PalpatineW
Lap cheong Level: 83
Posts: 1103/1528 EXP: 5382428 For next: 49816
Since: 2.1.02 From: Getting Rowdy
Since last post: 6274 days Last activity: 6116 days
| #1 Posted on 22.6.04 0226.32 Reposted on: 22.6.11 0228.57 | http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
This article is worth reading for the sheer quality of writing alone, though I also enjoyed it for its terrific skewering of that windbag, Moore.
Perhaps the best paragraph of political journalism I've ever read:
Originally posted by Christopher Hitchens I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that.
Promote this thread! | | StaggerLee
Scrapple Level: 161
Posts: 1541/7105 EXP: 53050249 For next: 1062984
Since: 3.10.02 From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 937 days Last activity: 937 days
| #2 Posted on 22.6.04 0437.11 Reposted on: 22.6.11 0437.24 | Personally I liked this paragraph better:
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
| meatcurtains
Haggis Level: 19
Posts: 23/53 EXP: 32876 For next: 2901
Since: 12.5.04
Since last post: 7100 days Last activity: 6498 days
| #3 Posted on 22.6.04 0514.22 Reposted on: 22.6.11 0519.13 | Now to see if Moore goes through with his plan to sue anybody who disparages him or his film. | Roy.
Pepperoni Level: 70
Posts: 237/1040 EXP: 2872724 For next: 143102
Since: 25.2.04 From: Keystone State
Since last post: 5801 days Last activity: 1765 days
| #4 Posted on 22.6.04 0744.42 Reposted on: 22.6.11 0746.29 | Originally posted by meatcurtains Now to see if Moore goes through with his plan to sue anybody who disparages him or his film.
I didn't know he was going to sue anybody who disparages him or his film. The only thing that I've heard him say is that he's got himself a "war room" ready to pounce on anybody who says that his facts are wrong. So if somebody says "that never happened" he can pull out the tape or newspaper article or something and show that it did, indeed, happen.
Personally, I think that it's going to be fun to watch the windbags on the left vs. the windbags on the right for the next few weeks. It's great when politics and political discussions simply turn into name calling. And today, that seems to be all anybody wants to do. | meatcurtains
Haggis Level: 19
Posts: 25/53 EXP: 32876 For next: 2901
Since: 12.5.04
Since last post: 7100 days Last activity: 6498 days
| #5 Posted on 22.6.04 0754.16 Reposted on: 22.6.11 0754.20 | Originally posted by Roy I didn't know he was going to sue anybody who disparages him or his film. The only thing that I've heard him say is that he's got himself a "war room" ready to pounce on anybody who says that his facts are wrong. So if somebody says "that never happened" he can pull out the tape or newspaper article or something and show that it did, indeed, happen.
Fahrenheit 9/11 director Michael Moore told the New York Times on Sunday (June 20, 2004). “The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I’ll take them to court.”
The Times also reported that Moore “has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation,” and that he’s established a “war room” to monitor attacks on the film.
(edited by Keeper on 23.6.04 1314) | redsoxnation
Scrapple Level: 165
Posts: 3937/7534 EXP: 58189321 For next: 746484
Since: 24.7.02
Since last post: 3923 days Last activity: 3923 days
| #6 Posted on 22.6.04 0814.40 Reposted on: 22.6.11 0816.44 | Originally posted by Roy.
Originally posted by meatcurtains Now to see if Moore goes through with his plan to sue anybody who disparages him or his film.
I didn't know he was going to sue anybody who disparages him or his film. The only thing that I've heard him say is that he's got himself a "war room" ready to pounce on anybody who says that his facts are wrong. So if somebody says "that never happened" he can pull out the tape or newspaper article or something and show that it did, indeed, happen.
Personally, I think that it's going to be fun to watch the windbags on the left vs. the windbags on the right for the next few weeks. It's great when politics and political discussions simply turn into name calling. And today, that seems to be all anybody wants to do.
You know it is becoming a weird world when Henry Kissinger and Mother Theresa despiser Christopher Hitchens is called right wing. | DrDirt
Banger Level: 106
Posts: 855/2743 EXP: 12422246 For next: 249738
Since: 8.10.03 From: flyover country
Since last post: 2346 days Last activity: 2248 days
| #7 Posted on 22.6.04 0817.50 Reposted on: 22.6.11 0820.58 | Originally posted by meatcurtains
Originally posted by Roy. I didn't know he was going to sue anybody who disparages him or his film. The only thing that I've heard him say is that he's got himself a "war room" ready to pounce on anybody who says that his facts are wrong. So if somebody says "that never happened" he can pull out the tape or newspaper article or something and show that it did, indeed, happen.
Fahrenheit 9/11 director Michael Moore told the New York Times on Sunday (June 20, 2004). “The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I’ll take them to court.”
The Times also reported that Moore “has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation,” and that he’s established a “war room” to monitor attacks on the film.
I don't think that is the same as suing people who disagree.
(edited by Keeper on 23.6.04 1315) | Roy.
