Michael Moores' F 9/11... will you see it? by Ghoulman

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Michael Moores' F 9/11... will you see it?

POSTED BY: GHOULMAN
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 3, 2004 10:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 22852
PAGE 3 of 3

Friday, July 2, 2004 2:58 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ Wow! Stop, all that reasoning and insight. Please, the world is amazed!

Jeez.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 11:45 AM

LOSTINTHEVERSE

I don't intend on seeing this work until it comes out on cable. I simply don't want my money in Moore's coffers. I'm curious as to what he has to say, even if I don't agree with his politics. He has completely forfeited his credibility with Bowling for Columbine. I recognize and agree with his right to produce and tout any thing he wants, truthful or not, just as I recognize Disney's right to not distribute. Free Speech does not include absolute right to major distribution. I find it helpful to read the first amendment when it comes to disputing freedom of speech:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Congress shall make no law... by saying "I disagree" or even "Shut up, you moron" I am not in anyway diminishing your right to free speech, just as Miramax was not infringing on Moore's right by not stamping their name on the film and distributing it.

Credibility is an interesting thing... 90% of your facts can be true, but the 10% of evidence that is fabricated completely undermines your present argument (not to mention all of your future arguments).

One who has shown that he is willing to lie to prove "a higher point" has not proven his point at all, but taken from it the credibility to let his argument stand.

One mans opinion, feel free to completely tear it apart.

~Lost In The Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 weeks on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!" ~Wash

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 11:45 AM

LOSTINTHEVERSE

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:08 PM

ANTISTRUCTURE

SAW IT, ITS EXCELLENT.

We all live in a world of disinformation, a bit of the truth gets out, and people see it as lie, if moore is lieing, tell me the lies, Document your argument (much like moore does) and back up your argument, or are you just quoting Rightwing corporate spinsters!?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 2:53 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:

One who has shown that he is willing to lie to prove "a higher point" has not proven his point at all, but taken from it the credibility to let his argument stand.

THIS is a most valid critisism, so I will take you seriously instead of the trolls who follow me around.

Michael Moore is a lefty, is pro union, and an advocate for the poor. Also he is a journalist... but, he isn't a documentarian.

I don't agree with your opinions about Moore (Columbine hit the nail on the head, and won the awards to prove it one might offer), but I do agree Moore is fast and loose with his facts. He is frustratingly annoying that way... his movies are, at best, infotainment.

I've heard Moore call this movie journalism, well, considering we live in a world where CNN reporters just make shit up... I think Moore is OK. At least in the ball park enough to be taken seriously.

After all... it doesn't take a truck load of facts or knowledge to show GWB is a moron. To tell ya the truth, I thought Moores' movie was moderate and leaned a fair bit to the centre.

Quote:
Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:
One mans opinion, feel free to completely tear it apart.

And this is all Michael Moores movie is.. his opinion. It isn't propoganda (you have to share an agenda with others for that), and the movie really is just presenting a linear progression to a question... what the hell happened to the USA and who's to blame.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 7:11 AM

JASONZZZ

Michael Moore's bullying is making it's way around. Just randomly pissing people off. He blabbed off about Pete Townshend and that use of "Won't Get Fooled Again".

The Who's guitarist Pete Townshend is upset with Moore over another issue stemming from his film, but it's not his political stance.

"I have nothing against Michael Moore personally... but I greatly resent being bullied and slurred by him in interviews just because he didn't get what he wanted from me," he posted on his web site.

Townshend says Moore approached him about using "Won't Get Fooled Again" on the soundtrack to Fahrenheit 9/11, but Townshend refused, promoting Moore to say that the guitarist was therefore in favour of the war.

Townshend says this line of thought is along the lines of Bush himself (you're either with us, or against us).

http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/diary/display.cfm?id=89&zone=diary

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 7:18 AM

JASONZZZ

Over at Washington Post, Jeff Morley talks about how Michael Moore as a person behaves and appears (to foreign presses) to be no more than the average "ugly American" that he decries and portrays in his movies. Dispensing ill-conceived political advices to citizens of foreign countries - strictly from a completely geo-centric view of an "ugly American".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46304-2004Jul13.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 8:34 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ it would be nice if you didn't include links to papers that require "registration" to see the article. Post it! Just keep the byline intact.

Interesting posts J (what? no rude pics posted?

). Um, did you see the movie?

What did YOU think?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:22 AM

JASONZZZ

Since registration is required for articles a day old or more, here's the complete article from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46304-2004Jul13.html

Nope, didn't have any rude pictures accompanying the article. Maybe some of Moore getting egg cream pie on his face?

