Michael Moore's "Farenheit 911" Gets A Horrible Release Date

[Khephra]

snip.......

A portion of the doco will deal with the business relationship between former president George Bush and the late Saudi construction magnate Mohammed bin Laden (Osama's father). However overall the main thrust of the film will be examining what has happened to the United States since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

The film's french distributors Wild Bunch (outputing through Miramax in the US) are trying to target a world premiere at Cannes but in regards to it's official release, its date will probably be November, 2004... election day!

more..........

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news03/031201h.php

Don't you all think that Election Day is a little too freeping late to help us out??? By the time most people will have seen it, either a Democrat will be in office or Bush will have won a second term.

SUCKY release date, imo. I hope it's moved up.

[Fescue4u]

1. sigh...

Michael Moore doesnt care about the election.

Michael Moore cares about profits for Michael Moore.

He's the Rush Limbaugh of the left.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Khephra]

4. I hope you don't think I'm blaming him for that?

It's just a sucky release date for what's supposed to be a topical film, whoever is making the choice.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

6. God no, I was replying to post #1, not you, Khephra.

[Fescue4u]

5. oops Im sorry.

Yeah, he just a clock puncher who has no power over his films.


Do you honestly believe that releasing this film on election day is a COINCIDENCE??? come on.

Its timed to generate the most box office receipts, for when people are feeling very proud of themselves for voting against Bush, and to go that weekend and feel good about themselves for doing so, and to have it backed up by a film.

Whatever it is, its not about Democracy, its about $$$$.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

7. I think you're being paranoid. Directors don't have the choice of date

for release. Maybe Steven Spielberg might, but not Moore. This is a studio issue.

[Fescue4u]

10. paranoid? nah

Just realistic. Election day is the most profitable day for a film like this.

They aint making films for fun you know!

[Nailzberg]

19. A tuesday in Nov is not a profitable day for release.

This may be an well anticipated documentary, but still a documentary. It needs a Friday release date to capitalize on the Cannes buzz it will create.

[Fescue4u]

24. Why would they choose it then?

Why would they choose the least profitable day of the year to release this film?

A: Because its not.

Films released midweek get credit for the midweek days and the following weekend.

Releasing this on election day is NOT, I repeat NOT a coincidence, not when the release is nearly a year away.

Its timed to coincide with strong election day feelings and to reinforce (or to outrage) the viewers voting decision earlier that day or week. This leads to repeat viewings. Its also possibly that they are hoping to capitalize on post election day trama, if 2004 was anything like 2000.

With the release day nearly a year away, its just as easy to release 1 week before election day, as election day.

Its either that, or the film makers are completely inept.

[tinanator]

28. like people wont be busy?

thats nonsense.

[Fescue4u]

29. Why then?

Why then was the "least desireable" date of the year, indeed of 4 years choosen.

A: Because its not the least desireable.

[Touchdown]

43. You have no idea how the film industry works, do you?

"They ain't making films for fun you know!" :wtf:

Film making is a labor of love, especially documentary film making. Very rarely does a documentary make it's production costs back. Now, yeah R&M, BFC both made profits, but he's not doing this just for the money. The studios may be in it for the money, but the filmmakers, in fact do do it for fun.

Also, studios set release dates, not the filmmakers themselves. They are always under pressure from the studios to deliver the films on time. Miramax is owned by Disney. Disney marketers decide on release dates, not the filmmakers.

[Fescue4u]

50. Not really

But MM does make money because his movies are popular. (good for him btw on that note)

Please explain to me why the "worst possible" date was choosen.

Is Disney inept? Is Disney in bed with Bush? Is Disney "taking the high road" and trying to not influence the election?

Is it a completely a CRAZY coincidence that a film about a sitting president is released on his reelection day?

Or maybe...its the most profitable date they could have choosen?

[Touchdown]

59. First of all if this is the actual day...

then it would be the first film release date on a Tuesday in HISTORY!

Videos get released on Tues. Films come out on Fri. or Wed. and rarely on Sat. Strike one that this is mere speculation. I don't believe that this date was chosen.

But MM does make money because his movies are popular.

