Asymmetrical Information

Who cares?

All this talk about Michael Moore reminds me...

Here's the best TV clip in 2004 so far:

click here

Jane, end the Vulcan mind-meld!

I had a post on the same subject, but with a twist - the very same CNN interview that inspired the headline to which you link also inspired this at CNN: "Moore slams Disney over film block"

The transcript which inspired both stories is here.

I agree with the Independent's conclusion, BTW, but their headline is a stretch.

Wow--Lord Pork-Pork is a fraudulent gasbag. In other news: rocks are hard, Sinatra could sing, and it's been a while since Eric Gagne has blown a save.

Not criticizing you for pointing it out anyway, mind you--some people seem to need the point driven home repeatedly. Particularly anyone who might be thinking of giving another Oscar to Moore's psychotic drivel.

There was speculation that this was the case in the comments to my earlier post "What Censorship Is Not".

The Independent has just changed the headline from "More admits ..." to "Moore accused of ...".

As a liberal here I have to defend him in the following manor...

Yeah, that clip from the Oscars was great and, no I'm not surprised and of course he's a gas-bag, he's got a political agenda. Yawn.

It is far too late in his career for Moore to try honesty. It is a concept with which he has no familiarity.

Next thing you know, PETA will admit selecting Michael Moore for it's Flab Five was just a publicity stunt ...

... you mean it wasn't?

Kind of interesting reading Moore's comments on his website. He has posted a "Message from Mike" each of the last three days (ie, the 5th, 6th, and 7th). On the 5th, he says:

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." The reason? According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush.

Of course, Disney made the actual decision a year ago, but that doesn't mean Moore wasn't told about it "yesterday". He just left out the "again" part.

Also, he cites the NY Times in claiming that Disney is doing this to avoid clashing with Jeb Bush, governor of Florida. The source of this information is... Moore's own agent. But it probably sounds better to cite the Times than his own agent.

The Times ran an article on the 5th. (I suspect Moore doesn't like the picture that accompanies it; he linked to the printer-friendly version, which includes just the text of the article.) There's a followup article on the 6th, as well as the editorial. (The followup article seems pretty evenhanded, except for the headline: "Disney Takes Heat on Blocking Bush Film". Shouldn't that be "Moore Film"? Are we supposed to believe that the extra letter wouldn't fit?)

Interestingly, Moore has posted the whole Times editorial at his site. I'm sure he got permission first, and just neglected to mention that. (He's very busy these days.)

The editorial ends with "But it is clear that Disney loves its bottom line more than the freedom of political discourse." A rather odd statement, since as a publicly held corporation, Disney is supposed to focus on the bottom line. The real question is whether they're hurting their bottom line for political reasons. Which may be the case, and is something for Disney shareholders to decide.

It's all a little silly. Are we really supposed to believe that Moore doesn't know the difference between financing and distributing a film? But Moore wanted some buzz about his film before Cannes, which starts next Wednesday, and he found a way to get it.

So are you claiming that Disney didn't try to renege on their distribution agreement then?

THERE's a surprise (to the sound of eyes rolling)

So are you claiming that Disney didn't try to renege on their distribution agreement then?

D^2, if anyone is reneging, it sounds like it's the guys at Miramax. Even Moore has admitted that Eisner said a year ago that Disney wouldn't let Miramax distribute the film. Maybe Moore's friends at Miramax have been assuring him that Disney would change its corporate mind (and maybe Moore believed them). Moore probably doesn't want to ruin his Miramax relationship, but thought criticizing Disney would generate buzz without hurting him too much.

So, yes. I don't think Disney had a distribution deal with Moore, and I don't think they've tried to renege on it.

Are you claiming you believe Moore? And if so, which story of his do you believe?

Disney didn't have a distribution deal with Moore. Miramax has a distribution deal with Moore. Disney distributes most of Miramax's films, but the contract contains a clause saying that they don't have to distribute anything they don't want to, particularly things they feel would adversely affect their brand. They informed Miramax over a year ago, as the project got underway, that they wouldn't distribute this film; there's no "distribution deal" for them to renege on.

Comments are Closed.