wOOt! (Reagan CBS travesty yanked)

[Nitemare]

That is all

 

[smashp]

Reguardless of your perception of reagan, they should wait till he is pushing daisies.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: smashp
Reguardless of your perception of reagan, they should wait till he is pushing daisies.

The real question is would Fox run "The Clinton years" in response?

 

[Gravity]

I'm a Reagan fan. I don't like rewrites of history.

Still, first amendment? CBS is dying on the vine if not already dead. They are as desperate as they are forgotten.

Who watches tv anymore anwayz?

Gravity

 

[cumhail]

No, the real question is: If, at some point in the future, Fox or some other media outlet does decide to run such a movie/mini-series about Clinton and/or some other high-ranking national leader whose politics you disagree with, will those who objected so strongly to this one be consistent and try to stop that, as well?

cumhail

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: smashp
Reguardless of your perception of reagan, they should wait till he is pushing daisies.

The real question is would Fox run "The Clinton years" in response?

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: smashp
Reguardless of your perception of reagan, they should wait till he is pushing daisies.

The real question is would Fox run "The Clinton years" in response?

It would be funny as crap if they put Bill and Hill on Temptation Island.


HA

sounds more like fox's approach.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Hooray political intimidation of free speech!

 

[Gaard]

Is it simply because the film is about Reagan that's getting people so worked up?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: smashp
Reguardless of your perception of reagan, they should wait till he is pushing daisies.

The real question is would Fox run "The Clinton years" in response?

Why not, it would fit right into their Political Agenda.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: smashp
Reguardless of your perception of reagan, they should wait till he is pushing daisies.

The real question is would Fox run "The Clinton years" in response?

It would be funny as crap if they put Bill and Hill on Temptation Island.


HA

sounds more like fox's approach.

*Cringe* a Clinton half naked? Granted Hillary is not Barbara Bush but still...

cumhail, if it was an accurate portrayal then fine. However, it's more Bowling for Columbinish then it is accurate

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Is it simply because the film is about Reagan that's getting people so worked up?

Its because Reagan was the Second coming of Jesus To modern Conservatives.

any possible negativity towards him is blasphamy


All men are human and make mistakes.

 

[cumhail]

Accurate portrayal? Have you seen it? I haven't... As such, I don't know if it is an accurate portrayal or not. I do know, however, that including fictionalized scenes in a historical film does not precluding it from presenting an "accurate portrayal." All biographical and historical films include scenes and selections that come as the result of author's attempt to "fill in the gaps." And all such films, books, stories, poems, etc. reflect the biases of the author, the subject, and the intended audience.

All that said, this film may or may not be an accurate portrayal of Ronald Reagan... and it may or may not be intended to be. All I know of it, so far, is that a bunch of fans of the former president who have not seen it nor read more than a few excerpts of the script have decided that should be stopped because some of the scenes present him in an unflattering light. As such, I was thinking that if I cared enough about it to want to know how accurate it seemed to be, I'd perhaps actually watch the mini-series (or at least part of it) and then form my perceptions of it; a radical approach, I know.

But at the end of the day, Nitemare, you know as well as I do that those who oppose the CBS mini-series would oppose any such project that was in any way critical of the former president and/or his administration, regardless of whether or not it could be supported as being historically accurate. If, for example, a film came out that specifically addressed Reagan and the elder Bush's involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal, the same people would be up in arms without having seen a single word of the script nor a single scene of the movie.

This has to do with politics, nothing else. The overwhelming majority of those who have been so vehemently against OR for this mini-series have based their positions on their preconceived notions of the man, the party, and the ideologies he represents. To claim that this has anything at all to do with historical accuracy or accurate portrayal is to kid oneself (and not many others).

cumhail

Originally posted by: Nitemare
cumhail, if it was an accurate portrayal then fine. However, it's more Bowling for Columbinish then it is accurate

 

[SuperTool]

And Republicans succeed in censoring the media.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: cumhail
Accurate portrayal? Have you seen it? I haven't... As such, I don't know if it is an accurate portrayal or not. I do know, however, that including fictionalized scenes in a historical film does not precluding it from presenting an "accurate portrayal." All biographical and historical films include scenes and selections that come as the result of author's attempt to "fill in the gaps." And all such films, books, stories, poems, etc. reflect the biases of the author, the subject, and the intended audience.

All that said, this film may or may not be an accurate portrayal of Ronald Reagan... and it may or may not be intended to be. All I know of it, so far, is that a bunch of fans of the former president who have not seen it nor read more than a few excerpts of the script have decided that should be stopped because some of the scenes present him in an unflattering light. As such, I was thinking that if I cared enough about it to want to know how accurate it seemed to be, I'd perhaps actually watch the mini-series (or at least part of it) and then form my perceptions of it; a radical approach, I know.

But at the end of the day, Nitemare, you know as well as I do that those who oppose the CBS mini-series would oppose any such project that was in any way critical of the former president and/or his administration, regardless of whether or not it could be supported as being historically accurate. If, for example, a film came out that specifically addressed Reagan and the elder Bush's involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal, the same people would be up in arms without having seen a single word of the script nor a single scene of the movie.