Michael Moore, Ugly American
Filmmaker Taken to Task for Arrogance, Ignoring Israel

By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 13, 2004; 10:30 AM

Michael Moore can handle verbal abuse from the conservative pundits in America, but harsh words from Pete Townshend, lead guitarist for The Who, may hit closer to his liberal heart.

"I greatly resent being bullied and slurred by him just because he didn't get what we wanted from me," Townshend told Ireland Online.

Moore wanted Townshend's rock anthem "Won't Get Fooled Again" for use on the soundtrack of his anti-Bush documentary film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." Townshend refused, saying he thought Moore's previous movies amounted to "bullying." In response, Townshend said that Moore accused him of being a war supporter. Townshend says Moore's attitude was evocative of President Bush's war on terrorism credo: if you're not with me, you're against me.

"It seems to me that this aspect of his nature is not unlike that of the powerful and willful man at the centre of his documentary," Townshend observed.

Ouch. As "Fahrenheit 9/11" is released into theaters around the world, Moore is beginning to face a new kind of criticism. On American talk radio, Moore may be denounced as practically anti-American. In the international online media, the pudgy filmmaker from Flint, Michigan, is often seen as all too American. He is more than occasionally described as a stereotypical "ugly American" -- overbearing to people of different cultures, oblivious to nuance, unsophisticated in politics and arrogant in temperament.

The most common substantive criticism is that he scants the role of Israel in the politics of the Iraq war.

But the criticism hasn't kept people from lining up at the box office. The opening day box office receipts broke the British record for a documentary, according to the Daily Telegraph of London.

The French attitude was evident in a droll dispatch in Le Monde about Moore's press conference for foreign reporters in New York last week. In front of 150 reporters, Moore dispensed political advice to the people of many nations.

He urged the British to vote out Prime Minister Tony Blair. He wished the Australians would dump Prime Minister John Howard.

"The chief of the Italian government, Silvio Berlusconi, was not forgotten by the filmmaker," the Parisian daily observed dryly.

"If I were an Italian citizen, I would have left the movie theater asking myself what in the world Berlusconi was doing by always hanging on to George W. Bush's coattails," Moore was quoted as saying. "It is embarrassing for Italy and the earlier there is regime change in Rome, the better."

Moore also had advice for the people of South Korea, according to the Seoul daily Chosun Ilbo.

"I hope Korean viewers start a social campaign against the dispatch of additional troops to Iraq," he said.

Moore was apparently unaware that South Koreans opposed to the U.S.-led war had started such a campaign more than a year ago and that it already enjoys substantial public support.

Simon Houpt of Toronto's Globe and Mail wrote Moore's advice "reflected a typically American arrogance -- his assumption that the war should be the primary issue for foreign voters simply because it's the primary issue for him."

To be sure, Moore's movie has overseas admirers. After all, the film did win the prestigious Palme d'Or at the Cannes international film festival.

"The genius of this most American of films is that it has turned politics into a blockbuster subject," wrote a reviewer in the Observer of London. "It's the first punk rock movie: it must have cost less to make than The Blair Witch Project, and yet he's managed to distill reality and come up with something more powerful."

Some of the criticism abroad echoes that heard in America, faulting Moore for intellectual incoherence and emotional exploitation. But other critics voiced arguments not often heard in the United States.

Emir Kusturica, a filmmaker from Sarajevo, told the Israeli daily Haaretz that he was not impressed by Moore's desire to defeat Bush.

"What is the difference between one American president and another?" aked Kusturica. "They're all really the same, they're all products of the media and they all declare that they want the same thing -- to do well by the people and bring peace to the Middle East."

The failure to talk about Israel is the biggest weakness of the film, said al-Jazeera.net.

The Qatar-based news site credited Moore with dramatizing "that democracy itself has been threatened by the Bush presidency" but faulted the film's emphasis on ties between the Bush family and Saudi Arabia.

"The implicit suggestion that the Saudi government is somehow driving the Bush administration's policies towards the region flies in the face of Washington's unprecedented support for Israel as well as strong regional opposition to the invasion of Iraq."

Hussein Ibish, a Washington-based commentator writing for the Daily Star in Beirut, Lebanon, said Moore ignored "the massive paper trail demonstrating a pre-existing agenda, which placed the overthrow of the Iraqi regime at the center of both US and Israeli policies."

Instead, Moore depicts "the malevolent influence of 'the Saudis,' a phrase that in the US is increasingly spat out with utter contempt, reminiscent of the tone reserved for 'the Jews' in anti-Semitic discourse, ascribing to millions of otherwise heterogeneous people the same menacing and hostile essence."

