Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy

I looked through the FEC filings this morning, and found some interesting and expected information about Disney's chief, Robert Iger.  Though he gives generously to both parties, Robert Iger isn't a wingnut.  He's a neoliberal businessman who believes that pro-business moderates from both parties should run the country.  I imagine he's probably pro-choice, and he thinks of himself as sympathetic to the Democratic Party, though not what he perceives as the crazy part of the party.  This is true of most of the big media moguls, like Sumner Redstone of Viacom.  They are Democrats, but they want political favors from Republicans.  Of course, these guys need to realize that Iger's going to ruin their nice big media business if he doesn't step up, and step up soon.

I imagine that Iger's in a tough spot.  He doesn't hate Clinton, in fact he probably likes him.  Iger's probably superangry that Bill Clinton is speaking out against this movie, as Iger thought this movie was mostly accurate.  I mean he's the President of Disney, he's busy, he didn't read the 9/11 Commission report (who did?), and both Clinton and Bush made mistakes, right?  That's what the movie says, so he was told (if he was told anything at all).  Iger probably wasn't paying attention to ABC entertainment, thinking that they had this under control, especially the sensitive details.  His subordinates promised a really cool new marketing campaign using the internet and bloggers instead of the traditional expensive Hollywood marketing junkets.  This movie was edgy, hip, but serious, a real examination of a somber moment in American history.  Right, Mr. Iger?

Given what I know about how big corporations think, I bet the political slant to the movie wasn't strictly intentional on Disney's part.  I bet that Disney's ABC division used a set of PR firms and flacks that decided that 9/11 belonged to conservatives, and so hired conservative movement players to produce, market, and distribute this film.  They got Tom Kean, so there was adult supervision.  What a perfect event setup, to make ABC the place for the country to turn on 9/11.  In this fragmented universe, wouldn't it be great to have a time when the country came together, on one place, to really understand this event through the medium of television.  And how wonderful if this were on ABC.   It would be AN EVENT.  

Ha ha ha.

Of course, Mr. Iger was pitched a total fraud by his subordinates, who probably had it pitched to them in turn, with pitches upon pitches until you get to a nest of right-wing marketing people who think of themselves as internet savants, but are actually just kind of stupid and tied in to the dregs of the right-wing blogs.  And now Iger probably feels tricked by his subordinates, who have allowed Disney to aid and abet a right-wing propaganda campaign.  The higher-ups just didn't notice what was happening because their corporate controls are awful - ABC Entertainment made this piece of shit instead of ABC News.  

The fallout from this is bad, but it's going to get worse.  Disney has a full-on PR and political disaster on their hands, and they've handled it horribly.  With real but oblique threats to their very broadcast licensing schema, ABC has clammed up and gone into full 'counterproductive big company clusterfuck mode', obviously lying to the public about the film still not being completed, and insulting its critics to boot.

That's not smart.  Remember, the people doing the lying to the public on Disney/ABC's behalf are the same people who thought that this film would be AN EVENT, or at least ok'd it.

There is a window of time now for Mr. Iger to step up, an 'apologize for Tylenol tampering' moment.  He needs to cancel this miniseries, and take personal responsibility for inadequate oversight.  He should privately fire the people responsible for this total disaster of a project, and apologize.  That's the only way to restore Disney's brand among a large group of very angry people.  Be brave, be public, and be honorable.  It'll work.

And what will happen if he doesn't?  Well, it's not just boycotts.  Those are probably going to happen, but that's not what Iger has to worry about, or his corporate brethren.  You see, Disney has a number of political objectives, as is obvious from the donor patterns of their corporate executives and their lobbying behavior.

One of them is the egregiously awful broadcast flag.  Disney is leading the effort to give Hollywood control over how your TV and TiVo are built and what you can do with programs you watch.  This is in the Stevens bill before the Senate.  Democrats didn't really have any reason to deny Disney its political candy, since Disney was thought to be responsible with its content, or at least not overtly insane.  Their credibility on this front is going quickly, and donations to Chuck Schumer aren't the palliative they once were.