That still doesn't mean that he has carte blanche to set his own release dates. Ridley Scott (Alien, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator, White Squall, Black Hawk Down) has never set his own release dates. John McTiernen (Die Hard, Predator), Chris Columbus (Harry Potter, Mrs. Doubtfire), and Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings) also never set their own dates. If they can't, then MM can't either. The ONLY one I know of who has set his own dates is George Lucas (Star Wars)...he always get's Memorial Day.

Is Disney inept? Is Disney in bed with Bush? Is Disney "taking the high road" and trying to not influence the election?

I don't believe it's true. This is from an internet rumor mill site. Aint it Cool News has a 20% success rate for being right.


Is it a completely a CRAZY coincidence that a film about a sitting president is released on his reelection day?

Even if it gets released on election day, it woudl be Chimpy's FIRST ELECTION DAY. There is no "re-" verbiage here.

Or maybe...its the most profitable date they could have choosen?

Highly doubtful. Memorial Day, Independance Day, and the Wednesday before Christmas are the most profitable days of the year. Nobody has released ANYTHING on election day.

[Khephra]

67. Actually, a UPI source is referenced

the main problem is I haven't been able to find the original piece, so I don't know if the speculation is from the original UPI article or added on by DH.

[Terwilliger]

37. You think releasing this film on Election Day is a business move?

Sounds more like TPTB are loading for bear on Moore and the distributor.

[Fescue4u]

46. TPTB?

Please 'splain.

edited to add:
(It sure as hell had better be a business move, otherwise the board of Disney is liable to their shareholders)

[Terwilliger]

68. Moore is the talent...Disney is the money

they know they'll make money or they wouldn't be involved, but I don't know that they're in strict control of what Moore does

TPTB is Tellurian Prell Taco Bakers

[Ardee]

62. You know nothing of the entertainment business

An author has no control over the release date of a book or the number of copies published, a filmmaker likewise has no control over the release date of the film he has ,basically, sold to the producers.

On the other hand you should have some control over your own anger and fears and stop embarrassing yourself with those vituperative posts re a man who has done more for this nation than ever will you!

[Fescue4u]

79. So its a coincidence then?

OKAY....

GO ahead and Worship Rush, oops I mean Michael, he loves your $$$!

[Ardee]

88. what have you accomplished

Michael Moore has done more for this nation than ever you might hope too, yet you continue to misrepresent him and embarrass yourself.....

[Terwilliger]

36. your one note is tired and old

can't you try something new?

[Fescue4u]

48. Hey there buddy

I knew you'd be along soon!

I might only have one note, but together we have two!

[Terwilliger]

64. la

[frylock]

42. if it were about the $$, and nothin but the $$..

MM would probably hold out to release on Thanksgiving Day.

[Terwilliger]

44. not really

if it was about money it would definitely be released before the election because he knows that most Dems and liberals would go see it.

[hlthe2b]

54. Hold up, I have a very different take on this...

Consider, weeks, or even months of build-up and leaked "previews," as to what will appear in the film. Probably some Repug driven hysteria, similar to the Reagan movie incident. And, the release is attached to the ultimate climax-- the election, itself. I'm not sure this is a bad strategy at all, regardeless if you want ultimate exposure to Bush's transgressions, or simply to assure success for the film. The two, just might be interchanged.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fescue4u]

80. Thinking hurts huh?

Thats fine, Id rather talk with thinker anyway.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Not sure

how much input Mike has on the release date. You would think it was up to him, but he can't control the theater owners.

Let's write him from his website, see if he can get it out sooner in the little indy theaters.

[Fescue4u]

9. Its not totally up to him

But he certainly has strong input.

This is not a first time film maker, this is a highly successful and very vocal film directory.

Nonethless its seems crazy to believe that of all days to release the film, that its a coincidence that it happpens 8 hours to late.

[Minstrel Boy]

14. Why do you think Moore would choose this date?

If, as you say, it's all about the bucks, then why would election day be favourable to rake them in? Seems late to cash in on a general spike in political interest spurred by a campaign.

And why would he devote his energies to exposing the Bush crime family only to purposefully bury the film after it could do any good?

