Come on!!
Where did Michael Moore 'really' come up with the title to his next project, "Fahrenheit 911 " pertaining to the Bin Laden attack on 9/11?
He claims in this project that the 9/11 attacks set the agenda for President Bush and his ...right wing agenda.
I say...whatever Moore's project is...CHANGE THE TITLE..

I felt the same way Nard. I'm not holding out any hope that Moore will change the title. The only consolation I can take is that it just shows how far Bradbury has penetrated the popular consciousness and become part of our language.

On an even worse note, apparently Mel Gibson's production company is involved, giving the "Fahrenheit" connection even more strength.

You can't copyright a title, but if Ray finds out and thinks Moore is misrepresenting his film or somehow implying Bradbury's endorsement of the documentary, he might be able to get him to back off.

Here's hoping...

[This message has been edited by WritingReptile (edited 04-16-2003).]

Per:: Fahrenheit 911, as being mentioned above posts:

click on, or type into finder:
http://www.rense.com/general36/mel.htm

&
www.onLisareinsradar.com/archives/001145.php

Woah. No I wouldn't hold out much hope for change- Michael Moore is the sort who thinks that criticism proves him right.

I actually appreciate quite a bit of what Michael Moore does. Bowling for Columbine came (justly) under quite a bit of criticism for the part where he sandbags Heston. Other parts of the movie, though, I found to be dead-on perceptive, and intellegently outraged. Very often, he overshoots what he's doing and, so doing, demeans it or makes it sensationalist.
For example, he won an Oscar (deservedly, I think) for Columbine, and then used the opportunity to make an ill-placed Anti-Bush Speech.
The title Farenheit 911 would be a misrepresentation of the classic book. No matter what the content of the film would be, and whether or not we see eye to eye with Moore, it would forge an association that probably doesn't really exist.

I haven't seen Bowling for Columbine, but it has certainly generated a lot of controversy. Overly simplistic solutions to very complex social problems is always annoying to me -- whether it comes from the left or the right.

As to naming the film "Farenheit 911," I think it is just dishonest. Bradbury has expressed his support of Bush in more than one interview. To trash the Bushes in a film and name it in a way that ties the film to Ray is just dishonest. Moore preaches honesty, but practicing it is another matter.

I put Michael Moore in a similar category as I place Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. They're great actors who have a disproportionate bully pulpit. When Sarandon's appearance at the Bull Durham anniversary was canceled for fear they (Robbins and Sarandon) would use the event as a bully pulpit against Bush and the war, Robbins sent a letter indicating that this cancellation was "the ending of democracy". What solipsistic arrogance to think that cancelling a ball game with Robbins and Sarandon represents the end of democracy! Democracy survived the assassination of Abraham Lincoln -- certainly the cancellation of a program dedicated to a baseball movie will not stifle democracy!

Mr. Dark,

Perhaps you should give Bowling for Columbine a try. It doesn't really propose any one solution to the problem, but instead points a number of not-so-subtle fingers, some which I believe to be on-target, some not. This is arguable as to whether it is a better or worse approach to a problem to simply rabble-rouse, or to propose a solution that may be too simple... what do you think?
I see your point about the "bully pulpit". However, if you want to watch something I feel is far superior to Bowling for Columbine, check out Tim Robbins' little-known political satire "Bob Roberts". Rather than through unrelated functions, this is the proper venue for Tim Robbins and any statements he might choose to make.
And, it's painfully funny- especially if you ever followed the recording career of Bob Dylan, who it parodies.
Also, unlike Moore (and, for that matter, Bill Maher), I've never suspected Tim Robbins of making purposefully phithy, over-the-top, and above all, quotable statements for the purpose of creating an "image".

Cordially,
Dan

I understand when Ray heard about this project, with an obvious influence of title choice.... he called Michael Moore to complain...but to no avail.
The political views that Moore expounds, and those of Ray, are 'not' similiar. So Ray wonders if the two books with 'Fahrenheit' titles can appear to... compliment each other to some.

It's really just a cheap usurpation of Ray's prestige. I find it really offensive.

