Fahrenheit 451 vs Fahrenheit 9/11
It should come as no surprise that I loathe Michael Moore. Let’s face it, Roger & Me was excellent but what has he done since then that hasn’t been just plain annoying?
However, Moore has not broken any copyright laws in naming his latest documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 Regretfully, Ray Bradbury would like you to believe otherwise.
Ray Bradbury is demanding an apology from filmmaker Michael Moore for lifting the title from his classic science-fiction novel Fahrenheit 451 without permission and wants the new documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” to be renamed.
“He didn’t ask my permission,” Bradbury, 83, told The Associated Press on Friday. “That’s not his novel, that’s not his title, so he shouldn’t have done it.”
The entire article by Paul Chavez can be found here.
Respectfully, you cannot copyright a book title. Bradbury could possibly trademark the title of his famous novel but a search of the USPTO’s Web site reveals that there is no active trademark for the title or phrase Fahrenheit 411.
Without a doubt the law is on the side of Moore. If you want to make a arguement that Moore owes at least something to Bradbury morally then I would agree. Without a doubt, sales of the famous sci-fi novel will certainly increase just because of the film’s release.
Comments:
Heheheh. This from someone who hasn’t even seen everything he’s done since Roger & Me.
Although, that’s okay. Let’s take this opportunity to do a little comparison:
Moore: “Annoying”
Bush Jr.: “Annoying”, “criminal”, “stupid”
Thanks — but I’ll stick with just annoying.
Let’s face it, Roger & Me was excellent but what has he done since then that hasn’t been just plain annoying?
Why, “Bowling for Columbine.”
Well, that would be just desserts, now, wouldn’t it?
Ah! Thank you, Su!
I love Michael Moore!
Anybody that can stick it to that moron in the White House is OK in my book.
Oh, and Ray Bradbury just needs to shut up.…
Michael Moore brings up some good points, and I don’t like Bush (or Kerry), but I respect Bradbury more than all of them combined. And he has a point. The title is obviously close, and Moore owes him an apology. Even if you can’t copyright it. I think that it destroys the good name the philisophical novel has by naming a biased and hypocritical documentery (if you can call it that) similarly.
P.S. Bowling for Coulmbine was the most boring peice of drivel I have ever seen. It was just plain annoying. They showed it to the Coulmbine survivors, the people that went through the actuall event, and they hated it. They said it didn’t acurately represent it and that it wasn’t what they wanted the event to say to people. Michael Moore just likes to be contreversial, and likes having people know his name. Why do you think people think of that ‘new Michael Moore’ thing before the actual title? He just loves the money and the attention. He has no veiws of his own. He just adopts other peoples to capitalize on them. Even if I agree with a few of the things he says, I still hate the way he says them, and the fact that it is him thats saying it. As a fifteen year old, I feel that my generation doesn’t need things like Farenheit 9/11 to corrupt them, because then (most) won’t think for themselves. They’ll just acept Moore’s version. Peh.
P.P.S. Moore, if your going to Bash corperate sponsorship, get it out of your adds and your movie, you big hypocrite. Thanks.
The personal politics on this blog have become pretty overwhelming as of late.
Evan, you’re an editor here. You (and others) have the power to change the “tone” of this blog. Just because I blog the most doesn’t mean that others aren’t welcome to “take over” anytime they feel like it. I don’t own this blog.
Wombat,
Though I think it’s great that a fifteen-year-old is interested in politics, your myopia (and lack of spelling acumen) on this topic is directly related to your age, so I’ll be gentle.
Firstly, Moore owes an apology to no one - not even Ray Bradbury. What’s all this horsesh*t about Bradbury’s book being “destroyed” by Moore’s documentary? That’s your opinion, not a fact. I think Bradbury need not worry about the lasting legacy of his book. It’s apples and oranges.
Second, your point about Columbine survivors not liking “Bowling for Columbine” is based on what? A). Name a source (a REAL source, not your opining) and B). Does it make a difference what the survivors think? He made the movie as a thinkpiece for the general public, not as a salve for the survivors.
Third: “Michael Moore has no views of his own”? Um… every frickin’ film he makes is exactly that - his view! Just because you may think his view is invalid or offensive doesn’t mean you can disregard the content or claim a lack of originality. At least he’s trying to get people talking about the state of things!
And finally, you say that “(if) Moore (is going) to Bash (sic) corperate (sic) sponsorship, get it out of your adds (sic) and your movie, you big hypocrite.”
Umm.. am I missing something? Does Michael Moore claim to represent me in our government? Did he get elected to an office that demands impartiality? The answer, of course, is no. Michael Moore is an independent film-maker. He himself has said that “Fahrenheit” is not a documentary, but an Op-Ed piece, and that his intention is to get rid of Dubya (praise be!). Comparing his profiting off of a commercial product to politicians being bought out by special interests and lobbyists, is asinine at best. He’s no hypocrite, and he’s more honest than most politicians - on both sides of the aisle.
