Ray Bradbury pissed about "Fahreinheit 9/11"?

[Elgyn]

Well, apparently Ray Bradbury is pissed about the title of Michael Moore`s newest documentary "Fahreinheit 9/11"........since it is obviously a play on Bradbury`s influential novel "Fahreinheit 451".

Now......I suppose Bradbury has a right to be pissed, since Moore didn`t ask permission about the title.....

But honestly.....I think Bradbury is being just a little silly.
The title is obviously making reference to Bradbury`s classic novel. Isn`t that enough?

Maybe Bradbury should think about what`s going on in Iraq right now, instead of himself and this movie`s title.

[Shockwave]

Maybe Bradbury should think about what`s going on in Iraq right now, instead of himself and this movie`s title.

Thatd probably make him ever more pissed that Moore is "borrowing" his book name to help him sell his movie.

[Elgyn]

.

[darkface]

I'd be sorta pissed if someone used my title to help sell their product.

[MadsenOMC]

So is the word Fahrenhiet forever off limits when it comes to titles of movies and other media? How about chronicles? Should the family of C.S. Lewis be pissed at Universal and David Twohy for The Chronicles of Riddick?

[TheGodSon]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
So is the word Fahrenhiet forever off limits when it comes to titles of movies and other media? How about chronicles? Should the family of C.S. Lewis be pissed at Universal and David Twohy for The Chronicles of Riddick?


This is true.

[Sagittarius]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
So is the word Fahrenhiet forever off limits when it comes to titles of movies and other media? How about chronicles? Should the family of C.S. Lewis be pissed at Universal and David Twohy for The Chronicles of Riddick?

Here Here, this is much to do about nothing. No would mistake Michael Moore's movies for a book by bradburry. This is just silly. A way to get his name in he paper. In Fact he is just giving MOORE More publicity. This is just silly.

[Shockwave]

U are correct, but i can still see how he would be upset that his title is being used for this.

[Elgyn]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
So is the word Fahrenhiet forever off limits when it comes to titles of movies and other media? How about chronicles? Should the family of C.S. Lewis be pissed at Universal and David Twohy for The Chronicles of Riddick?


VERY good point my friend.

[Mentiroso]

Yes you have a point but it is an obvious referance to Bradbury's novel. Every news story you read on it usually even mentions that fact. Michael Moore even said something about it on his website. So Bradbury should be pissed. I know I would if that fat pig did that to me. Then again, I hate MM with a passion (even more now after his crappy plug at the MTV movie awards! smug bastard) and hope he rots in hell.

[MadsenOMC]

I think someone needs some anger management. You hope he rots in hell? What about those on the right that are just like him? Do you wish the same for them? And why do his haters always call him fat? I don't get it. I think some people need to take a good look in the mirror. There's something messed up about all that hate and anger.

[Mentiroso]

Well he is obviously over weight so calling him fat isnt really a stretch or anything. And yes, I still stick to the rotting in hell statement. I will not reply to anything else in this thread as not to start a flame war and have the thread closed. I just stick to my earlier statement 100%. My opinion and I do not care if anyone agrees or disagrees.
And no, I do not need anger managment.

[Mr. Fred Krueger]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
So is the word Fahrenhiet forever off limits when it comes to titles of movies and other media? How about chronicles? Should the family of C.S. Lewis be pissed at Universal and David Twohy for The Chronicles of Riddick?

Farhenheit 451

Farhenheit 9/11

It's an obvious rip off. It's not that the word's off limits, it's that he ripped the title off and just changed the numbers.

[MadsenOMC]

Yeah, and? So what if it is? I don't see the big deal here, even if it an obvious rip off. Why should he rot in hell? If you say something like that, you should back it up. Strong words. And yes, he's overweight. How did you figure that out? But what does that say about you, calling him childish names? I don't get it. I don't understand the hatred and anger. Seems misguided and unwarranted.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Yeah, and? So what if it is? I don't see the big deal here, even if it an obvious rip off. Why should he rot in hell? If you say something like that, you should back it up. Strong words. And yes, he's overweight. How did you figure that out? But what does that say about you, calling him childish names? I don't get it. I don't understand the hatred and anger. Seems misguided and unwarranted.

I don't think its the word, I think its the context its being used in.


