Reagan Movie

[peptoabysmal]

Reagan Movie (http://extratv.warnerbros.com/dailynews/extra/11_03/11_03e.html)

I was no fan of Ronnie when he was in office. I was a liberal in those days. (Thank {insert diety} I've seen the light). I still blame Ronnie for his part in Iran-Contra and allowing Iraq to use CW on the Kurds and get away with it.

I have been hearing that this movie, starring Mr. Streisand portraying Ronald Reagan, is almost a work of fiction being peddled as a documentary.

If it is the case that this movie is a work of fiction, it would be sad if it ends up being used in classrooms as "required viewing" some day.


Edited: tags 8^}

[Brown]

I am no fan of Reagan. I do not despise the man, and he was very good in many ways. But as a whole, I do not think he was a very good president.

That said, I expect that the mini-series will probably not treat him fairly. This is not praise for Reagan, but an indictment of television. Television's "historical" mini-series tend to take considerable "license" with history, resulting in oversimplified and incorrect portrayals of historical figures. In a contest between being entertaining and being historically accurate, television invariably selects the "entertaining" option.

It is possible for a dramatic portrayal of a president to be done with pretty good accuracy. James Whitmore's "Give 'Em Hell, Harry!" stands out in this regard. Laurence Luckinbill's one-man show about Lyndon Johnson was also a good effort, and many people thought highly of Edward Herrmann's portrayals of FDR and William Devane's portrayal of JFK.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

From what I understand, it is very accurate. That is why the nut right is so upset.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
From what I understand, it is very accurate. That is why the nut right is so upset. I second this. I read (though I'm afraid I can't recall where, so a link is out of my reach) that the producer(s) endeavored to find two verifiable sources for each of the script's points.

I can better appreciate the appeal of Mr. Reagan from reading a few of the man's recently compiled and published notes of correspondence. Frankly, at the time, I could never quite understand the near idolatrous levels of reverence he engendered during his presidency -- a level of feeling that hardly seems to have diminished in the years since. Because of this, any treatment -- from Edmund Morris' "Dutch" to the television miniseries in question -- that is not in keeping with the right's desire to place him beyond serious scrutiny is going to be, well, seriously scrutinized.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
I second this. I read (though I'm afraid I can't recall where, so a link is out of my reach) that the producer(s) endeavored to find two verifiable sources for each of the script's points.


Keep in mind the uproar caused by these morons (right wing nuts) when Oliver Stone's "Nixon" came out. There was a scene where Stone portrayed Nixon as being drunk. The truly stupid whined about this, saying there was no evidence that he was a drunk (of course there was no evidence that he wasn't either), even though a dsclaimer at the beginning of the film clearly said that some scenes were conjecture - but I guess the nut right is also the illiterate right. But then what happened a few years later? Why, audio tapes made in the oval office of a clearly drunk Dickie Nixon came out! The truly stupid (right wingers) were strangely silent about that! Hmmmmmm....

[corplinx]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


Keep in mind the uproar caused by these morons (right wing nuts) when Oliver Stone's "Nixon" came out.

What a waste, being offended by an Oliver Stone flick.

[Brown]

I have to concur in the opinion that the reverence for Reagan held by some people is ridiculous and not deserved. While he was in office, Reagan butt-smoochers were saying that his face ought to be on Mount Rushmore. Even today, some people say that he was the best president ever. Well, I remember the Reagan era really well, and it wasn't all that great.

Reagan's record is full of goofs, blunders, stupid remarks and downright falsehoods. This is part of the man that he was. He tended to repeat stories he'd heard, and seemed not to care whether the stories were factual. There were some in the media who deliberately tried to throw Reagan curve ball questions, just to see what kinds of goofy answers they'd get from him.

If you tried do a mini-series that failed to mention Reagan's propensity for sticking his foot in his mouth, then that mini-series would be unfair (despite the fact that this would be the kind of mini-series that Nancy Reagan would prefer). Similarly, if you did a mini-series that emphasized the errors and boneheaded remarks, then that would be unfair, too.

There seem to be two big complaints about the movie: one is the cast, who are unfairly presumed to act according to a political agenda rather than a legitimate portrayal of their characters; and the other is that Reagan showed a lack of compassion with AIDS victims. As I recall, Reagan DID show a lack of compassion for a lot of people, including AIDS vicitims. He may not have made the controversial "They that live in sin shall die in sin" remark, but his actions, and those of his administration, were consistent with that view.

Surgeon General Koop, for example, had to go to rather extraordinary lengths (some of them almost comical) in order to publish his AIDS information pamphlet to the American people. He also expressed his concern about facing the "They that live in sin shall die in sin" mentality of the Reagan administration. Koop basically said, "Look, I'm a doctor, and my attitude has to be 'Hate the sin, but treat the patient anyway.'" (Dr. Koop earned my respect for his courage on this issue, and because he refused to publish anti-abortion studies that were contrary to the weight of the evidence, even though he personally was strongly opposed to abortion.)

C.S. mentioned "Nixon." Well, long before "Nixon" came out, Woodward and Bernstein published "The Final Days" about the end of Nixon's term. There were a lot of stories in that book that were denied by Nixon supporters, and yet, many of them were later admitted to be true. Woodward and Bernstein rigorously checked their facts before typing anything, and used multiple sources to corroborrate stories. As a result, "The Final Days" has withstood historical scrutiny, for the most part.

It is not clear that the Reagan mini-series has been subject to such rigorous fact-checking.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
From what I understand, it is very accurate. That is why the nut right is so upset.