"Moore may or may not affect the election," Ibish concluded. "But he has certainly succeeding [sic] in bringing to a great many Americans the most powerful critique of US foreign policy they have ever heard, albeit one that rests on a bizarre and incoherent conspiracy theory and which confuses at least as much as it enlightens."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:10 AM

GHOULMAN

Thanx JasonZZZ (still didnt' catch your personal thoughts... assuming you saw F9/11). That article is, in my humble opinion, picking nits at best and is terribly written.

So I'll nitpick back at the article. And point out a few writerly annoyances.

As a person who is somewhat aware of how reporters write these things, I noticed that the writer intimates a negative view coming from European Moore viewers... he starts this intimation in the third paragraph (even though he started with Pete Townsand.. huh? Great writing jeffie

) then in the 12th (!) paragraph down from the third he admites F9/11 won Canne!

That's called "burying the point". That is, puting in info you KNOW you will have to include but contradicts your point of view in the essay.

Personally, if I was his editor I'd tell him to learn to write.

And there is an air of Anti-Americanism in this article. One that came from the writer insisting that anti-Americanism is aimmed at Moore from Europeans. Yea... right. Let's have a short quote from someone in the European press shall we? After all, just stating you read something in the French paper Le Monde is NOT proper journalism. Not by a long shot!

And then this article goes on and on about Israel. Yea, we are all aware of Isreal and the USA connection. Which is prolly why Moore avoided it entirely in his movie. I would have too. That's a whole new movie!

Moore followed the Saudi money to the Bushies. It may not be the reasons for the Iraq invasion, but it suuuuuure is a concern. Especially since most of the 9/11 terrorists are from there. Moore has done the one thing any good investigator should do - FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Gotta watch who writes in the press these days. Lots of crap out there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:11 AM

HORKUS

No matter your politics, you need to research this film.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:33 AM

GHOULMAN

^^ yes, yes, we all know about Christopher Hitchens politics.

Christopher Hitchens is a liar... so called journalists like him LIED TO THE PEOPLE.

And this article... man! What crap! look... I'll post a little...

Quote:

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

Huh? Isn't that the Saudi Royal family CH means? The connection with the Bin Ladin family isn't a direct business relation and F9/11 simply doesn't make this statement.

The movie points out how connected the Bin Ladens are (big construction people... if you build anything in the middle-east it's with the Bin Ladens) NOT that there is a direct connection.

Quote:
2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

Yea... but CH makes it sound like the Bushies didn't have over a billion dollars of direct business with the Saudies. Which they did.

Quote:
3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? When I see anyone talking to the murderous Taliban... grr! kill them all!

Oh, I see, the Taliban came to Halliburton (not Carlysle) first... riiiight. A fundamentalist terrorist junte contacted the Bush people and suggested a pipeline... right. Sure. Crap!

Quote:
4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

Well, that's a fair cop. This part of Moores movie can easily be seen as crap. And it is as presented. But I still agree with Moores point - the actions in Afganistan were half-hearted and did, in the opinion of many, let Osama go free as a bird.

Quote:
5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

OK. This is a critisism of Moore? This CH guy just likes filler lines I think.

Quote:
6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

Oh... Chris is "divining" things now. Note to any aspiring journalists... you are NOT allowed to divine, guess, or bullshit when writing for the AMERICAN PEOPLE FUCKO! Sheesh.

And if you read the entire article, CH doesn't even refute what he listed above. He just blathers on and on...

Christopher Hitchens is a well known liar and bastard who is roundly hated by anyone with even a thimble full of integrity when it comes to journalism. Look, I will simply look at anything written by this.. this... excrible man as anything but well paid for propagana. Paid by whom? Well... that's a whole other story... heh heh.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:37 AM

HORKUS

Dude....calm down.

http://www.davidkopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.ht
m

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:42 AM

GHOULMAN

Sorry. *chuckle*... I type fast!

And I really hate that guy.

Do a search like this: "Christopher Hitchens" +liar

And you will see something of what I mean. Myself, I'vwe read his work before and HATE IT! Oh, there I go again. Don't take my posts that seriously... like others do.

I just let it hang out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:44 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Horkus:
Dude....calm down.

http://www.davidkopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.ht
m

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/

Yea, we know the National Review is the PREMIER right wing news source.

I'd be far more interested in YOUR opinion upon seeing the movie than just another list of boring links from crappy reporters.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 23, 2004 7:58 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ See how "they" attack Micheal instead of the issues? They call him a liar. They call him a traitor.