Dawn of the dud

The jogging man

Anna and the Prince

Fourteen ghosts

Bad dream on Oak Avenue

Vanished in a minute



Those are all takes on already existing titles, and to use them is a play on the title, and you risk offending the original filmmakers by doing that. It has nothing to do with farenheit, or anything about the word. Its the context that its being used in which is wrong usually, unless its trying to be an obvious parody.

[Elgyn]

Originally posted by Mr. Fred Krueger
Farhenheit 451

Farhenheit 9/11

It's an obvious rip off.


But is it an obvious ripoff?
Or is it an obvious tribute?

Like I said, Moore apparently didn`t ask permission about the title.

He really should have.

But aside from that, I don`t see what the big deal is.
Bradbury should be proud that his writings are are so world-known that such an obvious tribute is recognizable (to those who read).



P.S. - MadsenOMC and Mentiroso - you two obviously feel very strongly about your opinions. So do I. But we CAN feel strongly about them WITHOUT getting into silly fights. Let`s at least TRY to be civil here.

Michael Moore is fat. Yes.
But a fat "pig"?

If you ask me, he`s no more a "pig" than the man in the White House right now.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Elgyn
But is it an obvious ripoff?
Or is it an obvious tribute?


Its kinda stretching it when your tribute title is about a very extreme political subject that the original creator may very well not support.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Elgyn

Maybe Bradbury should think about what`s going on in Iraq right now, instead of himself and this movie`s title.

I wanted to note that I don't think this is a fair statment to make.

The price of tea in China has nothing to do with the actual usage of the movie's title. If you totally back Michael Moore and his cause, I understand. But ever since the Iraqi war has started, people have been criticized for complaining and saying "Listen to yourself complain when we have soldiers dying in Iraq!"

Well... talking about starving people in Ethiopia might have made me eat my peas when I was 7... but I try to push away the sympathy tangent now that I'm an adult and focus on the issue at hand.

[Elgyn]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
ever since the Iraqi war has started, people have been criticized for complaining and saying "Listen to yourself complain when we have soldiers dying in Iraq!"

Well... talking about starving people in Ethiopia might have made me eat my peas when I was 7... but I try to push away the sympathy tangent now that I'm an adult and focus on the issue at hand.


Starving people in Ethiopia has absolutley nothing to do with it.

The issue at hand IS "soldiers dying in Iraq"!

The young men and women who signed-on to serve in the military signed-on to protect the nation if called upon.
Are we "protecting the nation" by patroling Iraq? NO. They don`t even have any power anymore.

Think what you want, but I gurantee you`d feel differently if it was YOUR brother, or sister, or son, or daughter, or close friend getting killed over there. Are you aware that over 800 Americans have been killed over there already?
And it doesn`t look like we`re leaving anytime soon.

PLEASE don`t be offended or anything DeadWalk, I`m not trying to attack your personnel beliefs, just speaking my mind.:cool:

[Elgyn]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
Its kinda stretching it when your tribute title is about a very extreme political subject that the original creator may very well not support.

You have a good point.
Again, I really think Moore should`ve ASKED Bradbury about the title before using it.
Bradbury might not be pissed at all if only Moore had ASKED first.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Elgyn
Starving people in Ethiopia has absolutley nothing to do with it.

The issue at hand IS "soldiers dying in Iraq"!

The young men and women who signed-on to serve in the military signed-on to protect the nation if called upon.
Are we "protecting the nation" by patroling Iraq? NO. They don`t even have any power anymore.

Think what you want, but I gurantee you`d feel differently if it was YOUR brother, or sister, or son, or daughter, or close friend getting killed over there. Are you aware that over 800 Americans have been killed over there already?
And it doesn`t look like we`re leaving anytime soon.

PLEASE don`t be offended or anything DeadWalk, I`m not trying to attack your personnel beliefs, just speaking my mind.:cool:

What I meant, was the issue at hand was the film's title, not the issue happening in Iraq. We all know what is going on over there, in the politics section I've been talking about how I severely disagree with our actions over there past and present.

However, my point was to try to see that he didn't like the play on his title. Telling him that he needs to think about what's going on in Iraq is ignoring the point of the mess, and trying to get Bradbury to say "Why in times like these, who cares about a name, we're at war!" Not really.

