Fear of the censors?

mani · 22-06-2007, 03:17

just thinking how many movie directors would consider releasing their movie to the pirates just so that the censors/us govt couldnt force an edit or cancel the movie release...

should be a good movie - i always enjoy michael moore's stuff - bowling for colombine was just mind-blowing esp the way charles heston came out of it holding pro-gun rallies days after shooting massacres.

Another example is how rampant piracy of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 caused news outlets to report about a video of Moore explaining he is happy that his movies, books and TV shows are shared as long as its not for profit, and does not really agree with copyright laws.

However, Fahrenheit 9/11 was being shared heavily on the Internet "after""Sicko" movie is being snatched up by thousands of pirates well ahead of its June 29th release date. What makes this interesting is how Moore's personal views on file sharing and copyright applies to such an early leak.

Of course, this could be exactly what Sicko needs and might not even be accidental. If you have been following the news, you know that the U.S. Government is investigating a trip Moore took to Cuba with workers from the its theatrical release. This time around, a copy of Moore's highly-anticipated World Trade Center site so they could receive health care they could not get at home. There was speculation that Sicko could have been "impounded" by the federal government due to the Cuba issue - so much so that Moore found it a necessity to stash a copy of the movie in Canada.

WillowTheWhisp · 22-06-2007, 07:11

I can't see many film directors passing up releasing to the cinemas and making vast profits. Surely only the ones who are more interested in getting a message across rather than making an entertaining film will be happy for it to be spread by pirates.

Tin Monkey · 22-06-2007, 12:14

The US is different to the UK in terms of censorship and certificiation. In the States films do not have to have a certificate in order to be released, whereas in the UK all films (for example) have to be certificated by the BBFC.

In the US the MPAA is a mysterious organisation that awards certificates to films, but as I said before, films can be released without such a certificate. The issue is then, will cinemas (and particularly cinema chains) exhibit the films without a certificate, and the answer is no. Therefore, in order to recoup the money from a film and hopefully make a profit, the film has to be certificated, even though it doesn't legally have to have one.

mani · 23-06-2007, 06:02

but its not actually the certification thats under question with this movie

its the fact that hte us govt says moore didnt have permission to go to cuba and film at guantanmo bay. moore says that they're tryin to stifle the release as it potrays the govt in a very bad light in lookin after its own.

and hence moore went as far as hiding one of the prints in canada so that the govt wudnt confiscate it once he came back from cannes and other film festivals.

WillowTheWhisp · 23-06-2007, 07:56

I'm confused now.

Tin Monkey · 23-06-2007, 08:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I'm confused now.

Me too. Moore could release the film without certification in the US and hence uncensored. It just wouldn't be released on major cinemas and in only a handful of minor ones and wouldn't be any kind of commercial success. By releasing it via the internet Moore wouldn't be much worse off in terms of the US market and in terms of marketing his 'product', would probably be much better off.

What you have to remember is that Moore is a very shrewd operator. His films are presented as documentaries, but are a long way from presenting an objective truth. Moore is very good at what he does, but he has a very definite agenda. This latest revelation is very much in line with his previous work. His new film will be released in a legitimate form and these early releases won't harm the profitability of the project.