Bradbury Not Amused with New Moore Film - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

SecretMethod70 · 06-24-2004, 07:32 AM

I assumed when I heard the title of Michael Moore's new film that the filmmaker had gone through all the appropriate measures to so obviously rip off the title of the book Fahrenheit 451. Apparently he did not and Ray Bradbury is outraged, as am I. At the very least, Bradbury should be earning royalties off the film - I immediately thought of his book when I heard the title, and the title sticks in your head for that very reason. It's an excellent marketing tool - were it used properly. If Bradbury's work isn't respected, I hope to see this go to court where I'm pretty sure any sensible jury will find in his favor. He's a good man from what I know and doesn't deserve that kind of disrespect, to not even ask him to use a direct rip off of his title.

Quote:

Bradbury: Change 'Fahrenheit' title
Author wants apology from Moore, movie renamed

Monday, June 21, 2004 Posted: 8:50 AM EDT (1250 GMT)

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- 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 1953 novel, widely considered Bradbury's masterpiece, portrays an ugly futuristic society in which firemen burn homes and libraries in order to destroy the books inside and keep people from thinking independently.

"Fahrenheit 451" takes its title from the temperature at which books burn. Moore has called "Fahrenheit 9/11" the "temperature at which freedom burns."

His film, which won top honors in May at the Cannes Film Festival, charges that the Bush administration acted ineptly before the September 11 terrorist attacks, then played on the public's fear of future terrorism to gain support for the war against Iraq. It opens nationwide Friday.

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.

Bradbury, who is a registered political independent, said he would rather avoid litigation and is "hoping to settle this as two gentlemen, if he'll shake hands with me and give me back my book and title."

Moore's film needed new distributors after Disney refused to let its Miramax subsidiary release it, claiming it was too politically charged. The documentary was later bought by Miramax bosses Harvey and Bob Weinstein, who lined up Lions Gate and IFC Films to help distribute it.

The movie's distributors are appealing to lower its R rating to PG-13 and a screening has been set for Tuesday by the Motion Picture Association of America's appeals board.

Bradbury's book was made into a 1966 movie directed by Francois Truffaut. A new edition of the book is scheduled for release in eight weeks, Bradbury said, and plans are in the works for a new film version, to be directed by Frank Darabont.

choskins · 06-24-2004, 07:36 AM

It doesn't surprise me.

la petite moi · 06-24-2004, 07:49 AM

I do not like Michael Moore films. Sure, he can say crap about the president all he wants, but I just HATE his nosiness and the fact that he gets all these awards for getting in peoples' faces. sigh...

I said he should change the title. Ray Bradbury shouldn't get royalties for a film that has nothing to do with the book, except for the title; however, the title was not Michael Moore's to rip off and should be changed.

onetime2 · 06-24-2004, 07:57 AM

I said he should get some modest royalty as it is a pretty blatant rip off. The association to 451 has already been made the world over. You can't just co opt others' titles for personal gain. Not sure that a jury would award any damages and changing the title would only give Moore something else to crow about. He should have at least talked with Bradbury about it before doing it. But, in the end, it's a relatively minor offense and I'm not really certain that Bradbury has been caused any real damage.

Charlatan · 06-24-2004, 08:34 AM

It's homage... regardless of what Bradbury thinks, Moore is not profiting by the title. It is cute turn of phrase on an icon of popular culture...

Bradbury should express his displeasure and leave it up to Moore to do what he feels is best... In the end it is a non-issue, IMO.

roachboy · 06-24-2004, 08:40 AM

i wonder if the title would be understood as a kind of trademark, legally. or if that understanding would require that bradbury had registered it before hand. i wonder what the actual legal conflict would come to turn on--i wish i knew more about the technicalities of copyright law in this case--can anyone fill me in please?

Scorps · 06-24-2004, 08:42 AM

I know a girl that has the last name a bradbury......that would be wierd if it was the same family.

analog · 06-24-2004, 09:00 AM

I don't know exactly how it works with books, but movie titles belong to no one, you cannot copyright them. The only thing, legally, Bradbury could likely stand on would be to prove it to be libelous and damaging him in some way. If my understanding is correct.

kutulu · 06-24-2004, 12:57 PM

Boo hoo. For the record, which way does Bradbury lean politically? Could that have anything to do with it?

SecretMethod70 · 06-24-2004, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kutulu
Boo hoo. For the record, which way does Bradbury lean politically? Could that have anything to do with it?