I think you're blinded by your Moore-hatred. Documentary filmmakers, even successful ones, don't have that much sway they can dictate to the distributors which weekend their movies open.

[Lindsey]

11. Excuse me Fescue4u but I've been watching

and keeping track of Michael Moore since his first documentary "Roger and Me" and he's a true patriot. To him, the money is an added benefit. I met him at his book signing for "Stupid White Men" and he's the most sincere and down to earth spokesperson we have. I take offense of you comparing him to Rush Limbaugh - you don't know what you're talking about.

[Fescue4u]

27. The right say the same thing about Rush Limbaugh

And I bet they are equally offended that I compared him to Michael Moore

Both of these blowhards have so many fooled it would be funny if it were not so damaging.

[Terwilliger]

39. Come on...tell people you hate him b/c of the gun theme in BFC

be honest

[Fescue4u]

53. This is not about BFC

This is about F. 911


Im giving MM full faith and credit in that F. 911 is an honest account of the Bush Regime and paints an accurate portrait of the wrongs that Bush has perpetuated on the American people.

Im just trying to understand how Michael was completely emasculated by his studio thats all.

(and yes BFC was VERY flawed as a documentary, but good as a parody)

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terwilliger]

74. what was the offense?

is "gunny" a bad word now?

[Fescue4u]

81. dunno..

It wasnt me that alerted, Hell I take gunny as a compliment ;)

[Ficus]

8. Hey whatever day

it comes out I am there.

[Cocoa]

12. If Moore says he has no control over this

I won't believe it.

I learned from people like Moore to use my common sense when deciding what to believe.

In fact, if he does say this, maybe I'll make a movie about it, it will be a very funny scene showing him making the statement, everyone will laugh at how obvious the lie is.

[Q]

16. Directors and producers of movies...

...have absolutely NO control over when they're released. The distribution companies make these decisions based on many factors.

[Cocoa]

20. Moore makes celebrities accountable for their work

he's famous for it.

[Fescue4u]

25. A hot Oscar winning filmmaker

has no control?

Come on!

It just HAPPENS to be released 8 hours after it has the potential to change minds? Come on!

"The distribution companies make these decisions based on many factors." YES! and the #1...that #1 factor is $$$$$$..That is when will it make the most money for all involved.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

75. Stupid White Men

The publishers held it up for several months after its planned release date of October 2, 2001 because of concerns following the 9/11 attacks. They even played a game of "editorial chicken" with Moore to get him to revise the book.

Moore was at that time a best-selling author, and his publisher threatened to "pulp" the entire run of 50,000 copies. So needless to say that an author or director doesn't have control over the distrubtion of the final product.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. Well, I emailed him

He gets so much mail, though, who knows if he'll see my note let alone read it.

Still, we need to sway the voters before the election, not make Bush voters sorry they voted for him after the fact.

[LeahMira]

58. Good for you, Green!

Well, I emailed him

Me, too. Maybe he will have something posted on his website... instead of answering each one separately. Let's stay tuned.

[GreenPartyVoter]

78. My email bounced :^(

His inbox is way too full.

Ok, since we can't reach Mike, how about getting a statement from the film company on the actual release date?

If it turns out to be too late a release, we could write up an editorial for Common Dreams. Something to the effect of "Timing is Everything"?

~Jen

[Cronus Protagonist]

15. I'm sure they could release it a week earlier

If they wanted to.

LICK BUSH Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[LeftistGorilla]

17. which is...

a better idea...

[Gringo]

18. If Moore wanted it earlier, I'm sure he can get it.

I always liked Moore, particularly "Roger and Me". But media creature that he is, he should know that appearances matter. Whether it's his total lack of concern about his appearance, his sloppy impromptu statement at the Oscars, or his misdirected attacks on the dying Charlton Heston and American icon Dick Clark, he has reinforced the belief among many that liberals are fanatical, undisciplined misfit slobs. I was especially appalled at his endorsement of Nader in 2000.

He's a remarkable talent, but as undisciplined as he is, I think he tends to scare as many people away from the progressive side as he attracts.

