Frankly, it dismays me to see so many new threads on the same topic, on which we had a thread before all these people joined. If I were a stricter moderator I would delete every one of them and ask that all comments on this be kept to one thread. It also dismays me to see so many new members joining just for the purpose of attacking one action or viewpoint on the part of Mr. Bradbury. If they would post on other aspects of Mr. Bradbury and his work it would be easier to take them seriously.

Mr. Dark,

Here, here. These people aren't even reading our posts. They're just blundering on here and spewing their views and leaving.

Dandelion,

If I were you, I'd exercise all my power as moderator. Yeah, it'd be ironic that a Ray Bradbury site was deleting posts that weren't favorable to Ray but so what? A little weeding makes for a healthier garden. Keep some of the posts and toss the rest. Use your always good judgement to decide which.

Best,

Pete

dandelion:

You can uncover the facts of the 'posters', that is to say....their real names, identity of city, etc. I am nearly convinced that there are people on line here who are using more than one user name. Many of these ''different'' postings seem to be coming from the same person...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
This is a rather bizarre post. We can no longer distinguish between Bush and Hitler?

OF course we can distinguish between Bush and Hitler. Bush hasn't cemented his nasty little mob in a secure political position and hasn't engineered society to the same degree that Hitler did. It's a shame you didn't note that my comparrison was between the early strategies of Hitler and the early strategies of Bush, the parrallels are remarkable. But then perhaps like Ray Bradbury you're not seeing the events around you in the whole context.

You also point out that Ray Bradbury never claimed copyright, I stand corrected but that further re-inforces the point that Bradbury should have let his own little ego twitch away in silence that someone might dare to parody his works title.

As for it being a trojan horse, no I genuinely like Bradbury's works but am very dissapointed that he along with lots of other intelligent people don't realise that left wing or right wing Bush is a threat to the world. Maybe I'm using this to put my message across. Maybe that's not to do with the "art" of writing but politics is everything that affects us and art reflects that as well. People who believe they can seperate themselves from politics are the biggest fools of all. Even your choice of novel has a consequence because you are supporting one persons outlook on the world, some interpretation of things around us. Every action has a reaction. Etc etc etc and other such blatantly obvious platitudes. Bradbury stepped into the politcal arena because of his foolish artistic ego and now he's reaping the whirlwind of a political landscape made bitter and nasty by the actions of George Bush and his "if you're not for us you're against us" politics. When you play with fire that burns at Farenheit 9/11 you're going to get burned! Perhaps Bradbury should learn from Michael Moore and develop a sense of humor?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
This is a rather bizarre post. We can no longer distinguish between Bush and Hitler?

OF course we can distinguish between Bush and Hitler. Bush hasn't cemented his nasty little mob in a secure political position and hasn't engineered society to the same degree that Hitler did. It's a shame you didn't note that my comparrison was between the early strategies of Hitler and the early strategies of Bush, the parrallels are remarkable. But then perhaps like Ray Bradbury you're not seeing the events around you in the whole context.

You also point out that Ray Bradbury never claimed copyright, I stand corrected but that further re-inforces the point that Bradbury should have let his own little ego twitch away in silence that someone might dare to parody his works title.

As for it being a trojan horse, no I genuinely like Bradbury's works but am very dissapointed that he along with lots of other intelligent people don't realise that left wing or right wing Bush is a threat to the world. Maybe I'm using this to put my message across. Maybe that's not to do with the "art" of writing but politics is everything that affects us and art reflects that as well. People who believe they can seperate themselves from politics are the biggest fools of all. Even your choice of novel has a consequence because you are supporting one persons outlook on the world, some interpretation of things around us. Every action has a reaction. Etc etc etc and other such blatantly obvious platitudes. Bradbury stepped into the politcal arena because of his foolish artistic ego and now he's reaping the whirlwind of a political landscape made bitter and nasty by the actions of George Bush and his "if you're not for us you're against us" politics. When you play with fire that burns at Farenheit 9/11 you're going to get burned! Perhaps Bradbury should learn from Michael Moore and develop a sense of humor?