Actually, no. He's a registered independent, as the article notes. He's not trying to stop the movie, and he contacted Moore about it long before the title was set into people's minds.

Superbelt · 06-24-2004, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Something Wicked This Way Comes

Along with several other Shakespearean Quotes that Bradbury used over and over in his books and for their titles.
He can borrow from prior literary geniuses, he shouldn't be pissed when others do the same to him.

Superbelt · 06-24-2004, 01:05 PM

Ooh yes, and his book

Quote:

I sing the Body Electric

Took that from Walt Whitman.

Bradbury LOVED to name his books after someone elses famous lines.

bermuDa · 06-24-2004, 01:05 PM

ray bradbury is still alive?

it's true that the title stuck in my head for the reason that I know Bradbury's work and read the book. It's clever marketing that Moore bastardized the title... but he should have cleared it with Bradbury first.

Superbelt · 06-24-2004, 01:14 PM

He didn't clear I Sing the Body Electric with Walt Whitman's estate.

It was published for Whitman in 1900 (already dead 2 years)

Bradbury's published in 1969 but it is a collection of short stories which were written in a 30 year time span.

I see it as an homage and honor to have someone think that highly of your work. Moore's work does have a similar theme.

SecretMethod70 · 06-24-2004, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Along with several other Shakespearean Quotes that Bradbury used over and over in his books and for their titles.
He can borrow from prior literary geniuses, he shouldn't be pissed when others do the same to him.

Shakespeare's work is in the public domain, as is, I think, Walt Whitman's.

Asuka{eve} · 06-24-2004, 01:37 PM

Wasn't Farenheit 451 used to be just called "The Fireman"?

Superbelt · 06-24-2004, 01:41 PM

Life plus 70 years for literary. So he published a year early.
I sing the body electric itself was published as a short story many years earlier than that though.

Lebell · 06-24-2004, 02:10 PM

I'm not surprised either.

WTG, Mikey!

Hrothgar · 06-24-2004, 02:16 PM

Ray Bradbury must be bored. He should be happy with the press now.

Fremen · 06-24-2004, 03:54 PM

It seems Bradbury has some fucked up priorities.
It's not taking anything from his livelihood, and there're more important things to worry about.

I voted, "Nothing".

World's King · 06-24-2004, 04:22 PM

It doesn't matter.

degrawj · 06-24-2004, 04:26 PM

titles of books are not copyrighted, and neither are titles of films, so therefore Bradbury is not entitled to any roalties, and Michael Moore does not have to change the title. Bradbury should take the title as a compliment to what his book offered in terms of political thought.

Church · 06-24-2004, 04:46 PM

As much as I respect Ray Bradbury and his work, I really don't think he has a leg to stand on in this case.

And also, Michael Moore didn't even come up with the name, it was submitted by a fan.

hunnychile · 06-24-2004, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by degrawj
titles of books are not copyrighted, and neither are titles of films, so therefore Bradbury is not entitled to any roalties, and Michael Moore does not have to change the title. Bradbury should take the title as a compliment to what his book offered in terms of political thought.

Hey Ray, this is just another great revival for your book with free publicity. And furthermore, Bradbury can't claim that the word 'Farenheit' was His new 'copywritten' word.

It's just an old writer doing a resurrection of sorts.

MSD · 06-24-2004, 07:37 PM

This is about as much of a serious case as "Fair and Balanced." If people want to use similar but not copyrighted titles, they have every right to do it.

ubertuber · 06-24-2004, 08:06 PM

Someone else already pointed out that Shakespeare is publie domain, and Bradbury is certainly not. I'd be willing to bet that Bradbury, if he wanted, could STOMP Moore in court. Our Napster culture notwithstanding, courts have been very supportive of artists intellectual property, and there is no doubt that the only way that Moore's title even COULD make sense is by standing on Bradbury's shoulders. That calls for recognition, permission, and if asked, royalties.

By the way, John Williams (the film composer) lost almost 25 MILLION dollars to the Richard Strauss estate for a musical phrase from Superman, so this stuff is taken seriously.

Superbelt · 06-24-2004, 08:18 PM

As was also pointed out titles of books and films cannot be copywritten. So Bradbury has no footing in court to stomp Moore.

