Given my contempt for all things Michael Moore (a publicity-addicted self-important demagogue if there ever was one), this comes as no surprise. I'm not sure if it's illegal or not-and I expect it isn't, since Moore is rat-cunning enough not to do something that'd get him a lawsuit he'd lose-but it's obviously in bad taste.
Of course, I doubt he much cares about that. Even when the person doing the complaining is a registered independant.
Highlights:
quote:Bradbury, who hadn't seen the movie, said he called Moore's company six months ago to protest and was promised Moore would call back.
He finally got that call last Saturday, Bradbury said, adding Moore told him he was "embarrassed."
"He suddenly realized he's let too much time go by," the author said by phone from his home in Los Angeles' Cheviot Hills section.
Joanne Doroshow, a spokeswoman for "Fahrenheit 9/11," said the film's makers have "the utmost respect for Ray Bradbury."
"Mr. Bradbury's work has been an inspiration to all of us involved in this film, but when you watch this film you will see the fact that the title reflects the facts that the movie explores, the very real life events before, around and after 9-11," she said.
At this point, it's just hearsay that Moore said he'd call and didn't-but I'll believe Bradbury, not knowing a thing about his integrity, over Moore six days a week and twice on Sunday. The defense is nice, too. "We have lots of respect for him, but what he should really do is watch it, realize we're right, and thank us for continuing his tradition."
J4
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
If I were Bradbury I'd be ticked that first I was complaning, then I got called back 6 months later, and they used my complaining to do a press release that associated my good name with their movie for sales.
Hobbes Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
*loathes Michael Moore's films and opinions*
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why, though? He makes some good points about things like corporate welfare, the environment and living wages. I agree with most of his points.. *currently reading several Moore books*
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I loathe his opinions about a lot of things. Yes, he does have some good points, but he blatantly lied in his previous film. Very blatantly.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Which opinions?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Micheal Moore is trying to be the Liberal Rush Limbaugh, annoying but with enough truth and humor in his diatribes to attract followers.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
The opinion that it's the government's fault that people kill each other due to gang wars, to name one.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I can't say it's the government's fault completely, but, there is proof that people being laid off from their jobs contributes to more crime. Crime is a very complicated issue though...
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: I can't say it's the government's fault completely, but, there is proof that people being laid off from their jobs contributes to more crime.
But is it the government that lays people off(assuming we're not talking about state/federal jobs here)?
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
Yes, to one extent. The economy is heavily influenced by the government.
I don't know why Bradbury wanted the name change. The film is anti-censorship, and doing the same thing Bradbury did- showing us the destopia we're heading towards, so maybe we can avoid it. He should at least have seen the film before he protested, but I suppose that's what the call would have been about. I don't think Moore would have passed up the oppertunity to get someone else to watch his movie, so I don't think the missed call was purposeful...
By the way, if Moore was self-important, he'd be a republican.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Now there's a well-reasoned argument.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote: I don't know why Bradbury wanted the name change. The film is anti-censorship, and doing the same thing Bradbury did- showing us the destopia we're heading towards, so maybe we can avoid it. He should at least have seen the film before he protested, but I suppose that's what the call would have been about. I don't think Moore would have passed up the oppertunity to get someone else to watch his movie, so I don't think the missed call was purposeful...
The fact that they both have a similar message (I don't know it this is true or not, but I'll give it to you.) is completely irrelevant to Bradbury allowing the title or not allowing the title. He also has not requirement to see the film. Its his title, and his tagline. Not Moores.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I'd like to point out that Bradbury at least is honest and tells everyone his stories are fiction.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I wouldn't care if I agreed completely with whatever the film said, if I was Bradbury I would be pissed that anyone, conservitive OR liberal, would steal my ideas and title without first asking.
It's not like Moore can say that he made it up, and any similarities are accidental.
Kwea
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Unfortunately for Bradbury -- Moore broke no laws because titles cannot be copyrighted. So Moore, as usual, is guilty of very very very bad taste.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Except that Moore ahs said, in public, that he chose the title to reflect "the point where freedom burns", and has mentioned the Bradbury book more than once compareing it to Bradbury's book.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and I am glad that Bradbury called him to the mat about it.
And i don't even dislike Moore much, I just think he was wrong to do that. I have seen a few things by Moore, and though Roger and Me was great. I just get tired of Moore thinking he can do no wrong.
Kwea
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
Sorry, you can't tell me Moore's not self important. That's like saying William Shatner's not melodramatic. (sp?)
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
1.) Names cannot be copyrighted.
2.) Both Bradbury and Moore are benefiting from this publicity.
After all, aren't we talking about it right now?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*does not understand the hatred people have for Moore* He does seem to show a deep and genuine concern for the so-called common man. He's a bold speaker. I imagine he must get about 500 death threats a day so he's got a lot of courage to speak out. I like that and would like to be that strong a political social critic.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I like honesty and dislike famewhores.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Moore is no more dangerous or accurate than any Op-Ed piece in your local newspaper.
If you take it as just an editorial, rather than fact, you might actually be entertained. Like any good Op-Ed article, Moore uses emotion to provolk thought on the subject.
While I take his work with a grain of salt, I enjoy it immensely.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But how is he dishonest and a famewhore? Give me some examples... It's very hard to know who is telling the truth. Currently I am reading this Al Franken book called Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. If Moore is a liar, what would he have to gain from lying?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
But he doesn't call his work an editorial. He calls it a documentary which implies that it is the complete truth and not warped and twisted to meet his own agenda.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Syn, I dislike having my emotions played with. Moore is very, very talented at sensationalism. He'll show you images that pull at your heart strings and you find yourself agreeing with him. Then, thinking about it for a minute, you realize that he didn't actually make a point he just manipulated you to feel what he wanted you to feel.
I hate that.
edit: And what zgator said. He always presents his views as "facts" not as "opinions".
[ June 24, 2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I can tell you that....you don't have to believe me, but that is another topic...
That isn't waht I said. I do think he is a publicity whore, but what choice does he have? He has to self-promote, no one would even listen to him when he started out doing documenries. But the more popular he got, the more i began to dislike his bombastic methods.
i like hearing what he has to say, just because he has the right to say it. But often when he is on TV, I end up changing the channel. His method/attitude gets in the way of his messaage.
But his self-important tone gets to me sometimes.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Personally, I think Bradbury's complaint is more funny than anything. And knowing Bradbury, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some irony and played-straight humor in his complaint. I mean, the first thing I did when I read BRadbury's quote was laugh. I can't stand Moore, fine the title of the film in bad taste, but Bradbury still came out on top for me because he made me laugh.
God Bless Ray Bradbury.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote: Why, though? He makes some good points about things like corporate welfare, the environment and living wages. I agree with most of his points.. *currently reading several Moore books*
I hate the fact that he mixes in lies with his truth, and claims it is a documentary. If he just admitted that his movies were not documentaries, I would not mind...but the fact that he doesn't pisses me off. Yes, he makes some good points, and he sometimes tells the truth, but in a documentary you should always be objective and honest.
quote:1.) Names cannot be copyrighted.
Austin Powers Goldmember got in trouble for getting to close to the title "Goldfinger" they got sued, and had to work out a deal with the James Bond people to keep the title.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
You can accuse most political social critics of the same crime. They HAVE to be bold to get people's attention and to have a strong style. And it works... One way or another the message's sink in, which is the whole point.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I do accuse them of the same crime. And if everyone's going around using lies mixed with a grain truth I fail to see how we're any further ahead. You just happen to like Moore's lies and sensationalim more. That's fine, so long as you only see it as entertainment.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Names, titles, and short phrases or expressions are not subject to copyright protection. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or if it lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright. The Copyright Office cannot register claims to exclusive rights in brief combinations of words such as:
Names of products or services
Names of businesses, organizations, or groups (including the name of a group of performers)
Names of pseudonyms of individuals (including pen name or stage name)
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
quote: He calls it a documentary which implies that it is the complete truth and not warped and twisted to meet his own agenda.
zgator, I don't think that him calling it a documentary means that it is the complete truth. I don't like to argue on the basis of semantics, but I couldn't find a reference to a documentary being factual. I've seen many editorial documentaries, not just Moore's. Some I'd like to agree with, some I wouldn't. Editorial documentaries are really nothing new, Moore is just bringing it to mass-market theaters.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
No matter what your opinion of Michael Moore, I don't see how anyone can argue that his actions in this case were not in extremely poor taste.
