Comments on: Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt

Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt

Steve_at_Linnwood — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:07:05 -0800

Michael Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt.
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, Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

"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."

By: weston

weston — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:18:54 -0800

a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy Wait a minute. ____________ lied to us?

By: damehex

damehex — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:20:34 -0800

I missed where Moore claimed that he'd just found out about Disney's intentions. Did he say that somewhere?

By: transient

transient — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:23:47 -0800

From yesterday's NY Times: "We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands." So... Disney doesn't want to distribute it, then or now. What's new here?

By: cbrody

cbrody — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:25:30 -0800

He says it here.

By: photoslob

photoslob — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:26:15 -0800

Can I just say for the record that I'm one lib that wishes Moore would fuck off. It seems as if he's just as much a liar and cynical SOB as the corporate evil doers he takes shots at.

I used to wonder why the folks I knew in Flint hated his ass so much. I now think I understand why.

By: calwatch

calwatch — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:28:06 -0800

From the AP wire: Moore believes The Walt Disney Co. is worried the documentary would endanger tax breaks the company receives from Florida, where Bush's brother Jeb is governor and where Disney World is located. "What tax break?" Florida Gov. Jeb Bush responded. "We don't give tax breaks, that I'm aware of, to Disney," Bush said. "I appreciate the fact that Disney creates thousands and thousands of jobs in our state." Moore said he officially found out Monday that Miramax would not be allowed to distribute the film, but his agent learned this a year ago.

By: Stuart_R

Stuart_R — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:28:47 -0800

"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." Moore continues: "Miramax said don't worry about that, keep making the film, we'll keep funding it. The Disney money kept flowing to us for the last year. We finished the film last week, and we take it to the Cannes film festival next week. " "On Monday of this week we got final word from Disney that they will not distribute the film. They told my agent they did not want to upset the Bush family, particularly Gov. Bush of Florida because Disney was up for a number of tax incentives, abatements ... whatever. " CNN Article

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:28:52 -0800

Ditto photoslob. With his careless behavior he makes any cause he is associated with look bad. Like Rush Limbaugh.

By: waldo

waldo — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:29:35 -0800

To say that he lied about Disney isn't true. He lied, or so it seems, about when he found out that Disney wouldn't distribute it. The fact remains, as transient pointed out, that Disney will not distribute Fahrenheit 911.

By: cbrody

cbrody — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:29:55 -0800

More specific link here. Yes, he's an unabashed self-promoter but I prefer his politics to Mel's (& Rush's) any day.

By: waxpancake

waxpancake — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:30:26 -0800

In yesterday's entry on his personal website, he definitely makes it sound like he was learning about new information. I personally enjoy his work, but it's much closer to propaganda than documentary film-making. He could tell a much more effective story if he heavily documented and fact-checked his releases... After all, there's no reason for distortions when the truth is so persuasive on its own.

By: rough ashlar

rough ashlar — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:30:53 -0800

So the Micheal Eisner said "(something about pheer'n Jeb and Co wacking Disney theme parks)" was fake, or just not said in the last few days?

By: bob sarabia

bob sarabia — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:32:05 -0800

It seems as if he's just as much a liar and cynical SOB as the corporate evil doers he takes shots at. finally, something we can all agree on.

By: photoslob

photoslob — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:33:15 -0800

I just remembered this little dog and pony show of Moore's from a while back.

What an ass.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:34:12 -0800

To the degree that I ever liked Moore, it's been a guilty pleasure. He's a propogandist. That I agree with most of his positions makes it easy to forgive the fact that he's a propogandist. But I stopped. Years ago, actually.

By: bonaldi

bonaldi — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:34:49 -0800

He was asked in an interview with BBC Newsnight last night if it was all just a publicity stunt and replied that it wasn't, he jsut wanted to get the movie seen. He says that, yes, he's known about it for a long time, but had been working quietly to get it overturned, until somebody leaked it.

By: cbrody

cbrody — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:36:11 -0800

The real action is here guys (& gals). I vote for deletion of this badly worded FPP even if it was first.

By: Stuart_R

Stuart_R — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:36:51 -0800

Michael Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt. Did he actually admit that? It sounds like he admitted to knowing Disney didn't want to distribute the film, but that Miramax told him not to worry about it. He got the official bad news on Monday, with the extra stuff about Jeb Bush, taxes, Disney, blah blah blah. Is he doing his best to promote his film? Yes. Is he trying to stir things up? Yes. Did he "admit Disney 'ban' was a stunt"? Not that I've read so far...

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:37:27 -0800

I just wish that the documentary about the relationship between Bush and the Saudis was being done by someone who actually knew how to make a documentary.

By: nandop

nandop — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:38:34 -0800

The title is incorrect. It wasn't a stunt neither a lie, he just knew that Disney wasn't friendly about his film 365 days ago. So what? Miramax told him to go on, he went on, betting whatever they were betting (Disney would change its mind? Disney would change its chairman?). The film was made, it is ready now, and now is the right time to ask for the distribution. They've asked - althought they already had strong clues about the answer - and Disney, again, but now officially, SAID NO. For what I've read and the links I've followed, these are the facts. The rest is drama.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:38:55 -0800

I just wish that the documentary about the relationship between Bush and the Saudis was being done by someone who actually knew how to make a documentary.

By: uosuaq

uosuaq — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:39:02 -0800

Using Disney's predictable sliminess to promote your film is bad how, exactly?

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:39:40 -0800

I was about to say what Stuart said. Man, I'd hate to think Steve had an agenda with the way he phrased this, i'd be so disallusioned.

By: Zetetics

Zetetics — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:46:17 -0800

Wait, So you're saying that disney *isn't* refusing to distribute his film because of its politics?

By: zekinskia

zekinskia — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:48:49 -0800

Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." Does he say that he was told yesterday for the first time? No. He hasn't lied at all about this. But good try... and thanks for promoting his new film!

By: cbrody

cbrody — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:49:44 -0800

Steve_at may very well have an agenda (cough cough) but he was only quoting the Independent's headline, which however is not supported by the content of the article. In the body, the accusation is qualified: "Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working" (my emphasis).

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:50:07 -0800

I regret, slightly, that I have to say that I'm with Steve@ on this one. Moore very much did give the impression that this was shocking, scandalous, outrageous news to him. He gets the film all made and everything and Disney screws him. It sure sounded that way. Which isn't true. They said, "We won't distribute that film". He made it anyway. The end. Their reasoning for why they won't distribute is, of course, disturbing and worthy of harsh criticism. But, if this had been a year ago, would the reaction have been as intense and pressworthy if Moore had said, "Disney says they won't distribute this film I want to make because they disagree with its politics." I think not.

