He exploited Bradbury’s famous book title. If you deny that, you’re as dishonest as Moore.
What makes it exploitation, instead of simply a satiric or even complimentary reference? Is it solely because of Bradbury’s objection? Or would it be exploitive even if Bradbury, say, had no comment are was no longer still around to object?
Libertarian, Liberal or whatever the hell you’re calling yourself these days, please look up the word “exploit” then tell me how it applies to Moore’s different, but referencing, title. Then tell me why that should matter compared to Bradbury ripping the far, far more famous direct quote from Shakespeare “Something wicked this way comes” for his own title, without even changing it in any way.
Titles are not intellectual property, they’re just words. Moore has done nothing wrong here, and certainly nothing more than a lot of other filmmakers, authors, writers and artists.
Who said anything about intellectual property? Damnation, I have to look up your words for you and even tell you what the username says beside my posts.
American Heritage
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Exhibit #1:
Posts 31 through present.
Some of you need to reread the OP again and learn civility. :rolleyes:
Please try reading the whole post before clicking on reply. There were at least two clarification requests there that you so conveniently skipped over, not to mention Revtim’s entire post.
Sorry about this Chastain. I was totally with you on the OP, in fact it’s one of the best rants I’ve seen in the Pit for a while, and one that was really needed. I’m just fed up with Liberal being the bullshitting arsehole that he is and decided to call him on it for once, so my posts at least, are less about Moore and more about him. However, I didn’t want to open a new thread for fear of bolstering his ego so far his head explodes with self-worth. Please accept my most humble apologies.
Ignoring the Bradbury non-issue hijack…
How was Moore “wrong” about this? The movie says that the authorization for the Saudis to leave came from the Bush White House. Richard Clarke, at the time said approval was given, was a member of the Bush White House. Sounds like accuracy to me.
“Most”? According to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, only 30 out of 142 Saudis were interviewed (see page 12 of the PDF document here). Dunno where you are, Liberal, but 20% doesn’t count as “most” on Planet Earth.
You know, I understand your position about being able to criticize a movie without having seen it, even though its an about face from the PotC days. But this is where where watching the movie might actually have come in handy. Clarke isn’t presented as Moore’s “mentor” anywhere in his film. I don’t understand the particular bile you have for Moore when you are so silent about the thousands of other similar pundits with exactly the same mislead-prone op-ed MO.
The only two people who have that role are a Senator and the author of House of Bush, House of Saud. Clips from Clarke’s interviews are shown refuting Bush claims, but then so are other Bush figures like Condi Rice, telling America that Saddam is not a major threat and probably has no capability to attack us… Jan 2001.
I am not silent about others. I have bashed CNN, FoxNews, and even MSNBC (for being wimps). I am bashing Moore right now because there are four or five friggin’ threads about him in the Pit alone, plus others elsewhere. I also bashed Mel Gibson for putting subtitles in his film after he said he would not.
I’m not sure about this, but I think that I remember that MM expressed concern that the Saudis were not questioned by the FBI. I understand that they some of them were questioned by the State Department, but were they investigated by the bureau that is designated for that purpose?
Let’s see…about those book titles. Faulkner “exploited” Shakespeare. Hemingway “exploited” the Bible. And certainly take-offs on the titles of books is nothing new.
I wonder if the people who wrote The Joy of Cooking tried to sue the people who wrote The Joy of Sex…Such exploitation! Tsk…tsk…
So far, no lies from F-9/11.
Now there’s a good reason to bash someone! How dare he stir up controversy which results in discussions at a forum! He should be sued for provocation.
That’s funny, I guess Moore doesn’t read the newspaper headlines/articles that he puts in the film as he’s editing. You know, the one that was shown about 20 minutes into the movie, that says
White House Approved Departure of Saudis After Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says and that mentions Richard Clarke. (The actual newspaper was shown in the film, not that web site which is jus the article itself)
Oh, that’s right. You wouldn’t know that that headline and part of the article was shown in the movie. You haven’t seen it.
Lib says it was Clarke who approved it. I took that to mean it was Clarke’s idea, or at the very least, Clarke’s call to make. The wording in the link, quoted here is a bit muddy. Or my brain is.
