Michael Moore has received death threats as well as calls from millions of well-wishers. If Ray Bradbury called him up, Michael might not have known about it or his assistants might have thought it was a crank call. So many things could've been the cause of the miscommunication (or lack of) and so Ray shouldn't be slighted--it just might've been a technical glitch and no malicious intent.

on a recent Dennis Miller Live show ray bradbury said that he did in fact get a call back from Michael Moore in which Moore asked what was up and Bradbury proceeded to qustion him about why Moore didnt call him earlier about changing his title....to which (by Bradbury's account) Moore had no real answer....(probably becuase he didnt want to offend him and be like...."i dont need your blessing to use a title...but i sure would like it..."

Thormachine,

We've already discussed Bradbury's appearance on other threads so you might check those out. I don't see how you can make your leap about why Moore had no real answer to Bradbury's request for his title. My take is that Moore had no answer because he's been proven boorish.

But I could be wrong.

Best,

Pete

"...i dont need your blessing to use a title..."

"...he's been proven boorish."

Thormachine, Pterran,
These two phrases complement each other rather well, do they not?

quote:

Originally posted by groon:
"...i dont need your blessing to use a title..."

"...he's been proven boorish."

Thormachine, Pterran,
These two phrases complement each other rather well, do they not?

no....no they dont...

i really dont see how Moore using his own artistic right is some pigheaded jack ass because of it....

Thormachine,

Moore is boorish because of the way he failed to return Bradbury's phone call in a timely enough manner to avoid the ill-feelings that Moore caused. Moore is boorish because he used Bradbury's title to do his heavy lifting by tapping into the collective memory of our culture to associate the themes of his movie with the themes of F-451. Moore is boorish because his movie dis-honors Bradbury's title and forces Bradbury to be associated with a point of view which he may not share.

I said nothing about Moore's right to use the title. Please don't imply that I did.

Best,

Pete

Well put Pete!

quote:

Originally posted by pterran:
Thormachine,

Moore is boorish because of the way he failed to return Bradbury's phone call in a timely enough manner to avoid the ill-feelings that Moore caused. Moore is boorish because he used Bradbury's title to do his heavy lifting by tapping into the collective memory of our culture to associate the themes of his movie with the themes of F-451. Moore is boorish because his movie dis-honors Bradbury's title and forces Bradbury to be associated with a point of view which he may not share.

I said nothing about Moore's right to use the title. Please don't imply that I did.

Best,

Pete

well.....by definition of your answer: that Moore had no right to the title and was being an unmannerly jerk for using it without asking permission and that the use of the idea of Bradbury's title by Moore.....(he did not use the actual title itself, anyone with a bit of brains can tell that it is not Bradbury's doing) means that Bradbury must agree with everything Moore has to say and that Moore used the title as some sort of publicity stunt when Bradbury was the one whining about it.....yeah....that kind of is all about Moore's right (or lack thereof) to use the general idea of someone elses title in an artistic and apropriate manner.......you seem to think that he is not allowed to do it and that he is dishonoring Bardbury.....where as I am pointing out the fact that this kind of thing happens all the time in the art world and is in fact a very normal and I would say good occurence....the fact that people before Moore and Bradbury have either felt honored or not brought attention to it just goes to prove that Bradbury is being unreasonable even childish just because the person using his title is not someone who he agrees with. If Bradbury had said that he disliked Moore using his title because he hates Moore's views i would easily be able to brush it off as an annoying thought from a great writer....but the fact that Bradbury hides behind some ideal that one can not borrow from culture makes me mad and makes me think less of Bardbury for being so childish....

Thormachine,

I can tell I�m not being clear enough for you because of the way you re-state my arguments. May I try again?

I didn�t say Moore had no right to use Bradbury�s title. Though a good argument could be made that Bradbury�s title, while not trademarked, is so associated with him that it has the effect of a trademark, wouldn�t you agree? And don�t forget that F-451 recently celebrated its 50th anniversary and that there is a new movie version in the works. So, yes, Bradbury had a very real concern that his title not be used by someone else for their own purposes. Maybe even a monetary concern. That�s not a bad thing. Even Moore is concerned with making as much money from his work as possible. I mean, he�s not giving away his movie for free, is he? (And, by the way, Bradbury wasn�t whining. That belittles Bradbury�s reaction and I don�t think you intend to do that.) Of the two, I�d say that Moore is the master publicity manipulator. Besides, this tempest in a teapot about the use of his title is a concern mainly for his fans like us. The general public remains largely unaware of what we�re fussing about.

Yes, the use of other artists titles and phrases occurs all the time in the artistic world. Is it normal? I dunno. I�m willing to concede that point. Is it a good occurrence? I dunno about this, either. How would you define a good occurrence? In Bradbury�s case, he doesn�t think it was a good occurrence. I�d don�t advocate situational ethics but in this case, I think it�s Bradbury�s opinion that counts more. Have other artists felt honored by such an occurrence? I don�t have your experience so I can�t address this. But I�d be willing to say surely there have been others who weren�t pleased. Is Bradbury hiding behind an ideal that one can�t borrow from culture? I don�t know where you come up with this but I don�t think he said that at all. He simply didn�t want Moore to use his title. Why couldn�t Moore have the courtesy to respect Bradbury�s wishes and come up with something else?

It�s quite clear that Bradbury�s stand makes you angry. I hope you can find a way to reconcile your feelings.

Best,

Pete

wow....an actual response...cool...i have been getting a lot of "you stupid liberal shut up" recently...

I am not angry necessarily but more annoyed and disheartened that someone so steeped in the arts can be so outraged by a normal occurence....my experience is simply that of the artist.....i got to this forum and I got a lot of flack for my opinion and was lumped into a category....so some anger has come through in my posts just from having to deal with some of these people...

Thormachine: here's a clue . . . check out the tone of your own posts before you accuse others of attacking you.

Thormachine,

An artist's perspective? Care to share with us your artistsic leanings? Or have I mis-read that statement? There are a lot of writers and artists on this site and you might find kindred spirits, despite your political views.

Best,

Pete

I am pretty messed up on painn killers right now....but i will do my best to answer coherently (got all of my wisdom teeth out today)
I am a vocalist and an actor and my fiancee (sp?) is an artist who works in photography, and many forms of painting.....so art is a really big part of my life.....

and mr. dark....if i ever seem to give people snobby answers that dont answer anything but attack them it is most likely directed at you....i havve never met you and i almost hope i never do but your negative snobbery about everything i have to say is one of the main reasons that i have stayed on this website and given a piece of my mind when needed.....if you sincerely think that you have everything worked out in the world and cant benefit from others that dont exactly share your world view....then by all means...never respond to anything i have to say ever again....you obviously dont care what i say or how i say it other than to lambast me for stupid hypocritical reasons.....i get that you think i am an idiot.....now kindly never post in response to me again.....

I know thor, you are afraid to actually respond to my post on 'an unritious theft', but I would like you to see this http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm ... it has a handy 4pg PDF...

-Jesse

stop your whining....im actually in a lot of pain right now....all my wisdom teeth were yanked this morning but through the valium and codine i did respond to your inane post....stop assuming for once in your life.....geez.....oh goody more conservative crap to read....i ll get right on it....