I had hoped that the 9-11 flick wouold be out by late summer/early fall. If it comes out on or near election day, that would be a huge disappointment, and more evidence that Moore is more about getting attention for himself than he is about affecting real change in this society.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

21. Clark and Heston deserved what they got.

Heston may be old and frail, but actions have consequences. His words at the NRA meetings didn't seem like the words of an old confused man. He knew what he was saying. The same goes for Clark. If you have a restaurant in your name, and they pay poor wages to staff, you are, at least partly responsible.

[Gringo]

23. Moore was deceptive in his treatment of them

Implying that Heston was at some sort of NRA gun thing was dishonest. It was a policial fundraiser. He also spliced in Heston's "Cold Dead Hands" speech from an NRA event to make it appear he had said it in Flint after the little girl's death. Again, dishonest. I'm no fan of Heston, but I wouldn't have attacked him that way or asked him for an apology, as though somehow he had gotten the little girl killed.

As for Clark, there are many restaurateurs using that provision of welfare reform. Clark was not breaking the law, nor was he responsible for the passage of the horrible welfare "reform" that had the mother traveling so far to work for peanuts. If you want to place blame, place it on the Congress and Bill Clinton for signing the damn thing. To imply that somehow Dick Clark was responsible for that little girl's death was ludicrous.

To be fair, if I had been Clark, I wouldn't have sped away in a huff. I would have listened to what happened, and see what I could do to remedy the situation at my restaurant, but Clark obviously smelled a character assasination, and wasn't in for it.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gringo]

45. No, I'm totally pro-gun control.

And "Bowling" hardly advocated gun control.

You should do more research. Re-watch the DVD, and notive how Heston is dressed differently when he says the "cold dead hand" line from the speech at Flint.

And specificall HOW do you think I'm misrepresenting the film? Do you think Dick Clark lobbied for welfare deform? Are you saying that Heston appeared at an NRA rally in Flint? That is the impression Moore leaves you with, and it is deceptive.

The scene at Kmart where they decide to stop selling the ammo is more honest, and more satisfying.

The stuff with Heston and Clark just struck me as a rabble-rouser harrassing some old show-biz hacks.

I cheered when he harrassed Roger Smith in "Roger & Me" because Roger deserved it. Please explain to me how Dick Clark is similarly culpable for the excesses of welfare reform, or for that little girl's death?

[Terwilliger]

63. I saw it differently

And "Bowling" hardly advocated gun control.

That's not what the gunnies think.

You should do more research. Re-watch the DVD, and notive how Heston is dressed differently when he says the "cold dead hand" line from the speech at Flint.

I watched the film and there is no logical process that made me come to the conclusion that Moore tells people that Heston's little speech occurred after the shooting. He said that Heston spoke some time after the incident, arranged by a local NRA guy. I didn't think the cold dead hands speech was given at that meeting, why do all the naysayers?

And specificall HOW do you think I'm misrepresenting the film? Do you think Dick Clark lobbied for welfare deform? Are you saying that Heston appeared at an NRA rally in Flint? That is the impression Moore leaves you with, and it is deceptive.

Heston did. Clark was being pursued by Moore to ask him how he felt about what had happened, and what family values are served by the horrible welfare-to-work program that serves his restaurants with good workers?

The scene at Kmart where they decide to stop selling the ammo is more honest, and more satisfying.

Frankly, I think it's just another of his honest moves throughout the movie. Everyone he talked to he approached in a straightforward manner and asked them what they felt. That applied to Heston too. This whole "oh he's the Limbaugh of the left" thing is sad...is it some sort of need to equate the left and the right? I don't get it.

The stuff with Heston and Clark just struck me as a rabble-rouser harrassing some old show-biz hacks.

What's wrong with asking the former head of the NRA some questions?

I cheered when he harrassed Roger Smith in "Roger & Me" because Roger deserved it. Please explain to me how Dick Clark is similarly culpable for the excesses of welfare reform, or for that little girl's death?

There it is again. Where did Moore say that Clark was responsible? I think Moore made the audience realize that the question didn't seem important enough for Clark to answer.

[redqueen]

69. Dick Clark

The reason Mike went after Clark is because it's Clark that's profiting from this kind of work.