This has to do with politics, nothing else. The overwhelming majority of those who have been so vehemently against OR for this mini-series have based their positions on their preconceived notions of the man, the party, and the ideologies he represents. To claim that this has anything at all to do with historical accuracy or accurate portrayal is to kid oneself (and not many others).

cumhail

Originally posted by: Nitemare

cumhail, if it was an accurate portrayal then fine. However, it's more Bowling for Columbinish then it is accurate

As much as I dislike Clinton. He is the former president and any min-series on Fox which had the intended purpose of whoring out his name for ratings would be distasteful imho. You said it yourself

"All biographical and historical films include scenes and selections that come as the result of author's attempt to "fill in the gaps." And all such films, books, stories, poems, etc. reflect the biases of the author, the subject, and the intended audience. "

They are using made up events that never happened to drag his name down in an attempt to cater to an agenda and draw ratings...nothing more nothing less. Read the script.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
And Republicans succeed in censoring the media.

Democrats finally prevented from spreading vicious lies as the truth...

And Merry Go Round and round

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: SuperTool
And Republicans succeed in censoring the media.

Democrats finally prevented from spreading vicious lies as the truth...

And Merry Go Round and round

What lies?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: SuperTool
And Republicans succeed in censoring the media.

Democrats finally prevented from spreading vicious lies as the truth...

And Merry Go Round and round

What lies?

Bush's 16 words ring a bell?
The entire Bowling for Columbine "documentary"?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: SuperTool
And Republicans succeed in censoring the media.

Democrats finally prevented from spreading vicious lies as the truth...

And Merry Go Round and round

What lies?

Bush's 16 words ring a bell?
The entire Bowling for Columbine "documentary"?

I thought we were talking about this Regean Docu Drama. I want to know what vicious lies about Ronnie and the Dragon Lady (as Reagans Cheif of staff Donald Regan Called her) are in this movie.

 

[cumhail]

I wasn't aware that the entire script was available for public consumption and that you have read it. Very well... please direct us to where we can find and read the complete script.

cumhail

Originally posted by: Nitemare
They are using made up events that never happened to drag his name down in an attempt to cater to an agenda and draw ratings...nothing more nothing less. Read the script.

 

[Red Dawn]

Wow there were plenty of things that went on during the Reagan Administration that would be embarrasing to the Reagan Worshipers with out having to make stuff up.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: SuperTool
And Republicans succeed in censoring the media.

Democrats finally prevented from spreading vicious lies as the truth...

And Merry Go Round and round

What lies?

Bush's 16 words ring a bell?
The entire Bowling for Columbine "documentary"?

I thought we were talking about this Regean Docu Drama. I want to know what vicious lies about Ronnie and the Dragon Lady (as Reagans Cheif of staff Donald Regan Called her) are in this movie.

They portray the Reagans as being naked(!) when they found out that RR had won the election. Remember? That has to be a lie! And even if it isn't, how dare they!

Seriously, it occurs to me that if the Rs are right about this being a political jab at Reagan (and I'm not doubting that it could be), it would be logical to assume that the fight against this film is also political in nature. Does anyone else find it a little bit absurd for Rs to be using the "How would you feel if it was your parents" argument? At least be honest with us here.


I also find it a bit odd for Rs to be up in arms over lies.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: cumhail
I wasn't aware that the entire script was available for public consumption and that you have read it. Very well... please direct us to where we can find and read the complete script.

cumhail

Originally posted by: Nitemare
They are using made up events that never happened to drag his name down in an attempt to cater to an agenda and draw ratings...nothing more nothing less. Read the script.

article

Your favorite online news source

more

You can read the complete script at CBS and the NY Times has a copy of it, not that it would help you any since no major network likes for the entire script to be readily available before a movie or series comes out.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: SuperTool
And Republicans succeed in censoring the media.

Democrats finally prevented from spreading vicious lies as the truth...

And Merry Go Round and round

What lies?

Bush's 16 words ring a bell?
The entire Bowling for Columbine "documentary"?

Bowling for Columbine was slanted but was accurate on facts. There was a minor error they corrected on the DVD. The lies came from the right when they trashed the movie.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Wow there were plenty of things that went on during the Reagan Administration that would be embarrasing to the Reagan Worshipers with out having to make stuff up.

I don't remember seeing much about JFK fvcking around or his ineptitude during the Bay of Pigs during either JFK or 13 days. Come to think of it I have yet to see anything out of Hollywood or the Broadcast world that has been critical to him.

CBS is desperate and is ran by liberal's pushing an agenda...and Brolin as Reagan??? well at least it was not Martin Sheen

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: SuperTool
And Republicans succeed in censoring the media.

Democrats finally prevented from spreading vicious lies as the truth...

And Merry Go Round and round

What lies?

Bush's 16 words ring a bell?
The entire Bowling for Columbine "documentary"?

Bowling for Columbine was slanted but was accurate on facts. There was a minor error they corrected on the DVD. The lies came from the right when they trashed the movie.

Care to point them out?