I can offer some anecdotal evidence that he is indeed a pompous blowhard. I worked at the security desk my freshman year at Columbia. My job was to check i.d.'s at the student activities building (Ferris Booth Hall, which has since been torn down and replaced by a horrible and inefficient building that everyone hates). Security is taken very, very seriously at Columbia and I was told in my job training to check EVERYONE'S i.d., even the mayor's. I did end up checking Mayor Guiliani's i.d. - he showed it to me before I even asked for it. I also checked Governor Pataki's i.d. and various other politicians and celebrities. Everyone was gracious about it, even if they were sometimes amused or annoyed. Except for Michael Moore.
He was either speaking or attending some event (I don't remember). He was apparently running late, because he burst into the building and blew past me. Now, I had no idea who he was. To me, he was some strange man, clearly not a student, dressed sloppily, wearing a baseball cap, and anxious to bypass the security desk. I called after him, "Excuse me, sir, you need to show me a picture i.d."
He ignored me. I tried again, this time a bit louder, "Sir, I need to see your identification."
He stopped, turned, and glared at me. "I'm Michael Moore," he said in an exasperated tone. The "...you stupid little girl" was very clearly implied.
"I'm sorry sir, but I can't let you into the building without seeing a picture i.d.," I told him. You would have thought I had told him he had to sumit to a body cavity search. He stomped over to my desk and slammed his license down. I wrote down the info and gave him back his license, which he snatched out of my hand. "Can I go now?" he asked me in a very ugly tone.
"Yes, sir. I'm sorry for the inconvenience and have a good night," I said politely. He ignored me and walked off in a huff. I immediately called my supervisor and reported the incident to her (we were supposed to report all instances where people were reluctant to give i.d.). She said that I had acted appropriately and not to worry about it.
quote:If you want to see the true measure of a man, watch how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.
-J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Better get back to packing.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
This is what I found at dictionary.com.
quote: doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r) adj. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
It's always been my understanding that a documentary was meant to tell the facts.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
You should have read what Bradbury called Moore in the interview with Dagensnyeter, a popular Swedish newspaper:
I doubt it's a legal issue. It's a common courtesy issue. You return phone calls from someone you supposedly admire enough to want to link yourself to. You also don't dismiss said admires person's concern with a message that says, "If you only understood, you'd agree with me." Surprise, Moore fails the courtesy test.
I realized Moore wasn't interested in the truth when TV nation ran a show about the contract with America, which said congress would apply the same laws to itself as are applied to other employers. Moore tried to use the gym or something like that open only to members of congress and said that showed they didn't mean it.
What kind of weak-ass argument is that? As if other employers open their facilities to non-employees. At that point I realized he's an idiot.
Dagonee
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
I think that is a very limited definition. I also don't think the argument should be based on semantics.
I do like some things that the "PC" crowd would consider in bad taste. Bad taste can be very funny.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
What are some examples of lies?
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
I'd like to interject that this is a very cool thread, and I appreciate all it's contributors.
Thanks for the editorial thoughts!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
On the flip side of that, I remember when Roger and Me came out. I was still living in NI, in the Metro Detroit area (Utica), ans a lot of the peolpe in my neighborhood worked for the Big 3 auto companies. I went to see Roger and Me in a packed theatre, and the crowed love it. Seeing him beard the aut execs right there on camera at their homes was great! No one else had the balls to do it, or to say to their faces what he did.
A few of the guys I knew ran into Moore in MI, right as Roger and Me went public, and they all said he was great, and that he was just a regular blue-collar guy. They had beers (which he bought) with him, and said he was really down to earth.
Of course that was 15 years ago..
Kwea
[ June 24, 2004, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
If an interviewer starting out in "documentaries" were to see Moore as a role-model he might do a documentary on Bigfoot kinda like this:
Interview with a zoologist specializing in primate habitat.
Interviewer: Do you believe in Bigfoot?
Scientist: No.
Int: Could a specis of primate exist undetected in some remote part of the world?
Sci: Yes, that's possible.
Int: Is the Pacific Northwest mostly unpopulated?
Sci: Yes, I suppose.
Int: What's the definition of remote?
Sci: Well, an area that's uninhabited, but...(interupted)
Int: Why are you reluctant to point out that Bigfoot exists? Why are you threatened by the truth?
Sci (getting angry): Look I said what I believe to be the case. Here is why I don't believe in Bigfoot...
Int: Why so much antagonism, what are you scientists trying to hide?
Then with some creative editing...
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Exactly!
*hopes Bigfoot stays in the Northwest* Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Synesthesia, I'm not sure about this movie but he has been accused at least once of claiming he did an interview, including excerpts in his book, and in reality never ever meeting the guy who he allegedly interviewed.
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
Syn,
One example near and dear to my heart of a Moore lie is this:
quote: ...Bowling for Columbine features a long shot of a B-52 at the Air Force Academy which features a plaque underneath it. The documentary doesn't show the plaque close enough to read it, but Moore narrates that,
". . . proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972."
The actual text of the plaque, however, is,
"Dedicated to the men and women of the Strategic Air Command who flew and maintained the B-52D throughout its 26 year history in the command. Aircraft 55,003, with over 15,000 flying hours, is one of two B-52's credited with a confirmed MIG kill during the Vietnam conflict. Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of "Diamond Lil" shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during "Linebacker II" action on Christmas Eve 1972."
I told you to take this stuff with a grain of salt.
More importantly, it forces you to think about it, doesn't it? I think that's great. I'm not ready to believe everything he says anymore than I can believe our president-appointee.
These movies are entertainment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Examples of lies:
1.) Moore claims that President Bush arranged special flights to get the bin Laden family out of America. The truth is that former Terrorism Czar and Bush Administration critic Richard Clarke has stated that the decision was his and his alone, and the 9/11 Commission supports this claim. http://www.moorewatch.com/f911flyer.pdf
2.) From http://moorelies.com/news/specials/latimes_moore.cfm, reprinting an LA Times article: Q: When you show footage of Bush in the National Guard, you play an excerpt from Eric Clapton's "Cocaine." Isn't that a cheap shot?
Moore: "I was in the editing room and there were too many documents and words in that scene, and I wanted some music to spice it up. It's an amazing coincidence that I would land on that song, isn't it?"
3.) The first of 17 lies at Moore's myriad mistakes: "Moore claims that News Corp, the parent of HarperCollins, which published Stupid White Men, "dumped [the book] in some bookstores with no advertising, no reviews, and the offer of a three-city tour: Arlington! Denver! Somewhere in Jersey! In other words, the book was sent to the gallows for a quick and painless death." Yet in a February 5, 2002 letter on his web site, Moore stated that "HarperCollins is doing their best to get the book out there - but now, even they have run into resistance, with some bookstores telling them that they are not interested in having me come to their stores on the book tour" because of the controversial nature of the book. Later in the letter, he added that "I'll be hitting a couple dozen cities on the book tour, and I'll probably add a few more (if you'd like me to come to your town, let me or HarperCollins know!)." And directly contradicting his assertion in Dude, Moore wrote in a February 13 letter that his tour "initially included only three cities: New York, L.A., and Denver." Clearly, he is spinning the publicity campaign for his own book."
quote:The Times also reported that Moore "has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation," and that he's established a "war room" to monitor attacks on the film. Lest anybody miss his threat, the filmmaker repeated it the same day on This Week With George Stephanopoulos and in the pages of the San Francisco Chronicle, and will probably whistle the same libel tune all week long in publicity interviews for the film, which opens Friday.
The first peculiar thing about Moore's libel-mongering is that most American journalists disdain libel suits as a matter of principle. Even when they have good cause for a suit, most journalists refrain from filing, believing that libel threats keep topics of controversy from being aired. They'd rather contest hostile attacks on their work in the marketplace of ideas, not courtrooms. Why Moore, the former editor of the Michigan Voice and a regular purveyor of controversial journalism, has chosen to break with this tradition is anybody's guess. (One irony too good to pass up: Stringent libel laws, the sort that Moore appears to be advocating this week, have essentially blocked the publication of journalist Craig Unger's book House of Bush, House of Saud in the United Kingdom. Noteworthy only because Unger and his book are important Fahrenheit 9/11 sources.)
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Moore haters abound. I think it is quite hilarious when pots and kettle get to talking! If Rush or Hanity or O'Riley do something that offends people and someone complains, it is all about "oh, that stupid PC crowd...afraid to ruffle some feathers" but when it happens TO that crowd, then it is all about pulling out dictionaries, talking about bad taste and so on. No offense, but I don't remember seeing all the folks on here saying Moore lies saying the same thing about Rush or O'Liely (Thank you, Mr. Franken). It is just an era where FINALLY the liberals figured out how to get their ideas out there...be as brash, obnoxious and loud as the other guys have been for the last two decades (thank you, Mr. Limbaugh).
