DescentBB

Seems like Pay for View is pulling Farenheit 9/11 from its line-up. Won't even tell Mikey why. Of course MM thinks it's a Republican plot.
Awww. Gee Mikey, it couldn't be not enough tickets sold to date?

I just love how you post stuff with no reference.

9/10, one of the forums I visit already has the link to the source of the stuff Woodchip posts about, but not this time.

Source?

Not enough tickets sold?

Source?

Heard it on CNN.

Just makes he movie more interesting to ppl that haven't seen it yet -- fine w/ me.

Edit: reason is probably that the sales are quite low since it's out on DVD already. Again, free advertisement -- great !

Not good enough Chip.

Grendel wrote:Edit: reason is probably that the sales are quite low since it's out on DVD already.

No, he wanted it out on TV and DVD to get maximum affect to defeat Bush. He could have stayed away from TV and DVD until after he won an Oscar for it but then it would be too late to have maximum impact on the election.
You have to give him props, he's putting his money where his fat, lying mouth is.

Too bad I was hoping Hollywood could shoot itself in the foot by awarding him an Oscar.

Perhaps the owner/operators of PPV: Don't want a negative movie about Bush running that close to the election out of their own sense of fairness; Support the Republican party and will adjust their playlist in order to help, or at least not hurt, their party; Might be constrained by the rules regarding equal airtime for political ads and movies for each candidate, and PPV does not have a negative Kerry movie to run to balance it out.

On a similar note:http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle ... ID=6407%20

May the dirty tricks begin.

If TV is anything like talk radio, it's an interesting point. We all know that Right-Wing icons such as Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, and now Bill O'Riley have been nailed by scandals, and yet still are able to keep their jobs to promote how much more morally superior they are to the left.

Yet someone from the left gets their stuff yanked because it puts the right in a bad light. Why? My guess is because it most likely was scaring off sponsors that are aligned with the right.

I just find that to be a double standard.

Woodchip wrote:Source?

Ferno wrote:Heard it on CNN.

Ferno wrote:Not good enough Chip.

No kiddin' Woodchip. Even Ferno at this point has the good sense to disregard news coverage from CNN.

Try ABC . . . oops: that stupid Halperin memo.

How about CBS. Dang.

Forget it.

BD

Well how about Fox News? Listed on the scroll bar if you want to check it out:

"In Demand pay for view will not run F/911 due to legal considerations".

I guess In Demand realizes the difference between real documentary and schlock propaganda.

Hmm...

any day other than Nov 1., and it wouldn't have gotten yanked.

Woody, that's not true. remember; these media stations are owned by a larger company and must not piss them off. so if they show a film that disagrees with the parent company's political viewpoints, they either get fired, lose contributions, or something else that's just as bad.

"In Demand pay for view will not run F/911 due to legal considerations".

Now why would a company fear being sued because they would have run a film that criticizes bush?

They might fear being sued by Ray Bradbury. I hear he wasn't happy with the whole name stealage thing.

Ferno wrote:
"In Demand pay for view will not run F/911 due to legal considerations".

Now why would a company fear being sued because they would have run a film that criticizes bush?

It could revolve around McCain/ Feingold. I suspect there is a fine line between documentary (news) and blatent political advertisements. F 9/11 crosses that line and thus becomes a liability under federal law.

I doubt it's for ray bradbury or mcain feingold

On ray, the suit would be with the film owner.

On McCain-Feingold that would be pretty damn outraguous. Wishful thinking for "Rightists"

"F 9/11 crosses that line and thus becomes a liability under federal law"


Since when does a certain kind of movie become a 'liability under federal law'? are you telling me that his movie is illegal?

that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Actually, depending on whether you classify it as propaganda, the movie is illegal to show within 60 days before the election.

so it hinges all on someone's subjective opinion.

Ferno wrote:so it hinges all on someone's subjective opinion.

And thats why In Demand does not want to risk it.

Too bad it's not just a plain old factual documentary that would solve all the problems.

man that's just fn retarded.

Ferno wrote:man that's just fn retarded.

I guess you've never been sued by an ambulance chaser.

hmmm...then why is Sinclair Broadcasting getting away with it's anti-kerry "documentary"? In my opinion, in order to be fair, Sinclair should show both movies at the same time in a split screen format. That way nobody could influence someone else's mind with a movie, I cannot believe these are the voters that everyone worries about. People that get their votes from t.v. commercials and anti this and anti that. Does anybody even know where the candidates stand anymore? All the commercials attack, but never talk about what that candidate is going to do. Same thing for the debates, every question is answered by how bad the other person would do.

Sinclair is getting away with it for the same reason Moore got away with Fahrenheit 9/11 within 60 days of the primary: because the FEC is a lethargic, corrupt beast.

Zuruck wrote:Does anybody even know where the candidates stand anymore? All the commercials attack, but never talk about what that candidate is going to do. Same thing for the debates, every question is answered by how bad the other person would do.

It's been this way every election year. Nobody really talks about the important things such as *how* they'd do this or do that. They just campaign on empty promises all the time. Reason being it's easy for them to go up and say "I will balance the budget" or "I'll fix healthcare" or blah blah blah and somehow the majority of the masses truely want to believe they will , regardless of which side is spinning it.

Tyranny wrote:They just campaign on empty promises all the time. Reason being it's easy for them to go up and say "I will balance the budget" or "I'll fix healthcare" or blah blah blah

I think you give them too much credit, Tyr. The operative phrase this election is "I HAVE A PLAN"