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."
posted
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.
posted
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*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Micheal Moore is trying to be the Liberal Rush Limbaugh, annoying but with enough truth and humor in his diatribes to attract followers.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The opinion that it's the government's fault that people kill each other due to gang wars, to name one.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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)?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to point out that Bradbury at least is honest and tells everyone his stories are fiction.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
Unfortunately for Bradbury -- Moore broke no laws because titles cannot be copyrighted. So Moore, as usual, is guilty of very very very bad taste.
Posts: 780 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
Sorry, you can't tell me Moore's not self important. That's like saying William Shatner's not melodramatic. (sp?)
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1843 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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)
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.
Posts: 1843 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1843 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
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.
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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).