Another is copyright extensions, which Disney has used to keep its perpetual license on characters like Mickey Mouse, who should by now have fallen into the public domain.  Democrats didn't really have any reason to think that this was anything but a dispute over intellectual property, with corporations like Disney having motives that are only as pure as Snow White, versus pirates bent on stealing songs and movies by hardworking artists.  Now that Disney's credibility is going, lobbyists for Disney are going to find it tougher on Capitol Hill, and lobbyists for the Creative Commons movement are going to find a much easier reception.  Iger knows there's a movement bent on routing around his unreasonable and political control of free speech through copyright extremism.  He's got a choice on whether he gives that movement a whole lot of real political power.

And thing Disney wants is media consolidation.  Disney wants to buy everything, since media is seen as a scale business.  It's pretty obvious to Democrats if this movie airs that Disney is not a responsible public steward of the airwaves it controls right now.  Why should they be allowed to engulf even more assets?  Like Creative Commons, the free media movement is growing rapidly, and it is a real movement that could receive a dollop of political power thanks to Disney's exceptionally and impressively poor judgment.

Mr. Iger has a choice about what to do here.  I don't imagine he'll make the right choice, but he might.



Display:


Can't be done, surely? (none / 0)

I admire Matt's passion, I really do.

But he's surely getting more than usually carried away here.

The basic flaw in the argument is, How do you punish Disney without punishing the other big media corps?

Now, I happen to think they've benefited from years of rampant corporate welfare - much of it supplied by Dems, in the form of Clinton signatures and Dem MCs' rolling over on the likes of DCMA, Sonny Bono and 1996 Telecoms Act.

I'd love to see those rolled back.

But, if they were, that wouldn't selectively punish Disney. Which is evidently what Matt and the rest of the hue and cry is aiming to do.

You'll never persuade the NAB to drop ABC or the MPAA to drop Buena Vista - the big lobbying (and moolah-channeling) effort on behalf of these sectors on issues like IP is collective.

And - well, the NAB lost on indecency fines and were rebuffed on expanding media consolidation, but I'd expect them to hold the line on repealing existing law - not for Disney's good but their own!


by skeptic06 on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 01:02:01 PM EST

Re: Can't be done, surely? (none / 0)

Disney is the leader of the battle to extend copyrights and remove fair use from copyright law (and legislate technological impediments). They hold the oldest viable pop-culture copyrights in the U.S. (Mickey and gang).

They do have more to lose than the others, who would largely be able to suck it up. Think about what Mickey in the public domain means. Right now, they control the image of the Mouse. Disney cannot escape from the mouse, ever -- it is the corporate image of Disney. Everything Disney is tarnished if other people can subvert the Mickey image.

It would absolutely punish Disney. The stakes are not as high for anyone else.

(Mind you, I think the whole copyright extension thing is bullshit. It selfishly impoverishes the rest of humanity and clearly subverts the intent of the Founders. And if it hadn't happened in the first place, the Mouse wouldn't be quite as ingrained as it is now, as the image of Disney, because they would have gone in a different direction.)


by lightyearsfromhome on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 01:20:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can't be done, surely? (3.00 / 1)


How do you punish Disney without punishing the other big media corps?

You haven't been listening.

Disney survives on the copyright it has on Mickey Mouse (and other characters).  That comes from Steambat Willie, made in 1923.  WHen that copyright expires, Mickey goes into the public domain.

Go to Disney World, look around, and imagine what that would mean for Disney.

The intellectual property laws in this country have been distorted just to maintain the Disney copyrights.  Why do you think IP lawyers refer to the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act?

There is one easy way for a Democratic Congress to make life very very unpleasant for Disney.  Get rid of the copyright extensions.

Sure Disney will buy off Democrats and Republicans to preserve the current law.

But they'll have to do in the full light of day, with more than just a few IP lawyers noticing what is going on.

