Disney Blocks Michael Moore's Film

[Son of the Morning]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/yahoo/orl-asecmdisney06050604may06,0,5725897.story

Just reading the article has given me a different perspective.

"I think it's a totally appropriate film, and I can think of about 11 people who would love to have it," he said.

I still would have loved to see Miramax handle this, though.

[rnrlesnar]

Gee 2099net, you sure did waste your time. On the other hand, I won't waste my time reading that trash.

Anyway, I read the article about Disney's stance on not distributing the film and their position seems to be very reasonable. Despite what Moore says, this was just a ploy on his part to stir some controvesy. Not a whole lot of people will care to see the movie, just like Bowling for Columbine. If the average ticket price is $7 (i'm just guessing), only 3 million people saw it at the theaters and maybe that many more saw it on video.

[rnrlesnar]

I'm not saying what the soldiers did was right, but compared to what other POWS have dealt with, it's nothing. Would you rather be on a death march to build a bridge, or be stripped naked and have women's underwear put on your head? The outcry over this is 100x louder than protests against what Saddam did to prisoners.
How can you say what the soldiers are doing is slightly worse than what Saddam did?

My my, have we lowered our standards over the course of the past year. We're not as bad as Saddam Hussein when it comes to our treatment of prisoners. Score one for liberty, and gawd blezz 'merica.

The condition that the country WAS in, is frankly, irrelevant, if our usurpation of that will lead to greater instability in the long run, and greater violence both in the nation and against America as a result of the increase in anti-Americanism that has come as a result.

You're bitching at me for not reading material? How about you read what I say before making up accusations about me lowering standards. What was done in the prisons is wrong, no exuse for it. However, the world sure is blasting us for it while remained silent over what was done by Saddam. Now you have a poor American civilain having his head sawed off with a knife, and STILL there is no where near the criticism against the terrorist as there is against our 7-12 soldiers. Realize who the real enemy in this world is, and let me tell you that it is not the United States.

[karlsen]

I guess we realy should stop disgussing the war and Americas part in it. It will only lead to anger and idiotic posts because all of us have so strong belives that we never will change it.

For someone it has to do with pride, and if they see that others are critisising what they are proud of then we only will get anger.

[Son of the Morning]

Not a whole lot of people will care to see the movie, just like Bowling for Columbine. If the average ticket price is $7 (i'm just guessing), only 3 million people saw it at the theaters and maybe that many more saw it on video.

Yes, but you're well aware that it is, I believe, the highest grossing documentary of all time?

[Son of the Morning]

What was done in the prisons is wrong, no exuse for it. However, the world sure is blasting us for it while remained silent over what was done by Saddam. Now you have a poor American civilain having his head sawed off with a knife, and STILL there is no where near the criticism against the terrorist as there is against our 7-12 soldiers. Realize who the real enemy in this world is, and let me tell you that it is not the United States.

The world has every right and obligation to "blast us." There were not frequent condemnations of Saddam because not only was it redundant and futile, but frankly, he was a dictator. Does the UN lambast every instance of a ruling government committing atrocities? The difference here is that the US came in, against the collective will of the world, with an exceptionally heavy hand. We in the states saw very little of what was referred to widely as a "massacre" in Fallujah which brought about the deaths of hundreds, maybe thousands of civilian casualties.

But still, we want to claim that we've gone in as a "liberator," and we're trying to bring peace and democracy to the region. We were regarded with great suspicion from the start, and now, any shred of credibility we've had has been cast into doubt.

Terrorists are terrorists and dictators are dictators, and the world has already made up its mind about how obviously murderous they can be, but widespread abuse from the United States after INVADING A NATION is atypical and inexcuseable.

[Rebel]

Bob and Harvey Weinstein have now announced plans to buy back Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11" and distribute it themselves.

The only thing that surprises me is that they made the announcement so soon. I expected them to wait another week or two. Since Moore had no comment to make, I am guessing he was probably opposed to making the distribution announcement at this time. With the various negative issues surrounding Disney's upcoming quarterly report, I am sure that they were really putting the pressure on Miramax to clear this issue.

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20040512/D82HAP100.html?PG=home&SEC=news

[2099net]

With the various negative issues surrounding Disney's upcoming quarterly report, I am sure that they were really putting the pressure on Miramax to clear this issue.

