Mr Dark,
that wasn't arrogant - you are again reverting to the "name-calling" defence you've employed so many times before. You can at least respond to the person without trying to belittle what he/she said. It was a long post, with lots of good points, and you're just brushing it aside.

Cheers, Translator

...by the pricking of your thumb something petty this way comes...

Apologies to Mr. Shakespeare

Bradbury asked Moore NOT to use the title ... Bradbury is angry about it.

... it looks like I'll have to also explain that the man who wrote it was a trivial person, not to be idealized.

Once everyone's thinking has been put into a list, it means those thoughts no longer need to be expressed, especially if the conclusions were made independent of the list.

Also consider how advertising works: Once you see an ad for a product, you never need to see that ad ever again.

I have no problem that Moore didn't use class or good taste by using the name without first consulting Ray Bradbury.

I also am positive that Michael Moore didn't send legions of supporters over here to contaminate these boards. People who have come here, I'm almost certain, are like me -- a person who read about the controversy, and typed in www.raybradbury.com to see what is happening in Mr Bradbury's life. In my case, I heard him speak at my university more than a quarter century ago and am somewhat familiar with his works.

But irrespective of poor taste, no class, or why people have found these boards, Mr Bradbury profits. A new generation of people who haven't heard of Ray Bradbury now have, thanks to the controversy with Moore and the naming of the documentary.

Prolong the dispute a bit longer if you wish, Mr Bradbury, but you already sold a lot, lot more books as a result of this. So in the end, leave the documentary title alone, and let it continue to feed potential new readers your way.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
chunkyLimey...arrogance, plain and simple.

Yours or mine? I don't mind being called the Kettle if you'll admit to being a pot, but then I wonder whether you are perhaps to large a pot, too arrogant a pot to admit that?

I'm obviously the Kettle because although I blow off more steam under pressure I at least make a good cup of tea.

I think the reason for your lack of reasoned reply was more to do with your lack of wit than the weakness of my own however. As many a reactionary, possibly right leaning individual once all the wobbly stools of your argument (and I'm not sure they are the stools you sit on) are knocked over you resort to a brief dismissive response to insult the integrity of the person in the debate. Much like intelectual weaklings called George Bush in fact. Well done at taking on the Fascist/Rush Limbaugh response mechanism, learnt in most playgrounds, executed by most tyrants and admired by no one with the capacity for reason.



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

I see that I am not alone in being disappointed that Mr. Bradbury, a genius and a hero of mine, finds objection in the inspiration his title gave to Michael Moore (another genius and hero of mine).

Besides the obvious that Mr. Bradbury COULD see Mr. Moore's title as a compliment and a grace note on his own career: Titles are NOT copyrightable, even if they are exactly the same. This has gone all the way to the Supreme Court in the past, so there's no argument about it. If fact (although I can't at this moment think of examples, there are many titles which duplicate each other. Mr. Moore's allusion to Mr. Bradbury's title one is not even that. It's fair use. PERIOD.

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.

Perhaps this was the first time they thought that Ray Bradbury's work or comments were serious enough to comment on? The written word is not the only comments that can be observed and responded to by an artist. Obviously you'd be within your rights as a moderator to restrict topics. One solution would be perhaps to condense the responses down to a short statement and post it somewhere in here and remove the other subject matter. Perhaps even correspond with Ray Bradbury himself asking him for some clarrification of his position and a reasoned response?

Since this section is Rays Legacy I can see your frustration, perhaps what is worse still is that this possible off-the cuff remark may actually be a lasting mark on Ray Bradbury's legacy (it is for me now).
Maybe it's a tragedy that a man able to project his thinking and insight into alternate realities and futures wasn't able to project that insight into the present and see firstly what was going on around him, and secondly the consequences of his actions.

Everyone,

For the love of God, could we all please please please agree that Ray has never claimed to hold a copyright on the title to his book? Jeepers.

Outdamnedspot,

How is it a bad thing if Bradbury's motive is to want to make more book sales yet it's a good thing if Moore's motive is to want a lot of viewers for his movie? Is Moore showing his movie for free? Didn't think so. Neither is Bradbury giving away copies of F-451. Both are motivated, on some level, by profit. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

Best,

Pete

Outdamnedspot,

How is it a bad thing if Bradbury's motive is to want to make more book sales yet it's a good thing if Moore's motive is to want a lot of viewers for his movie? Is Moore showing his movie for free? Didn't think so. Neither is Bradbury giving away copies of F-451. Both are motivated, on some level, by profit. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

Best,

Pete[/B][/QUOTE]

Many artists, whether their medium is paint, text, or film, are motivated by visions of fame and wealth. The desire for such rewards is most certainly inherent. Of course both Bradbury and Moore want to make money from their ventures, but profit is inevitable for both parties without controversy. Sales for Bradbury's book have already increased due to heightened public awareness, an awareness that comes from Moore's film. Both men need to agree that their individual ventures are symbiotic.
I encourage everyone who is bothered by this recent controversy to voice his or her opinion. This is not the only venue. Let Michael Moore know how you feel at mike@michaelmoore.com
I've already sent my e-mail.