Oh darn, I thought you might have some actual facts about the movie to share.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Brown

Reagan's record is full of goofs, blunders, stupid remarks and downright falsehoods. This is part of the man that he was. He tended to repeat stories he'd heard, and seemed not to care whether the stories were factual. There were some in the media who deliberately tried to throw Reagan curve ball questions, just to see what kinds of goofy answers they'd get from him.

If you tried do a mini-series that failed to mention Reagan's propensity for sticking his foot in his mouth, then that mini-series would be unfair (despite the fact that this would be the kind of mini-series that Nancy Reagan would prefer). Similarly, if you did a mini-series that emphasized the errors and boneheaded remarks, then that would be unfair, too.


Totally agree. I would rather they show both the good and bad, as truthfully as possible. But then, it probably would only air on PBS LOL.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Reagan already has his legacy.

The Ronald Reagan building (http://epw.senate.gov/105th/mcc_9-23.htm) mentioned in this statement about a new Patent Office building by John McCain.

This deal will be worse than the Ronald Reagan building deal. Remember how the cost of the Ronald Reagan building skyrocketed? That building, which is three million square feet, began as a $362 million building, and ended up costing $800 million. That's a huge cost increase.

Hey, the building's cost was just like deficits during the Reagan Era.

[Cain]

Ronald Reagan couldn't recognize members of his own cabinet! He's a Goddamn F**king Moron if there ever was one. The manner in which the right idolizes the man is revolting. Reagan on the rock? Please.

Whenever confronted by a right-wing jackass who goes on endlessly about the great Reagan, I raise my eyebrows and say, "Oh, you mean the guy who murdered lots of people and now wears diapers. Yeah, I guess he single-handedly destroyed the 'Evil Empire.' And trees are responsible for 80% of our air pollution. :rolleyes:"

[richardm]

It appears that the pressure from the right has finally told. CBS may be considering cancelling the series. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3237893.stm)

[Cain]

Why can't the Left organize these kind of boycotts? Or whenever a group opposes their portrayal in the popular media they get mocked: "Haha, look all the crazy black* people!! Calm down already. And quit being so sensitive."

*or gays or hispanics or Jews or Muslims or anybody not explicitly aligned with the GOP.

[BillyTK]

It's a shame it's being cancelled. I'd've liked to have seen who they chose to play Madge "St. Peggy of Grantham" Thatcher. Apparently her relationship with Ronald "My name is?" Reagan made Clinton's cigar exploits look like, well, some old school chauvinist abusing his aides. Although when Thatch and Ronnie got together, you could feel the earth move under your feet. Especially if you lived in Grenada, Tripoli, Nicaragua, Panama...

[Tmy]

Bill Oreilly is yapping about this movie, bringing up the boycott thing. I think its lousy journalism considering NO ONE HAS SEEN THE MOVIE!!!!

[richardm]

Originally posted by Tmy
Bill Oreilly is yapping about this movie, bringing up the boycott thing. I think its lousy journalism considering NO ONE HAS SEEN THE MOVIE!!!!


Is it lousy journalism, or at attempt to drum up publicity for the film?

Hmm.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Hmmm, a movie about Reagan on a major television network. Some people are upset about the content? of a movie?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the mandate of major television networks to sell commercials and put various crap between the commercials to keep people watching?

Charlie (TV cynic at heart) Monoxide

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
From what I understand, it is very accurate. That is why the nut right is so upset.

I won't say it is "very accurate," but there is a kernal of truth to what you say.

The characterization that it is "pure fiction" is certainly coming from the right, who are objecting that it doesn't always show Reagan in a favorable light. But you know what? Not everything he did was so danged good.

My guess is that it is far closer to truth than the objectors would like you to believe. I'm sure there are instances where the truth is stretched, but that happens in any movie.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tmy
Bill Oreilly is yapping about this movie, bringing up the boycott thing. I think its lousy journalism considering NO ONE HAS SEEN THE MOVIE!!!!

What? OReilly bashing a show he hasn't seen? What next, will he bash a book he hasn't read? Oh wait, he has done that, too...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tmy
Bill Oreilly is yapping about this movie, bringing up the boycott thing. I think its lousy journalism considering NO ONE HAS SEEN THE MOVIE!!!! Nor does BO'Re plan to (http://www.billoreilly.com/site/preview?JSESSIONID=1nC76pUbZzevpUYgelB3nIE62kT5WEe HDt4VIy9noTM55ACilLG4!81054693&pid=2133) (audio clip)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Cain
Ronald Reagan couldn't recognize members of his own cabinet! He's a Goddamn F**king Moron if there ever was one. The manner in which the right idolizes the man is revolting. Reagan on the rock? Please.

Whenever confronted by a right-wing jackass who goes on endlessly about the great Reagan, I raise my eyebrows and say, "Oh, you mean the guy who murdered lots of people and now wears diapers. Yeah, I guess he single-handedly destroyed the 'Evil Empire.' And trees are responsible for 80% of our air pollution. :rolleyes:"

You need to be removed from this forum until you grow up. This is a place for adults.

Reagan has Alzheimer's Cain,...a disease that someday you will get to experience first hand. If you ever do make it to an advanced age that is. Your disgusting post has been reported as being in violation of the jerk rule.

-z

[Brown]

People were saying that Reagan was a mental midget long before he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. He said some very stupid things from the very first day of his presidency in 1981 (see, for example, "The Clothes Have No Emperor"). In fact, he made several monstrously ignorant remarks long before he became president (see, for example, "Ronald Reagan's Reign of Error"). Clark Clifford called Reagan "The Amiable Dunce" well before Alzheimer's entered the picture.

