I am a fan of Ray Bradbury and own 10 of his books, but come on man, thats just dumb. Sure in the 50's Ray wrote a book entitled Fahreinheit 451 and now Moore wants to use the words Fahreinheit, i mean i didn't know they were off limits...
I think Moore should retitle his film "Ray Bradbury is a sick old man who thinks he owns the rights to Gabriel Daniel Fahrenheit's name." I am sure Mr. Bradbury has a legal case, just as I am sure he has irrevocably tarnished his "legacy" with his infantile objections. If he feels so strongly, perhaps he can go out and vote for Mr. Bush. I am sure the Bush campaign will do whatever it can to count his vote six, seven or more times...
Posts: 1 | Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA | Registered: 22 June 2004
I am sad to see you so upset by a man's great works who are acknowledged by so many. The laws exist to protect us all from usurpers who would take that which is not theirs for their own. This is called theft and is protected by copyright. None of Ray's works are public domain so cannot be abused by others (yet). Maybe in 100 years? Mr. Moore should wait it out until then or rename his "work" to something else. I am sure there are (many) alternate names avaialable at Mr. Moore's fingertips...no one, anyone, spends that much time on something without thinking of alternate names for a work of "art".
Posts: 4 | Location: Palos Verdes Estates, CA, USA | Registered: 22 June 2004
Hmm...I wasn't aware that Michael Moore HAD to change the name.
I graduated from college with a degree in Music Business. According to U.S. Law, you can name a work of art ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO. Period. I'm sorry, but I can, if I want to (as a musician) create an album of music and call it "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." I can do this without fearing a lawsuit. (By the way -- anyone who wants to test this needs only to go to your favorite record store, and look up the Red Hot Chili Peppers. They actually entitled an album of theirs called "Abbey Road.")
Titles are not protected by Copyright Law. I'm sorry. Find something else to get angry about.
what datafella said. plus I Sing the Body Electric from Whitman's Leaves of Grass. I doubt he was thinking about robots when he wrote it, and wouldn't be surprised if he would have thought an SF story beneath his artistic intent...of course he would've been as wrong as Ray is here if that was the case....
Posts: 17 | Location: nowhere, AK | Registered: 24 June 2004
You know, when I wrote that response a couple of days ago, I hadn't initially noticed the person who wrote something about "usurpers who will blah blah blah," writing about how copyright law can "protect" Ray Bradbury's works.
This would be true in the following scenario: If Michael Moore had created a film, and had based it, EVEN LOOSELY, on Fahrenheit 451, then Bradbury might have a suit.
As far as I know, Moore has pretty much simply compiled a bunch of news clippings from the last four years of our "president" playing golf and wearing a tux, among other things. Again, I'm not sure how Bradbury (or the Republicans for that matter) can take Moore to task for this.
I also think that Michael Moore is a genius. And I also think that Bradbury is a genius. WHEN HE IS WRITING ABOUT ROBOTS AND VAMPIRES.
And this is why Bradbury should be on Moore's side. After all, Bush IS a robot and a vampire -- and Moore apparently has created an interesting way to depict him...
If you review some of the other threads closely, you'll see the argument of whether titles can be copyrighted was brought up first by the Michael Moore supporters. Sure, it sounds like Bradbury's saying he'll sue for copyright infringement but I don't think it's quite that. Regardless, I think Bradbury's justifiably outraged by Moore and his hijacking his title for his own purposes. Purpose that Bradbury may not agree with. The least Moore could have done, as he's now finally acknowledged, was confer with Brabdury at the very beginning of this project. If he had known Bradbury would not have agreed, I'm sure Moore would have done the gentlemanly thing and used a different title.
Let me admit up front: I'm no fan of Moore and won't see this movie. But from what I've read about the movie - and I've read as many reviews as I can - there seems to be little that actually ties it to Bradbury's book. Moore has been quoted as saying he chose it because Fahrenheit 9/11 is the temperature at which freedom burns. But from what I know the movie, he seems to spend more of his time spinning conspiracy theories and criticizing the competence of Bush than he does talking about the so-called burning of freedom. Perhaps a more descriptive title of the movie would have been a wiser decision by Moore.
Posts: 547 | Location: Oklahoma City, OK | Registered: 30 April 2002
Pterran, why won;t you see the movie? Do you not think that perhaps it would be best to do so, after reading so many reviews? You could then say it yourself what was wrong with it and what wasnt, without relying on other people's opinion of it.