I too have lived overseas, and traveled a bit. There are actually very few countries in which the politicians ACTUALLY serve the best interest of the people. It's easy to be anti-American, but in the grander scale of things, it isn't that bad here. I'm only anti-military, especially anti-marines. That's not the kind of people who should be going overseas and forging the world's impressions of "how Americans are." Instead of being anti-American, why not just be a better American? If you really have connections to the world, maybe you can show others a different "kind" of American.
Once again, groon, I'm not anti-american. I'm anti-stupidity and "needlesslaughter" (he he he).
There are very many great americans out there. Look as Moore, Chomsky, Carter (Jimmy); look at Twain, Poe, Steinbeck, Franklin (Ben)....It's when you see that beautiful America hijacked by crazy fundamentalists that you can't help but critisize it - especially when the people of America seem to support that craziness wholeheartedly.
This may result in a few less people seeing it: http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/#2
You put Moore in the same category as Franklin, Twain and Steinbeck? That seems a bit disproportianate to me.
Yeah, maybe that was a bit too much. But he is great at what he does, and with time, in 50 years, he just might reach their stage.
I have to say I was disappointed that Mr Bradbury disapproved of the namimg of Moore's Film Fahrenheit 9/11, though I could understand his annoyance if he has been treated with discourtesy. I loved the book when I first read it. It is an important work. Moores title only makes sense to people who have read that book and understood its aims. Moore's title is a clever one and the allusion is valid. It is no more a misappropriation of the book than someone describing themselves as being in a catch 22 situation, or criticising a Government bill as promoting a big brother state. Works of film and literature that become part not just of popular culture but of a popular consciousness are going to be alluded to elsewhere. Perhaps Moore's choice of title comes from the fact that 50 000 copies of his book 'Stupid White Men' due for publication 9/12/01 were threatened with destruction in the high political heat following that dreadful day.
it's disgusting that Ray Bradbury should try to, effectively, burn Michael Moore's film. We're all supposed to just watch TV and be told what to think by FOXnews.
Everyone I know is disgusted by RB's decision to step into the national discussion around 911 and the roots of terrorism as a spoiler under the guise of , what? protecting his intellectual property?
I think we need a few FahrenheitXXX web pages just to dilute his precious IP a little Moore.
I am really disappointed that Mr. Bradbury is upset with Michael Moore's use of the word "Fahrenheit". With all due respect he does not have a patient on the word any more than FoxNew has one on "Fair and Balanced". If he wants to get upset about something, see the movie and determine for yourself what he thinks of it. Bob
Hmmm. Why do I get the feeling that some pro-Michael Moore site out there has suggested to its readers to visit this site?
Here's an update on this fladoodle: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54126-2004Jun19.html
Let's see if I can simplify this for these people: Let's say Shakespeare were alive. And let's say I wrote a book about two young lovers who die tragically in the end. And let's say I call it Romeo and Juliet. Only my work is fairly lousy. Or, at least not up to the standards of Mr. Shakespeare. Don't you think that Mr. Shakespeare would have a legitimate gripe for a sub-standard writer like myself who tries to glom onto his hard work and inspiration. I mean, there's something implied by borrowing a title from a famous work that implies the new work is somehow related. (Moore's lame explanation is that Fahrenheit 9/11 is the temperature at which freedom burns. Only from what I've been able to find out about the movie, precious little time is spent discussing this alleged lack of freedom and more time trashing Bush and his war effort.) Similar themes, similar quality. From what I can tell, the two works share very little, if anything at all.
So Moore's clod-hopperish title grab is nothing more than a marketing ploy (As was his false story of how Disney was trying to censor him.): I'll imply with my title that there's some serious erosion of liberties going on.
While I can admire Moore's ability to generate interest in his work - and I admire him for being able to take what appears to be a limited, though very real, talent for supposed muck-raking and turning it into a profitable enterprise - I can't help but think this will hurt him in the long run. If he has any sense of self, of introspection, I believe he'll come to regret his actions. He could have found another way to market his film but chose not to. That's too bad. For him and his supporters.
Excellent analogy. I agree that the recent influx of posters have been prompted to be vocal.
The link was good. Thanks. Moore should have responded to RB six months ago not one week. His avoidance behavior toward RB is classless and cowardly. I think, at this point, Moore should rename the film by just omitting the word "Fahrenheit". "9-11" should suffice.
As I've stated before, I will not judge Moore's film until I've viewed it, but I do take issue with the leeching of RB's title and masterpiece.
As I stated in an earlier post, I think this movie can only get more people to read Ray's book, just out of curiosity. I do think though, that Moore should have returned Ray's call months ago. It would have been the considerate thing to do. If his movie is truly a homage to Ray, as some have stated, he should have called Ray before he titled the movie, not to get his permission, because that's not necessary legally, but at least to run it by him out of respect.
Once great writer becomes crazy old codger...film at 9/11.
As an author Bradbury should recognize that book titles--and even their plots--are not protected in the manner he suggests. A more appropriate analogy (than the wholly off the mark R&J link) would be Randall's "The Wind Done Gone."
Despite my initial quip,my respect for Mr. Bradbury's work runs deep.
But this sounds conspicuously like a man of very good ideas just wants in on some publicity.
It's clear that Moore is the one who wants in on some free publicity. He has hijacked a famous title to help promote his movie. How is this about Bradbury seeking publicity?
Michael Moore often relates his work to popular creations of others. He seems to have done so respectfully, but should have addressed Mr Bradbury's concerns right away. The success of "9/11" may bring Mr Bradbury's great title an untapped new audience. I see it as a win/win situation and hope these guys will agree to agree. Both of these effective commentaries deserve applause. PLEASE KEEP THE TITLE and be friends, guys.
Whatever. Ray Bradbury is an old goat. He pisses and moans about the fact that someone 'stole' his book title. What a senile old man. The word Fahrenheit is not owner by Mr. Bradbury. I mean, I like Ray, he was a great author. But he's just being dumb.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 15|