Word is out that Ray Bradbury is torqued with Michael Moore over Moore’s titling his film “Fahrenheit 9/11.” Seems he doesn’t like the homage, if you will, to his classic tale of book burning and censorship.
I can see both sides of this one. On the one hand, Moore should’ve gotten Bradbury’s blessing. Then again,if he asked Bradbury’s permission, he’d have to be willing to toss the title if the response was negative, and Moore likely didn’t want to do it. On the other hand, I don’t exactly see where the author of “Something Wicked This Way Comes” gets to bìŧçh about riffing another author’s words. At least Moore changed his title rather than using a verbatim quote. And considering there’s going to be a new edition of “F451” coming up in a few weeks, what’s the harm in some free publicity?
I think Moore should stand firm with the title but offer to put a big ‘With thanks to Ray Bradbury” in the credits or, if that’s no longer possible, in the DVD release. Maybe even interview Bradbury for a DVD extra to get his take on what’s going on these days.
PAD
• 
I wrote: “Is it any wounder…”
I meant “wonder,” of course. 🙂
I wrote: “… to be blindly parisan.”
I meant partisan, of course. I guess it’s one of those days…. 🙂
Except that in Roger Moore’s film, 9/11 never would have happened, because…
Okay, is anyone else getting flashbacks to the Muppets Tonight episode where everyone mistakes Hercule Poirot (played by Jason Alexander) for Hercules, not to mention Superman later on?
Hilarious stuff. Highly recommended.
We now return to your regularly scheduled politicizing.
TWL
“Hey, why don’t you make the Earth spin backwards, turn back time and find out who committed the crime that way?”
If I were to follow Mr. Bradburys’ logic then Spike Lee had a legal and moral right to sue Spike TV for use of ‘his’ name.
Please. Have we (society as a whole) gotten so nitty-picky or PC that this should be even an issue?
Mr. Bradbury’s angst reminds me of the person (or persons) that insisted on disclaimers that appear on car commercials “Professional Driver on Closed Course. Do Not Attempt” Hëll, it got to a point that on a clearly computer animated commercial they actually put: “Digital Driver ..etc”
If people can’t distinquish between the book F451 or movie and a Michael Moore movie about Pres. Bush called F911 then I have a used bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell.
arcee:
>If people can’t distinquish between the book F451 or movie and a Michael Moore movie about Pres. Bush called F911 then I have a used bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell.
Ðámņ! I walked that bridge a few years back!!! How much do I owe ya?
Personally, I’m with Bradbury on this one, although I may be biased by the fact that I like his work a lot more than Moore’s.
A few people have said that Bradbury waited too long to complain about this. From:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3821269.stm
Bradbury, who has not seen the movie, said he called Moore’s company six months ago to protest and was promised that Moore would call back. Moore only called last week, Bradbury said, adding that Moore told him he was “embarrassed”.
Based on that, I’d say that he behaved reasonably. I also think he gets credit for being willing to avoid litigation, rather than suing for excessive amounts of money.
I haven’t seen the film (it hasn’t been released in the UK yet), but I don’t think it counts as satire, so that part of the “fair use” laws don’t apply. More generally, I don’t think it makes sense – “9/11” is a date, not a temperature, and even if it was a temperature it wouldn’t have any connection to freedom.
MUCH different than Spike TV. It would very much be a legitimate lawsuit. In fact, it would be a text book example of one party attempting to illegally trade off of the work and intellectual property of another.
Spike TV was weak because not only did Spike Lee not even have a TM on Spike, it is SO generic that most people can list about a dozen of them.
But Farenheit 9/11 is a DIRECT play off of Bradbury’s work.
This quote is all the evidence a reasonable jury would need to determine that Moore was intentionally riding on the coattails of Bradbury’s premise.
Whether you support IP protection or not, the law protects Bradbury here.
I don’t even care if he had no immediate plans at all, I would support his position just as strongly.
First, he should not be forced to tie HIS political stance of F451 to Moore’s stances. Moore is a lightning rod and a sloppy one at that. Bradbury may not want to be tied to him even if he agrees with him in principle.
