This just in: Mel Gibson drops Michael Moore's FARENHIGHT 911

[Chris K.]

Remember how on the last post that Mel Gibson and his Icon Productions were interested in Michael Moore's upcoming project. Well, it seems that Gibson has placed his reputation over dollar signs (and yes, that is usually a good thing) and has dropped Moore's upcoming film due to both Gibson's time constraints (i.e., still working on post-production of THE PASSION, I can't wait to get a real laugh out of it) and the fact that Moore's material was "too hot to handle".

Also, remember how I said Gibson has two choices, which were:
A.) Mel works with Moore, putting their politics aside, due to BOWLING FOR COLLUMBINE, a documentary on a measily budget of $3 million that brought in $44 million in it's release, and seeing that Moore is definately a money maker.

B.) Due to Mel being a Conservative-Republican and that if he worked alongside Moore, a Liberal-Democrat, he would be criticised as a hypocrite and another Hollywood elite that's after some more cash, which could ruin his social status.

Yet I'm suprised how Mel went with reputation over dollar signs. I mean, Gibson's recent body of work (i.e., WHAT WOMEN WANT, WE WERE SOLDIERS, THE PATRIOT) are an example of him just taking the money and run, with nary a thought of performance value. And hey, sometimes you need the money to live and pay the bills, but putting some emphasis in the character that he plays in the films I mentioned adds more to the performance, which he sadly doesn't do most of the time. Yet, I'm suprised by Mel's decision. I thought he would have jumped at the chance, yet dollar signs didn't matter to Mel this time around I guess. In either case, what's done is done. Oh well.

In the meantime, Moore has signed up with Michael Eisner with one of the Disney subsidiary production companies (can't recall which one at the moment) and the project is being funded. Now who didn't see this one coming? I sure as hell didn't!

Comments or questions?

[Deena]

Wow!  Moore did a lil expose on Disney on his old show, The Awful Truth.  So that is a shocker.  I love Moore and can't wait to see his new movie!  I want to email him and ask if he has a son my age.  Us bleeding hearts have to stick together. ;0)

Deena

[trala-log]

so working with somebody that has different political views than you makes you a hypocrite?

[Chris K.]

I, personally, don't think that working with somebody else who has different political views would make me or anybody else a hypocrite at all. Sadly, that is what most of the audience will believe when they see the results.

You have to realize that Mel Gibson has made it known that he is a Conservative-Republican, that he supports George W. Bush and the recent war. Michael Moore has made it known that he is an extreme Liberal-Democrat, that he hates Bush with a passion and that he was not for the war. Here are two men with different political takes and dislike their opponent party. Now if they are willing to work together, putting their politics behind them (as I feel it should be), both Moore and Gibson could have worked together successfully. But then, why didn't Gibson go on with the project? Simple: the material was just too controversial for him and his Icon Productions, with the possibility that his reputation will be at stake if he went through with it (after all, the audience knows about these two guys position on politics), and thus he canceled the pre-production of Moore's project. If he did go through with it, it could have made some money, depending on how well it turns out, yet Gibson would then end up being harshly criticized for being a hypocrite on his political position by the audience.

Again, I don't think your political status is important. Yet, the audience believes it is. Take a good look at Susan Sarandon, a Liberal-Democrat that protested the war, is against Bush, and such with the result of her fan base and audience dimming. Even her made-for-TV movie tha premered on Easter bombed as THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, a 50-year-old film, beat it out. Same goes to Tim Robbins and George Clooney.

In either case, what's done it done.

[raj]

Yeah, but I'll still watch Rocky Horror, and Bull Durham for that matter.

I've got no problem with actors working with each other even though they have different political view points.  Now, if an actor is in a movie that has a decidedly political  viewpoint which is opposite their own view, then I could see that as cynical money grubbing.

[Chris K.]

raj wrote:

> Yeah, but I'll still watch Rocky Horror, and Bull Durham for
> that matter.

Oh don't get me wrong, raj. I'll still watch ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW and put the political viewpoints aside as I don't care at all. As for BILL DURHAM, I didn't think it was not that great of a film. Not because of political viewpoints mind you, but because it just didn't hold my attention.

In either case, other audiences will see it all differently. I remember listening to Sean Hannity during the whole protesting-the-war subject wayback for which he mentions Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins involved: he recieved quite a number of callers that said they will no longer watch a Sarandon or Robbins film ever again, to which Hannity applauded them for their actions. Of course, this is all the act of an audiences decision of their viewing choice, which I have no problem with. After all, this is a free country. Yet, it does show that some audiences will watch a film based on an actors/actress political stantz, rather than their talent or performance to offer.