But they never... ever... talk about the facts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 23, 2004 8:08 AM

SPACEMONKEY

I've seen it, loved it. It was very one sided, but who cares? This movie didn't chance my mind about *cough* Bush *cough*, as I hate how he's running this country.

Even if only HALF of what is said is true, Bush and company have ALOT to explain.

The worst thing that could happen to us is if Bush gets reelected. I'll move to Canada and change my citizenship if he does.

I'll also be the first in line to vote him out.

-SP

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 30, 2004 6:34 PM

HKCAVALIER

Well Senator John McCain won't see it, but that didn't keep him from slamming it on national tv this evening. Damn it, I expected better from him. F 9/11 did not depict Iraq as a paradise, it depicted Iraq as a place where we are killing thousands of ordinary people. And counting how many people Hussein killed does not make that okay. Hussein is out of the picture now and we continue to kill thousands of ordinary people. It is a reality of war, so if you're gonna go to war, you better expect that folks are gonna point out that women and children die and you better be able to take it. Don't go blame the messenger.

Nobody ever talks about the real subject of that movie, anyway, which is the mother from Michigan and her son who died for a war he didn't believe in and her family trying to grieve. Nobody has anything to say about the whole second three quarters of the movie. It really makes me sick sometimes.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 30, 2004 6:45 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Over at Washington Post, Jeff Morley talks about how Michael Moore as a person behaves and appears (to foreign presses) to be no more than the average "ugly American" that he decries and portrays in his movies. Dispensing ill-conceived political advices to citizens of foreign countries - strictly from a completely geo-centric view of an "ugly American".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46304-2004Jul13.html

As someone, who is foreign, I must say that this is the most laughable thing that I have heard in a *long* time. MM is *not* preceived in this way where I live (Canada), nor elsewhere where I read the papers from (England, Scotland) nor where my wife reads her papers from (Germany also involving some general EU opinions).

Perhaps this man from the *Washingon* Post should get out more and talk to use foreigners before saying such things. I'd bet he'd get a better picture that way.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 30, 2004 7:08 PM

JASONZZZ

Good God, this thread reared it's ugly head *AGAIN*?
Let it rest. The DVD is going to come out in another month and MM will reap another cool $100M. All while spewing ugly lies and feeding his fat mouth with Big Macs and Krispy Kreme. Disgusting. That's *YOUR* money he is taking and laughing all the way to the bank with it.

AND

gosh! Shock! Surprise! People in other countries like Germany, Italy, Korea and Canada (etc, etc) don't all speak in one single unitary voice!? What madness, and here I thought that they were all drones and the reporters must be their mouth organs.
This I've got to see, since I am quite apparently wrong. The quotes were completely taken and translated wrong, b/c your friends and associates *REALLY* and truly represent that one single voice for all countries that are un-American. well! learn something every single day I say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 30, 2004 7:41 PM

CREVANREAVER

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
MM will reap another cool $100M. All while spewing ugly lies and feeding his fat mouth with Big Macs and Krispy Kreme.

THE WEBSITE BELOW IS A MUST SEE!!!

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

And by the way, John McCain is a true American hero!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 3:38 PM

HKCAVALIER

With apologies to Jasonzzz, I have to comment on these Moore bashing websites. I'm all for arguing with Moore's statements (yes, the "not a single American" line is not accurate. Though it's easy to see that he prolly meant that no American on American soil, the way he said it was sloppy to the point of irresponsibility), but I have a real hard time giving credence to the extensive inferences. To wit:

Quote:
The third part, on Iraq, has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false.

Moore's movie exists in the context of a debate. The opposing opinion, which anyone can get from any number of media, is assumed. Moore's movie is an answer to the prevailing neo-con position. With his "extremely one-sided" information he is saying, "No, not according to the people I talked to." No, we do not only destroy military targets in Iraq. No, our troops are not united behind Bush's agenda. Our troops are not above sadism and racism.

So many people have formed their opinion of Moore before seeing a singly frame of his movie. And they take that opinion and look for ways they can use F 9/11 to justify that opinion. Relentless assumptions don't make an argument.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 5:57 AM

GHOULMAN

Let's see...

Islamist Extreemist Terrorists kill just over 3000 business people and Pentagon personel and what happens?

... the USA bombs women and children, tortures women and children, murders 10s of thousands in a illegal war on a country that has no connection to the terrorist attacks mentioned above.

Some fat guy in Michigan makes a movie to attack GWB and his White House for that.

Just goes to show how insane America is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 12:56 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
THE WEBSITE BELOW IS A MUST SEE!!!

