My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

December 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« Howell Raines: John Kerry is creepy and kooky, but still could win | Main | Tiananmen Square legacy: China bans numbers ‘6’ and ‘4’ »

June 03, 2004



I think personally Ray Bradbury can eat a dick. Why cant Michael Moore use the title? Is it that big of a deal? Seriously, has everyone in the world lowered their status to pre-schoolers? Maybe he should have asked permission, but is good ole Mr. Bradbury hurt by Mr. Moore using his title and changing it? Financially = NO, emotionally= I guess so. Get over it old man.


Moore did nothing wrong, there have been many rulings on the matter in court. Check the Moviedatabase website, there are plenty of movies that sometimes have the exact same title.

14 matches found for movies named 'Bad Company' as an example:

He's more then likely trying to promote/protect the movie adaption of his novel scheduled for 2005.

Just my 2¢


Michael Moore needs to be moore original instead of using more-known titles just to give his work some light. Forgive the pun, i know the mooreran would!


Michael Moore is a fat retarded moron with no class and the IQ of a stikc of butter (and probably the same level of cholesterol) and anyone who goes to see his movie and thinks there is even a shred of truth in them is a moron as well.


When you know what it means, Bradbury's title seems pretty clever. Since Moore's title is a play on the original, it is expected to be just a little more clever. If it is, it must be subtle. He is coopting the feeling of the title rather than the sense of it, as if "Fahrenheit" were now an indicator word, comparable to the suffix "-gate" in "Watergate".

The problem with Moore is the same as with Rush Limbaugh. He can seem very thought provoking and persuasive until you crack his code. Then you realize he's the kind of person who never lets truth or gentility get in the way of a good polemic.


I've checked out criticisms of Michael Moore's film "Bowling for Columbine" and found that most (not all) of the criticism is without basis. The same is not true for Rush Limbaugh. That said, there is plenty of precedent for using a changed titles without permission. Finally, I disagree strongly with JJ: I presume the film criticizes the government control of information, the problem in "Fahrenheit 451", and talks about the fear-mongering going on, typified by the "Alert Levels", which certainly remind me of temperatures.

Frank Warner

So Rush Limbaugh is the new standard now?

Why compare Michael Moore to Limbaugh? Why not compare Moore with the truth? Why not compare him with real liberals who opposed the fascist torture and murders of hundreds of thousands in Iraq?

Frank Warner


A title is a title. The fact that Moore used Bradbury's pays homage and is nicely suitable to the subject matter.
Michael Moore has a way of editing things, as my friend pointed out, to try to make us see things in a not-quite-truthful way. Realizing that, however, and seeing through editing tricks, a person can preen a few pieces of interesting information that you just don't get through normal media.
Roger and Me was a striking piece of filmwork. For those not familiar, it was about Flint, Michigan and the effect of General Motors shutting down plants. I'm from Flint, and I can tell you that it was as much of a raw and correct portrayal of the state of affairs in the "then-Flint" as you could find.
As a movie-goer, I plan to see this movie and will use my own judgement as to whether or not it is truthful. I know it will provoke thought and discussions(like this one), and that isn't bad at all!


Is GM an evil company because of shutting down the plants? To tell you the truth, I loved that movie, but I have come to think that it was just telling me what I wanted to hear. I think it was unfair and emotionally dishonest, if not factually dishonest. Like Rush, he never attempts to decipher an alternative viewpoint, except to caricature people's motives.


To tell the truth, I don't really blame GM at all! The unions became far too powerful and bargained themselves right out of a job.
As I mentioned before, Moore can be clever with his editing, but there are still pieces of truth in his stories. In "Roger and Me," I don't recall Moore telling the stories of the Unions and the effect they had on GM relations. My brother, who works for GM, told me that they earn less than 1% on every vehicle they sell. They only post such large profits because they sell so many. Who can blame them for cutting costs by sending work to cheaper labor forces? But the true side that he did show was the effect of the pull out. Degredations in downtown (which really doesn't even exist anymore), decline in the quality of life, etc. Fault lies as much with Flint, though, for not trying to diversify.


The Mooron deserves this hit. He makes boring inaccurate docudramas replete with inaccuracies and lies and calls it a documentary! I'm amazed at the idiots who actually believe his fantasizing...most of his stuff has been disproved over and over and yet the idiots out there still believe it.

El Bloato has a nerve plagiarizing the original work of genius by Bradbury and hopefully the courts will make him pay and pay big.


Moore is a hypocrite. His main goal in his career is to make money by being less than honest. He is accusing America of being a worse and worse place to live because he thinks everyone has as little integrity as himself. Why don't you lead by example Moore. I think he would be much happier in France. A country who protested the Iraqi war because they didn't want to lose their ILLEGAL trade with Iraq while boasting a peaceful stance in the world. Moore and France have a lot in common. No wonder the like him so damn much.


