kc
Fan
Posts: 155
|
Post by kc on Jul 7, 2004 22:41:15 GMT
In Pete's latest diary entry, he mentions that Michael Moore has said some negative things about him because Pete didn't allow use of WGFA in F911. I haven't read any one these statements from Moore, any one see where he whined about this?
kc
|
|
|
Post by Ineedanewname on Jul 7, 2004 22:49:56 GMT
Here's Moore's explanation, which if truthful, loses Pete more than a few 'respect' points from myself: "At the end of the film Bush says "Fool me once, shame on… me. I won't get fooled again." Clearly that moment demands that we hear Roger Daltrey scream, "Won't get fooled again!" That's how I had it cut. Pete Townsend blocked it, would not allow the song to be used. Word came to us that he is not a fan of Michael Moore's and in fact supports the war and supports Tony Blair and doesn't want the song used in any way that would make Blair look bad. Harvey personally made an appeal to him to reconsider. And he wouldn't. At that point, we're about a week away from going to Cannes. So, I remembered while I was driving in Michigan "Rockin' in the Free World" came on the radio and I thought this would be a cool song to have in the movie. So we said, "Let's see how this works," and it worked perfectly. Called up Neil Young and he said, "Whatever you need. Absolutely. It's yours." Once we started playing it in the movie, we quickly forgot about The Who. In fact, after Cannes, we got a call from their manager who said they might be willing to reconsider. And I said, "No, uh uh. That's bad karma. This is Neil Young's moment." People leave the theaters, that's what I want them hearing. In fact I don't want them hearing a song that has the line, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Because the new boss I sincerely hope won't be the same as the old boss. I don't want that song. It gave me a chance to have a line at the end too, cause you can't go right into "Rockin' in the Free World." So I get to say "For once I agree with Bush…we won't get fooled again." You can see the full interview here: filmlinc.com/fcm/online/fahr911interview.htm
|
|
|
Post by Mongolom on Jul 7, 2004 23:38:33 GMT
Here's Moore's explanation, which if truthful, loses Pete more than a few 'respect' points from myself Moores explanation sounds kinda pouty to me. Pete won't allow him to play around with one of his best songs and now Moore decides to talk nasty about him. Kindergarten time!
|
|
|
Post by Ineedanewname on Jul 7, 2004 23:43:12 GMT
Five years ago and I probably would have agreed with you. But these days Pete's seemingly happy to dish out Who songs to any Film Producer or Advertising Executive who can afford to buy them, so this particular refusal appears to be more than likely based on the principles that Moore mentions.
That said, he does sound pouty though!
|
|
|
Post by Mongolom on Jul 8, 2004 0:10:06 GMT
I see a big difference in licensing songs for ads and "simple" movies and doing it for noisy political documentaries. Michael Moore's way to present and interpret a mixture of facts and wild allegations is not undisputable and I can understand Pete's point of view on this topic. Don't get me wrong, Moore's documentaries are relatively important as a balance weight and wake-up call to dishonest politics, but it doesn't means one has to agree with all of his views. If Pete doesn't feel good to see one of his more important songs in this context, I will respect it. The one losing some of my respect is Moore for pouting like a small child when he can't get what he wants. I thought he's grown out of this kind of behaviour a long time ago...
|
|
|
Post by Ineedanewname on Jul 8, 2004 0:59:49 GMT
Pete didn't lose my respect for not allowing the song to be used, it was his (alleged) reasoning behind the block that turned me away. However, looking at Pete's side of the story (below) it seems Moore certainly is the one who now loses the respect points, and Pete gains his back. From PT.com:
Michael Moore has been making some claims – mentioning me by name - which I believe distort the truth.
He says – among other things – that I refused to allow him to use my song WON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN in his latest film, because I support the war, and that at the last minute I recanted, but he turned me down. I have never hidden the fact that at the beginning of the war in Iraq I was a supporter. But now, like millions of others, I am less sure we did the right thing.
When first approached I knew nothing about the content of his film FAHRENHEIT 911. My publisher informed me they had already refused the use of my song in principle because MIRAMAX the producers offered well below what the song normally commands for use in a movie. They asked me if I wanted to ask for more money, I told them no.
Nevertheless, as a result of my refusal to consider the use, Harvey Weinstein – a good friend of mine, and my manager Bill Curbishley – interceded personally, explained in more detail to Bill what the movie was about, and offered to raise the bid very substantially indeed. This brought the issue directly to me for the first time. Bill emailed me and told me how keen Harvey and Michael Moore were to use my song.
