The W
Views: 98550125
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.8.07 1747
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Ronald Reagan miniseries shelved
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1225 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (29 total)
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 145

Posts: 2393/6719
EXP: 37441796
For next: 162376

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 2 days
#1 Posted on 6.11.03 1649.35
Reposted on: 6.11.10 1656.19
CBS has decided not to run one of its main Sweeps month drawing cards, a mini-series about Ronald Reagan with James Brolin in the lead role. Here's a collection of articles on IMDB about the controversy

Click Here (us.imdb.com)

It's kinda hard to critique something none of us have seen, but I'd like to get everyone's take on CBS' decision to bow to political pressure. Good sign or a bad sign?
Promote this thread!
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 105/2697
EXP: 8835415
For next: 153404

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 1 day
#2 Posted on 6.11.03 1724.43
Reposted on: 6.11.10 1727.22
I am confused since we all know that the entire media has a liberal bias. Seriously though, it shows that the ideology of the media is economic, not liberal, conservative, or anything else. How can anyone judge something no one has seen. If it was as bad as it was reported to be in its bias and lack of accuracy, it should have been pulled regardless of who it was about since it supposed to be an accurate portrayal.

I didn't vote for the man twice, but couldn't it wait until he was dead to do a hatchet job on him. Especially since he is in no position to defend himself.

Actually this is how things are supposed to work in a way. Maybe it shouldn't be looked at as caving but as a company responding to the concerns of its consumers. Now if people would do this for other crap on the airwaves.

edit typos

(edited by DrDirt on 6.11.03 1726)
ShotGunShep
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 276/836
EXP: 1568176
For next: 9379

Since: 20.2.03

Since last post: 2484 days
Last activity: 2370 days
#3 Posted on 6.11.03 1739.18
Reposted on: 6.11.10 1742.49
DrDirt, of course the media is ultimately out there to make money. But how can you deny liberal bias. I mean, the fact that they put this out there in the first place shows the bias. I mean, did you read any of the baseless transcripts of the show? Pretty F'n ridiculous.
Madame Manga
Kolbasz
Level: 47

Posts: 270/480
EXP: 713991
For next: 52218

Since: 16.1.02
From: Silicon Valley

Since last post: 123 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#4 Posted on 6.11.03 1804.25
Reposted on: 6.11.10 1806.19
I notice that L. Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center is prominent among those making a fuss. His name and his tactics should be familiar to wrestling fans.

This sounds, on the limited evidence, like a production put together by people with extraordinarily passionate opinions about their subject. That's never a good way to gain objective distance on such recent events, so it's not surprising that they seem to have gone a little overboard. You could probably find another set of producers (well, maybe not in Hollywood) who would love to do a similar job on Bill Clinton. Will they wait until he's oblivious and in his nineties?

MM

(edited by Madame Manga on 6.11.03 1605)
ShotGunShep
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 277/836
EXP: 1568176
For next: 9379

Since: 20.2.03

Since last post: 2484 days
Last activity: 2370 days
#5 Posted on 6.11.03 1918.02
Reposted on: 6.11.10 1920.16
    Originally posted by Madame Manga
    This sounds, on the limited evidence, like a production put together by people with extraordinarily passionate opinions about their subject. That's never a good way to gain objective distance on such recent events, so it's not surprising that they seem to have gone a little overboard. You could probably find another set of producers (well, maybe not in Hollywood) who would love to do a similar job on Bill Clinton. Will they wait until he's oblivious and in his nineties?

    MM

    (edited by Madame Manga on 6.11.03 1605)


Well, they could do a similar job on Clinton, except they wouldn't have to make up any scenes.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/24/130626.shtml

"In order to get this project rolling we've taken the liberty of penning a few scenes. [Note to CBS: Feel free to lift the dialogue below verbatim.]

SCENE 3: Election Night 1976, Clinton campaign headquarters in Fayettville, Ark. Campaign staffers console a crestfallen Hillary Clinton after her husband loses his first election race to Rep. John Paul Hammerschmidt.

PAUL FRAY, campaign manager: Hillary, we did everything we could, but Bill's youth worked against him. Folks here in Arkansas just think 30 is too young to be a congressman.

HILLARY: [Voice rising] Don't give me that. It's your fault. You didn't get the vote out. You didn't do the legwork. You let this election slip through our hands, you $#@&@!% Jew bastard!!!

MARY LEE FRAY, Paul's wife: Hillary, calm down. My husband's not even Jewish. Why would you use language like that?