[This message has been edited by chunkylimey (edited 06-19-2004).]

Actually, on second thought...

This is a game with these people here.
We're about ready to play into a stupid scheme.

Too many postings are of the same nature. It's either one poster out of control, or several who know each other and are out for a big laugh.

Moore has a sense of humor?

Moore made a political film using Bradbury's title. Bradbury asked Moore NOT to use the title. Moore arrogantly ignored him. Bradbury is angry about it. That's the honest summary. How did Bradbury get political?

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
Actually, on second thought...

This is a game with these people here.
We're about ready to play into a stupid scheme.

Too many postings are of the same nature. It's either one poster out of control, or several who know each other and are out for a big laugh.

Or more disturbingly lots of like minded people who agree and were angry at Ray Bradbury for what he said because they think Moore's film is more important than a less well known Science Fiction writer?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
Moore has a sense of humor?

Moore made a political film using Bradbury's title. Bradbury asked Moore NOT to use the title. Moore arrogantly ignored him. Bradbury is angry about it. That's the honest summary. How did Bradbury get political?

Bradbury got political because he foolishly stepped into a very bitter and divisive electoral situation, one side of which feels that Moores film offers damning evidence against Bush, a fact re-inforced by various tactics used by the Bush family to stop the film from being released (from threatening Disney to messing with the films rating). I actually feel a little sorry for Ray Bradbury despite his mistake because he probably didn't realise what a mess he was getting into when he made his complaint against Moore. As for arrogance I have to say that Bradbury's protectionism regarding his book title is just as stupid as Moore not getting back to Bradbury in response to his request not to use the title. Bradbury was just simple silly for wanting him to change it, and Moore was rude for not at least having the decency to ring him up and say "I'm sorry I won't change the title because I feel it's too important and too appropriate for this situation". Since Moore gives much of his movie profits to Charity why doesn't Bradbury pick a suitable charity and request that Moore gives a portion of the profits to that Charity? Might be a nice resolution to this silly mess. My only real objection is that Bradbury wrote a book against censorship and then engages in the most insidious form of censorship possible, much like the evil Bush himself, charecter assassination. I know Moore can be a prig and an egoist but it doesn't make him any less right for hating Bush and it doesn't mean that everything he says is wrong etc. Just as the actions of Bradbury don't detract from Martian Chronicles, Farenheit etc. being great works, they only really detract from him as the person.

I and a few other people are passionate about this because if George Bush is one thing he's a great divider, he makes people like me so angry that we want to punch him on sight. I hope that Moore makes another movie about Bush and just to put Bradbury's ego in it's place calls it "Something Wicked This Way Comes". Bradbury in return can write a book called "Bowling for Attention".

I'll leave your literary bubble in peace for a while but if this is an open forum I hope you all at least get motivated to have an opinion about the most important US election in a long time, agree with or disagree with George Bush if he stays things will be VERY different in the US. I think it's a dark future but that's just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
Moore has a sense of humor?

Sounds like you've never read one of Moores books or seen one of his films. His first film was an outright fictional comedy staring John Candy. It's about the US seeking an enemy for electoral purposes and invading Canada.

Moore has a hit and miss humor I'll admit but for me he hits most of the time.