> Now, if an actor is in a movie that has a decidedly political viewpoint
> which is opposite their own view, then I could see that as
> cynical money grubbing.

I have two words for you: Martin Sheen. Here is a guy who one minute protests war and is against it, yet the next minute he is narrating a World War 2 documentary.

[raj]

Chris K. wrote:

> raj wrote:
>
> > Yeah, but I'll still watch Rocky Horror, and Bull Durham for
> > that matter.
>
> Oh don't get me wrong, raj. I'll still watch ROCKY HORROR
> PICTURE SHOW and put the political viewpoints aside as I don't
> care at all. As for BILL DURHAM, I didn't think it was not that
> great of a film. Not because of political viewpoints mind you,
> but because it just didn't hold my attention.

I liked Bull Durham because I'm a bit of a baseball nut, but to each his own.

> > Now, if an actor is in a movie that has a decidedly political
> viewpoint
> > which is opposite their own view, then I could see that as
> > cynical money grubbing.
>
> I have two words for you: Martin Sheen. Here is a guy who one
> minute protests war and is against it, yet the next minute he
> is narrating a World War 2 documentary.

Has he said he's against all war, or just wars started by Bushes/Republicans?  In which case he'd be in favor of the Spanish American war, WWI & WWII, Korea, Vietnam. . . (and it is kinda hard to be against WWII)

[The Burgomaster]

Michael Moore should make a movie called, I SHOULD NOT USE THE ACADEMY AWARDS AS A FORUM TO SHOOT OFF MY BIG, FAT MOUTH.

Maybe he can get Susan Sarandon to star in it.

[Chadzilla]

I'm a cynic.  I think Gibson probably dropped the Moore project because of issues with The Passion.  He wants it in theaters next Easter and has to get the movie completed and a distributor for it.  Moore wants his documentary in theaters by Election 2004.  Those are pretty intense working schedules for a small company.  While I think Moore could probably have his pick of distributors (his comments have done nothing but add cash to the already huge profit intake of both his book, Stupid White Men and his movie Bowling for Columbine) Disney gives him the unique chance to get a far larger than average budget AND a large studio to distribute his product to a far wider audience, and if anything goes south...well he can rage against the corporate machine in an all new documentary (Michael And Me?  Mousetrap?  The Mouse that Whimpered?) or book.

[Chris K.]

raj wrote:

> Has he said he's against all war, or just wars started by
> Bushes/Republicans?  In which case he'd be in favor of the
> Spanish American war, WWI & WWII, Korea, Vietnam. . . (and it
> is kinda hard to be against WWII)

Last I remember hearing, Martin Sheen is against all war. At least to what I can remember reading.

[Bubba]

The backlash about anti-war comments from people like the Dixie Chicks, George Clooney, Tim Robbins, and Susan Saradon amazes me. Frankly, if you're a Dixie Chicks fan, did you become one because of their political views or because you like their music?

[Chadzilla]

Dixie Chicks sales are up, but I wonder what the demographics of the sales are.  Bet they are in the north east and the west and not the south, which is where almost everybody listens to Country and Western music and Country and Western fans are mostly conservative.

I think most of the 'backlash' against stars and such was media driven, to make everything look more lively than it actually was.  Heck, the Baseball Hall of Fame cancellation of the Bull Durham (don't want those living in sin leftie nutsos Sarandon and Robbins flapping their Anti-American yaps at an All-American Celebration of the America's Fave-o-rite Pastime!) blew up in the faces of those that called it off more so than Robbins or Sarandon.  Most of these boycotts will blow over and things will quiet down, for awhile.  Until something else gets everybody in a shouting match.

[Chris K.]

Bubba wrote:

> The backlash about anti-war comments from people like the Dixie
> Chicks, George Clooney, Tim Robbins, and Susan Saradon amazes
> me. Frankly, if you're a Dixie Chicks fan, did you become one
> because of their political views or because you like their
> music?

Sadly, I'm not a big Dixie Chicks fan. Not because of their politics mind you, I'm not to big on country music. And yet Bubba, you bring up an excellent point: are you a fan because of their political views, or because you like their music/movies? But sadly, some audiences will go for political stantz rather than tallent. I go for the latter category, and I am sure some of those on this forum do so as well.

[Fearless Freep]

are you a fan because of their political views, or because you like their music/movies?

Well, then you get bands like U2, who's views actaully influence what they sing/write about.

[Chris K.]

Fearless Freep wrote:

> Well, then you get bands like U2, who's views actaully
> influence what they sing/write about.

Well then, this has to be a slightly different case then. What do you say about it, Fearless?