I know we're at war, I disagree with the war, but that has nothing to do really if I want to argue about the price of bacon at the supermarket. If I had a debate with the manager about the price of bacon, and he told me that I should think about what's going on in Iraq right now and not the price of the bacon I'm buying, I would leave the store and never come back.

I just say this, because a lot of people use this as a scapegoat for their minor problems.

"The paperboy didn't deliver our Sunday paper today."

"Chill out honey, I think you need to sit down and think about Iraq for awhile."

Life still goes on...

[Sagittarius]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
I think someone needs some anger management. You hope he rots in hell? What about those on the right that are just like him? Do you wish the same for them? And why do his haters always call him fat? I don't get it. I think some people need to take a good look in the mirror. There's something messed up about all that hate and anger.


Thank You very much. you get the grand prize. I just hate it when people can't disagree without taking personal shots. & Like you said, I bet they don't look like a supermodel themselves.

You made a great point. Thank You again

[Elgyn]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
What I meant, was the issue at hand was the film's title, not the issue happening in Iraq.




I see.
I apoligize for my little rant there - I realize this isn`t the place for that.

But I must say it felt good there for a moment I felt I was back in Debate Team in high-school!:)

[beastieben21]

Did anyone else not know that Bradbury was still...alive? Whew, weird...

[Spacey_Norton21]

Originally posted by Elgyn
If you ask me, he`s no more a "pig" than the man in the White House right now.

Awesome man. Couldn't say it better, well said! :D

[Beeblebrox]

The title is neither a tribute or a ripoff. It's a parody, a deliberate play on the original title Farenheit 451. Moore does not need to ask permission, just as Franken didn't need to ask permission when he used the phrase "Fair and balanced" in the title of his book.

[Maeljin_incarna]

Originally posted by Elgyn
Again, I really think Moore should`ve ASKED Bradbury about the title before using it.
True. In my opinion, Moore was just trying to be witty and failed to realize that it might piss someone off. Shit happens.

And the title is not a parody, Beeblebrox, as a parody is "a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing". That would mean that he's poking fun at Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, which doesn't fit.

The title of the film is a DIRECT reference to the title of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. He therefore should have gotten permission purely for legal purposes.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Maeljin_incarna
And the title is not a parody, Beeblebrox, as a parody is "a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing". That would mean that he's poking fun at Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, which doesn't fit.

The title of the film is a DIRECT reference to the title of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. He therefore should have gotten permission purely for legal purposes. [/B]

For one thing, titles aren't copyrightable. Bradbury could protect it with trademark (and may have) but if there were anything legal he could do about it, he would. If you don't protect trademarks, you can lose them. And given his disapproval, he would have definitely sued.

But he'd probably lose. The only thing this qualifies as is parody, and parody is protected. In this case, it's a play on the title, even if it isn't making fun of the material itself.

[MadsenOMC]

This is just more ammunition for people who love to hate Michael Moore. If Bill O'Reilly was doing it, they'd be the first one in line to defend it.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
[B]This is just more ammunition for people who love to hate Michael Moore.

These people don't need "ammunition." Half of the criticisms against Moore they just make up off the top of their heads.

[Maeljin_incarna]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
The only thing this qualifies as is parody, and parody is protected. In this case, it's a play on the title, even if it isn't making fun of the material itself.
Maybe as far as our system of law is concerned, it's a parody. But the word itself is inaccurate for the meaning. Parody insinuates humor or satire (even if it's just aimed at the title itself) and after seeing Farhenheit 9/11 I can tell you that Michael Moore did not intend the title of the movie to be humorous or satirical. I'm sure he meant it as a witticism or possibly a respectful quip.

[Elgyn]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
Moore does not need to ask permission, just as Franken didn't need to ask permission when he used the phrase "Fair and balanced" in the title of his book.



Well said. Cool screenname too BTW!

[Shockwave]

Moore does not need to ask permission, just as Franken didn't need to ask permission when he used the phrase

Very true and 100% correct, but the Q was "does Ray Bradbury have a right to be upset that his book title is being used as a parody, quip, ect, ect?"

