Banning Moores movie from screens

bean

From BBC

"According to Hollywood Reporter, Illinois-based GKC Theaters and Iowa-based Fridley Theaters have decided to not screen the film in protest at its "propaganda" content.

BBC Michael Moore


This really ticked me off. I know that i am not a US citizen and it may not be my business but i wrote this letter to the theatres for a few reasons. If you have any worries about their actions please feel free to mail these theatres too.



Mail gkccomments@gkctheatres.com

Dear Sir Madam,

I wish to express my concerns at the decision taken by your theaters not to show the feature Fahrenheit 9/11

Regardless of my own political sympathies I am extemely concerned that as a respected and major theater group GKC theatres have taken it upon themselves to censor and deny the right of free speech to those who wish to see the film. Bearing in mind that the film has passed official state/federal censorship.
Can you please explain your actions?

Please let the public decide for themselves, give them credit and let them make up their mind as to whether or not they wish to see the film or indeed believe the content. Please do not subject the public to your partisan views. At least Moore is not forcing us to watch the movie but your company is denying the public of that right.

Yours Sincerely

Ponster

GKC Theaters president Beth Karasotes said the chain, with 270 screens at 29 cinemas, would not show Moore's film as long as the US was at war.

At war?

Hasn't it been 14 months now since Bush declared an "end of major hostilities"?

irishgeo

they are only creating more publicity for the film.

Cactus Col

I don't see the problem ... businesses sell what they want to sell ... you go to a clothes shop and they don't have the jeans you want ... then you go to a different store for them .... the same way cinemas arent showing what you want to see .. then go to a different cinema (although you may have to travel a bit) ....


if it was just an freedom of speech issue Moore could just release it on the internet from his website

sceptre

Originally posted by Cactus Col
if it was just an freedom of speech issue Moore could just release it on the internet from his website

Miramax mightn't like that all that much.

bean

don't see the problem ... businesses sell what they want to sell ... you go to a clothes shop and they don't have the jeans you want ... then you go to a different store for them .... the same way cinemas arent showing what you want to see .. then go to a different cinema (although you may have to travel a bit) ....

Fair point and well made, its just that wall mart in the states started to do the same thing. At first they didnt sell mags that they judged to be "offensive" which is....ok

Then wall mart stopped publishing articles that disagreed/critisesed their company and only sold publications that agreed with their stance on...well, everything

Now usually you can go into another store to get such items not stocked by the Wall Mart but wall mart have a tendancy to run all competitors out of the area due to low price stock.

Then the locals have to make do with what Wall Mart chose to stock.


......the long and the short of it is im afraid that cinemas will do the same as wall mart.

koneko

Originally posted by sceptre
Miramax mightn't like that all that much.

AFAIK, Miramix didn't release it, Disney own them and didn't want anything to do with it (also dodgy). The Weinstein bros set up their own company (Fellowship Productions? something like that) to release it. Michael Moore has already said he approves of P2P releases of the film.

Gillo

Did Disney actually release a statement and if so, how many people have actually read the statement in its entirety?

AFAIK Disney said that it was too political to releaase in an election year. The film is very one sided as far as I. If an
anti Enda Kenny film were to be relleased here in an election year it would be both unprofessional and unethical of a cinema to show it or indeed a distribution company to release it.

As far as I can see Moore timed this movie not just to directly harm Bush but to ensure that no right wing candidate had a chance of winning the election. In fact it seems that Moore is left wing and simply using the medium he knows best to push his own political views.

Spacedog

Yeah Walmart censor everything they sell now, because of their vast buying power they can demand censored versions of magazines and music before selling them (some magazines include Walmart in the editorial process) to co-inside with their family value image. The Prodigy - Fat of the Land had it's first track removed before being sold in Walmart. this is the same situation emerging in the medium of film, the thin end of the wedge! George Washington'll be spinning in his grave!

Evil_Bilbo

The Wienstiens agreed to distribute the movie. They own Mirimax (named after their parents miriam and max). Disney own the distribution company Mirimax

Disney wouldnt allow Mirimax to distribute it because of its "political content". It has been argued that disney did this simply because they are in Florida. Florida is governed by Jeb Bush (George's brother). They were afraid that if they distributed a movie that shows ties between the bush family and the Bin-Laden terrorist crew, oil barrons, etc etc, that they would lose all their amazing tax breaks that they get from Jeb Bush (probably because they funded his campaign).