Rush has been out there claiming to be the best source of "news" (which, if you want to pull out that dictionary, also probably involves "truth") but it is just as biased, just as spun and just as obnoxious. Fight "truth decay" Rush tells us. So is Moore, now. Take the medicine.
Also, what kind of morons don't take ANYTHING they see or read with a grain of salt (outside of Rush Limbaugh fans, apparently)? Michael Moore is a filmmaker who is making a point. In Bowling for Columbine the point was that we in the US are fed hysterics and fear by the truckload and that has an effect on how people act towards each other. I thought that worked. It wasn't anti-gun, it wasn't anti-Republican, it was pointing out what roles they (along with everyone else from average citizens, students, the media, etc.) plays towards creating an environment of fear. You agree or you don't and move on.
But people can't, so they do what liberals have always been known to do...whine about the little stuff.
Just look at the new movie? Most people (including many in the government) haven't seen the thing but it already being blasted as inaccurate, evil, lies, yadda, and yadda. But reviews point out that unlike most Moore movies, Moore isn't in it much (and those are, according to some reviews, the weakest parts). The movie is mostly just raw footage of Bush and his crew saying and doing stupid things. Moore said the movie would have come out earlier but Bush wouldn't stop talking and more could be added.
But he is making a case and crying 'poor taste' doesn't change it. Rush didn't lose any fans when he openly called the abuse of Abu-Grahib "sissy" stuff, as if he could have taken it and asked for more. Rush says what the right wing leadership thinks but can't say (if you heard stuff around the Abu-Grahib abuse scandal, you know what I mean). Moore is filling that role for the left.
Live it and love it.
Can't wait to see it.
fil
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
From Slate, on Fahrenheit 9/11:
quote:To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
I love how many people speaking against Bush policies pats themselves on the back for being the brave, lone voice of dissent.
It's like the dozens of editorials I read complaining about how nobody was saying any of the bad stuff about Reagan's presidency after he died. Except for the dozens of editorials using that as an excuse to say the bad stuff about Reagan's presidency.
Dagonee
[ June 24, 2004, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm going to see the documentary on Monday and form my own opinion of it...
You can always learn something, even from people you disagree with.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So true, Dag.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Didn't take long for people to stop defending Moore and start attacking others, did it?
And I watch Moore documentaries to learn from them when I can do so in a way that doesn't give him money.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bradbury doesn't *need* publicity, whereas Moore salivates after it, Erik.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Personally, I think Fahrenheit 9/11 is a perfectly fine title to use. I think it's fine that Bradbury had an issue with it, and a little stupid that Moore didn't get back to him in a timely manner, out of courtesy. But I don't see the title as being in bad taste, even if the creator of the work the title alludes to disagrees with it.
I mean, I liked some of Moore's TV Nation/Awful Truth stuff, it kept me entertained at times (the CEO Challenge! Johns of Justice!), but I haven't seen any of his movies. Yes he plays fast and loose with facts, but so do many documentary makers, and even newsmakers/journalists. Or is journalism suddenly as "fair and balanced" as Fox News trumpets itself to be?
This whole issue is a tempest in a teapot, folks.
-Bok
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
I think they would have done that without Moore anyway.
People were attacking Reagan's Presidency since 1980.
I think most people would rather point fingers than look for solutions.
Moore included.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Yes he plays fast and loose with facts, but so do many documentary makers, and even newsmakers/journalists.
quote:This whole issue is a tempest in a teapot, folks.
I find it a bit ironic to see both of those together in one post.
Hobbes Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
That's because the former is a big issue, but this particular instance, the Moore/Bradbury war o' words IS a tempest in a teapot.
People are conflating these two things unnecessarily, IMO.
-Bok
EDIT: I do see that I didn't make that clear in the previous post. Take the second paragraph to be more of an aside than a progression from the first paragraph.
[ June 24, 2004, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Just providing the asked-for information. ANd happy to do it, too.
It's the threat of libel that I think is serious, and shows that Moore either doesn't consider himself a journalist or doesn't understand what one really is.
But if he sues someone for libel, they get a chance at discovery and to prove in court that he's a liar. Which is why I'll be surprised if he sues anyone.
Dagonee P.S., John's for Justice was funny. As was the time he lined up the cars with alarms outside the home of the biggest maker of car alarms and set them off. Obnoxious, annoying, but funny.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I have to admit that I know almost nothing about Moore. I've never seen a movie of his or read his books. Should I even bother?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I say, go for it. It's important to read stuff by both sides of any issue.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wait for the DVD and check it out from the library. Don't fund him.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
I bought the DVD's, and will buy Farenheit 9/11 too. I pay for my entertainment.
And I always get a good laugh or two as well. That doesn't mean I consider Moore a journalist, but a filmmaker.
And I like to support artists that I enjoy.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I don't know much about Moore's stuff either, but it's kind of silly to assume that people who strongly dislike his stuff will automatically be in Rush Limbaugh et al's camp. I'm fairly conservative, but I can't stand Limbaugh. Can I disagree with them both? Why does taking pokes at Limbaugh rebuff anyone who dislikes Moore?
Bok is right--this is a tempest in a teapot. The only reason it gets any attention is that Moore is such a controversial figure.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Politically, I'm closer to Moore's politics than O'Reilly or Limbaugh.
Nevertheless, there's at least one really well-documented case of his being a grandstanding world-class jerk. Here's a link to an account of a booksigning by Moore - something he wrote his own account of. The trouble is, his account doesn't match with a person was there in the audience.
quote:Shortly after 11:00, with still about 75 people waiting for signatures, Michael was approached by the organizers from Activist San Diego. It was time, he was told, to stop signing, because the use permit only went to 11:00. The janitors at the middle school were staying late, unable to go home until the Activist San Diego event cleared out and they could lock up the place.
Around this point is where Michael Moore starts to make a tactical error. I realize that it was an uncomfortable position for everyone, including the organizers, the janitors, Michael, and the people waiting in line. But I don't agree that Michael handled it well.
What he did was this: He stood up at the front of the auditorium and faced the line snaking along the left side of the room. "They won't let me sign any more," he said, bewildered. "I can sign your books." He seemed to be confused by the concept that sometimes you have to stop when it's time to close up and go home; apparently this was the first time he'd encountered such a situation.
The crowd started to grumble and complain. They wouldn't get the great Michael Moore's signature on their books. That's just not fair. "There are more of us than there are of them!" called a voice near the start of the line. "They can't stop us!"
Explanations from the organizers fell on unsympathetic ears. "We talk about how we support the working people, and there are two of them, janitors, waiting to get home to their families," lamented one. "Let's just take up a collection! A dollar from each us!" suggested the crowd.
A perplexed-looking Moore still had no idea what to do. So he shrugged, and declared he was going back to signing. The crowd got back in line and filed through, a little quicker this time. The request to shut down and go home was pretty much ignored. This was a bad choice by Michael, and is what caused the cops to show up.
At the back of the hall, the janitors complained to the local organizers, who were pretty much helpless to dislodge the author of one of the top-selling books in the country from meeting his followers. After the 11:00 mark passed on the clock, the auditorium was no longer Activist San Diego's to use. The janitors couldn't toss them out, and Moore wasn't listening to the requests of the organizers.
This is just an excerpt - there's lots more about how the whole situation went from bad to worse - and mostly as a result of Moore's actions.
And here's an account a friend and colleague of mine wrote about a Moore event:
Anyway, not everyone leaning leftward feels that "loyalty" entails being uncritical of prominent figures on our end of the spectrum (I probably shouldn't make that claim for myself since I don't think either the left or right are really thrilled with my political views or advocacy).
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
The title business is just a tempest in a teapot. Legally Bradbury has no leg to stand on. Morally he doesn't really have one either. His work has become part of common western culture. You could write a book about Hillary and call it The Wicked Witch of the West Side and not fear any lawsuit from L Frank Baum's estate, and you should be able to do that. The best testimony to the craft of an artist is to see his work grow bigger than its orignal self. No artist can expect to have that kind of impact on culture and still completely control every aspect of the way his work touches that culture or is thenceforth used in its collective language.
Or do you think Campbell's should sue Warhol?
As for Moore not returning Bradbury's call,
quote: At this point, it's just hearsay that Moore said he'd call and didn't-but I'll believe Bradbury
In what way is this different in terms of "playing fast and loose with the truth" than what Moore is accused of? (Not that I defend either of you). The article says that Bradbury called "Moore's company", and was told Moore would call back. There is no further mention of contact until 6 months later. In reality, Bradbury was given the common corporate response and Moore was discourteous and unprofessional in not returning the call. Moore himself didn't actually promise anything. AND, you are cleverly introducing the idea that Moore denied the call was ever made, but Moore made no such denial that I could find mention of in the article. That's worthy of the best truth spinners. Congrats.