The organic problems that affected Reagan started to show late in his second term. In the last year of his presidency, perhaps the last two years, it was pretty clear that Reagan was having problems, although those problems were officially denied. Reagan said less in public. He held fewer news conferences. Some thought that Nancy Reagan and Howard Baker were the ones running the country.

Clips of Reagan giving speeches less than a year after he was out of office show him being confused and lost from time to time. The eventual report that Reagan had Alzheimer's did not come as much of a surprise.

The bottom line is that Reagan's numerous boneheaded comments should not be attributed to his disease.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Brown
People were saying that Reagan was a mental midget long before he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. He said some very stupid things from the very first day of his presidency in 1981 (see, for example, "The Clothes Have No Emperor"). In fact, he made several monstrously ignorant remarks long before he became president (see, for example, "Ronald Reagan's Reign of Error"). Clark Clifford called Reagan "The Amiable Dunce" well before Alzheimer's entered the picture.

The organic problems that affected Reagan started to show late in his second term. In the last year of his presidency, perhaps the last two years, it was pretty clear that Reagan was having problems, although those problems were officially denied. Reagan said less in public. He held fewer news conferences. Some thought that Nancy Reagan and Howard Baker were the ones running the country.

Clips of Reagan giving speeches less than a year after he was out of office show him being confused and lost from time to time. The eventual report that Reagan had Alzheimer's did not come as much of a surprise.

The bottom line is that Reagan's numerous boneheaded comments should not be attributed to his disease.

Perhaps you are right,...however Cain was making specific derogatory remarks about Alzheimers. IMHO someone needs to speak up against him on this. His comments are on the same level as a teenager making fun of "retards". It's not just wrong, it's sophmoric and vicious. Cain is a jerk.

Getting back on subject, I'm no great fan of Reagan myself. I never voted for him. I do have an old high school friend who worked for Senator Frist before he got the Senate Majority Leader post. My friend worked for him at the Ronald Wilson Reagan Republican Center (National Republican Senatorial Committee), Washington, D.C.

(Yeah,...yet another edifice named for RWR) :rolleyes:

He once showed me their memorial garden behind the building, complete with fountain and monument to Reagan with a Bronze bust of the man hisself. It was hoky, corny,...and a tad bit scary! Very churchy vibe...but in a weird Jim and Tammy Faye kinda way.

The far right...it's almost as strange as the far left. :rolleyes:
-z

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
The characterization that [the Reagan miniseries] is "pure fiction" is certainly coming from the right, who are objecting that it doesn't always show Reagan in a favorable light.A jolly irony considering the litany of lies and distortions the far right spread about Vice President Al Gore during the 2000 presidential election.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
From what I understand, it is very accurate. That is why the nut right is so upset.

It would also be quite accurate that Churchill had a drinking problem and was a racist, but a documentary based on that would hardly be fair. What matters is WHICH "accurate points" are shown, and whether they're representative of the man or not. Whether they had two witnesses or 1,000 for every claim in the script tells us nothing about how FAIR it is.

[hal bidlack]

Originally posted by Cain
Ronald Reagan couldn't recognize members of his own cabinet! He's a Goddamn F**king Moron if there ever was one. The manner in which the right idolizes the man is revolting. Reagan on the rock? Please.

Whenever confronted by a right-wing jackass who goes on endlessly about the great Reagan, I raise my eyebrows and say, "Oh, you mean the guy who murdered lots of people and now wears diapers. Yeah, I guess he single-handedly destroyed the 'Evil Empire.' And trees are responsible for 80% of our air pollution. :rolleyes:"

This post has been reported. While it is very in-your-face, I do not find that it violates the rules.
hal

[Supercharts]

CBS pulled the movie.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=7&u=/ap/20031104/ap_on_en_tv/tv_reagan_miniseries

[Skeptic]

Why can't the Left organize these kind of boycotts?

Because of the balance of power between left and right. The left has more or less complete control over academia, intellectuals in general, most established newspapers, high society, show business, and artistic circles... but, in return, the right dominates businesses, government, law, politics, the elections, and all other fields where people need to actually DO something instead of just TALK about it.

98% of all people have to work and don't have time for deep discussions about the novo avant guarde in so-and-so's new show in the Guggenheim, so they tend to be on the right.

No wonder the right tends to win the elections all the time to the great surprise of the intellectuals, or that right-wing boycotts work while left-wing ones cannot get started.

You see, it is precisely in those fields where the "stupid people whose opinion doesn't matter"(TM), a.k.a. "the Ph.D.-less", a.k.a. "the vast majority of the population" actually show the 0.87% of "sensitive thinking intellectuals" whose's boss.

In one sentence, the left, the "protector of the people" and the bastion of the "downtrodden masses" cannot organize a boycott because the downtrodden masses of the people never heard or care about them.

[Brown]

CBS either pulled the movie because (1) it wimped out or (2) it had some doubts about the historical accuracy of the movie.

Considering that CBS stood its ground on a number of unpopular matters far less trivial than this Reagan business, it seems odd that CBS would simply wimp out because of fear of boycotts.

Indications are that the movie includes a lot of "license," i.e., dramatic stuff and interpretations that are not well documented. I suspect that if the movie were well documented, CBS would stand its ground and say, "Dammit, this is what happened! This is what he said! This is the way he was! He wasn't perfect!"

Articles and books critical of Reagan have surfaced before, and Reagan butt-smoochers attacked them as inaccurate. In each case, however, the authors produced documentation for each unflattering item, and said, "I don't care that you don't like it, this is what happened!" But CBS didn't respond this way.

