"Fahrenheit 9/11" Hits $$100 million$$

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
"Fahrenheit 9/11" Hits $$100 million$$
57
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 9:38am

"Fahrenheit" Hits 100 (Million)+


http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,14582,00.html?tnews


Sometimes, when the fahrenheit hits 100 in the middle of summer, it's a good thing.



Just ask Michael Moore.


The Oscar-winning filmmaker's latest fireball of a documentary, the President Bush-bashing Fahrenheit 9/11, cooked up another $5 million in ticket sales this weekend, ranking in seventh place on the weekly box-office rundown.


But more importantly, the film, already the highest grossing documentary since its first weekend in theaters, hit the $100 million mark on Saturday, becoming the first doc in history to reach that milestone. Its total haul stands at $103.3 million in five weeks of release. Not too shabby for a film that cost just $6 million to make.


In a conference call Sunday, Moore credited the success to the public's desire to "look for the truth and begin the important discussion and debate that needs to take place in this county." Besides, he said,"right now it's really cool to talk about politics."


Moore also said that judging by his mail and snooping around cineplexes, Fahrenheit 9/11's record box office shows that people "want to go to a good movie. I don't think they are saying, 'Let's go see a documentary tonight.' I think they are saying that they've heard that this movie is funny, they've heard that this movie is sad, they've heard that this movie will show them things that they have never seen before, and I think that's why we all like to go to the movies."


Lions Gate, which, along with IFC Films, agreed to distribute the documentary after it was dissed by Disney, reports Fahrenheit 9/11 has performed best on the coasts, but is peforming strongly throughout the entire country. Although its audience is chiefly Democratic, the film is reportedly also scoring very well with independents. Perhaps most surprisingly, the studio says surveys suggest that more than 40 percent of the Republicans who have seen the movie would recommend it to others.


"I believe this movie is going to bring hundreds of thousands of people to the polls who otherwise were not going to vote," said Moore, who describes audiences as being very moved by the plight of the soldiers and their families. (Sony is planning on releasing a DVD version of the film by September.)


Moore also says that the film has benefited from free publicity, mostly courtesy of conservative types who continue to complain about the film, try to ban it from theaters, encourage illegal downloading of the film or evict Linda Ronstadt from Vegas casinos when she praised the film.


"A month ago it was all about, 'This movie is just going to preach to the converted.' Well the converted came the first weekend...and as each weekend goes by it's not the hardcore political people--they did not wait--the people going now are the people that live in that great gray middle of America, people who don't necessarily consider themselves political people, but who are interested in the movie now because they turn on the TV and it's Linda Ronstadt one day, it's people on Fox going nuts, going absolutely nuts...and they go, 'Maybe I should go check this movie out.'"


Finally, Moore couldn't resist on zinger at Mickey's expense. "If you had told me when we were going through all our pre-distribution problems with Disney that this film would gross more than any other Disney film this year...I don't even know to respond to that," he said.


For his part Mouse House big cheese Michael Eisner has been gracious--perhaps because, as part of his deal with the film's producers, Disney gets to pick charities that will receive the bulk of Fahrenheit 9/11's profits. Eisner has also admitted to seeing the doc he dumped, telling the Associated Press, "The reason it is a hit is it's entertaining. I thought it was like going to a rock concert. I loved it, but not in a political ."


The White House continues to try to ignore the movie. But Moore is trying to change that. He says that he plans to make an announcement this week during the Democratic National Convention about "my attempts to get to see the movie and an offer that I plan to make to him so that he has a chance to see the movie."


Other threads on the board about Fahrenheit 9/11.........


Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Wins at Cannes.


http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elinthenews/?msg=6602.1


Hollywood abuzz about 'Fahrenheit 9/11'.


http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elinthenews/?msg=6725.1


violation of freedom of expression


http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elinthenews&msg=6483.1

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 9:50am
Journalists do this all the time. I've seen similar tactics on "60 minutes", and those consumer protection shows do it ALL THE TIME. He was (not sure if he still is) a member of the NRA party, so he didn't represent himself. Aren't members of any group, or political party for that matter ask questions of their leaders and representatives?

Impolite? I honestly don't thing so. "in your face?" Yes. Annoying? Sometimes.

Politicians and stars for that matter get asked "misleading" questions, are put on the spot all the time. That's the price of being in the public eye. Charleston Heston is not just any private citizen. He is using his name recognition for the cause of the NRA. Didn't a whole bunch of people on this board complain about 'Hollywood' stars saying anything political? Especially when it's supporting the democrats?