By: Lord Chancellor

Lord Chancellor — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:54:55 -0800

Wait wait wait. . . why are people defending him? If this anyone else, you'd be at their throats. Here, imagine ______ in there doing something similar to this. I shouldn't think that politics should make that much of a difference, right? Moore is a Falstaff. Sure he's clever and he might be right about some things, but it doesn't mean that because of his intentions are our intentions that he doesn't do some really sorry ploys.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:56:57 -0800

"What tax break?" Florida Gov. Jeb Bush responded. "We don't give tax breaks, that I'm aware of, to Disney," Bush said. "I appreciate the fact that Disney creates thousands and thousands of jobs in our state." Actually Disney does get breaks--In Osceola County, Fla., Walt Disney World receives the farming break on 1,600 acres of pasture, timber and nurseries where it grows plants for its theme parks. The land, worth $194 million, is taxed as if it were worth $12.3 million, according to the county land records office. Disney spokesman Jacquee Polack said the company keeps a buffer of undeveloped land around the park, but she acknowledged some of this property will be developed. It wouldn't be the first time. Much of Celebration, Disney's planned community, is built on land that previously received the agricultural tax break. --that's just one of them.

By: cbrody

cbrody — Thu, 06 May 2004 19:58:16 -0800

Lord Chancellor, it's simple self-promotion. Of course we accept it more readily from those we already agree with, even if we don't wholeheartedly endorse his methods.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Thu, 06 May 2004 20:00:09 -0800

cbrody, the point here is that people opposed to Moore's views are upset about whatever facts come out of his movie, so unable to refute his claims having not seen the film they want the next-best thing: to coat the entire movie with a thin layer of shit before anyone even gets to view it with a clear mind. The "logic" here is kinda notable: declare Moore a liar, associate him with lying, somehow imply that automatically makes his film a lie. Boy, that sure beats watching the thing, doesn't it? Sad, really, but even more sad that it's proven to have worked before. Wait wait wait. . . why are people defending him? Because Steve FPPed a claim that Moore "admitted to pulling a stunt", and we're pointing out that's sorta, well, bullshit. I didn't realize that was confusing.

By: bingo

bingo — Thu, 06 May 2004 20:00:20 -0800

Banish Michael, and banish the whole world.

By: bingo

bingo — Thu, 06 May 2004 20:01:07 -0800

er....that was meant to directly follow the Falstaff comment.

By: Finder

Finder — Thu, 06 May 2004 20:10:25 -0800

...I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided... Where the hell is the lie there? And what "careless behavior"? That he was really, really pissed off about Bush getting us into this fucking war? Guess in retrospect he may have had a point, now didn't he? (I omit the mandatory link pointing at some news report describing how fucked up the situation is over there...)

By: cbrody

cbrody — Thu, 06 May 2004 20:11:44 -0800

I realise that xquzyphyr. The indignant cries of "liar, liar" sound hollow no matter which side they come from. A parallel on the left is the Democrats's insistence that Bush prove that he was a good National Guardsman. Who cares? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual issues at hand, and is simply a diversionary tactic.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Thu, 06 May 2004 20:16:32 -0800

The lie is that he ever had a distribution agreement in the first place. Kinda makes it hard to take a documentary at film value, when you realize how far the guy's willing to go for publicity.

By: cbrody

cbrody — Thu, 06 May 2004 20:18:26 -0800

Don't watch it then.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Thu, 06 May 2004 20:23:25 -0800

Kinda makes it hard to take a documentary at film value, when you realize how far the guy's willing to go for publicity. We have a winner!

By: specialk420

specialk420 — Thu, 06 May 2004 20:31:00 -0800

jeez. almost as bad as lying about weapons of mass destruction, taking a nation to war and in the process killing almost 10000 innocent civilians and hundreds of US soldiers...

By: Stuart_R

Stuart_R — Thu, 06 May 2004 20:43:09 -0800

Just don't lie about whether you throw away your medals or ribbons at a protest...

By: Zetetics

Zetetics — Thu, 06 May 2004 20:43:46 -0800

Did he actually claim that he had a distribution deal? I must have missed that somewhere. In any case, doesn't disney/miramax usually distribute the films that they finance? From what I’ve seen, Michael Moore's films show far more integrity and much more careful research and fact checking that most metafilter posts, or, for that matter, the New York Times. I'd like to see someone admit that this FPP was a stunt.

By: destro

destro — Thu, 06 May 2004 20:48:50 -0800

He hasn't lied about anything. People still fault him from all of the leftover propaganda from the NRA after Bowling for Columbine. All of which has been easily disproven.

By: banished

banished — Thu, 06 May 2004 20:51:53 -0800

Banish Michael, and banish the whole world. Not without talking to me first bub. Ohh, and good for Michael! It looked like an obvious stunt to me, and is an excellent example of how the media gets manipulated. Bush does the same thing on a regular basis and it drives me nuts. Bush will say something, the media makes a big fuss about it, and then the next week its proven false, but no one cares at that point, and all the unsuspecting lazy people that make up most of the U.S. will never know the truth, arguing that Bush said this or that and the media is on their side. No one ever reads the corrections page.

By: spilon

spilon — Thu, 06 May 2004 22:01:09 -0800

Michael Moore drinks Falstaff?

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Thu, 06 May 2004 22:52:08 -0800

jeez. almost as bad as lying about weapons of mass destruction, taking a nation to war and in the process killing almost 10000 innocent civilians and hundreds of US soldiers... Yep.

By: thedailygrowl

thedailygrowl — Thu, 06 May 2004 22:55:18 -0800

Moore's stunt is really a great example of viral marketing by using a manufactured controversy to help publicize his film. Knowledge of this film has propagated through the airwaves and blogwaves over the past few days. And now, with this revelation, iit will certainly continue because all of the conservative writers will have to chime in that Moore is a lying, stinking, blowhard. Moore of course will take some pot shots gladly, and of course he will say he lied about Disney not distributing his film and then he will have the great comeback line of what is more serious Bush lying about WMD to get us into war or me lying about my film. In the end his film will get tons of press, pick up a distributor because its so hot, and Moore will just smile all the way to the bank. Controversy sells tickets, just ask Mel Gibson.

By: islander

islander — Thu, 06 May 2004 23:44:36 -0800

I just wish that the documentary about the relationship between Bush and the Saudis was being done by someone who actually knew how to make a documentary.

By: islander

islander — Fri, 07 May 2004 00:01:58 -0800

By: kenaman

kenaman — Fri, 07 May 2004 00:29:01 -0800

Michael Moore is stopped by the Secret Service outside the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington, D.C. [second pic] Its a still from his film ..... not very secretive. Moore is a big ape!

