Yes, but if Disney is so concerned about not getting mired in leftist politics, than how come AOL Time Warner doesn't share they same attitude in regards to their publication of Michael Moore's books? How come they are not protecting their stockholders interests by not allowing Warner Books to publish DUDE WHERES MY COUNTRY and STUPID WHITE MEN?

Seems like something fishy that they do not want to distribute this film... Perhaps a publicity stunt and they will rollover and let Miramax distribute the film after getting all this publicity? Or they are bowing down to Bush?

James, I think Disney is just not looking to get into election year politics, as the standard big corporate approach to politics is to purchase both political parties when possible. Miramax is still going to own this film (and thus Disney is still involved), my read of the NYTimes story is that Disney is just prohibiting Miramax from being the distributor themselves in North America. If they wanted to protect their shareholders and really bow to Jeb, they'd bury the film on the shelf next to Walt's frozen head down here in Orlando.

Don't mistake me for a Disney apologist ... living in the shadow of The Mouse makes me anything but. If I were Michael Moore, I'd milk this for all the publicity I could get too.

But isn't Disney actually getting involved in election year politics by taking this action? I suppose they could get back at Moore by releasing the film and then donating all of their share of the film's profits to the GOP.....
;-)

Let me get this straight. Disney, which owns KABC in Los Angeles, which airs 12 straight hours of Democrat-bashing every single day (Bill O'Reilly, Al Rantel, Sean Hannity & Larry Elder) doesn't want to take sides in the election, so they muzzle Miramax and allow the gang of four at KABC to go right on gasbagging. And you say that "as a corporation, Disney has a right to protect its interests"?

Oh, Lord! You don't know the sad irony that as an Orlando resident I'm being backed into the corner of defending the Mouse, but ...

... the key to the NY Times story is likely the quote that Disney informed Miramax of that a year ago:
"'We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax,' said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. 'That decision stands.'"

So it's not a last minute decision (just a last minute press release from the Director), and corporations never had to be consistant. Sell your film to a Disney-owned mini-major, and be prepared for a corporation to be making decisions for you.

By all means, protest Disney (lots of reason for that). By all means, work for American regime change (even more reasons for that). But corporate influence in politics will continue to be an issue whether Democrats or Republicans are in power ... and Michael Moore's film will make a heaping pile of dough in the North American box office.

Brian sez: "...the key to the NY Times story is likely the quote that Disney informed Miramax of that a year ago:
"'We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax,' said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. 'That decision stands.'"

And the key to understanding why the news is just being released is in timing. What's been going on since May 2003?

Miramax and Moore have been trying to get Disney to sign off on distribution for a year. Basically, since Disney claims to have informed them they would block distribution. Disney has delayed permitting someone else to distribute the film on the grounds that it is unfinished.

Bascially, Disney is trying to hold up release until after the election. This is why Moore and company are going public now with a year-old previously private battle. They have to shine light on the film and create controversy in order to incresae its value as a property and make other distributors clamor for it.

Ironically, if Miramax and Moore get Disney to sign-off, and they can raise more than $6 mil for NA distribution, Dinsey may make a little money. (Presumably Disney still controls European distribution and jas no objection to releasing it there.)

"It's business, not personal." -- Michael Corleone Eisner

Maybe you're wondering just what tax incentives Disney might have with the state of Florida? Or other arrangements with the state or federal government that may be endangered by a film critical of the Florida governor's brother and acting President of the US, George W. Bush.

First there's the little thing called the Reedy Creek Improvement District. It's a 25,000 acre area set aside for Walt Disney by the Florida legislature in 1967. Legally the District is "a landowner-controlled governmental special taxing district." This essentially means it's a Disney fiefdom. Walt had been frustrated in his dealings with the city of Anaheim and demanded this partial autonomy from Florida.

