How can I respond to a freeper who claims Michale Moore admits to stunt?

Thats all I am hearing.I asked where in the CNN trascript does Moore admit to this being a stunt? ANy advice?

...that he admits that Disney told him a year ago that they wouldn't distribute the film. Therefore, his timing - right before Cannes - is the stunt. My response? So since they canned it a year ago, it's not censorship??

Go to www.michaelmoore.com and read the last few Mike's Messages for the full story.

(Edit: the genesis of this spin is the London newspaper, The Independent.)

The fact is unaltered: Disney refused to distribute the film for fear of government reprisal. Can THAT be disputed?

But the jist of the story is this:

Moore said: "I knew Disney would have problems with the content of this film, and did not want to distribute it."

That statement was reported in the media as: "I knew Disney had no intention of ever releasing my movie, and my complaining yesterday was nothing but a publicity stunt."

There's actually a fairly long thread in LBN on this you might want to check out.

....What the heck is a freeper?

:P

"Freeper," "freep," or "freeptard" are commonly-used terms to refer to those folks who spend their time gnashing their teeth over on FreeRepublic.com. I don't recommend going there. Your IQ immediately drops by 10 points, you begin to drool, and long for a copy of Newt Gingrich's _Contract With America_.

Check it out if you dare, but go at your own risk. It's like a National Geographic expedition to a very scary place.

:dem:

RV

more like a hundred

(snip)

"In April of 2003, I signed a deal with Miramax, a division of the Walt Disney Co., to finance and distribute my next movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. (The original financier had backed out; I will tell that story at a later date.) In my contract it is stated that Miramax will distribute my film in the U.S. through Disney's distribution arm, Buena Vista Distribution. It also gives Miramax the rights to distribute and sell the movie around the world.

A month later, after shooting started, Michael Eisner insisted on meeting with my agent, Ari Emanuel. Eisner was furious that Miramax signed this deal with me. According to Mr. Emanuel, Eisner said he would never let my film be distributed through Disney even though Mr. Eisner had not seen any footage or even read the outline of the film. Eisner told my agent that he did not want to anger Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. The movie, he believed, would complicate an already complicated situation with current and future Disney projects in Florida, and that many millions of dollars of tax breaks and incentives were at stake.

But Michael Eisner did not call Miramax and tell them to stop my film. Not only that, for the next year, SIX MILLION dollars of DISNEY money continued to flow into the production of making my movie. Miramax assured me that there were no distribution problems with my film.

But then, a few weeks ago when Fahrenheit 9/11 was selected to be in the Cannes Film Festival, Disney sent a low-level production executive to New York to watch the film (to this day, Michael Eisner has not seen the film). This exec was enthusiastic throughout the viewing. He laughed, he cried and at the end he thanked us. "This film is explosive," he exclaimed, and we took that as a positive sign. But “explosive” for these guys is only a good word when it comes to blowing up things in movies. OUR kind of “explosive” is what they want to run from as fast as they can."

(snip)

www.michaelmoore.com

Fahrenheit 9/11 deserves at least as much publicity, if not more, than Mel Gibson's "Passion".

Everybody knows at least the basics of Jesus' story, but there's a whole lot of people out there who don't have the first fucking clue about what happenned on 9-11-01.

This movie needs to be shown in every city, every town, of every so-called "red state". And the blue ones too, for that matter.

Of that I have no doubt. Eisner just wants to make a public stink so as cover his own ass and be able to say he objected in the strongest possible terms. He's the one staging a publicity stunt, not Moore.

Doesn't make it better. He does this over and over again. Who remembers his melodramatic story about police raids on his booik signings, when it turned out to be two cops telling him he had to leave because his time for the building was up and he was keeping the janitorial staff from going home?

Then there are the JEB Bush passages in "Stupid White Men" that try to hide that Moore was paid. Then there are the NRA speeches in "Bowling for Columbine." On and on.

He's a putz. He's played us again. He knew for a year that Disney wouldn't distribute his film, but he used us to get into Disney's face over nothing, all for publicity. Now it's backfiring, and undermining his credibility and our cause just as he releases his film. People who do documentaries rely on their credibility, and he has little.