Why do most of you sound like a bunch of pissed off conservatives? Afraid of someone that might disagree with your egocentric viewpoints? Why is the world just about being fair when it's convenient and gainful to you? Get back into your gas guzzling trucks and SUV's and turn off the rest of the rational world so we all can keep on letting the middle east control our lives!



I think you are reading what you deem to be "pissed off conservative" comments because many Americans share the value of intellectual honesty and the presentation of truth. Neither one are required in movie making, but they are in documentary making.

Moore has failed in that and he probably has again. Anyone who knows more than what Moore might present about the Bush ties to the Bin Laden family know that Osama was kicked out of the family and disowned by them. To some that says they side against Osama, evidently that conclusion escapes Moore and his minions.

Don't mistake historic American values for those of just "pissed off conservatives." It just happens that conservatives tend to value things Moore does not.

After all, if Moore wasn't in this to make a buck (which I believe is the only reason for what he does), he would follow Spielberg's example from "Schindler's List" and not take a single penny.

He won't, of course.

As for the rest of your diatribe, egocentric viewpoints, world fairness, SUVs, and the Middle East are things to which everyone should pay more attention, not just "pissed off conservatives."

Be careful where you point your finger.

Frank Warner

Hey, Michael Moore IS the conservative in this controversy. He's the one who wanted to leave that fascist Saddam Hussein in power.

Frank Warner


You all need to wake up and smell the coffee. No matter what you think of Ray Bradbury or Michael Moore, you have to admit that Moore's movies are deliberately misleading. Check out SpinSanity, a non-partisan website dedicated to, well, the truth:

Also, this USA Today article on Moore's new movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, is telling:

Moore's distortions are bad for democratic political discourse in this country. If you want to earn respect for your opinions and ideology, you don't do it by lying, misleading, and spinning.


My Movie, I mean Documentary, Script
-- by Michael Moore

Plot for Chapter 1
Bush is dumb, and Cheney is really in charge.
No, wait, here's a better one: Bush is racist and unfairly blames 911 on Bin Laden without a trial.
No here it is: Bush is in cahoots with Bin Laden and the Taliban and knew 911 was coming.
No wait, Bush is too dumb to know that 911 is coming even though Clinton clearly warned him.
No I got it, Bush did nothing about 911 because he's dumb and takes too many vacations.
No, No, Bush's response to 911 was too harsh and hurt alot of innocent people.
No, here it is, Bush was too soft in reacting to 911, and didn't send enough troops 'cause he wanted us to lose.
No, wait, Bush sent too many troops because he thinks most of them are poor minorities and Bush is racist.
Oh, here it is, Bush attacked Iraq because Cheney told him to and they wanted us to lose in Afganistan.
Oh yeah, also Bush is a war-monger and all of the deaths in Afganistan and Iraq were pointless.

Oh what the hell, I'll just throw it all in there - they won't know the difference anyway and after all its just a movie . . .

Al Sharpton

It's just amazing how ignorant left-wing white boys are.

scott pipin

michael moore is a fat fuck

Jenny Craig

Step away drom the buffet table. Drop the fork.
Call me...

Random Party

I'd like to point out, the title fits the movie.

And cracks about Michael Moore's weight are silly, petty, and a sign that those individuals can't even thing of a reasonable arguement against him.

It's sad.


We already have (and presented) a reasonable argument against his grotesque self, but you moronic liberals have nothing of worth to say in his defense.

Frank Warner

No true liberal has any use for Michael Moore’s fascist-friendly propaganda.

For a few pointers on Moore’s dishonesty in “Fahrenheit 9-11,” check out

Frank Warner

Uber American

No wonder Ray Bradbury wants to sue Michael Moore. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a travesty and has no business trading off of Bradbury's seminal work. Moore is a demented demagogue. His disjointed rant is a disgrace to a kind and competent President and to all brave Americans who are serving their country in the military. This is wartime; not the wartime of the 40's where lines were clearly drawn. It is a deadly serious time in our nation's history and that corpulent, virulent buffoon Moore is not only offensive, but divisive to boot.

I guess civility is dead. Respectful disagreement is dead. I hate that not only Moore's travesty exists but that such a mindset as his exists. Wild-eyed liberals are beginning to frighten me, and as a proud Republican and supporter of the War on Terror wherever terror is found, Fahrenheit 9/11 scares me plenty...I'm not afraid of the principled man I admire in the White House; I'm terrified of camera wielding lunatics like Moore.

John Smith

Brock can eat dick. Have you ever heard of Intellectual Property, Brock? Moore clearly used title of well known novel and changed it around for his incoherent film, thinking that would make him appear intellectual or clever at least. Bradbury has every right to be pissed off.

The comments to this entry are closed.