By: velacroix

velacroix — Fri, 07 May 2004 00:47:25 -0800

Controversy sells tickets, just ask Mel Gibson. I would add, "or Lars Von Trier", but I'm not sure he makes any money. Great controversy though.

By: sic

sic — Fri, 07 May 2004 01:28:17 -0800

As usual, Moore, whatever his faults, totally freaks out the right wingers like Steve@, who are sometimes reasonable, bringing out their most reactionary side. There is no lie here, no admission of a stunt. There is Censorship here and Jeb Bush is involved in that censorship. XQUZYPHYR has already hit the nail on the head, so I'll just say one more thing about it, and it is what I say in every Michael Moore thread: there is no such thing as bad publicity in hollywood. Every crazy freeper-like thread posted here and at the thousands of Moore-hating blogs in the world are just dollar signs to Moore's new movie (can you hear the ca-ching! sound as I type?). I actually paid to see Bowling for Columbine after reading one of Steve@ FPP rants against it (and found that most of what he was claiming was untrue) I figure anything that can get freeper panties in a bunch, can't be all bad...

By: cohappy

cohappy — Fri, 07 May 2004 02:03:46 -0800

cbrody, the point here is that people opposed to Moore's views are upset about whatever facts come out of his movie, so unable to refute his claims having not seen the film they want the next-best thing: to coat the entire movie with a thin layer of shit before anyone even gets to view it with a clear mind. Is the right-wing really so pathetic that they are reduced to ad hominem attacks? Are you seriously affirming that there is no justifiable basis for liberals and conservatives alike to wish for Michael Moore to just shut the hell up? Whether or not Disney isn't distributing his "documentary" I find to be less important that the fact his films do not deserve to be made. And yes, this is coming from a liberal.

By: sebas

sebas — Fri, 07 May 2004 02:56:28 -0800

to coat the entire movie with a thin layer of shit before anyone even gets to view it with a clear mind I am pretty sure this lying by Moore himself takes care of that layer of shit already. Also, he knew a year ago that they were not distributing them and still accepted the investment from them to make this film. An investment they will likely benefit from. So Moore's movie will benefit Disney, who will most likely give this money to Bush and friends. Nice fucking ideals Moore.

By: Lord Chancellor

Lord Chancellor — Fri, 07 May 2004 04:22:20 -0800

Listen, this doesn't destroy his content, or anything. It's just a pretty lousy stunt. And even if he didn't directly contridict himself, he allowed himself to be misunderstood, which pretty much is deceptiontion. I don't take it from Bush when he says something technically true but factually false, and I wouldn't take it here I either. It pissed me off with Passion of Christ and it pisses me off here.

By: Lord Chancellor

Lord Chancellor — Fri, 07 May 2004 04:42:50 -0800

That, of course, should be deception.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Fri, 07 May 2004 04:50:14 -0800

Moore, he's so weasely and mandacious - He could almost be in the White House! He could be the Governer of Florida! And he's a very good propagandist, obviously. Two Metafilter threads worth.

By: Reverend Mykeru

Reverend Mykeru — Fri, 07 May 2004 04:55:18 -0800

"Can I just say for the record that I'm one lib that wishes Moore would fuck off. It seems as if he's just as much a liar and cynical SOB as the corporate evil doers he takes shots at." So, for the record, you are one lib that believes the right wing echo chamber? When ever anyone says something like this without specifics, I wonder if they are discussing a real problem with Moore's rhetoric and facts or are just repeating their residual memory of some made up attack poodle shit, such as the ditto monkey claim that the bank in Bowling for Columbine was staged, which Moore debunked on his own site.

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Fri, 07 May 2004 04:57:42 -0800

The article that was referenced is incredibly flawed, to the point of dishonesty. The writer starts with a premise, and then tries to draw his own conclusions, calling Moore a rabble-rouser in the opening paragraph. His byline "Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt" is a patently false statement, unsupported by a single quote in the article. In that this was published in the British press, Moore has an open-and-shut libel case, should he choose to pursue it. The writer also fails to accurately quote what Moore said on his website, saying that "he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film". That's untrue, as you can verify by visiting Michael Moore's webiste. What Moore said was "Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." Moore's statement on CNN, "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." does not in any way conflict with Moore's statement on his website. In other words, it wasn't obvious self-promotion, but quite likely a game of chicken. Moore thought that Eisner would blink because of the obvious damage that such censorship would do to both Eisner and to Disney. Eisner didn't. Clearly, Eisner is the loser here, as this further undermines his support. He's made some disasterous decisions as Disney's CEO lately, and Disney's stockholders are going to rake him over the coals for it, again. Frankly, this may be the end of Michael Eisner's career. It simply means that he was warned by Disney -- after Miramax had given the go-ahead and started working with him to make the film -- that Eisner was upset and that Disney wouldn't distribute it. Do you think that Moore's documentary is funded entirely by himself and that Miramax hasn't invested a lot of money into Michael Moore's film? Do you think they haven't invested a considerable amount of time and expense into this project, with a reasonable expectation that they would get a return on investment? I assure you they have. Eisner is willing to screw the Weinstein brothers -- the founders of Miramax and leaders in building the independent film industry -- out of millions and out of their hard work and effort. They should be applauded for their bravery in seeing that Moore's film was made in the first place. Yes, Moore can get another distributor, albeit not another one with the clout and skill of Miramax, but it will cost him money in order to do so. So, do I begrudge him some well-meaning publicity over this? Hell no. Even if Michael Moore viewed the potential for conflict with Disney in getting his film funded, made, and released as having some potentially good side effects should Disney refuse to let the Weinstein brothers have the same kind of control over their studios they had in the past (such as when they had when they released "Bob Roberts"), why should I begrudge him well-deserved P.R. for standing up for the right of independent filmmakers to make and widely distribute their films? No matter how you slice it, it's still an issue of whether corporations should play politics with the publication of books or the distribution of films. There's a CNN poll on the issue right now, and 75% of the public are siding with Michael Moore on this issue... that's a helluva lot of conservatives who are willing to step up and say that corporate censorship isn't acceptable and isn't a socially responsible way to run a business.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Fri, 07 May 2004 04:58:03 -0800

It also makes money for the Weinsteins, who own Miramax and donate to the Democratic party. As you would know had you read the links.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Fri, 07 May 2004 05:04:09 -0800

Also, as thedailygrowl observed - this is viral marketing and we are all infected! I wonder if it has occured to anyone on the right that this might be going on : Moore intentionally lies - in relatively small, inconsequential, and annoying ways - in order to get right wingers whipped up into a frenzy because "By god, we got 'em! We proved he's a dirty liar!" - and so they generate a huge buzz about Moore Inc. But - meanwhile - there's enough factual substance in his films that they (at least, anyway) don't collapse under their own weight. No - they chug along, propagandizing millions, and win Hooplywood accolades. Moore's no Errol Morris - granted - and he's a lying blowhard - granted - but he sure did a great job tricking steve_at_linnwood into working the advance publicity beat, no? Moore's a modern day P.T. Barnum.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Fri, 07 May 2004 05:19:31 -0800

Michael Moore admits he invented the internet! DEVELOPING....