CrevanReaver, I've seen you post the same link when the topic of Fahrenheit 911 came up on another thread. What I have yet to see is an analysis from you on which points of the linked article you agree with based on seeing the film. Some questions immediately come to mind. Have you seen the movie? If yes, which of the points in the article do you see as accurate based on what you saw in the movie? If no, then how do you know the article you are advertising is a valid representation?

But I guess the more important question to me is why you are advertising this article. Should I read this article after I have seen the movie? Should I read this article before I see the movie? Should I read this article instead of seeing the movie? Should I read this article and then use it to convince people not to see the movie? What is the behavior that you are hoping results from someone who follows the link and reads the article?

I don't know Dave Kopel from Adam. You respect his work enough to advertise his article. Why?

Where I'm going with this is that it's easy to post a link. Sometimes I will follow a link with no additional information other than the person who posted the link. Most of the time I need to have more information than just the link itself to bother going and reading an article. There's just too much on the web for me to follow every single link posted so I use various bits of information as filters: does the summary of the link include enough information to let me know I will find the article interesting, is the author of the article someone I have had previous experience with, is the person posting the link someone whose judgement I have had previous experience with, etc.

Just curious.

Okay. That was part I. Now we move on to part II. The decision of Disney to not distribute this movie has proven to be a catastrophic business decision and the decision makers at Disney should answer to the shareholders. This is especially evident in the year 2004 when Disney has had a large number of disastrous movies. Distributing Fahrenheit 911 would not have made this year successful, but it would have staunched the bleeding. I've been playing around with numbers and trying to figure out what exactly it cost Disney to try to kill this movie.

Here are the movies released by Buena Vista this year ranked in order of domestic box office (in millions. 000.U means I couldn't find this information). Note that the first two movies are still in theaters. The Village has started to wane while The Princess Diaries 2 is still generating good business.

domestic gross + international gross = total gross / production cost + est. marketing cost = total cost - movie title
110.8 + 030.8 = 141.6 / 060.0 + 040.0 = 100.0 - The Village
076.8 + 000.5 = 077.3 / 040.0 + 000.U = 040.0 - Princess Diaries 2
067.3 + 040.6 = 107.9 / 100.0 + 025.0 = 125.0 - Hidalgo
064.4 + 000.0 = 064.4 / 000.U + 000.U = 000.U - Miracle
051.3 + 107.5 = 158.8 / 120.0 + 040.0 = 160.0 - King Arthur
050.0 + 028.2 = 078.2 / 100.0 + 000.U = 100.0 - Home on the Range
039.7 + 035.9 = 075.6 / 035.0 + 025.0 = 060.0 - The Ladykillers
037.5 + 010.6 = 048.1 / 035.0 + 000.U = 035.0 - Raising Helen
029.3 + 002.5 = 031.8 / 025.0 + 000.U = 025.0 - Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen
023.9 + 019.8 = 043.7 / 110.0 + 030.0 = 140.0 - Around the World in 80 Days
022.4 + 001.6 = 024.0 / 107.0 + 030.0 = 137.0 - The Alamo
006.5 + 000.0 = 006.5 / 010.0 + 000.U = 010.0 - Teacher's Pet
000.3 + 000.0 = 000.3 / 000.U + 000.U = 000.U - America's Heart and Soul

580.2 + 278.0 = 858.2 / 742.0 + 190.0 = 932.0 - Total Buena Vista 2004 releases

Now this is not including the production cost of two movies and the estimated marketing costs of seven movies so the actual costs will probably be higher. As it stands Buena Vista has spent 932 million and taken in 858.2 million to show a loss for the year of 73.8 million.

117.4 + 062.0 = 179.4 / 006.0 + 015.0 = 021.0 - Fahrenheit 911

So if Buena Vista had released Fahrenheit 911 it would have pushed them into the black using these numbers (and a lot closer to the black after the missing numbers are included, possibly into the black).

There's still hope for Disney to make a profit this year but a couple of movies are going to have to come through big for them in both the domestic and international markets. The following is a list of upcoming Buena Vista releases with their current HSX price in parenthesis: Mr. 3000 (36.6), The Last Shot (17.7), Ladder 49 (56.1), The Incredibles (199.5)[this is actually a Pixar release], National Treasure (53.4), The Life Aquatic (46.2), The Dark Water (35.6). I couldn't find production cost for most of these upcoming releases so I didn't bother doing that part of the analysis. If these numbers hold up there will only be one Disney release this year that grosses more than Fahrenheit 911 and that will be The Incredibles. When you take into account how little Fahrenheit cost to make and advertise it really emphasizes what a gold mine Disney turned their back on.