[This message has been edited by outdamnedspot (edited 06-21-2004).]

I too have joined this board to see for myself if it was true-that Bradbury has made a stink re: Farenheit 9/11.
I really can't believe it-kind of heartbreaking, considering the source, isn't it?

While I'll get to my thoughts on that later, I wanted to thank chunkylimey for the link to the Union of Concerned Scientists. I've been fighting the recent mercury disclosure situation locally (petitions, donations), and to get more info on this via the ucsusa site is helpful.
To not be able to eat the fish that come from our waters because of mercury poisoning is not new here in WI, but to hide EPA findings so the administration doesn't have to impose stricter regulations on the businesses that are poisoning our food & water is truly frightening.
Enough is enough.
Maybe someone could write a book about it?
Call it Mercury Poisoning 411?
Sorry board members for getting off-subject-again, thank you chunkylimey.
Brian

quote:

Originally posted by chunkylimey:
I have specifically joined this website to comment on this issue. So please forgive me if I'm not at the same level of commitment to Ray Bradbury's works as others in your midst. Ray Bradbury is definately on of the great Science Fiction writers, along with Kurt Vonnegut, Asimov and Frank Herbert he inspired me to be interest in the future and to be interested in how technology could affect that.

There are a few great Science fiction books that redefine cultural awareness For example: Brave New World by Aldous Huxley is one example of defining work that sets a cultural perspective for generations to come on issues of Social Control and eugenics. The there is George Orwells 1984 about the use of tyranny and social control.
Which Brings us to Mr Bradburys great work.
Farenheit 451 is inspirational because it deals with censorship, the restriction of knowledge much in the same way that Orwell and Huxley changed our ways of looking at potential futures so did Bradbury.

But all of this is stating the obvious. Or is it? Ray Bradbury seems now to be offended that Michael Moore has been inspired by him and uses the title of Farenheit 451 in a wry parody/tribute for his film Farenheit 9/11. Bradbury has commented before he has even seen the film and with all due respect he's commented before he's had time to reason out his response. I disagree with Michael Moore on many things but he is attacking the administration that has constantly undermined scientific progress because it didn't fit their agenda and constantly progressed to the removal of civil liberties in the United States and the world. George Bush and his cronies are the BIGGEST potential threat to human progress and safety since Hitler. They are not yet as bad, but then Hitler had a good 10 years to get ready, I don't want Bush to get that Chance. I know this is an extreme statement but I suggest you go to http://www.ucsusa.org/
To see how many scientists feel about George Bush. This is one example of people who see Bush as more than just a partisan opponent but as a danger to all.

If you're an American Democrat I hope you vote, if you're an American Republican I'm sorry for your dilema choosing between right and party. Intelligent and open-minded American Republicans are now faced with supporting their party or defending their nation against a party leader who has no resemblance to the values of wiser Republicans like Eisenhower, a leader who is dragging the nation into a future of Fundamentalism, destruction of the Constitution and making America a hated tyrannical power in the world. I currently am supporting the Democrats not because I agree with them but because they are the only party that can save America from George Bush and the dark dangerous future he offers us.

Michael Moore is incedibly critical of the Democratic party in much of his books, don't let anyone fool you that he is doing this to support John Kerry. He is doing this because he is a patriot and fears a man who is harming the great nation of America. George Bush took 9/11, like Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag, to allow him to install his dangerous ideology in the mainstream of American politics.

This has wandered a lot I know but 9/11 IS the temprature at which Freedom burned, Farenheit 451 is the book that inspired others to see the dangers that lie ahead of us one of them being Michael Moore. Thanks Mr Bradbury now get over your artistic ego, and maybe start looking at what is going on in your nation that is more important than your copyright.

Sorry for my brief reply. Shockingly, I have other things to do than spend my time arguing against accusations about Bradbury that are false; yet it galls me not to react to them at all. I have been a Bradbury fan for years. His books (F541 initially) changed my life and led to two Masters Degrees and a life of study and discussion, teaching and writing. I admit to being defensive (but these outbursts have been ungrounded and uneducated in the extreme) and loyal toward Bradbury.

chunkylimey: This excerpt from your post struck me as arrogant -- no matter what you or translator say:

"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."