This is the first time I've "trolled" so I'm kind of enjoying it, especially the very restricted reading and cultural awareness that some of the posts are showing. I would have thought Ray Bradbury fans would be more widely read and culturally conscious? Pterrans summary of the points makes me feel a little ashamed of my verboseness and how it hits almost all of the way, hits on the pointy little counter jabs that a reactionary intelect can have that is. Are you sure you're the type who reads and enjoys Bradburys books? It seems that you missed every other word from most of the posts that you were critiquing. Mine certainly DID say that Bush was evil but I also criticized Moore, the Democrats and if you want I'll add that if Americans are all retarded bigots then they are certainly not alone in this world, there's the French for a start, oh and the English, Germans, Japanese and in fact Burkina Faso is notorious narrow minded from what I hear. So lets look at your points again shall we?
your comments are maked in by ******
****Mr. Dark,
I think the reason the same argument keeps coming is up is that these people are all reading from the same talking points list:

1.) Bradbury holds no copyright on the title and, thus, it may be used as one sees fit,******

All true, people of like minds agree and Bradbury holds no copyright glad you're showing some common sense on that one.

*****2.) Bradbury is a small-minded man to object to the usage of his title,
****** Again absolutely correct *****
3.) Or if he's not small-minded, he's greedy,
******No he doesn't have to be greedy he might just have a big ego

******4.) Michael Moore is neither small-minded nor greedy and is using the title and his movie for great things for this country because:
******** Oh utterly Moore is heading for Sainthood, don't be silly! Just because someone likes or backs Moore doesn't mean they idolize, just as your defence of Bradbury's stance doesn't make you a fool, it only makes you appear to be one


*******5.) Bush is evil. And so are the Americans who agree with him.******

Now this of course isn't true, some of the people who agree with Bush are just stupid and not evil at all.

*****6.) Oh, and all non-Americans are saints.
******What a great sharp comment! If you're not for us you're against us, if you think we are bad you must think you are a saint? Did you fail your logic class? One does not lead to the other, just because Americans are represented by a Schmuck doesn't mean all of them are schmucks and it certainly doesn't mean that everyone else is better. Pathetic reasoning and not worthy of someone who reads good novels.

********I guess you and I were left off the talking points list.*******
obviously you were, or maybe you missed it when you were skipping every second word?


Now I know I've been mean and agressive in my response but that was a really annoying response you made. I would be sorry for my reactions and comments but the poor rhetoric used in your reply would suggest that you don't deal with hard debate so my little jabbing points might get through? It was just the same weak old Neo-Con reasoning of someone who really hasn't bothered to see from the viewpoint of those they disagree with. I understand why many people support Bush, he appeals to the fears and insecurities of human greed and bigotry that every person denies exists inside them but we know are there. He managed to cast himself in a good light and pulled the classic propoganda trick of making those who oppose him to be evil or enemies of the state. Of course you could accuse me of the same but I've got that one great tool on my side, researched evidence. For every Rush Limbaugh inspired comeback you can think of there's a nice Michael Moore, Al Franken, Greg Pallast sourced, research statistic to throw back. Neo-Conservatism isn't just dangerous because of my saying so, it's dangerous because it is based on no researched or provable evidence. For every hair-brained liberal utopian fantasy (and there are sadly many of those) there are hundreds of stupid ill founded Neo-Con ideals (like Trickle down economics, resisting healthcare reform etc) that are just provably wrong.

So if you want us to talk about Bradbury related stuff I agree you have the right to censor us out (in the ironic way that would work out), I also agree that you might feel a little "invaded" but I also think that Ray Bradbury brought this about by stepping into another arena. I guess he mistakenly thought of Michael Moore as a fellow artist, but Moore is one of those who blurs the distinction between artist and social commentator. Just as Ray Bradbury does with Farenheit 451, Moore makes works that affect cultural perspective. Once you enter the arena of social commentary you get lunatics like me hounding you

All due respect to great creative minds, all due respect to rational, clear and researched commentary on politics and society (I wish I could make mine more clear and rational sometimes but I'm not as great a write as those I admire including Bradbury).

[This message has been edited by chunkylimey (edited 06-20-2004).]

[This message has been edited by chunkylimey (edited 06-20-2004).]

quote:

Originally posted by Hmm:
I find it very interesting that I have just read that "a new edition of the book is scheduled for release in eight weeks, Bradbury said, and plans are in the works for a new film version, to be directed by Frank Darabont." (Associated Press 6/19/04)
This must be a very new development because there aren't even any actors signed on for the movie (see imdb.com). So now who is trying to profit from whom? You should be thanking Michael Moore for giving your future work press it wouldn't otherwise get!