Who knows, perhaps they were told not to allow the distribution. Perhaps they didnt want to distibute it, coz they thought Jeb wouldnt be re-elected and they would lose some tax breaks or something.

The Weinstiens "went out on a limb" (a pretty sturdy one I reckon), and set up their own independant distribution company Lions Gate Films (I think). These are the sole distributers of the movie in the USA.

The people that are banning this film (and officials from the whitehouse) have stated that "Everything in the film is propaganda, and lies, and therefore it should not be shown, especially in election year". When asked if they had actually seen the film, they stated that they didnt need to see the actual film, but that they knew all facts provided in it were falsified.

Thats a "no".

sceptre

Originally posted by koneko
AFAIK, Miramix didn't release it, Disney own them and didn't want anything to do with it (also dodgy). The Weinstein bros set up their own company (Fellowship Productions? something like that) to release it. Michael Moore has already said he approves of P2P releases of the film.

Yeah, Miramax didn't want to release it (though they'll probably reclaim the DVD rights after a few months but that's just a guess). Don't they own part of the movie though (not just the distribution, which they passed on)? They're listed as one of the production companies on imdb.

koneko

Originally posted by sceptre
Yeah, Miramax didn't want to release it (though they'll probably reclaim the DVD rights after a few months but that's just a guess). Don't they own part of the movie though (not just the distribution, which they passed on)? They're listed as one of the production companies on imdb.

AFAIK they paid for it to be made (produced it), but the Weinsteins paid for all that after they bought the film off them. That's what I heard anyway, in which case Miramax have no hold on the film. I could be wrong though

leeroybrown

The people that are banning this film (and officials from the whitehouse) have stated that "Everything in the film is propaganda, and lies, and therefore it should not be shown, especially in election year". When asked if they had actually seen the film, they stated that they didnt need to see the actual film, but that they knew all facts provided in it were falsified.

Some might say the same about the entire Bush Presidency.

Even if Miramax still own some rights to the film, it would still make no sense for them to sit on it and absorb the loss.

Batbat

there is precious little true freedom of speech left in USA, at least not on the news channels, this is not supprising

Zoton

Originally posted by gillo

AFAIK Disney said that it was too political to releaase in an election year. The film is very one sided as far as I. If an
anti Enda Kenny film were to be relleased here in an election year it would be both unprofessional and unethical of a cinema to show it or indeed a distribution company to release it.

Dont you mean an anti Bertie film since he's the one in power at the moment. And it may be unprofessional but free speech is fundamental to democracy.

Batbat

quote:Originally posted by gillo

AFAIK Disney said that it was too political to releaase in an election year. The film is very one sided as far as I. If an
anti Enda Kenny film were to be relleased here in an election year it would be both unprofessional and unethical of a cinema to show it or indeed a distribution company to release it.

There it no dount that Moores movie is one sided and biased, but you must understant that in America since 9/11 there has been a complete absence of any news reporting that does not tow the whitehouse patry line,.

Is Moors movie the complte truth?, perhaps not but its enough of a counter view to balance the major networks equaly unbalanced reporting, and somewhere inbetween is the truth.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

There it no dount that Moores movie is one sided and biased, but you must understant that in America since 9/11 there has been a complete absence of any news reporting that does not tow the whitehouse patry line,.

you really do make me sick to be irish

ffs

Batbat

you really do make me sick to be irish

ffs

you just dont know any better

vorbis

it does seem strange though, this labeling of the ENTIRE US media as being complete pro war propagandists. Outside Fox, the likes of CNN have shown some balance. What seems to annoy people here is that the channels AREN'T rabidly anti-American.

Batbat

only 468,000 americans watch CNN daily, this is about a third of the cable news channnels, the majority 55% watch Fox news which is rabidly right wing (although I still like OReily).

Regardless cable news as a whole is only vied by a fraction of the american public, most watch the TV network news, which as I said has reported only what the white house wants them to report.

Batbat

Can I just say that I think America is a great country, I just think they (and the rest of the world) deserve better then bush

Evil_Bilbo

Miramax didn't want to release it (though they'll probably reclaim the DVD rights after a few months but that's just a guess). Don't they own part of the movie though (not just the distribution, which they passed on)? They're listed as one of the production companies on imdb.

It was DISNEY who stopped Mirimax (owned by the overtly gay wienstiens) from distributing this movie in the states. Seeing as Mirimax are the ones distributing it everywhere BUT the US, they obviously have some kind of rights to it. The Weinstiens are the producers, so Mirimax are the production company listed.