Hi Rebel, your post above confuses me, I didn't know there were any negative issues - based on headlines like

Disney Rolls Past Targets
The beleaguered media giant, seeking to shake off a raft of controversies besetting it this spring, shot past Wall Street's second-quarter earnings estimates Wednesday and raised its 2004 guidance. Disney shares rose 2% in early action Thursday.
http://www.thestreet.com/_tsclsii/tech/ ... 59910.html

Disney beats the Street as earnings jump 71%
Strong sales of DVDs like 'Finding Nemo' and a rebound in theme park visits helped propel Walt Disney earnings 71% higher from a year ago to $537m.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2004/0513/disney.html

Disney's 71% profit rise buoys Eisner
LOS ANGELES Walt Disney has surprised investors with a better-than-expected second-quarter profit, giving welcome news to Michael Eisner, the chief executive, who has been under pressure to improve performance or risk losing his job.
http://www.iht.com/articles/519763.html

Nobody Beats Disney

Analyst upgrade trigger Disney share rise

etc

[AwallaceUNC]

But then there are headlines like:

Where's Disney's Magic?

Despite an improving economy, it will take lots of pixie dust to make the Mouse look attractive. Paul R. La Monica, CNN/Money.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/11/technol ... /lamonica/

Disney Faces Dizzying Array of Issues

But don't expect any clear answers when the company releases quarterly financial numbers after the market's close Wednesday. George Mannes, TheStreet.com.

http://www.thestreet.com/tech/georgeman ... 59552.html

Eisner Counts on Cable Networks, Parks to Boost Profit

Walt Disney Co., the second-largest U.S. media company, will probably report later today that fiscal second-quarter profit surged 87 percent, bolstered by higher advertising rates at its ESPN cable-television sports network.

Roy Disney, and Stanley Gold, have said rising profit at Disney is simply a rebound from low levels. ...They plan to nominate their own slate of directors for next year's shareholder vote unless Eisner resigns. Bloomberg.com.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pi ... 0&refer=us

Miramax Pulling a Pixar?

Miramax power duo Bob and Harvey Weinstein's fractious negotiations to renew their contracts at Disney beyond 2005 have hit a Pixar-like impasse. Variety.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&c ... &printer=1

Granted, these were all posted on SaveDisney.com, but they're out there, nonetheless. I think Rebel might've been referring to some of these.

-Aaron

[2099net]

Interesting. I just did a search for Disney on Google News and scanned the first two or three pages. Granted there were reports on the Miramax situation in there plus the odd one of two of minor relevence, but the rest of the items seems to be overwhelmingly positive, so the general opinion still seems to be positive. But as I always say, don't believe everything you see in the media, research it for yourself (which I obviously wasn't through enough this time)

[karlsen]

I am not supriced that this first quarters whent so good because it is comparing to the worst part of last year.

And then Eisner has had all of the great revenue from great movies, but what is coming in the feauture?

I can't see what he is going to make money of in the next months based on movies like Hidalgo and The Alamo

Then they have the future. They have already lost Pixar, and now maybee Miramax is going as well. They have closed down a large animation department, and therefore will have real problems if they don't make a movie that stats to sell.

You must not judge Eisner after only a few months, he could easily move income so it shows up earlyer instead of later. That way he will be a big hero this month, but next year he will loose if he does not find anything else to make money from.

[2099net]

I am not supriced that this first quarters whent so good because it is comparing to the worst part of last year.

No, they're comparing them to this quarter's last year. Like-for-like. Last year's biggest failure, like the 2002's was that advertising revenue was down.

And then Eisner has had all of the great revenue from great movies, but what is coming in the feauture?

I can't see what he is going to make money of in the next months based on movies like Hidalgo and The Alamo

Then they have the future. They have already lost Pixar, and now maybee Miramax is going as well. They have closed down a large animation department, and therefore will have real problems if they don't make a movie that stats to sell.

I think loosing Pixar was given, Eisner or no Eisner. They're looking to double their money for the same amount of work. While ties to Disney are undoubtably important, it remains to be seen how much percentage profit Pixar would be willing to give up to retain those ties. As for the oft-quoted Jobs quote, he actually said he would consider going back to Disney if Eisner left and terms were more agreeable [to Pixar]

As for closing down the animation department. Well, they already were making movies that weren't selling (for whatever reason or spin you want to put on it).

Miramax is an odd bird. Miramax itself is nothing more than an art-film studio, although recently it's started to branch out a bit. There's nothing wrong with being an art-film studio - we all need more films with an independent feel, and when successful it can be very successful (mainly because a lot of Miramax films are reasonably low budget). But the Miramax off-shoot, Dimension actually make far more money than Miramax itself does, because it targets the 14-35 male demographic which is so important. I think Scream made the same profit that all of the Miramax release for that year and the year before did, for example. Loosing Miramax (and Dimension) would be more of an intellectual failure, more than a financial failure (not that I'm supporting a Miramax divorce).

You must not judge Eisner after only a few months, he could easily move income so it shows up earlyer instead of later. That way he will be a big hero this month, but next year he will loose if he does not find anything else to make money from.

