Howard Stern

[ggw]

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
  well, why give him money if you aren't going to distribute it?

$$$$$$
 
 The Weinsteins fund plenty of films that aren't distributed through Miramax.
 
 

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
 mirmax apparently told him everything was ok all along.

Moore signed a contract that didn't include distribution.  He also acknowledges that he knew, a year ago, that they wouldn't distribute it.  Do you believe that Moore is an idiot?  That's what he wants you to believe.
 
 

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
 it sounds like eisner told his agent that disney wasn't going to distribute it,?

Do you honestly believe that Eisner would tell Moore's agent that he wouldn't distribute the film because of Jeb Bush?
 
 Did you know that the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?
 
   

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
 then never told anyone to impliment the plan, leaving moore still thinking that everything was ok, which is what mirmax was telling him. sounds like mirmax thought they could change disney's mind, too

Sure, Miramax would love to distribute the film.  But Moore would like everyone to believe that this was a last minute decision by Disney.  That's simply not true.  Moore has known for a long time that distribution wasn't part of the deal and that Disney wouldn't allow it.

[godsshoeshine]

did i say anything about jeb bush? no.
 
 disney gave him $6 million, not the weinsteins
 
 and his contract with mirmax included distribution. disney has the right to pull the plug, though
 
 you have to admit that the whole idea of a company that distributes hannity's radio show and even distributed the big one wanting to stay above the political fray is pretty fishy.
 
 so, moore and the new york times are now lying about the film being discussed at a disney board meeting a few weeks ago? why discuss it if the decision had already been made?

[ggw]

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
  did i say anything about jeb bush? no.

No, but that is the line that Moore is using.
 
 

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
 disney gave him $6 million, not the weinsteins.

Miramax financed it, not Disney.
 
 

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
 and his contract with mirmax included distribution. disney has the right to pull the plug, though

A plug they pulled a year ago when Miramax agreed to finance the film.  So, from the inception, Moore has known that distribution wasn't going through Disney.
 
 

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
 you have to admit that the whole idea of a company that distributes hannity's radio show and even distributed the big one wanting to stay above the political fray is pretty fishy.

Sure.  But my point is that Moore is less interested in distributing his film than he is in creating a controversy.
 
 

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
 so, moore and the new york times are now lying about the film being discussed at a disney board meeting a few weeks ago? why discuss it if the decision had already been made?

Probably because they knew Moore was preparing to make this an issue.  Furthermore, they knew Miramax would make an issue as well.  The Weinsteins have been trying to buy back Miramax from Disney for nearly two years.  This is a perfect way to cause trouble for Eisner and pressure him to sell Miramax.
 
 The Miramax-Disney soap opera is secondary to the fact that Moore knew last May that Miramx wouldn't be distributing the film -- only financing it -- and that he opted to create an issue to raise the visibility of the film rather than to find any number of outlets who would love to distribute the film of the guy who won an Academy Award for his last one.

[Celeste]

Why the hell was he dealing with Disney to begin with? I'm so over Michael Moore...he's the biggest limousine liberal there is...I mean, the man lives in Manhattan for god's sake...

[Bags]

Yeah, true liberals can't live in Manhattan -- not sure where they are supposed to go, but certainly not Manhattan.  And once you have over $50K in the bank, you're out.  No more liberal cred for you, you can't sympathize with the working man, you're now The Man....

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

The only real difference between a liberal and a conservative is that the liberal feels guilt about having money, and the conservative doesn't.

[mankie]

They'd better not pull the plug on Shrek II or I will drive down to Orlando and torch the fucking place, so help me God!!!  

Why is the cuddly-close relationship between George W Bush, the Saudi royal family & the Bill Laden family(which is the apparent subject matter of Moore's film) such a bugaboo for ggw?  
 
 Go ahead ggw, snuggle a Saudi royal.  You know you want to and it'll make you feel much better.

[ggw]

It's really GG bin-W.
 
 I just find Michael Moore annoying, just like Savage or Limbaugh but of a different stripe.  Moore routinely invents "facts" for dramatic purposes.  A claim which he has never disputed.
 
 Plus, a family member has been with Miramax for fifteen years and we were talking about this a few weeks ago.

[godsshoeshine]

so michael moore and mirmax conspired to make a film they never intended to release, just to get the publicity. wow. mike must be one fat genius. personally it makes sense that disney chose not to deal with it until now, but conspiracy theories are much hotter.

[ggw]

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
  so michael moore and mirmax conspired to make a film they never intended to release, just to get the publicity. wow. mike must be one fat genius. personally it makes sense that disney chose not to deal with it until now, but conspiracy theories are much hotter.

I don't know about genius, but definitely fat.  
 
 He did the same thing with Stupid White Men -- taking it to the evil Rupert Murdoch to be published.  Rupert published it and laughed all the way to the bank.
 
 Disney dealt with the issue a year ago when they told Moore they weren't distributing the film.  It makes sense that Moore didn't deal with it until the week before the film premiers at Cannes. It's a savvy move on his part.  But his faux-naivete is pitiful and it's sad that people buy into it.

[godsshoeshine]

...and also doesn't change the fact that disney likes to pick and choose what kind of political discourse they choose to distribute. its sad that people take their dislike for one man and pass this off as ok.

[ggw]

And yes, it's also a savvy move on Miramax's part.  They did the same thing with Dogma.  Miramax financed it, but Disney wouldn't distribute it, and this blew up into a big "controversy" right before the film's premier at Cannes.  Harvey then sold the film to Lion's Gate for a very nice premium.

[ggw]

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
  ...and also doesn't change the fact that disney likes to pick and choose what kind of political discourse they choose to distribute. its sad that people take their dislike for one man and pass this off as ok.

Why shouldn't Disney decide what kind of political discourse they choose to distribute?
 
 What about Air America or Al Gore's new cable network?  Is it unfair that they pick and choose what kind of political discourse they distribute?

[godsshoeshine]

they are up front about it
 they don't run a news division that is supposed to be impartial
 besides, they claim to want to stay above the fray, when this just gets them farther into it.