Moore Documentary Gets U.S. Distributor

[lebernadin]

By GARY GENTILE, AP Business Writer

LOS ANGELES - Michael Moore's award-winning documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" has picked up a U.S. distributor and will hit theaters June 25.

The film will be released by a partnership of Lions Gate Films, IFC Films and the Fellowship Adventure Group, which was formed by Harvey and Bob Weinstein specifically to market Moore's film.

Moore's film, which recently won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, criticizes President Bush's response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and connects the Bush family with Osama bin Laden's.

The Weinsteins, who run Miramax Films, bought the rights to the movie from The Walt Disney Co., which owns Miramax and refused to distribute "Fahrenheit 9/11."

The Weinstein brothers will personally finance and control distribution and marketing, they said Tuesday.

"I am grateful to them now that everyone who wants to see it will now have the chance to do so," Moore said in a statement.

"On behalf of my stellar cast — GW, ________, Rummy, Condi and Wolfie — we thank this incredible coalition of the willing for bringing 'Fahrenheit 9/11' to the people."

Disney chief executive Michael Eisner said the company "did not want a film in the middle of the political process" because he believed that theme park and entertainment consumers "do not look for us to take sides."

In a settlement reached last week, the Weinsteins repaid their parent company for all costs of the film to date, estimated at around $6 million. Any profits from the film's distribution that go to Miramax or Disney will be donated to charity.

 

[Shaman]

Sounds good...can't wait.

 

[SIR90210]

I feel sheepish. BAAAAAA!:brick: :brick:

 

[lebernadin]

Originally posted by SIR90210
Going into, no disrespect or lack of sympathy towards anyone. Morore's movie (unfortunately) won top award at Cannes, right? Where is Cannes? France. France hates the Bush administration. OF COURSE FARENHEIT 9/11 WON AT CANES!!!!!

2004 Cannes Feature Film Jury:

President: Quentin Tarantino, USA
Benoît Poelvoorde, Belgium
Edwidge Danticat, USA, born in Haiti
Emmanuelle Beart, France
Jerry Schatzberg, USA
Kathleen Turner, USA
Peter Von Bagh, Finland
Tilda Swinton, Scotland
Tsui Hark, Vietnam

I realize you're only 14, but that's no excuse for making such brash accusations when you haven't a clue about something. The above people, and only the above people, gave Moore the Palm d'Or.

Since you mention it "unfortunately" won, which film do you feel was better deserving, since you have such a strong opinion? (Yes, now is the time to go research what Cannes is and which films had a chance at the Palm d'Or)

Cannes happens to be in France, but its not a French Awards Ceremony voted on by French Citizens. A completely different jury selects the winners of the various awards each year, and has done so since 1946.

As for your attempts at politik, they're not only off-topic, but are blatently explained as not welcome on the boards.

 

[Shaman]

Originally posted by SIR90210
despite cutting out a small amount of privacy....

Wow, how easily freedom is hollowed when fear grips us...but I digress...because whats the point of holding a political discussion in this website dedicated to a place like Disney....

The fact is this...if you don't like Moore or his documentaries, don't see them, thats your God given right...right? So whats the big deal?

:zipit: :lookaroun

 

[wdwmaniac]

At least Disney didn't release them, I feel that Disney actually made the Right decision on this for the first time in a while. I think Moore just did this in the foot steps of the Passion. You saw all the hopla made about that movie but I think Moore movie is more a touchy subject in the media world. Also I feel this will make about 50-65 million not the 100's that they say. With Lion Gates dist. in June when many movies are coming out in just a week, Spider man, I robot, and King Arthur it's going to be lost in the mix. It's to competive this summer it would have been better off in Oct. when the election is in full swing and then all the democrats could rally around him and his fake/lying movie. But this is a Disney site so lets just leave it Disney.

If you would like to discuss more why not AOL eachother.
wdwmaniac01

 

[lebernadin]

Its in a totally different market. People aren't going to choose to see Spider Man or whatever other sequel opens each week instead of Fahrenheit 911. People who rarely see films in theatres are drawn to these films, you can't compare it to summer blockbusters. Its like making an argument that yet another Who or Rolling Stones tour is going to cut into the sale of tickets to a Phish tour. While many may go to both, its a different market and one doesn't influence the other.

Bowling for Columbine made $57million worldwide and was about gun culture in the US, something that doesn't directly effect the vast majority of other peoples. Fahrenheit 911 does, and will do far better.

 

[wdwmaniac]

I am talking about screens the movie will make it on with many high budget movies coming out the same time it will limit the amount of screen it will play on. Think about it Potter will still be at least 1500 theaters , Spiderman maybe 4000 theaters, I Robot and Arthur 2000 theaters. There aren't many that will have screens left. I know were I live maybe one will have it out of like 10 theaters in my area. All the rest will book two or three screens for the rest of the movies.