Second, a person shouldn’t be allowed to come set up a lemonade stand in a small corner of my front yard. Even if I wasn’t using it, they aren’t bothering anyone, and everyone really seems to like it. It is my front yard, and I should have exclusive control of it. IP is no different than real property. Bradbury should have exclusive control of it and Moore should not be allowed to capitalize off of it.
The fact that Bradbury noted his complaint MONTHS ago, and Moore ignored him, plays into Bradbury’s favor as well. Not so much legally, but in the court of public opinion. He tried to be polite. But Moore, being the ášš that he is, wanted to use it anyway.
So, if Bradbury does challenge him, Moore will lose quite handily because the law is on Bradbury’s side.
Tim,
I saw the Alexander bit, and I actually have to agree with you! It was very funny:)
You even included one of the best quotes.
Thanks.
While I am an admirer of Mr. Bradbury’s work (not as good overall as Asimov IMO, but “Sound of Thunder” was terrific), I find his high-profile grousing over this issue to be petty and pointless. Does he truly believe that people are going to hear about Moore’s movie and confuse it with his works or his reputation? Aside from the fact that the titles are only similar (and not identical), this strikes me as entirely meaningless rabble-rousing.
(Or maybe Bradbury is a secret George W. Bush fan. Hmmmm… 😉
As for folks who are ready to dismiss Fahrenheit 9/11 because Michael Moore allegedly lies, it’s worth noting that The New York Times reports that he’s making a big effort to keep this one factually bulletproof: “[Moore] has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of ‘oppo,’ or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine’s legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/20/movies/20SHEN.html?ex=1088308800&en=05f2b88c69444954&ei=5062)
Russ,
I really like “…to be blindly Parisian.”
I don’t know what it means, but I think I’ll use it in my daily utterances.
“Pardon me for being blindly Parisian, I wasn’t thinking. And please excuse my beret and incessant cigarette smoking as well as my fondness for tiny mustaches.”
*chuckle*
Farenheit 451
Love the book.
Love the movie (and Julie Christie).
Steve Chung
>Farenheit 451
>Love the book.
>Love the movie (and Julie Christie).
>Steve Chung
Mel Gibson was attatched to a film project based on the book only a few years back. It’s too bad it never came to pass as I was really looking forward to it.
Fred
I have found that when someone has to resort to elaborate legal arguments to justify their actions, said action is usually unethical. I kinda miss the old days, when priniciples and ethics actually meant something.
That said… Michael Moore has been proven a fabricator on numerous occasions, and has admitted that he knew about the Abu Ghraib scandal long before it broke and didn’t mention it to anyone. It’ll be a LOT colder than 911, 451, or any other positive number above freezing in Hëll before I see any of his movies.
(And this is speaking as a HUGE fan of TV Nation. I still remember the Johns of Justice, the car-alarm guy, storming the beach in Connecticut, and watching Ford’s CEO change the oil on an Explorer. Oh, yeah, and the black guy buying slaves down south just so he could free them on the day slavery was finally outlawed in Alabama(?). It was a great show. Now I look back at it as the last gasps of a genius before he started believing his own hype and degenerated into lying polemics.
J.
Oh, yeah, and Crackers the corporate crime-fighting chicken. He was great, too. And the time they hired their own KGB spy. And…
Response to Ham:
While I respect your knowledge of this particular law (and don’t necessarily disagree with you on all points), I still think it’s a waste of the court’s time and money to prove Bradbury’s point that Moore’s motive to name his work was to ride his coattails.
Now had the Moore’s movie been about censorship or book burning then I would be likely to agree with you.
Also ‘reasonable jury’ …uh-huh…right.
While I think the US civil and justice system are better than just about anybody else’s in the world, I also believe it isn’t perfect.
WOW, I would not think so many people disagree with Moore’s politics here. I think, from reading Peter’s work over the last decade or more, than he is more Moore than most. Could be wrong? I personally think Moore is usually right on the money on his subjects, but I degress.
Titles cannot be copyrighted. I can start an online “Fallen Angels” comic book right now if I wanted.
Whether you support IP protection or not, the law protects Bradbury here.
Not true. Simply making a play on words with a title and tagline (“the temperature at which freedom burns”) is not actionable. A literary premise is not a literary WORK.