Trust me, “Fahrenheit 9/11” isn’t going to “corrupt” your generation. No, what’s going to corrupt you generation is the hopelessness of a bottomless deficit that you’ll be dealing with until old age, the effects of our reckless foreign policy which is going to make you even more of a target for terror in the years to come, and the realization that your government could really give a crap about what you think (unless you’re a multi-millionaire).
J, Well said!
Michael Moore may be overbearing but he raises questions that other journalists should have years ago but didn’t—probably for fear of loosing their jobs.
Good point, Leslie. I know that Michael Moore is a faithful Catholic what if he took on the abortion industry? How powerful would that be?
Amanda, I’m probably safe in saying that (chances are) Michael Moore is pro-choice (as are a lot of Catholics - my wife for one).
And I don’t really think of abortion as an “industry”.
I doubt Moore could offer any real insight into abortion than he could, say, adultery.
In any case, I’m pro-choice, my girlfriend is pro-choice, and my family are pro-choice. I hope that doesn’t mean you’d consider us immoral or unsavory, although you’re free to disagree.
Giles will literally have my head if I start anything with either one of you on this topic. If you want me to convince either of you then you can e-mail me privately.
J. and Evan, I love you both, no matter what.
I love you too, Amanda (platonically, of course - simmer down, Giles!), but you won’t convince me!
Amanda,
Can the abortion industry really be separated from the medical industry? There is plenty of room for journalistic investigation into both areas.
Leslie: Excellent question.
J.: No worries. I know what she means. (I love you guys, too! But not like I love sweet A…;)
Amanda: We can indeed touch on politics — it is part of our daily lives, after all — but you correctly assume that I would be upset with an abortion debate here on Foreword. You head is safe, though!
Having said all of that, I invite Evan (and everyone else with posting privileges) to post what’s important to you! Still plenty of bandwidth left.…
As a Christian and an extreme moderate, I think there are many things to consider regarding Michael Moore’s views. Yes, they are his, but if you take into account how many war mongering people there are in control of this country, I do not think that a President who proclaims to be a follower of the Work of God and yet makes his own distructive path is worth simply “following”. I loathe the “W” and really would like to see what Ralph Nader could do. Last I checked, this was a country founded on the ideal thzat the average man could rize to leadership. Have we all become so lazy and complacent with our Sponge Bob and reality T.V. that it is simply easier for someone to do the thinking for us? When is the honest man gonna get a shot? More importantly, when are we all gonna realize that without changing things in this country and DOING what Michael Moore DOES (QUESTIONING AUTHORITY) we are never going to have the civil liberty and equal opportunity that claim to have here. I will bet some of you know shops that have been put out of business when a Walmart came to town, maybe it was YOUR parents shop. Wake up and smell the liberty fleeting the scene like a conservative at a Gay Rights gathering!
LOL! Well put. Thanks.
Interestingly, a copy of F911 found its way onto my computer this past weekend. Will watch soon — waaaay looking forward to it, too…!
Beating a dead horse:
This complaint was, from the get-go, lodged by the author of I Sing the Body Electric - the title of one of my favorite Whitman poems. Oh Ray, we love you, but enough already.
I like the book Fahrenheit 451 and i have not seen Fahrenheit 9/11. but i do think that michael moore shouldn’t have named his movie that. yeah its ok to make an allusion every now and then. But Bradbury asked him not to name his so closely to his book title. Maybe bradbury doesn’t want people to think he’s connected to the movie. from what i know, it’s pretty biased and anti-Bush. maybe bradbury didn’t want to be connected with the movie or what it represented. Michael Moore doesn’t owe him an apology, but he shouldn’t have named his movie that in the first place. its common courtesy folks.
Kelly - even though this topic has as much relevancy now as my “Kerry/Edwards” bumper sticker, I had to comment.
Permission wasn’t for Bradbury to grant or for Moore to request. Part of the risk of creating something that’s public is that it can be legally parodied or spoofed (and again, titles of works cannot be copyrighted).
Even if you don’t like the guy, at least respect for having the guts to ask questions.
Obviously, Ray Bradbury is angry at Michael Moore for using his title to further his own ideology, something Bradbury (if you have read his books) is very much against. Bradbury is more libertarian, believing in the freedom of the individual, and Moore is a liberal, believing rather in the responsibility of the government over the individual.
It has little to do with copyright laws. Bradbury just spoke out of anger, and probably doesn’t want to get involved with politics.
Fahrenheit 451: the temperature paper starts burning
fahrenheit 9/11: the temperatur freedom starts to melt…
that’s the reason for Moore’s title