Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paranoia for Fun and Profit- Slate.com 5/3/05

Collapse

Get Away Today

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paranoia for Fun and Profit- Slate.com 5/3/05

    How Disney and Michael Moore cleaned up on Fahrenheit 9/11.

    Michael Moore had a problem. By the end of April 2004, he'd finished making Fahrenheit 9/11 but had no American distributor. Mel Gibson's Icon Productions rejected the project back in April 2003. (Moore claims he had a signed contract before Gibson acquiesced to White House pressure. Icon executives deny any such contract existed.) Moore then went to Harvey Weinstein at Miramax. Weinstein agreed to back the movie and signed a contract with Moore to acquire the rights. But in order to distribute the movie, Weinstein still needed the approval of his superiors at Disney. Although he does not discuss this publicly, Weinstein's contract explicitly prohibits Miramax, a wholly owned subsidiary of Disney, from distributing any film that's vetoed by the Disney CEO. When then-CEO Michael Eisner exercised his veto in May 2003, Miramax, though it still held the rights to the film, could not distribute Fahrenheit 9/11.

    By the time Eisner told Weinstein of his decision, the Miramax head had already given Moore $6 million from Miramax's loan account. Weinstein agreed that this advance was to be "bridge financing" that he would recover when he sold off the film's distribution rights. To make sure there was no misunderstanding, Disney's Senior Executive Vice President Peter Murphy, who was also at the meeting, wrote Weinstein a letter on May 12, 2003, affirming that this money was "bridge financing" and that Weinstein had agreed to dispose of Miramax's interest in the film.
    Read the whole article- trust me- it is interesting........
    Check out the News Forum for the latest news with a Micechat twist!



    Do you MiceChat?
    Help support the site you love:
    -Visit the MiceChat store
    Make a donation with one of the boxes at the bottom of the page

    DMCA for life, yo.
    MCDA- Bringin' sexyback, one pound at a time.


  • #2
    Originally posted by dramaqueen
    Read the whole article- trust me- it is interesting........

    I know it is... What really is the most interesting is the Politics of the Disney Company as a whole... Eisner is a known supporter of the Clinton Presidency...

    I don't think he objected to the content of the film, but rather that it was a political film funded by a Company where he is CEO, the Chairman of the Board was a Democratic leader of the Senate...

    The last thing you need as an investor is the idea that Disney is playing Politics... That was the meat behind the veto...

    But it still doesn't clear the issue of why CBN is allowed air time for the 700 Club on ABC Family... It's content is not just religiously conservative but very politically conservative.

    Maybe it supposedly strikes a balance of sorts, I don't know...
    Check out my other blog:

    Comment

    Get Away Today Footer

    Collapse
    Working...
    X