Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Meshou (meshou) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2004-05-10 02:16:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:*thud*

Mickey vs Michael!
This is a Trickeldown Wank.

Michael Moore Got Miramax (a Disney company) to pay for his new film, Fahrenheit 9/11.

Then he tells the media (specifically, the New York Times) they're censoring him by paying for, then not distributing the film.

However, apparently he admited he knew this a year ago while it was still in production. Note the Washington Dispatch's glee at the NY Time's flub, and the wanking in the comments.

Meanwhile, Michael is still pretending he never admitted this wasn't a surprise.

So, basically, Disney said it would pay for the cost of entire thing, but wouldn't put it in the theaters. Then Michael Moore pisses off Disney by using a deal he knew was in place to manufacture hype.

Over in the LJ comm Liberal, Maxomai wants us to boycott Disney, and they argue over whether it's an indie movie, whether he's overpriced, and whether merely being mostly made up warrants [info]kylebee saying they're a whole 90% made up.

There's been allot of politi-wank recently, huh..?



(Post a new comment)


[info]oxydosic
2004-05-10 11:54 am UTC (link)
I'm just boggled at the fact that Michael Moore didn't think it through more before agreeing to let Disney fund it in the first place. What did he THINK was going to happen? I'm amazed Disney even backed it to begin with.

And for the record, i admire Michael Moore's willingness to just tell it like it is in his films, but sometimes that guy just goes too far when trying to put his opinions forward and he speweth like a fountain of wank. I liked him a lot better when he hosted TV Nation and you could laugh at things like Samuel L. Jackson not being able to catch a cab in New York while some guy in a clown suit could.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rachelmap
2004-05-10 01:04 pm UTC (link)
What did he THINK was going to happen?

He probably did it that way to make a point. Think about it: nobody would have cared if he only said "Disney told they wouldn't distribute my movie about 9-11, so I gave up making it." All he would have gotten from the public for that is, "too bad." Furthermore, Disney could have denied they'd told him that, and they'd say he'd misunderstood them. This way he's showing us, not just telling us, that he is really being censored. Plus that, now that the movie is finished he may be able to find another distributor, or Disney may decide this is bad PR for them, and give in.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]smo
2004-05-10 03:27 pm UTC (link)
In other words, he did it because he's a shit disturber.

*sigh* He is SO exasperating. I agree with so much of what he says, but the way he says it is so off-putting.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re:
[info]rachelmap
2004-05-10 05:57 pm UTC (link)
I know, but any more it's the shit-stirrers that get heard any more. All the reasonable people are getting drowned out by the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters out there.

You might be interested in theis article: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16912

Gagging Michael Moore
by Greg Palast

Hands off the fat guy in the chicken suit, Mr. Mogul

WHEN the fattened cats at Disney put the kibosh on Michael Moore's new film, “Fahrenheit 9-11,” they did more than censor an artist. Gagging Moore is only the latest maneuver in suppressing some most uncomfortable facts: the Bush Administration's killing off investigations of Saudi Arabian funding of terror including evidence involving a few members of the bin Laden family in the USA.

I know, because, with my investigative team at BBC television and The Guardian of Britain, I wrote and filmed the original reports on which Moore's new documentary are based...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


meshou
2004-05-10 06:43 pm UTC (link)
It wouldn't be censorship if they'd refused to pay for it, it'd be business-- but they did pay for it. Without their money, you could not watch that movie.

And you will. They aren't gonna keep it in a vault. He's got distributers lined up to buy it. They don't want their name on the steaming cup of spooge, and will sell it to someone who does. That's not censorship, that business, and possibly good taste.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]smo
2004-05-10 07:01 pm UTC (link)
Michael Moore. He's like an Iraqi POW, in a way.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]crickets
2004-05-11 07:03 am UTC (link)
This would be Greg Palast, who moved to Britain so he could do his job. Whether you agree with Palast's views or not, he's a journalist. He deals in researched facts. Moore might play fast and loose with the facts for effect, but Palast does not. He often takes the opposite approach.