The answer is "yes" he does, he just doesnt have to right to go beyond that.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Shockwave
The answer is "yes" he does, he just doesnt have to right to go beyond that. [/B]

I've read a translation of that article and, quite frankly, he sounds like a raving lunatic.

Among other things, he claims Moore ruined Gen. Wesley Clark's chances of becoming the Democratic presidential nominee. How? By making a comment about Bush that Clark did not distance himself from. So not only is Moore the anti-Christ, he has the power to destroy a candidate with a single comment.

And that's not all. Bradbury claims that the Cannes Jury awarded the Palm D'or to Moore because "the people there hate us." I guess he didn't realize that the head juror was Quentin Tarantino and that Tarantino is actually an American.

Or maybe he thinks that Tarantino is anti-American for criticizing Bush by awarding the prize (which Bradbury calls "meaningless") to Moore.

In that case, it would make Bradbury's chagrin at Moore all the more ironic considering the subject matter of Farenheit 451.

[MadsenOMC]

People insist that "the French" awarded the Cannes prize to Moore. That is just not true. The Cannes jury awarded the prize to Moore, and there was only one French person on the jury.

[Elgyn]

Wow, it sounds like Bradbury needs to seriously chill out!

Who knows........maybe he`s getting a bit 'kooky' in his old age.:(

[Nice Marmot]

Sorry if someone else already mentioned this (no time to read all the posts) Anyway, they used "Something Wicked This Way Comes" as a tagline for Harry Potter 3. I wonder if they had to get permission from Bradbury for that. Think amongst yourselves.

[Elgyn]

Originally posted by Nice Marmot
Anyway, they used "Something Wicked This Way Comes" as a tagline for Harry Potter 3. I wonder if they had to get permission from Bradbury for that.


No that hasn`t been mentioned......

.....and GOOD POINT.

What`s wrong Bradbury? Isn`t "Harry Potter" controversial enough for you?

[Shockwave]

Isnt there a Disney movie caled "Something wicked this way comes?"

[MadsenOMC]

There's a 1983 movie called Something Wicked This Way Comes, based on Bradbury's story.

[Shockwave]

Ah yes, the one with the evil guy running a circus! Its all coming together now....

[Elgyn]

Actually guys I asked my brother about it, apparently "something wicked this way comes" was originally a quote from Shakespere.
So Bradbury didn`t come-up with it.

BUT......that begs another question.........did Bradbury ask anyone permission to use "Something Wicked This Way Comes"?:D :D

[cstroman]

I'm pretty sure it's public domain (being hundreds of years old) so he didn't need to get permission.

[GodMagnus]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
And why do his haters always call him fat? I don't get it. I think some people need to take a good look in the mirror. There's something messed up about all that hate and anger. That's one thing I always noticed.
All Anti-moore people attack HIM personally. While moore changes words around to seem less like an attack, the oposing side is very blunt about it.
For example. The new "Micheal Moore Hate America" documentary coming out. Also, my new fav, it's I think a Tues New release book called "Michael Moore is a Stupid White Man".
Like WTF??? First off, all those people who constantly insult his weight are so sadly childish. It's not just "Fat Bastard" or "Fat asshole" or anything anymore, now book/movie titles are stopping to a childish level.
Now, i'm not 100% a moore fan nor do I plan to see the movie, but it's always funny to read how immature the oposition is about moore. Not just that but people write stuff like "Micheal Moore Hates America. Man I am gonna see that movie cause that FAT ASS PIECE OF SHIT is gonna get it. This new guy is gonna tell the TRUTH". AHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHA


AHAHHAHHAHAHH?AH??HAHHA?HA?H?HASDH?Fihoadfhv
I mean REALLY. How can people SERIOUSLY believe this new guy is gonna be ANY different than Moore. It's funny how anti-Moore people are gonna follow his oposite which is actually more like moore...It's HISTARICAL!!!

But yah, i've noticed Anti-Moore people have SO MUCH MORE anger towards everone else...it's sad...

oh yeah, back on topic. About Ray Bradbury. I think he's over reacting. What's "original" these days...almost NOTHING...

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by GodMagnus

Also, my new fav, it's I think a Tues New release book called "Michael Moore is a Stupid White Man".
Like WTF???

oh yeah, back on topic. About Ray Bradbury. I think he's over reacting. What's "original" these days...almost NOTHING...

