Moore Film Provokes Disney Boycott

Film giant Disney is facing a massive boycott from liberals - following its refusal to distribute Michael Moore's controversial documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11.

Furious film-goers are threatening to avoid buying anything from the Disney stable - including books, toys and movies - in protest to their decision to ban subsidiary Miramax from releasing the Palme D'Or-winning film.

snip

But Disney spokeswoman Zenia Mucha retorts to The Scoop, "It's a free country. We have a right to decline distribution. They have a right to do whatever they think is in their interest."

According to insiders, Disney opted not to distribute the film for fear of losing tax breaks afforded to their Florida theme parks by the state's governor, Jeb Bush, brother to the President.

http://www.mickeynews.com/News/DisplayPressRelease.asp_Q_id_E_5264Boycott
This is from the DISNEYNews website. What...is this their excuse?

They are an evil conniving bunch of rodents.

It's very sad. It used to be so wholesome. :(

Today I wouldn't buy a Disney logo product, even though it was clearance priced! I'll buy Snoopy at full price, thank you very much.



http://www.wgoeshome.com

When my oldest daughter was born, I wouldn't show her Disney films or Disney toys, because of the misogynist/traditionalist bent to all of their work. When they began to explore multicultural backgrounds, and began creating decent female characters, I lightened up. Mulan is one of my favorite animated films.

Their TV shows are still bad, though.

Is what is is known to those who work there.

Disney is notorious for its brutal no-holds-barred internal politics

very bad corp culture.

Fairy tales CAN come true!

(on edit: typo)

Not so easy to explain why the kid can't have the Cinderella doll.

this boycott is not going to work. People are not going to say no when their kid is crying and begging to go, you can try to explain but all the kid cares about is going to Disneyland.

and she's under 10.

This site is in no way owned, approved, or operated by the Walt Disney Company, or any organization owned or operated by the Walt Disney Company and its business units. This is a personal site for entertainment and/or archival purposes and used for online journalism only.

This website is not authorized by the Walt Disney Company. Nor are we affiliated with the Walt Disney Company in any manner. All opinions presented here are our own, unless otherwise noted.

http://www.mickeynews.com/Other/LegalNotice.asp

same right-wing nut job who use to be Guilliani's (ex-NY Mayor aka the People's Mayor)Press Secretary? If it is the same person, it certainly does say a lot about the direction Disney is going.

Rather than one big march, it might be more effective to have people go the the entrances on Saturday and Sundays with signs. At Disneyland, the main entrance is on Harbor (with the main parking entrance being on Ball Rd.) We could get people with signs to both locations. The big question is whether we should just go for massive protests on the weekends or continue those protests by getting picketting commitments from people for variouos shifts during the week during the summer. If we scare Disney, the others who oppose democracy will get to see our power.

It would be good to have the West Coast June 5th anti-Bush protests at Disneyland.

amusement parks. I remember some years back picketing Sea World over their treatment of animals, the abuse we took from the public was worse than any I have ever gotten from picketting ANYWHERE else. :-(

job, then Michael Moore would be superfluous. And I like to think he would want it that way (unfortunatley, I don't trust him that much).

We should be lined up in front of CNN, the NYT, the WP... Fox can blow itself, I wouldn't legitimize them by calling them media. We could also picket the FCC for a return to the Fariness Doctrine, or something similar.

But boycotting Disney is a waste of time. We would piss off a lot of people who aren't politically concerned by getting in their way while on vacation. And the only way the media would cover the pickets is as a joke. No one paid any attention to the Baptists, either. And remember, they were picketing Disney for, amongst other things, refusing to bash gays. Disney giveth, and Disney taketh away, but either way, it's wrong to expect an entertainment force to cater to our political wishes.

Disney was refusing to support Moore, it wasn't actively campaigning for W. Unlike the mainstream media.

...when we vote with our dollars.

Anything with mouse ears, rodent teeth or long black noses is off limits.

And I think you're right: think of the publicity Michael Moore will get from this. Recall Al Franken's book. Fox News actually took him to court over the publication of his book, "Lying liars". They gave him publicity that money can't buy.

Sounds like his new film is good, but he's still the same old truth-twister that created the fantasy of the book signing raid.