Pepperoni Level: 70
Posts: 238/1040 EXP: 2872724 For next: 143102
Since: 25.2.04 From: Keystone State
Since last post: 5801 days Last activity: 1765 days
| #8 Posted on 22.6.04 0852.49 Reposted on: 22.6.11 0854.19 | Originally posted by redsoxnation
Originally posted by Roy.
Originally posted by meatcurtains Now to see if Moore goes through with his plan to sue anybody who disparages him or his film.
I didn't know he was going to sue anybody who disparages him or his film. The only thing that I've heard him say is that he's got himself a "war room" ready to pounce on anybody who says that his facts are wrong. So if somebody says "that never happened" he can pull out the tape or newspaper article or something and show that it did, indeed, happen.
Personally, I think that it's going to be fun to watch the windbags on the left vs. the windbags on the right for the next few weeks. It's great when politics and political discussions simply turn into name calling. And today, that seems to be all anybody wants to do.
You know it is becoming a weird world when Henry Kissinger and Mother Theresa despiser Christopher Hitchens is called right wing.
I wasn't saying that Hitchens was right wing. I'm not sure what he is, reading his stuff. I would classify him as "pissed off" but that's about it. I haven't read a lot of him to form an opinion. Sorry if I was misunderstood.
I was talking about Moore and the people that are all over morning TV (when Moore's not booked on the show) attacking or defending the movie. It cracks me up. This week Moore seems to be one of the the main topics of conversation on Good Morning America, Today, and that morning Fox News show (Fox and Friends, maybe?). Yes, I know that you shouldn't expect hard hitting news, but there's some ridiculous people being booked to talk about the movie to praise/blast it. | RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me Level: 69
Posts: 234/991 EXP: 2802580 For next: 67178
Since: 21.2.02 From: ORLANDO
Since last post: 1440 days Last activity: 1223 days
| #9 Posted on 22.6.04 0917.23 Reposted on: 22.6.11 0917.29 | Another development (and to follow-up on a previous discussion), the *real* lawsuit appears to be this -
Click Here (cnn.com)
Bradbury: Change 'Fahrenheit' title Author wants apology from Moore, movie renamed
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 main crux of Bradbury's point is that he asked Moore (via Moore's reps) to change it, but was not responded to, at the very least until it was too late...but I like this part
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."
No "war room", no crying the blues and making not-so-veiled threats against critical disdain, just a request to adhere to copyright laws. I'm just amazed, considering how NUTS Mel Gibson is, how much better he handled a much more controversial film / topic than Moore is doing with his...of course, when you operate on YOUR OWN MONEY, the little things make a difference.
You know, Oliver Stone used to use the same arguments when he bent history to suit his story...but he is 10x the filmmaker Moore is and not such a whiny cunt when people question his motives and facts*...
* Notice in JFK and Nixon - whenever a "private" conversation occurred, there was ALWAYS a staff member, waiter, etc walking by (or in the area) that *could* have overheard- that is genius. Quick cuts and raised eyebrow narratives to "assist" the audience's judgment is for amateurs.
FLEA | DrDirt
Banger Level: 106
Posts: 857/2743 EXP: 12422246 For next: 249738
Since: 8.10.03 From: flyover country
Since last post: 2346 days Last activity: 2248 days
| #10 Posted on 22.6.04 1314.54 Reposted on: 22.6.11 1315.03 | Originally posted by RYDER FAKIN You know, Oliver Stone used to use the same arguments when he bent history to suit his story...but he is 10x the filmmaker Moore is and not such a whiny cunt when people question his motives and facts*...
Flea, Is that a term of endearment? I never knew you went to Colorado. Were you a medieval literaure major? | vsp
Andouille Level: 94
Posts: 1755/2042 EXP: 8314884 For next: 41804
Since: 3.1.02 From: Philly
Since last post: 6477 days Last activity: 2732 days
| #11 Posted on 22.6.04 1328.36 Reposted on: 22.6.11 1328.47 | Originally posted by RYDER FAKIN No "war room", no crying the blues and making not-so-veiled threats against critical disdain, just a request to adhere to copyright laws.
Of course, since (a) you can't copyright a title and (b) Moore's title is an allusion to Bradbury's rather than a direct copy, Bradbury doesn't have a legal leg to stand on and he knows it.
| RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me Level: 69
Posts: 236/991 EXP: 2802580 For next: 67178
Since: 21.2.02 From: ORLANDO
Since last post: 1440 days Last activity: 1223 days
| #12 Posted on 22.6.04 1349.57 Reposted on: 22.6.11 1350.19 | DrDirt: Flea, Is that a term of endearment? I never knew you went to Colorado. Were you a medieval literaure major?
God Bless Betsy Hoffman for doing her best trying to make one of my favorite words socially acceptable. Same thing Clinton did for blowjobs in the late 90's.
vsp: Of course, since (a) you can't copyright a title and (b) Moore's title is an allusion to Bradbury's rather than a direct copy, Bradbury doesn't have a legal leg to stand on and he knows it.