I like Tim Robbins as an actor. Robbins has tremendous range as an actor -- from the depth of "Shawshank Redemption" to the slapstick comedy of "Nothing to Lose". I'm just one of those who are admittedly tired of marginally educated, liberal entertainers using their popularity to espouse their views with character attacks rather than with a focus on the issues. The picture of he and Susan Sarandon "flashing the peace sign" together at the Academy Awards was just juvenile. We all did that back in the late sixties when we were teenagers.

I suppose that constitutes my rant for the day.

Mr. Dark,

I prefer to think that Mr. Robbins and Ms. Sarandon were actually flashing the V for victory sign.

One can hope. . .

Pete

P.S.
Nard,

Interesting about Ray's reaction but I'm not surprised by his nor Moore's response. But my understanding was this was going to be another one of Moore's "documentaries" and not a book.

Still, Moore's a doofus for choosing the title and not being gracious enough to change it, regardless of his medium of choice.

PT

[This message has been edited by pterran (edited 04-17-2003).]

[This message has been edited by pterran (edited 04-17-2003).]

Mr. Dark, you're cutting back to one rant a day?

Unfortunately, Bradbury doesn't own the word "Fahrenheit", though he made it special to all of us.

Our only real hope of a title change is if the movie of 451 goes into production soon (for real this time). Movie studios are pretty protective of their titles and have been known to make deals and apply pressure to avoid having similar titles in the market at the same time.

And if 451's studio isn't thinking that way, we could always nudge them in that direction...

Ray's reaction to the title is precious and vintage Ray. This from movies.com ( http://movies.go.com/movies/F/farenheit451_2003/ ):

>>
Ray Bradbury thinks the title of Michael Moore's upcoming documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 will confuse people and he wants him to change it. "He can't have my title," said Bradbury. "We've got an important film coming out, the book's having its 50th anniversary in October. If he wants his movie to be an homage to me, why not title it, 'Bradbury, where the hell are you now that we need you?'" (Variety)
<<

I think there's hope yet.

One rant a day is probably one rant too many for most poor readers.

I loved Bradbury's reaction. That's one of the fun things about listening to him speak or in watching/reading interviews with him. He is so blunt it is just flat-out entertaining. While I disagree with him on the Shuttle program, I love listening to him go off on how useless he thinks it is. And it is never just a "rant," he always has a point of view.

Also, he does not suffer fools gladly. If you put your foot in your mouth, he will be well aware of it and will be sure you are also aware of it. But he is so good-hearted that his bluntness has never come off to me as mean-spiritness.

DanB: Sorry, never answered your question.

I think looking at ALL possible causes is critical. My struggle is that conservatives are willing to attack "liberal" sources of the problem, just like liberals are willing to attack "conservative" sources of problems -- at the same time ignoring thie own contributions.

Real wisdom is when a single person can recognize ALL sources of the problem and objectively try to get them resolved. This is not what happens most of the time. I teach philosophy at a community college, and what I try to drive home is this issue of objectively examining all sides to a claim and THEN making your judgements. People are not even aware how often their own biases enter in to their decision-making. I know I have to keep an eye on my political/cultural biases all the time when I look at issues. We have them, but we need to keep an eye on when they are impacting our objectivity and sense of fairness. It is not easy, but it is the only way to honestly live a life guided by reason. It is the only way to make a pluralistic society work.

I'm not in the business, and don't know how things work...but maybe they work just like any other business. For instance, Mel Gibson, who had dibs on doing Fahrenheit 451 quite awhile ago, is now behind Moore's Fahrenheit 911, with his own Icon Productions.
Moore is so incensed by the Bush Family, and President George W. that he has 'already' been awarded ...an early slot in the Cannes Film Festival for 2004 and wants to release the movie, Fahrenheit 911 nationally ...just before the Presidential elections!
How's that !!!

That's what kills me. The timing means it has nothing to do with documentary and everything to do with politics. He, and many others, have never forgiven America for the Supreme Court's decision in 2002. Didn't hear him complaining about the Supreme Court usurping state's authority in Roe v Wade, though. A bit picky in when he challenges the Supreme Court.

As to Robbins and Sarandon flashing a victory sign rather than a peace sign . . . well, denial is a wonderful thing.

Oops! Is that another rant? Dang! Two in a row.