And this movie only affects only a small amount of American people. Many people know this movie is only one sided and it forgets about many things the Clinton did and that Bush could not prevent (but gets teh blame for). So I think that movie will have a limited audience not your vast majority.

 

[wdwmaniac]

Although plans have not yet been finalized -- and summer screens can be hard to come by -- "Fahrenheit" is expected to roll out on about 1,000 screens, sources said.- CNN.com

1000 screens not theaters.

 

[lebernadin]

Originally posted by wdwmaniac
I am talking about screens the movie will make it on with many high budget movies coming out the same time it will limit the amount of screen it will play on. Think about it Potter will still be at least 1500 theaters , Spiderman maybe 4000 theaters, I Robot and Arthur 2000 theaters. There aren't many that will have screens left. I know were I live maybe one will have it out of like 10 theaters in my area. All the rest will book two or three screens for the rest of the movies.

Oh, so now its about the number of screens it will open on. Yet another weak argument since it still operates under your assumption that, if 2-3 films open in the same weekend, people will only go to one of them.

There might be a few theatres nationwide that show it on more than one screen in a theatre like the rest of the velveeta that arrives every summer. But as i've said, its NOT in competition with Spiderman et al, as you're trying your hardest to persuade anyone reading this to believe. Its like saying the new Ford F150 is going to cut into VW sales because they're both vehicles. VW has a built in audience and doesn't ebb based on what the majority of people buy(F 150's).

Statements like "maybe one in ten theatres in my area will have it" is ridiculous as well. How big is the area? Tell us exactly which theatres you consider to be in your area? How many screens are at each? You're obviously giving your opinion on something not based in fact, but based in what you HOPE will occur.

And this movie only affects only a small amount of American people. Many people know this movie is only one sided and it forgets about many things the Clinton did and that Bush could not prevent (but gets teh blame for). So I think that movie will have a limited audience not your vast majority.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

A small amount of people? Again, enlighten us....

As far as your "limited vs vast" statement, you're referring to my comment that BFC didn't directly effect the vast majority of foreigners since it dealt with America's gun culture, while Fahrenheit 911 deals with issues that do directly effect the entire planet. So you may want to re-think how you make that persuasive point, since you didn't understand what i wrote and i had to explain it at length for you.

I think this board is biased. It always seems that people of your ideology seem to forget(despite you having been here since its inception apparently) that politics isn't welcome on these boards. So while folks like me restrain our political opinions out of respect for the content of the boards and those who run it.

But mods, if these people are going to continually be allowed to have their political opinions left up on the boards for all to see, then you'd better lift your political ban or DELETE them, because there's a definate bias.

 

[Shaman]

Originally posted by lebernadin
I think this board is biased. It always seems that people of your ideology seem to forget(despite you having been here since its inception apparently) that politics isn't welcome on these boards. So while folks like me restrain our political opinions out of respect for the content of the boards and those who run it.

But mods, if these people are going to continually be allowed to have their political opinions left up on the boards for all to see, then you'd better lift your political ban or DELETE them, because there's a definate bias.

I agree...some people make direct political statements (usually the same type of comments directed at the same people), without regard for the rule of NO POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS....when such people make a remark I often find it difficult to restrain from rebutting....I know I'm also guilty because of that...but oh well....

Like Chit-Chat...I think there should be a section for CIVILIZED political discussions so people can vent there and not anywhere else on the site....but hey I know that such a place would cause alot of bickering and heated debates...and I understand the reason the rule was invoked...

I think people should refrain from political comments period...so that the other side isn't forced to rebut...but again the rule doesn't seem to sink in....

*sigh*

 

[SIR90210]

Originally posted by wdwmaniac
And this movie only affects only a small amount of American people. Many people know this movie is only one sided and it forgets about many things the Clinton did and that Bush could not prevent (but gets teh blame for). So I think that movie will have a limited audience not your vast majority.

I concurr completely.

 

[wdwmaniac]

I am not comparing a Ford 150 to a VW they are totally different but in the movie world it's different. In the movie world the big names gets the theatres and usually the $$. A better example would be a Ford 150 and a Toyota Tundra on the same lot. Which one is going to get more floor space? hmm....150 best selling truck in for the past 26 years. The truck that is going to make money. Moore's movie is up against big movies even if they are different genres. They will cut into sales of his movie unlike if it opened in May like I heard it should.