Mind you, as I’ve said earlier I think Moore certainly should have asked Bradbury — out of common courtesy, at the least. If it’s true that Bradbury called to object six months ago and things got lost in the cracks, that’s a dámņ shame on several counts.
Bottom line, though, is that while legally I don’t think Bradbury has a case, neither side is coming off very well here. And that’s a shame.
TWL
Tim Lynch: As for Moore’s “lack of respect” for people … while I doubt anyone considers Moore an especially polite and kind human being…
Luigi Novi: I dunno, he was pretty polite and friendly to me when I met him in NY a few years ago. I was standing outside the Loews 84th & Broadway theater recruiting for a movie screening my company was doing, and he walked in. I walked up to him while he was on the concession line, and told him I was a fan, and he didn’t seem to mind. Since I didn’t have the TV schedule of The Awful Truth in my head, and often missed it, I asked if they were still doing it, and responded that they weren’t, but that he was doing a new movie called Bowling for Columbine, which I thought was a quirky-sounding title. If he had any impolite tendencies, he didn’t display them.
Now whether everything in that movie was factually accurate, now THAT’s a different story…. 🙂
As for this latest flap, I think it’s silly. The title after all, is not the same title Bradbury used, but rather a caricaturized distortion of it, just as Bowling for Columbine may have been, and moreover, titles are not copyrightable.
Frankly, this whole thing is begining to remind of the whole ‘Fair and Balanced’ thing that went down when Al Franken released his last book.
Um, titles are not subject to copyright. Period. Any of us could write a BOOK called “Fahrenheit 451” and we’d be completely in the clear, legally.
Um, titles are not subject to copyright. Period. Any of us could write a BOOK called “Fahrenheit 451” and we’d be completely in the clear, legally.
Peter and I think we should consult Ralph Ellison on this one, the author of the Invisible Man.
Peter and I think we should consult Ralph Ellison on this one, the author of the Invisible Man.
Maybe I’m spitballing here, but I’m wondering who told Ray about the movie???? Here’s what get’s me: In the movie “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azzkaban,” the Hogwortes choiur sings a song called “Something wicked this way comes.” In fact the movie poster also had that same line on it. So I don’t understand why Ray is upset about because Moore is doing a film with a title that is a tribute to Ray’s ideas, but is not upset that the makers of ‘Azzkaban’ made a song out of the title of another of his books.
I’m not saying they were wrong, I liked Azzkaban and I saw it three times. But my point is that somebody went to Ray and got him fired up about Moore’s movie.
I had hoped that Moore’s movie would introduce a new generation of fans to Ray’s and help them to grow and become more decerning about people like Bush. But at point when artists like Moore and Bradbarry should be coming together, their being divided over a few words in a title.
Maybe I’m spitballing here, but I’m wondering who told Ray about the movie???? Here’s what get’s me: In the movie “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azzkaban,” the Hogwortes choiur sings a song called “Something wicked this way comes.” In fact the movie poster also had that same line on it. So I don’t understand why Ray is upset about because Moore is doing a film with a title that is a tribute to Ray’s ideas, but is not upset that the makers of ‘Azzkaban’ made a song out of the title of another of his books.
I’m not saying they were wrong, I liked Azzkaban and I saw it three times. But my point is that somebody went to Ray and got him fired up about Moore’s movie.
I had hoped that Moore’s movie would introduce a new generation of fans to Ray’s and help them to grow and become more decerning about people like Bush. But at point when artists like Moore and Bradbarry should be coming together, their being divided over a few words in a title.
“1) as has been noted, titles can’t be copyrighted”
Didn’t Harlan Ellison successfully sue a film company that was going to release a film called I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream?
He should have titled it “Supersize Moore”, to fit his ego.
I read the article where this “started” in Dagens Nyheter the 2nd of june and wondered how long it would take for it’s contents to spread, hehe… I’ll post the URL at the end. (The DN journalist M
“[Moore] has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of ‘oppo,’ or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine’s legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.”
I’m no Alanis Morisette but isn’t this ironic, don’tcha think?
As opposed to Kenneth Starr and Karl Rove? I think the man needs to protect himself. Look at what happens to ANYONE who is critical of this administration.