By: Blue Stone

Blue Stone — Fri, 07 May 2004 05:25:26 -0800

I read the article. All it contains is the journalist saying that Moore's admission that he knew about Disney's bar "undermined" his claims. Steve_at_Linwood ... people in glass houses, dude.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Fri, 07 May 2004 05:26:54 -0800

Oh - and - I paid to see "Bowling for Columbine", and enjoyed it too. I thought the basic underlying factual point - the fact that the huge difference in gun violence rates between the US and Canada is belied by the fairly similar levels of gun ownership rates in the two countries, or, in other words, it's not the guns, it's the culture [ of violence ], was a very good point. Moore's a P.T. Barnum whose circus menagerie of theatrical tricks and publicity stunts allow him to broadcast some basic factual points to a broad public. So - for this - attack dogs on the right tear viciously at his trousers and the ensuing spectacle serves as wonderful publicity for the larger than life monster of a phenomenon that is Michael Moore. Moore's a hungry blob which merely absorbs all attacks against him and so grows LARGER AND LARGER ! Meanwhile, whether insomnia_lj is correct or not in his analysis that Moore was playing a game of chicken with Disney over the distribution of the film - and regardless of whether Moore lied or not - _lj's fundamental point stands : This is, at bottom, about censorship.

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Fri, 07 May 2004 05:28:09 -0800

I think Moore was surprised that Eisner actually followed through on his old threat. Remember, it was one he heard once, during the early stages of the project after the Weinsteins had said yes. Is there any evidence that he heard it over and over and over? Did Disney zero-fund the project, or order the Weinsteins not to be involved in it? Not from what I have seen as yet. It's a big game of chicken, and they probably thought they had won. Moore was probably told by the people over at Miramax that they were going forward with the film, the budget, etc. and that they were excited to be a part of it. I mean, who wouldn't be? Moore's movies are cheap to make and highly profitable. The Weinsteins probably thought that Eisner's words were bluster. Of course, I suspect we won't hear a thing from either of the Weinsteins on this, in part because they fear for their jobs and for the independence of their business. So, in a sense, you can say it is a conspiracy of sorts, in that the Weinsteins might have used Moore as a willing partner in yanking Eisner's chain and undermining his position at Disney, possibly because Miramax was already tired of Eisner's attempts at "Disneyfacation" of their highly independent, highly successful business. *THAT*, to me, is a far more believable premise than assuming that this was just about improving the gross on Michael Moore's movie by a few million bucks.

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Fri, 07 May 2004 05:29:26 -0800

There is a news clip over at http://reuters.feedroom.com which indicates that this might be part of an effort of the Weinsteins to either unseat Eisner or possibly to break off from the Disney empire themselves... The Weinsteins have serious "fuck you" money, but the one person that they couldn't easily say "fuck you" to that they really needed to do so was Michael Eisner. Well, now they have. I suspect that they'll have the last laugh, too.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Fri, 07 May 2004 05:32:20 -0800

Plus, I hear he's cloned another copy of himself, a "mini-Moore", which will grapple with right wing attack dogs and Disney censors while big-Moore strides about beneficently beaming and waving at adoring crowds. insomnia - I thought as much.

By: sebas

sebas — Fri, 07 May 2004 05:33:43 -0800

dash_slot, I see you're right. I retract my statement, please accept my humble apologies. That's what you get when politics and big-business mix like that. Things get horribly complicated.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Fri, 07 May 2004 05:34:03 -0800

Oh and - great deeper level analysis.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Fri, 07 May 2004 05:35:32 -0800

My kudos to insomnia_lj , that is.

By: trondant

trondant — Fri, 07 May 2004 08:49:06 -0800

freeper panties ewww

By: magullo

magullo — Fri, 07 May 2004 08:58:56 -0800

What part of "here is some funding for you to do what we asked you not to do" isn't clear?

By: sic

sic — Fri, 07 May 2004 09:00:16 -0800

I actually paid to see Bowling for Columbine after reading one of Steve@ FPP rants against it (and found that most of what he was claiming was untrue) I figure anything that can get freeper panties in a bunch, can't be all bad... I wanted to clarify myself: when I wrote "and found that most of what he was claiming was untrue" I was referring to Steve@ and not Michael Moore.

By: soulhuntre

soulhuntre — Fri, 07 May 2004 09:01:49 -0800

"The "logic" here is kinda notable: declare Moore a liar, associate him with lying, somehow imply that automatically makes his film a lie." Hell, you don't need the Disney incident for that... just watch one of his films. They are fine examples of propoganda... but factual? Reporting? Documentaries? Not even close. The embrace of M. Moore by the left is a hefty admission that they no longer care about reality or principle, they just want to win at any cost. It taints anything he touches.

By: andreaazure

andreaazure — Fri, 07 May 2004 09:12:22 -0800

My politics: Fiscal moderate-conservative, social liberal, never voted republican and do not plan on doing so in 2004. My take: Michael Moore has serious issues with "truth" and "perspective." But guess what? There are as many people on the other side with the same issue. "We" get Moore. "You" get Ann Coulter. I'd call it a push.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Fri, 07 May 2004 09:26:22 -0800

The embrace of M. Moore by the left is a hefty admission that they no longer care about reality or principle Would it that "the left" could actually be so organized. Moore is no more embraced by "the left" (whatever the hell that is) than Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal, and certainly to no greater degree than "the right" embraces Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter or Wm F. Buckley jr. A few had it right on earlier in the thread: Moore is a propagandist, a gadfly, a self-styled PT Barnum who pushes his point of view through his frequently apocryphal vignettes. Personally, he occasionally annoys me as well, for instance, I find his views on free trade to betray an real ignorance with regard to economic realities, but he does spin a good yarn, and occasionally makes a a good point.

By: gompa

gompa — Fri, 07 May 2004 09:29:36 -0800

The embrace of M. Moore by the left is a hefty admission that they no longer care about reality or principle, they just want to win at any cost. Man, and I thought those meetings of the Monolithic Left where Official Spokespeople For All Eternity get elected were held in secret. Damn. Word's out, I guess. Still, it was a hell of a party. Say what you want about Michael Moore, there's a guy who knows how to mix up a batch of Kool-Aid. Mmmm . . . indoctrinating.

