While I have over the past fifty years enjoyed Bradbury's writing, I find his
objection to Michael Moore's new film
title LAUGHABLE in the extreme!! If I were
to write a book and entitle it FAHRENHEIT 22,
I would NOT attempt to get Bradbury's approval for such a title. It is totally
ludicrous for anyone to assume that he had a
kind of copyright over any title using
FAHRENHEIT( plus a number) WHEN that title
had NOT been used previously used as the
title of a published book/play/movie/et.al.
Sadly, Bradbury at age 83 has slipped into
terminal megalomania. Too bad & too sad.
But, perhaps, it's not really Bradbury
complaining... perhaps, it's his evil twin;
or perhaps, Bradbury, INC.

Again, ageism and misunderstanding the issue. Ray never claimed he had a copyright on the title.

Thoughtful post. I concur in my abhorence of Mr. Bradbury's continuing clucking over Fahrenheit 9/11. Seems to me he might feel honored that Michael Moore made a glancing reference to RB's take on fascism. To me, both men are heros - although I do hope that RB reconsiders his intentions.

quote:

Originally posted by trigchance:
While I have over the past fifty years enjoyed Bradbury's writing, I find his
objection to Michael Moore's new film
title LAUGHABLE in the extreme!! If I were
to write a book and entitle it FAHRENHEIT 22,
I would NOT attempt to get Bradbury's approval for such a title. It is totally
ludicrous for anyone to assume that he had a
kind of copyright over any title using
FAHRENHEIT( plus a number) WHEN that title
had NOT been used previously used as the
title of a published book/play/movie/et.al.
Sadly, Bradbury at age 83 has slipped into
terminal megalomania. Too bad & too sad.
But, perhaps, it's not really Bradbury
complaining... perhaps, it's his evil twin;
or perhaps, Bradbury, INC.

Ray Bradbury certainly has the right to be offended by the absense of a request from Michael Moore to so blaitently tie his newest propaganda-fest to Bradbury's classic book. Arguing the copywrite angle is plain old silly, as this is not the issue. The issue is that Michael Moore is using Bradbury's a slight variation of Bradbury's title because it dips into the collective (un)conscious of our literary culture. Bradbury's work was satiracle fiction, while Moore's work is faux-doumentary masquerading as non-fiction. Moore's style is one that uses ellipses (through film editing) to tell a story of half truths like they're whole truths. Moore creates a history that never happened, and this is against the spirit of Fahrenheit 451. All we have to do is retrace the facts that have come out about "Bowling for Columbine" to catch a glimpse of Moore's re-inventing of the truth technique. Check out the following link concerning the "Open a Bank Account, Get a Gun" scene, and how it does not show reality. Film is a powerful medium, one that can very easily pass off lies as truth when represented as Documentary, and I'm guessing that Bradbury doesn't want to be tied to that. In the least, he doesn't want his legacy to be used by others while he is still alive without his permission.

[This message has been edited by paddyryan (edited 06-23-2004).]

paddyran,
Thank you. You nailed it. If you thought "Columbine" was bad, "Roger & Me" was 10x worse. Remember the scene in "Columbine" where Dick Clark just ignored MM...because he knew better than to let MM twist his words around through editing? Of course, MM tried to make it look like DC had something to hide, but anyone with intelligence knew that DC (who's been in TV since when?) just knows better.

Michael Moore sounds a lot like the guy who got punched by Buzz Aldrin for trying to make him "admit" that no one from planet Earth had ever walked on the moon.

I find it absolutely sickening how much people are afraid of actually accepting the truth about the world.....do you think that corporate greed in america is something that those crafty leftists made up? do you think that global warming is bullshit made up by hippies to stop companies from making profits? do you beleive everything that george bush says no matter how many gramatical errors he slurs through or how idiotically he squints his eyes at the teleprompter?


If so, then you my freind are one of the masses of money hungry ignorant shitheads that our capitalist representative democracy has pumped out over the years.....

Nice post -- arrogant, ignorant, bigoted and crude. Definitely a high point.

Agreed: arrogant, crude.

Disagreed: Ignorant.

Common to all views: bigoted.

Cheers, Translator

Translator,

Maybe I'm a nitpicker but I missed why you would think Thormachine's post was NOT ignorant. Your standards are usually as high as Mr. Dark's on this kind of thing. Set me straight, would you?

Best,

Pete

It is absurd for Ray to expect to be asked for 'permission' to use 'his' title. There's definitely a lot of egomania in Ray's pronouncements. And Moore is a satirist, not a strict documentarian. Of course things are going to be exaggerated from time to time in his films. What's scary is how much isn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
Nice post -- arrogant, ignorant, bigoted and crude. Definitely a high point.

once again!! well put there, darky!!

i especially liked the part where i made a point and you didnt counter it what so ever and yet you still managed to be snide and elitist!!

keep up the good work, buddy!!

Since you continue to mischaraterize Bradbury's position, there is really not much to respond to!

Thormachine,

Neither Mr. Dark, nor his post, is/was snide or elitist. Take a look at your post again and see where you disagree with him. You'll have to admit, its much as Mr. Dark characterized it to be.

Best,

Pete

What's sad about the current barrage is that we do have answers for every piece of crud they try to throw at us, but everything we say just goes over their heads. I can't wait 'till they all leave so it can go back to us just arguing with Translator! Haha! Kidding, T.
Cheers, Groon