There is a problem with this analysis in that some of the business for the movie probably was due to the controversy of Disney trying to kill it so there's no guarantee that the movie would have made as much money as a Buena Vista release. In fact, if Disney had really been serious about killing this movie they should have quietly released it to a limited number of art house screens with no advertising. Would this have worked? Probably not. But by basically telling people they couldn't see the movie Buena Vista made sure that many people would see the movie.

On a side note, while tracking down numbers I found the following page that did a similar analysis. They didn't reference anything about Fahrenheit 911, they were just trying to show that Disney has not had a very good year at the box office. I'm not sure who these people are since I didn't investigate their site in rigorous detail. All I did was verify that the numbers they were using were accurate (although a few days out of date for those movies still in release). They make a claim that a movie is not profitable until it makes 2.5 times the production cost and then analyze major Buena Vista releases for this year (they also throw in one Miramax release, Kill Bill Vol. 2 which is profitable no matter what measure you use, but then don't include any other Miramax releases. So I'm not sure what to make of that.).
http://www.savedisney.com/employees/letters/dcm/dcm082704.asp

editted to add:
So that last link got me thinking about Miramax. Hero just opened in the US so it’s domestic total will definitely rise and it may even pass Fahrenheit 911 in total box office.

066.2 + 085.2 = 151.4 / 030.0 + 030.0 = 060.0 – Kill Bill Vol 2
025.3 + 005.2 = 030.5 / 035.0 + 015.0 = 050.0 – Jersey Girl
022.9 + 000.2 = 023.1 / 031.0 + 015.0 = 046.0 – Ella Enchanted
021.3 + 104.4 = 125.7 / 031.0 + 000.U = 031.0 – Hero
017.6 + 000.7 = 018.3 / 012.0 + 010.0 = 022.0 – My Baby’s Daddy
001.6 + 000.0 = 001.6 / 000.U + 000.U = 000.U – I’m Not Scared
000.9 + 029.9 = 030.8 / 000.U + 000.U = 000.U – Zatoichi
000.5 + 042.3 = 042.8 / 000.U + 000.U = 000.U – Shaolin Soccer
000.3 + 001.4 = 001.7 / 000.U + 000.U = 000.U – Valentin

156.6 + 269.3 = 425.9 / 139.0 + 070.0 = 209.0 – Total Miramax 2004 releases

Note that this is not including the production costs of four movies and the estimated marketing costs of five movies. So if we add together Buena Vista and Miramax (Pixar has not yet released the one movie they are doing this year) we get a total spent of 1141 million and a total gross of 1284.1 million for a net profit of 143.1 million. A lot of this will get eaten up by the missing costs but it basically means that Disney is breaking even for the year and threw away the chance for 158.4 million profit on a movie.

Just to finish up the numbers, Miramax has the following movies slated for release this year (current HSX price in parenthesis): Shall We Dance (34.65), Aviator (59.11), Proof (20.07), Bride and Prejudice (9.14), Cypher (2.25), The Actors (2.47), The Touch (1.69). Once again, I was unable to track down production costs and estimated marketing costs for these movies.

So Disney threw away what would have been it’s most profitable movie of the year (and what would have been its second or third highest grossing movie of the year).

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2004 5:15 AM

CONNORFLYNN

I've changed my mind on this.

I will see this movie. I have seen "Bowling for Columbine", and last night I watched "Roger and Me" (his best movie IMHO, and the closest to a true documentary). Though I disagree with the majority of Michael Moore's politics, I have to say I find his movies (notice I didn't state documentaries) entertaining, much like I would a good Quentin Tarantino flick. He's far from an unbiased documentarian and I take the majority of what he says with a grain of salt, but he is a fantastic, talented propaganda movie maker.

I also think he is an absolute marketing genius. He will never go hungry (not that he couldn't stand to lose a pound or 400), of this I'm sure hehe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:24 AM

JASONZZZ

UCSD Professor of Political Science Branislav L. Slantchev has written a stunningly sobber review of F911.

http://www.gotterdammerung.org/film/reviews/f/fahrenheit-911.html

BTW, I went and saw Team America the other day and it fan-freaking-tastic. MM had a great scene in it. Those two guys didn't hold back anything from anyone at all. Everybody gets it.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 29, 2004 5:41 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
I've changed my mind on this.

I will see this movie. I have seen "Bowling for Columbine", and last night I watched "Roger and Me" (his best movie IMHO, and the closest to a true documentary). Though I disagree with the majority of Michael Moore's politics, I have to say I find his movies (notice I didn't state documentaries)

They are documenteries. Stateing they are "propoganda" or anything else is simply stupid... yes, the people on American TV are stupid when they accuse Moore of bias.