By: destro

destro — Fri, 07 May 2004 10:03:31 -0800

And where did he lie again? Still looking for references about this.

By: lumpenprole

lumpenprole — Fri, 07 May 2004 10:21:30 -0800

And where did he lie again? Still looking for references about this. Exactly. If Moore is a propagandist, than this fpp is an outright, pernicious lie. I'm always hearing that people think he's a shill and a huckster, but I have yet to hear any specifics. This issue is a great case in point. Yeah, maybe Disney sent a warning a year ago, but you know what? They kept signing the checks. You think Disney doesn't have due diligence lawyers? You think they just say 'Okay Mr. Rabble-Rouser Documentary Maker, here's a big sum of money. Go forth and do whatever you like. I'm sure we'll love it." Wake up. If Disney screwed up, it's in underestimating how much publicity this would generate. I would like to go ahead and suggest a nomenclature for this action: "Pulling a Sinclair"

By: Steve_at_Linnwood

Steve_at_Linnwood — Fri, 07 May 2004 10:22:19 -0800

As usual, Moore, whatever his faults, totally freaks out the right wingers like Steve@ Wow, I quote an article from The Independent, well known charter member of the VastRightWingConspiracy™, and some how that equals me "totally freaking out." It simply amazes me that, with the exception of one small edit, I quoted verbatim a British newspaper's account of a CNN interview, and yet there are still personal attacks on me. I might as well have posted: MICHAEL MOORE IS A BIG FAT LYING COMMIE PINKO

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Fri, 07 May 2004 10:27:09 -0800

There's one big difference between Michael Moore and Ann Coulter. Ms. Coulter doesn't back up what she says with facts before she starts calling fellow Americans traitors, while Mr. Moore pays thousands of dollars to make sure that everything he says in his films is reviewed by teams of fact checkers and lawyers for accuracy. I would like to see any commentator from the far right face such scrutiny. Yes, he has an obvious political stance and point of view, but the fact remains that his arguments are suppported by facts.

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Fri, 07 May 2004 10:43:49 -0800

"It simply amazes me that, with the exception of one small edit, I quoted verbatim a British newspaper's account of a CNN interview, and yet there are still personal attacks on me." In other words, it simply amazes you that when you quote a lie verbatim, people still call it a lie, and ridicule you for doing so. Yeah. Amazing. Might I suggest you quote something truthful next time... or perhaps apply your fact-checking skills so you know the difference?!

By: fenriq

fenriq — Fri, 07 May 2004 10:48:16 -0800

By: delapohl

delapohl — Fri, 07 May 2004 11:03:56 -0800

I notice the headline for the story referenced in the FPP has changed. It now reads: Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban' whereas before it read: Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt

By: Blue Stone

Blue Stone — Fri, 07 May 2004 11:08:28 -0800

"It simply amazes me that, with the exception of one small edit, I quoted verbatim a British newspaper's account of a CNN interview. I might as well have posted: MICHAEL MOORE IS A BIG FAT LYING COMMIE PINKO" I can't believe what Steve_at_Linwood just said! Did you read it? He said: "It simply amazes me that MICHAEL MOORE IS A BIG FAT LYING COMMIE PINKO!" (Small edit; otherwise verbatim.)

By: darukaru

darukaru — Fri, 07 May 2004 11:25:32 -0800

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Fri, 07 May 2004 11:28:02 -0800

Moore may fact check but he's also sensationalistic and exploitive. It doesn't mean he doesn't have messages that need to be heard and spread but I do wish he'd put his ego away and quit with the lame stunts. it seems like that's what the argument always boils down to. personal distaste for the fat man. 1) Moore's a liar 2) well, if he's not a liar, he exaggerates and frames issues out of context 3) at the least, he's a pompous self-promoter who doesn't really care about the issues he covers 4) that big fat guy shouldn't be making so much money. i love it. the stunts are the only reason anyone pays attention. he's got pretty good investigative journalism skills (or more likely, a quality support team), but his real talent is that he's actually quite funny. i disagree with him frequently. i saw him speak once, and i was actually quite upset at his mixture of personal and political politics, but i still think he's funny. TV Nation was great. remember the polls? 60% of Americans say that, if they could push a button that would make Larry King disappear, they would "keep pushing it and not stop." ha.

By: destro

destro — Fri, 07 May 2004 11:34:19 -0800

Fucking Telegraph - I wonder if they changed it out of threat of a slander suit headed their way. They are the lying scumbags that need to be held up to scrutiny on this stuff. How many articles did they post about found WMDs only to retract before the slander/libel suits started rolling their way. Internet and propaganda seem to go hand in hand these days.

By: sic

sic — Fri, 07 May 2004 11:41:51 -0800

and yet there are still personal attacks on me. "Personal attacks"? Steve, you're freaking out..! Moore may fact check but he's also sensationalistic and exploitive. It doesn't mean he doesn't have messages that need to be heard and spread I agree with Fenriq 100% . . . ahem, on this ;) Michael Moore never lied in Bowling for Columbine. You wan't proof? He has won every lawsuit that has been brought against him by the NRA, Lockheed Martin, Charlton Heston and all of the other so-called parties injured by his libel and slander. How many lawsuits has that been you ask? 0 That's right, NO LAWSUITS! Hard to believe that in a country teeming with attack lawyers that these rich and powerful victims haven't sued that big fat liar. Guess they've been too busy with their smear campaigns to get around to proving that he has lied about them. You may not like how Moore says it, but if you are going to run around calling him a liar, you might as well prove it in a court of law.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Fri, 07 May 2004 11:42:56 -0800

destro's right. looks like the Independent article has been rewritten. Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban'

By: Steve_at_Linnwood

Steve_at_Linnwood — Fri, 07 May 2004 12:03:04 -0800

There's one big difference between Michael Moore and Ann Coulter. Ms. Coulter doesn't back up what she says with facts before she starts calling fellow Americans traitors Have you ever actually ever picked up a Coulter book? The last quarter of the book is always footnotes to reference the quotes used in the book. While Mrs. Coulter may be extreme, everything is backed up. Blue Stone: I edited out "the rabble-rousing film-maker" That's right, NO LAWSUITS! Hard to believe that in a country teeming with attack lawyers that these rich and powerful victims haven't sued that big fat liar. Wow, so by that logic, any thing I say must be true if no one bothers to sue me....

By: hama7

hama7 — Fri, 07 May 2004 12:09:42 -0800

MICHAEL MOORE IS A BIG FAT LYING COMMIE PINKO If it were my post, I might have added "AMERICA-HATING RATFINK SCUMBAG" too. I admire your restraint.