If I were Iger, I would shut this controversy down fast before too many people start bringing up CTEA.


by Taylor26 on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 01:25:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can't be done, surely? (3.00 / 1)

In point of fact, the expiration of copyright over "Steamboat Willie" wouldn't really affect Disney that much, because of the interplay of trademark law with copyright law.  Mickey Mouse would still very much be a trademarked image, and that trademark would prevent anyone from using the mouse to identify, say, a competing theme park or movie studio.


by BrendanNYC on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 02:04:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can't be done, surely? (2.00 / 1)

Disney can prevent anyone else from opening up a Mickey Mouse theme park, but they can't stop someone else from making Mickey Mouse cartoons.

One of the things that Roy Disney quit over was having shows in the theme parks that combined characters from different Disney movies.  Control of the image is real important.  As someone noted below, lapse of the copyrights leaves open the possibility of someone (maybe a rival corporation) subverting the images of the Disney characters.

A correction: Steamboat Willie was made in 1928, under the Mickey Mouse Protection Act its copyright will expire in 2023.


by Taylor26 on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 09:33:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can't be done, surely? (none / 0)

>>Disney can prevent anyone else from opening up a Mickey Mouse theme park, but they can't stop someone else from making Mickey Mouse cartoons.<<

Actually, they probably could.  There is a twisting interplay of copyright and trademark law when you start looking at "character rights" in famous characters and the depictions thereof.  When the copyright on the early Disney/Mickey cartoons eventually expires (as it should have done years ago), the only rights that fall into public domain are the rights to the particular work, i.e. once Steamboat Willie hits PD, there is nothing stopping any player out there from releasing cheap jack pressings of the film on DVD; another option would be for another player to create a derivative work of the original, say a live-action version of the story, or a CGI revamp.  

But what this hypothetical third party could -not- do is start using the Mouse as a symbol of another studio, or line of animation films, or theme park, or to sell dolls/toys/Capcom's Kingdom Hearts or whatever.  And that's because the Mouse isn't just a copyrighted work of art, it's a famous trademark that has been used by Disney for decades as an indicator of the source of almost every good or service under the sun.

No "rival corporation" would have the any ability to "subvert" the Disney characters beyond the ability already granted under the Copyright Act to use the characters strictly for the purposes of parody.

[obCredential:  I am a NYC-based intelletcual property attorney.]


by BrendanNYC on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 12:57:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can't be done, surely? (none / 0)

[obCredential D'OH:  but I apparently can't spell "intellectual".]


by BrendanNYC on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 12:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can't be done, surely? (none / 0)

So what if Disney is more exposed than the others?

All the mega media corps would fight repeal of Sonny Bono tooth and nail. Even assuming a big result for the Dems in November, where would you get 60 votes for cloture? Bush would veto; chances of a Dem prez in 09 not doing the same would be slim, I'd say.

It's nothing like

one easy way for a Democratic Congress to make life very very unpleasant for Disney.

More like Mission Impossible.


by skeptic06 on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 02:13:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mickey Mouse first appeared... (none / 0)

...not in Steamboat Willie but in Plane Crazy, released on May 15 1928. That's in its silent version.

Just saying...


by skeptic06 on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 02:54:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can't be done, surely? (none / 0)

An attempt to hurt Disney by repealing Sonny Bono, or a number of other Disney candy items, need not succeed to cause them damage.  Just the fact that they need to fight harder for it, that it costs them more money, and the simple knowledge that they will have a FIGHT on their hands from the politically active left with long-memories -- that is punishment enough.  Even if they win, they lose because they have to fight for something that was  a give-me before.

There must surely be some smarter heads around there, even if they aren't in control, that are going to remind them of the grinder they are sticking their dick into.


by Dumbo on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 07:38:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can't be done, surely? (none / 0)

Disney survives on the copyright it has on Mickey Mouse (and other characters).  That comes from Steambat Willie, made in 1923.  WHen that copyright expires, Mickey goes into the public domain.

Go to Disney World, look around, and imagine what that would mean for Disney.

Hell, it's not just Disney World.  Disney's been trying to branch away from the Mouse and the other cartoon characters, and their efforts have been, at best, mixed.  They're still living off past glories because they can't do anything on their own any more.