At this point I emailed Bill (and he may have passed the essence of what I said to Harvey Weinstein) that I had not really been convinced by BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, and had been worried about its accuracy; it felt to me like a bullying film. Out of courtesy to Harvey I suggested that if he and Moore were determined to have me reconsider, I should at least get a chance to see a copy of the new film. I knew that with Cannes on the horizon, time was running short for them, and this might not be possible. I never received a copy of the film to view. At no time did I ask Moore or Miramax to reconsider anything. Once I had an idea what the film was about I was 90% certain my song was not right for them.
I believe that in the same email to my publisher and manager that contained this request to see the film I pointed out that WGFA is not an unconditionally anti-war song, or a song for or against revolution. It actually questions the heart of democracy: we vote heartily for leaders who we subsequently always seem to find wanting. (WGFA is a song sung by a fictional character from my 1971 script called LIFEHOUSE. The character is someone who is frightened by the slick way in which truth can be twisted by clever politicians and revolutionaries alike). I suggested in the email that they might use something by Neil Young, who I knew had written several songs of a more precise political nature, and is as accessible as I am. Moore himself takes credit for this idea, and I have no idea whether my suggestion reached him, but it was the right thing to do.
I have nothing against Michael Moore personally, and I know Roger Daltrey is a friend and fan of his, but I greatly resent being bullied and slurred by him in interviews just because he didn’t get what he wanted from me. It seems to me that this aspect of his nature is not unlike that of the powerful and wilful man at the centre of his new documentary. I wish him all the best with the movie, which I know is popular, and which I still haven’t seen. But he’ll have to work very, very hard to convince me that a man with a camera is going to change the world more effectively than a man with a guitar.
Pete
|
|
granth
Roadie
Well A Young Man...
Posts: 516
|
Post by granth on Jul 8, 2004 1:40:00 GMT
Yeah- Even though I'm a Moore fan, Pete gets the points on this one. I think its GOOD that he'll CAREFULLY consider the context that his song is being used in, it is his after all anyway/
|
|
|
Post by Mongolom on Jul 8, 2004 1:59:05 GMT
I got that, I'm afraid I'm just not able to make that clear with my limited English abilities. Besides that he wouldn't lose my respect even if he'd be still a war supporter. That would be HIS opinion and there's no need for his to match MY opinion. I'm not living with him.
*therefore in sulking corner*
;D
|
|
|
Post by JillKristen on Jul 8, 2004 2:06:38 GMT
Regardless of whose side your on, Pete certainly seems to come off better with his statement than does Moore. Moore throws in some very personal statements about Pete and his support of the war, which Pete disagrees with. One should be careful when one goes out on a limb to say things that can easily be refuted. I am curious to see this movie and am glad Neil Young's song is being used...Pete doesn't need any more contoversy added to his life.
JK
|
|
smash1
Loves that CSI tune
Posts: 5
|
Post by smash1 on Jul 8, 2004 2:56:37 GMT
I think Pete has clearified his position on this issue with dignity. This is ONE time he will not allow one of his songs to be used for the purpose of distorting the facts. And for the whiners, while it is great to hear any WHO song to be used in motion pictures or commercials, this time Pete's refusal is legit. Never underestimate the power of the guitar over a camera, all you lenscrafters, or your camera could get smashed.
|
|
kc
Fan
Posts: 155
|
Post by kc on Jul 8, 2004 4:10:29 GMT
I've really got to side with Pete on this issue and his version of events. When he got in trouble last year, he immediately stepped forward and admitted exactly what he'd done. Moore, on the other hand -- whether you agree with his politics or not -- seems to readily play fast and loose with facts whilst he practices his particular style of demagoguery.
kc
|
|
|
Post by wholigan6404 on Jul 8, 2004 6:16:46 GMT
f-michael moore. That fat bastard can move to france. I liked his first film, and haven't seen the new one or any others. He does make some false claims (asking congressman to sign their children up for the military, parents cannot sign up their children for military service, and there are some children not many who are in the armed forces from congressional politicans, plus bin laden's family had permission to leave from richard clarke and the fbi after 9/11 happened. i'm not defending them in any way but those are the facts as stated by the 9/11 commission. in the films and some are taken out of context. However, he does from what I've read make some valid points. Pete did the right thing not letting him use the song. Pete has had enough controversy over the past year so I feel he did the right thing by being not associated with this fatso. moore could've shelled out the dough too if he wanted it that badly.
|
|
|
Post by Papillon on Jul 8, 2004 12:16:25 GMT
It's hardly a big dust up.