This time, Michael is blasting Disney for doing what they said they were going to do before he started making the film. It's a non-issue. Everyone knew Moore would have no trouble finding another distributer, including Disney. If they had really been trying to censor the film, they would have tied it up in contracts and prevented Moore from distributing it to anyone else.

Disney is trying to stay out of it. They have investors to worry about. They can be sued for doing something that will cost the shareholders money. Eisner would be an idiot to release the film. The real villain is Jeb, for threatening Disney's tax status.

Moore is trying to look like a martyr again. He's a bit too rich to be a martyr, in my book. He's a good film-maker, and this film looks like a humdinger-- I wish he wouldn't cheapen it with the "poor me" nonsense.

I'm going to Disney World. And to see Moore's film. Neither side has convinced me the other is wrong.

is refusing to distribute a film due to its political content, content that places the president in a bad light.

That is wrong.

Democratic Underground reserves the right to "tombstone" conservative disruptors who would try to portray John Kerry in a bad light. In fact, they let you know that right up front when you sign up.

If its "wrong" for Disney, its "wrong" for DU, too. IMNSHO.

Later,

The first tip-off is this one:
"In fact, they let you know that right up front when you sign up."

Compare that with Disney, which had no problem dishing out $6 Million for production through Miramax, that Miramax is now trying to BUY BACK from the Overmouse.

Furthermore, Disney continues to distribute EXTREME rightwing rhetoric via syndication of Rush Limbaugh et al, vis a vis its ownership of ABC. To make some pretext to political neutrality as a justification for refusing distribution is nothing short of utter bullshit.

Third, Disney stands to make quite the profit from this film even if it only does as well as its predecessor, "Bowling for Columbine". Opting out is contrary even to its financial interests -- unless one supposed the potential tax breaks from Brother Jeb would make up for it. On the other hand, DU has to buy bandwidth for content distribution and makes NO profits whatsoever from those non-paying disruptors who come here to portray Sen. Kerry "in a bad light." There is no payoff in providing a haven for conservative assholes at DU.

Disney DID tell Moore they wouldn't distribute his film, and he went ahead and made it for them anyway. That's Moore's decision, not Disney's. Disney didn't try to block this film, they paid for Moore to make it. Everyone knew Moore would have no problems finding a distributer. Disney could have sabotaged the film any number of ways, but didn't.

I wonder, in fact, why Disney went ahead and funded this without tying it up in contracts that Moore couldn't escape, the way the entertainment folk used to do. I wonder about a lot of claims against Disney. If they are so conservative, why did they have domestic partner policies when those were unpopular? Why did they make multi-cultural films like the Lion King, Mulan, and even Pocahontas (all flawed, but all early attempts) if they are so radically conservative? Eisner is a vegetarian, that hardly seems like a rabid conservative to me.

Disney's been up front. Moore has not. Bottom line.

Disney is claiming that the Weinsteins "hid" the $6 million in financing they gave Moore. Riiiiiight.

That Moore has been working on this film has hardly been top-secret information--people in politics AND entertainment have been tracking his progress on it for the last year and a half. Disney's NOT stupid--they can continue their posturing and refuse to directly distribute the film, but they still keep a percentage of the box office profits when whichever third-party distributor Miramax cuts a deal with puts the film in theaters.

Yeah, Disney will cry all the way to the bank--they get to look good to Jebbie AND still take in fistsfull of cash from Moore's pic.

Moore decided not to believe them, or more likely, he decided to play it just as he has, making himself a martyr before the mighty evil empire. It's his fault.

And it has not hurt Moore one little bit, and he knew it wouldn't. As Eisner said, he's had a year to find another distributor, and he would have no trouble releasing the film on time.

Feel free to approve of Moore's lies just because he says something you like. I just don't.

You're acting as if Disney was innocent and forthright in this whole thing, and they simply are not. The money came through MIRAMAX. MIRAMAX has funded Moore's movies in the past; they have a longstanding relationship. There's no way Disney didn't know about the $6 million, and doing what they're doing now allows them to wail to the skies about Moore's political agenda while--and here's the important part, in hopes that you won't miss it this time--still leaving themselves in a position to make a tidy profit on their share of profits even after it goes through third-party distribution. Bowling for Columbine grossed over $120 million worldwide--Disney is more than happy to take a share of that kind of money.

Here's the truth: it hasn't hurt Moore, and it won't hurt Disney, boycott notwithstanding.

