Jump to content

Moore Film Title Angers Author Ray Bradbury


Bombardier

Recommended Posts

LOS ANGELES - Ray Bradbury is demanding an apology from filmmaker Michael Moore (news) for lifting the title from his classic science-fiction novel "Fahrenheit 451" without permission and wants the new documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be renamed.

"He didn't ask my permission," Bradbury, 83, told The Associated Press on Friday. "That's not his novel, that's not his title, so he shouldn't have done it."

The 1953 novel, widely considered Bradbury's masterpiece, portrays an ugly futuristic society in which firemen burn homes and libraries in order to destroy the books inside and keep people from thinking independently.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...hrenheit_911_14

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Farenheit 451 is a great, great novel, one that I've read several times, but I don't really think Farenheit 9/11 could by any stretch be a copyright infringement. In light of the tone most of Bradbury's fiction had, I'd think he would be glad to help in the attempt to unseat George W. Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Farenheit 451 is a great, great novel, one that I've read several times, but I don't really think Farenheit 9/11 could by any stretch be a copyright infringement. In light of the tone most of Bradbury's fiction had, I'd think he would be glad to help in the attempt to unseat George W. Bush.

I think Bradbury is helping. Both people are now getting free advertising. This will be in the news for a while. Bradbury will get more royalties from the book due to new sales. Moore gets more publicity for his movie. I don't blame Bradbury for being mad since Moore ripped off his title for another piece of fiction. If he had used it for a different genre such as a western, comedy or a documentary he may not have been upset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone knows that the title of Moore's latest pile of crap is referencing Ray Bradbury's book, which he should have probably asked first. Then again considering how such a "great" filmmaker that micheal moore is, i dunno why having a orginal title would be such a hard thing to do for him lately.

This film is about exploiting the election to make a ton of money, just like the bowling for columbine exploited the drastic rise in gun ownership after 9/11. Its really just a 2 hour fictional political ad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd think he would be glad to help in the attempt to unseat George W. Bush.

Based on the reaction, I really don't think Bradbury would be voting democrat.

If Bradbury had wanted to help unseat Bush, then this reaction probably wouldn't have taken place about the film title.

It's obvious that Moore is basing his film title on the popular Bradbury book.

I wish Bradbury the best of luck if he decides to persue this further :good job:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the reaction, I really don't think Bradbury would be voting democrat.

If Bradbury had wanted to help unseat Bush, then this reaction probably wouldn't have taken place about the film title.

It's obvious that Moore is basing his film title on the popular Bradbury book.

I wish Bradbury the best of luck if he decides to persue this further :good job:

Bomba, you misrepresented what I said in your abridged quote from my post. The full quote, "In light of the tone most of Bradbury's fiction had, I'd think he would be glad to help in the attempt to unseat George W. Bush. says something totally different than the partial sentence you quoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone knows that the title of Moore's latest pile of crap is referencing Ray Bradbury's book, which he should have probably asked first. Then again considering how such a "great" filmmaker that micheal moore is, i dunno why having a orginal title would be such a hard thing to do for him lately.  This film is about exploiting the election to make a ton of money, just like the bowling for columbine exploited the drastic rise in gun ownership after 9/11. Its really just a 2 hour fictional political ad.

I dont know how its possible to diss a film you havent even seen. And like it or not, Moore is an Academy Award winner - \ he's skillful at what he does even if he's a muckraker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the reaction, I really don't think Bradbury would be voting democrat. 

If Bradbury had wanted to help unseat Bush, then this reaction probably wouldn't have taken place about the film title.

It's obvious that Moore is basing his film title on the popular Bradbury book.

I wish Bradbury the best of luck if he decides to persue this further    :good job:

Bomba, you misrepresented what I said in your abridged quote from my post. The full quote, "In light of the tone most of Bradbury's fiction had, I'd think he would be glad to help in the attempt to unseat George W. Bush. says something totally different than the partial sentence you quoted.

Bombardier learned how to edit from Moore. :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know how its possible to  diss a film you havent even seen. And like it or not, Moore is an Academy Award winner - muckaraker or not, he's skillful at what he does.

Moore's dishonest editing is well documented. When you watch the movie, how are you going tell what is the truth and what has been edited to change the meaning. I am sure you saw the tread here the other day where it had a link to an audio of Bush's speeches. It sounded real except the meaning was so absurd you knew it was fake. If it wasn't quite so absurd you may not know. I will not go see a movie that is promoted as a documentary when the producer is a well documented fraud. The point of a documentary is to produce a well balanced view of an issue and present the facts. Moore has never done that. I saw his tirade at the Academy Awards. How could anyone who saw that believe Moore could produce a true documentary?