No, he's not directly responsible. But Moore does something that I think we all need to do more of -- which is to be responsible and informed. People like Clark who have lots of free time and lots of money to do whatever they want with IMO should be held to a higher standard.

People are too willing to accept that nobody ever considers the workers who have no rights, who make those cheap clothes or electronics. I talk with Democrats all the time who say how great NAFTA and free trade are, because they get cheap stuff. No consideration whatsoever for the workers who are taken advantage of in other countries. When confronted with that, they toe the REpublican line -- saying that those people have jobs they wouldn't have had otherwise.

Why should anyone care about anyone? Because it makes us human. It is part of why we are considered more 'evolved' than other species.

For someone like Clark to be completely ignorant of what's going on at his stores is abhorrent.

People in the liesure class could spend their time trying to improve conditions for everyone. Considering how much of their 'take' is dependent on screwing others out of a fair shake, I'm not really surprised this isn't a common advocation for the idle rich.

[LeahMira]

60. Read the response...

Implying that Heston was at some sort of NRA gun thing was dishonest. It was a policial fundraiser. He also spliced in Heston's "Cold Dead Hands" speech from an NRA event to make it appear he had said it in Flint after the little girl's death. Again, dishonest. I'm no fan of Heston, but I wouldn't have attacked him that way or asked him for an apology, as though somehow he had gotten the little girl killed.

There are responses to all of these issues at: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

"As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims "from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced in narration. It is Heston's most well-recognized NRA image – hoisting the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, as he has done at virtually every political appearance on behalf of the NRA (before and since Columbine). I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun owners" which they "wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the phone.". Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it?"

[ludwigb]

51. Agreed...

Though my political views are very close to his and I enjoyed his early films, the guy really gets my goat now. First of all, he's just not funny--reinforcing the sterotype of liberal humorlessness. Second, he really does back up the impression that liberals are irresponsible rude slobs. Third, I'm disgusted that he of all people is cashing in on the Bush backlash. Here in Germany his books are bestsellers. Moore recently came over here and gave speeches bashing Bush and inciting Anti-Americanism in general. If only they had a clue what role he played in 2000, and what a f-ing opportunist he really is.

Now he's trying to sell Clark, lecturing Democrats on how we need to be more inclusive.

I know I'm being unfair, but I just can't such stupidity, such mediocrity, even if it comes in a progressive form.

[BurtWorm]

22. If I were more, I'd try to book a late summer screening on Bravo or HBO.

It seems like something an alternative network programmer would like to run.

[SheilaT]

26. It's also an independent

film not from a major studio or movie maker, which means it will initially open in about 30 theaters, and only later open more widely. "Bowling For Columbine" did not play in a lot of theaters, even though it was selling out pretty consistently. The theater owners are genuinely afraid to show movies that are other than the standard crap.

[qb]

30. Maybe the distributer doesn't want to be charged with trying to influence

the election. Imagine FAUX and all of the other right-wing blowhards shrieking nonstop from the release date all the way to election day. It could actually backfire and swing more people to Bush's side.

[Fescue4u]

31. Is that possible?

That is to be charged with trying to influence?

I would think this would be covered under the 1st ammendment.

[el_gato]

32. attempting to smear moore, these types crawl out fo the wood work

He has been a valuable force in fighting the fascists but there are always a few who come out to try to discredit him when they see
an opening.

[Fescue4u]

34. Ok then defend him.

Tell me why Mike has been completely ran over and had his work rendered irrelevant by releasing the film on the worst day of the year.

Pray tell why such a high profile, oscar winning film maker been so effectively muted?

[truthspeaker]

41. You obviously no very little about the film industry

Directors do not have any say in when their film is released, any more than recording artists decide when their CDs come out or authors decide when their books are published.

[Fescue4u]

49. Educate me then.

Tell me why they choose the worst date within 4 years?

[Gringo]

38. I Love Michael Moore

But I WILL criticize him when his lack of discipline and focus is serving as a detriment to the progressive movement. That doesn't nullify his often informative and always entertaining work.

[LeahMira]

61. Hmmm...

Maybe the distributer doesn't want to be charged with trying to influence the election.

You mean sort of the way the distributors were worried about releasing "Wag the Dog" or "Primary Colors"? That kind of worry?