Like Translator, you appear to assume that all conservatives (or neoconservatives) are idiots that cannot possibly have thought throught through their ideas. Why? Because they have a different conclusion than you. It is possible that a conservative person (I am conservative in many areas, liberal in some) has thought through these issues and has simply come to a different conclusion.

I understand that other persons with other life experiences may come to different conclusions. I don't hold all liberal views as infantile (an accusation Translator has repeatedly made of my views). But often conservatives are lambasted by liberals as being ingnorant or provincial or religious fanatics simply because we come to different conclusions based on our own experiences, philosophical presuppositions or beliefs.

I felt that your entry carried that tone. In the interests of time, I just labeled it and moved on.

This is the second time in the last day (the other was the age issue) that Translator has chosen to dredge up past discussions/debates we have had, rather than to deal with current issues. He seems very concerned that he either convert me or prove me wrong. I don't know what is behind that with him.



[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 06-21-2004).]

According to AP, the book was made into a movie in 1966, directed by the great French director Francois Truffaut.
Brian

quote:

Originally posted by chunkylimey:

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).]

Frankly, it scares the s**t out of me that the moderator at the Ray Bradbury message board is threatening to delete posts because folks aren't keeping their thoughts & opinions to "one thread."
So I am going to say what I wanted to come here and say, hope that it's on the one thread that is acceptable to dandelion so it can be posted, and never return.
It seems that this message board does not want to be bothered with "so many new members joining just for the purpose of attacking one action or viewpoint on the part of Mr. Bradbury."
Perhaps the board should be called the "The Ray Bradbury Love-In" or "If You Don't Have Anything Nice To Say About Ray Bradbury Keep It To Yourself Message Board" or "New Members Better Talk About Something Besides Ray Bradbury's Faux Pas Or We Won't Let You Play With Us."

The reason I could not believe that Mr. Bradbury would go to such lengths to create a whirlwind about Farenheit 9/11 is exactly what board member Rojaspak stated-titles, whether it's a title of a book, song or album, it cannot be copywrited.
So what other reason would there be to create a stink over this? And Mr. Bradbury the one creating the fuss? I never would have believed it.
I have a great respect for both Mr. Bradbury & Mr. Moore and would have hoped in a better world that Bradbury would have been maybe just a wee bit flattered, and that Mr. Moore would have considered an artists' ego and returned a call to Mr. Bradbury a bit sooner and told him of his motivation to title the movie as he did (according to AP, Bradbury called to protest six months ago & Moore just got back to him last Saturday).
But for Mr. Bradbury to ask Mr. Moore to "give me back my book and title-" sheesh.
I expect this kind of behavior from Bill O'Reilly, but Ray Bradbury? Truth stranger than fiction indeed.
Take care and so long,
Brian

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.

I think, like many news-driven events, it is not so much that Bradbury has created a whirlwind, as that many Moore fans and the media have created a whirlwind. How many times has Bradbury spoken about this? Very few. How many times has the media -- with only exerpts of Bradbury's statement, and with very little historical context, and with mistatements -- put this out there? Many times. How many Moore fans have posted to attack Bradbury based on a very limited understanding of the issues or of Bradbury's real position? Many ranting postings.

The "whirlwind" has come from (1) Moore's classless use of the title against the original artist's wishes in the first place, (2) The press, with it's inaccurate and incomplete reporting of the issues involved, (3) Moore fans, who have jumped on the "attack Ray" bandwagon based on very limited information.

It is inaccurate to blame Bradbury for creating a public furor over this. He has not called for boycotts, or censorhip, or restrictions on the distribution of the film. These attacks on Bradbury are all demonstrably and blatantly false.

This site is not meant as a "love-fest" for Bradbury, but it IS set up to celebrate his works and work and to discuss his work and impact. The swarm of posts here have not done that. They have attacked him based on things he has not said or done. The call for people to stop attacking Bradbury without understanding the issues is not a call for a love-fest. It is a call for honest, knowledgeable, and reasoned discussion -- something Moore (and apparently many of his fans) appears to know very little about.

The reason why I meantioned the age issue, Mr dark, is not to convince you, but to point out to you the inconsistencies of your arguments and methods of discusion. I like fair play, and it irks me when some choose to follow the rules whenever it's to their benefit, and forget about them when it's not. But I promise not to mention this again, or at least until we get to another real discussion.

Cheers, Translator