TheAgitator.com
Meaty Moore, Big and Bouncy
Sunday, July 11th, 2004First Ray Bradburry, now Michael Moore has managed to piss off another artist whose talent far exceeds his own.
Pete Townshend’s hopping mad at the portly movie producer.
25 Responses to “Meaty Moore, Big and Bouncy”
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Typical Michael Moore, no surprises here ….
It’s Ray BRADBURY (not ‘Bradburry’)!
Sorry, but you’re talking to a fan of his here.
Calm yourself, John :)
Hasn’t your finger ever done a little twitchy dance on your keyboard? Rad probably just had a little too much coffee, right Radley?
Ray Bradbury pissed someone off?
I say – good for Pete Townshend. His song isnt anti war, its about how nothing nevery really changes.
First, exceeding the talents of Moore is not a tall order. That being said, secondly, Pete Townshend is one of the most overrated musicians of the past 35 years. Third, at least he’s courageous enough to admit that he changed his views on the war. Fourth, it’s kinda silly for Townshend to be so discriminating when it comes to shelling out permission for his tunes, given that CSI: and CSI: Miami both used/butchered his songs for their themes. Oh, Won’t Get Fooled Again is unacceptable in a movie about 9/11, but it fits in perfectly on a show about crime scene investigations? If you say so.
he didnt say he changed ihs position to a non-war supporter. he said he just was not sure.
Townshend isn’t above making a buck on his music (after all, he did release an album called “The Who Sell Out” back in 1967.
It appears that he just doesn’t like the guy or his films in the first place, and it’s his song to sell (or refuse to sell) to anyone he wants for their use. I think he’s smart for not wanting to be connected to anything Moore puts out, and it’s telling that a lefty like Townshend has to defend himself against further lies and distortions coming from Moore regarding this movie.
Townshend fumes: “Michael Moore has been making some claims, using my name, which distort the truth.”
Has anyone “seen” or “heard” Moore’s claim(s)? I did Yahoo and Google searches for it and all I got was Townshend’s responses to Moore’s “attack” but I can’t find the ORIGNINAL Moore statement against Townshend. Doesn’t this seem odd? I follow the news pretty closely and I can’t remember hearing Michael Moore go after Townshend. Did it actually happen or is Pete losing it? And why is the RESPONSE from Townsehend so much more newsworthy than the original Moore statememnt if it did, in fact, actually happen outside Townshend’s skull. Additionally, did anyone read Townshend’s diary entry?
“I wish him all the best with the movie, which I know is popular, and which I still havenâ??t seen. But heâ??ll [Moore] 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.”
Oooof. A little full of himself dontyathink? One of the bad things that has been caused by the internet is people reporting news or opinion with no “basic” education in journalism – where’s the orignal source? Where’s Moore’s comment that Townshend is himself commenting on. I guess we just take Pete’s word for it.
Quoth Richard:
“One of the bad things that has been caused by the internet is people reporting news or opinion with no “basic” education in journalism – ”
This was most certainly NOT caused by the internet. All the internet has done is enable armchair politicians would have otherwise had no choice but to hold their peace an outlet.
How “basic” journalism practices escapes the Los Angeles Times…now that’s a question.
Posted by: dvision on July 12, 2004 01:32 PM
Another bad thing brought on by the internet is letting boobs like you submit your talking points to blog after blog without even having a modicum of an idea of what the topic is or is not. After reading Radley’s post and then RESEARCHING it – reading the original article, searching for articles that may have contained Moore’s original comment and by reading Townshend’s original internet “diary” post – I formulated a fully functional and independent opinion. You, on the other hand, use your time to blather on about the LA Times so you can check off “complain about liberal media” on your daily talking points memo from iamanunthinkingsheep.com. Nice. If you can pull yourself away from Bill O’Reilly’s buttcheeks for a second, I would welcome a post from you quoting Moore’s original comment about Townshend.
Richard,
I think that this article has what you cannot find…
took me all of five seconds to find, too…
Or you could just read Pete’s comments from his diary…
[url]http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/diary/display.cfm?id=89&zone=diary[/url]
Posted by: Joe Sims on July 12, 2004 02:34 PM
Posted by: Monkey Boy on July 12, 2004 02:44 PM
This is what Moore said, “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.”
What does Townshend say happened? “He [Moore] says â?? among other things â?? that I refused to allow him to use my song WONâ??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.” Townhend goes on to talk about emails between him, his manager Bill Curbishley and Miramax. Townshend says, “At no time did I ask Moore or Miramax to reconsider anything.” Moore says, “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.”
This is a NON-STORY. It looks to me as if Townshend and Moore were talking via email with 14 other people between them, like the kids at summer camp who sit in a circle and say “The Telephone is yellow” to the kid next to them and then by the time it gets back to the orignal kid the statement is “Your mom’s got a nice ass.” Townshend even says, “At this point I emailed Bill (and he may have passed the essence of what I said to Harvey Weinstein)” – so I guess it is SO unlikly that all these people talking between Moore and Townshend either innocently or nefariously misrepresented what Moore and Townshend actually said. Give me a break.