Regarding "Goldmember", the fact is, the James Bond people wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if this had gone through the courts. What power they DID have was the threat of tangling up the release date, even though they were sure to lose. The release date is something that can make or break a film and is probably more considered by production companies for summer blockbusters than even the script for the film itself. Now, I think this is blantant abuse of the legal system, in itself, but you can't use the threat of a lawsuit to define what the laws actually are.
[ June 24, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Right. The title thing is small potatoes. The fact that he's a lying, rude distorter isn't.
Dagonee
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
And eats babies too.
Oh, wait, that's Bigfoot. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lies. Just because Bigfoot supported the war in Iraq, he's slandered by liberal hacks!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yes, but there are plenty of lying distorters to be found on either side of any number of political debates. I find Moore's manner of presentation no worse, intrinsically, than say, Coulter, O'Reilly, or Chomsky (or Nader). They are all inflammatory, have their own particular pet issues, and have been known to not deal rationally with opponents.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes. And the lies documented here were requested by one of the man's supporters.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Fair enough.
-Bok
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Yeah, but what has Bigfoot ever done for me?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: You can always learn something, even from people you disagree with.
Well, that's true. People that agree with you will just be saying things you already believe.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Just to keep things "fair and balanced," I'd like to point out that Rush Limbaugh is currently dealing with some charges regarding gross inaccuracies. Limbaugh, as you may know, is the only regular show by a partisan political commentator on Armed Forces Radio.
This is from Salon, but I have a free link to the story through AOL:
quote:Making American Forces Radio Fair and Balanced Senate Moves Toward Loosening Limbaugh's Grip on Military's Airwaves
By Eric Boehlert, Salon.com
(June 24) - Service men and women around the world who tune in to American Forces Radio may soon be hearing a more balanced mix of political commentary -- and not exclusively the partisan rants of Rush Limbaugh. A Senate amendment introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa -- passed unanimously earlier this month and attached to the pending defense appropriations bill -- calls on the Pentagon to ensure fairness and balance on the AFR network. Currently, Limbaugh's program is the only long-form political talk show broadcast daily to the nearly 1 million U.S. troops who listen to American Forces Radio in 177 countries.
But wait, there's more...
quote:More puzzling, though, was Limbaugh's apparent decision to fabricate a story involving Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the powerful chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Discussing American Forces Radio during his June 18 program, Limbaugh told listeners, "He [Stevens] sent me a fax today with a revised [Harkin] amendment. They've gone in and they fixed the amendment. They -- they've watered this thing down. Whatever the Harkin amendment was, it now doesn't mention my name."
According to Stevens' spokeswoman, Courtney Schikora, the senator did call Limbaugh and fax him a copy of the Harkin amendment. But neither Stevens nor anybody in his office sent the host a "revised" amendment, "watered" it down or removed Limbaugh's name. The last part would have been impossible, in any case, because Harkin's proposal never mentioned Limbaugh. Schikora adds that Stevens does not oppose or want to alter Harkin's amendment, since it simply reaffirms the network's existing mission, specifically regarding fairness and balance.
Nonetheless, on June 18 Limbaugh seemed to relish recounting the now-disputed encounter with Stevens: "I called him and because Ted Stevens is the senator from Alaska. Stevens did something yesterday to revise this and he sent me the -- well, the -- the -- the -- the new amendment. And he said, 'Is this OK?' He said, 'Do you have any objections to this?' [laughter] And I -- I looked at it and said, 'Am I allowed?' [laughter] 'Am I allowed to object to an amendment to the defense appropriations bill when I'm not a senator?' I mean, I can as a -- as a citizen, obviously, but, I mean, any citizen could object. Doesn't matter."
Not sure who has greater impact in the long run - someone like Moore, who writes books and makes movies that appeal mostly to those who agree with him.
Or Limbaugh, who has, at present, a virtual monopoly on political commentary on a very select audience.
Edit to add: Couldn't resist the opportunity to annoy people on both sides of the fence. It's both a weakness and a virtue.
[ June 24, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: Right. The title thing is small potatoes. The fact that he's a lying, rude distorter isn't.
Dagonee, but you love Bush who lied and totally distorted the facts to go to war with Iraq.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:Not sure who has greater impact in the long run - someone like Moore, who writes books and makes movies that appeal mostly to those who agree with him.
Or Limbaugh, who has, at present, a virtual monopoly on political commentary on a very select audience.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those two descriptions identical?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Another great example of Moore's lies are the cheap shots on Charlton Heston in "Bowling for Columbine". Moore splices cuts of out-of-context remarks to make Charlton out to be an insensitive gun freak who doesn't care a fig for the columbine murders. If one reads the actual text of Heston's remarks (made on separate occasions, by the way) one may see that Moore's portrayal is a flat lie.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, but you love Bush who lied and totally distorted the facts to go to war with Iraq.
It's clear you don't know the first thing about me, TSS.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think it's important to remember that the military asked for Rush.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Making some big claims out there. Never trut a post that says nobody, or everybody.
Rush lost me as a listener before he really ever had me, because of his bobastic style, and his arrogance.
Moore has pretty much done that same.
So, once again I find myself at a real loss to define the true differences between the parties.
I am somewhere inbetween, and I like to hear all sides of the story, but I'm not stupid (not usually). I can tell, at least some of the time, when someone is full of it, at least to the point that both of those guys are.
I don't think Moore was sayibg that the literal inscription was that, and I can see where he gets the idea. I don't think the "Left" (as if we can even come up with an agreed upon definition of Right and Left these days) was uot to pinnish Rush.....
They both broadcast to the ;owest common denominator, IMO...they are the Jerry Springers of politics.
Kwea
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Zealots of any belief, in my opinion, will always be fools, because they'll be uncompromising. Eventually they'll either fail or become characitures of themselves, and their influence and impact will be considerably hindered.
It's my personal belief that because Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are such uncompromising, extreme individuals their opinions and ideals are dismissed by many, many people because they seem to stop being their ideals and opinions at all. They seem to simply stop and ask, "What would a stereotypically extreme liberal/conservative say?"
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
quote:Rush lost me as a listener before he really ever had me, because of his bobastic style
Anyone with "bobastic" style would totally have me as a listener. (Rush, unfortunately, is not bobastic. Neither is he bobtacular, nor bobalicious.)
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Nor Boombastic.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
i've met michael moore, he's a nice guy. i got the impression from hearing him talk that he was exasperated more than anything, that he felt like the world was going to hell and despite his hardest efforts he was failing to fix it. he really seemed sort of depressed to be honest. i think the death threats after his speech at the oscars really bothered him, and are probably the reason he's being so defensive about slander and such for this film. I guess my point is that i don't buy people labeling him as a fame-hungry, greedy opportunist. i think he honestly feels that there are a lot of things wrong with the world and is trying to make things better, even if that entails some below-the-waist publicity stunts.
as to his politics, i think he's an idealist who jumps to conclusions and has problems considering other people's point of view. but that's sort of required to be a radical isn't it? i thought roger & me was pretty lame. i liked bowling for columbine because i thought he did a good job of being fairly even-handed. i know a lot of people rail on that movie as being liberal slop, but as a liberal who feels that handguns should be illegal, i felt that he was almost too indulgent. he left the essential questions of why our society is so violent and the role of guns in our society open to interpretation, honestly i probably felt less prone to support gun control after watching it than more so.
as for all this about how moore's films aren't documentaries because they contain opinions, give me a break. every text has a point of view, some are more mainstream than others, but no less opinionated. The idea that documentaries should be "factual" is a little naive. many documentaries have had "agendas"; atomic cafe or the weather underground for example. the difference between a documentary and a film has to do with where the source material comes from, nothing more.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
The difference in Moore and Rush is that Moore claims to be making documentaries...while Rush is simply a political commentator with a radio show. If Moore stopped claiming that his movies were documentaries I would not have a problem with him.
Of course I still would not watch his movies, but then again I don't listen to Rush either. I think he goes to far in the other direction.
quote: as for all this about how moore's films aren't documentaries because they contain opinions,
It is not the fact that he has opinions that bothers me...what bothers me is the fact that he lies and twists the truth. You can editorialize all you want as long as you stick to the truth...which he doesn't
[ June 24, 2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
people keep saying that, that he lies, yet no one has given any examples. (in his films at least) how can you lie when you're splicing together footage that was taken in irl?