HILLARY: [Screaming] Dammit!!! If I say he's a $#@&@!% Jew Bastard!!! - then he's a $#@&@!% Jew Bastard!!! [Mrs. Clinton picks up a stapler and hurls it at Mr. Fray.]

SCENE 12: The Inauguration, Jan. 20, 1993

The Clintons have just taken up residence in the White House and are discussing plans for their future administration:

FIRST LADY: [Shouting] Dammit, Bill! You promised me that office would be mine. I'm the one who made you president. And I'm the one who can break you. One word from me and the press will be chasing down a hundred Gennifers. Tell Al to go %@!$ himself.

PRESIDENT: Hillary - hush - the Secret Service can hear you. You've got to ...

FIRST LADY: I don't give a #@&$ who can hear me. I deserve the vice president's office and I'm gonna take it. And if Al and Tipper don't like it, too bad. [Smashes priceless Ming Dynasty vase given to President Benjamin Harrison.]

SCENE 19: Reorganizing the Travel Office - May 10, 1993. Hillary discusses new staffing requirements with White House personnel director David Watkins.

FIRST LADY: [Screaming] I don't care who you have to fire - we need those people out and we need our own people in those slots. Are you listening to me!

WATKINS: But Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dale and his staff have been doing a reasonably good job making media travel arrangements for years now and the press really likes them. I'm afraid this won't look good.

FIRST LADY: You act like you haven't heard a $%&@$*!& word I'm saying! It's your job to find a way to do this so it doesn't look bad. I don't care if you have to call the FBI in and accuse them of mismanagement. Say he embezzled money. Make something up. Make it look like we discovered a crime or something. I don't care how you do it. Just do it. [Hurls 19th Century Waterford cut-glass ashtray presented to President McKinley by Queen Victoria.]

SCENE 27: War Clouds Over Bosnia: April 26, 1996

President Clinton is in his Oval Office study, telephoning congressmen to line up support for deploying troops to the Balkans. He reaches Alabama Rep. Sonny Callahan.

PRESIDENT: Now, Sonny, I wouldn't be asking you for your support on this if I didn't appreciate the gravity of the situation. I want you to know that your president doesn't lightly send our military men and women into harm's way without fully appreciating the grave sacrifice I'm calling on them to make.

[The door cracks open. Monica Lewinsky appears.]

PRESIDENT: Sonny, hold on a second while I just change phones here. [Puts his hand over the receiver and motions for Monica to kneel down].

Now, Sonny, where was I. Yeah, that's right, Kosovo. As your commander in chief, I'm the one who has to bear the ultimate responsibility when the bullets start flying and - whoa - ohhh - that's right - uh - ohhh - aaah.

Ah - sorry, Sonny, just got a little cramp there. All that jogging, ya'll know how that is. Now, back to Bosnia. If those body bags start coming home, you know who your constituents are gonna blame. Me! But I want you to know that I carry the weight of this office on my shoulders every day and I - ohhhh - to the left - that's right - aaah - yes - yes - ohhhhh - augghhh!!!!

Sorry again, there, Sonny. This cramp is really starting to act up. Let me call you right back. [End of Excerpt]"

OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 1771/3024
EXP: 11164309
For next: 307136

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on 6.11.03 2013.00
Reposted on: 6.11.10 2013.23
Yeah, that's planted strongly in reality...
Leroy
Andouille
Level: 91

Posts: 205/2254
EXP: 7247821
For next: 221120

Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#7 Posted on 6.11.03 2046.11
Reposted on: 6.11.10 2046.17
If Lefties posting here have to stop talking about the Florida election, than I think Republicans posting have to stop talking about the Clinton erections.

Just a suggestion....

(Far more of that post rhymed than I had intended....)
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1494/2104
EXP: 6558992
For next: 91698

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 2 days
#8 Posted on 6.11.03 2159.50
Reposted on: 6.11.10 2159.55
WAIT UNTIL THE MAN IS DEAD. This is just rude. I didn't agree with Reagan on hardly anything, but his best idea was that you can't name stuff after public officials until they've been dead 50 years (which most Reaganites seem to have amnesia about). In that same vein, nobody should have miniseries or movies about them until they're at least in the ground a year or two. Have a little respect. Oliver Stone even waited for Nixon to die before making that movie.