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Fri, 07 May 2004 12:29:36 -0800

"While Mrs. Coulter may be extreme, everything is backed up." Not true. The references in her books are cited, not necessarily factchecked. There is a difference. For instance, you cited the Independent story for this post. Does that mean it was factually accurate? All Ms. Coultier does is put the burden of truth on someone else. That is different than the painstaking process that Mr. Moore, his staff, and his lawyers go through prior to the release of his movies.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Fri, 07 May 2004 12:35:00 -0800

Wow. This is really a depressing thread. If one were to replace Michael Moore with X, and replaced any ideologcally identifying words, did the same with an argument defending, say, Coulter, you'd not be able to tell them apart. Is Moore equivalent to Coulter? I dunno. Probably not. Probably not even remotely. I mean, I think Coulter should be taken out back amd shot, but I don't think the same about Moore. Mostly. When someone says, "He may be (progandistic, biased, misleading, whatever) but he's basically right and he should be heard", I am struck by the fact that the Limbaugh/Coulter/whoever defenders use exactly the same justification and language. I've said before that splitting the difference is certainly not a shortcut to the truth, and that one can be completely in the right while being very rhetorically suspicious. But in my world, where there's very little certainty and a lot of bias and bigotry, where rhetoric more often than not overpowers truth, I pretty much disregard people that are obviously stylistically propogandists because, on average, listening to them is a waste of my fucking time.

By: lumpenprole

lumpenprole — Fri, 07 May 2004 13:19:01 -0800

If one were to replace Michael Moore with X, and replaced any ideologcally identifying words, did the same with an argument defending, say, Coulter, you'd not be able to tell them apart. Though I understand what you're getting at, and share it to some extent, I'm not sure that's true. It's pretty easy (maybe too easy) to take issue with Coulter's rhetoric. Like calling liberals terrorists, calling Clinton a felon, calling McCarthy a hero, or calling affirmative action 'Stalinist'. Really, if you can point to one use of overwrought, plainly facetious hyberbole like that in Moore's work, I'd be suprised. And yes, I've read his books. He may be a crappy writer, but I don't see and out and out lies in work. Unlike, say, the work of that Independent writer.

By: Sonserae

Sonserae — Fri, 07 May 2004 13:20:09 -0800

I can't stand that big ugly fat American. If he hates America so much he should leave. He is not credible at all. It was proven that his Columbine film was filled with falsehoods and mistruths. The US should just kick that big fat butt out of the country.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Fri, 07 May 2004 13:49:30 -0800

It was proven that his Columbine film was filled with falsehoods and mistruths. by whom? The US should just kick that big fat butt out of the country. well then, the US should kick your butt out of the country for your unamerican intolerance and hatred of freedom. why do you hate America so much?

By: jonp72

jonp72 — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:07:40 -0800

While Mrs. Coulter may be extreme, everything is backed up. Coulter's abuse of footnotes has been well-documented. It is insufficient to pepper your book with footnotes. Those footnotes have to match specific documents that actually provide evidence for the specific point you are trying to make. Here's an article from the Columbia Journalism Review that demonstrates just a few misrepresentations.

By: hama7

hama7 — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:18:26 -0800

The US should just kick that big fat butt out of the country. He might like it in Russia, but pity the poor Russians! Coulter's abuse of footnotes has been well-documented. Three errors constitutes an "abuse of footnotes"? Steve's not kidding; if you realize that there are hundreds, if not thousands of footnotes in her books, and that literally a third of the book is comprised of them, calling three errors "abuse" is ridiculous. She might have made as many spelling mistakes (but didn't).

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:22:12 -0800

Eisner may cut Miramax loose. Which, incidentally, may be exactly what the Weinsteins want. Perhaps the question should be asked... "Why did Miramax pay for most of the $6 it cost to make this movie if they knew they couldn't distribute it?" There are three likely answers. 1> They didn't know, and thought Eisner was bluffing. 2> They *DID* know, and thought it would lose Eisner his job. 3> They *DID* know and they thought it might force Eisner to sell them back their company. BTW, perhaps it should be mentioned that Miramax once had the rights to the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, but Eisner personally prevented Miramax from producing it - a decision that has cost Disney more than $1 billion in revenue. One could only assume that a lot of that revenue would have ended up in the Weinstein's pocketses.

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:28:49 -0800

er... let me try that again. Eisner may cut Miramax loose. Is it just me, or does anyone else think a movie studio that isn't capable of embracing talent -- whether it be Pixar or the Weinstein brothers -- is pretty much by definition dead upstairs? Eisner should leave and Save Disney while it still can be saved. (Meanwhile, somewhere in Neverland, Captain Hook hears the inevitable 'tick-tock, tick-tock' of fate.)

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:59:52 -0800

so who do y'all reckon is worse, liberals or conservatives?

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Fri, 07 May 2004 15:31:23 -0800

Conservatives. But don't tell them I said so.

By: sic

sic — Fri, 07 May 2004 16:35:59 -0800

If it were my post, I might have added "AMERICA-HATING RATFINK SCUMBAG" too. He he, another right wing reactionary starts freaking out $cha-ching$ Wow, so by that logic, any thing I say must be true if no one bothers to sue me.... Yes, but only if you say it in an oscar-winning film seen by millions of viewers in a dozen countries about a rich and powerful organization with a team of attack lawyers on retainer.

By: Steve_at_Linnwood

Steve_at_Linnwood — Fri, 07 May 2004 17:10:31 -0800

only if you say it in an oscar-winning film seen by millions of viewers in a dozen countries about a rich and powerful organization with a team of attack lawyers on retainer. So only Bowling For Columbine, was true... everything he said before that was a lie?

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Fri, 07 May 2004 17:20:34 -0800

...calling three errors "abuse" is ridiculous. Thank you for that perfect demonstration of the art of citing an article and completely misrepresenting its content. Whether you intended it or not, that was beautifully apt, hama7.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 07 May 2004 17:27:32 -0800

's too bad about steve. cute little dog, though.

By: soulhuntre

soulhuntre — Fri, 07 May 2004 18:34:05 -0800

"while Mr. Moore pays thousands of dollars to make sure that everything he says in his films" He shoudl get his money back. "Coolumbine" is chock full of literal lies and errors, and his other work had serious issues with reality as well. He's a propogandist, even most of those who like his work know it. He doesn't "do" truth.

By: destro

destro — Fri, 07 May 2004 18:44:30 -0800

Once again, point out the errors or sit back down.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Fri, 07 May 2004 22:30:00 -0800

Why ? It's much more effective to just keep repeating the same allegations over, and over and over............and eventually many people will come to believe them. Refutation, if indeed possible, takes effort.