And I can certainly understand, by the way, how Reagan worshippers would see the casting of Brolin as a slap in the face. It would be about as big an insult as, say, naming an airport after a guy who fired the air traffic controllers.

[Tmy]

Great now Oreily will take credit for getting the thing pulled. Its nothing more than witchhunting.

CBS says that the series doesnt presnt a "balanced view" of Regan. SInce when does TV care about balanced views?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Brown
...It would be about as big an insult as, say, naming an airport after a guy who fired the air traffic controllers. :D

[DavidJames]

I think politically this isn't a good move for the conservatives. This would give them another opportunity worship and put Ronnie back up on the alter and rail against the liberal media, while painting the Dem candidates as liberal, gay loving and freedom hating terrorists.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tmy
Great now Oreily will take credit for getting the thing pulled. Its nothing more than witchhunting.

CBS says that the series doesnt presnt a "balanced view" of Regan. SInce when does TV care about balanced views?

How "balanced" were the TV movies about JFK's lovelife or LBJ?

[Avian]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


How "balanced" were the TV movies about JFK's lovelife or LBJ?

Or that Showtime 9/11 movie? Holy cow, talk about a right wing love fest!

[Supercharts]

"
CBS STATEMENT REGARDING "THE REAGANS"

"CBS will not broadcast THE REAGANS on November 16 and 18. This decision is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script.

Although the mini-series 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. Subsequent edits that we considered did not address those concerns.

A free broadcast network, available to all over the public airwaves, has different standards than media the public must pay to view. We do, however, recognize and respect the filmmakers' right to have their voice heard and their film seen. As such, we have reached an agreement to license the exhibition rights for the film to Showtime, a subscriber-based, pay-cable network. We believe this is a solution that benefits everyone involved.

This was not an easy decision to make. CBS does tackle controversial subjects and provide tough assessments of prominent historical figures and events, as we did with films such as 'Jesus,' '9-11' and 'Hitler.' We will continue to do so in the future."
"

From www.cbs.com

[NightG1]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Perhaps you are right,...however Cain was making specific derogatory remarks about Alzheimers
Please quote the the section of Cain's post where he mentions Alzheimers.

[Supercharts]

Tonight will be very interesting on CBS News with Dan Rather.
I look forward to Dan's editorial reporting on this action by CBS.
Dan once walked off the set during a newscast about 12 years ago.
What will Dan say? Any predictions?
Will he read the corporate line without commentary? Will he report in a style and commentary that opposes his corporate management? Will he distance himself from CBS? Will he get 'personal' and inject his own values?
Will he finally tell us the "frequency"? :eek:
If there is an icon of the liberal media on television it's Dan.

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


My guess is that it is far closer to truth than the objectors would like you to believe. I'm sure there are instances where the truth is stretched, but that happens in any movie.

What? OReilly bashing a show he hasn't seen? What next, will he bash a book he hasn't read? Oh wait, he has done that, too...

Well, didnt you just give your opinion/guess on the movie without seeing it?

[Tmy]

Part of Oriellys beef was that it would be hurtful to Nacy Reagan.

SO WHAT! Geez how many times have we seen footage of JFK getting his head blown off. Ya dont think thats hurtful to the Kennedys?

DO you think there'd be less an outarge if Reagan was already dead.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Charles Livingston


Well, didnt you just give your opinion/guess on the movie without seeing it?

Actually, my original guess has pretty much been confirmed. CBS admits that the movie producers have documentation to support every scene, so it is not a question of historical accuracy.

The opinion that there are some artistic license is not specific to this movie in any way. Given that no one was there dictating means that some actions and words have to be made up. Such aspects have no bearing on the historical accuracy of the movie.

[Brown]

I got the following quote from the New York Times, but similar quotes appear in other news services:The chairman of the Republican National Committee also told CBS President Leslie Moonves that historians should review the miniseries for historical accuracy, or that a disclaimer should be run declaring the program fiction. There is considerable irony here. While in office, Reagan was asked to comment upon various books and articles published by former insiders (and in at least one instance, a member of his own family). He hadn't read them, but he nevertheless branded them as "fiction." (For examples, see Paul Slansky's "The Clothes Have No Emperor.")

Many of the most disturbing allegations in those publications turned out to be quite true. The Reagans did consult an astrologer. Nancy Reagan did exert control over her husband's exercise of executive power. President Reagan did make several embarrassing blunders that were successfully shielded from reporters at the time.

[Tmy]

Well there are some inaccurate scenes. Like the one where Regan lets the ground ball go thru his legs giving the Mets the victory in game six of the 86' WOrld Series,or the part where Regan decides to change the formula of Coca Cola, or the scene where Regan battles Meca-Godzilla and destroys 1/2 of Tokyo.

[peptoabysmal]

So CBS pulled the plug eh?

I wonder if it had anything to do with this?

Showtime and CBS are both owned by Viacom, which is anxiously awaiting federal action on rules to restrict ownership of local TV stations. Failure to enact such changes could cost Viacom millions of dollars, said Jeff Chester, head of the Center for Digital Democracy, a communications lobbying group.
Story (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/7180006.htm)


http://www.miami.com/images/realcities/realcities/7180/51552980580.jpg
Here's a pic of Brolin playing Reagan, from the same link.

I listened to an interview with Reagan's son on the radio. He claimed to have seen the movie and his opinion was that they focused on Reagan family life and it was full of events that never even happened. The Dem's have been saying that Reagan was stupid, and that Nancy ran his career ever since he ran for governor of California.

