of time to run in both the independent theatre (initially) and the big threatre chains (later, when the greed of the big theatre chain executives gets the better of them).

[AP]

6. If it doesn't show in the chains, the independents will pick it up and

make a TON of money.

Also, in terms of being afraid of retribution, the theater chains don't really have TMs they need to protect from scandal. Disney is a target, because it's Disney. Do you think an orgnaized protest of "Regal" or "Landmark" or "AMC" is really going to get off the ground. I bet 90% of Americans have no idea who owns the theater they go to.

Anyway, I think Bowling for Columbine was able to make record profits for doc (ie, tons of people saw it) without it having to survive in the chains. It was relegated largely to the independents, and still did great. So it won't matter if the chains don't pick it up (and they usually don't care that much about docs).

[Ricdude]

7. The Blair Witch Project didn't run in the mega theatres initially.

Imagine if Fahrenheit 9/11 creates *such* a buzz, even at the second-run/cinema grill/brew and view level, that major megaplex chains decide to cash in on the fun. It's happened before, to a film that cost, what, $40,000 to make (Blair Witch, most of which was for a Gilligan's Island reference, IIRC). Granted they spent a few million to promote it, but it made *gobs* more than its inital investments back.

Good Luck, Mike.

[Bluzmann57]

8. True about that film

but "The Blair Witch Project" SUCKED!!!!!!!!!!! Moore's film may actually open some eyes. As I said, "Bowling for Columbine" had a run of about three months at the local Brew and View, but never heard about it in any big theaters. Not here anyway.

[Az]

9. Disney tried to bury academy award winner Spirited Away

Spirited Away was a Japanese Anime masterwork brought over by Disney due to contractual obligation. But due to their inability to figure out how to market Anime and other issues they tried to bury it. No advertisement, limited release schedule and other nonsense plagued this movie. But after it got an Academy award nomination Disney spun it back into play, rereleased it to 800 theaters instead of the original 100 and then tried to act proud when it won the Oscar.

[bryant69]

14. Yeah they were messed up on that one

I gather the head of Pixar was teh one who was most enthusiastic about it. I also think that they are shortly to leave the Disney Fold.

[On the Road]

16. I Hate Disney for That

esepcially since "Spirited Away" is one of my all-time favorite movies. Disgraceful.

[SoulDiva]

10. Protests??

I wouldn't be surprised that even if a small distribution company picks it up and it gets to theaters that ever conservative/ church group in the bible belt/ Conservative/ bush fanatic region sets up protests and picket lines until the theater pulls it off the screen. Lets just hope it makes it to video before election time.

[Bridget Burke]

11. How often have protests actually stopped screenings?

It's been my impression that all the protestors do is drum up business.

[yellowcanine]

13. They will stop screenings with threats of violence and actual violence.

To the RW, this is war. Remember the Miami Thugathon during the 2000 Florida Recount.

[SoulDiva]

15. Question..

Has their ever been an anti-presidential / government film put out in times of war/conflict?? Or anything that somewhat relates to that in theory?? Is this a first?

I'm kinda young and the only other war I can remember was the Gulf war, and even then i was too young to vote.

[Bluzmann57]

17. If I recall correctly

a big if btw, M*A*S*H was supossed to be about Vietnam, but Altman was told if he even touched it, the film would never get distributed. It was made in 1971, I believe. The book was Korea, that I'm sure of.

[yellowcanine]

12. Bootleg DVD copies are the answer

Anti Bush "meet-ups" all over the U.S. all summer long to view the movie and by September the * approval ratings will be below 39%.