I guess the liberal media is at fault for this as well. This is just crappy reporting from crappy reporters who don’t know what the hell they are doing OR crappy reporting for crappy reporters who have an agenda.
I stand by my original statement that the orignal report that Radley submitted (http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=110409222&p=yyx4x99z8) was bad journalism. The report takes Pete’s word on Moore’s “charges” without going to the Moore interview’s “EXCLUSIVE OUTTAKES” (not even the published interview for f’s-sake) to see what MOORE ACTUALLY SAID. So an adult version of the “telephone game” with emails, filmakers, rockstars, movie producers and talent managers is now “NEWS”? The media bias is not liberal – it’s bias is bad journalism.
Posted by: Monkey Boy on July 12, 2004 02:44 PM
Or you could just read Pete’s comments from his diary…
Richard,
I agree that it’s bad journalism. Some so-called ‘journalists’ are lazy, exploitative and addicted to sensationalism… they should be making ‘documentary’ pabulum for their leftist elite friends, not reporting the news!
But c’mon, this is from some “E!” wannabe website, not the WaPo or NYT. Expecting journalistic integrity from newspapers of record is difficult enough, it’s even less likely from television or the internet. It’s all marketed for consumption, add your own grains of salt as you consume it…
Does that excuse this particular silliness? No, but then again, Townshend and Moore fighting is nothing to get worked up about, not when there are bigger stories this week, which this sort of thing distracts our attention from. I’ve already invested more time than I had hoped to on this, and you came all the way here from parts unknown, made up a clever name and took to ad hominem attacks toward longtime readers to this blog. Both of us appear to be as foolish as the original storyline, all over a story that is not really a story. The crazy thing is, we’re not even on opposite sides of this issue. So with that, I’m moving on, but you’re more than welcome to stay…
For some reason, I’m finding it difficult to seriously consider posts by a guy named Dick Succer.
Posted by: Joe Sims on July 12, 2004 04:33 PM
But c’mon, this is from some “E!” wannabe website, not the WaPo or NYT. Expecting journalistic integrity from newspapers of record is difficult enough, it’s even less likely from television or the internet.
Um, it was POSTED ON THIS BLOG as an attack on Michael Moore, was it not? Radley posted this story, with the proverbial “no talent fat guy” comment regarding Michael Moore in an effort to argue that Michael Moore is a no-talent fat guy that pissed off a far more talented Pete Townshend. Or did I read his post incorrectly? Maybe the problem is not the E!-like story, but with this blog passing off bad journalism as valid arguments. If you read my original post, I attacked no one but the author of the story. Then the “liberal media bias” goofs came out of the woodwork. BTW, I read this blog quite often and have commented and posted numerous times. “[A]d hominem attacks” here at this little corner of the internet are par for the course…and I question the motives of any poster who decries Moore’s “lack of talent” by calling him fat, rather than admitting that the guy has TALENT but they don’t agree with his political views? Don’t agree with Moore? – then argue the truthfullness of his actual statements rather than call him a talentless fat guy. And if you’re going to post what Moore says, RADLEY, post what he actually says and not what someone 14 people removed from him thought he said.
Simmer Down Dick.
My post regarding Pete’s Diaries was a contribution to the whole discussion. Not a slam against you. You certainly are defensive. Are you a Moore mole?
he didnt say he changed ihs position to a non-war supporter. he said he just was not sure.
I’m sorry. Did I miss something? Does he have to have a valid reason to not want his IP to be used? It seems to me that he could say that he doesn’t want him to use his song because he doesn’t like the suits he wears. That should be enough. He owns the song. End of discussion.
Wonder what Michael Moore has to say about the war on obesity?
Does anyone actually have an actual link to Moore’s original comments regarding Pete Townnsend and the use of the song for the movie? I to have googled and googled and have only come up with Pete Townsend’s replys to the comment, not the comment itself. Please help. Please let us know the link. Thanks!
to let you know, what Pete was refering to about Michael Moore slandering him was because of this comment.
In response to Townshend’s comments, Moore released a statement Tuesday (July 13) in which he suggested that some of Townshend’s ire stems from Moore turning down a request to make a movie about the Who.
“Last year,” he said in the statement, “the Who asked me to do a documentary on their career. I was sorry I had to tell them that due to my need to finish ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′ I would not be able to make their film for them. … I am sorry I wasn’t able to do the Who documentary like they wanted me to, but this is certainly no way for Pete to show his anger, and frankly it is very embarrassing for him to behave in this manner, as he is the greatest rock star who ever lived.”
Today on his blog, Pete had this to say.
Important point. I did not ask Michael Moore to make a documentary about The Who EVER. Roger Daltrey did. He did not do so on behalf of ‘The Who’ and did not consult me before speaking to him. Roger approached Moore on behalf of ‘Spitfire Films’ with whom he (Roger) has a continuing production relationship.
I was not angry with Michael Moore at any time, and am still not angry with him. The post you’ve reposted angered me a little. But Moore has a good heart.
Pete’s blog is http://boywhoheardmusic.blogspot.com