It the same thing as when my high school had an 80s retro party in 1989. A little historical perspective goes a long way.
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 115

Posts: 1629/3940
EXP: 16614266
For next: 197149

Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 5 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on 6.11.03 2221.08
Reposted on: 6.11.10 2221.34
Just one question... how would Reagan be able to better defend himself when he's dead? Don't see the logic in that.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1428/1759
EXP: 4900223
For next: 92647

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1262 days
Last activity: 28 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on 6.11.03 2335.11
Reposted on: 6.11.10 2335.44
Honestly- I am not so sure what the big deal here is. Yeah, I don't think I would have liked how Reagan was portrayed, but they are within their rights to portray Reagan any way they wish - it is artistic liberty and well within the perview of the First Ammendment. They could have Reagan prance around in a bikini singing nursery rhymes about how he "hates dem fags" and it would be equally as ok. I would not like it, but they would have the right to produce and broadcast it.

I honestly think that CBS did not bow to any political pressure here- I think it was a convienient excuse. The political firestorm over this is exactly the kind of free advertising any network would want over a TV movie... I think it all comes down to audience interest.

How many of you were planning on watching it? I know I wasn't. I'd be willing to bet that they did some testing, and discovered the thing was going to bomb, and decided to use the controversy as an excuse to dump it.

Personally, things like this are just starting to get tiresome. Who cares? Its a movie. Anyone with any knowlege of history knows what kind of man Reagan was, no matter how he was portrayed in a movie. There is so much more going on that is so much vastly important for this country (and out here in California, for me) than some stupid movie... and all of the pointless political bickering is starting to get tiresome.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 107/2697
EXP: 8835415
For next: 153404

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 1 day
#11 Posted on 7.11.03 0903.14
Reposted on: 7.11.10 0906.39
    Originally posted by drjayphd
    Just one question... how would Reagan be able to better defend himself when he's dead? Don't see the logic in that.


He wouldn't, but at the least it would seem more proper. Whether or not you like him, he was the President for 8 years and deserves respect for that even if you thought he was an idiot.

Pool Boy, it really isn't a big deal but more tradition that you wait an appropriate period of time before this kind of thing even if it protrays him in a good light. They waited close to 40 years before the hatchet job on Kennedy. And your right in that it would be nice for everyone to focus their energies on a real issue.

Moe, it would be nice to wait until both Regan and Nancy are gone.

Griffey, all media is biased. But the bias just isn't as monolithic as the right would have us believe.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2433/4700
EXP: 21454289
For next: 382373

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1012 days
#12 Posted on 7.11.03 1035.49
Reposted on: 7.11.10 1036.40
I do find it humorous that the same people(not necessarily here mind you) now crying "Censorship!" are the same people who lambasted: Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Mel Gibson's new movie, etc. and so forth.
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 332/641
EXP: 1098181
For next: 58945

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3648 days
Last activity: 3306 days
#13 Posted on 7.11.03 1053.38
Reposted on: 7.11.10 1059.01
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    WAIT UNTIL THE MAN IS DEAD. This is just rude. I didn't agree with Reagan on hardly anything, but his best idea was that you can't name stuff after public officials until they've been dead 50 years (which most Reaganites seem to have amnesia about). In that same vein, nobody should have miniseries or movies about them until they're at least in the ground a year or two. Have a little respect. Oliver Stone even waited for Nixon to die before making that movie.

    It the same thing as when my high school had an 80s retro party in 1989. A little historical perspective goes a long way.


Like he would remember the movie long enough to defend himself...

By the time he got to the podium, he would ramble about Jelly Beans.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 2494/5402
EXP: 26995260
For next: 136744

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 31 days
Last activity: 5 days
AIM:  
#14 Posted on 7.11.03 1115.17
Reposted on: 7.11.10 1115.18
    Originally posted by Grimis
    I do find it humorous that the same people(not necessarily here mind you) now crying "Censorship!" are the same people who lambasted: Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Mel Gibson's new movie, etc. and so forth.

I lambasted each and every one of them, but personally what CBS did doesn't bother me in the least. Well it bothers me in the sense that the broadcast airwaves which WE own have been so thoroughly turned into nothing but money machines, but calling it censorship is foolish. Not only was this purely business responding to consumers, but the damn thing is going to be on tv next year on Showtime, which is probably better for it.

I find it interesting that people are taking the "I am the Antichrist" quote so out of context of how it is said in the movie. I thought it quite a positive thought, as Reagan was showing an understanding of what could happen if there was not change and movement towards peace with the USSR. But in the frenzy to keep the deified position of Reagan amongst conservatives the context got blitzed out into oblivion.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 113/2697
EXP: 8835415
For next: 153404

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 1 day
#15 Posted on 7.11.03 1130.57
Reposted on: 7.11.10 1131.08
    Originally posted by Grimis
    I do find it humorous that the same people(not necessarily here mind you) now crying "Censorship!" are the same people who lambasted: Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Mel Gibson's new movie, etc. and so forth.