I thought there was already a movie of Farenheit 451? I remember over a decade ago stuck in a hotel room in Germany watching what definately looked like a dubbed (into German) movie of the book? Am I missing something or was it just coincidental plotlines? What was even more weird was the next day I had to travel through what was still East Germany at the time and that was pretty damned scary after thinking about 451.


[This message has been edited by chunkylimey (edited 06-20-2004).]

chunkyLimey...arrogance, plain and simple.

quote:

Originally posted by dandelion:
Appropriation and misuse of someone else's title is not a freedom of speech issue. It isn't a legal issue either, but is one of taste and class, which Mr. Moore did not display. A tribute, this is NOT!

so Ray's going to throw a wrench in the gears of the people actively fighting censorship and repression TODAY because he's pouty about MM referencing his book in the movie title? Written back when HE was the one fighting censorship (and very effectively, too)? He should be honored. I seriously doubt that the Ray Bradbury who wrote the book, if he were still around today, would be so small-minded.

I love the guy, but dammit this is really a disappointment and a major irritation. We need all the help we can get and he should know that.

quote:

Originally posted by dandelion:
Frankly, it dismays me to see so many new threads on the same topic, on which we had a thread before all these people joined. If I were a stricter moderator I would delete every one of them and ask that all comments on this be kept to one thread. It also dismays me to see so many new members joining just for the purpose of attacking one action or viewpoint on the part of Mr. Bradbury. If they would post on other aspects of Mr. Bradbury and his work it would be easier to take them seriously.

Dandelion, I understand your dismay at having new members register just so they can post a complaint. I am one of those new members. However, I have been a fan and avid reader of Bradbury for years. I teach Bradbury in both my high school and college classes, and I have engaged in lengthy discussions concerning his novels and stories with scholars around the country. I have never felt compelled to register and post on this forum, though, because I typically choose other avenues for critical discussions. Unfortunately, I too am dismayed by Bradbury's threats of a lawsuit. Like many educators, I had planned to put 'Farenheit 451' on my syllabus for the fall semester in order to encourage students to investigate why there might be a connection between the themes in the book and those in Moore's film, with an emphasis on historical criticism. I haven't had Bradbury's book on my syllabus in years, but the upcoming movie has inspired me to rethink, and reteach, the book from a modern perspective.

Just because I see a thematic connection between the book and movie, does that mean Moore stole Bradbury's ideas? No. I see thematic connections throughout film and literature. Themes are archetypal and express man's universal ideas, desires, and concerns. Did Moore use the same word in his title that Bradbury used? Yes. Is it a crime? I guess that's for a jury to decide. Should Moore have consulted Bradbury? Probably. Does paying homage to a literary great happen all the time? Fortunately, yes. And Moore's paying homage to the great Ray Bradbury will result in thousands of young people being introduced to a classic.

If Bradbury disagrees with Moore's politics, that's one thing. But if he is merely being petty about one word in the title, that indicates a side of Bradbury that is influenced by greed and control. This post is not what you termed an "attack" on Mr. Bradbury's viewpoint. It is merely a fan's concern about the origins and underlying objectives of that viewpoint and a fan's opinion that Moore should be praised, not punished, for bringing a great piece of literature back into the public eye.

There will be no lawsuit. This is an overreaction. The unwanted allusion by one artist to another artist's work in a way that violates the original author's intent, is not petty. Moore is capitalizing on the popularity of Bradbury's creative work. Moore's classlessness is a violation of artistic integrity where honest artists respect the wish of other living artists before hijacking their work. Bradbury has never called for censorship of Moore's movie. He's never told anyone not to show it. He's never claimed he had a copyright on the title. This is all bunk.