You know, I thought the same thing...if only loosely based on FOX going after Franken's "Fair and Balanced" subtitle and getting thrown out of court on their ears. But Bradbury was on some news show Sunday talking about this (I think it was a BBCish channel...- I couldn't find a transcript) and seems to think he has the grounds to litigate and made a damn good case for it. I guess it remains to be seen. I suppose you could also use this...
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.
...as a way of saying he's getting some good old fashioned free press out of it. But I'll take his side anyway, just because.
Also - you probably don't need *me* to say anything about that Avatar ;-) FLEA | OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst Level: 112
Posts: 2055/3066 EXP: 15189246 For next: 149007
Since: 28.4.02 From: Pittsburgh, PA
Since last post: 1819 days Last activity: 995 days
| #13 Posted on 22.6.04 1734.37 Reposted on: 22.6.11 1735.00 | Did Bradbury get permission from Shakespeare for "Something Wicked This Way Comes"? | Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge Level: 51
Posts: 342/502 EXP: 970638 For next: 43307
Since: 6.11.03 From: Dudleyville
Since last post: 6743 days Last activity: 6736 days
| #14 Posted on 22.6.04 1914.45 Reposted on: 22.6.11 1916.15 | To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental.
Heh, that's right up there with my favorite "sums it all up" review ever, one The Dommer (the drunk Irish guy from the second Real World) did on "PCU" for the old Film Threat video guide.
Unequivically the worst film I've seen this year... and hey, I saw "Crooklyn."
And so there's no confusion. You write for Slate and Vanity Fair the closest to the right wing you get is the one on your "White People Killed Indians and Stole Their Land Day" tofu turkey.
(edited by Barbwire Mike on 22.6.04 1715) | JustinShapiro
Scrapple Moderator Level: 145
Posts: 596/5537 EXP: 37175802 For next: 428370
Since: 12.12.01
Since last post: 1764 days Last activity: 1416 days
| #15 Posted on 22.6.04 2002.03 Reposted on: 22.6.11 2002.48 | Did Soul Plane get permission from Soul Train!?!?! | Grimis
Scrapple Level: 135
Posts: 3318/4700 EXP: 28695225 For next: 639856
Since: 11.7.02 From: MD
Since last post: 4713 days Last activity: 3168 days
| #16 Posted on 22.6.04 2254.36 Reposted on: 22.6.11 2256.39 | The only good thing about Michael Moore getting his lawyers involeved is the fact that it'll actually kill two birds with one stones in showing te sheer ridiculousness of his film and overzealous awyers at the same time... | DrDirt
Banger Level: 106
Posts: 858/2743 EXP: 12422246 For next: 249738
Since: 8.10.03 From: flyover country
Since last post: 2346 days Last activity: 2248 days
| #17 Posted on 23.6.04 0732.37 Reposted on: 23.6.11 0732.40 | Originally posted by Grimis The only good thing about Michael Moore getting his lawyers involeved is the fact that it'll actually kill two birds with one stones in showing te sheer ridiculousness of his film and overzealous awyers at the same time...
Not really Grimis. This is like a presidential election. The two sides are established and nothing that Moore or his critics do will result in anything other than reinforcing preconceptions.
(edited by DrDirt on 23.6.04 0732) | Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge Level: 51
Posts: 343/502 EXP: 970638 For next: 43307
Since: 6.11.03 From: Dudleyville
Since last post: 6743 days Last activity: 6736 days
| #18 Posted on 23.6.04 1017.36 Reposted on: 23.6.11 1017.53 | The vast right wing conspiracy strikes again:
MPAA Appeals Board Refuses to Lower Fahrenheit Rating | JayJayDean
Scrapple Level: 136
Posts: 1317/4750 EXP: 29501451 For next: 595541
Since: 2.1.02 From: Seattle, WA
Since last post: 2984 days Last activity: 2562 days
| | Y!: | |
|
| #19 Posted on 23.6.04 1021.48 Reposted on: 23.6.11 1024.02 | Originally posted by article Mike linked to Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gate Films, had argued to the appeals board that 15- and 16-year-olds should be free to see the film on their own because they could end up in military service in Iraq in the next few years.
How stupid is this reasoning? If that's REALLY why a 15 or 16-year old would want to see the movie, as a parent I would take them to the movie and watch it with them myself. Therefore, the "R" rating isn't keeping that potential viewer away. | DrDirt
Banger Level: 106
Posts: 860/2743 EXP: 12422246 For next: 249738
Since: 8.10.03 From: flyover country
Since last post: 2346 days Last activity: 2248 days
| #20 Posted on 23.6.04 1103.10 Reposted on: 23.6.11 1103.18 | Originally posted by JayJayDean
Originally posted by article Mike linked to Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gate Films, had argued to the appeals board that 15- and 16-year-olds should be free to see the film on their own because they could end up in military service in Iraq in the next few years.
How stupid is this reasoning? If that's REALLY why a 15 or 16-year old would want to see the movie, as a parent I would take them to the movie and watch it with them myself. Therefore, the "R" rating isn't keeping that potential viewer away.
It's quite simple, R movies typically make less money. The money is in the PG-13 rating. As much as Moore is bashed and he despises capitalism, he does like money. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |