The flawed premise is that GM is somehow responsible for the worker’s livelyhood, or owes them a living in some way. Yes, it sucks that those people lost their jobs, but there’s no reason you can demand GM keep operating an unprofitable plant, regardless of their company’s overall profits. They are not a charity, they have a responsiblity to their shareholders.
I am still waiting for Excalibre to back up or withdraw his totally unfounded claims about me.
Huh? So I can go out and write a book about, say, sheep ranching, and title it STAR WARS, and George Lucas can just go screw?
Apparently so.
http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/2002-01/0163.html
This site’s opinion isn’t the be-all and end-all but it buttresses what I’ve heard before. Same applies to song titles, if I am not mistaken.
Gee, this is fun! We’ve filled up almost the whole first page of a thread and none of us has even seen the movie yet! (It opens this Friday, 6/25/04.)
An hour or so ago, I wqent to fandango.com to try buying tickets but F9/11 hasn’t been booked in a local theater yet.
Check here
Some are through movietickets.com, some don’t have e-tickets. I guess I’m lucky, AMC is carrying it, and they have a brand spanking new 30 screen cinema right down the street from me. 
Interestingly, it is only playing on a small 3-screen theater in Berkeley, of all places. 
Although I’ve heard that MM said that he would release the film online, though I don’t know when.
That attitude is certainly implicit, Max. But the basic premises of Roger & Me are that when a corporation decides to shut down a plant, that does have social consequences; and that those consequences are important; and that corporate executives such as Roger Smith, rightly or wrongly, usually ignore or at least disregard such effects when they make their decisions. All of which is perfectly true. There is no “flawed premise” here.
And just what, apart from the “premise,” did you find objectionable about the movie? I think it told its story very well, and I have never heard anyone accuse Moore of factual errors or misrepresentations in Roger & Me, as some have with respect to Bowling for Columbine.
I’d be more impressed with Bradbury’s claims if he didn’t already have an established history of lifting titles for his works from other sources.
Ya. I am sure Bradbury made a good-faith effort to contact Whitman and Shakespeare regarding his titles, but those rat bastards didn’t return his calls!!!
:rolleyes:
Again, I don’t really see why the social consequences should be a major concern. Corporations don’t have an obligation to keep workers on the payrolls. If you think that they should, that is a seperate issue.
We have social programs such as welfare and unemployment compensation that exist to deal with these kinds of situations specifically. If they are inadequate (as they very well may be) that is also a seperate issue. Currently there is no law or convention that makes it the corporations responsibility.
But to deal with the larger issue, how do you know “that corporate executives such as Roger Smith, rightly or wrongly, usually ignore or at least disregard such effects when they make their decisions?” Lacking any sort of telepathic powers, I don’t see how you can make such a pronouncement about other’s thoughts and motives. Maybe they did think about the consequences, but decided to do it anyways? You can’t say “All of which is perfectly true,” since you have no means of knowing whether it is true or not.
As for what, despite the flawed premise, I find objectionable, the answer is Moore himself, obviously. The man’s arrogant asshattery should be enough to turn off anyone, regardless if you agree with his premises or not.
Regardless of how you feel about any responsibility corporations may or may not have to society, are not the social effects of their actions a very worthy subject for a a documentary? Or would you rather nobody ever called attention to such things?
That’s why I hedged with the phrase “or at least disregard” – meaning, when the time comes to decide, corporate executives such as Roger Smith usually act as if the social consequences meant nothing to them. Which is perfectly true, so far as I can see.
Maybe Roger Smith would tell a different story. But Moore gave him plenty of chances to be interviewed for the film, and he never took them.
Not quite. A series title can be trademarked, and Star Wars surely is. This is to protect the creator from unfair competition – there are so many Star Wars books out there that Star Wars fans would be likely to mistake your book for another one and spend money on it that could be going to licences Star Wars merchandise.
For a stand-alone work you can’t get a trademark but you can still appeal to unfair competition laws for help. If I made a movie called Lost in Translation about a couple of Americans who met by chance in Japan and had a brief romantic connection, Sophia Coppola could probably have my hide. She’d just have to show that people would confuse my movie with hers and that this would hurt her video sales. But if I used the same title for a documentary about ancient-language scholars comparing modern versions of the Bible to old manuscripts then there’d be nothing she could do about it.
Here’s what the US Copyright office has to say about titles:
Adding to the general tone of this thread (which I don’t think is going to go away come June 25th):
What’s “good faith” have to do with it? If he feels strongly enough about people doing variations on his titles, then he shouldn’t have been doing the same thing to other authors, regardless of whether or not he could ask for permission first.
It is not quite a review, but rather an article by a reporter who covered the commission, and who didn’t find anything inaccurate about the movie. Moore hired fact checkers from the New Yorker, and has a book full of citations for everything said in the movie. He will post this information on his website after the movie opens.
The article mentions that they removed a mention of Ashcroft’s supposed refusal to fly on commercial airlines because of terrorist threats after they found that he had flown on two.
The article also mentions that Moore has retained an attorney to sue for libel when someone says something libelous about him. This is going to get interesting!
I already read an opinion piece on the film, in which the author argues the typical right-wing stance that Moore is a liar. As evidence, the author says that Moore’s claim that members of the Bin Laden family were flown around the country during the ban on air travel is known to be false. She actually cites the Snopes article about it. It struck me as typical - she bashes Moore’s honesty, but doesn’t do even the most basic fact checking for her opinion piece.
There can be little doubt that the frenzy to call Moore a liar is motivated by politics, not concern for the truth.
'Bout time!
I never said it wasn’t a worthy subject, but that doesn’t make it a good film, nor does it mean that I have to like it.
But if it had been Moore’s intention to make a film solely about the social effects, he could have done that. He chose to focus, at least partially, on his views concerning Smith’s and GM’s culpablity, which is, in my apparently irrelevant opinon, is a flawed premise.
Only if you buy into the view that most corporate execs are Mr. Burns-esque charicitures, i.e. evil and uncaring. If you take a more mature view that they’re failable people, just like you or I, attepting to do a difficult job, making decisions that have no clear right or wrong answer, while all too aware of the fact that they will be vilified regardless of the choice they make, it’s difficult to just write them off as evil and uncaring.
Why should he have given an interview, knowing that Moore has already presumed that his decision was motivated by greed and malice?
I can’t wait for the headline:
O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh Named in Moore Libel Suit
Liberal filmmaker attacks “right-wing spin mongers,” demands $100 million in damages
Go Michael!
Because an interview would give him the chance to tell his own side of the story and explain what really motivated his decision. And he could have done it, I think. Roger Smith, unlike Charlton Heston, was not too stupid and senile to defend himself.