Michael Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt

The New Zealand Herald ^ | May 7, 2004 | ANDREW GUMBEL

[ride the whirlwind]

Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.

Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001.

In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.

But in the CNN interview he said: "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."

Nobody in Hollywood doubts Fahrenheit 911 will find a US distributor. His last documentary, Bowling for Columbine, made for US$3m pulled in US$22m at the US box office.

But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working.

A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free expression.

Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]" but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract. And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for financing, not for distribution.

[PermaRag]

Don't be too surprised when we find out that Disney is in on the little stunt themselves:

Pretend to pull the plug, knowing that doing so will generate bigtime publicity. Then Disney chairman Michael Oyyysnaaaa will relent in the interest of first amendment rights ("we may not agree with the content, but we believe he has a right to have this important film be seen - as close to election time as possible"), or they already know full well that some other company will come to the rescue and distribute the film, of which Disney probably still gets a cut.

After all, the loony left looks out for their own. Nobody can seriously believe that Oyyysnaaaa objects to a Bush Bash-A-Thon, can they?

[sarasmom]

Any bets that KKKKatie will mention this factoid in the morning edition of "I hate the USA"?
ROTFLMAO!
I am thinking of filing a class action suit to force the media to label their products correctly.
News or entertainment.
Cant be both.
Truth in labeling?

[Libertina]

Does NO ONE at the NYT bother to interview the other side or check facts???

[CFC__VRWC]

Disney should take that mo/fo to court for pulling this stunt. I'm not a big fan of Disney, but Moore is a bottom feeding skank. Disney should own every dime of this movies profit before this is done.

Nice thought, but only a pipe dream. Disney's as much involved in this scam as fat boy is. I'm sure they've already got some "independent" distributor already lined up, and they doubtless have already written themselves a nice little cut of the box office into the agreement, to be quietly paid under the table, of course.

Privately, Michael Eisner's rubbing his hands with glee. He gets to make a big phony stand about how he's so fair and impartial and above politics, and he has all but guaranteed a substantially increased box office for Moore's vile dreck with all the free publicity and leftist street cred he's given it with this little stunt.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Moore is a pig. Let's move on.

[mad_as_he$$]

What an A$hole. Just goes to show u where his wallet oops I mean heart is.

[Ukiapah Heep]

What a surprise. If the government refused to show the film or tried to prevent it's distribution it would be censorship. Disney is a private company, and it's decision not to distribute it is a business decision, not censorship.

[kennedy]

Michael Moore lied? GASP! Tell me it isn't so!

[hellinahandcart]

I believe I called this one first yesterday.

[hellinahandcart]

Yep, I think I called it first...

[THX 1138]

"Lying Liar and the Lies He Tells"

[JamesA]

He looks and acts like my X brother in law in Westbanch,Mi. what a schumk.

[McGavin999]

A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free expression.

LOL, the Times just got made a fool of AGAIN!!!! When are these people going to get tired of the entire world laughing at them?

[bigghurtt]

Moore said he had learnt only on Monday

so that's when he learnt it huh?

[ride the whirlwind]

"Learnt" is a British word so I suppose it fits since he has so many Anti-American fans across the pond.

[Liz]

"Michael Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt."

Looks like Moore had to 'fess up after FR outed his depraved scheme. Moore and Eisner are despicable---they intend to manipulate public opinion in order to profit on lies and deceit, slander and innuendo.

5/5 REPOST: Hollyweirdos are cunning at creating buzz. Moore was disgusting on ABC-News 5/4.....a quivering mass of "victimization," the classic liberal pose. He was practically in tears (gag). This deal is so transparently bogus. Disney's contract with Moore gives them the right to distribute with conditions. Moore and Eisner conspired to use the escape clause to allow Moore to go elsewhere. The Disney-Moore fallout has several objectives:

(1) PR manipulation to hype the film

(2) gets Moore a better deal with another distributor

(3) gives Eisner (who is in deep doo-doo) cover to possibly save his job by making the lefty-liberal look like a political "moderate"

(4) gives Eisner victimization and allows him pot shots at bad ol' Jeb by claiming Bush might raise Fla Disney's taxes

(5) Eisner-Disney will get a cut of Moore's deal for its assistance in the hype scheme.

[CyberAnt]

Just remember, GOD was not joking when HE said, "touch not GOD's anointed". People proceed at their own peril.

[ride the whirlwind]

I agree.

[Southack]

The NY Times didn't waste a single day shilling for Moore.

[DoughtyOne]

I realize that's a distinct possibility, but Disney's public image takes a real shot when someone says they are stifeling free speach. Perhaps Eisner doesn't give a damn. That's a possibility.