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
missed this one
quote:If one reads the actual text of Heston's remarks (made on separate occasions, by the way) one may see that Moore's portrayal is a flat lie.
this isn't lying, this is mis-representing. lying is saying something which is not true. mis-representing is telling your opinion of something, perhaps through citing examples of that that "thing" does in such a way that you present the aspects of that "thing" which confirm your point of view.
i'm not trying to say that Moore doesn't manipulate the truth -- he does without a doubt, especially in his tv shows. that's not the same as lying though.
i just remembered a segment of his tv show i saw and really disliked, where they went and antagonized the NYPD police about having shot some black kid, and spent like 15 minutes making life miserable for a bunch of cops who probably had nothing to do with the shooting. pissed me off, but again; that's the sort of thing that happens when your opinions get too radical.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Whatever you need to think to sleep at night.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
it has nothing to do with that, i already said i disagree with him on most points, i simply dislike people manipulating language in an attempt to discredit ideas of opinions.
people dismiss Moore not because they disagree with his opinions, or because they've found his arguments lacking, but because he's a "lying anti-american liberal slimeball".
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
(i use "people" liberally there, not to offend any of moore's detractors...)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"Manipulating the truth" is different from lying?
That's what I meant. Whether or not you think he is only doing the former, it's still dishonest.
[ June 24, 2004, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Definitions of lie on the Web:
a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth
that is according to google...he clearly deviates from the truth
I used to have a list of all time times he "deviated from the truth" in bowling for columbine...but I can't find it. I did a quick google search, and this page came up. They seem to have some of them here...though I have not looked at it in detail, so I am not sure if the rest of the page is accurate, but the main complaints of the movie seem to match some of the ones I have seen
[ June 24, 2004, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Kerinin, check some of the links posted, they tell it pretty clear. Do you mean that you think editing can't change the meaning of words spoken IRL? The media does it all the time, but Moore and Limbaug are worse than most.
If you know what someone means, but edit their comments so that it appears that they are saying the complete opposite, how is that not dishonest, not lying?
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
From a post of mine on the first page: "Moore claims that President Bush arranged special flights to get the bin Laden family out of America. The truth is that former Terrorism Czar and Bush Administration critic Richard Clarke has stated that the decision was his and his alone, and the 9/11 Commission supports this claim. http://www.moorewatch.com/f911flyer.pdf"
This claim is made in the movie.
Dagonee
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
quote:Austin Powers Goldmember got in trouble for getting to close to the title "Goldfinger" they got sued, and had to work out a deal with the James Bond people to keep the title.
They got in trouble because of the character, not the title. Goldfinger is a character of both the book and movie, and so they had the right to sue (fortunately for the sake of comedy, they settled).
Isn't the best complement taking one's ideas? I wish they could have gotten together on it beforehand, but I don't think Bradbury should be mad, just a little miffed. In fact, that's all he could be. It's quite possible they could both come together and be friends for all we know.
BTW, since when is a documentary ever neutral? Even Spinal Tap isn't neutral.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not sure who has greater impact in the long run - someone like Moore, who writes books and makes movies that appeal mostly to those who agree with him.
Or Limbaugh, who has, at present, a virtual monopoly on political commentary on a very select audience.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those two descriptions identical?
Geoff,
I was in a hurry and didn't break down the difference as I see it clearly. No one reads or sees what Moore has to say unless they go out of their way to lay out cash for one of his books or one of his movies.
Military personnel assigned overseas have a very limited selection of American-based radio available. American Forces Radio is the only really reliable source for American-based radio shows. And the only reguluar political commentator on that station is Rush Limbaugh. So for the hour a day that he airs, he's the ONLY choice for the military listeners overseas.
That's a big difference, especially since Armed Forces Radio is a government-sponsored network.
So no, the situations aren't identical at all.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:BTW, since when is a documentary ever neutral? Even Spinal Tap isn't neutral.
(considering how to break the news gently...)
ArCHeR,
"Spinal Tap" is a group that never existed. The group was created as a focus of a spoof on documentaties.
It's what they refer to as a "mockumentary."
So you can now stop looking in your local paper to see when they will be playing in your town.
It won't be in your lifetime. Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
also the claim that none of them were interviewed by the FBI is not true...many of them were interviewed, and they were all cleared
Personally, I think it makes sense to get them out of the country. The family had disowned him long ago...but irate citizens would not care about that. It would look very badly if they were killed for something they had nothing to do with
Also it appears that the claim that they left in the blackout time isn't true either. I saw more recent reports that said that they were evacuated when the ban on flying was not in place (they had a blurb on cnn about it).
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Limbaugh does the same thing, and I remember a few years ago when there was a flap over his "fact checkers", but I don't remember the details.
People often say that Moore is only doing what Limbaugh is doing, as if that somehow makes it OK. It doesn't, and I don't like it regardless of who is doing it at any given moment. When I see stuff like that it makes me doubt the credibility of the whole argument being presented.
Now I have no problem listening to a program that is aware of it's bias, and makes no bones about it. I also realize that there is always bias, but it is easier to see some of the time. I have no problem separating the wheat from the chaff most of the time. I make my own opinions, and I try to use more than a single source in doing so, to balance the bias.What really pisses me off about these types of movies/programs is that they don't allow for any other opinion to hold any validity if it isn't the same opinion they have. It's like they are saying that if they want my opinion they will give it to me soon enough. They may not even tell me what my opinion is, because I am not important enough to deserve that, or smart enough to understand it anyway.
If you don't agree with my opinion, then argue the point, not the person. Don't call me names, and don't use sarcasm as your only tool. Stop taking quotes out of context, and make your arguments with the facts that helped you form your opinions...provided you actually have facts, not just opinion.
If the media were run like a real debate, most of the press would be disqualified.
Kwea
[ June 24, 2004, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I wonder if anyone's ever complained about the porn title rip-offs. A Clear And Pleasant Stranger, Against All Bods, Sleeping with Seattle, need I go on?
It's part of the industry. Get over it. It's annoying.
Anyone remember the TV show ER? Did you know that it starred George Clooney, Elliot Gould and Conchata Ferrel, or that it started in 1984? At least this has a different name.
[ June 24, 2004, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: I wonder if anyone's ever complained about the porn title rip-offs. A Clear And Pleasant Stranger, Against All Bods, Sleeping with Seattle, need I go on?
Kayla watches porn!
*shocked silence*
(I know nothing about any of those titles. And, btw, isn't "Flesh Gordon" missing from the list? It's a classic, or so someone on a street corner told me once.)
[ June 24, 2004, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Sleeping with Seattle
I don't think Michael Moore is like Rush Limbagh.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There was some brouhaha about "Shaving Ryan's Privates."
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Not to mention "Muffy the Vampire Layer"...
Or so I hear, anyway.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:Kayla watches porn!
What, are you part of the leftist media, twisting words to infer your own meaning? Where did I say I watched porn? Where's the outrage from the "anti-Moorites?" What about "Manipulating the truth?" Liar, liar, pants on fire!
I have google and I know how to use it. I think there was a reference to a spoof porn title in Free Enterprise, which is why I thought of it. Or I heard about Flesh Gordon, too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I wanna know what Bigfoot's involvement was!
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: I wanna know what Bigfoot's involvement was!
Depends on who you wanna believe.
According to Michael Moore, Bigfoot is the "spirit guide" for Paul Wolfowitz. According to unnamed sources, this spirit guide laid the whole Iraq strategy out for Wolfowitz while he was on peyote.
If you want to believe Rush Limbaugh, Bigfoot is currently the lead force in joining the forces of ecoterrorists with those of al-Qaeda. According to Rush, Bigfoot is running terrorist training camps in Northwest wilderness areas.
[ June 24, 2004, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
And here I thought Dag wanted to know what Bigfoot's involvement with my porn viewing was. Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Personally, I think bigfoot must be a terrorist. Why else would he be so secretive?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
And you know he doesn't have papers. I mean, he's obviously not an America, or we'd have his birth certificate. And he's not registered with the INS. And he lives alone in the woods!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
There was a great short story in Asimov's about Bigfoot recently. . .
And were-moose.
I love Asimov's.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
I'm afraid that he isn't alone.... Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Scott R, I can't believe you're still reading this thread? You're eyes weren't blinded with all our naughtiness?
Erik, are you afraid he's out there with a film crew making yeti-porn?
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
It's those close-ups that I worry most about.
That. And the smell.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Oh, if I were ever tempted to have a smidgen of sympathy for Moore, Mrs. M's story just relieved me of that temptation.
I think the HP quote is dead right, too. My mother always taught me the same thing. That the people who really know what sort of person you are are the ones who serve you, the waiters and hotel housekeepers and taxi drivers and desk clerks you encounter in going about your life.
People who are mean to those who are in no position to call them to account for it are the very lowest sort of people there are, aren't they? Thank goodness none of us are like that!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And here I thought Dag wanted to know what Bigfoot's involvement with my porn viewing was.
I did... Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:And here I thought Dag wanted to know what Bigfoot's involvement with my porn viewing was.