Humorous yes, but not a surprise. The political spectrum is not linear but circular. The extremes of any two sides on the issue meet to connect the circle. In reality the far left and far right are not much different. I know it sounds illogical but I encourage everone to think about it.

(edited by DrDirt on 7.11.03 1132)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2435/4700
EXP: 21454289
For next: 382373

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1012 days
#16 Posted on 7.11.03 1153.09
Reposted on: 7.11.10 1154.00
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    In reality the far left and far right are not much different.
Finally! I've been droning on about that since high school!
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 1773/3024
EXP: 11164309
For next: 307136

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on 7.11.03 1159.05
Reposted on: 7.11.10 1159.51
Okay, so the Reagan miniseries gets pulled for "factual inaccuracies". I, like everyone else, haven't actually seen the movie, so I can't comment on the validity of that statement, much like I can't make any judgement of Mel Gibson's Jesus movie and most conservative critics shouldn't make any judgement about Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine. (Not, of course, that it stops them, but that's a whole other thread. And one we've done about fifteen times now.)

I will say that, while a seemingly negative portrayal of a popular American figure - one who's in extremely poor health to boot - is bound to create controversy, we can't dictate what people are and aren't allowed to watch on the basis that it might offend someone. (And as much as I can't stand the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Dr. Laura, I've never said that they should be taken off the air either. I was glad when their TV shows got cancelled, but I was even happier that they both disappeared due to the fact that, you know, no one actually watched them.)

All that said, if the movie was based on false facts, it probably shouldn't be aired. But, under that logic, they should pull that Saving Jessica Lynch movie while they're at it.

I mean, don't take my word that it's all bullshit. Take Jessica's:

Asked by the ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer if the military's portrayal of the rescue bothered her, Ms. Lynch said: "Yeah, it does. It does that they used me as a way to symbolize all this stuff. Yeah, it's wrong," according to a partial transcript of the interview to be broadcast on Tuesday.

...

Asked how she felt about the reports of her heroism, Ms. Lynch told Ms. Sawyer, "It hurt in a way that people would make up stories that they had no truth about. Only I would have been able to know that, because the other four people on my vehicle aren't here to tell the story. So I would have been the only one able to say, yeah, I went down shooting. But I didn't."

...

Ms. Lynch also disputed statements by Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief, the Iraqi lawyer, that he saw her captors slap her.

"From the time I woke up in that hospital, no one beat me, no one slapped me, no one, nothing," Ms. Lynch told Diane Sawyer, adding, "I'm so thankful for those people, because that's why I'm alive today.


Hopefully, this movie is pulled and moved to Showtime sometime next year.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2437/4700
EXP: 21454289
For next: 382373

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1012 days
#18 Posted on 7.11.03 1222.25
Reposted on: 7.11.10 1229.02
    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    All that said, if the movie was based on false facts, it probably shouldn't be aired. But, under that logic, they should pull that Saving Jessica Lynch movie while they're at it.
We've gotten to the seventh sign as OFB and I agree on something...

Nevertheless, the Jessica Lynch story is the official story of somebody who doesn't remember a fucking thing. So what's the point really? The entire thing is goofy, and even she finds the attention quite odd. I mean, whatever happened to Soshana Jackson(or was it Johnson, the black female cook) who actually got shot? Or anybody else for that matter? The 80% disability is kind of goofed up too.

Of course, I could thus launch into my "why women shouldn't be on the front lines" tangent, but that's for a different time.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 114/2697
EXP: 8835415
For next: 153404

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 1 day
#19 Posted on 7.11.03 1259.17
Reposted on: 7.11.10 1301.02
OFB, Offending someone didn't bother the network. Losing sponsors did. I would rather have this form of "censorship", than an institutionalized one.

The Jessica Lynch story is a perfect example that negates the Liberal bias theory. We are feeling patriotic at the moment, we need heros and the network is willing to provide them for a price. Money talks to corporate executives regardless of their political bent.

And by the way Grimis and OFB, how dare you speak of facts. You know facts would confuse the issue.

And I think they would pull it to HBO, not Showtime.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 1774/3024
EXP: 11164309
For next: 307136

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on 7.11.03 1403.26
Reposted on: 7.11.10 1403.29
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Of course, I could thus launch into my "why women shouldn't be on the front lines" tangent, but that's for a different time.


Lookit that - we agree on something else.
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Partial Birth Abortions Banned
Next thread: New Political Parties?
Previous thread: NY School lunches & WWE Wrestlers
(1225 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Ronald Reagan miniseries shelvedRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.194 seconds.