[TheBlob]

33. I hope this isn't true

The whole point of this film is to EDUCATE people before more damage is done.

I don't see election day as a prime release date.
People will be crowding voting booths and then be gathering in front of thier TV's that night.

And since when are films released on a Tuesday?
Release dates are usually either Wednesday or Friday.

[mzmolly]

35. I doubt this is true frankly. I am certain he'd want to release it b4 E/D

"...its date will probably be November, 2004... election day!"

Nah...

[MissMillie]

47. Just a thought

those that are not likely to see eye to eye w/ Moore are not likely to go see the picture anyway. I think he recognizes that he's not going to change people's minds, so the movie not intended to be an effective campaign tool.

[LeahMira]

52. Then let's all say something...

Don't you all think that Election Day is a little too freeping late to help us out??? By the time most people will have seen it, either a Democrat will be in office or Bush will have won a second term.

If I remember correctly there was a problem about releasing "Stupid White Men" because of 9/11. I forget what exactly was supposed to be the problem, but it was released. Maybe this is the time to let Miramax hear from those of us who want this film released earlier. Is summer good? Or September? Also, let's try to get it in to major movie theaters and not just the "arts theaters" as "Bowling for Columbine" was. How about it, ladies and gentlemen? Who here is movie savvy? Let's plan.

[OldSoldier]

55. The time to release this...

is the Wednesday before election day. Which will be time enough to get a buzz going, but not enough to let Rove's boys spin it.

[tridim]

56. I think this is a calculated and smart release date

The buzz from Cannes and the marketing that'll start a few weeks before the election will be very powerful. People will see trailers and commercials on TV with juicy, to-the-point clips a week before the election. Perfect timing IMO for a free anti-Bush campaign ad.

Think about it, in the leadup to election day would you rather have 50 million average TV viewers see the trailer several times, or 50,000 Democrats (who are going to vote Democratic anyway) see the actual film?

[HydroAddict]

82. You maybe on to something tridim...

I agree, free ads to for Dems.

I also feel, barring hook and crook, the Dems go this election in the bag. That said, and if F911 is any good, this may be the perfect rally cry to get the BFEE behind bars, where they belong. The late release helps prevent a bunch of last-minute pardons. Just a thought.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

57. What makes you think we're still having the 2004 elections?

[Capn Sunshine]

65. What makes you think we're not?

apart from the insane "strategerie" that would entail

[jiacinto]

70. Yeah whatever

Moore really helped in 2000. And I bet that his video would do more to turn average people into Bush supporters than turn them against him.

[Forkboy]

71. Your open-mindedness for something you have yet to see

is impressive :eyes:

[Terwilliger]

73. right

that's why he told millions of people in many nations that Bush's war was a fiction...so he could get support for him :eyes:

[Ficus]

87. Read the very last section of Stupid White Men

and you'll know the truth about what happened with him and Florida and Nader in 2000.

[cthrumatrix]

76. demand a better release .... if not ...an investigation as to why it's

delayed

[Chomskyite]

77. I imagine Moore is going to fight that late due date tooth and nail

. . . just the way he fought to keep Stupid White Men from being "pulped."

But this is assuming this is true. I don't buy it.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

84. Hmmm. Well it is a Free Republic after all.

[Forkboy]

85. he does?

I better inform all the bookstores then...they have his books in the wrong section!!

[Ficus]

86. and you can't spell

jackass

[rocktivity]

89. Sacre Bleu!

The film's (F)rench distributors...are trying to target a world premiere at Cannes but in regards to its official release, its date will probably be November, 2004... Election Day!

"Probably" but not definitely--especially since the French distributors may not realize November 2004 is Election Day in America. Do you know what day the French hold THEIR elections? And considering how France feels about Bush, I think that if enough of us protested to Mike, the distributor, and Mirimax, they'd see the wisdom AND profitability of releasing the movie a couple of weeks sooner. On the other hand, maybe that's exactly what they want--this might actually be one heck of a publicity stunt!


rocknation

[Terwilliger]

90. could also be

a bit of misinformation...proclaiming the release date (in the US) will be the day of the election keeps the RNC propaganda machine away from the movie