By: soulhuntre

soulhuntre — Fri, 07 May 2004 23:05:34 -0800

""Moore ... shocked the crowd at North London's Roundhouse Theater a couple of weeks ago by ranting that passengers on plans hijacked on Sept. 11 were 'scaredy-cats because they were mostly white.'" NY Post, Jan. 8, 2003 "Forbes reports that an early scene in "Bowling" in which Mr. Moore tries to demonstrate how easy it is to obtain guns in America was staged. He goes to a small bank in Traverse City, Mich., that offers various inducements to open an account and claims "I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, I walked out with my new Weatherby," a rifle. But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks." - quote context "David Hardy, a former Interior Department lawyer who delights in debunking government officials and pompous celebrities, has uncovered even more evidence of Mr. Moore's distortions. The film depicts NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness. Another speech is described as being given immediately after the Flint shooting ." - quote context links to more info...

By: soulhuntre

soulhuntre — Fri, 07 May 2004 23:07:32 -0800

Last quote... In print, too, Mr. Moore plays fast and loose with the facts. In his "Stupid White Men," his best-selling book, he blithely states that five-sixths of the U.S. defense budget in 2001 went toward the construction of a single type of plane and that two-thirds of the $190 million that President Bush raised in his 2000 campaign came from just over 700 individuals, a preposterous assertion given that the limit for individual contributions at the time was $1,000. When CNN's Lou Dobbs asked Mr. Moore about his inaccuracies, he shrugged off the quesiton. "You know, look, this is a book of political humor. So, I mean, I don't respond to that sort of stuff, you know," he said. "Glaring inaccuracies?" Mr. Dobbs said. "No, I don't. Why should I? How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?" - quote context

By: mecran01

mecran01 — Sat, 08 May 2004 06:47:47 -0800

Is this new movie going to show a member of the Saudi royal family skinning a rabbit?

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sat, 08 May 2004 07:27:16 -0800

soulhuntre - well, you did the heavy lifting. Thanks - I'd rather know the truth, and if only half of those charges hold up (and a number of them come from non-ideologically driven sources) then he IS a weasely and mendacious PT Barnum. But notice that none of the factual inaccuracies you cite really undermine the central point of "Bowling For Columbine" - which starts with the observation of the dramatic difference in rates of gun violence between the US and Canada (belied by the relatively similar per-capita gun ownership rates in the two countries). The specific mechanism behind this fact may be open to question, but - as far as I'm aware - no vast genetic differences between Americans and Canadians have be noted by geneticists, and so I'd have to conclude that the high levels of American gun violence are culturally driven. In fact, recent studies have shown a correlation between watching TV violence (and video games as well, I believe - but I'm not quite so certain on that point) and violent behavior. __________________________________________ Also, I have to laugh at the protests of this bank employee ; "Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks." The bank - it's managers and employees - allowed Moore to stage the scene for a month ! What did they think Moore was up to when he asked for a rifle to be brought in for the filming of that scene ? That he was going to rob their bank ? - Probably not. I guess they just scratched their heads in befuddlement and went along with it all. My heart is not overflowing with sympathy - and doesn't their apparent utter obliviousness partly prove Moore's point ?

By: darukaru

darukaru — Sat, 08 May 2004 07:42:10 -0800

so who do y'all reckon is worse, liberals or conservatives? [celebrity voice="Zap Brannigan"]What makes a man turn centrist?[/celebrity]

By: destro

destro — Sat, 08 May 2004 08:45:20 -0800

Considering that most of your evidence is from the Wall Street Journal Opinion section - which means it doesn't have to hold up to factual scrutiny and is well known for being quite partisan and slanderous - I'll still try and work with what you've got. First off, Moore's response. The bank scene wasn't faked. Nothing was prepared beforehand. The guns were given away as Instant Interest (the original ad). The Heston speech was in Denver and it was 10 days after the killings. Here's the speech. I could dispel some of the things in the links, but I think Moore takes care of all of that on his site. In general, most of these accusations are coming from the NRA who want to discredit Moore, but they won't say it out loud. They just get people to use the Opinion Journal, where they can get away with slander/libel, to spout their fake accusations.

By: soulhuntre

soulhuntre — Sat, 08 May 2004 12:22:23 -0800

"The bank scene wasn't faked. Nothing was prepared beforehand. " It was faked. There is no method the bank could use to legally give those weapons away in an "end run" around the laws of the state regarding gun purchase... and nothing in the ad indicates this. In fact, "instant interest" is in quotes. Given the legal situationa nd the quotes of the bank employees, Moore will have to come up with something more substantial to back up his claim on this. More info is here. "The Heston speech was in Denver and it was 10 days after the killings." Again, the transcript has no date in it, and nothing in it indicates a time period. Of course the real problem is that in BFC Moore splices from several seperate NRA events... "After this, we hear Moore telling us, ominously, that "just 10 days after the Columbine mass murders Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally." The distortion is nauseatingly extreme. Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver in defiance to Columbine." - more info and much more info Look, Moores a flake. He plays faster and looser with facts than Rush does (Rush doesn't put out movies that I know of) and if it was someone on the right doing it you'd have a cow. You want to defend him, go for it. But be honest in what your defending. Just say "I dont care about the facts, the end justifies the means!"

By: Snyder

Snyder — Sat, 08 May 2004 12:42:28 -0800

destro, you criticize soulhuntre for using the WSJ op-ed section as a source, then use Moore's site as a rebuttal? Seriously, do you expect people to believe that linking to Moore's site isn't unbiased. "Look, he's not lying in his movie, his own website says so!" Jeeze.

By: destro

destro — Sat, 08 May 2004 14:28:11 -0800

Heston gave a speech in Denver at an NRA meeting 10 days after the killings. The Opinion article flat out lies in this respect. There's no denying that. I think that was the large point about that whole piece - that right after the Columbine murders and in deference to thousands of people protesting him not to come, Heston comes to wave guns in the people's faces. Fucking obnoxious. Did he use the footage from another rally for the "cold dead hands" clip? No. Does it matter? Not really. In the film, the bank states that it has its own vault storing about 500 weapons at any given time. They handed him the gun. There was nothing staged. The 7-10 day waiting period is not a fixed amount. That's just waht it usually takes for them to do a background check. In the movie he has them fax it in on the spot. Sorry for using Moore's site for references. But he has all the evidence posted there. You don't have to believe his words but he has the evidence of the ad, the Heston speech, outtakes from the bank, and more.