[Brown]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I listened to an interview with Reagan's son on the radio. He claimed to have seen the movie and his opinion was that they focused on Reagan family life and it was full of events that never even happened. The Dem's have been saying that Reagan was stupid, and that Nancy ran his career ever since he ran for governor of California. Probably the "son" in question was Michael, not Ron, Jr. Michael has been trying to get as much mileage out of this business as he can.

During President Reagan's administration, Michael was not really close to the President. Michael wrote a book called "On the Outside Looking In" (which I have not read, nor do I intend to do so).

President Reagan's strange treatment of his own family is a matter of record. Ron Jr. once remarked that the reason he knew that his father composed the famed "sunset of my life" letter was that the letter didn't mention individual members of the President's family.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Brown
Probably the "son" in question was Michael, not Ron, Jr. Michael has been trying to get as much mileage out of this business as he can.

During President Reagan's administration, Michael was not really close to the President. Michael wrote a book called "On the Outside Looking In" (which I have not read, nor do I intend to do so).

President Reagan's strange treatment of his own family is a matter of record. Ron Jr. once remarked that the reason he knew that his father composed the famed "sunset of my life" letter was that the letter didn't mention individual members of the President's family.

Sloppy of me not to catch the name, I was on the way to the SPCA to rescue my doggie who got loose last night when I heard the broadcast.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


You need to be removed from this forum until you grow up. This is a place for adults.

Reagan has Alzheimer's Cain,...a disease that someday you will get to experience first hand. If you ever do make it to an advanced age that is. Your disgusting post has been reported as being in violation of the jerk rule.

-z

No more of a jerk comment than your one about the "Pikeys".

[Cain]

Originally posted by rikzilla
[B]

Perhaps you are right,...however Cain was making specific derogatory remarks about Alzheimers. IMHO someone needs to speak up against him on this. His comments are on the same level as a teenager making fun of "retards". It's not just wrong, it's sophmoric and vicious. Cain is a jerk.

I can't believe you reported my post. Why don't you start up a boycott?

Reagan was meeting some of the nation's mayors early in his first term and didn't recognize the secretary of Urban Housing and Development. "So, how are things in your city, Mr. Mayor?" he asked.

Reagan also said trees are responsible for most of our air pollution (and subsequently lied about it, or, if you like, claimed he "couldn't remember," which might be plausible in retrospect).

He has in fact shown a despicable admiration for genocidal killers, and indeed compared the Mujahideen to our own Founding Fathers.

Oh, but I'm a vicious jerk. For what? Saying he wears diapers? :rolleyes:

[TillEulenspiegel]

You know none of us can know what transpired in regards to St.Reagan, but I am more disturbed by CBS"s lack of balls. This is the second time that they have cancelled a piece. The fact that ABC is owned by disney and they include reviews of stupid pixar crap as news is one more example of the market driven forces that change the nature of what we are allowed to view and think. You thought rollerball was fiction ? ( origional version )

[a_unique_person]

Looks like a lot of people believe in the second amendment, but not the first.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Tmy
Well there are some inaccurate scenes. Like the one where Regan lets the ground ball go thru his legs giving the Mets the victory in game six of the 86' WOrld Series,or the part where Regan decides to change the formula of Coca Cola, or the scene where Regan battles Meca-Godzilla and destroys 1/2 of Tokyo.
:dl:

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Looks like a lot of people believe in the second amendment, but not the first.

This isn't about free speech, rather it's about what can be broadcast as non-fiction.

Come to think of it, isn't the timing of this movie a little suspicious? Is it little more than a sideways stab at the Bush admin?

[Skeptic]

"CBS will not broadcast THE REAGANS on November 16 and 18. This decision is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script.

...and I'm Uri Geller.

Still, seriously, what did you expect? CBS is a BUSINESS whose purpose is to make money by selling people's attention to advertiser. Anything that generates rating is good, anything that will lower them, bad. All their "controvertial" and "shocking" shows are of the peeping-tom type that people LIKE to see, not, god forbid, someone airing controvertial political views they might not like to see. This is hardly new, and hardly limited to right-wing pressure. The left often tried the same thing--and quite legitimately so, too.

[Skeptic]

The Reagans did consult an astrologer.

As Martin Gardner noted at the time, according to Chinese astrology, where the birth sign is based on the year's animal and metal, Ronald Reagan is an "Iron Pig".

I could have guessed.

[svero]

"Still, seriously, what did you expect? CBS is a BUSINESS"

Well then they're absolutely totally nuts. Don't they know there's no such thing as bad advertising? It's pretty clear the show would have had huuuuge ratings. Nothing like a little controversy to stir up interest in a TV show or book.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
From what I understand, it is very accurate. That is why the nut right is so upset.
I won't even read this thread to see if anyone apologizes for RR. I love everybody, but RR was a total embarrassment to the whole world, except for the true believers in this country, and allowed criminal behavior (giving weapons to terrorists in exchange for hostages). The first (perhaps), but unfortunately not the last figurehead president.
I was quite relieved when we got through that 8 years. Now its deja vu all over again.
Ignorance is bliss.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by svero
"Still, seriously, what did you expect? CBS is a BUSINESS"

Well then they're absolutely totally nuts. Don't they know there's no such thing as bad advertising? It's pretty clear the show would have had huuuuge ratings. Nothing like a little controversy to stir up interest in a TV show or book.
Yes, very weasel-like to cancel, especially since it didn't stop any criticism of them for producing it in the first place. In fact, it
(cancelling it) will backfire on them wildly, and all the true believers will hate them forever.
Damn liberal media.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Reagan Movie (http://extratv.warnerbros.com/dailynews/extra/11_03/11_03e.html)

I was no fan of Ronnie when he was in office. I was a liberal in those days. (Thank {insert diety} I've seen the light). I still blame Ronnie for his part in Iran-Contra and allowing Iraq to use CW on the Kurds and get away with it.

