wOOt! (Reagan CBS travesty yanked)

[DealMonkey]

Great job republicans! Now if you can just mount a successful protest against all that other stuff coming out of Hollywood that you don't like.

 

[calbear2000]

Originally posted by: 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.

Where's the complete script? I don't see it on CBS' website. All you linked were editorials and opinion articles

I'm not a betting man, but I'd bet you didn't even come close to reading the complete script like you're telling others to do. You're basing your preconception on the opinion of others (ie editorials with cut and paste snippets from the script).

Has Fox trained everyone to stop thinking for themselves?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: 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

You must have never seen the "Rat Pack". It showed what a philanderer and manipulator that JFK, RFK and Hoover were. Anyway, what does that have to do with the fact that there were many things that happen during the Reagan Administration that would be embarrasing without anybody having to amke things up? In fact I bet the true things that were embarrasing are probably much more damamging that anything made up in this Docu Drama

 

[cumhail]

So then we find ourselves, once again, back to the apparent fact that most people who attacked this movie had not seen it, nor read its script, in its entirety and are basing their opposition to it on the following on having read news stories and editorials about it and/or on their belief/fear that it might be critical and/or negative of Reagan. Is that correct?

If not... if you are telling us that you work for one of these places that have the full script, have read it, and are basing your opposition to the project on your closely analyzed it and found it to be a deliberately slanderous portrayal of the Reagans, I will, of course, immediately apologize for assuming that you know nothing more about this film than what has been reported in major-media outlets and what "analysts" at "news organizations" like Fox News have been saying about it.

But as your links don't take us to a complete script, despite the fact that you told me to read it with such satisfaction as to imply that you had, I'm afraid I'll have to assume that you are either being silly, misleading, or evasive (or, perhaps, some combination of the three) in suggesting that I request access to the script from the New York Times and/or CBS.

cumhail

Originally posted by: 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.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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

Yet here you guys sit bellering on about "conservative talk radio"

You guys rail against O'Reilly and the others....but now all of a sudden public outcry against a media is censorship.

You guys crack me up

CBS - wouldn't have pulled it if it was even close to "fair". If they thought it was accurate or in good taste - don't you think they would have aired it and let the "facts" speak for themselves?

CkG

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: 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

You must have never seen the "Rat Pack". It showed what a philanderer and manipulator that JFK, RFK and Hoover were. Anyway, what does that have to do with the fact that there were many things that happen during the Reagan Administration that would be embarrasing without anybody having to amke things up? In fact I bet the true things that were embarrasing are probably much more damamging that anything made up in this Docu Drama

I have not seen the Rat Pack. I would have thought it was a movie about Sinatra, Martin and Davis.

As for not seeing the entire script, the snippits alone would make me not watch it. Throw in Brolin and I would not go near it with a 10 foot pole

Re: Columbine. The synapsis and reviews as well as my abhoring Michael Moore was sufficient to steer me away from anything that he is involved in.


Cumhail, point out the parts in the snippits that are factual and aren't an attempt to paint the Reagan's in a bad light

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

Yet here you guys sit bellering on about "conservative talk radio"

You guys rail against O'Reilly and the others....but now all of a sudden public outcry against a media is censorship.

You guys crack me up

CBS - wouldn't have pulled it if it was even close to "fair". If they thought it was accurate or in good taste - don't you think they would have aired it and let the "facts" speak for themselves?

CkG

Well they haven't pulled it yet but the only reason they would pull it would be because of pressure from Sponsors...nothing else

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

Yet here you guys sit bellering on about "conservative talk radio"

You guys rail against O'Reilly and the others....but now all of a sudden public outcry against a media is censorship.

You guys crack me up

CBS - wouldn't have pulled it if it was even close to "fair". If they thought it was accurate or in good taste - don't you think they would have aired it and let the "facts" speak for themselves?

CkG

Well they haven't pulled it yet but the only reason they would pull it would be because of pressure from Sponsors...nothing else

Which rebuts the whole liberal media myth, since the sponsors are corporations largely under republican CEOs, and they have the final say on what gets aired.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

Yet here you guys sit bellering on about "conservative talk radio"

You guys rail against O'Reilly and the others....but now all of a sudden public outcry against a media is censorship.

You guys crack me up

CBS - wouldn't have pulled it if it was even close to "fair". If they thought it was accurate or in good taste - don't you think they would have aired it and let the "facts" speak for themselves?

CkG

Well they haven't pulled it yet but the only reason they would pull it would be because of pressure from Sponsors...nothing else

CBS pulls Reagan miniseries

Umm...I think it did "pull it" It will not be aired on CBS.