I know no one will get that here, and that people like him because he says what we want him to, but at heart, he's just our Rush Limbaugh. We all wonder how Repubs can support a liar like Limbaugh? Same way we support Moore.

Worst thing is, he makes some great points and fantastic insights in his films and books. They would stand alone if he let them. But he has so many factual flights of fantasy that the only people who like him are the people who already agree with him.

Oh well. See you at Disney World. Turns out they were telling the truth.

Joby, you are sadly misinformed..

I see a lot of criticism, but I gave details, and no one else has. Fill me in if I'm misinformed, Truth. Talk is cheap.

...know how to play the media game. We're more comfortable being freaking victims.

Unfriggin believeable.

For a sap.

If we have the facts, we should present them, not pound the table.

If a company says it will prevent a movie from being distributed by its subsidiary before its finished, and still says that after it's finished, it isn't a "stunt" to make an issue of the lack of distribution.

Now that the movie is finished, it's more important to get a distributor.

It should be publicized that Disney won't let Mirimax distribute the finished movie.

By your reasoning, because Bush has supported the PATRIOT Act for years, anyone who criticizes him over it now is pulling a "stunt."

Wrong-Then should be publicized. Wrong-Now should be publicized.

heres his source of information.

http://www.moorewatch.com

Of course if I posted a link to DU or Buzzflash to make an argument about why I hate Bush,then the rules will change!

The original Freeper family value.

It was wrong a year ago for Disney to say it would block distribution by Mirimax.

It is wrong today for Disney to say it will block distribution by Mirimax.

It makes sense to publicize the distribution issue now because now the movie is finished.

It made sense a year ago to concentrate on making the movie.

It's okay to censor someone if you hate them.

/sarcasm off

The Moorewatch sight is full of lies, half-truths, and faulty logic, but there is just enough truth on it to justify the lies to some people. Because they are right on a few issues, it undermines EVERYTHING he does.

And if you think that sight is horrible with of its lies mixed in with the truth, if you think it is innacurate because it contains lies alongside the truth, then you have to say the same thing about Moore himself. THAT's what non-partisans (and some of us partisans) see in Moore.

Someone who makes a film AFTER being told it won't be distributed by a certain company who THEN goes on to make the film and raise a fuss AFTER it is finished because the distributor is doing EXACTLY what they told you they would do in the first place has NOTHING to gripe about.

Moore isn't criticizing Disney because Disney is "censoring" him. He's doing it to get attention for his movie. If you query a magazine to write an article, and they tell you they won't publish it, and then you write it anyway, what gives you the right to complain about them not publishing it?

Moore will, and probably already has, find another distributor. He's had a year to do so. No one is blocking his film. No one set him up. He's just making us all look bad.

It's wrong in the first place for Disney to stop Mirimax from distributing the movie.

Disney shouldn't stop its subsidiaries from distibuting documentaries just because those documentaries are anti-Bush.

When Michael Moore was busy making the movie, it didn't make sense for him to publicize that wrong, but now that the movie needs a distributor, it does.

Or are these your own words?

See what you think.

Then there are the JEB Bush passages in "Stupid White Men" that try to hide that Moore was paid.

Pages 249-250 "Stupid White Men"

(Jeb) "So-did they pay you enough to come down here?" he snapped at me pointedly, and the translation was clear: "you suck, Moore". My mouth went dry; my heart was beating so hard I was worried he could hear it.

"It's never enough, Governor, you know that," I replied with the first words I could muster. Why did he care who paid me or how much? Then it dawned on me-HE paid for it! Florida State University! No wonder he was pissed: he'd picked up the tab for my visit to tell thousands of Floridians-especially Nader voters-that beating Bush was the important thing. This was NOT what the Bush camp wanted the Naderites to be thinking.

Sure does NOT sound like Mike Moore is trying to hide that he was paid to me.