Bill,
I’m forced to side with Karen here (not that this is unusual). I’m not seeing whatever irony you are — I’m not even seeing where you’d see it. I would hope any high-profile documentary would employ outside fact-checkers, actually.
TWL
And what WOULD people say if MM would have gone out there and said that he WOULDN’T employ outside fact-checkers… C’mon…
And may that go times a thousand regarding lawyers… hehehe…
It would be as un-american as saaaayyy, not being able to have firearms at home… for your own protection strictly only… or personal freedomie feelings of americaness or somesuch…
😉
“Here’s what get’s me: In the movie “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azzkaban,” the Hogwortes choiur sings a song called “Something wicked this way comes.” In fact the movie poster also had that same line on it. So I don’t understand why Ray is upset about because Moore is doing a film with a title that is a tribute to Ray’s ideas, but is not upset that the makers of ‘Azzkaban’ made a song out of the title of another of his books. “
Because Ray Bradbury didn’t come up with the phrase for his book; he simply appropriated it from the same source that the producers of “Harry Potter” did: Act IV, scene one of “Macbeth.” He couldn’t exactly say, “How dare they lift lines from the play that I lifted lines from first.”
PAD
Admittedly off-topic: I’m watchign Keira Knightly on Leno now, and she talked about the blue war paint her character wears in King Arthur, referring to it as “woad.” I didn’t realize that was a real thing. I thought it was an element in the Apropos universe that he made up for The Woad to Wuin. Guess you learn something new every day.
On the Today show Moore said that he got the title of the film from a email he recieved from a fan. That the title of the email “Farenheit 9/11” is what go him thinking about the film to begin with.
As for the concern that Moore kept quiet about Abu Ghraib. Would those that are criticizing him believed him two months ago? According to reports now coming out the Red Cross reported upon the abuse in October of last year and nothing was done.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0510-03.htm
Plus we find out now that Rumsfeld held hold a man in prison without him being identified.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5226957/
Could Moore coming clean sooner have maybe helped? Maybe or maybe not. It is still amazing to me how many questions are still not being asked by the mainstream media, let alone answered.
When the Clinton adminstration stonewalled the press hammered them with the same questions over and over again. When the Bush adminstration stonewalls many of the same journalists say “Nevermind.”
As to the comment on “Weird Al” paying royalties…
He uses the original, copywritten music, so of course, he should pay a royalty to the songwriter. I’ll agree that Coolio wasn’t too mad about “Amish Paradise” that he cashed the royalty checks.
As for Micheal Moore. Yeah, it’s too late to change the title, and Ray Badbury is old enough to realize that even bad publicity is still good publicity. A segment of the population who probably wouldn’t have noticed a remake of “… 451” is now aware that one is in the pipeline. Not only that, people who hate Moore might go see it thinking they would be thumbing their nose at him.
I tend to side against Bradbury on this one. “9/11” has become synonymous with September 11, 2001 (at least no one’s confusing it with Sept. 11 of any other year so far), and the film certainly isn’t being marketed as anything connected to the (excellent) Bradbury novel. (Some years ago Negativeland got in trouble not for doing a U2 parody, but marketing it in a way that made it look like a U2 album.) If anyone mistakes Moore’s movie for a Bradbury adaption, they probably should pay more attention to the world around them.
If there’s any misleading title for an upcoming movie, it looks to be I, ROBOT. The (extraordinary) novel is a number of varying looks at the growing importance of robots in the lives of humans, all told by (and connected through) the first robopsychologist. The movie looks like a murder mystery (They can’t kill! But they are!), a conspiracy (They’re taking over!) and a star’s desire to be an action hero overwhelming a movie (only Will Smith can save us! Zap! Pow!) at the cost of, well, the source material. (I don’t recall a single human murder in the novel.) I hope Harlan Ellison beats Will Smith to death with his (Harlan’s) I, ROBOT screenplay.
Speaking of Harlan Ellison (and, in honor of PAD, digressing), when I heard him speak he had absolute hatred for Gus Van Sant for remaking PSYCHO. Wonder how he feels about another truly great movie — THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE — getting the unnecessary modernizing treatment. Feh.