Maybe Dag does.
I, however, figure there are some things I want to remain ignorant on.
This would be one of those things.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
You're the one who made the accusation in the first place! Posted by The Principal (Member # 5721) on :
This thread borders on classic....
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
*whistles innocently*
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
That doesn't mean I knew Bigfoot was involved! Or that I wanted to know!
Think I got off on a bad foot here...
Or maybe it was Kayla who got off on the foot - for good or bad.
[ June 24, 2004, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You got off on Kay...No, I think I'll stop here.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
This thread is cracking me up.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I mean, have we ever gotten a topic more off-topic that this one? I mean, we went from Michael Moore bashing to yeti-porn.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Fixed it while you were typing, Dag.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's still funny.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Well, Kayla, the really strange thing when you think about is this:
The best is yeti to come.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hmmm...From Michael Moore to a big hairy monster...Nope, don't see why it's strange.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Well we could accuse Michael Moore of being the love child of Bigfoot and Nessie.
But it wouldn't be the same....
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Or we can discuss back-talking vegetables: Sass Squash, anyone?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Ya know, Moore and Limbaugh kinda resemble each other a little...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Good way to make sure they each make money lambasting the other. Maybe they're in cahoots.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I confess. There's an ultra-secret chapter of the organization I work for composed of Sasquatch Members.
They call themselves:
Not Dead Yeti
(some of you will get this, anyway)
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
In the previous context I was treated to the image of Mike and Rush covered in oil and...
*turns pale*
I think I'm going to puke.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not Dead Yeti
I get it. I belong to one called Not Born Yeti.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Now I'm reading 4 political books at once. 2 Moore books. 1 Fraken book and Sean Hannity... Sean Hannity uses the word "evil" too much and it bothers me.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
That's evi-- er wicked.
Never mind.
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
quote:ArCHeR,
"Spinal Tap" is a group that never existed. The group was created as a focus of a spoof on documentaties.
It's what they refer to as a "mockumentary."
So you can now stop looking in your local paper to see when they will be playing in your town.
It won't be in your lifetime.
YOU MEAN CHRISTOPHER GUEST ISN'T A ROCK STAR!?!?!?!?
The whole point in mentioning Spinal Tap was that it was a mockumentary. Notice I said "even"
PS: It goes to 11.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's in danger of being trod on by a dwarf!
[ June 24, 2004, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
'ELLO CLEAVLAND!!!!
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
This thread has derailment issues...
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
You're right...
"It goes to [Farenheit 9/]11"
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Remember.
Micheal Moore made a movie with untruths.
George W. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and Halliburton invaded a country with untruths.
Hmmm.....
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
yeah, but Clinton invaded lots of things, too, ya know. and LIED about it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
That's "...laid it about.", fallow. Y'know what they say: Bigfoot, big invader.
[ June 25, 2004, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Karl,
quote:The title business is just a tempest in a teapot. Legally Bradbury has no leg to stand on. Morally he doesn't really have one either.
That was what I guessed from the beginning, that Moore had committed no crime.
quote:In what way is this different in terms of "playing fast and loose with the truth" than what Moore is accused of? (Not that I defend either of you). The article says that Bradbury called "Moore's company", and was told Moore would call back. There is no further mention of contact until 6 months later. In reality, Bradbury was given the common corporate response and Moore was discourteous and unprofessional in not returning the call. Moore himself didn't actually promise anything. AND, you are cleverly introducing the idea that Moore denied the call was ever made, but Moore made no such denial that I could find mention of in the article. That's worthy of the best truth spinners. Congrats.
Well, thanks for crediting me with that much cunning and deviousness, Karl. What happened was that I was misread the article because I was so irritated with Moore that I didn't take in the "Moore's company" bit like I should've. So yes, when I implied that Moore personally responded to Bradbury and said he would call him back to discuss it, that was wrong and so was I. The article does not even hint at such an exchange between the two men.
As for the rest, in which I said I'd believe Bradbury over Moore even though it's still hearsay, I said that because I know Moore is a repeated, deliberate liar, and I know no such thing about Bradbury.
And thanks for the congratulations.
-----------
I think there's a difference between similar-sounding pornography names and this situation. No one really thinks, when they see "Sleeping with Seattle", that it's evocative of the Hanks / Ryan romantic comedy. They think it's a blatant rip-off of a title designed to be funny.
I don't think people think that when they go to see "Farenheit 9/11". I don't think the title was used because it was pithy, or not JUST because it was pithy. I think it was used to clothe the documentary in some of the respect and tradition Bradbury's work has, without actually being respectable and following the tradition of books such as Farenheit 451.
Yes, this is my opinion and obviously I am strongly biased. I am also aware that, legally, Moore has committed no crime. So yeah, it's a tempest in a teapot, and I'm so irritated because I already have a strong dislike for Moore. I was aware of that before.
But I also think one of my initial points-made better by others-still stands, that Moore should have had the respect and common courtesy to talk about it with Bradbury, even to say, "It's not illegal, and I'm doing it. I'm sorry you don't like it."
I suppose my ultimate frustration isn't with Moore and those like him (Limbaugh, who DOES talk as though his word was Fact), but rather with those who are snookered by them. Because Moore (and Limbaugh) convince otherwise good people into believing hateful things, and to treat contrary opinions with ridicule and contempt. Yeah, I've treated contrary opinions that way before, too. But I don't make a living out of it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
The scary thing is it seems like a lot of what he says might be true... I find that absolutely alarming and hard to absorb.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Much of what Moore says IS true, or at least is a valid opinion. But people who are marketing the truth don't need to (and don't) mix in deliberate, carefully-crafted lies, Syn.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
was away for the evening, so couldn't respond at the time...
quote: Definitions of lie on the Web:
a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth
here's the problem with that; by this definition a lie and a mistake have the same moral position. to mistakenly assert something you honestly believe to be the truth is the same as lying to manipulate someone for your own gain.
i guess what i was sort of trying to get at earlier is that to me, lying involves a conscious and intentional obscuring of the truth for malicious purposes (maybe even for benevolent purposes). I'm aware that this begins to get squishy because it requires a subjective assessment of what someone actually believes to be true, but then we're talking about morality anyway right? what i'm trying to say is that based on my interactions with moore, i suspect that he does not see what he's doing as lying, i suspect he honestly believes what he says and presents. i suspect that he is a bit paranoid, eager to find conspiracies, and less than rigorous in his process of understanding the world around him. he certainly has a habit of selectively ignoring things which do not fit into his pre-conceived ideas of what is going on. but i don't think he is lying (by the definition i gave above).
just as an aside, i've defended bush to some of my more liberal friends on these same grounds. i have no doubt that bush believes he is doing what's best for the world, and that he believed that going into iraq was necessary. people accuse the administration of misleading us in the push to war, and while that may or may not be true, i suspect they also misled themselves.
this goes back to something that was being discussed in another thread awhile ago: is ignorance a sin? is it wrong to fail to consider and give credence to opposing points of view? i would argue that believing the lies you say doesn't really get you off the hook; we each have a responsibility not only for our actions (lying, stealing, etc), but for the way we see the world. i would almost argue that we have a greater responsibility to control our understanding of the world than we do to control our actions.
EDIT: atrocious spelling
[ June 25, 2004, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: kerinin ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There are shades of lies, of course.
An accidental lie, "I said I'd be there by 6:00," when really you said you'd be there by 5:30 but just forgot, is another word for 'mistake'.
Moore doesn't edit and distort interviews with Heston and plaques on bombers by accident.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
As I've said elsewhere, there's a degree of irony in a plagerist "By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes." trying to censor Moore's anti-authoritarian Fahrenheit9/11's title because of a vague similarity to Bradbury's title for his anti-authoritarian anti-censorship book.
Also in that Bradbury had no qualms about giving title to Fahrenheit 454 by "plagerizing" the spontaneous combustion temperature of cellulose, 235degreesCelsius, without giving attribution to the discoverer.
[ August 24, 2004, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Shakespeare is dead.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So's your argument.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What, that I think Moore is a schmuck for not even discussing it with Bradbury? To which you responded with, "Bradbury ripped off Shakespeare!"
Even though Shakespeare is dead, so it'd be *impossible* to ask him, or inform him as a matter of courtesy?
You're right, my argument is dead. Sorry to have gotten involved in your unwavering campaign
Edit: Oh, yeah. Of course, the discoverers of those temperatures, they're the ones who made up both the number and the word, right? And, of course, they were all alive too, right? Right.
[ June 25, 2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As I've said elsewhere, there's a degree of irony in a plagerist "By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes." trying to censor Moore's anti-athoritarian Fahrenheit9/11's title because of a vague similarity to Bradbury's title for his anti-authoritarian anti-censorship book.
