Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

Like at this point, they need promotion for the film. Personally, I think they planned the whole thing. I mean, Disney said they would sideline the movie months ago, but they went ahead and trotteted it on the festival circuit. I suspect they were getting all the free press they could before taking over the film. It will now be a hot property without any advertising.

I also disagree that its not politics, remember that Disney owns a double digit percentage of the real estate under Bush's brother, and is pretty much tax exempt. They are in a very very sensitive position in terms of taking retribution for the film.

I dont think it really was politics as much as it was just a business decision. I am from Florida, and used to live next door to said property, yes its tax exempt but it has been so for, well, ever, democrats, republicans and whomever in power in Florida. Disney is simply smart, and I dont think the company with same sex benefits and all the "liberal" policies they are known for that has garnered the ire of the right in the past (to the point of a Baptist boycott and such) is bowing to any politics. They just know that this will be a VERY CONTROVERSIAL film, its not just the type of thing that some people wont like, its the type of thing that will really offend and put off some people.

And I really still respect Moore quite a bit, that Anne Coulter crack wasnt fair man. Yeah hes over the top sometimes, and as I said I dont agree with all of this conclusions, but Ann Coulter analogies. Geeze man that was some cold **** there, low blow even aimed at Moore.

I mean, really, it's always about politics when that happens.

1) This is about a movie, not a TV show. It's not like Disney has scores of advertisers it might somehow alienate by distributing the movie.

2) If Disney's corporate interests were not so inextricably mixed with the Administration, the Bush family and the GOP as a whole right now, I don't think it would be a big deal. However, when the brother of the subject is governer over the state where you have such a capital investment, when you are getting a free ride from the FCC on all the media regulation changes you want, when the GOP Congress is letting you make up your own copyright laws, hell yeah you aren't going to rock the boat.

Disney is certainly a company more known for its "Liberal" social policies, but frankly I can't imagine their refusal to release this is about anything more than fear of retribution.

yes agreed on "fear of retribution" but i think fear of retribution from consumers. they rely on consumers who put together disney owns what on the whole, and then boycott and so on.

maybe there is some politics, but either way in this case i see it as the business has the right to make this decision.

in the case of tv station ownership company X altering or not airing ONE EPISODE of ONE PROGRAM on network X, that i think is easy to distinguish from this. that is censoring one scene in a movie but still releasing it, and while STILL A COMPANIES PREROGATIVE AND CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL, its bullshit and should raise the ire of that companies consumers, and this frankly isnt the same damn thing at all.

I wasnt saying that you said it was illegal, and wasnt calling you captain bullshit. that stuff was aimed at the comments mutt made and his reference to an earlier post that we had a discussion about when some media company (dont recall the name) decided not to air nightline or 20/20 or something (whichever is abc) and stated it was for political reasons (the episode where they aired only the names and pictures of the people killed in the iraq "war").

yeah, i know, thats now on the TOOD, but coop tends not to use them anyway ;)