Hacker News Reader

Comment by nostromo | Hacker News Reader

It's a smart business move, regardless of his reasons. If he were to sue, there wouldn't be a Bill Murray trend to write about in the Times.

The analogy to Che Guevara seems right. The image has taken on a life of its own, independent of the man. Che's image in the U.S. seems to represent a blank slate revolutionary.

A counter-analogy is MLK. Why are there so many Che shirts but no MLK shirts? In part because the King family will sue you for any use of his image or words without a subsequent payday. This has prevented MLK from being the omnipresent cultural presence he should be.

View on HN

The MLK thing is amazing to me. We celebrate this person every year as a national event but unlike are presidents his speeches are under enforced copyright so nobody hears his famous thoughts or words. Even on his day people reference the I have a dream speech but nobody hears it or even references portions of it. It's a weird shadow of remembrance.

Here, provided by the US government: http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf

The video of the full speech is also on YouTube.

In a pinch, you can use a copyright-free version of the MLK speech. Sample:

    > "I Have An Idea"
    >
    > I'm super happy to join with you today in what 
    > will go down as a noteworthy demonstration for 
    > freedom in the history of our nation.  One hundred
    > years ago, a great president --his statue is behind 
    > me-- signed the Emancipation Proclamation.  Good
    > stuff, that.
    >
    > I have an idea that one day we'll will rise up
    > and live out: "We hold these truths to be 
    > self-evident, that all men are created equal."
    >
    > I have an idea today!
    >
    > Free finally!  Free finally!
    > Thank the Maker, we're free finally!

I don't think Bill Murray worries too much about "remaining relevant".

He's pretty much been in semi-retirement for some time now, as far I know, and doesn't seem to care if people notice him. Just my take - don't follow so closely.

Perhaps he's thinking of his legacy.

This seems incredibly unlikely.

Can you explain why? I find it hard to believe that an actor at his age wouldn't be thinking of how they'll be remembered.

Seriously, a guy acting as humble and goofy as he does is pondering something as ridiculously ego-laden as legacy?

Thinking about your legacy is "ridiculously ego-laden"? I'm having the trouble seeing how it's "ridiculous" to reflect, in the later part of your life, on what your contribution to the world may have been.

This post is its own refutation: like a snake eating its own tail.

And this post is so empty of content that one questions whether it actually ever existed: like a fart in a hurricane.

Alright I agree, obfuscating lack of anything interesting to say with attempts at being poetic is pretty fun. That being said, I gather from the fact that you felt you had to post a comment that somewhere in the fog you somehow disagree with some part of my comment. I'd be interested in seeing your second try at expressing what your actual disagreement is.

It's not ridiculous for someone else, but in the context of Bill Murray, it is, at least if his persona matches his actual personality. He exemplifies someone who doesn't plan and doesn't scheme, but just treats people well and keeps calm and carries on.

Wanting to be a famous actor is "ridiculously ego-laden" too -- for certain various of ridiculous.

Bill Murray is a person after all.

Because he seems well above that.

A little more concretely, because his personality is in many ways the opposite of the Machiavelli [1].

1. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278262615...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com