Animation?  Hah.  They contracted that out to Steve Jobs' Pixar outfit years ago.  (They've now belatedly realized their screwup and bought Pixar, at the cost of $7 billion and change, but Pixar will continue to operate out of its own studios, not Disney's.)


by Phoenix Woman on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 03:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can't be done, surely? (none / 0)

that comes from steambat willie

oh, yeah.  that hydraulic vampire cartoon.

.

.


"blogtopia - yes, i coined that phrase!"
by skippy on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 08:07:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kill 'em all! (none / 0)

The basic flaw in the argument is, How do you punish Disney without punishing the other big media corps?

Kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out.


by delmoi on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 09:17:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy (none / 0)

Great post.  Dead on. The only point I'd add is that the fallout from this scandal is going to end up costing Disney much more than $50M it cost to make this piece of crap, which, let's face it ABC/Disney was only doing as some weird form of public service* -- they know this thing was never going to get real ratings. Time for them to suck it up and take the hit. Imagine the loss in merchandising revenue if they don't own Mickey Mouse anymore (or if there rights are diminshed in anyway).  Or simply imagine how much Disney/ABC spends on corporate marketing/PR every year -- that money is blown. Come on Bob, if Sumner can waste $60 mil to fire Freston (because he was feeling Cranky that morning) you can take a $50M hit to save you bacon from this disaster.

* How and why they decided to do this ratings loser docu drama (and to spend $50 M on it) must be a great story.


by lojo on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 01:09:29 PM EST

Re: Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy (none / 0)

* How and why they decided to do this ratings loser docu drama (and to spend $50 M on it) must be a great story.

I'd quit my job and eat Ooddles of Noodles for the next ten years if I could make it.


by HoneyBearKelly on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 03:12:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Within one paragraph... (none / 0)

...Robert Iger goes from thinking the movie is accurate to perhaps never having been told about it.

"...Iger thought this movie was mostly accurate.  I mean he's the President of Disney, he's busy, he didn't read the 9/11 Commission report (who did?), and both Clinton and Bush made mistakes, right?  That's what the movie says, so he was told (if he was told anything at all)..."

This post seems to have too much speculation about what a specific person has been thinking and feeling, given the lack of facts the public has about his relation to this movie.


by EricJaffa on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 01:25:09 PM EST

Re: Within one paragraph... (none / 0)

This post seems to have too much speculation about what a specific person has been thinking and feeling...

I thought the idea was to give him the benefit of the doubt. 'cause if he did read the report and understood what this crapudrama was all about then he's not a nice man.

I have read the report and we should all be shouting that everyone read what's in that damned thing! http://tinyurl.com/qyldu (PDF) chap.'s 7 & 8 illustrate the key differences in the the two responses to terrorism and chap.'s 5 & 6 are pertinent to how prepared Clinton was while in office -


by Archibald Tuttle on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 03:22:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy (none / 0)

Skeptic beat me to the punch: the 1996 Telecom Act is the real villain here, even more so than the intellectual property issues. I edited the mag for the biggest journalists' union in Canada [CBC and all the public broadcasters, Reuters, Agence France Presse] and---not that the CBC is Eden reborn: it ain't---but found the real horror stories were south of the border...and under Clinton. AOLTimeWarner for one; Disney's linx to big media another.
I love the guy, would vote for him if I could [his stuff at the Toronto HIV conf was breathtaking and I'm an old frontline AIDS worker]...but the Telecom Act did much worse than give away bandwidth and empower the massive Capital Cities/Disney cartel [who already have made life hell for hundreds of journalists over the past decade, gutting investigative work, etc]
Revisions to that piece of legislation are desperately overdue. It's really the counterploy to Murdoch/Ailes/Limbaugh, you ask me
Gore is right in wanting another cable news network
It's the way the game is played
by canuckjourno on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 01:27:36 PM EST

Re: Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy (none / 0)

The '96 Act was bad, but the real problem started when Reagan rammed through the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.  Big Media's been in the GOP's pocket ever since, and Clinton's attempt to buy them back with the '96 Act was a big fat failure.


by Phoenix Woman on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 03:31:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy (none / 0)

I am open to the argument that (revocation of) copyright extension is the stick that Rove used to get ABC/Disney to be a part of this.  Iger and Mitchell are there first and foremost to represent the shareholders, and priority one for Disney is protecting its copyrights.

