SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The TRUTH About John Kerry
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (1391)5/11/2004 10:22:35 AM
From: Michelino  Read Replies (1) of 1483
 
Moore's newest hot potato has little in parallel with any of Lucas's blockbusters. Entertaining as the first two movies may be, if there is social or political commentary in Star Wars, it certainly is not at the level of Kane, Brazil or Rodger and Me. I mentioned Welles and Gilliam as precedent because these are two directors who fought the studio verdict on their movies: One who did it privately and lost and the other who did it publicly and won (sort of). Of course, in terms of artistic achievement, we can say both were inevitably triumphant, (although the real ending to “The Magnificent Ambersons” remains a tragic loss.) But because of Gilliam, who "whined" quite publicly and who was definitely NOT silly in doing it, we benefited with one of the great films of the last 25 years; even if the movie's portends may seem less amusing some 20 years later (for example that of a futuro-fascist state using a campaign against nebulous terrorists to stifle liberty).

If you want to join with the right wing chorus and ape the sound bite that Moore "lied", eventually you must face the dilemma that whatever he is telling, it is a lot closer to the truth than the version spun out by his critics. The same was true when Moore had the courage to openly challenge the motivation behind Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq.

Moore has stated:

1) Despite Eisner’s original objections to any association with the film, the project continued and therefore Miramax led him to believe that problems would not affect distribution.
2) He just received the news that Miramax had to go along with the Parent company decision (but see recent rumors that Harvey Weinstein may buy back the film)
3) Eisner and Disney's refusal is really based on avoiding a political backlash. (The official excuse that this taints Disney’s "family oriented" image, oh c’mon "Kill Bill?" )

So where is the big "lie"?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News