Still talking about Weird Al …
His side of the story is that there must have been some sort of misunderstanding because his agent had told him Coolio had said it was OK.
Coolio said that they called, he refused, but oh, well.
Weird Al’s agent said that Coolio’s people had said it was OK and noted that they couldn’t be too upset since they were cashing the checks.
Whatever the truth may be, Weird Al’s people have been more solicitous recently. They received permission from Eminem to parody “Lose Control”. (I can’t believe I actually remembered the name.) But … he didn’t want there to be a video.
So there isn’t. Weird Al’s last album went on sale without any videos to help promote it.
About Moore and Bradbury, I think it would’ve been courteous and decent of Moore to call and get permission first. But I don’t think he had any legal obligation to do so and I’m not terribly surprised that he didn’t.
I read a lot of Bradbury when I was young and I love his work, and I’m a bit saddened by his over the top reaction. If anything the title of Moore’s movie is a tribute to him, not an example of theft. If you want to get really technical, the numbers 9/11 obviously stand for the date of the attack, while fahrenheit is simply a common word. If I was Bradbury, I’d be flattered that someone gave a nod to my old novel.
Also I am always amazed at the level of bile that’s spewed at Moore. You don’t have to agree with him, nor like his style, but he raises issues practically no one else seems to. Expecially with the pathetic excuse that passes for ‘critical journalism’ in this country today. How often do I have to hear stories from the BBC or the Netherlands or other coutries that are shocking revelations about the Bush Administration, only to find that the american news only talks about Michael Jackson or American Idol?
As for Moore being biased, yes, he has a point to make. Every documentary in history has been ‘biased’ because people always start out with a view on a topic. At least he makes his case. And at least he stays calm and collected while interviewing people of opposite views. Yet he’s reviled, while legions of right-wing pundits on TV and radio (Limbaugh, Coulter, O’Reilly, Hannity, etc. etc.) scream, rant, rave with foam on the mouth, invite a left winger and a right winger to debate, completely side with the right winger, interrupt literally every sentence of the left winger, and when he/she tries to protest, start yelling at them to shut up, and call them names.
Yet THAT, which goes on almost daily, is considered ‘normal’. No one protests the insanity or unfairness of these neanderthals. And then they complain Moore doesn’t ‘respect people’? Does that make sense on any level??
So Michael Moore making a movie once a year to show his points and doing it calmly and showing us WHY he came to his conclusions, has people calling for his head. And those same people claim to love the freedom in america. On one board I saw someone say he hate Moore for not apprecating the freedom here, and then went on to say that because of his movie (which would be Moore excercising his freedom), he should ‘be beaten to death’. Classy, really classy.
Moore raises issues. He asks questions that need to be asked and most of the media has their own head up their ášš. For every Rumsfeld, Cheney and Ashcroft a society needs a Michael Moore with a bullhorn. THAT’s the point of the freedom of this country. I don’t agree with all his views either but I’m happy and thankful there’s at least one of him to go against the grain and have the balls to point out what goes on with this administration.
In Little Robot Lost, one of the robots gets about a foot away from killing Susan Calvin.
But I have no idea what that (or anything in the book other than the name and The 3 Laws) has to do with the movie.
Nick wrote: “But I have no idea what that (or anything in the book other than the name and The 3 Laws) has to do with the movie.”
This won’t be the first time that’s happened with an Asimov story turned into a movie. I remember speaking with Asimov at a party in the late 1980’s, and asked him what he thought of the film adaptation of “Nightfall.” He replied that he didn’t see it, because when he was called and invited to the premiere, he asked, “What is it rated?”
The film person replied “It’s rated R.”
Isaac asked, “How can it be rated R?”
“For some nudity and simulated sex.”
Isaac, shocked, responded, “There are no women in the story! Who is getting naked and having sex?”
He concluded by saying to me, “So, I cashed the check, walked away, and never bothered to see the film.”
So, fifteen years later, and it’s the same story, except Isaac isn’t here to offer his comments.
” So, fifteen years later, and it’s the same story, except Isaac isn’t here to offer his comments.”
So? What of his estate? The heinlein estate sued to get his name off the STARSHIP TROOPERS movie because it differed so much from the book, I believe. Couldn’t Asimov’s widow also kick up a fuss over I, ROBOT being so wildly different from the story?