For the first time since it was created, the RCID is under review by the Florida legislature. Most in the Florida government are concerned with the future of RCID is another company (like Comcast) takes over Disney. Many lean toward resticting the RCID deal to Disney, and if someone buys the corporation then a new deal for the RCID has to be struck with the legislature. Disney of course opposes this move as it devalues the company rather significantly if the RCID cannot be considered an asset.

Another tax break Disney enjoys is what is known as "the Farmer's tax break." These tax breaks are intended to preserve farmland for agricultural development. An AP investigation found many companies are using the tax breaks to preserve land at a low-tax rate for future real estate development instead.

"Walt Disney World receives the farming break on 1,600 acres of pasture, timber and nurseries where it grows plants for its theme parks," according to the AP stories. The land is reportedly worth $194 million but is taxed as if it were worth $12.3 million. Disney keeps a buffer of undeveloped land around the park, but acknowledges some of this property will be developed.

Those are just two incentives Disney has in keep both the Florida and federal governments happy.

I only know what I have read HERE, but it seems to me that the issue could very well be one of timing--or rather "who wins" with different timings.

If the movie is released after the election, its box office value is greatly diminished. Either the Democrats (the ones who will want to see it) will find it amusing but irrelevant (if Bush loses -- for real this time), or they will be so depressed they won't want to see it (if Bush wins -- for real this time).

So, to have real monetary (and social) value, it must be released before the election.

But Michael Moore and associates see only the value from their perspective -- the film's proceeds (monetary and social) alone. Disney has bigger interests. 100% increase in the value of his film may seem like a lot of money to most of us, but 1% (or even 0.1%) of Disney's gross (even if only to be "at risk") has got to be a lot, lot more.

Having worked in the past in the federal government, I can imagine that an old adage about an election year also applies to big corporations: no news is good news to the incumbent, and any news is likely to be good news to the competition.

So, why do you all think Michael Moore sold out to Disney/Miramax? I would think he could have raised $6 million just with his own credit cards. But, of course, MAKING a movie is one thing; DISTRIBUTING it is another (financial) thing, isn't it!

What's the old rule when pursuing conspiracies? Follow the money?

"Miramax and Moore have been trying to get Disney to sign off on distribution for a year. Basically, since Disney claims to have informed them they would block distribution. Disney has delayed permitting someone else to distribute the film on the grounds that it is unfinished."

That's not true at all! The only prohibition that I've seen credited anywhere is that Disney is prohibiting Miramax from distributing it North America. The foreign rights and distribution sound (from the trades) like they are all in place and moving forward.

You idiots. Michael Moore "sold out" When are we seeing your books and movies coming out. Some g eniuses on the world od media business. It is incredibly hard to get something releaased with a large distribution chain so people can see it.
It is not the credit card thing dummy, it is getting the movie in the theatres so it can be seen !! The distribution !! He has had problems with his books as well.
Totally independant films are seen by three people in a college class.

The man has risked everthing as the single voice of truth the past few years and you spit on him. Just as Disney wanted.

So it will be seen I am sure all over Europe, but here, maybe on DVD.

Unless we get after Disney and write and call and write and call. They are afraid of what Job Bush will do, ans seeing the cowardly and ignorant behavior here, I guess he should be.

Michael Moore didn't sell out, ignorance of the business sold in to people here. Why is it you don't want people to be successful, especially someone who is number one and doing it when no one else is. Bravest man in the country and an ordinary man and you turn on him.

If you do not contact Eisner and Disney, overwhelmingly, it will NEVER be in the theaters in America. You need it to be distributed, get it !!

Disney's reason for not distributing Moore's film is, very simply, an outright lie.

Disney's official reason is because they "don't want to promote partisan content." Meanwhile, they syndicate Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc. So they really "do want" to promote partisan content. They just want to choose what partisan content (ultra-conservative) they promote. But they'd prefer that this fact (their full promotion of right-wing partisan content) be kept quiet, and they obviously believe that the public will just accept their lame, blatant "reason."

Sadly, most people will.