Perhaps thats because Michael Moore wrote his own book, and it was titled "Stupid White Men". This book you speak of seems to be Moore's own insult, re-directed back at him.

As for originality, yeah it seems if you want a taste of that you should heed the lyrics of the Dr. Pepper commercials.

But at least these unoriginal remakes are owning the rights to the title before using it...

[10PoundBrown]

Moore didnt identify (in the title) who was a stupid white man, while this book attacks him specifically.

who cares though? maybe i should be mad because nobody mentioned any stupid black men, no stupid brown or yellow men, nobody mentioned any stupid jewish men....


pfft....back to topic, ray bradbury can be pissed if he wants. he cant do anything about it so once again I must ask....who cares?




(oh yeah, probably the conservatives who want to make an issue out of everything MM does)

[Elgyn]

Originally posted by cstroman
I'm pretty sure it's public domain (being hundreds of years old) so he didn't need to get permission.



Oh, I know. It was just a hypothetical question.:)

[GodMagnus]

Just a little side note. I was watching Gremlins 2 last night and I remembered hearing how Lenard Maltin HATED Gremlins 1. Now, he IS in the 2nd movie for a cameo. The thing I like is that, although he HATED the first movie, he was enough of a sport to go have fun and do a cameo for the second one....which he probably hated too.

Maybe Bradbury should just ease it back. It's his choice, I just don't really think he should be THAT upset even IF he hates MM.

[Elgyn]

Originally posted by GodMagnus

Maybe Bradbury should just ease it back. It's his choice, I just don't really think he should be THAT upset even IF he hates MM.


Yeah that`s basically how I feel too.

[Last Dragon]

Originally posted by Elgyn
Yeah that`s basically how I feel too.

Me too.

[flowrchild]

What is with celebrities getting into petty huffs over words? It seems like there is way too much self-importance going around. Remember when Spike Lee sued the tv station for naming themselves "Spike Tv" and Trump tried to copyright "You're Fired?"

Y'all are rich mother fuckers, get a hobby.

:rolleyes:

[Grim H.]

I would think Bradbury would be better able to understand the reasoning behind the name of the film...

If anyone's read Fahrenheit 451, you'd know that the book is very political; it's about freedom of speech and censorship. It's about book-burning.

And (love him or hate him) Michael Moore uses his freedom of speech quite often. And I think that's kind of what the title is making an allusion to, that all his muckraking and "propoganda" is all based on freedom of speech, and to tell the haters that they can't do a damn thing about it.

Meh, that's just what I think.

[MadsenOMC]

Very well-said Grim. I agree with that 110%.

[Lynn7]

Bradbury said in an interview it was not maeant to be political- he used another word which I can't remember sorry. Something like an intellectual excercise.

Anyway, Bradbury has the right to be offended and he has done the right thing. By expressing his displeasure publically he has effectively separated himself from Moore's movie. He is not suing- he said it's not about money.
Here's a two year old article on Bradbury from CNN. It refers to FArenheit 451 which will be released as a new movie by Frank Darabont:


Ray Bradbury is on fire!

At 81, the veteran author of sci-fi classics "Fahrenheit 451" and "The Martian Chronicles" is suddenly very hot in Hollywood.

By James Hibberd
- - - - - - - - - -


August 29, 2001 | Author Ray Bradbury, now 81 and recovering from a stroke, has recently become the most sought-after writer in Hollywood. Renny Harlin ("Die Hard 2," "Cliffhanger") has signed to direct Bradbury's time-travel adventure "A Sound of Thunder." Frank Darabont ("The Shawshank Redemption," "The Green Mile") will direct new productions of "The Martian Chronicles" and "Fahrenheit 451." Bradbury is also adapting his short story collection "The Illustrated Man" for the Sci-Fi Channel and says he's writing a script based on his novella "Frost and Fire" that will be filmed next year. And the literary establishment has also recognized him recently. Last November the National Book Foundation gave its Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters to Bradbury. The unprecedented interest by Hollywood in Bradbury's work is coincidentally timed to one of the author's major publishing anniversaries. Fifty years ago, the first printed version of "Fahrenheit 451" debuted in Galaxy Science Fiction magazine.