Statements like "maybe one in ten theatres in my area will have it" is ridiculous as well. How big is the area? Tell us exactly which theatres you consider to be in your area? How many screens are at each? You're obviously giving your opinion on something not based in fact, but based in what you HOPE will occur.


I live outside of philly in NJ with about 100 screens aleast in a 45min drive. I have a Loews 24, Amc 8, 8, and 6, UA 16, and a list of other theatres. If you don't know already NJ is the most densely pop. state.

As far as your "limited vs vast" statement, you're referring to my comment that BFC didn't directly effect the vast majority of foreigners since it dealt with America's gun culture, while Fahrenheit 911 deals with issues that do directly effect the entire planet. So you may want to re-think how you make that persuasive point, since you didn't understand what i wrote and i had to explain it at length for you.

No following this BFC comment. I am using polls and other reliable sources like CNN, ABC, etc. The nation is split 50/50 on both sides. With the people who care about whats going on. but it seems to you we are all Liberals.

 

[Shaman]

Originally posted by wdwmaniac
The nation is split 50/50 on both sides. With the people who care about whats going on. but it seems to you we are all Liberals.

Actually...the nation as a whole tends to be moderate...neither liberal nor conservative...which is a good thing I might add....but here we go again...politics...lol

:wave:

 

[lebernadin]

Originally posted by wdwmaniac
I am not comparing a Ford 150 to a VW they are totally different but in the movie world it's different. In the movie world the big names gets the theatres and usually the $$. A better example would be a Ford 150 and a Toyota Tundra on the same lot. Which one is going to get more floor space? hmm....150 best selling truck in for the past 26 years. The truck that is going to make money. Moore's movie is up against big movies even if they are different genres. They will cut into sales of his movie unlike if it opened in May like I heard it should.

Wrong again. Wow, i think this is going to be my last response to you since you can't understand off-topic analogies and i'm spending more time having to explain things to you, rather than arguing the main points.

Comparing an F150(large pickup) to a Tundra(large pickup) would be analogous to one studio putting out a comic-based film up against a slightly smaller, but better quality, studio putting out a comic-based film. My original VW/F150 analogy was correct since it conveys that while some may put one of each in their driveways, most typically won't and the people purchasing the F150 aren't doing so at the expense of VW since VW's vehicles don't serve the same purposes as do F150's.

I live outside of philly in NJ with about 100 screens aleast in a 45min drive. I have a Loews 24, Amc 8, 8, and 6, UA 16, and a list of other theatres.

Maybe i will respond back, only to dissprove your "maybe on one out of all the screens in my area" comment at the end of June/beginning of July.

No following this BFC comment. I am using polls and other reliable sources like CNN, ABC, etc. The nation is split 50/50 on both sides. With the people who care about whats going on. but it seems to you we are all Liberals.

Here we go again, mods.

BTW, do us a favor and use quote tags to differentiate what someone else said, and what your responses are. Your last post read like a Schizo, my points obviously the more grounded in reality personality.

 

[lebernadin]

Originally posted by objr
:wave:

 

[wdwmaniac]

Well it seems that you are stuck on your opinions and me mine.
So if you would like AIM on AOL wdwmaniac01.

But this is pretty interesting:
Surviving the Weinsteins

Disney chief can afford to lose the Miramax founders or Pixar, but not both.
June 4, 2004: 3:50 PM EDT
By Krysten Crawford, CNN/Money staff writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Despite Michael Eisner's pollyannaish take this week, the chances of The Walt Disney Co. and Pixar Animation Studios finding their way back to the bargaining table are slim at best.

That means all eyes are on Bob and Harvey Weinstein, the marquee names behind Miramax.

Eisner, the beleaguered Disney chief, might be able to make do without Pixar. But he can't survive the loss of Pixar and the Weinstein brothers.

Eisner hasn't lost the Weinsteins yet. And while tempers are flaring between the two sides over a new employment deal, there's still plenty of time for compromise before their contract ends in 2005.

But if talks with both fall through, the twin losses of Pixar and the Weinsteins would be a hit to Disney's income stream and yet another black eye for Eisner. "If they both disappear that's huge for the division," said Paul Kim, an analyst with Tradition Asiel Securities. For Eisner, it would "not be good," he said. "Like the [U.S.] president, you can't have too many political collateral losses."

Last year was phenomenal for Disney's movie studio arm, which includes ownership of Miramax, Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures and a partnership with Pixar. Operating income more than doubled to $620 million, the biggest leap of Disney's (DIS: up $0.20 to $24.17, Research, Estimates) four main business lines and one-fifth the company's $3.2 billion in operating income.