If Disney does not back down and goes ahead and shows this crap, I will be convinced.

No multibillion dollar corporation could be that stupid.


by Taylor26 on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 01:31:38 PM EST

Time for the mouse (none / 0)

to die.


Go back to Hussein Texas
by gobacktotexas on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 01:54:33 PM EST

Re: Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy (none / 0)

"time for the mouse to die"

http://www.fortunecity.de/lindenpark/fot o/597/03/30-10-18.jpg


by Cole Moore Odell on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 02:05:49 PM EST

Need some constructive alternatives (none / 0)

I agree with most of Stoller's take here. ABC wasn't planning on something really controversial; they just wanted a big "event" movie (where a small whiff of controversy is fine) to kick off the new fall season. They're running this without ads, but I bet they're running it with plugs for their new fall season shows.

So rather than demanding that they cancel the show, why not call for them to just postpone it, say to November sweeps? This would give them enough time to edit it to remove the egregious fictons, it would be after the election, and it would still be good for ABC, because with all the controversy they could still promote it.


by newmanme on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 02:13:54 PM EST

Re: Need some constructive alternatives (none / 0)

No ads is no ads for anything.

They're doing like a Nightline town hall after both parts.


by HoneyBearKelly on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 03:14:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Need some constructive alternatives (none / 0)

Is it really "no ads", though? I read they were advertising "limited commercial interruption", which usually means any local ads plus network promos.


by newmanme on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 03:53:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy (none / 0)

Once America has a real "throw the bums out" moment (and it won't happen in Novemember. I'm talking utter destruction of a political party), the fraud that is infinate copyright will one of the first "casualties" of the housecleaning, mainly because it's so quick and easy.

That pendulum is going to swing back, and it's going to swing back hard.


by Karmakin on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 02:59:06 PM EST

Re: Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy (none / 0)

Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.  


by Phoenix Woman on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 03:42:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

follow the $$ (none / 0)

Interesting discussion at Kos about the funding for this dog -- especially the connection with the ultra-fundie Christian organization Youth With A Mission (YWAM), through their auxiliary - The Film Institute (TFI). Loren Cunningham, the founder of YWAM, is the father of PT911 director David Cunningham.

Link to the story here


by musicsleuth on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 03:06:48 PM EST

Re: Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy (none / 0)

I've been in a corporate cube, and I find Matt's take completely plausible.

Market failure is... other people.


by lambert on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 03:27:38 PM EST

Re: Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy (none / 0)

"....I bet the political slant to the movie wasn't strictly intentional on Disney's part.  I bet that Disney's ABC division used a set of PR firms and flacks that decided that 9/11 belonged to conservatives, and so hired conservative movement players to produce, market, and distribute this film."

Matt,

Quite a stunning assertion to suggest that Disney/ABC CEO Iger was misled regarding the 'political slant' of the movie......especially when considering the fact the Disney/ABC employee the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Al Rantel, and Larry Elder!  All of whom who dominate the KABC radio lineup and who faithfully broadcast the lies and talking points of the Bush Administration and Neocons.  For someone who's been with ABC and Disney/ABC since 1974, Mr. Iger's is fully aware of the political slant that has characterized Disney/ABC for decades.  Iger is no innocent bystander.


by smb on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 03:29:29 PM EST

Re: Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy (none / 0)

I didn't say he was an innocent bystander, just that he was fooled.  Now that he knows the truth, he is morally culpable.


by Matt Stoller on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 03:37:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy (none / 0)