A future shock masterpiece, "Fahrenheit 451" was largely overlooked during recent millennial sci-fi retrospectives in favor of other dystopian works such as "1984," "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Brave New World." The novel's famed central premise (a society where firefighters burn censored books) has long suggested a metaphorical fantasy rather than serious prognostication.


Kerosene-spraying firemen aside, a closer look at the 1953 novel shows Bradbury nailed the new millennium perfectly. There's interactive television, stereo earphones (which reportedly inspired a Sony engineer to invent the Walkman), immersive wall-size TVs, earpiece communicators, rampant political correctness, omnipresent advertising and a violent youth culture ignored by self-absorbed, prescription-dependent parents.

Far from an abstract nightmare, "Fahrenheit 451" is now disturbing because its culture no longer seems disturbing. And its dated terminology, such as calling headset radios "seashell ear thimbles," constantly remind modern readers the novel was written 50 years ago and that its culture -- our culture -- was intended only as a horrifying possibility.

One "Fahrenheit 451" prediction was the technological evolution, and moral devolution, of television news. In the novel, a fireman protagonist accused of hiding illegal books is pursued by a carnivorous news media seeking to satiate the blood lust of home viewers. As the fireman flees down the street, chased by helicopters, he sees himself through his neighbors' windows, running on their television screens.

The day after news helicopters pursued O.J. Simpson fleeing in a Ford Bronco, a New York Times columnist noted that the chase was the "real-life fulfillment" of "Fahrenheit 451."

Bradbury points to a more current example. "Look at the Chandra Levy case," he says. "It's become a Star Chamber. The major networks, the cable networks, they're being prosecutors. They're judges and jurors and executioners. Well, c'mon, that's ridiculous. But they're doing it."

The fictional roots of "Fahrenheit 451's" vision of mass censorship even resemble the complaints of modern media critics.

In the novel, Fire Captain Beatty explains to Montag, the conflicted fireman, that their government didn't ban reading. Books were simply marginalized as an increasingly inoffensive media and a growing population embraced infotainment at the expense of "slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology."

Says Beatty: "Bigger the population, the more minorities. Don't step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs, Mormons, Baptists ... The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! ... Magazines became a nice blend of vanilla tapioca. Books, so the damned snobbish critics said, were dishwater. No wonder books stopped selling."

Bradbury scored yet another prognostication bull's-eye in his 1953 short story "The Murderer," wherein a man is imprisoned for wrecking "machines that yak-yak-yak." The most offensive devices were the "radio wristwatch" communicators.

Said the electronics murderer: "... my friends and wife phoned every five minutes. What is there about such 'conveniences' that makes them so temptingly convenient? ... Convenient for my office, so when I'm in the field with my radio car there's no moment when I'm not in touch. In touch! There's a slimy phrase. Touch, hell. Gripped! Pawed, rather."

As retribution, the murderer jams radio wristwatch signals on a commuter bus and delights in the "terrible, unexpected silence" he creates: "The bus inhabitants faced with having to converse with each other."

Substitute a few product terms and "The Murderer" could be passed off as modern nonfiction. True, Dick Tracy also wore a primitive cellphone on his wrist, but Bradbury intuitively grasped how annoyingly demanding and oddly isolating such technology could become.

[cstroman]

Wow, way to go Bradbury.:eek:

[Lynn7]

Here's the recent article with Bradbury:
Monday, June 21, 2004 Posted: 8:50 AM EDT (1250 GMT)

Michael Moore

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.

[MadsenOMC]

Is this still an issue? Any chance to bash Moore right? Bradbury has no right to be pissed. It seems that he has gone senile. He is pretty damn old. Get over it. Move on. Seriously. It's an extremely political book. It could not be more political.

[cstroman]

Dude, chill out. Be cool.

[MadsenOMC]

Advice from you? Ha. I'll pass.

[cstroman]

:rolleyes:

[moviegroupie]

Not so sure why Bradbury is pissed off, even if I didn't like the movie, I'd be flattered that inspiration was taken from me. Oh and it's not like its going to increase/decrease book sales at all for the guy, it's basically a requisite reading in nearly every middle school (i had to read it). one way or another, the income will stay constant and there's nothing to be worried about.

[Elgyn]

Well said moviegroupie.