Was it indeed Clarke’s call? If Clarke had not agreed, could he have stopped it? Really, I’m asking.
Here’s one account: http://www.thehill.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx
Goddamnit, you’re a stupid motherfucker. You know shit all about copyright law, but criticise Moore anyway, without bothering to check your facts (in another thread). Then, when called on it, you fumble around, laughably trying to claim that Moore’s cultural reference is immoral.
Hey, Liberal have you heard of a tv show called The Simpsons? Let’s have a look at their episode titles, shall we?
The Crepes of Wrath
Dead Putting Society
One Fish, Two Fish, Blowfish, Blue Fish
Three Men and a Comic Book
Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington
Brother, Can You Spare Two Dimes?
A Streetcar Named Marge
Cape Feare
Rosebud
Boy-Scoutz N the Hood
The Last Temptation of Homer
$pringfield (Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Legalized Gambling)
Deep Space Homer
Sweet Seymour Skinner’s Baadassss Song
The Boy Who Knew Too Much
Two Dozen and One Greyhounds
Have you got it yet? Are you going to come out, guns blazing, accusing the Simpsons of exploiting famous titles? Or how about Gus Van Sant’s film Elephant, where the filmmaker admits he took the title from a documentary about violence in Northern Ireland? Or George Bernard Shaw’s play Pygmalion, the title taken from Greek legend?
And finally, you’re a hypocrite. You have the nerve to call Moore dishonest, when all you can do is pull out pathetic, baseless criticisms that change as quickly as they are torn apart.
None have changed. None has been torn apart. And your Simpson’s point is stupid. Comparing an entertainment cartoon with a deliberately misleading self-proclaimed film documentary designed to sway an ignorant electorate is pathetic. In addition, you’re a liar. When told the copyright law, I admitted my error in that regard. You’re no better than Moore itself.
Why? Why is The Simpsons so different? Why is Bradbury’s use of Shakespeare’s “Something Wicked This Way Comes” so different? Why have you so far refused to back up your misrepresentational bullshit with any kind of evidence? Why have you refused to answer myself or Revtim?
And you have the nerve to call Moore and I dishonest… :wally
Your criticism based on copyright morphed quickly to a criticism based on morality when the former could not hold up.
The suggestion that it breaches copyright was torn apart. The suggestion that it is immoral has been torn apart, by myself and others showing that referencing other artistic works in a title is nothing new. You’ve ignored Legolamb’s post showing that Bradbury himself has appropriated other’s work for his titles. rjung tore apart the things you claimed Moore was wrong about in his film.
How so? If it is not immoral for one form of speech to appropriate a title from an existing cultural work, why is it immoral for another? Further, exactly how is Moore’s film “misleading”? The examples you’ve given so far haven’t been particularly strong.
What exactly is so immoral about Moore’s title? Moore isn’t trying to make anyone believe that his film is a dramatization of Bradbury’s novel. He isn’t trying to claim that Bradbury endorses his film. You are surely not demanding that in future, no one ever combine the word ‘fahrenheit’ with a 3 digit number. What has Moore done that is so terrible?
You just found a different reason to make the same criticism. I call that dishonest. You criticised Moore’s title for legal reasons, and when your reasons were shown to be invalid, rather than accept it, you simply hunted for a new reason to criticise the title.
I’m not really worried by this. The incessant shit you’re flinging at the guy isn’t sticking. If the arguments against his work are really this weak, he must have something to him.
You’re Moore. No, YOU’RE Moore! Moorehead!
Look, bottom line is: even if you massage the word “exploit” to fit the situation, but you can’t possibly take the prejorative connotation along with it. It just doesn’t make any sense. It’s one thing to criticize Moore as one-sided and prejorative, but pushing on this title thing is almost embarrasing.
I’m not so sure about that. I think there are still more individual Pit threads aimed at Phred Phelps. Granted, the Phelps threads are getting shorter and shorter, but that’s mainly because there’s so little left to say about him. The MM threads are longer because there are enough counter-arguments to keep them active.
Yeah, I’d give both titles — “Most Pitted” and “Most Hated” — to ol’ Phred.