quote:

---

Despite their personal investment, the Weinstein brothers will not be the biggest financial beneficiaries of "Fahrenheit." The real winner: a charity, or charities, as yet unnamed, that will receive about 60 percent of the net profit ultimately generated by the film -- a tally that could be tens of millions of dollars.

And who will pick the charities that get the money? Disney, the company that refused to release the movie, without having to consult either the Weinsteins or Mr. Moore. It's all the unexpected result of yet another strange tussle between Disney and the Weinsteins, the corporate odd couple that has had a tough time getting along since Disney's 1993 acquisition of Miramax.

In essence, Disney refused to sell the film to the brothers unless they agreed that they would not benefit personally any more than they would have under their employment agreement. That is still a lot of money: Under that complex deal, the Weinsteins typically pocket about 40 percent of the net profit from any Miramax picture, after the costs of distribution, prints and advertising and talent participations are deducted. But people close to the deal say that Disney demanded that the remaining 60 percent go to a charity or charities of its choice.

---

It seems they were forced into this arrangement, but it doesn't change the fact that over half of what you pay for a ticket (minus normal theater operating costs) will be going to one of disney's favorite charities...
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
A) Half of the net profit form each ticket - no where near half the ticket price, even ignoring the theater's cut.

B) Still not going to give Moore any money.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
 
yeah, you're right about the percentage.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Don't worry - my fiancee will rent it, and I'll watch it then. In the meantime, I'm forced to rely on second-hand information to refute it, so it works to your advantage .

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
 
from an email I received from an old friend:

quote:

---

I missed the earthquake.
Okay, so it was just a tremor but still it was *some* excitement. (unlike Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11'.... can you spell
o-v-e-r-r-a-t-e-d ?)

---

quote:

---

A) Half of the net profit form each ticket - no where near half the ticket price, even ignoring the theater's cut

---

quote:

---

I'll believe it when I see evidence that any charity has actually received funds. I won't spend money until then.

---

This is kind of funny. Do you only go to movies that you know spend money on charity? If so, you must see very few movies. I think it is more honest to just say I don't want to see it. I think it is funny that people on Hatrack want to see it but "refuse to give any money to Moore" to do so. Does that mean they support P2P sharing of movies, music and such? Just curious why you don't just download it if you feel this way. Otherwise, why say you will see it only if there are certain caveats met (give to charity, see it for free, he doesn't accept Oscar nod, he mows my lawn, etc., ad nauseum)? Don't go. It's okay, really.

fil

[ July 02, 2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
fil,

I think that's a big leap to assume that because we don't want to pay someone money that we're automatically thieves.

I happen to believe in honoring intellectual property rights. I also believe that giving money for something with an admitted political slant is in some respects an endorsement of that slant. Finally, I don't want to provide Moore with any more resources to make additional films.

I haven't put any caveats on my seeing it except that I don't want him to have any more money because I saw it. When I say I'll see it when I can do so without giving him money, I mean just that. I've already said how I'll do that without violating copyright laws. Take me at face value or not, but don't make up stuff.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
 
Not at all, but as we saw in the telemarketer thread, charities don't always get what we think is going to them. And if I were to go to a movie solely on the premise that part of the price I paid was going to charity, I'd like proof that the charity is actually getting part of my ticket price.

That might be the only thing that might get me to see it in a dollar theater.
 

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
This thread title is hard to figure out. Too many negatives.
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
Dag, interesting points but even if seeing it when your fiancee rents it is still putting money in his pockets. If you see it on cable some day, they are paying him. The only way for you to see the movie in a way that he isn't getting any more money to make new movies (which is moot since the movie already made 4 times the cost of producing it and more) would be to steal it. So money IS speech in your world, which is cool. I don't think paying for something you might not agree with is endorsing it. I have read books that I don't agree with and know I probably won't but I don't think by buying it I am endorsing it. I am giving that author an attempt to inform me, sway me, etc. If he doesn't, no big deal. I am out a relatively little amount of money.

I am cool. Not trying to be negative. Just think it is kind of funny. If it were, say, a non-politically slanted movie it would stand out a little more. "I won't see 'Spider Man' unless someone else pays for me to see it...or I can be assured that Aracnaphobics Anonymous gets some sort of donation!"

Go for it, though. I am sure seeing it when your fiance rents it in October will be interesting. Then we can really have discussions around the content of the movie!

fil

[ July 02, 2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Well, I wouldn't tell my fiancee (she'll be my wife when this comes out) not to rent something because I don't agree with it. He'll get that money whether I watch it or not. Same with cable - I'm not a Nielson household (or Brisco would still be on the air, dammit!). I'd check his book out of the library if I cared enough to read it.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
 
If one doesn't agree with a corporation's policies or philosophies, it's acceptable to boycott their product. I don't see Dag's position as being much different. He doesn't want to support the purse of somebody who's produced a film whose premise he doesn't agree with. I'm all for that, and don't see anything weird about the stance.
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
He isn't boycotting the product. It is like saying "I won't buy Coke products because I hate their policies" but then will gladly drink a can if it is at someone's cook out on the 4th of July. Boycotting means depriving the company in question of your money while you deprive yourself of their product.

