h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think Bradbury overreacted a bit. He has a right to be a bit annoyed if he wasn't asked for permission, but that quote is somewhat excessive.

I wonder if Moore pays royalties to Mr. Bradbury? Mr. Bradbury does deserved to be pay for use of his work and few things will get someone madder than not getting paid for their work or does Moore think that Mr. Bradbury's work is not worth paying for?

more thoughts,

Mostly Harmless

Yeah, but how much is a title worth? Bearing in mind that Moore could charge him back in advertising fees.

Tee hee... that poster is clever. I especially like the beatific grins on their faces.

Mostly Harmless, there's no infringement of copyright: copyright does not apply to ideas and titles. If you disagree, could you let us know what arrangements you've made to pay Douglas Adams' estate for the use of one of his book titles as your user name?

how about this for an explanation :

Moore is the raving nutter with a chip on his shoulder.

watch how he reacts to parodies of himself.

alec.

LOL Mycroft. It's probably the same as your arrangement with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and the Baker Street Boys.

But if anyone has any right to complain it's Gabriel Daniel Fahrenheit.

>> Fahrenheit, Daniel Gabriel (1686–1736), German physicist. Fahrenheit devoted his career mostly to the making of precision scientific instruments. In 1709 he developed an alcohol thermometer, superseding it with a mercury thermometer in 1714. His most important achievement was his development, from the work of Olaus Roemer, of the thermometric scale that bears his name. <<

At least Bradbury's book was about heat and high temperatures. Moore's movie is just about bad odours in high places.

As I recall, the United Nations building in New York was featured in the film version of Fahrenheit 451. It melted or something like that while all the world leaders were inside trying to be cool. Or was that Godzilla meets King Kong? Ah, what the hell, if you've seen one bad city-destroying-monster-movie with melting model sets, y've seen 'em all.

Most of Moore's appeal is his ingracious in-yer-face iconoclasm. Reminds me of the Born Loser comic strip character but in need of a good thrashing to put him back in his place.

As in all his films he uses out-takes and 'candid' footage to create an unflattering and negative image of his political targets. He opens this one with footage of all the principal parties getting ready for formal addresses and TV appearances so we see them primping and getting on their make-up in most undignified situations. None of this has anything to do with the issues but it sure makes the issue-makers look foolish. Sadly, most of us are so shallow we'll buy into that impression even though we should know it's neither fair nor true to judge people in such circumatnces.

Don't be misled. I've been antiwar since before 9/11 and am on record hereabouts for saying some very nasty things about George W Bush and his crusader attitudes. But I'm also very anti-Micheal Moore because his tactics and style always rely on speculative sensationalism, prejudice and a Jerry Springer kind of sentimentality rather than reason and fair debate. Same horse, different rider; it's all context without content.

peace
jwf

Interesting points, jwf.

Could it be that Mr. Bradbury is upset that Michael Moore is just as guilty of media manipulation as the antagonists of Farenheit 451, and that's why he's upset?

I also wonder whether Ray Bradbury has come across the Moore-fed 'liberals' who use quotations from Michael Moore websites, books and movies to support all manner of ideas. Do you think the man who wrote Farenheit 451 would be interested in people thinking for themselves, or tagging along to any old media talking head simply because his views and output are currently fashionable?

Goodness knows, Michael Moore has his faults, but he provides a lot of information I for one, am glad to have. (If in doubt as to his veracity on any given point, I can always do research...)
That being said, I believe he is more rleiable than he is often thought to be.

I'm certainly more inclined to allow my adolescently formed and extremely prejudiced high opinion of Bradbury to expect that he certainly has the intelligence to see thru the likes of a Michael Moore. I agree he is probably very angry to be associated in such a slovenly way. But his tactical response here will not be seen positively by many I'm afraid. Their first reaction will be 'self-agrandisement' or 'silly old nutter' and not "MM is a charlatan and fraud".

But let me be the first to suggest that MM probably is trying to become the Ralph Nader of early 21st century, the classic whistle-blowing counter-propagandist. But he plays the role as a hopped-up tourist with a videocamera and he has nothing to lose in a world of Homer Simpsons seeking media thrills at their own levels of carelessness and sensation.

I expect MM will have to run for President in 2020. But he will lose because by then the homeless will constitute a majority and he'll not be able to identify with his constituents, being at home as he is on the range...

No Ray! Turn off that beam!

~jwf~

Adelaide - you make a good point. Michael Moore does provide a lot of information that would otherwise not make it to the public's attention and, if he has an axe to grind at least he makes it obvious which axe it is.