That you would even begin a debate about this by comparing Moore to Limbaugh is specious at best. There's an enormous difference between presenting something in a sensational manner (which Moore does) and just outright lying, which is what Limbaugh does. You keep talking about all of Moore's "lies." Why don't you enumerate some of them so I get an idea where you're really coming from?

Disney told Moore they wouldn't distribute the film before he started the film. Moore admits this. He made a big deal out of nothing, as you yourself admit by saying that both will make money from the film.

Moore set us up again. I'm tired of falling for his lines. I just don't trust him. I believed him about Disney. It wasn't true. I believed him about the "police raid." It wasn't true. I've watched him in person. His speech is littered with little set-up pieces he pretends are spontaneous gaffs. He does this routine where he calls America his "company," and then laughs like it was a poingnant slip. Problem was, he blew the line so badly he started laughing before he finished the word. He told a story about a plane trip where the pilot was female, and he thought that was cool until she lurched the plane leaving the gate, then he thought "I want a male pilot!" He used that line to pick on gender stereotypes, but it said more about him than about anyone else.

His book "Stupid White Men" was loaded with innaccurate stats and polls, especially about Clinton. He claimed one set of data proved Clinton had hurt the poor, when if he had cited it correctly it would have proven otherwise. I read about his Florida speeches, where he begins by saying he vowed not to speak in swing states, then somehow (he doesn't explain how) he wound up in Florida, where he was supposed to speak for Nader, yet changed his mind doing some soul searching on stage, and claimed he would vote for Gore. He then slides into a story about an encounter with Jeb Bush, right after the speech, where Jeb asks if they paid him enough. Moore plays it off in the book as though he suddenly realized that Jeb was paying for the speech because it was done at a public university. Up until this point he hasn't even mentioned the money, and told the whole story as though he were just trying to get involved in the election. Suddenly, he's admitted he was paid, and that Bush paid him, but je just then realized that Bush had paid him. That's a lie. He's an investigative filmmaker and writer, and he never stopped to wonder where the money came from?

He's just damned evasive when it suits him, he's loose with facts when it suits him, and he's slippery when it suits him. I don't trust him. I find that I listen to him the way I do a Republican, listening for the lie, or the hole in the story. And since he feels he has to be evasive, it makes me wonder why. What's he hiding?

Again, like him if you want. I like the fact that his work gets attention, that it sells. I don't trust him, though. And every time I do, he pulls another stunt, making me feel manipulated. I don't like to feel that way.

"Moore set us up." If Moore did, then SO DID DISNEY. You keep asserting that Disney had washed their hands of this long ago and had no idea Moore was working on the film, and I'm telling you that's pure bullshit. Disney is protesting mightily, BUT STILL MAKING A SHITLOAD OF MONEY off of the film. Get it yet?

And what lie about Disney are you suggesting he told? That Disney is refusing to distribute? Moore has never claimed that Disney told him they'd distribute it and then backed out--he's said that Miramax gave him the funding, which they did, and that Disney is now refusing to distribute, which they are. If you've paid attention, most of the conflict is not between Moore and Disney, but between Miramax and Disney, over who promised what. It's black-and-whitism of the republican variety to say "oh, this is all a stunt by Moore." No, it's Moore capitalizing on the publicity, it's Miramax playing games with Disney, it's Disney being hypocritical about the money it's going to make with the film. It's lots of stuff, jobycom, but it ain't just Moore telling lies (your words).

And what in the HELL are you talking about regarding a speech in Florida? I'm at work and don't have my copy of Stupid White Men with me, so I won't say this unconditionally, but I certainly don't recall that being in the book. Your rant doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and I'm not sure what your problem is with it--not even sure what "it" is. As far as the stats he used in Stupid White Men--any statistician will tell you that data can be interpreted in myriad ways. Hey, waddya know, data can be used for subjective purposes. I'm skeptical of the inaccuracy you claim, but I will remind you that Moore got most of his info from the book from Greg Palast, and Palast--who, like Moore, is delightfully sensational--is dependably accurate.

Regarding the event in San Diego--I'm aware of both sides of the story, and while I absolutely grant you that Moore made as much of the police confrontation as possible, it's not a lie. The way the police were called in was extremely poorly handled, but yeah, they did come and break it up.