Thanks for that link.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rachelmap
2004-05-11 09:37 am UTC (link)
Thanks for the link. I wish I were surprised, but I'm not. Shenanigans like that are a large part of why I'm still living in Korea after ten years.[/bitterness]

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]llama_treats
2004-05-10 07:05 pm UTC (link)
This way he's showing us, not just telling us, that he is really being censored. Plus that, now that the movie is finished he may be able to find another distributor, or Disney may decide this is bad PR for them, and give in.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the "censorship" here. Disney bankrolled the film. They didn't take it, destroy it, and say, "Nyah! Puny liberal! No one shall ever see your genius because we don't agree with your views! Ha haaaaaa! Back to work in the salt mines for you, Michael Moore!" They're just not distributing it. And there's no "may" - there "will" be another distributor. Disney's not the only company in the world.

Mikey needs to stop using whining as free advertising.

Just sayin'.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]onetrickpony
2004-05-10 10:59 pm UTC (link)
And for the record, i admire Michael Moore's willingness to just tell it like it is in his films, but sometimes that guy just goes too far when trying to put his opinions forward and he speweth like a fountain of wank.

That's the thing, I agree with a lot of what Michael Moore says and he can be a funny guy when he's not being totally obnoxious. Unfortunately, he's leaning more and more towrds 'obnoxious' lately.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]shoiryu
2004-05-10 02:11 pm UTC (link)
I never know what the hell to think of Michael Moore. I mean, it seems like he's got good intentions, but it also seems like he goes about those intentions ALL wrong.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rhi_silverflame
2004-05-10 02:25 pm UTC (link)
Michael Moore is, to me, pretty much the left's Limbaugh -- he likes attention-whoring, loves to go into over-the-top rants, and will happily pull facts out of his ass if he thinks they'll have a good impact. It seems like he likes to take credit for being "the first one" to speak out about something, but every time there's a backlash over something he's done he's the very first one to start crying about it. (Yes, sometime last year he was on NPR saying "I was the first one to speak out against the war.")

Really quite annoying . . . although I have to admit it's occasionally fun to wankbait fellow liberals by saying so. ^_^

And yeah, he has some good points to make -- but the way in which he goes about making them grates on my last goddamn nerve, all smug and "yes, I am the authority on this."

*ahems and gets a mop to clean the splooge*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]shoiryu
2004-05-10 02:35 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, that's more or less the impression I get of him, too. Sometimes he makes a good point, but he has to spooge all over everything before he can make that point, and it sort of invalidates the point he's trying to make by making the rest of us go, "...what a complete douchebag."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cleolinda
2004-05-10 11:46 pm UTC (link)
Moore's the kind of guy that makes me want an icon that reads, "Stop being on my side, you make my side look spastic."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rhi_silverflame
2004-05-11 12:37 am UTC (link)
If you get one, I'd like to stealborrow it. ^_^

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]melange
2004-05-10 02:54 pm UTC (link)
And yeah, he has some good points to make -- but the way in which he goes about making them grates on my last goddamn nerve, all smug and "yes, I am the authority on this."

*nods* 'zactly. Personally, I loved most of his movies (and his various, short-lived TV shows, for that matter) but the man himself grates my freakin' nerves. He's just too sure of his own righteousness for me to be entirely comfortable.