There are equally damning things said about Bush and Co on dozens of Conspiracy websites all over the internet. Take your pick - do you want Bush to be a Christian maniac? A member of dark and terrible secret societies? A Reptoid alien? All of the above?

Moore's only showing you what he wants you to see, just like all of the other political spin doctors.

Ray Bradbury is at least honest enough to admit that he is a purveyor of engaging lies up front. He markets his work as fiction.

Which of the two men is the more honest?

Ray Bradbury is a good fiction writer - I haven't read any of his works for years, but I like what I remember...
I have been having some fun reading conspiracy sites just now - but it doesn't mean I accept what they say. Dubya is a slimy, dishonest and evil man but that doesn't make him a Reptiloid - in fact, he doesn't have to be an alien to be a thorougly bad chap.

Mycroft,

You asked “could you let us know what arrangements you've made to pay Douglas Adams' estate for the use of one of his book titles as your user name?”

No you may not know, it’s none of your business. I did ask permission to use the name on the forum (not Mr. Adams personally but his people) and if ask (by his estate or his rep.) I would stop using the name.

Mostly Harmless

Bradbury's accusation is preposterous, but Bradbury appears to be turning into something of a curmudgeon in his old age.

I've not seen the film and I'm not likely to, since I don't like Moore much. It's certainly been extremely popular in the USA, though, and whether it will affect the Presidential elections (rightly or wrongly) will be interesting.

I think to call MM movie responsible documentry is a stretch.
I think he does get a lot of information acrossed to people whom do not pay close attention to the news behind the scenes until they have to vote.

I will watch it as I have his others but take it with a grain of salt. There have been scenes in all of his movies that you were led to believe took place but he took great creative liberties with them.

The bank scenes in Columbine were not accurate however he did affect the sales of guns at KMart so he affected a small elimination of guns. Yay

I think many people will be shocked and informed by the contents of MM movie. those who blind patriots not looking for gore and deceit.
There were reports early on that he showed a beheading but I think it was not in(not sure) For that I think it deserved an R rating.


I think MMs ego would keep him from paying Bradbury the courtesy of a call. They do have different politics. It would be considered a compliment by most writers because it is such a widely known title (Bradburys) However they are equally stubborn and aggressive personalities.

I thought perhaps there was a play on the title.
Most would hope it was fiction by the time you are done watching.

I do find it amusing that people get so agitated about MM, and go on at length about his accuracy and style. What he ia doing is providing a left wing response to right wing commentators. Ann Coulter is accurate and non sensationalist? I don't think so. The bottom line is that he is the only person about who is putting out information/propaganda with a left wing bias and getting any attention, so I'm all for him. And so far I haven't seen any evidence at all that there have been any serious errors in his books or movies, but I have heard a lot of nit picking and spin.

It's nice to see that people are scared enough to diss him.

It must be difficult in America to be anti-Moore, if you're not pro-Bush. There are - as quoted here - justifiable reasons for not approving of him: his sensationalism, his style, his bending of the truth or strategic omissions, whatever. Like abbi, I enjoy the films and books, but take them with a pinch of salt.

Moore knows he has enemies - in the Government and the right wing fraternities. It must be uncomfortable for him to realise that he also has people with taste on his own side of the political fence who nonetheless disapprove of him.

Personally I think it's far-fetched to connect "Fahrenheit 9-11" with "Fahrenheit 451" - as has been suggested, lots of other famous titles have been satirised and no one minded. It depends how au fait you are with the works of Bradbury, I suppose.

"The bank scenes in Columbine were not accurate"

Abbi - in what way were the scenes in the bank not accurate? I presume you're talking about the scene at the beginning where he opens a bank account to get a free gun.

Just a little colour commentary to set the scene for those of you who aren't Americans.

It's possibly the most disconcerting experience I've had in the USA, moreso because it was one of the first.

You see gun stores from time to time and you unconciously recognise that there are indeed people in America who own firearms. Then you walk into a WalMart, or a Big K - Brits, think ASDA and a downmarket competitor respectively - and there, next to the isles of sporting goods and next to the DIY goods are racks of guns.
Hunting rifles and shotguns. Not air rifles and BB guns. Big, solid looking Remmington pump action shotguns exactly like you see in the movies.
They're locked inside glass cabinets but if you can find a sales assistant you can take a closer look at one.
They don't sell pistols, though, because there's a waiting period on concealable weapons...but it's slightly freaky to know that I could, if I had the appropriate ID, go out today and buy myself a firearm.

Well, there you go. I don't think you can accuse Michael Moore of being polite. And isn't that what people like about him?

As for the comment earlier about the reporter being Swedish, I don't see why that means that the report should be less reliable? Are Swedes unreliable people?

Hmmmm