Seems to me that Townshend has merely offered a mild rebuke on this matter. He isn't making any big claims, just saying that it isn't quite how it has been reported.
As he says, supporting the war in Iraq at the outset and now being somewhat uneasy is hardly an unusual position; equally, being slightly sceptical of a Moore polemic is hardly headline news either.
|
|
granth
Roadie
Well A Young Man...
Posts: 516
|
Post by granth on Jul 8, 2004 12:25:30 GMT
f-michael moore. That fat bastard can move to france. I liked his first film, and haven't seen the new one or any others. He does make some false claims (asking congressman to sign their children up for the military, parents cannot sign up their children for military service, and there are some children not many who are in the armed forces from congressional politicans, plus bin laden's family had permission to leave from richard clarke and the fbi after 9/11 happened. i'm not defending them in any way but those are the facts as stated by the 9/11 commission. in the films and some are taken out of context. However, he does from what I've read make some valid points. Pete did the right thing not letting him use the song. Pete has had enough controversy over the past year so I feel he did the right thing by being not associated with this fatso. moore could've shelled out the dough too if he wanted it that badly. I think his books are much more accurate than his films, his only real problem to me is also the fact that in his movies he tries to create this 'gasp' from the viewer by doing something that seems like its shedding light on the truth, but actually is completely innacurate.
|
|
|
Post by mapleleafsfan on Jul 8, 2004 14:17:23 GMT
moore is nothing more than the antithesis of his subjects (in his latest project anyway). he has twisted and loosely interpreted facts to shed favorable light in his favor, nothing new in the world of politics. i feel if it weren't an election year in the u.s. this film would not be as big a deal as it is now.
as far as townshend not allowing wgfa to be used in the film i'm quite sure this is not the first nor the last time he has refused rights to a song to be used in some form of advertising or motion picture project.
|
|
kc
Fan
Posts: 155
|
Post by kc on Jul 8, 2004 14:30:50 GMT
It's hardly a big dust up. Seems to me that Townshend has merely offered a mild rebuke on this matter. He isn't making any big claims, just saying that it isn't quite how it has been reported. As he says, supporting the war in Iraq at the outset and now being somewhat uneasy is hardly an unusual position; equally, being slightly sceptical of a Moore polemic is hardly headline news either. True, but Pete felt compelled to write about it, and it's not like he gives us a daily diary entry. Re-reading Moore's comments above, he really reveals himself when he says "Clearly that moment demands that we hear Roger Daltrey scream, "Won't get fooled again!" That's how I had it cut." ...... and then a moment later says "I don't want them hearing a song that has the line, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Because the new boss I sincerely hope won't be the same as the old boss. I don't want that song." kc
|
|
stef
Loves that CSI tune
Posts: 135
|
Post by stef on Jul 8, 2004 14:35:15 GMT
Whilst mr Moore can be entertaining, he lost most of his credibility bullying Charlton Heston, if you have seen that section of bowling for columbine. Moore's next target should obviously be Ozzy. Still, we wouldn't expect moore to know that bigT dislikes the labour bunch - wgfa was dedicated to Blairites at Shepherds Bush Empire (er...98?). judge 'em by the fruits of their labours. There is a really funny "truth about columbine" site out there. It tries to peg Moore on several points - but then shoots itself in the foot. Politics schmolitics. (and WHY was mandelson back on tv again last night? shurely shome mishtake. Just can't wait for him to be running the EU. Its inevi-trouble. ) Not too sure about all this 'guitar is mightier than the camera' though. I suppose a nikon can be hit for six with a fender or gibson, but isn't half the "power of the camera" taunting people to hit it, "proving" they are not worthy ? (usual copyright acknowledgements to Wayne's World) Sorry for being toooo long. Cue headbanging.
|
|
|
Post by Papillon on Jul 8, 2004 18:47:43 GMT
Whilst mr Moore can be entertaining, he lost most of his credibility bullying Charlton Heston, if you have seen that section of bowling for columbine. Yes, that part made me feel distinctly uncomfortable. Whatever Heston's views in the past, seeing Moore bully someone who is now clearly a very old man was unpleasant. I actually think Moore's polemics have done quite a lot of good though. I've seen loads of messageboards where people have gone out to find information about the stuff he's putting up on screen. Whichever side they come down on, compelling people to learn about the matter has to be a good thing - even if that's not necessarily what he intended in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by whoareyou on Jul 8, 2004 20:41:22 GMT
Pete (like everyone) is alowed his own opnions on everything. Everyone has their own views on the Iraq War and if Pete supports it, it is up to him. Just becuase he allows songs to be played on a advert doesnt mean he backs the product!