CkG

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

Yet here you guys sit bellering on about "conservative talk radio"

You guys rail against O'Reilly and the others....but now all of a sudden public outcry against a media is censorship.

You guys crack me up

CBS - wouldn't have pulled it if it was even close to "fair". If they thought it was accurate or in good taste - don't you think they would have aired it and let the "facts" speak for themselves?

CkG

Well they haven't pulled it yet but the only reason they would pull it would be because of pressure from Sponsors...nothing else

Which rebuts the whole liberal media myth, since the sponsors are corporations largely under republican CEOs, and they have the final say on what gets aired.

Yet all the board members for CBS are liberals...a sticky wicky

 

[DealMonkey]

I guess we'll be watching it on Showtime

The network said it was licensing the completed film to Showtime, a pay cable network that, like CBS, is owned by Viacom.

CBS insisted it was not bowing to pressure about portions of the script, but that the decision was made after seeing the finished film.

"Although the miniseries features impressive production values and acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience," the network said in a statement.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I guess we'll be watching it on Showtime

The network said it was licensing the completed film to Showtime, a pay cable network that, like CBS, is owned by Viacom.

CBS insisted it was not bowing to pressure about portions of the script, but that the decision was made after seeing the finished film.

"Although the miniseries features impressive production values and acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience," the network said in a statement.

No interuptions from those evil right wing corporations wOOt!

 

[SuperTool]

I don't have showtime. I wanna watch it on CBS. Time to use the rightwinger tactics and write to CBS telling them I'll boycott them until they show the movie.

 

[Red Dawn]

I always thought James Brolin was wrong for the part anyways. I think Adam Sandler would do a much better job!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't have showtime. I wanna watch it on CBS. Time to use the rightwinger tactics and write to CBS telling them I'll boycott them until they show the movie.

Go for it. You probably won't get a reply though. Not even an automated one...depending on which email addresses you send it to The bigwigs emails are out there if you search.

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Hell they might have a bit part for Crimson as John Hinkley

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I always thought James Brolin was wrong for the part anyways. I think Adam Sandler would do a much better job!

Well Sandler is a much better actor

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I always thought James Brolin was wrong for the part anyways. I think Adam Sandler would do a much better job!

Well Sandler is a much better actor

Who isn't?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I always thought James Brolin was wrong for the part anyways. I think Adam Sandler would do a much better job!

Well Sandler is a much better actor

Who isn't?

J Ho, Mariah, Affleck, most of the cast from the new ER

 

[daniel1113]

I didn't realize that a consumer-based economy was considered censorship now. If enough people complain about a show, it is only in the best interest of CBS, or any network, to not air it. CBS could air it if they wanted, but they probably realized that the consequences (aka, money earned) would not be worth the work.

It's not censorship when a network chooses not to air a show...

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I always thought James Brolin was wrong for the part anyways. I think Adam Sandler would do a much better job!

Tim Curry. He plays a great villain.

 

[shiner]

As someone with a Masters Degrees in both History and Political Science I am glad to see this revisionist garbage yanked. Yes, I am a Republican. Yes, I was/am a fan of Reagan. Yes, I think Bill Clinton was a caretaker President who really didn't do much and was a national disgrace. However...if in the future anyone were to make a revisionist movie about Clinton I would be against it as well. History to me is something that is holy and should not be tinkered with. No that doesn't mean historical records should not be changed when new found facts warrant such a change, but changing/twisting history to further a political agenda is wrong and a horrible travesty.

 

[cumhail]

What is the point in examining the historical accuracy of a handful of snippets taken out of a lengthy miniseries? I have not made any arguments as to whether or not the piece is negative nor whether or not it is accurate. What I have stated is that forming a position so strongly against it without knowing anything more about it than what has been reported to you by sources at least as biased as the ones you seem so offended by is ludicrous. But this seems to be par for the course for you, just based on the two ready examples you've given us.

1. You are sure Bowling for Columbine is nothing but a bunch of lies and that Michael Moore is abbhorent without having seen, by your own admission, anything he's done... because of the "synapsis (sic) and reviews" you claim to have read or been exposed to. The film won an academy award, the majority of critics gave it favorable write-ups, and it rates quite highly in user ratings at us.imdb.com. But hey... taste is subjective. Different people like different things, right? So rather than make assumptions, let me just ask: Did these so-called "snyapsis" and "reviews," by any chance, come from others who, like you, dislike Michael Moore primarily because he clearly leans to the left and criticizes the right? Did any of the people you are relying on to form your opinion actually see this movie or any of Moore's others; or are they just going on someone else's assessment of someone else's assessment of someone else's assessment of him in some great big game of telephone where you decide whether or not you like a movie based solely on whether or not you like the director, actors, etc.?