(Count me in the number of those who, having seen the trailer, won’t be going.)
Thanks to Moore there’s four sides to every story, yours theirs, the truth and whatever psychotic conspiracy theory Micheal Moore has about the situation.
Only four? I’ve found that there are usually more than that. Anyone who thinks issues like this there is a distinction between your story, there story and the truth are simply deluding themselves.
As for Moore’s ‘conspiracy theories’ I may not think the Oscar’s were the best place for his speech. I did not however disagree with the sentiment.
A true documentary is really hard to make. They usually aren’t done well either. Raw representation of the facts gets so repitive. Mainly, I think because they either get really bad unknown narrators. There things like those crappy movies they made watch in since class when you had a substitute, or it was half day and the teachers were too dámņ lazy to do any teaching.
TV Nation, Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine.. I consider them thoughtumentarys. They focus on a situation, present information, they openly express a viewpoint, and at the end leave the viewer to the most dangerous (and wonderful) things human beings can do. Figure things out for themselves. To me, that’s the important thing.
Fahrenheit 451 – the heat at which paper burns
Fahrenheit 9/11 – the heat at which freedom burns
Given that 451 deals with freedom to read what you want, and Mr Moore deals with freedom of speech etc – couldn’t it just be a homage rather than a rip-off?
Isn’t Moore’s use of the title “Fahrenheit 9/11” pretty much the same thing that the adult industry has been doing since forever?
“Coming in America” is a lot closer to the title of the Eddie Murphy movie “Coming to America” than Moore’s movie is to Bradbury’s book.
Well, over here in the UK Moore is seen as one of the few vocal critics of the Bush administration who makes very emotive cases for whatever issue he is looking at. Also, his films/documentaries are broadcast here with the ‘controversial’ tag attached, so you cn guess what happens next, people watch them, interview him etc.
Let’s face facts though, whatever issue there is in the world, soemone will always have an oppossing view or research it to such an extent that they will come up with some interesting evidence. I can imagine that a certain Dubya is starting to feel a little bit hot under the collar
Where I think people go wrong with Moore is that they look at his films as the straight forward, impartial documentaries we are used to instead of the visual op/ed pieces that they really are. Roger & Me was just as filled with Moore’s personal views as Bowling for Columbine its just that his targets were different.
Wode – Not only is it blue, it’s an hallucinogen (made from a plant). Part of why the Celts (and Picts) were such feared warriors – they weren’t quite all there. Face it, the Romans were quite surprised and frightened (at first) when the Picts ran at them blue and completely naked, then seemed not to notice when wounded.
On a completely different note, I wanted to point out that Moore considers his pieces more Op-Ed than documentary.
“But I have no idea what that (or anything in the book other than the name and The 3 Laws) has to do with the movie.”
I got the impression, from the commercials I’ve seen, that they’re also stirring in elements from “The Caves of Steel”, in which a robot is accused of murder – even though that’s supposed to be impossible. Sadly, Will won’t have an R. Daneel Olivaw-type sidekick…
Heinlein, writing about his work in Hollywood, quoted Hemingway on the topic. I don’t recall the quote word-for-word, but the gist of it was that a writer would walk up to the California state line, and throw his manuscript in the general direction of Hollywood. They’d throw some money back, and the wise writer would then take that money, put it in the bank, and give the film no further attention. I think Isaac had the same idea. 🙂
(Incidentally, and completely beside the point, I first learned of woad from one of Randall Garrett’s Lord Darcy stories, “Muddle of the Woad” – a corpse was painted with woad to mislead police into thinking the death was part of some cultish Druidic revival.)
If Bradbury’s that p.o.’ed, then why doesn’t he sue John Williams while he’s at it (unless Williams did ask permission to swipe the title “Something Wicked This Way Comes” for “Prisoner of Azkaban” already)?
Arco, EXCELLENT points!
It’s too bad these days, in “the land of the free” that people aren’t encouraged to question our leaders, that if they present their views they’re often ridiculed —or worse.
Much like radio and TV shows you have the freedom to turn off things you don’t like. If you don’t like Moore and don’t want to see his films, then DON’T.