As for the NRA speeches, You are refering to Uncle Chuckie's "From my cold dead hands" rant being from a different apperance. Mike Moore has said that it was not from the Denver speech, but it was a standard part of Chuckster's apperances at NRA events. Since Chuckles suit and hair are different from the Denver speech, it's not too hard to tell that the footage was not from the Devner NRA event.

His story starts out as an explanation of how he had so much integrity that he decided to speak against voting for Nader in a battleground state, and it concludes, if you pay attention, with a meek admission buried in a slam story of Jeb that he had been paid to speak FOR Nader in Florida but changed his mind. That wasn't a presentation of the facts, that was a defense against accusations he didn't want to admit were true.

Are you saying that I should feel betrayed because he gets paid to make appearances? That he dare ask to be compensated to fly all over to "rally the troops"? Since you have the facts, tell me who are the speakers that you know of that fly at their own expense to make appearances for free?

I have read the "whole context". He says the Nader campaign called and asked him to join them to spread Ralph's message. Moore declines their invite. Then he tells of going to a speaking engagement at FSU. Moore tells his audience that if they vote in a state that is close, they should vote Gore, but in the end, it would be up to them. The next morning, he has a chance encounter with Jeb. The only "slam" on Jeb is when he says of Jeb, "he gave that Bush smirk". He does slam himself for not being able to think of anything to say to Jeb. He goes on to lament that the same thing happened when he came face to face with shrub and Neil "hey, those hookers just showed up and started doin' me!" Bush. "Every time I've run into one of the Bush kids it's been a defeating, debilitating experience. For some reason, they always seem to get the upper hand." Next, he is on an airplane. He describes a call to Nader HQ, where he urges Ralph's campaign people to offer Gore their support if Gore promises to support one of their issues. Nader's people refuse cause it will make Ralph look bad. I've read a lot of books where the authors have gone on tour. I've yet to read one where they list their itineraries with the fees they collected at each stop.

...and "you don't care anyways". Choose your battles carefully; this one doesn't really matter. You're letting him get away with saying something he hasn't proven to begin with, and having you scurrying to find disproof of it.

...why are you trying to convince a Bushbot freeper? A feeling of personal satisfaction or glory? Those tigers don't change their spots. Work on waking up rational and semi-rational people.

and go with that.
:think:

This may be where the hubbub is coming from.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3565069&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

....to go back and look at the news reports prior to Gibson's opening of "Passion of Christ." The same kind of fuss was generated by Gibson.

freepers.

My husband flat out asked this freeper asshole he works with, "What would it take for you NOT to vote for Bush?" The guy replied, "There is NOTHING that could get me not to vote for Bush." That's the mindset of these people. They could learn (with documented, photographed proof) that the President himself committed acts against prisoners, ordered the planes to hit the twin towers, sent anthrax to democratic congressmen (being over the top here on purpose - no I am not saying that * did any of these things), and they would STILL vote for him. It's not worth your energy. Use your energy elsewhere to convince those not already brainwashed by the adminisration. Better still, use your energy to write letters to your elected officials, boycott Bush corporate supporters, write letters to newspapers, etc. Forget the freetards!

Send Rush Packing:
http://www.geocities.com/sendhimpacking/

He took the power away from Disney, put Disney on the defensive and made lots of noise and pre-publicity for the movie. Couldn't very well talk about Disney's refusal to distribute before the movie was completed over one year ago and have the same impact.

As a Disney investor said in a NYT's letter the other day, will it make money? Based on Moore's previous films, YES it will! Does this investor want it released, indeed.

From the standpoint of a producer/media company VP, it is pretty clear what is going on:

-- The exchange between Eisner and Moore of a year ago did NOT represent the official views of the Disney corporation, but was a unilateral move by Eisner, who is notorious in the business for bullying Disney's employees and partners; this move plays into a well-known pattern of conduct on Eisner's part that has in fact hurt Disney as a company and negatively impacted shareholder value

-- The very fact tha Miramax has continued to finance the film (as can be corroborated in news articles in Variety gives the lie to Eisner's exchange with Moore of a year ago representing the official position of Disney