I respect Pete's decision like everyone elses.
|
|
|
Post by rollingmule on Jul 8, 2004 21:39:34 GMT
i wished he wouldnt even o said nothin bout it cuz i aint heard nothin and now prolly gonna be a stink up. he needs to be ritin a damn cd,s woth of music and not worry bout that s**t. i think were gonna have no new who i,m afraid dammit all to hell. man i reckon i,ll haff to wait another damn 20 years and be old as the hills.
|
|
|
Post by rollingmule on Jul 8, 2004 21:43:24 GMT
aw hell i like this wholigan cat.
|
|
|
Post by Mongolom on Jul 8, 2004 22:44:06 GMT
aw hell i like this wholigan cat. Let me guess - you're watching Who TV? ;D
|
|
|
Post by rollingmule on Jul 9, 2004 0:15:27 GMT
nah i seen his post
|
|
|
Post by Mongolom on Jul 9, 2004 0:34:38 GMT
So what is it? Can't reach the ****** site
|
|
|
Post by finky on Jul 9, 2004 5:11:03 GMT
I think Moore just gets himself off on thinking that his films can generate the same influence and impact as say the press's role in The Watergate scandal.
hmm making Moore the topic of one of his diary entrys has just given him extra free publicity. I was sort of looking forward to hearing about stuff to do with the Who Tour. But its his diary so he can type what he wants to ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by boniemaronie on Jul 9, 2004 11:45:39 GMT
michael moore? isnt he the same guy that took a bus load of drag queens and homosexuals into the bible belt towns distributing pornography?
and the guy who took several people who had lost their larynxes to cancer, (who use those little microphone thinggys from a hole in their necks ), to sing christmas carols thru their microphones at the head offices of American tobocco?
|
|
|
Post by finky on Jul 9, 2004 11:55:45 GMT
Dudley Moore>?
|
|
|
Post by Mongolom on Jul 9, 2004 20:07:01 GMT
Roger Moore?
|
|
|
Post by whoareyou on Jul 10, 2004 17:20:27 GMT
Having just seen the film, i must admit i think Pete did the right thing standing for what he believes- ALTHOUGH i must admit i dont think it would have dont anything to his or The Who's image if they had used it. There where sevearl bands whose songs where used in the film (REM, Young, etc) and i never thought for once "O, they must support Moore or be anit-Bush!" From a film point of view i think 'Rockin' in the Free World' worked much better than WGFA would have anyway. the film certainly made me see the US and Bush in a very different light- hes certainly gone down in my estaimation although i didnt think the film was that well done.
|
|
|
Post by pkeets on Jul 10, 2004 17:43:20 GMT
The press has discovered the WGFA spat: www.examiner.ie/breaking/2004/07/10/story156387.htmlTownshend fuming over Fahrenheit row Rock legend Pete Townshend has launched a scathing attack at film-maker Michael Moore, saying he has been "bullied and slurred" by the director. Last year, the Stupid White Men author Moore approached the The Who guitarist to ask the star permission to use his song Won't Get Fooed Again in his controversial documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, which criticises George Bush's administration. Townshend refused to let the Oscar-winning director use the song, because the rocker didn't enjoy Moore's previous films Bowling for Columbine and Roger and Me. Townshend fumes: "Michael Moore has been making some claims, using my name, which distort the truth. "I greatly resent being bullied and slurred by him just because he didn't get what we wanted from me. It seems to me that this aspect of his nature is not unlike that of the powerful and willful man at the centre of his documentary. "He says that I refused to allow him to use my song Won't Get Fooled Again in his latest film because I support the war. I have never hidden the fact that at the beginning of the war in Iraq, I was a supporter. But now I am less sure we did the right thing. "I had not really been convinced by Bowling For Columbine and had been worried about its accuracy. To me, it felt like a bullying film. Once I had an idea what Fahrenheit 9/11 was about, I was 90 per cent certain my song was not right for them and pointed out that Won't Get Fooled Again is not an unconditionally anti-war song."
|
|