I have been hearing that this movie, starring Mr. Streisand portraying Ronald Reagan, is almost a work of fiction being peddled as a documentary.

If it is the case that this movie is a work of fiction, it would be sad if it ends up being used in classrooms as "required viewing" some day.


Edited: tags 8^}

Since neither you nor the people you 'hear' this from have actually seen the movie, your opinion of it doesn't mean a lot, but you sure have drawn a host of conclusions.

I think the real issue is that fans of Reagan are extremely thin-skinned and are concerned that his supposed legacy can't survive criticism. It's hard to see how the "greatest president of all time" could have his reputation destroyed in a single sweeps week.

Regardless of all this, the outcry has guaranteed a huge audience when it comes out on Showtime, and later on DVD and VHS.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


No more of a jerk comment than your one about the "Pikeys".
I dunno, I thought Cain's comment was pretty insulting to people who wear nappies. My friend's daughter was up in arms about being compared to Ronald Reagan when I told her about it. Okay, so what she said was, "Mu mu mu mu mu mu mu bwaaaaaaaah!", which could mean she was hungry or had filled her nappy, but she's a bright kid for her age so I'm not too sure...

[Skeptic]

Well then they're absolutely totally nuts. Don't they know there's no such thing as bad advertising? It's pretty clear the show would have had huuuuge ratings.

You make the mistake of thinking the customers of a TV business is the viewers. Actually, it's the ADVERTISERS to whom the viewers are sold. Rating is everything... UNLESS it pisses off the advertisers.

I'm sure a show titled "how s**tty our major sponsors are!" exposing high-level corruption in the companies that advertise on CBS would get even higher rating, but you're not going to see it...

[Tmy]

I think this is an example of the dager in having media conglomerates. This got cancelled because of peoples connections to Infinity-CBS whatever it is now. The right millionare is friends wh the right politician and or other millionaire and the got the plug pulled.

Networks usually eat up contraversy cause it drives up ratings. EVen if you lose some advertisters you get to run commericals of your own shows. This got squashed behind the scenes.

[Cain]

I dunno, I thought Cain's comment was pretty insulting to people who wear nappies. My friend's daughter was up in arms about being compared to Ronald Reagan when I told her about it. Okay, so what she said was, "Mu mu mu mu mu mu mu bwaaaaaaaah!", which could mean she was hungry or had filled her nappy, but she's a bright kid for her age so I'm not too sure...

You complete me.

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well then they're absolutely totally nuts. Don't they know there's no such thing as bad advertising? It's pretty clear the show would have had huuuuge ratings.

You make the mistake of thinking the customers of a TV business is the viewers. Actually, it's the ADVERTISERS to whom the viewers are sold. Rating is everything... UNLESS it pisses off the advertisers.

I'm sure a show titled "how s**tty our major sponsors are!" exposing high-level corruption in the companies that advertise on CBS would get even higher rating, but you're not going to see it...

Exactly. The television companies are selling your eyeballs to advertisers. Moreover, it's not just the *number* of viewers, but target demographics (advertisers covet the 18-31 age range).

[Judith]

Those gutless wimps at CBS. Since when do things have to be "fair and balanced"? (rech) If people don't like that show, then make another one they'll like. Conflicting opinions is what the USA is founded on.

I doubt Babs is going to be doing any CBS specials any time soon.
:)

[TillEulenspiegel]

How can anyone critique a movie they haven't seen??? WTF This crap is like The last temptation of Christ or Mel Gibson's movie ( both damned because of what people thought BEFORE the films were released). How about Salman Rushdie? Saints don't fall easily do they? As others have stated it is a buisiness and all who would flourish there must play by the rules. " I mean we're more famous then Jesus Christ" John Lennon at a news conference. The tyranny of the majority ..BAH!

[a_unique_person]

What the hell is this? 3000 monuments to be named after Ronnie. The start of a slippery slope.

It's being run by the "Americans for Tax Reform". This must be costing a fair bit in terms taxes to rename so many things.



For American conservatives, who, through the Reagan Legacy Project, want to either install or relabel monuments and public landmarks in Mr Reagan's name in each of the more than 3000 US counties, aspects of the biography have amounted to slander of an icon.



http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/05/1068013255530.html

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
For American conservatives, who, through the Reagan Legacy Project, want to either install or relabel monuments and public landmarks in Mr Reagan's name in each of the more than 3000 US counties, aspects of the biography have amounted to slander of an icon.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/05/1068013255530.html

Poor, poor babies.

And for gay american males, aspects of last year's mini-series about Judy Garland amounted to slander of an icon. Didn't hear conservatives crying about that, did we?

Why are the conservative icons untouchable, but the gay icons are not?

Dang liberal media, that's what it is.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by SlippyToad


Since neither you nor the people you 'hear' this from have actually seen the movie, your opinion of it doesn't mean a lot, but you sure have drawn a host of conclusions.

I think the real issue is that fans of Reagan are extremely thin-skinned and are concerned that his supposed legacy can't survive criticism. It's hard to see how the "greatest president of all time" could have his reputation destroyed in a single sweeps week.

Regardless of all this, the outcry has guaranteed a huge audience when it comes out on Showtime, and later on DVD and VHS.

You don't know me very well, do you? Otherwise, you'd have seen how hard I tried not to draw any conclusions about this movie.