I am all for boycotting to make a point. If that is the case, then do so. But if you drink that can of Coke at someone elses party, you aren't boycotting any more.

fil

[ July 02, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Profits equals percentage of ticket sales minus movie production costs (including film copies) and minus publicity&advertising costs
With expected-to-draw-large-crowds movies, the studio can receive 100% or even slightly more of the ticket price; with the theaters making their profit from popcorn/soda/candy/etc concession sales, parking, etc

Those who don't want their money going to charity can now pick apart Moore's film without having to regurgitate the noise of neo"conservative" opinion-makers.
An antiMoore website is providing free downloads of Fahrenheit 9/11.

[ July 02, 2004, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
Book: I'm not sure if I fail to disagree with that...or not.
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
Interesting link. Seems Moore and Dag agree on something...it is okay to see his movie without giving money to him! According to the article, Moore is fine with downloading and watching his movie...as long as people don't try to make a profit from it. So there you go...download away! It ain't theft!

fil
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
...whether or not Miramax, Disney or IFC feel the same way is a whole other ball of wax.

fil
 

---

Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
 
I'm sorry to anyone this offends, but I've always seen that denying oneself from seeing or reading any bit of information just because you don't like the author or creator is rather biggoted and hard-headed. Doing so just denies yourself access to a whole LOT of information and less of a chance to understand why someone acts and thinks the way they do, and it has always been my experience that this lack of understanding is the cause of the majority of the conflict in the world. After all, how are we supposed to work things out and end conflit if people don't try to understand each other. :: shrugs :: Just my two cents.
Satyagraha
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Hamas is a charitable organization. I think the Skull and Crossbones views itself as one as well. I loved it when the Star Trek crews did weakest link, and Wil Weaton's charity was an Internet Privacy organization. To me, it sounded like he wanted to win thousands of dollars to donate to the protection of online porn. But what do I know. The organization Levar Burton won for sounded pretty wholesome.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

It is like saying "I won't buy Coke products because I hate their policies" but then will gladly drink a can if it is at someone's cook out on the 4th of July.

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry to anyone this offends, but I've always seen that denying oneself from seeing or reading any bit of information just because you don't like the author or creator is rather biggoted and hard-headed. Doing so just denies yourself access to a whole LOT of information and less of a chance to understand why someone acts and thinks the way they do, and it has always been my experience that this lack of understanding is the cause of the majority of the conflict in the world.

---

quote:

---

Those who don't want their money going to charity can now pick apart Moore's film without having to regurgitate the noise of neo"conservative" opinion-makers.
An antiMoore website is providing free downloads of Fahrenheit 9/11.

---

quote:

---

Dagonee...I just don't understand. You above any one else here has posted the most on Fahrenheit 9/11 posts, so obviously you have an opinion on it. But it's hard to take any of your criticisms seriously when you don't know or haven't experienced it. I will send you $7 bucks if you want. If you refuse, I'll send the money to Moore himself. Either way, he gets it. Is that agreeable? Can you find anything wrong with that?

I had a buddy who refused to see the movie, but then when a coach gave him the $7 bucks, he went to see it. My respect for him rose tremendously after that. My respect for you has risen nothing.

---

quote:

---

Not the same at all. The difference is, if I drink that can of Coke, then someone somewhere is drinking a different can of Coke instead of the one I drank, and Coke profits.

---

Absolutely the same. The point of a boycott is a) you don't support the product or the company and b) you deny yourself the use of the products. But this isn't really for Dag, as he didn't say he was boycotting...another poster made that point. And Dag has clearly said he is willing to use the product as long as someone else pays for it. Which isn't a boycott.

fil
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Right. It should also be pointed out that I'm not trying to convince anyone to rent it so I can see it. If Eve decides not to rent it, I'll be fine with that.

And frankly, I think it will be more of a sacrifice to sit through it than not.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Have you read one of his books before?
He does a good job of providing reasonable doubt... of... expanding the framework so to speak.
Such as not believing everything a person says, but using it like a variable in a math equation to get a different answer and more of the truth.
 

---

Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
 

quote:

---

The point of a boycott is a) you don't support the product or the company and b) you deny yourself the use of the products.

---

quote:

---

Have you read one of his books before?

---

I have, but for the life of me I can't remember which one. I've also seen most episodes of TV Nation and Roger and Me.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
FT, think how much more powerful the Montogmery bus boycott was than, say, a boycott of Disney would be. While both would have the same bottom-line effect on the target, the self-sacrifice inherent in the first gave it a lot more impact in the court of public opinion, which usually is what applies more pressure than the actual lost profits.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
FT, Dag said it best! I was working up a response and then read down a bit and there it was!

On a side note, I had a talk with a fairly conservative friend at a party yesterday about Moore's movie. I asked if he saw it or would see it. His response? "I want to see it but I don't want to put any more money in Moore's pocket." Great conservative minds think alike! He was also okay watching it with me if I rent it when it comes out on DVD )no doubt a month or so before elections).

fil
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 

quote:

---

Such as not believing everything a person says, but using it like a variable in a math equation to get a different answer and more of the truth.

---