}{ELL/\/() · 06-24-2004, 10:34 PM

what did you expect, it is hard for moore to come up with his own title when he cant even do his own thinking

Xell101 · 06-24-2004, 11:52 PM

What a goon, the title and general idea the film is portrayed as having doesn't make enough reference to Farenheit 451 enough to justify royalties.

ubertuber · 06-25-2004, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
As was also pointed out titles of books and films cannot be copywritten. So Bradbury has no footing in court to stomp Moore.

Point conceded. I checked, and titles are not generally held under copyright, even if the book is. However, there was one case under a Danish court that held the opposite regarding a Hemingway title. Probably too flimsy for Bradbury to use. He could have registered the title as a trademark, but didn't. In fact, some store that sold Coffee and Books in California held Fahrenheit 451 as a trademark from 1993-2000, but has now abandoned the trademark (probably put out of business by Barnes and Noble).

That said, I still think that Moore should have asked Bradbury, as his staff even admits that the book, its theme, and content were all inspirations for his film. If a creator doesn't deserve respect for his intellectual creation (since property apparently doesn't apply), what does he get?

apeman · 06-25-2004, 01:53 AM

how the hell could you copyright a bloody temperature anyway... sheeeesh

this is nearly as stupid as the case where Cage was suing someone for reproducing part of his famous silence...

Supple Cow · 06-25-2004, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by la petite moi
I said he should change the title. Ray Bradbury shouldn't get royalties for a film that has nothing to do with the book, except for the title; however, the title was not Michael Moore's to rip off and should be changed.

I haven't seen the film yet, but if it was inspired by Bradbury's book, then there's probably a big theme or two that they share. Evidently, it isn't illegal for him to do this or he might have thought about contacting Bradbury sooner. Besides, he finally did call Bradbury back and told him he was "embarrased." Sure it would have been polite to ask, but he's essentially apologized now. Nothing more needs to be done.

timalkin · 06-25-2004, 06:03 AM

I'm not surprised by this one bit. Moore is just enough of a whiny lardass to profit from the hard work of others. Bradbury needs to cut some bacon off Moore's back as a settlement.

StephenSa · 06-25-2004, 07:21 AM

You can't copyright a title so while one might question the ethical aspect of the Moore movie's name, legally there is little that can be done. I've read many of Bradbury's works with Fahrenheit 451 being my favorite. It really doesn't bother me, one is a great book the other probably a great movie. The stories are different, the genre is different, I don't see the problem.

H12 · 06-25-2004, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ubertuber
Someone else already pointed out that Shakespeare is publie domain, and Bradbury is certainly not. I'd be willing to bet that Bradbury, if he wanted, could STOMP Moore in court. Our Napster culture notwithstanding, courts have been very supportive of artists intellectual property, and there is no doubt that the only way that Moore's title even COULD make sense is by standing on Bradbury's shoulders. That calls for recognition, permission, and if asked, royalties.

I second this thought fully.

SecretMethod70 · 06-25-2004, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apeman
how the hell could you copyright a bloody temperature anyway... sheeeesh

this is nearly as stupid as the case where Cage was suing someone for reproducing part of his famous silence...

hey man, have you ever heard it? That silence was revolutionary!

I have an MP3 of it! (Seriously, I do

)

stingc · 06-25-2004, 09:50 AM

If you'll read the article, you'll see he's not suing. He simply doesn't want his name associated with the movie, and is asking that Moore respect his wishes.

Jam · 06-25-2004, 11:16 AM

bah i voted wrong, it should be left as it is, i dont think its an issue.

wonderwench · 06-25-2004, 03:57 PM

Moore not asking for Bradbury's permission to use the Fahrenheit phrase is perfectly in character with his usual MO. He doesn't respect anyone and is a bully.

Just ask his staff who tried to unionize - or the theatre workers in London at whom he yelled insults.

I have no desire to see this movie.

hunnychile · 06-25-2004, 05:09 PM

I'm surprised so many TFPers are so unforgiving of Micheal Moore and his use of the title even though it doesn't matter one iota! Interesting is that by law - here can be no Adds on TV or radio 30 days prior the November election because this film is considered an election bender: i.e. it's viewed as an anti-Republican Add, as it were. (thanks KFOG San Fran!!)

Um, pardon my ignorance but when did film satire equate = Party Add Support? Smacks of Bushco Cheneyism... IMHO.

Any thoughts? Kick it up a notch and ride the edge of the sword -if you have 'da cajones'. I fear TPF has become waaaay too GOP in representation.