My hearing works just fine. I heard it on radio and television broadcasts. I also read about it. Believe or not, I can read at least at a 3rd grade level.

Speaking of which, it wouldn't take much more than a third grade education to figure out why this movie is coming out now. It is nothing but a transparent attempt to discredit the Bush administration by association.

The real danger of this movie is that it could end up in classrooms, being peddled as a "documentary".

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Poor, poor babies.

And for gay american males, aspects of last year's mini-series about Judy Garland amounted to slander of an icon. Didn't hear conservatives crying about that, did we?

Why are the conservative icons untouchable, but the gay icons are not?

Dang liberal media, that's what it is.

I didn't even watch this mini-series, because it was simply uninteresting. If I remember correctly, I chose to watch the fly fishing channel instead.

The series did get a lot of kudos and awards from liberal Hollywood. ;)

[Cain]

Speaking of which, it wouldn't take much more than a third grade education to figure out why this movie is coming out now. It is nothing but a transparent attempt to discredit the Bush administration by association.

Or maybe, just maybe, it was slated to be out in mid-November for sweeps. Oh, but CBS has a hidden liberal political agenda that concerns itself more with politics than profits, which is why they're running the series in spite of the boycott. Oh, wait...

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Cain


Or maybe, just maybe, it was slated to be out in mid-November for sweeps. Oh, but CBS has a hidden liberal political agenda that concerns itself more with politics than profits, which is why they're running the series in spite of the boycott. Oh, wait...

CBS didn't create the concept or the content; they merely purchased the rights.


James Brolin said his portrayal of Mr. Reagan was partly inspired by the Reagan puppet on the British satirical show "Spitting Image." Judy Davis, who plays Nancy Reagan, pompously said she hoped the film would teach Americans to scrutinize their elected leaders more carefully.
Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/arts/television/06STAN.html?ex=1068699600&en=283211dd23067a7c&ei=5 062&partner=GOOGLE)


I have seen a few clips played on TV today. This movie definitely concentrates on the personal life of Ron & Nancy and makes them look like a couple of a-holes, not to mention it is little more that a depiction of the Democrat-spawned myth that has followed the Reagan’s since Ronnie was governor of California; that Ron is stupid and is controlled by his domineering wife. There are lots of true incidents that could have been used to denigrate Reagan, but like most far-left zealots they went after the lowest common denominator.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
...it wouldn't take much more than a third grade education to figure out why this movie is coming out now. It is nothing but a transparent attempt to discredit the Bush administration by association.This is certainly a stretch of the imagination, it seems to me.

First, film and television producers are always on the lookout for properties and concepts that are marketable. A Reagan bio would seem to be a natural by any measure. It, as well as dozens upon dozens of others are always in the works. Hollywood is an industry, cranking 'em out on the assembly line.

As to its timing, what possible "association" with the present administration and its policies could be inferred? Y'know, up 'til now, that whole big mess going on in Washington D.C., what with Iraq and Enron and CIA security leaks and all, is just nothing I could ever be bothered with. But after watching that miniseries about Ron and Nancy and how they consulted an astrologer back in 1985, why the scales have fallen from my eyes. Let's storm the gates!The real danger of this movie is that it could end up in classrooms, being peddled as a "documentary". The real danger is that hyperbolic terms like "real danger" will lose their meaning when they're flung about with reckless abandon.

[Brown]

The Newsweek report mentioned a few other incidents in the movie that would be very upsetting to Nancy Reagan. They are probably upsetting to her, in part, because the are based upon true incidents that she would rather forget.

Perhaps the most sensitive subject would be the Reagans' family life. For a couple who supposedly stood for "family values," the Reagans didn't really seem to be able to practice those values themselves. Dramatization of this subject would be a sore point to anyone.

Another touchy incident involves Reagan yelling at Nancy, "Get off my G** D*** back!" This surprising remark made it into the press during Reagan's administration, and Nancy denied that her husband had ever committed this sort of blasphemy. She said he "never, ever" used that particular offensive term. In response, folks who saw Reagan commit bloopers during his show business career (e.g., flubs of his lines from "Death Valley Days") remarked that Reagan used that particular term habitually.

Even if the line is an accurate quote, however, the context of the line in the mini-series may not be correct, or the demeanor of delivery of the line may be exaggerated.

As a side note, Reagan also called some folks (a group of reporters, I think) "sonsabitches." The White House denied that Reagan said any such thing. When someone produced a tape recording of the remark, Reagan's press secretary said that Reagan said "It's sunny and you're rich."

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Brown
It would be about as big an insult as, say, naming an airport after a guy who fired the air traffic controllers.

Don't confuse an insult with delicious irony.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Cain


Or maybe, just maybe, it was slated to be out in mid-November for sweeps. Oh, but CBS has a hidden liberal political agenda that concerns itself more with politics than profits, which is why they're running the series in spite of the boycott. Oh, wait...

Or maybe the Dems in the Senate wanted to launch it next year instead for maximum political advantage, perhaps? It's not like it's the first time they've done that and been stupid enough to put it on paper.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
The real danger is that hyperbolic terms like "real danger" will lose their meaning when they're flung about with reckless abandon.

Exactly why someone like Michael Moore can get away with pushing his excrement as a documentary and win an Oscar for it in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Reagan will never be a public figure again.

Moore will most certainly wipe his prodigious rear end on 35mm film sooner or later and sell it as fact.

Now THAT'S real danger.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
This is certainly a stretch of the imagination, it seems to me.

Either you are correct or you lack vision.

