Moore clears $100,000,000+

[sameoldsht]

Anti-Capitalist Michael Moore has made more than $100,000,000 from his latest fictitious documentary. He said on O'Reilly that "rich" people should pay up to 70% of their income in taxes. I figure one hundred million dollars for just one movie qualifies him as "rich".

Think he'll actually write a check to the IRS for $70,000,000? As if. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[cardcounter0]

The film is owned by Disney. Two principles of a Disney company, Miramax Films, formed a company Fellowship Adventure Group with Moore. Lions Gate and IFC Films are distributing the movie in the U.S.

60% of the net goes back to Disney.

But don't let your rant get ruined with facts, flame on!

By the way, how much is Bush & Co., and the Carlye Group, going to kick back in taxes based on the high demand for their weapon systems?

[Philuva]

Not to mention, I thought the profits were going the Sept. 11th fund, right?

[Malarky]

Anyone who calls someone else "Anti-Capitalist" that isn't living in the 50s sounds like an idiot.

There's a fact for you.

[brassnuts]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who calls someone else "Anti-Capitalist" that isn't living in the 50s sounds like an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this in any detail? I think it's a great way to describe Moore. Maybe add on the word pompous. I guess his title could also be, "The Rush Limbaugh of Liberals."

[nothumb]

Moore expresses good, old-fashioned LIBERAL ideas about taxes and the role of government. Like: we should tax the very wealthy upwards of 70 percent. In the 50's the top marginal tax rate was in the 80's, so this is not some far-left socialist idea. Unless you think Eisenhower was a pinko.

Because Moore tends to vilify company after company, and always talk about the ills of corporate America, we assume he is against capitalism. He never says this. I think he favors better regulation of markets to ensure consumer safety and better union coverage to ensure work security.
He never said anything about forcibly distributing rations of rum and cigarettes in Havana.

Being against wanton exploitation of just about everyone by the obscenely wealthy is not what I would describe as 'anti-capitalist.' More like 'having a conscience.'

That said, I think Moore is a clown in a lot of ways. But calling him anti-capitalist is inaccurate.

NT

[brassnuts]

It's of my opinion that he's socialist, but that's not one of the reasons that I dislike him.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Anti-Capitalist Michael Moore has made more than $100,000,000 from his latest fictitious documentary. He said on O'Reilly that "rich" people should pay up to 70% of their income in taxes. I figure one hundred million dollars for just one movie qualifies him as "rich".

Think he'll actually write a check to the IRS for $70,000,000? As if. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
You have a very fitting name in this forum. You always post the Same Old Sh*t.

First of all, your statement of "Anti-Capitalist Michael Moore has made more than $100,000,000 from his latest fictitious documentary" is a blatant falsehood. How do you know what he "cleared"? Are you his accountant? The term "anti-capitalist" as related to Moore has been discussed repeatedly in this forum with the accusers providing no proof or even a shred of proof that the statement is true. (Note: The mere fact that someone advocates a higher income tax, such as 70%, on the wealthy does NOT make them anti-capitalist.) You also state that his documentary is "fictitious." I have not yet seen the movie, but do you care to elaborate on why this movie is "fictitious"? Or does the mere fact that it is anti-Bush make it "fictitious"?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Moore expresses good, old-fashioned LIBERAL ideas about taxes and the role of government. Like: we should tax the very wealthy upwards of 70 percent.

Please explain how the redistribution of income from those who earned it to those who did not is *not* socialist.

Being against wanton exploitation

Neither "Farenheit 9/11" nor "Bowling for Columbine" is 100% factually accurate. Both are heavily slanted towards Moore's own world view. Both play on peoples' fears. I'd say that might qualify as wanton exploitation to a lot of people.

[adios]

Here's a repost of the breakdown of the profits from Moore's new movie. I'm fairly certain that Moore hasn't disclosed exactly what he's doing with his profits from the movie.

----------------------------------------------------------

I thought some may find this article interesting since this topic came up in another thread. Disney gets to designate the charities that the money goes to. Apparently the profits to contribute to charity are determined after Moore gets his cut. I don't know if Moore is planning to donate any of his cut to charity. Before anyone get's the wrong impression I'm neutral on what Moore does with his profits.

The Biggest Slice
Of 'Fahrenheit' Profit
Will Go to Charity

By BRUCE ORWALL
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 2, 2004; Page B1

After Walt Disney Co. refused to allow its Miramax Films unit to distribute the controversial Michael Moore documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," Miramax co-Chairmen Harvey and Bob Weinstein paid $6 million from their own pockets to acquire the film from the company.

