Quote:
Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Nov 3 2004, 05:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Nov 3 2004, 05:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-fotze@Nov 3 2004, 11:33 PM
Stolen from another site:
"I would save my venom for people like Michael Moore. Fahrenheit 9/11 cost....what? About as much as an average episode of Friends? It made over $100 million in the theaters and became the biggest selling DVD of 2004. And yet Moore continually refused to let it get a free showing prior to the election. He would only permit pay-per-view or pay webcasts. It shows where his priorities truly lie.
"However, I doubt if Moore is doing an Oskar Schindler right now, agonizing over what more he could have done to change he election. Now he gets four more years of profitable bitching." -- Rich Swank.
|
Disinformation from another site. Moore refused to allow a free showing on network TV for the sole reason that it would be immediately disqualified from contention for an Academy Award. Moore believes he has a shot at Best Picture with F/911 (the first documentary style film to do so IIRC) and would not risk losing that chance. In fact, he withdrew his film from the documentary category to gain credability for it as a film against traditional productions (according to IMDB News). Money was not an issue with Moore, the politics of the Academy was. [/b][/quote]
You are half right Lanny. He wouldn't have been able to show the film for free if he put it up for best documentary picture consideration. In fact you can read why he did what he did from himself.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/...Date=2004-09-06