Why would Mirimax buy the distribition rights in the first place if they didnt want to release it? The Wienstiens had to purchase the rights back from Disney (parent company of Mirimax), and set up their own distribution company just for this movie.

Disney are the "bad guys" who didnt want to miss out on tax breaks from gov Jeb Bush (gov of florida), and tried to stop the movie getting to theatres.

The Weinstiens are the "good guys" who lost a tonne of money by setting up a new company and buying back the distribution rights to get the movie out there. Presumably, they thought it was worth the loss, as all the publicity meant more people would go and see it.

vorbis

but even outsode that batbat, there is widespread internet availability in the US. Nothings stopping anyone from finding media outlets that agree with their personal bias. You know you can actually get from the Fox News site to Al Jazeera's homepage in 3 mous clicks. imo there is no vast brainwashing conspiracy. Some of the people who watch Fox genuinely want to. Surely you should be broad minded enough to accept different viewpoints.

the wernstein brothers bought the rights to make money. they did not own them, disney did. Normally Buena Vista would DISTRIBUTE the film not Miramax.

Batbat

but even outsode that batbat, there is widespread internet availability in the US.

Yes thank god, I hope more and more Americans read all then can from different sources and different news networks, and then they can come to their own informed decision

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Originally posted by vorbis
it does seem strange though, this labeling of the ENTIRE US media as being complete pro war propagandists. Outside Fox, the likes of CNN have shown some balance. What seems to annoy people here is that the channels AREN'T rabidly anti-American.

the voice of reason!

and the name of a nifty audio codec!

my heart sir, is yours.

Batbat

Originally posted by vorbis
it does seem strange though, this labeling of the ENTIRE US media as being complete pro war propagandists. Outside Fox, the likes of CNN have shown some balance. What seems to annoy people here is that the channels AREN'T rabidly anti-American.

Not anti-American but anti american foreign policy, Ill say it again so it sinks in anti american foreign policy

Cake Fiend

The only thing that bothers me about this is that Moore is one of few people actually touting an alternative view of things to the great American unwashed. Unfortunately he's almost as much of a propaganda-smearing would-be demagogue as Bush. I love the irony of Moore's fans bleating about 'the real truth'.

sceptre

Originally posted by Evil_Bilbo
It was DISNEY who stopped Mirimax (owned by the overtly gay wienstiens) from distributing this movie in the states. Seeing as Mirimax are the ones distributing it everywhere BUT the US, they obviously have some kind of rights to it. The Weinstiens are the producers, so Mirimax are the production company listed.

Mmm, I should really have said "Disney" rather than "Miramax". However, while Miramax was founded by the Weinsteins, it was sold lock stock and barrel to Disney in 1993. Miramax is still run by the Weinsteins (under a heavy-handed regime that limits them to a marketing and distribution budget of 700 million a year and not a penny more) but they haven't owned it in a decade. Keeping the Weinsteins at the helm was part of the original deal and Disney have the option to make the Weinsteins hang around till 2009 (whether or not thay'll take that option will be announced some time next year). Ne'e'rtheless, although the financing came from Miramax, the blocking came from Disney & hence I should have said "Disney" (and as a bonus it would have warmed up the anti-copyright term extension vitriol in me belly)

Funnily enough the 1993 base sale price for Miramax was a pithy 80 million dollars (though the Weinsteins still get a nice wad of cash every year). Rumours abound that Harve is trying to raise funding to buy it back at its current market valuation (a more impressive 2 billion bucks). The more public spats with Shrek-lookalike Disney CEO Michael Eisner, the more likely Eisner is to tell him to go away and take the company in return for a truck full of money. Which Bob and Harve would probably like - Disney had 44 Oscar nominations last year IIRC and 40 of them came through Miramax

nesthead

what i think is great about this film, regardless of its bias(and by extension its content) is that is giving political apathy a good kick up the arse over there in america.

firstly, its presenting politics in a very accessible medium, and thats to it being so controversial, people are talking about it a lot.

its getting people thinking, getting them to form politcal views (whether they be republicanist or democrat-ist)

now there should be a proper election (not like that sham a few years ago) as this time over 50% of the population will vote for the "president" (more like dictator) of the most important country in the world with regards to foreign policy.

Spacedog

Originally posted by Batbat
... (although I still like OReily)...

Yeah, Hitler wasn't without his charm either! since we're talking about nazis. there's a whole chapter in 'Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them.' about Bill OReily, and his interview with the son of the port worker who died in 911 is one of the most surreal moments of television I've ever seen (including 911 itself).