Aren't people having a double standard about Charleston Heston?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 9:56am
"Past actions are quite sufficient to judge whether or not a person is worthy of ones vote."

I guess that means that since George Bush was arrested for theft and drunk driving, that makes him not worthy of your vote. Not to mention his failures as a business man, his record while president. That is what you are saying. But yet I heard again and again on this board "But he stopped drinking and he changed his ways!" But then that's inconsistent with saying you judge someone by their past actions. I would think that's even more important when voting for a president, than making such a small decision as watching a movie or not. What's the impact of a mistake? wasting 10 bucks and less than 2 hours of your time. Give me a break!

Since when is there a 'vote' for Michael Moore?


Edited 7/29/2004 9:58 am ET ET by nicecanadianlady

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-01-2004
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 10:45am
"Journalists do this all the time. I've seen similar tactics on "60 minutes", and those consumer protection shows do it ALL THE TIME."

So this makes it ok? I'll remember that when my daughter grows to be a teenager..."mom, Jane and Lucy smoke pot. They do it ALL THE TIME." Oh, ok honey, since it's ok for them, you just go have fun. That makes it alright.

"Politicians and stars for that matter get asked "misleading" questions, are put on the spot all the time. That's the price of being in the public eye. Charleston Heston is not just any private citizen. He is using his name recognition for the cause of the NRA."

Tell me, how often do you ask to come into someone's home and then attack them on their views? Tell them that they OWE someone an apology? Keep going when they politely ask you to leave? I'm surmising (or hoping) that it's not at all, no matter how passionately you feel your subject. See, Moore LOVES to pretend to be friendly with people with the sole purpose of trying to make them look like fools. I think it's a disgusting character marker and I'm definitely excercising MY right to not further purport his childish actions.

"Didn't a whole bunch of people on this board complain about 'Hollywood' stars saying anything political? Especially when it's supporting the democrats? "

I believe the complaint centered around the inappropriate times some celebs decide to jump on their political soap box. Heston speaks for the NRA at functions to which he is *invited* with the intention of him expressing his views....really BIG difference.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-29-2004
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 2:22pm
That's fine, I agree people should independently research before making a decision. However, you should also independently evaluate the abilities of Bush to perform as a President or anything else meaningful. I personally do not want to live in a United States where my children will grow up with astma problems and will not be able to experience true wilderness because of Bush's inadequate policies. Going back to the Iraq issue. Can you tell me why we handed Iraq over to the Iraqis when we did? Politics??? The state of Iraq has not stabilized or improved of the past 6 months from what I can see. If you are going to do a job, at least finish it and don't expect help after you are floundering when you did not ask for opinions in the first place.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 3:47pm
"He was (not sure if he still is) a member of the NRA party, so he didn't represent himself."

Yes, he did. He told Heston he was there to talk about gun control issues as a member of the NRA. While he was a member, his talk had nothing of substance to do with gun control, but instead used the opportunity to attack Heston through the use of misleading statements and events Heston had little or no knowledge of.

"He is using his name recognition for the cause of the NRA."

Actually, he was the president of the NRA and no longer working as an actor. He wasn't just some celebrity using his "name recognition" to promote his personal beliefs on a whim, he was the head officer of the NRA and working for their cause.

"Aren't people having a double standard about Charleston Heston?"

Not in this case, for the reasons I noted just above.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 3:56pm
"I guess that means that since George Bush was arrested for theft and drunk driving, that makes him not worthy of your vote."

That's a choice we all had to make at that time, and still will I suppose. Voters did and will have to decide for themselves if that record makes him unworthy, or outweighs other considerations.

"But then that's inconsistent with saying you judge someone by their past actions."

Not at all. You just have to personally decide where the balance lays at, which is more important. That's not inconsistent.

"Since when is there a 'vote' for Michael Moore?"

Nobody said he was a politician or was typically someone there is a "vote" for. The question/commented asked/observed by Speigdon to Alfreda was in regards to voting for politicians, that judging past actions was part of the decision making process. As in this exchange....

>>>"is it safe to say that we should also not base a vote for political office based on someone's past political record?

ah but one has to see if it is consistent with what they are currently doing, saying and proposing, don't they?"<<<

That's how voting came up, not that voting is an issue with Moore.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Mon, 08-02-2004 - 8:09am
It surprises me daily how people can be so ill informed that they will believe anything. The worst part is that these people can actually vote. I think you should have to pass a test before you can register to vote. It is just laziness that people don't spend more time reading about world events, our government and current events.

Pages