Six weeks later, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a smash sensation, and the Weinsteins are widely assumed to be laughing all the way to the bank. If so, the laughter may be muted.

Despite their personal investment, the Weinstein brothers will not be the biggest financial beneficiaries of "Fahrenheit." The real winner: a charity, or charities, as yet unnamed, that will receive about 60% of the net profit ultimately generated by the film -- a tally that could be tens of millions of dollars. The Weinsteins, meanwhile, will pocket about 40% of the net, according to people familiar with the deal.

And who will pick the charities that get the money? Disney, the company that refused to release the movie, without having to consult either the Weinsteins or Mr. Moore. It's all the unexpected result of yet another strange tussle between Disney and the Weinsteins, the corporate odd couple that has had a tough time getting along since Disney's 1993 acquisition of Miramax.

Over the years, Disney and the Weinstein brothers have fought over issues of control, compensation and budgets. But their relationship was pushed to the brink in May, when a public spat broke out over Disney's refusal to allow Miramax to release "Fahrenheit." As Mr. Moore made the media rounds accusing Disney of censoring his movie, Disney executives were furious that the Weinsteins seemed to side with him.

Michael Moore's new documentary fared far better on opening weekend than the last two. Figures are in millions.

U.S. OPENING
WEEKEND TOTAL TOTAL
TO DATE
'Fahrenheit 9/11' $23.90 $35.50
June 2004 in 868 theaters
'Bowling for Columbine' 0.21 21.6
October 2002 in 8 theaters
'Roger & Me' 0.08 6.7

December 1989 in 4 theaters
*Through Wednesday, June 30
Source: Exhibitor Relations



So when negotiations began for the Weinsteins to buy the film back from Disney, the discussions quickly took on the stern parent/naughty child tone that has characterized many moments between the parties over the years. According to people familiar with the matter, the media company was determined to punish the brothers for their alleged bad behavior by limiting the extent to which the Weinsteins could benefit.

In essence, Disney refused to sell the film to the brothers unless they agreed that they would not benefit personally any more than they would have under their employment agreement. That is still a lot of money: Under that complex deal, the Weinsteins typically pocket about 40% of the net profit from any Miramax picture, after the costs of distribution, prints and advertising and talent participations are deducted. But people close to the deal say that Disney demanded that the remaining 60% go to a charity or charities of its choice.

The Weinsteins, these people say, had little choice but to agree because they wanted to get the movie out quickly. After agreeing to Disney's terms, they negotiated a deal to distribute "Fahrenheit 9/11" through Lions Gate Entertainment Co. and Cablevision Systems Corp.'s IFC Films.

A Disney spokeswoman says no charities have been approached, as it isn't yet clear how much money will be available. It's likely that Disney will try to steer the money toward noncontroversial organizations benefiting children, education and the like. The arrangement was referenced obliquely in a press release announcing the sale of the film to the Weinsteins that said, "Any monetary benefit to Miramax or its parent company, the Walt Disney Co., as a result of the film's distribution will be donated to charity."

How much money the charity and the Weinsteins stand to make depends on a variety of factors, first and foremost the performance of the movie. It has already sold more than $35 million of tickets in six days of release at 868 theaters. With plans to greatly expand the screen count this weekend, many in Hollywood believe the movie could take in $100 million in U.S. theaters alone.

When other tallies are later added in -- including foreign ticket revenue, DVD and video sales, and licensing the film to TV networks -- it is expected to be an impressive bounty. One wild card is how much Mr. Moore himself will make via his own profit participation in the movie, which people close to the matter describe as generous. That amount will be deducted from the take before the Weinsteins and the charities divvy up the rest. Mr. Moore's Los Angeles agent, Ari Emanuel, declined to discuss Mr. Moore's compensation but indicated it would be less than what the charities receive.

For Disney's critics, the charitable contributions will be a handy way to estimate how much profit the company missed out on by declining to release the movie. And few will shed a tear for the Weinsteins. The brothers have reaped an estimated $250 million in bonus compensation since joining Disney 11 years ago, not to mention a windfall from the "Lord of the Rings." When Disney and Miramax gave up the rights to make the movies, it wound up with a 5% profit participation in the films that were eventually made by Time Warner Inc.'s New Line Cinema. People familiar with the matter say Disney let the Weinsteins keep half of that amount, which has generated about $25 million for the brothers and $25 million for Disney.