Filmmaker and waste of oxygen Michael Moore has admitted that he lied about Disney recently refusing to distribute his film. Anyone surprised? I didn't think so. Turns out there was no recent decision on the part of Disney to not put out his partisan, Bush-bashing picture....he was told over a year ago it wasn't going to happen. So much for the cries of censorship. Think the media will retract their stories? Of course not.
Moore admitted during an interview with CNN that he knew a long time ago Disney wasn't going to release it. This after he wrote a letter to his supporters saying he only found out Monday. So, he lied. Nothing new here...Michael Moore has been lying for years. Will the mainstream media call him on it?
Disney should sue him after that little publicity stunt. Why does anyone take this guy seriously?
EA CO AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1367 times:
Clash of the Idiots: Today, I read that PETA is taking on Michael Moore.
From The Arizona Republic's movie preview section, Friday May 7th:
"PETA has named Moore one of its "Flab Five" and hopes he'll submit to a Veg Eye for the Fat Guy makeover. 'Looks like the Downsize This author has been doing too much supersizing,' PETA says.
'We'll be sending him a nice little care package, a makeover kit filled with health and diet tips, PETA's vegetarian starter kit and suggestions on how he might change his lifestyle,' PETA's Michael McGraw tells MSN's the Scoop."
PETA and Michael Moore - wow, I can't decide which one I dislike more!
JCS17 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1357 times:
Apparently many people take him very seriously..that's the danger.
Look at a.net for proof. The Europeans read his books and take his word as pure, unadulterated facts. Michael Moore has been caught doing these stunts way too many times for any one to take him seriously--one second the guy is bitching about how America exports jobs, the next minute he's publishing his books in Canada.
Shamrock1heavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1322 times:
He is funny as hell and even though I used to belive everything he said to be true ( a lot of it is) I still like his stuff. I saw him talk live and it was really fun stuff, he made a lot of jokes and hada great video of him and 4 Arab men taking over a gas station for a day to get donations of food to bring to Iraqi children.
Teva From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1266 times:
OK, He knew 1 year ago that Eisner didn't want to distribute the film.
But in & year, things change.
- Isn't it change in DIsney's top management?
- 1 year ago, he probably had no idea about the completion date for the film, and if it would even be finished one day. So distribution was not the problem at that time.
- the film was not selected for Cannes festival.
So, if today, he wants to use this selection to make noise and try to have his film available for the public, I have no proiblem. And if you don't like Moore, nobody forces you to watch his movies or read his books.
When I saw the tittle, my hope was to read "Michael Moore lied: Disney respect so much the values of democracy and Freedom in the USA, a model for the world, that they never had the intention to block the movie"
That would have been a good surprise for me, and a positive sign to the world
Qb001 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1164 times:
Sorry guys, but some people need reading lessons. Here's what Moore said, according to the article : But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."
Where's the stunt? Where's the lie? Moore has been quite blunt about the whole thing. Here's what you can read on hos web site today : "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."
This article is ONE journalist's personnel interpretation of what Moore said. Considering that I didn't read anything similar, interpretation wise, in any other media, pleaaaaaaaaase, take this article for what it is: a personnel interpretation. There's nothing close to a consensus in the medias about this interpretation, right?
The way some of you jumped on this simply because it comforted your opinion on Moore is pathetic, to say the least...