Also in that Bradbury had no qualms about giving title to Fahrenheit 454 by "plagerizing" the spontaneous combustion temperature of cellulose, 235degreesCelsius, without giving attribution to the discoverer.
He didn't try to censor Moore's book, he wanted to discuss it with him. Maybe try to CONVINVCE him to change the title.
Moore has wrapped himself up in the title and explicitly billed his movie as a continuation of Bradbury's message in F451. That's far different than using a 400-year old quote from someone who's to decomposed to take a telephone call.
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So you are saying that ~36thousand books and ~2thousand other products with Wicked in the title impinge on Bradbury's right to approve/disapprove of the use of the word.
Did Bradbury demand approval rights on Bester's "Fondly Fahrenheit"? Did Bradbury get permisssion from all the authors who used the words "Martian" or "Chronicle" in their titles before him?
[ June 25, 2004, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, I'm not saying that at all. Since you seem to be having comprehension problems, I'll speak slower.
Turn it around. Bradbury is being rude and obnoxious -- knowing he doesn't have the slightest claim on Moore -- cuz he wanted some extra publicity for his book, what with the TomCruze Fahrenheit454 movie being "in production" and all.
[ June 27, 2004, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sure, just as valid an interpretation.
I look at the history of rudeness of the two men, though, and suspect they're might be a difference between them.
Dagonee
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I've got to side with Bradbury on this one, whole-heartedly. Moore made an outward and overt effort to use a title that would directly evoke the sentiments that well up at the thought of Bradbury's book.
While it was clever, it should have been discussed with the author at the very least. He wouldn't legally have had to accede to Bradbury's wishes, but at least he could have made the effort.
How would you feel if Moore's next project were to be an investigation of the Whitewater investigation of Bill Clinton and entitled "Starr Wars"? Surely the subject matter would be grossly different from Lucas' work, but he would be trading on the success of another man's endeavours and playing on our name recognition.
Sure, it would be legal, but it would also be tacky and unscrupulous.
But, with Moore's penchant for framing his own version of the "truth", I'd be greatly offended if he lifted the title of my work to further inflate his own marketability while playing hard and fast with the rules of journalism.
Why does Weird Al get permission to do so many parodies? First off because he treats the source material and the artists with respect and actually asks for their permission before beginning work. Even though, legally, he doesn't have to.
It's all a question of character, something Moore regularly shows he is lacking in. Moore's character, and legitimacy as a journalist, has eroded over the years as he has become more and more a zealot. In short, he has lost the professional ability to distance himself from the subject enough. That distance and abject neutrality is at the core of legitimate journalism.
Of course, he is just one of many in the vanguard of the new yellow journalism.
So many forget that it is impossible to hold a pen in one hand, paper in the other and hoist your own personal banner at the same time.
[ June 25, 2004, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Just remember the Spike TV/Spike Lee incident to see how these issues can play out.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
What if the religious right made a film showing how if church values were stronger in America, the incident in Columbine would have never happened?
They could call it Bowing in Columbine. I wonder if Moore would care. He might not, but then again, he might.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:How would you feel if Moore's next project were to be an investigation of the Whitewater investigation of Bill Clinton and entitled "Starr Wars"?
It would be SO much better than the "real" one coming out next year. I am praying for "Starr Wars!"
fil
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm sorry, Bradbury's still alive? I thought he was in the great Mars in the sky.
Or, er, however that would work. Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
zan, i think he'd like that. last night on the daily show he told all the protesters to keep it up since it's free advertising for him.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:That distance and abject neutrality is at the core of legitimate journalism.
I would love to see somewhere that Moore ever called himself a journalist? I think "filmmaker" is about the only thing he used to call himself and now that he wrote books, "author" fits. I saw him interviewed last night on the Daily Show and Stewart came right out and asked him, "Are you being fair?" in regards to the film and Moore replied, "No." He is editorializing, not reporting. He even says very little in the film is new, just a new way to see it (with some new footage to support what many already suspect about Bush and the war in Iraq).
He pretty much said he made a movie to show his point of view on a topic of his choosing. That isn't journalism...and as far as I can tell, he never claimed it would be.
And when was he EVER at a distance from the subject? His first movie, "Roger and Me" was very personal as it was about how his home town was destroyed by the machinations of big business...can't get much more personal than that.
He isn't at the vanguard of yellow journalism...we have cable news and city newspapers to do that. He is just another person in the lovely history of editorial writing and movies. If journalism is to be used, gonzo journalism would be the most apt.
fil
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, kat, he sure is. Lives in L.A., and once in a while does readings at local libraries and such.
And one of these days I will actually manage to see him at one!
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:I'm sorry, Bradbury's still alive? I thought he was in the great Mars in the sky.
As soon as he is, Orson Scott Card becomes the best-selling living science fiction author in the world. Um ... to your health, Mr. Bradbury
[ June 25, 2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well if it's any consolaton ARND I've never bought a Bradbury book, nor am I sure I've ever read one.
(though this confesssion is going to get me crucified here on hatrack..) I haven't read Asimov either.
AJ
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
*shocked at AJ's confession*
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Here's a link to a Democrat doing a fair-minded review of Farenheit 9/11. So, as seems to be the tendency, you can't point fingers at this guy and say he's another model Darth Vader conservative.
Key Quote:
"And then I read A.O. Scott's mealy-mouthed review in The Times. He points out that the movie is full of crap in many ways: "...blithely trampling the boundary between documentary and demagoguery..." Hey, blurb that!
[Fahrenheit 9/11] is many things: a partisan rallying cry, an angry polemic, a muckraking inquisition into the use and abuse of power. But one thing it is not is a fair and nuanced picture of the president and his policies. What did you expect? Mr. Moore is often impolite, rarely subtle and occasionally unwise. He can be obnoxious, tendentious and maddeningly self-contradictory. He can drive even his most ardent admirers crazy.
But then Scott lets Moore off the hook -- and himself off the hook with that audience that applauded the flick in the East Village, which is Times Country, too -- with this: "He is a credit to the republic."
I guess he'd say the same thing of Rush Limbaugh, then."
[ June 25, 2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Book,
Here's what I get, even with the correction to the link:
quote: Your email message has been idle and this link has become inactive. To access the link, close this window and return to your Message. Then click the browser's Refresh button or close your message and reopen it.
Posted by Anthro (Member # 6087) on :
Saying the documentary and the book story are parallels is bull. In the 50th Anniversary Edition of Fahrenheit 451, there is an interview in back. The interviewer asks if he thinks the situations are parallel, and he says he sees the problem in education, not politics. And he adds that censorship seems almost impossible now, so we haven't hit 451 times.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Nuts, hold on...
Posted by Mockingbird (Member # 5640) on :
Whew! What a thread. I think we should subtitle it "There and Back Again." ...no wait - Tolkien already used that one.
A couple of random comments:
While it's clear that copyright law doesn't apply solely to a title (film/book/TV etc.) you might possibly be able to get somewhere legally with the claim under trademark law and anti-dilution theory (which is that even if the products aren't confusingly similar, allowing the junior user to trade off the value of your trademark will ultimately weaken your mark). The legalities could get interesting, but there's probably enough differences between Moore's product (documentary film) and Bradbury's (fictional SF book), as well as in the marks themselves, that a court wouldn't find trademark infringement anyway. So in the end, it really comes back again to a question of courtesy and Moore's lack of it.
(I do, by the way, spend some of my time practicing IP (intellectual property) and trademark law. I get my giggles by looking at Haulmark trailers and Crossroads Mill in Draper, Utah, and wondering if they've ever gotten letters from lawyers threatening trademark infringement litigation.)
My husband's favorite example of Moore's misuse of artistic license is in Bowling for Columbine, where Moore acts like he waltzed into a bank, opened an account, and walked out with a rifle a few minutes later. Not true - you have to go through a background check (3 day delay) and the guns are not kept there at the bank. Generally you have to go to a dealer.
It was an eyebrow raiser to see the Moore-bashing on Slate. I'd like to have been a fly on the wall in the editorial board room when this was discussed.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
It's kinda of sweet that the Bushes and Bin Ladens have made billions off of each other, no?
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
The real review is down towards the bottom, it has its own banner. It sounds like real demagoguery to me, and it also sounds like any intelligent person on either side of the party system should be able to realize that.
quote: Moore's assumption is venality. He assumes that President Bush and his confreres are venal, that their motives are black, that they are out to do no good, only bad, and that the only choices they make in life are between greed and power.