View Poll Results: What Should Be Done?
The title should be changed	18	19.15%
Nothing	55	58.51%
Bradbury should receive royalties, but the title can remain	21	22.34%
Voters: 94. You may not vote on this poll

06-24-2004, 07:36 AM	#2 (permalink)
choskins Psycho Location: Greenville, SC	It doesn't surprise me. __________________ "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." - Sigmund Freud

06-24-2004, 07:57 AM	#4 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	I said he should get some modest royalty as it is a pretty blatant rip off. The association to 451 has already been made the world over. You can't just co opt others' titles for personal gain. Not sure that a jury would award any damages and changing the title would only give Moore something else to crow about. He should have at least talked with Bradbury about it before doing it. But, in the end, it's a relatively minor offense and I'm not really certain that Bradbury has been caused any real damage. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

06-24-2004, 08:34 AM	#5 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	It's homage... regardless of what Bradbury thinks, Moore is not profiting by the title. It is cute turn of phrase on an icon of popular culture... Bradbury should express his displeasure and leave it up to Moore to do what he feels is best... In the end it is a non-issue, IMO. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-24-2004, 08:40 AM	#6 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i wonder if the title would be understood as a kind of trademark, legally. or if that understanding would require that bradbury had registered it before hand. i wonder what the actual legal conflict would come to turn on--i wish i knew more about the technicalities of copyright law in this case--can anyone fill me in please? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-24-2004, 07:49 AM	#3 (permalink)
la petite moi Filling the Void. Location: California	I do not like Michael Moore films. Sure, he can say crap about the president all he wants, but I just HATE his nosiness and the fact that he gets all these awards for getting in peoples' faces. sigh... I said he should change the title. Ray Bradbury shouldn't get royalties for a film that has nothing to do with the book, except for the title; however, the title was not Michael Moore's to rip off and should be changed.

06-24-2004, 08:42 AM	#7 (permalink)
Scorps Lost!! Location: Kingston, Ontario	I know a girl that has the last name a bradbury......that would be wierd if it was the same family. __________________ A.K.A. PainTrain

06-24-2004, 09:00 AM	#8 (permalink)
analog Banned	I don't know exactly how it works with books, but movie titles belong to no one, you cannot copyright them. The only thing, legally, Bradbury could likely stand on would be to prove it to be libelous and damaging him in some way. If my understanding is correct.

06-24-2004, 12:57 PM	#9 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Boo hoo. For the record, which way does Bradbury lean politically? Could that have anything to do with it?

06-24-2004, 01:05 PM	#13 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	ray bradbury is still alive? it's true that the title stuck in my head for the reason that I know Bradbury's work and read the book. It's clever marketing that Moore bastardized the title... but he should have cleared it with Bradbury first. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

06-24-2004, 01:14 PM	#14 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	He didn't clear I Sing the Body Electric with Walt Whitman's estate. It was published for Whitman in 1900 (already dead 2 years) Bradbury's published in 1969 but it is a collection of short stories which were written in a 30 year time span. I see it as an homage and honor to have someone think that highly of your work. Moore's work does have a similar theme.

06-24-2004, 01:37 PM	#16 (permalink)
Asuka{eve} Addict Location: Oh God, the rain!	Wasn't Farenheit 451 used to be just called "The Fireman"?

06-24-2004, 01:41 PM	#17 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Life plus 70 years for literary. So he published a year early. I sing the body electric itself was published as a short story many years earlier than that though.

06-24-2004, 02:10 PM	#18 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I'm not surprised either. WTG, Mikey! __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-24-2004, 02:16 PM	#19 (permalink)
Hrothgar He's My Girl Location: The Champagne Douche	Ray Bradbury must be bored. He should be happy with the press now. __________________ The fortunes of war favored Hrothgar.

06-24-2004, 03:54 PM	#20 (permalink)
Fremen With a mustache, the cool factor would be too much Location: left side of my couch, East Texas	It seems Bradbury has some fucked up priorities. It's not taking anything from his livelihood, and there're more important things to worry about. I voted, "Nothing". __________________ Google

06-24-2004, 04:22 PM	#21 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	It doesn't matter. __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

06-24-2004, 04:26 PM	#22 (permalink)
degrawj I'm still waiting... Location: West Linn, OR	titles of books are not copyrighted, and neither are titles of films, so therefore Bradbury is not entitled to any roalties, and Michael Moore does not have to change the title. Bradbury should take the title as a compliment to what his book offered in terms of political thought.

