Could Michael Moore provide the last nail in the coffin?

[radioandy]

Here's an excerpt from a review of Farenheit 9/11 the makes that prediction:

And that's where Disney's Michael Eisner comes in. Not releasing this film will turn out to be the curse of his career.

When Eisner came into Disney years ago, the studio was at a low point. He turned it around with a revived animation department and comedy hits such as "Pretty Woman" and "Down and Out in Beverly Hills."

But Eisner's short-sightedness on many recent matters has been his undoing. And this last misadventure is one that will follow him right out the doors of the Magic Kingdom.
And that's where Disney's Michael Eisner comes in. Not releasing this film will turn out to be the curse of his career.

This is part of a review printed on Fox News.com, of all places!

Here's the link

 

[wdwmaniac]

Nah this won't curse his career I think this was a better move than most he has made. He's got worst ones that put him in is grave, ABC Family, PIXAR, the Lord of the Rings (which I not sure whos fault it is Disney didn't release it.), and the so to be loss of maybe Miramax.

 

[Shaman]

Its only a matter of time before we wave goodbye to Eisner...take your pick for the reason...its a shame, when people lose sight of the things that made them successful...

I kinda understand Disney's decision of not distributing the film, its a safe choice...but hey sometimes you gotta take risks...and Disney is not taking risks anymore...its playing safe, losing money, and its magic seems to be fading...Lets hope change comes swifter than it seems and for that its for the better....

 

[CDS Disney]

I think that that total income of the movie will kill him. If it rakes in a few bucks well no big deal. If it kills in the box office which it probably will considering the upcoming elections and the new findings of the 9/11 commission then not only should the board be freaking out for letting this white dear walk away but so should the share holders.

 

[DisneyRoxMySox]

Yes, Disney has made many mistakes lately. But believe me this wasn't one of them. The movie portrays a liberal view, something we do not want to do in an election year that's a very close and heated race. Disney should remain neutral in politics, but I agree we should take some risks. But I am soo glad we didn't on this one.

 

[MrPromey]

I think that that total income of the movie will kill him. If it rakes in a few bucks well no big deal. If it kills in the box office which it probably will considering the upcoming elections and the new findings of the 9/11 commission then not only should the board be freaking out for letting this white dear walk away but so should the share holders.

That all depends on what you consider “killing” at the box office. “Bowling for Columbine” did just under $22 million and was considered a smashing success… For a documentary (and I call it that in the loosest sense of the word) that is really, really great and if you look at in terms of how much it cost to make, it did do well but if you look at it in terms of what something like that would look like in Disney’s annual report, it is almost insignificant once marketing costs and distribution costs are factored and once everyone else (including Moore) has gotten their share of the pie.

If this movie even manages to do three times that much, “Freaky Friday” ends up having brought in nearly twice the money…

This pales in comparison to what they could potentially loose if they anger the conservatives… It is just a guess on my part but I’d say that you’d find a lot more old rich white people involved in the Disney Vacation Club than die hard liberals if you know what I mean. Take a look the next time you ride the resort monorail to the MK at the people who get on and off at the Grand Floridian. Do they look more like fans of Al Franken or Limbaugh.

I think getting out of the mess without having lost any money in the process was a smart move. An even smarter move would have probably been to stop the Weinsteins back in the begging but considering their political views and the contractual relationship they have with upper management, this might not have been realistically possible.

In the end it seems like everything works out… Moore and the Weinsteins get their movie and Disney comes out pretty much unscathed aside for a few headlines that will fade in the back of all but the most fanatical of minds… The Southern Baptists probably just found another reason to deprive their children of all things Disney for the next few years because of their involvement in the making of the movie and the hard line left have something else to point to when the call Disney a media baron snuffing out free speech in America but lets face it, neither of these two extremes really needed another excuse to hate Disney in the first place, did they?

 

[CDS Disney]

This pales in comparison to what they could potentially loose if they anger the conservatives… It is just a guess on my part but I’d say that you’d find a lot more old rich white people involved in the Disney Vacation Club than die hard liberals if you know what I mean. Take a look the next time you ride the resort monorail to the MK at the people who get on and off at the Grand Floridian. Do they look more like fans of Al Franken or Limbaugh.

I think getting out of the mess without having lost any money in the process was a smart move. An even smarter move would have probably been to stop the Weinsteins back in the begging but considering their political views and the contractual relationship they have with upper management, this might not have been realistically possible.

Never thought of it that way good point. But isn't that the point of having studios like Tochstone and Miramax so that you can relese films and not have them directly atached to the Disney name? (Buy the what this is just a question not an atack on you MrPromey.)

 

[MrPromey]

Never thought of it that way good point. But isn't that the point of having studios like Tochstone and Miramax so that you can relese films and not have them directly atached to the Disney name? (Buy the what this is just a question not an atack on you MrPromey.)

Contrary to what most people believe (myself included at one time) Touchstone was not created so that Disney could make more adult films without tarnishing the Disney image. To the contrary, it was made so that Disney could make adult films that would not shoe-boxed as the typical Disney family movie.

Mirimax was purchased as a small studio known for high quality indy-ish films on relatively small budgets. It was a profitable company that also gave Disney the artistic "street cred: that they could never get with their home brewed stuff...

Disney likes to distance themselves from movies like "Bad Santa" and "Kids" but loves to brag about owning the company that did "Chicago"... They have shown pride more than once in the success of the Spy Kids movies which were made by Dimension Films which is a smaller studio branched off of Mirimax - even once more removed from the mothership.

The problem is that it is wide knowledge these days that Disney owns all these companies. Hollywood Records dropped Insane Clown Posse once Disney brass (and the public) became aware that this music was being released by a Disney owned subsidiary.

Personally, to me these days when movies come out under the DIsney name it means "family (kid) friendly", when it is released by Touchstone it may not exactly be horribly racy but might not appeal much to kids and may delve into territory that isn't all that appropriate for young children (Who framed Roger Rabbit was released by Touchstone, presumably because of Jessica Rabbit and some other more 'adult' elements) and Mirimax is more the cutting edge stuff - mostly because Disney has next to nothing to do with how it is run beyond finances...

That last point isn't something that matters to a lot of the public public (including some members on here) who think Disney should never have even purchased Mirimax to begin with. The media tends not to help in this regard when they are quick to point out the DIsney connection during times of controversy (most recently with "Bad Santa" before this movie) but tend to leave out the part about creative control being with Mirimax management.

BTW, I once had the unofficial title of "Forum Blow-Hard"... I haven't had time to post much over the last several months so I don't know if anyone else around here is carrying the torch for me but I don't take much of anything as an attack on me unless language is used to make it personal. Likewise, please don't consider anything you read from me to be a personal attack either.

 

[prberk]

Yes, Disney has made many mistakes lately. But believe me this wasn't one of them. The movie portrays a liberal view, something we do not want to do in an election year that's a very close and heated race. Disney should remain neutral in politics, but I agree we should take some risks. But I am soo glad we didn't on this one.

Cannot agree more!

 

[mr snrub]

see what i read was that eisner didnt want to offend the saudis, who he is/was in cahoots with, especially when the saudis provided funding for euro disney.