Again, and hopefully for the last time, being evasive and sensational is not equivalent to lying. You may not like it, and I'm not asking you to like it, but it's not lying, and to continue to say he "lies" all the time is every bit as "slippery" as what you accuse Moore of doing.

He did make the movie on assurances this would all be ironed out.

It was not "ironed out".

It's up to us to make Moore's movie a runaway success, so that Disney will regret not releasing this themselves, and more importantly that the film industry is put on notice that there are liberals out there who see movies.

Moore is an entertainer not a journalist, for better or worse. Somethimes we need journalists like Sy Hersh to give us the fully documented plain-facts truth. Sometimes we need an entertainer like Moore to just stir things up.

He claims he's an entertainer, so he gets away with lying. I don't like Limbaugh because of his slant, but I also despise his methods. SHould I support Moore if I see the same methods in him? True, he's not quite as bad as Rush, but he's not up front, either.

ANd the differences are being ironed out, as you say. Moore's film is going to be distributed, there was never any doubt about that. And Disney paid for it to be made, when they could have easily sabotaged it halfway through production.

The film industry, btw, is quite aware that liberals are an economic force again. Moore's own films and books have proven that, as has the recent flurry of liberal books in general. And look at the recent films released or in post-production: Moore's, Super Size Me, The Hunting of the President. Hollywood knows, that's why Bush threatens them with tax penalties.

WHY did they finance a film with no intention to release it?? I think they just wanted to have some control over it. They knew what it was about from the beginning -- why did they keep paying the production bills if they wanted to "stay out of it?"

MiraMax is in the business of providing Disney an outlet to release things that are not "diz-esque." Does the Christian Coilition have a say in whether Kill Bill is released or not? It's just ridiculous.

My husband and I attended the 2003 Oscars and I was thrilled to be standing in the balcony cheering his speech -- after having driven past the "patriotic" rallies with people holding signs like "John Wayne Would Support Our Troops!"

It wasn't HIM bending the truth then....it was BushCo and EVERYBODY was buying it, I'll always be grateful to Michael Moore for having the guts to stand up and say the obvious: that the "liberation" was fiction.

released but not by disney and it does some 100,000,000 world wide and an unknown amount in dvd sales ..now if i was a big stockholder in troubled disney i would be really pissed..the studio would probaly pull in at least 70 million in profit on the film ,then who knows how much on dvd sales.. if disney doesn`t release it and those figures are even close-the guy who`s running disney is history. it`s not the tax breaks-it`s the saudis disney is worried about...

It has about twenty six thousand signatures so far.

26,801 current

Why throw the "TEA" overboard when you can
send Mickey off the plank.

Just found the following in my e-mail (edited for people's e-mail addresses, but you'll get the point):

Put a little protest into your conference program plan!

Join library activists at the ALA Annual Conference in Orlando in drawing attention to the problems and contradictions of the "world-renowned Disney principles" of "Service Disney Style":

*Disney's prevention of its subsidiary Miramax from distributing
Michael Moore's Palme d'Or winning documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.

*Preventing poor Mickey from entering the public domain by "influencing" Congress to extending corporate copyright protection AGAIN. Is that any way to treat a senior citizen?

*The notion that libraries should adopt a corporate model for "serving" their "customers."

Saturday, June 26, 8:45 - 9:15am Convention Center Auditiorium, outside Room 320 where the program "Service Disney Style" will be
taking place.

... on my first and only trip to DisneyWorld (brought on by an insistent 13 year old).

The place was a miserable HucksterLand of overpriced admission, overpriced food, overpriced stores and overlong lines.

I can't imagine ever returning, nor can I comprehend why people vacation in PhonyLand, rather than going to see the real places.

When I vacation, I want to experience something real. There is so much to see, and so little time.

As a child I hated the over-hyped place... just way too faux friendly.....as an adult I am appalled at the non stop shopping and consumer happy horse shit. I hate Disney. Their products suck. They are racist, homophobic, sexist, elitist, and tired old shit dust bags.

My adult kids hate them and my three year old thinks they STINK.

Disney is just a money grubbing whore with better teeth.

Fuck Disney. The entire enterprise really is with out merit.

http://www.denounce.com/archives/000055.html

Any truth to this announcement?

(snip)
Recognized around the world as the best source for completely fictional news and information
(snip)

Shhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiii don't tell anybody :hurts: