Moore Film Title Angers Author Ray Bradbury

[DudeAsInCool]

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...

It certainly does give him credibility. What in the film do you find inaccurate?; particularly, since you havent seen it!?? As to presenting the other side--that wasn't Moore's objective and why should it be? Frankly I think he's being more objective than the Bush admini-stration has been to the public about the facts regarding 911.

[slum_goddess]

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.

if LOTR was entered as a documentary, well then yeah. but in real life, where i'm coming from, it wasn't so i'd say you're confusing the issue by comparing the old cliché, apples w/oranges.

edit to add: one excellent thing MM's doing w/this film is to present another POV to balance the absolute denial/lying bullshit that the current admin's been telling the people. since the chickenshit (and supposedly liberal-biased) media's been so careful to avoid stepping on the president's toes (especially when he lies outright e.g., WMD, saddam=al qaida et al.), Fahrenheit 911 is giving the opposite and very much needed viewpoint, like it or not.

my personal POV: thank fuck for michael moore and whatever's left of the first amendment.

Edited June 21, 2004 by slum_goddess

[Redneck4sure]

by the way, you can't copyright a title.

I wonder about that. Do you remember when the james bond bunch sued because of the title "Goldmember" being a rip off of goldfinger?

Quote:

MGM won its litigation against New Line Cinema over the Austin Powers films that could have prevented the release of Goldmember. At the eleventh hour a deal was done and though the terms have not been disclosed, it was reported that this involved MGM approving the title of future Austin Powers films.

aw crap, I closed the browser so I don't have the link. Anyway, the article was about something else and that is about all it said of that issue. I wonder what the real deal is. A lot of songs have the same title as another song. I wonder what's up on movie's? MGM apparently beat New Line Cinema. What was the deal?

[DudeAsInCool]

The deal is these companies will sue each other at every turn to broaden their rights, even if there is no legal precedent for doing so. Often the innocent party will settle because its cheaper to, even if they are in the right.

Before a film comes out, titles are registered by each studio. More often than not, studio's will register as many titles as necessary to insure they will get to use one; they probably registered goldmember, goldfinger, goldreckneck, and anything else they could think of. Sometimes they get a bonus when another studio wants to use a title that has already been registered--then they trade or leverage each other. This process is not copyright...that's a whole other procedure.