That sounds familiar. I think some people base their entire opinions off of this idea.
quote: : The real problem with the film, the really offensive thing about it, is that in Fahrenheit 9/11, we -- Americans from the President on down -- are portrayed as the bad guys. If there's something wrong about bin Laden it's that his estranged family has ties with -- cue the uh-oh music -- the Bush family. Saddam? Nothing wrong with him. No mention of torture and terror and tyranny. Moore shows scenes of Baghdad before the invasion (read: liberation) and in his weltanschauung, it's a place filled with nothing but happy, smiling, giggly, overjoyed Baghdadis. No pain and suffering there. No rape, murder, gassing, imprisoning, silencing of the citizens in these scenes. When he exploits and lingers on the tears of a mother who lost her soldier-son in Iraq, and she wails, "Why did yo have to take him?" Moore does not cut to images of the murderers/terrorists (pardon me, "insurgents") in Iraq or killed him -- or even to God; he cuts to George Bush. When the soldier's father says the young man died and "for what?", Moore doesn't show liberated Iraqis to reply, he cuts instead to an image of Halliburton.
He doesn't try, not for one second, to have a discussion, to show the other side -- and then cut that other side down to size with facts and figures and the slightest effort at argument. No, he just shows the one side. And that, really, is a tragedy. It would be good if we had a discussion. It would be good to have a movie that made us think and reconsider and talk.
But polemics don't do that. They're only made of two-by-fours.
But the man could be wrong. Everyone could be right. Bush probably has Darth Vader's suit in his closet, along with the one ring, and he clearly is a fell beast that is strong with the Dark Side.
quote:But Moore wants to pooh-pooh the danger and make it into a conspiracy: "Was this really about our safety or..." [pregnant ellipsis] "...something else?" He adds (and I can't read one word of my scribbled transcription): "The terrorism threat wasn't waht this was all about. They just wanted us to be fearful enough to get behind their plan."
Of course, it was all about Iraq.... Wasn't it?...
: If you don't believe that, well, says Moore, you're an idiot. You're Britney Spears, shown in all her ditziness saying, "Honestly, I think we should just trust our President." There's your spokesman for the other side: Britney.
Again, let me remind you that this is a Democrat saying this. Someone who disagrees with many of Bush's policies. I disagree with many of them, too. There are just many things wrong with a lot of these agruments.
quote: He ridicules the terror threats and alerts, showing goofy stories about poison pens and model airplanes and goofier guys from the canned-bean crowd showing off their terror shelters. He gets a congressman, Rep. Jim McDermott, to downright say that the alerts are all engineered to keep us on edge. The implication is -- the sllipsis says -- that we're not in danger. I watch this scant blocks from where almost 3,000 Americans were killed that day. Oh, yes, Moore, we are in danger.
Of course, it was all Bush. He LET those things happen. He set them up in those very few months in office before 9/11. I mean, granted, there are people in other nations who are stabbing a man repeatedly in the neck with a knife and then ripping off his hand and showing it to a crowd, but, clearly, Bush is the bad guy.
Let's finish up with a real kicker.
quote:In Moore's view, you're either with him or against him. Hmmm, who else looks at the world that way?
Yup, Moore is just he mirror image of what he despises. He is the O'Reilly... the Bush of the left.
Which is what I've been saying all along. Polemics are always wrong. Zealots are always wrong. They're characitures of themselves, people preaching for their cause but actually hurting it, becoming steadily like their other side than they realize. Eventually, their opinions get marginalized completely.
And this is just funny:
quote: : BY THE WAY: The commercials for the film are still saying it's not rated. It has been rated R because of the copious gore and the appeal of that rating lost, even with Mario Cuomo arguing the case. So the commercial isn't quite, well, telling the truth.
Quel surprise.
quote: One last thought: Fahrenheit 9/11 is many things, but for pity's sake let's not call it a documentary. - Ty Burr, Boston Globe
[ June 25, 2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I love partisan sites that care enough about the truth to call it as they see it when it comes to one of their own. Hats off to Slate.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
There were alternatives for Moore to use as titles, such as The Bushian Chronicles.
But the best alternative might have been Dandelion Apocalypse.
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
I have an idea. No one join this thread until they've seen the movie. I'll stop posting until I see it...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What a ridiculous thing to say, since the main topic is about the title of the movie, and the offshoot topics were about Moore in general.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Agreed, Stormy. I love Slate.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
my girlfriend was telling me about that article by Christopher Hitchens, but i can't find where she had read what she was saying, so this is all heresay, but...
apparently Chris used to be a liberal, but has since been converted to the dark side and become a bit of a neo-con cheerleader, but is still writing for Slate. i'm not sure why slate keeps him on, considering they're fairly liberal; maybe they're trying to be "fair and balanced". in any case, i think this just underscores the absurdity of ascribing credibility to someone based on their self-proclaimed political tendancies. "look, i'm a liberal and a hated this liberal movie, it must really be bad..." whatever...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here, you can judge for yourself. I know nothing about the man.
The legal naivete displayed here is almost charming. Company executives are advised against saying "I'm sorry" after hearing of injury to a customer using their product -- even though it would be the socially polite thing to do -- because it could lead to the "Well, why did you apologise if your company wasn't guilty of causing the injuries?" question in court.
For similar reasons inregard to plagerism charges, there are the absurdities of script writers claiming to never have read others' stories within their genre. And famous authors such as WilliamGibson claiming "I've never read science fiction" after the huge success of Neuromancer. As well as well-known authors and many editors refusing to accept unsolicited manuscripts, making it a policy of returning them unopened&unread.
Irrespective of the merits of the case at this point -- ie none -- any meeting by Moore with Bradbury could have been used in court to tie up the release of Fahrenheit9/11 indefinitely. As I am sure both Moore and Bradbury were aware.
[ June 27, 2004, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Are you inattentive, aspectre, or just stupid? It's already been said that there wasn't legal merits for this case. On page one of the thread. I said I doubted there WAS any grounds for a lawsuit, if for no other reason than Moore is too intelligent to do that.
What was that you said about charming naivete?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And nothing was going to interfere or harm the release of that film. Not legal woes, not pictures of prisoner abuse, nuthin'.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Please. Moore admitted to knowing of the Bradbury title already, and to basing his title on it. He intentionally was making the connection.
A meeting with Bradbury would have done nothing to hurt his case, especially since they've already had a meeting via phone call, just 6 months after initial contact when any possible effect on the schedule would be more severe. Clearly, Moore was not worried about fanciful leagal issues.
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
On the contrary, Rakeesh, there are no grounds for a lawsuit blocking immediate release because Moore failed to meet with Bradbury.
It isn't a matter of whether Moore would have won eventually -- he would have -- but rather how long the film could have been prevented from being released by a lawsuit arising from "Why, Mr.Moore, did you meet with Mr.Bradbury, if not to discuss his right of approval upon your title?"
Without such a meeting having taken place, any judge would have had to toss the suit out immediately, or be rapidly over-ruled by an appeals judge tossing out the lawsuit.
With such a meeting, the legalities are much more entangled by what each side claims to have been said in conversation. And so the lawsuit could have been ruled as having legal merit. Which in turn could have produced legal delays in the film's public airing.
[ June 27, 2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Please. Moore admitted to knowing of the Bradbury title already, and to basing his title on it. He intentionally was making the connection."
And Bradbury knows that making literary allusions to past works is perfectly acceptable, well within creative etiquette.
"A meeting with Bradbury would have done nothing to hurt his case, especially since they've already had a meeting via phone call, just 6 months after initial contact when any possible effect on the schedule would be more severe."
A last minute phone call is useless as to the timeliness aspect of the doctrine of laches; at least inregard to blocking release. Whereas a conversation six months ago could easily be viewed as sufficiently timely.
Between Moore's flirtings on the edge of libel, and Bradbury's great experience in dealing with plagerism and film contracts, neither of the two is a legal naif. Both knew exactly what they were doing.
[ June 27, 2004, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
A laches argument could go the other way, because Moore had constructive notice of the objection to the title and took no action. Bradbury could make the case that Moore's delay in attempting to work this out outside of court prevents him from raising a laches claim now.
I'm not saying either one would prevail over the other, but the case would be just as strong. Laches is just one of the many ways for a judge to do what he wants to do.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
If Rush or Hanity or O'Riley do something that offends people and someone complains, it is all about "oh, that stupid PC crowd...afraid to ruffle some feathers" but when it happens TO that crowd, then it is all about pulling out dictionaries, talking about bad taste and so on. No offense, but I don't remember seeing all the folks on here saying Moore lies saying the same thing about Rush or O'Liely (Thank you, Mr. Franken). It is just an era where FINALLY the liberals figured out how to get their ideas out there...be as brash, obnoxious and loud as the other guys have been for the last two decades (thank you, Mr. Limbaugh).![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Sleeping with Seattle![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)