How do I know this? Because ALL documentaries have a particular point of view. That's why they are called documentaries! If it was a so called "balanced" point of view then that would be journalism.

Micheal Moore is Americas foremost political documentarian, he has won awards around the world and is respected for his work. The lashing Moore takes from the so called "Liberal Media" shows the one true fact about the so called "Liberal Media" - that it is really a "Right Wing Media" controlled by corporate interests that support the Bush Junta and they will say anything to put Bush into the White House.

Which I just pointed out, because calling Moores movie anything but a documentary is clearly bullplop.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 29, 2004 5:52 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
UCSD Professor of Political Science Branislav L. Slantchev has written a stunningly sobber review of F911.

http://www.gotterdammerung.org/film/reviews/f/fahrenheit-911.html

This guy is full of shit.

"I believe the above represents a fair assessment of what the film tells. As one should have noted already, I have studiously avoided labeling Mr. Moore's product a documentary, for one the film most certainly is not."

Of course it's a documentary. Stating it isn't is a lie.

His article is pseudo-intellectual pap ment to rationalize a point of view. Sentences like this one:"I firmly believe that Mr. Moore's behavior here is absolutely despicable." show this writer has an agenda.

A true writer would only argue the facts presented without colouring with comments like this one, especially so early in the essay.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 29, 2004 7:21 AM

JASONZZZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
UCSD Professor of Political Science Branislav L. Slantchev has written a stunningly sobber review of F911.

http://www.gotterdammerung.org/film/reviews/f/fahrenheit-911.html

This guy is full of shit.

"I believe the above represents a fair assessment of what the film tells. As one should have noted already, I have studiously avoided labeling Mr. Moore's product a documentary, for one the film most certainly is not."

Of course it's a documentary. Stating it isn't is a lie.

His article is pseudo-intellectual pap ment to rationalize a point of view. Sentences like this one:"I firmly believe that Mr. Moore's behavior here is absolutely despicable." show this writer has an agenda.

A true writer would only argue the facts presented without colouring with comments like this one, especially so early in the essay.

It's fairly common in academic writing to provide a quick introductory summary of the material and the point of view the reader will encounter within the article. It's not likely to alter your entrenched viewpoint, so if you've read it, fine. If you haven't, no one is going to make you.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 29, 2004 7:27 AM

GHOULMAN

If this bozo is such a great academic why doesn't he know what a documentary is?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 29, 2004 8:28 AM

JASONZZZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
If this bozo is such a great academic why doesn't he know what a documentary is?

Wow, you would be great at the McCarthy inquisitions. But here is what I gathered from your comment.

[You in a voice over]
"This [quick pan to a picture of the Professor] is such a great academic. He [cut in of a really excited crowd - Wow!] know what a documentary is!"

That's the MM'sque answer to your begging the question.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 29, 2004 9:08 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ you're weird.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 31, 2004 4:23 PM

WADDLEDOODLE

Just saw FahrenHYPE 9/11.

WOW.

Moore is a huckster. If he were spinning any faster he'd be a friggin' planet.

Check it out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 4:56 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
I've changed my mind on this.

I will see this movie. I have seen "Bowling for Columbine", and last night I watched "Roger and Me" (his best movie IMHO, and the closest to a true documentary). Though I disagree with the majority of Michael Moore's politics, I have to say I find his movies (notice I didn't state documentaries)

They are documenteries. Stateing they are "propoganda" or anything else is simply stupid... yes, the people on American TV are stupid when they accuse Moore of bias.

How do I know this? Because ALL documentaries have a particular point of view. That's why they are called documentaries! If it was a so called "balanced" point of view then that would be journalism.

Micheal Moore is Americas foremost political documentarian, he has won awards around the world and is respected for his work. The lashing Moore takes from the so called "Liberal Media" shows the one true fact about the so called "Liberal Media" - that it is really a "Right Wing Media" controlled by corporate interests that support the Bush Junta and they will say anything to put Bush into the White House.

Which I just pointed out, because calling Moores movie anything but a documentary is clearly bullplop.

Ghoulman,

I couldn't disagree with you more. Michael Moore is indeed a propagandist of the highest form and as I have stated before is an incredibly talented one. There is a HUGE difference between documentaries and propaganda films. He makes propaganda films to further his political beliefs and opinions. His films tend to only show one side of a situation by specifically editing/censoring the information to further an opinion or point..aka Spin. I would hesitate to call his films out and out lies, because in every lie there typically is some grain of truth. For this reason it is important to see his films.