I guess it's one of those 'love the message, want to smack the ever-loving hell out of the messenger'.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]smo
2004-05-10 03:26 pm UTC (link)
He doesn't seem to get that he doesn't need to spooge all over his documentaries to get his point across - the facts speak for themselves. I found this especially true for Roger & Me. He didn't *need* to go after the head of GM just to prove that he wouldn't get heard. The depiction of the slow demise of the town of Flint, MI was telling enough by itself.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]melange
2004-05-10 04:29 pm UTC (link)
The worst was in Bowling for Columbine when he began to randomly harass Dick Clark. Because there are times (like the one you mentioned) where you can at least what his intent was, even if it was totally unnecessary. But, dude, it's Dick Clark, what the hell was he going to say?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]smo
2004-05-10 04:48 pm UTC (link)
Exactly what he did say, which is exactly what I would have said in his place. There's being incisive and hard-hitting, and there's being fucking rude.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ashenmote
2004-05-10 03:05 pm UTC (link)
I never saw or read anything from Moore, but my impression after reading the LJ thread and following a labyrinth of links from there was:

So essentially Moore is the CrystalGamgee of left wing agitation?

(Reply to this)


[info]smo
2004-05-10 03:23 pm UTC (link)
Michael Moore is the reason I have this icon.

(Reply to this)


[info]iczer6
2004-05-10 06:27 pm UTC (link)
I just find it highly amusing that Mr. Champion-for-the-little-guy, who's first bitchfest was about companies moving their business overseas to save labor, has now decided to make movies in Canada because it's cheaper.

The hyporcrisy is strong with this one...


Icz

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]smo
2004-05-10 07:00 pm UTC (link)
Don't forget that it's okay for him to be an NRA member, but Charlton Heston is TEH EVOL!!!111!sixteenshellsfromathirtyoddsix!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]damnskippy
2004-05-11 04:27 am UTC (link)
Ah yes, but he's an *ironic* member of the NRA. It makes all the difference in the world, yanno.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]smo
2004-05-11 02:13 pm UTC (link)
Oh, of course. Silly me. I guess this means I should vote for Bush in the next election with irony, so it doesn't count.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]wolfsamurai
2004-05-10 08:39 pm UTC (link)
There's been allot of politi-wank recently, huh..?

And I imagine there's going to be even more as we get closer to election time, spreading even into communities where it's totally off-topic.

(Reply to this)


[info]blackjackrocket
2004-05-10 11:00 pm UTC (link)
While I agree that Moore is somewhat of an extremist, in all seriousness, Disney should have known what they were getting themselves into. It's like handing the cat the keys to the car and then being surprised when kitty runs it into a tree.

Aah, remember the days when Disney laughed off complaints about Priest?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]queenbead
2004-05-11 09:30 am UTC (link)
being surprised when kitty runs it into a tree

I dunno man, toonses the cat seemed reliable...

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]cleolinda
2004-05-10 11:48 pm UTC (link)
My problem with Moore is that I agree with a lot of his opinions, but then he 1) acts like an asshat and 2) goes and fabricates shit to make his points. I forget where I saw the list of all the shit he made up in Bowling for Columbine, but--well, for example, the bank that gave him a gun for getting an account says there was several days' lapse before he actually got it, IIRC.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]queenbead
2004-05-11 09:28 am UTC (link)
I know http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ has a list of all the 'fabrications' in the movie. Fabrications being quoted b/c I can't be bothered to double check their statements. Yeah, call me lazy. I don't remember if bowlingfortruth is the authoritative site or just one of the several de-bunking sites that popped up after Mr. Moore's win at the oscars. If anything, it's a good place to start.

~QB

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]bishounenhuntrs
2004-05-23 06:32 pm UTC (link)
That's all well and good, but how do I know that their facts aren't as much bullshit as Moore's?
Find me an unbiased source, and then I'll buy it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]queenbead
2004-05-23 06:52 pm UTC (link)
egads, no need to get testy. The poster asked a question and I posted an answer. Note I didn't claim that it was right, just that it was one of the sites out there with the goal of debunking the movie.

If you find a nice non-partisan site in regards to this movie, please feel free to share.

~QB

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]gaisce
2004-05-11 03:31 am UTC (link)
It's Michael Moore, which means instant wank. But it's also Disney, which is the root of all evil.

Ah well, at least on the bright side it won't be another "Something Wicked This Way Comes" with the only new addition of Moore as a fat firefighter.

(Reply to this)


 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map