About $300 million of that $620 million came from Pixar, which came out with the record-grossing animation flick "Finding Nemo," and Miramax, which posted a record year thanks in part to "Chicago." Kim projects that this year, Pixar and Miramax are on track to deliver more than half of the film division's operating income, which could reach $850 million.

Disney officials, however, downplay the threat posed by a Weinsteins exit or the end of a Pixar deal, citing other production deals and prospects.

But though Disney wouldn't be able to count on such big contributions each year from Miramax and Pixar, it would be tough to compensate for their absence.

"All of the pistons would have to be firing," said Mantell. So far, Disney's other film divisions are off to a slow start, having released a series of duds led by "The Alamo." And for the first time in years, Disney doesn't have an animation film for this summer.

Cash cow?
Of Pixar and the Weinsteins, analysts said Pixar's loss would be the more damaging financially.

Disney and Pixar (PIXR: down $0.25 to $66.88, Research, Estimates) first teamed in 1991 when the two companies cut a production deal whereby they would split the costs and profits from five animated feature films. Disney retains the rights to the films' library and to proceeds from sequels. The venture has been a tremendous boon to both Disney and Pixar, beginning with "Toy Story" in 1995, its sequel, "A Bug's Life," "Monsters, Inc." and "Finding Nemo." Two more films are due out, "The Incredibles" later this year and "Cars" in 2005, before their deal officially ends.

Prudential Equity Group estimates that, by the end of 2006, Pixar films will have generated $1.9 billion in profits for Disney -- or almost $200 million a year on average.

Neither Disney nor Pixar has since lined up another major partner, although Disney has signed deals with lesser-known computer animation shops like Vanguard Films, which produced "Shrek" and its blockbuster sequel.

"Pixar's success is bringing a lot of other entrants into the marketplace," said one analyst who, citing a company policy, could not speak on the record. "Who knows if they'll be as good, but they do take away a little of the risk to losing Pixar, and offer a potential upside."

Bad rep
If the Weinsteins go, the blow would hit Disney's image more than its pocketbook. "It would be just another in a string of deals where Eisner is seen as being emotional, pig-headed and egotistical," said the analyst who requested anonymity.

In 1993 Disney bought Miramax, then a small but reputable maker of independent films. The deal gave Disney an entree into films with more adult themes that Disney would otherwise be reluctant to put under the same banner as Mickey Mouse. The Weinsteins, who continued to run the studio they founded in 1979, have since churned out a steady stream of blockbusters and Oscar winners, among them "Shakespeare in Love" and "Chicago."

In May, Eisner told analysts that Miramax has been profitable only 2 of the last 5 years. But a Miramax official insisted the studio has made money consistently over the past decade.

A source close to Miramax said the Weinsteins are looking to buy back Miramax. Failing that, they're willing to split off and launch a new studio with different backers if necessary. Disney would retain the rights to the Miramax name and its library. But analysts said that because the studio's main assets are the Weinsteins, their exit could effectively gut Miramax.

"With the relationships Miramax has built up in the industry, the kind of scripts they can get, the actors who will work for them, [the loss would be] more of a reputation loss," said Kevin Calabrese, an analyst with Argus Research Corp. "Financially, I think Disney would make up the difference," he said.

Although Pixar and Miramax have been jewels in Disney's crown, company officials expressed optimism that projects in the pipeline will perform well, starting with this summer's back-to-back release of "King Arthur" and "The Village."

On top of its new production deal with Vanguard, Disney is also working with other small film developers and its own animation unit plans to release 20 3-D films, beginning with Chicken Little next year.

 

[JBSLJames]

Originally posted by objr
The fact is this...if you don't like Moore or his documentaries, don't see them, thats your God given right...right? So whats the big deal?:zipit: :lookaroun

I think the deal is that this Movie and others he does gets so much play in the media and therefore his agenda is always out there for all to see. I just wish that someone would come along with perspectives from the 'other' side and voice them as loudly as he does. His actions at the Acadamy Awards a couple of years back were great. They did more to solidify his stance as a wacko than anything Rush could have said.

You are right that it is my right to not see his film, but in the media today, I have no choice in how much airtime this unnecessary user of oxygen receives.

Where was his documentary on the Clinton Whitehouse? Or on Kerry's Political history heading into an election year, oh that's right, he does documentaries, not and horror movies.

 

[lebernadin]

:sigh:

 

[JBSLJames]

Originally posted by lebernadin
:sigh:

Just want you to know that my rant was in no way an attack on anybody here on the boards. I just have a REAL BIG ISSUE with this guy. Besides, I thought the ' and Horror' comment was pretty decent in a commentary kind of way.

Before this gets out of hand, you know, with only me and you on this thread, let us agree to di-agree. I do think Disney did a good thing not getting involved in this politically tainted film.