In theory, Disney still has a lot of content to make money from. They're upping their animated classic releases on DVD. They have, thanks to Disney and ABC literally decades of television content that can be released. They had a television station and radio stations. They still have another two Pixar films before Pixar leaves. And most importantly, advertising worldwide is up. Almost everything Disney does depends on advertising revenue to some extent. Even with the underperformance of films in 2004, they should still be able to ride the current wave that they find themselves in.

[FilmMkr]

What you don't seem to understand about the PIXAR situation is that by leaving Disney, they will be getting double the money for the same amount of work. Pixar is doing the lion's share, while Disney is getting too much of their profits. By using the double their money statement out of context you are implying that Pixar is lazy or greedy, and that they expect to just be given double their money for the same amount of work they are currently doing.

The REALITY of the situation is that they will not be forced to give away most of their profits to another company, therefore they will recieve double their current earnings for the same amount of work. The greedy party is Disney, not Pixar.

[AwallaceUNC]

When Disney is footing the bill for half the production and marketing costs (maybe all the marketing costs, I'm not sure), and distributing it (as well as lending their company name to the product), then they DESERVE the money. It's not a case of greed on Disney's part, it's a case of justified entitlement. If Pixar expects Disney to do it for free, then they are the greedy ones. Again, one of those rare items that I agree with Eisner on.

-Aaron

[2099net]

I agree FlmMkr. I actually support Pixar leaving Disney. In the long run it will be better for both parties. Pixar get the rewards they deserve and Disney should (note SHOULD) take the opportunity to boost their own animation and films.

Somehow, I think Pixar will do better out of the split, but the split was inevitable. Pixar got to big. That was Eisner's mistake - basically Disney ended up funding their biggest competitor. It's not Eisner's mistake Pixar split.

[Rebel]

With the various negative issues surrounding Disney's upcoming quarterly report, I am sure that they were really putting the pressure on Miramax to clear this issue.

Hi Rebel, your post above confuses me, I didn't know there were any negative issues - based on headlines like

Disney Rolls Past Targets
The beleaguered media giant, seeking to shake off a raft of controversies besetting it this spring, shot past Wall Street's second-quarter earnings estimates Wednesday and raised its 2004 guidance. Disney shares rose 2% in early action Thursday.
http://www.thestreet.com/_tsclsii/tech/ ... 59910.html

Look at the text that you quoted : "seeking to shake off a raft of controversies besetting it this spring"

Seems to say pretty much the same thing as I did about there being a lot of negative issues around Disney lately.

[AwallaceUNC]

Somehow, I think Pixar will do better out of the split, but the split was inevitable. Pixar got to big. That was Eisner's mistake - basically Disney ended up funding their biggest competitor. It's not Eisner's mistake Pixar split.

That's very true. I don't want to be misunderstood, I think it made sense for Pixar to leave Disney as well. Obviously, they were too big, that's just a fact (though, until they distribute their own films, they are going to have to realize that they are going to have to make some concessions). I just don't think Disney can be blamed over it because of what they asked for. They can only be blamed for it because of what you said, Netty, they allowed Pixar to get that big to begin with.

Sidenote: Exactly how many simultaneous discussions are going on in this thread right now? Anyone care to count? Might take a while.

-Aaron

[2099net]

At the risk of bringing this topic back onto thread (ish) and risking more controversy

More "Moore" Trouble
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 804427.stm

[TheZue]

Okay...I'm going to start this by saying I generally like Michael Moore although everything he does requires a really big grain of salt. He's been bugging me with how he's been getting publicity out for this movie though.

If seeing actual dead bodies on film wouldn't get an R rating what the heck would??? I know I wouldn't want my kid wandering in to that without me there!

Moore said: "It is sadly very possible that many 15- and 16-year-olds will be asked and recruited to serve in Iraq in the next couple of years.

"If they are old enough to be recruited and capable of being in combat and risking their lives, they certainly deserve the right to see what is going on in Iraq."

They can't recruit until they are 17 in the states right? Then when they are actually of age they can go see this movie if they want to before they join. I swear he just likes to portray himself as the victim to get more money.

[2099net]

Moore said: "It is sadly very possible that many 15- and 16-year-olds will be asked and recruited to serve in Iraq in the next couple of years.

Well, he does say in a "couple of years" (ie they will be 17+ by then), but it's an ambiguous sentence, and I'm sure ambiguous on purpose. It's can be taken as "They will be recruited in a couple of years" or "They will be recruited now and have a couple of years duty in Iraq".

If anything, just see M Moore as a politician. They all thrive on double-speak and carefully worded speeches and soundbites. He's making political statements in all of his films and tv shows, so it shouldn't be that hard to do.