Disney can't function if they're regarded as The Enemy by 60% of the population--not to mention the rest of the world.
There are far too many alternatives these days ready to take  up the slack. Everyone from Time Warner to Studio Ghibli.
I think Matt nails it: This was sold to the higher-ups as a slam-dunk.
Simply re-editing or even pulling this thing won't be enough. Not when Disney's branding is at stake.
Here's what would work:
  1. yank the docuganda. Replace it with a news special that would include a long, live interview with Bill Clinton. (hey, that's something of an event.)
  2. Fire someone. Publicly. With extreme prejudice. For lying and subverting ABC's and Disney's good name.
  3. Say they'll run the thing after the election. Recut and reworked, under the auspices of ABC News and not it's entertainment division, with the approval of the figures involved.

by pbg on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 03:30:34 PM EST

REPEAL THE SONNY BONO ACT!! (nt) (none / 0)


by drlimerick on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 03:32:03 PM EST

Re: Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy (none / 0)

I came over here all excited to read this piece, which was linked by Atrios and Amato.  You're one of the most perceptive political writers out there but I have to say I was disappointed this time.  You talk about "Democrats" as if they believe in something other than the DLC charter and by-laws.  Sure, some of them will write letters and go on talk shows to vent because it's good PR and costs them nothing.  But when push comes to shove, they'll all give Disney what Disney wants.  The lies in the Path to 9/11 and the fact that this movie is just a small part of a Big Plan to push the Big Lie, is a fact either lost on them or one they simply don't care about.  

The absolute worst thing that Iger could do would be to apologize because then the people who really have the power and the will (and lack of conscience) to keep it, will line up against him.   Now that would be problematic. If he stands pat, the worse case scenario is that the whole thing blows over a week from now and it's business as usual.   The threat that you imagine existing from the Dems in Congress simply does not.


by eRobin on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 04:56:01 PM EST

Re: Disney's Political Candy (none / 0)

Hopefully, the threat will be enough, but who knows?

Basically, a neoconservative cell was working within ABC to put this together and they've been outed.

When similar things happened at the NY Times, or just this morning at the Miami Herald, the papers did the right thing: cleaned house, apologized and moved on.

Will ABC do the same?

(BTW: One other way to punish Disney without punishing all media: Go after the licenses of every Goddamn ABC affiliate. As licensees, they are supposed to be broadcasting in the public interest, and they have violated that.)


by Bush Bites on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 09:59:46 AM EST

Re: Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy (none / 0)

How about those of us who dont agree with the version of this 911 movie to boycot it altogether? I mean, I dont want to take away anyone's 1st amendment rights just because what they saying doesnt sit well with me.

This is another non-controversy controversy, whose purpose is to distract people from the issues that really matter.  By the way, can anyone tell me how many Iraqis died last night? I cant seem to find the toll anywhere in the web.


Can you say with a straight face that Hillary has been a strong leader in the Senate?
by AnthonyMason2k6 on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 10:50:11 AM EST

Re: Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy (none / 0)

I cant seem to find the toll anywhere in the web.

Are you retarded?


by delmoi on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 09:29:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Almost helarious (none / 0)

Say what you want about the movie (Morally repugnant, etc) but the marketing for it has to go down as one of the worst in the history of anything. They've managed to instill everything from a sense of anger to outright moral panic and hysteria in people opposed to this movie. Could have been avoided if they hadn't basically made the film in secret "Untitled history project" indeed, and sent screeners out to only conservative wankers.  It certainly makes them look like they're doing something shady.


by delmoi on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 09:16:26 PM EST

Re: Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy (none / 0)

f61 f62 f63 f64 f65 f66 f67 f68 f69 f610 f611 f612 f613 f614 f615 f616 f617 f618 f619 f620 f621 f622 f623 f624 f625 f626 f627 f628 f629 f630 f631 f632 f633 f634 f635 f636 f637 f638 f639 f640 f641 f642 f643 f644 f645 f646 f647 f648 f649 f650 f651 f652 f653 f654 f655 f656 f657 f658 f659 f660 f661 f662 f663 f664 f665 f666 f667 f668 f669 f670 f671 f672 f673 f674 f675 f676 f677 f678 f679 f680 f681 f682 f683 f684 f685 f686 f687 f688 f689 f690 f691 f692 f693 f694 f695


by manie on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:54:11 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.