By: soulhuntre

soulhuntre — Sat, 08 May 2004 18:07:50 -0800

Well, thanks for proving the point of how far afield Moore really is, and how he manages to convince his followers. Quote: "There's no denying that. I think that was the large point about that whole piece - that right after the Columbine murders and in deference to thousands of people protesting him not to come, Heston comes to wave guns in the people's faces. Fucking obnoxious." Thats the slant... now here's the reality... Quote: Fact: At Denver, the NRA cancelled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' voting meeting -- that could not be cancelled because the state law governing nonprofits required that it be held. [No way to change location, since under NY law you have to give 10 days' advance notice of that to the members, there were upwards of 4,000,000 members -- and Columbine happened 11 days before the scheduled meeting.] As a newspaper reported: In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are canceled. All that's left is a members' reception with Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and the annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center. Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold an annual meeting. The NRA convention April 30-May 2 was expected to draw 22,000 members and give the city a $17.9 million economic boost. "But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote. - quote So, the NRA dropped the vast majority of the events at the time, but in order to comply with corporate law HAD to hold an annual meeting and couldn't move it. The quote Moore leads off with (cold, dead hands) was NOT given at that event, but more than a year later. Yet Moore still manages to convince millions that the NRA held a rally to "wave guns in people faces". He's good at his job, no doubt about it. Quote: "Did he use the footage from another rally for the "cold dead hands" clip? No. Does it matter? Not really." I'll assume you meant to type "Yes" to the "Did he use..." part - because he did. Does it matter? Well no, unless you care about reality. Quote: "In the film, the bank states that it has its own vault storing about 500 weapons at any given time." Quote: "Jacobson says the movie is misleading because it leaves the impression that a person can come in, sign up and walk out with a gun. But, this is not done because no guns are kept at her bank, although one would think so. She says that ordinarily a person entitled to one of the long-guns must go to a gun-dealer where the gun is shipped. In fact, despite what BFC wants us to believe, Jacobson says there are no long-guns at her bank. The 500 guns mentioned in the movie are in a vault four hours away. But wait a second... Didn't I see some long guns sitting right there on the rack above her shoulder? Yes - you're not going crazy - those guns you saw (as shown in the picture up the page) are models. She says that Moore's signing papers in the film was just for show. His immediately walking out of the bank with a long-gun was allowed because "this whole thing was set up two months prior to the filming of the movie" when he had already complied with all the rules, including a background check." - quote

By: destro

destro — Sat, 08 May 2004 22:55:46 -0800

Yes they did curtail the meeting functions, which was decent. But the mayor and many others pleaded with Heston not to come at all and they shouldn't have. And Heston's speech rubbed it in their faces. Does corporate law overwhelm any sort of dignity they might have? If you believe the statements the bank made that retract their previous ones as posted on this anti-Moore site, then I'll believe the ones on Moore's site.

By: soulhuntre

soulhuntre — Sun, 09 May 2004 11:59:11 -0800

"Does corporate law overwhelm any sort of dignity they might have?" So they should have what then? Left the legality of the whole corporation in Jeapordy? Sparked a potential nightmare or litigation? To what purpose? How is holding a private meeting, that no one except those who wished could attend, "rubbing" anyones face in anything? Of course, the idea that you can blame the NRA for the massacre is itself insane, and exactly the sort of thing the NRA itself (a political organization) is fighting. So not only should they have caused millions (at least) in legal problems but they should have allowed themselves to be run out of town entirely to placate misguided people who somehow blame them for the insane acts of their own youth? They came to the best compromise possible. You don't like it... thats fine. But the fact remains that Moore deliberately mislead his viewers about it. He's a liar. Those who still defend him for being a liar shoudl at least be honest about it.

By: matteo

matteo — Sun, 09 May 2004 14:52:08 -0800

"it simply amazes me that, with the exception of one small edit, I quoted verbatim a British newspaper's account of a CNN interview, and yet there are still personal attacks on me." heh. because as we all know, you've never made personal attacks against anyone here, ever. but thanks for the post, I just got back from a nice weekend and I see a FPP from SteveatLinnwood complaining about somebody supposedly lying. it's a good first step towards entering the complicated world of reality. ;)

By: destro

destro — Sun, 09 May 2004 18:19:49 -0800

Left the legality of the corporation in jeopardy? Are you kidding me? Events like this can easily be rescheduled without a company collapsing in on itself. Would you have a meeting about bomb-making in Oklahoma right after the Oklahoma City attacks? If you had some decency, you wouldn't because, even if it's only a private meeting, any sort of sign or advertisment or mention of it is a huge reminder to those who just went through a huge tragic event. It wasn't just a small group who thought this. It was a pretty large protest. Even the mayor didn't want them there. Nobody blamed the killings on the NRA, particularly not Moore. If you saw the movie you'd know that. I don't think Moore misled anybody, but his accusers have lied plenty as I already showed in a previous post.

By: soulhuntre

soulhuntre — Sun, 09 May 2004 19:08:27 -0800

"Would you have a meeting about bomb-making in Oklahoma right after the Oklahoma City attacks?" The analogy would be more accurately would you have a fertilizer convention. Because the NRA meeting certainly wasn't about "how to gun down humans as they flee in horror". "Nobody blamed the killings on the NRA, particularly not Moore. If you saw the movie you'd know that." They you saw a different movie than I did, and that Moore made. He specifically DID attempt to lay blame on the NRA and the "culture" he feels they represent. What did you think the movie was about anyway?

By: destro

destro — Sun, 09 May 2004 20:43:39 -0800

Hey, just in the way not all guns are used to kill people as they run away, not all bombs are used to kill people as they run away. Analogy still stands. In the movie, he blames the culture of fear in the U.S. Never said anything about blaming the NRA for the killings. The NRA may be an example of this culture, but there's no mention that the NRA caused the Columbine massacre. What movie were you watching? Where in it does he blame the NRA for the Columbine killings?

By: soulhuntre

soulhuntre — Mon, 10 May 2004 03:32:32 -0800

"He specifically DID attempt to lay blame on the NRA and the "culture" he feels they represent." Note the "and the culture" part. But hey, if you don't think Mikey was trying to drop it on Heston thats fine. I doubt Moore really believes any of this anyway - he's found a captive and forgiving audience that he can shill to.

By: destro

destro — Mon, 10 May 2004 20:36:40 -0800

Please provide reference in the movie where he accuses the NRA of infulencing the Columbine killers.

By: matteo

matteo — Thu, 13 May 2004 08:48:22 -0800

Miramax chiefs to buy Michael Moore's documentary from Disney Los Angeles-AP -- The heads of Miramax Films are planning to buy back a controversial documentary the company was blocked from releasing. Bob and Harvey Weinstein plan to buy back filmmaker Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit Nine-Eleven" and distribute it themselves. Parent company Walt Disney had blocked Miramax from releasing the film, which criticizes President Bush's handling of Nine-Eleven and links the Bush family with Osama bin Laden's. The Weinsteins would have to find a third-party company to distribute the film. They've had a thorny relationship with Disney. Copyright 2004 Associated Press.