06-24-2004, 04:46 PM	#23 (permalink)
Church Tilted F*ckhead Location: New Jersey	As much as I respect Ray Bradbury and his work, I really don't think he has a leg to stand on in this case. And also, Michael Moore didn't even come up with the name, it was submitted by a fan. __________________ Through counter-intelligence, it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble makers, and neutralize them.

06-24-2004, 07:37 PM	#25 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	This is about as much of a serious case as "Fair and Balanced." If people want to use similar but not copyrighted titles, they have every right to do it.

06-24-2004, 08:06 PM	#26 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Someone else already pointed out that Shakespeare is publie domain, and Bradbury is certainly not. I'd be willing to bet that Bradbury, if he wanted, could STOMP Moore in court. Our Napster culture notwithstanding, courts have been very supportive of artists intellectual property, and there is no doubt that the only way that Moore's title even COULD make sense is by standing on Bradbury's shoulders. That calls for recognition, permission, and if asked, royalties. By the way, John Williams (the film composer) lost almost 25 MILLION dollars to the Richard Strauss estate for a musical phrase from Superman, so this stuff is taken seriously. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

06-24-2004, 08:18 PM	#27 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	As was also pointed out titles of books and films cannot be copywritten. So Bradbury has no footing in court to stomp Moore.

06-24-2004, 10:34 PM	#28 (permalink)
}{ELL/\/() Upright	what did you expect, it is hard for moore to come up with his own title when he cant even do his own thinking
$}{ELL/\/() is offline$

06-24-2004, 11:52 PM	#29 (permalink)
Xell101 Junkie	What a goon, the title and general idea the film is portrayed as having doesn't make enough reference to Farenheit 451 enough to justify royalties.

06-25-2004, 01:53 AM	#31 (permalink)
apeman Wah Location: NZ	how the hell could you copyright a bloody temperature anyway... sheeeesh this is nearly as stupid as the case where Cage was suing someone for reproducing part of his famous silence... __________________ pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

06-25-2004, 06:03 AM	#33 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	I'm not surprised by this one bit. Moore is just enough of a whiny lardass to profit from the hard work of others. Bradbury needs to cut some bacon off Moore's back as a settlement.

06-25-2004, 07:21 AM	#34 (permalink)
StephenSa Psycho Location: Dallas, Texas	You can't copyright a title so while one might question the ethical aspect of the Moore movie's name, legally there is little that can be done. I've read many of Bradbury's works with Fahrenheit 451 being my favorite. It really doesn't bother me, one is a great book the other probably a great movie. The stories are different, the genre is different, I don't see the problem. __________________ Thousands of Monkeys, all screaming at once. Pulling God's finger.

06-25-2004, 09:50 AM	#37 (permalink)
stingc Psycho Location: PA	If you'll read the article, you'll see he's not suing. He simply doesn't want his name associated with the movie, and is asking that Moore respect his wishes.

06-25-2004, 11:16 AM	#38 (permalink)
Jam Junkie	bah i voted wrong, it should be left as it is, i dont think its an issue.

06-25-2004, 03:57 PM	#39 (permalink)
wonderwench Banned	Moore not asking for Bradbury's permission to use the Fahrenheit phrase is perfectly in character with his usual MO. He doesn't respect anyone and is a bully. Just ask his staff who tried to unionize - or the theatre workers in London at whom he yelled insults. I have no desire to see this movie.

06-25-2004, 05:09 PM	#40 (permalink)
hunnychile Alien Anthropologist Location: Between Boredom and Nirvana	I'm surprised so many TFPers are so unforgiving of Micheal Moore and his use of the title even though it doesn't matter one iota! Interesting is that by law - here can be no Adds on TV or radio 30 days prior the November election because this film is considered an election bender: i.e. it's viewed as an anti-Republican Add, as it were. (thanks KFOG San Fran!!) Um, pardon my ignorance but when did film satire equate = Party Add Support? Smacks of Bushco Cheneyism... IMHO. Any thoughts? Kick it up a notch and ride the edge of the sword -if you have 'da cajones'. I fear TPF has become waaaay too GOP in representation. __________________ "I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB Last edited by hunnychile; 06-25-2004 at 05:12 PM..