2. Your assessment of the miniseries seems to be similarly based on your having heard that you're not supposed to like it because it is negative in its portrayal of Reagan. Ok, fine... let's just say it is. I still haven't seen it nor read any significant portion of the script (though unlike you, at least, I never pretended to); so why quibble? Let's say that from beginning to end, the film's director, screenwriter, and actors don't like Reagan and would like him to look bad. Do they have no right to tell their version of the story? Are you so certain of your assessment of things, based on your having seen "synapsis," "reviews" and "snippets," that you feel qualified to dictate what should and should not allowed to be aired?

Now CaD, perhaps, will chime in and lump me in with his "you guys" who, by his implication, try to censor right-wing figures on the radio and/or television. But the fact is that the only television and radio censorship I've ever considered valid (on the basis of conflicting political ideologies, anyway) involves choosing not to listen to or watch programs I don't like. So please don't invent imaginary groups to lump us all into and dismiss us.

I'll even go further and say that this is NOT a case of censorship; so let's all please stop throwing that word around, just to elicit reactions from people. No one told CBS that they CAN'T show the movie... a large group of people voiced their displeasure about it, organized to have their voices heard more loudly, and got the company to make a business decision. If others don't like that, they can make similarly organize their own efforts. So I'm not making any claims that rallying against a movie or organizing boycotts is wrong. I'm simply voicing the hope that this is a case of people organizing together based on shared views and not just a case of mob mentality. Because in your case, Nitemare, and in the case of too many others who post here (and elsewhere, no doubt), it seems quite clearly to be the case that you've counted yourself among a group (and by that I don't mean all conservatives or all republicans, I'd like to say clearly) who use conclusions to prove premises; who've already decided what is right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust, and seek only to find confirmation and validation in viewing not only movies or tv shows or news reports, but life.

It is said that Socrates, as the legend goes, was told by an oracle that no one was wiser than he; and that seeking to prove it wrong, for he was sure that it could not be, he went from man to man, many of whom proclaimed they they, in fact, were the wisest in the world. What he learned, in so doing, was that his wisdom lay in the fact that unlike all these others who were so sure that they knew all there was to know and that, consequently, they were wise, Socrates knew that he knew nothing. Many, I think, would do well to learn from Socrates' lesson.

In any case, nothing I say will ever permeate the shield of ideological indoctrination that some so proudly wield. I will be pigeonholed and categorized and dismissed and my posts will become, for you, will come to represent "the other" and, by extension, "the wrong." But what the heck... if nothing else, it's at least cathartic posting my views, now and again .

cumhail

Originally posted by: Nitemare
I have not seen the Rat Pack. I would have thought it was a movie about Sinatra, Martin and Davis.

As for not seeing the entire script, the snippits alone would make me not watch it. Throw in Brolin and I would not go near it with a 10 foot pole

Re: Columbine. The synapsis and reviews as well as my abhoring Michael Moore was sufficient to steer me away from anything that he is involved in.


Cumhail, point out the parts in the snippits that are factual and aren't an attempt to paint the Reagan's in a bad light

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
As someone with a Masters Degrees in both History and Political Science I am glad to see this revisionist garbage yanked. Yes, I am a Republican. Yes, I was/am a fan of Reagan. Yes, I think Bill Clinton was a caretaker President who really didn't do much and was a national disgrace. However...if in the future anyone were to make a revisionist movie about Clinton I would be against it was well. History to me is something that is holy and should not be tinkered with. No that doesn't mean historical records should not be changed when new found facts warrant such a change, but changing/twisting history to further a political agenda is wrong and a horrible travesty.

Thanks for the disclaimers Did you read the script? How do you know this was revisionist history?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: shinerburke
As someone with a Masters Degrees in both History and Political Science I am glad to see this revisionist garbage yanked. Yes, I am a Republican. Yes, I was/am a fan of Reagan. Yes, I think Bill Clinton was a caretaker President who really didn't do much and was a national disgrace. However...if in the future anyone were to make a revisionist movie about Clinton I would be against it was well. History to me is something that is holy and should not be tinkered with. No that doesn't mean historical records should not be changed when new found facts warrant such a change, but changing/twisting history to further a political agenda is wrong and a horrible travesty.

Thanks for the disclaimers Did you read the script? How do you know this was revisionist history?

http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/2003/col20031023.asp

The Times also reported that the script accuses Reagan of not mere apathy in facing the outbreak of AIDS, but of "asserting that AIDS patients essentially deserved their disease." During a scene in which his wife pleads with him to help people battling AIDS, fake-Reagan says, "They that live in sin shall die in sin" and refuses to discuss the issue further. This is not only fake history, but terrible Christianity. We are all sinners, and we all die requiring the grace of a forgiving God.