As Paul Simon wrote in the Boxer, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

You can disregard the critics of Moore. I disregard Moore.

I do agree he is skillful at what he does. So is Ray Bradbury. Both produce works of fiction.

I agree with Nulls and Bombardier. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of a documentary is to produce a well balanced view of an issue and present the facts.

Film critic Roger Ebert doesn't buy that assessment, as posted in this thread:

http://www.beatking.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6424

He says:

That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me rephrase that. I knew it wasn't totally accurate but I don't type fast so I tried to make it shorter. I figured you would go with it! :lol:

A decent documentary will make at least some modest attempt to present facts without creative editing that totally changes the meaning of what was said. The facts and quotes will closely approximate the truth while attempting to lead one to agree with the producers point of view. This is generally done by omitting facts that don't support the producers point of view not by altering the truth.

Moore missed on all accounts.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of a documentary is to produce a well balanced view of an issue and present the facts.

In a perfect world, that would be the case. Unfortunately, it's not.

It's just like saying the news is supposed to report unbiased stories from both sides of the issue (hence, only the facts would be reported).

How interesting would it be if they actually left it up to the news watcher/moviegoer to make their own judgement on the issues? :rolleyes:

In the end, it will happen that way anyways. Some people have already made up their mind (like me) and will never see Moores film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it.

Correct. The best documentaries have a single minded point of view. One person - one idea - one film.They tell a story - they create conflict and they have resolution. They are not a tv news magazine segment done by committee where objectivity is the hallmark and end all.

Further they should spark debate with the viewer - that is where the 'truth' of the matter is brought out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Documentaries which Moore does not produce, he produces "Mockumentaries" let the people the documentary about state their opinions, the director just records it, they do not actively manipulate things through creative editing.

Moore was given a oscar in order to take a shot at the president, that just means that the academy voters which are left leaning gave him a award because for political reasons and because he pretty much says what liberals want to hear. Just because something gets a oscar doesnt give it credibility and certainly doesnt make it true. Lord of a Rings got an oscar does that mean that now because of that Middle Earth is an actually place and the events actually happened.

Moore himself in part of a interview on dateline last night admitted this is entirely an attack on Bush, so it is really a 2 hour political ad. And ive stated numerous reasons why this will not "spark debate" and this is yet another reason because since it is a one sided attack on Bush there really cant be any debate because in order to have a debate you have to have two sides, and there is only one here.

Moore and pretty much anyone else is unable to present the "other side" accurately and without baised otherwise their opinion will not clearly look superior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a profile on Michael Moore and his film in today's Sunday's Times:

Michael Moore Is Ready for His Close-Up

By PHILIP SHENON

Published: June 20, 2004

HOLLYWOOD, Calif.

MICHAEL MOORE is not coy about his hopes for"Fahrenheit 9/11," his blistering documentary attack onPresident Bush and the war in Iraq. He wants it to be remembered as the first big-audience, election-year film that helped unseat a president.

"And it's not just a hope," the Oscar-winning filmmaker said in a phone interview last week, describing focus groups in Michigan in April at which, after seeing the movie, previously undecided voters expressed eagerness to defeat Mr. Bush. "We found that if you entered the theater on the fence, you fell off it somewhere during those two hours," he said. "It ignites a fire in people who had given up."

The movie's indictment of the president is nothing if not sprawling. Mr. Moore suggests that Mr. Bush and his administration jeopardized national security in an effort to placate Bush family cronies in Saudi Arabia, that the White House helped members of Mr. bin Laden's family to flee the United States after Sept. 11 and that the administration manipulated terrorism alert levels in order to scare Americans into supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Mr. Moore's previous films generated a cottage industry of conservative commentators eager to prove sloppiness and exaggeration in his films; a handful of mainstream critics have also found flaws. But if "Fahrenheit 9/11" attracts the audience Mr. Moore and his distributors are predicting, Mr. Moore may face an onslaught of fact-checking unlike anything he — or any other documentary filmmaker — has ever experienced. After all, White House officials and the Bush family began impugning the film even before any of them had seen it.

"Outrageously false," said Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, last month when told about the film's assertion of a sinister connection between Mr. Bush and the family of Osama bin Laden. The former president George H. W. Bush was quoted in The New York Daily News calling Mr. Moore a "slime ball" and describing the documentary as "a vicious personal attack on our son."

So how will Mr. Moore's movie stand up under close examination? Is the film's depiction of Mr. Bush as a lazy and duplicitous leader, blinded by his family's financial ties to Arab moneymen and the Saudi Arabian royal family, true to fact?