Documentaries , though they shed light on specific subjects are not editorial/opinion pieces. Documentaries show topics in an unbiased, uncensored light. You get the good, the bad and the ugly..see "Death in Gaza". This can't be said for Moore's films.

Just out of curiosity, would you consider FahrenHYPE 9/11 a documentary or a propaganda piece?

PS I won't be seeing FahrenHYPE 9/11, because I'm tired of reliving 9/11 over and over again..enough already I say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 1, 2004 11:59 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
I've changed my mind on this.

I will see this movie. I have seen "Bowling for Columbine", and last night I watched "Roger and Me" (his best movie IMHO, and the closest to a true documentary). Though I disagree with the majority of Michael Moore's politics, I have to say I find his movies (notice I didn't state documentaries)

They are documenteries. Stateing they are "propoganda" or anything else is simply stupid... yes, the people on American TV are stupid when they accuse Moore of bias.

How do I know this? Because ALL documentaries have a particular point of view. That's why they are called documentaries! If it was a so called "balanced" point of view then that would be journalism.

Micheal Moore is Americas foremost political documentarian, he has won awards around the world and is respected for his work. The lashing Moore takes from the so called "Liberal Media" shows the one true fact about the so called "Liberal Media" - that it is really a "Right Wing Media" controlled by corporate interests that support the Bush Junta and they will say anything to put Bush into the White House.

Which I just pointed out, because calling Moores movie anything but a documentary is clearly bullplop.

Ghoulman,

I couldn't disagree with you more. Michael Moore is indeed a propagandist of the highest form and as I have stated before is an incredibly talented one.

Connerflynn, one person can't create propoganda, that's simply not what propoganda is. It's just Micheal Moores opinion - that's why it is a legitimate documentary just like ALL the other documentaries. He's a part of the club. He has the members card. You know, the entire film community around the world agrees with me on this, it's only in the USA that this silly "propoganda" charge gets any play.

Quote:
There is a HUGE difference between documentaries and propaganda films. He makes propaganda films to further his political beliefs and opinions.

He makes documentaries to further his political beliefs and opinions... that's what documentaries are for.

Go to film school America.

Please!

Quote:
His films tend to only show one side of a situation by specifically editing/censoring the information to further an opinion or point..aka Spin.

It's up to the viewer to decide if that spin holds up to facts. I have checked and Mikes' facts are just fine. As I've said on another thread - the Saudi connections Mike makes are, to Canadians, old news - a doc program here reported the same connections to the Bush family in 2003 as F9/11 did (shock!). I have a complete confirmation of those facts in F9/11 from a totally different source in a totally different country a frickin' YEAR before F9/11 even came out!

Beat that.

I don't win arguements here because I'm so damn clever, it's just that I've been given the facts... TWICE!

Quote:
I would hesitate to call his films out and out lies, because in every lie there typically is some grain of truth. For this reason it is important to see his films.

Uhh, no. If it's just spin it's just a lie - the truth must be clear not confusing. I digress...

Quote:
Documentaries , though they shed light on specific subjects are not editorial/opinion pieces.

That's exactly what a documentary is.

Quote:
Documentaries show topics in an unbiased, uncensored light.

No, they don't. That's journalism.

Say you rent a doc about the rain forest. Now, this doc is made by one person or a university research grant. Now, since this documentary isn't done by a forestry company do you think it will show the great prosperity and growth the people involved in destroying the rain forest will enjoy?

It will be a one sided point of view.

Quote:
You get the good, the bad and the ugly..see "Death in Gaza". This can't be said for Moore's films.

I haven't seen that film.

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, would you consider FahrenHYPE 9/11 a documentary or a propaganda piece?

For myself I've seen the Sinclair doc and FahrenHYPE 9/11, both of which I can't call documentaries because they are forwarding the Bushite spin (with Bush money) without any personal input or passion from the film-makers. It's not a point of view or an opinion but an agenda from a group - the Bushites. THAT'S the difference between propoganda and a documentary.

Besides, creating a documentary just to attack another one is ridiculous and has never been done before. Congradulations America - you've reached originality in your insanity.

Quote:
PS I won't be seeing FahrenHYPE 9/11, because I'm tired of reliving 9/11 over and over again..enough already I say.

Well get used to it - America is deep into an international war where your country has crushed it's own basic human rights in favour of giving it to another country, Iraq. Though America is doing that with bombs... not sure how that will go. Oh wait, badly! Torturing the people wasn't a good idea either.

Oh, and 100,000 dead Iraqies and counting. American justice I suppose?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 10:30 AM

JASONZZZ

I am waiting on a TV special from MM to tell me what to think about this 2004 election.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE