http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/05/news...oore/index.htm
:rolleyes2
Printable View
good i couldn't stand another poor analysis of a situation by moore the guy is arrogant and idiotic.
No, he just puts in doubt all the trout they feed us, it's called criticism. I like him, he's ironic too, and that helps for catching attention. Then again, he's also offensive to the "good people"...that makes him better ^^Quote:
Originally Posted by gokufusionss1
Then again, the good people seem to like his film not being released. It reminds me to the fascist constitution we used to have before 1978 in my country: "The Spanish citizen has the right to free expression as long as it does not act against the goverment".
Blocking movies from being produced because they're critical of the political party in power... What's next, book burners?
Realistically, I can't -really- blame Disney, if people get pissed off it could affect ratings. But it still sucks.
Ironically, the movie is called Fahrenheit 9/11 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris
Well, in a way you are right, I do understand that from the strictically pragmatic capitalistic point of view. But I can still blame them politically.Quote:
Realistically, I can't -really- blame Disney, if people get pissed off it could affect ratings. But it still sucks.
Capitalism is nice. You are now free not to buy any Disney movies, if you so choose.
From what I read, Disney says they told Moore a whole year ago that they weren't touching his film, and Moore is making a big deal out of it as a publicity stunt. Wouldn't surprise me. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
I don't think this should matter very much. Disney is making a business move. They don't want to be associated with Moore. That's okay. That's their choice. Like the article constantly mentions, Moore can find another company instead of Miramax.
I think this "politcal censoring" mentioned is absolutely horrid. It's not hurting anyone, and that man, whether people agree with him or not, is allowed to have his own opinions and voice them. If he gets censored, it would clearly be a violation of his rights under the first ammendment. He's not affecting anyone else's lives. If people don't agree with what he has to say, they don't have to watch the film.
They're making a big deal out of nothing.
Agreed Unne. I have a feeling a rival company of Disney's will pick the film up, because now they'll figure it'll draw a lot of attention.
Take care all.
Woah, I feel alive again :DQuote:
Capitalism is nice. You are now free not to buy any Disney movies, if you so choose.
Yes, but I find it sad such things occur. Obviously, the film will get released, even if Michael Moore has to release it himself.Quote:
Agreed Unne. I have a feeling a rival company of Disney's will pick the film up, because now they'll figure it'll draw a lot of attention.
Disney is a private corporation, and they have every right in the world to not produce Moore's movie. I don't see what all the fuss is about.
And censorship is only a problem if it's the government that does the censoring.
Indeed, DocFrance. Who cares if Disney doesn't want their corporation to release something? It's hardly political censoring. C'mon, people. You can't cry censorship, or most anything else, every time conservatives do something to help their party, unless it involves the law.
Now, what the city of Brunswick is doin' in Georgia is tantamount to censorship. They've passed laws that forbid posterboards over 2 feet by 3 feet, protestors have to hire their own police, they have to pay to clean up the streets, and they can't even use sticks to hold up their signs. Of course, it's goin' to be ruled unconstitutional eventually, but it's still sad.
The problem is the political pressure Disney may fear. After all, as a capitalistic company, they do what gives benefit, and this movie is bound to bring benefit. Then of course, they may have actually decided not to release it for their own ideological reasons, in thtat case I guess it's fine. However, given the classical "maximize benefit, reduce costs" that serves as dogma for this companies, I am more inclined to believe the idea of external preassure.
Then again, I'll probably never will know.
I haven't for a good long time. However, it's really, REALLY hard not to buy SOMEthing Disney (they own ABC, ESPN, Miramax, and I'll bet at least one or two record labels...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
Well, of course. What do you expect him to do, shrink into the void? That's the worst thing that he could do, just as his movie is about to world-premiere...Quote:
From what I read, Disney says they told Moore a whole year ago that they weren't touching his film, and Moore is making a big deal out of it as a publicity stunt. Wouldn't surprise me. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Not true. Some of the most egregious censors are doing it not because of their political position, but because showing it would affect their pocketbooks.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
And, in fact, that will only get worse the more companies care about money. The government feeds on this, and hits a few companies with fines for selling things it doesn't like, and get all the other companies paranoid, and they go way overboard at cutting stuff, out of monetary fears. Thus, the government censors indirectly. We're seeing it happen right now with the FCC and JanetGate...
"No, he just puts in doubt all the trout they feed us, it's called criticism. "
Hahaha... Unfortunately stupid white men can't take it. ;)