Mr. Moore and his distributors have refused to circulate copies of the film and its script before the film's release this Friday; his production team said that as of last Wednesday, there was no final script because the film was still undergoing minor editing — for clarity, they said, not accuracy.

After a year spent covering the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, I was recently allowed to attend a Hollywood screening. Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Mr. Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career).

Mr. Moore is on firm ground in arguing that the Bushes, like many prominent Texas families with oil interests, have profited handsomely from their relationships with prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family and of the large and fabulously wealthy bin Laden clan, which has insisted it long ago disowned Osama. Mr. Moore spends several minutes in the film documenting ties between the president and James R. Bath, a financial advisor to a prominent member of the bin Laden family who was an original investor in Mr. Bush's Arbusto energy company and who served with the future president in the Air National Guard in the early 1970's. The Bath friendship, which indirectly links Mr. Bush to the family of the world's most notorious terrorist, has received less attention from national news organization than it has from reporters in Texas, but it has been well documented.

Mr. Moore charges that President Bush and his aides paid too little attention to warnings in the summer of 2001 that Al Qaeda was about to attack, including a detailed Aug. 6, 2001, C.I.A. briefing that warned of terrorism within the country's borders. In its final report next month, the Sept. 11 commission can be expected to offer support to this assertion. Mr. Moore says that instead of focusing on Al Qaeda, the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation; the figure came not from a conspiracy-hungry Web site but from a calculation by The Washington Post.

You can read the full review here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/20/movies/20SHEN.html?8hpib

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the fact that bush is still saying black is white and up is down (there were ties from iraq and al qaeda because there were ties from blah blah blah) just makes me want to see this film even more. among other things, i'm so dying to see

Mr. Moore suggests that Mr. Bush and his administration jeopardized national security in an effort to placate Bush family cronies in Saudi Arabia, that the White House helped members of Mr. bin Laden's family to flee the United States after Sept. 11 and that the administration manipulated terrorism alert levels in order to scare Americans into supporting the invasion of Iraq.
because the people i talk to who aren't online have no idea that there are different viewpoints than what they read in their papers and see on TV...when i mention even one of the points above, they're like 'what? i dint know that.' they're totally amazed before they get pissed off. (i've been sending printouts of whatever to my mother and offline friends).

those in power have been lying to us for years and now they're squirming cause here's another POV w/the power to be distributed and reach so many more people. *suppressed cursing at arrogant politicians who happily obfuscate the deal to the masses*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a side of me that questions whether they were lying, S.G. I think that they were so diluded into believing that Iraq had WMDs, etc, that they actually believed it, despite the evidence to the contrary - in fact, they still believe this crap, which just makes them seem even dumber in retrospect. Worse yet, this administration never admits mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because something gets a oscar doesnt give it credibility and certainly doesnt make it true.

Moore and pretty much anyone else is unable to present the "other side" accurately and without baised otherwise their opinion will not clearly look superior.

well, i don't know about that but i just read this:

Philip Shenon of the NY Times says Moore “is on firm ground” in arguing that the Bushes have profited handsomely from their relationships with the Saudis, including the bin Laden family and the Saudi rulers. He also notes that Moore is safe in charging that Bush paid too little attention to terrorism before 9/11, and suggests he is accurate when he claims that during Bush’s first eight months in office he spent 42% of his time on vacation....and he predicts that perhaps more “damaging to the White House” than any statistics in the film is its unedited replaying of the seven minutes Bush spent reading the book “My Pet Goat” to schoolchildren in Florida after hearing the news of the second attack on the World Trade Center.
that was from this article here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • Wait, Burning Man is going online-only? What does that even look like?
      You could have been forgiven for missing the announcement that actual physical Burning Man has been canceled for this year, if not next. Firstly, the nonprofit Burning Man organization, known affectionately to insiders as the Borg, posted it after 5 p.m. PT Friday. That, even in the COVID-19 era, is the traditional time to push out news when you don't want much media attention. 
      But secondly, you may have missed its cancellation because the Borg is being careful not to use the C-word. The announcement was neutrally titled "The Burning Man Multiverse in 2020." Even as it offers refunds to early ticket buyers, considers layoffs and other belt-tightening measures, and can't even commit to a physical event in 2021, the Borg is making lemonade by focusing on an online-only version of Black Rock City this coming August.    Read more...
      More about Burning Man, Tech, Web Culture, and Live EventsView the full article
      • 0 replies
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?
×
×
  • Create New...