Oliver Stone Upset that HBO "Censored" His Propaganda

[Tony]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53948-2003Oct7?language=printer ...full article


HBO co-produced the 90-minute film, but the cable channel pulled the documentary in May after Castro had three hijackers executed and imprisoned some 70 dissidents. Stone was asked to return to Cuba to reinterview the longstanding Cuban president.

"It was probably one of the lowest points of my life to be censored in America," Stone said. "That is a rare document, and I don't know why it can't be seen by the American people."

The new footage has, however, yielded a second film, the 50-minute "Looking for Fidel," which Stone said HBO "seemed to like."



I guess that demanding accuracy and balance is considered "censorship". Sorry Oliver, HBO doesnt want to be part of your lies.

[Ed]

I like his films but he seems like a political creduloid

[Cleon]

As opposed to the myth that the Cubans imprisoned 70+ "dissidents?"

In most countries, including the US, if you accept money from a foreign power for the purpose of overthrowing the government, you wind up in prison. James Cason, the head of the US Special Interests Section (the US' diplomatic presence in Cuba), openly admitted to giving the "dissidents" money and supplies for that very purpose. So guess what? They wound up in jail.

[KelvinG]

Oh please, spare us Tony. If this story involved censorship against something you actually agreed with you would be crying that HBO is bunch of PC left wing crybabies.
But since you you don't like Stone's politics you don't label this censorship, but common sense.
Your hypocrisy seems to be without limit.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Oh please, spare us Tony. If this story involved censorship against something you actually agreed with you would be crying that HBO is bunch of PC left wing crybabies.


I would?? You wouldnt happen to be John Edwards, would you?

Care to give an example of something I agree with that, when censored, I would call HBO PC crybabies?

But since you you don't like Stone's politics you don't label this censorship, but common sense.

When did I label this common sense?

This has nothing to do with disliking stone's politics, its more about my hatred of tyranny, fascism and the people who apologize for it.

Your hypocrisy seems to be without limit.

Ok, now you're just projecting.

The real hypocrisy is with you. You would accept and condone lies and mistruths because you agree with and support the message.

[Andonyx]

Tony, have you viewed this film?

[Tony]

Have you?

[Larspeart]

Tony, i DON'T like Oliver Stones ideology on most issues, but I disagree with your post. Oliver Stone has a good reason to gripe.


You are coming of very one-sided mate.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Tony, i DON'T like Oliver Stones ideology on most issues, but I disagree with your post. Oliver Stone has a good reason to gripe.


You are coming of very one-sided mate.

Did you read about the initial controversy when the movie was originally canceled last May?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Tony, i DON'T like Oliver Stones ideology on most issues, but I disagree with your post. Oliver Stone has a good reason to gripe.


Not really. This isn't censorship, it's an editorial decision. There's a difference.

The Doonesburry author had something to say along those lines regarding newspapers occasionally dropping his strip. He doesn't complain, and doesn't call it censorship, because he knows it's the job of paper editors to make decisions like that about what they want to carry in their own paper. Even though he often disagrees with the reasons, he understands that it's still THEIR decision, not his. Oliver Stone evidently doesn't understand that HBO is a commercial, for-profit company that gets to decide what it wants to air. Whether it was a good decision or a bad decision, it is their decision. It's as simple as that.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Tony
Have you?

No but since you haven't either, then you're just another loud-mouthed idiot holding forth on an interenet message board on a subject about which you know nothing.

The world is full of them, and thanks for conrtibuting to the noise instead of the signal.

Now if someone who has an INFORMED opinion would like to discuss this...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Andonyx

No but since you haven't either, then you're just another loud-mouthed idiot holding forth on an interenet message board on a subject about which you know nothing.



Don't assume I'm as ignorant as you.

[Andonyx]

Did you see it?

No really?

You avoid the question and use the age old...."Well if he asks a question I don't wanna answer I'll just turn it around on him, and ask him the same question."

Genius debate technique man, I wish I'd thought of it.

So seriously, stop stalling, stop hiding and answer.

1. Did you see it?

2. If not, how can anything you have to say about this movie be remotely valuable or worthwhile?

3. How can anything you've said on this entire topic be worth the energy it took to type?

And finally since we've degenerate into insults:

4. Can you show me one single post you've made in the last few days that demonstrates you're anything other than a mal-contented pathetic little person shaking his fist at the sky in a vain attempt to be noticed even though you have nothing meaninful to say?

By the way, Ziggurat, you're right, HBO is not a government agency, they're a for profit company they don't have to put anything on the air they don't want to and it can be for any stupid reason.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53948-2003Oct7?language=printer ...full articleD@mn those liberal PC thought police!

:rolleyes:

[c0rbin]

I would?? You wouldnt happen to be John Edwards, would you?

Care to give an example of something I agree with that, when censored, I would call HBO PC crybabies?


I think the recent Rush episode with ESPN qualifies.

[Tony]

Originally posted by c0rbin


I think the recent Rush episode with ESPN qualifies.

No it doesnt. Rush wasnt censored.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony

No it doesnt. Rush wasnt censored.


No he wasn't. Neither was Stone. Both were told that by a that they would not have their viewpoints shown privately owned network. The situations are exactly analogous.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Tricky



No he wasn't. Neither was Stone. Both were told that by a that they would not have their viewpoints shown privately owned network. The situations are exactly analogous.

Excellent Point! :)

[shanek]

This is NOT censorship, people. HBO has every right to decide for themselves what they are and aren't going to show on their own channel. Censorship would be if some group wielding political power stopped the documentary from airing.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky



No he wasn't. Neither was Stone. Both were told that by a that they would not have their viewpoints shown privately owned network. The situations are exactly analogous.

Hey look, Tricky agrees with me. :D

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Not really. This isn't censorship, it's an editorial decision. There's a difference.

Bingo! HBO has co-produced many documentaries, some of which don't get shown. It happens. Stone may not like it, but as co-producer, HBO gets to decide when and where this documentary gets shown.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
Hey look, Tricky agrees with me. :D
Better write it down. It won't happen often.:p

Although, I must also agree that Stone is a doofus and a woo-woo. But at least he has a sense of humor about himself. In the movie Dave, he plays himself making some crackpot accusation that the president is an imposter who has been substituted for the real president.

But I would not have watched his lame special had it aired. I guess by Stone's argument, I'm censoring him too.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Tony


Hey look, Tricky agrees with me. :D

Hey, I agree with you, too. It's not censorship.

However, I wonder about your "demanding accuracy and balance" statement.

Since when was HBO about "demanding accuracy and balance"? The Sopranos? Sex & the City?

What was your point? Were you complaining that Stone was making a censorship claim, or were you just griping that he's a liar?