First, film and television producers are always on the lookout for properties and concepts that are marketable. A Reagan bio would seem to be a natural by any measure. It, as well as dozens upon dozens of others are always in the works. Hollywood is an industry, cranking 'em out on the assembly line.
Worse than that, Hollywood also feels it has a mission to shape public opinion. And guess what? It does. All that glitters is not gold. Power is just as intoxicating, if not more so than money, especially to people who already have lots of money.


As to its timing, what possible "association" with the present administration and its policies could be inferred? Y'know, up 'til now, that whole big mess going on in Washington D.C., what with Iraq and Enron and CIA security leaks and all, is just nothing I could ever be bothered with. But after watching that miniseries about Ron and Nancy and how they consulted an astrologer back in 1985, why the scales have fallen from my eyes. Let's storm the gates!The real danger is that hyperbolic terms like "real danger" will lose their meaning when they're flung about with reckless abandon.
They are not after changing the mind of quacks that believe this sort of tripe; their political souls are already committed to eternal damnation. They want to get to the ones on the edge, the ones who can throw an election.

Obey your master...
Your life burns faster...

muahahaha :D

[Cain]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
CBS didn't create the concept or the content; they merely purchased the rights.

Okay... but I do not see how that addresses the criticism (my above reply) or substantiates your original claim. Isn't that how most mini-series on televison work: the network purchases the rights.

You said CBS wanted to release the movie right "now" in an attempt to "discredit" the Bush administration.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


I didn't even watch this mini-series, because it was simply uninteresting.

If you didn't watch it, how do you know it was uninteresting?

[shecky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

Come to think of it, isn't the timing of this movie a little suspicious? Is it little more than a sideways stab at the Bush admin?

Hmmm... smelling a conspiracy are we? When exactly when would there be a more opportune time to show a movie about Reagan (opportune for whom, that is)?

[shecky]

I haven't seen the movie and I hate it already.

Just like I hate that Michael Moore movie that I haven't seen.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Cain


Okay... but I do not see how that addresses the criticism (my above reply) or substantiates your original claim. Isn't that how most mini-series on televison work: the network purchases the rights.

You said CBS wanted to release the movie right "now" in an attempt to "discredit" the Bush administration.

Where did I say that CBS wanted to do that? After they viewed the final product and heard the complaints, CBS decided it was in their best interest not to air the program, but to sell it to a cable network. I imagine that if CBS was the one with the hidden agenda, they would have held out for a little longer before giving up. Could it be that the finished product did not match the idea that was sold to CBS?

My guess is that it was sold to CBS as something like "We are going to produce a docu-drama on the Reagan years", not "We are going to produce a drama that focuses on aspects of Reagan's private life that we could not know for certain and is not very complimentary of the Reagan's". CBS probably saw the market and ratings potential of the first version.

About the timing; likely it was set up when it the idea was sold to the network by the producer. Why not a movie on Bill Clinton's private life? An equally popular president with even more juicy private life details. Could it be that it is right before an election year? This would probably have had an encore presentation and perhaps another run next summer.

[peptoabysmal]

CBS' Statement: (http://www.wnbc.com/entertainment/2609804/detail.html)

"This decision is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script," CBS said in the statement. "Although the mini-series 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. Subsequent edits that we considered did not address those concerns."

"A free broadcast network, available to all over the public airwaves, has different standards than media the public must pay to view," read the CBS statement. "We do, however, recognize and respect the filmmakers' right to have their voice heard and their film seen. As such, we have reached an agreement to license the exhibition rights for the film to Showtime, a subscriber-based, pay-cable network. We believe this is a solution that benefits everyone involved."

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


If you didn't watch it, how do you know it was uninteresting?

The same way I knew that "On Golden Pond" would be uninteresting to me. I know me.


:slp:

[KelvinG]

I'm very suspicious of CBS's claim that they viewed the mini-series and decided it was not fair and accurate. A network planning to air any show would surely have creative input during the post production process, and possibly even as early as the script stage. The idea that a group of CBS execs sat in a room watching the final cut and were surprised by the slant of the content seems like an excuse made up after the fact.

In reality, I'm quite sure they bowed to pressure, as opposed to making the decsion based soley on viewing the final cut.
They claim that they made some suggestions, but they were ignored. Well, how about putting one of your guys in the editing room and making the changes instead of dumping the whole project. I'm just not buying their story.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by KelvinG
I'm very suspicious of CBS's claim that they viewed the mini-series and decided it was not fair and accurate. A network planning to air any show would surely have creative input during the post production process, and possibly even as early as the script stage. The idea that a group of CBS execs sat in a room watching the final cut and were surprised by the slant of the content seems like an excuse made up after the fact.

In reality, I'm quite sure they bowed to pressure, as opposed to making the decsion based soley on viewing the final cut.
They claim that they made some suggestions, but they were ignored. Well, how about putting one of your guys in the editing room and making the changes instead of dumping the whole project. I'm just not buying their story.

I'm equally suspicious of how much Mr. Streisand's wife had to do with this movie, since Barbara is well-known to be a full-blown liberal activist. And like you, I can't prove it, either :D

The statement from Brolin is that his wife had nothing to do with this movie. I think the real irony is that Brolin is exactly what he was trying to portray Reagan as. Type casting?

[Cain]

*sigh*

Cain writes:

You said CBS wanted to release the movie right "now" in an attempt to "discredit" the Bush administration.

Pepto asks:

Where did I say that CBS wanted to do that?

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Speaking of which, it wouldn't take much more than a third grade education to figure out why this movie is coming out now. It is nothing but a transparent attempt to discredit the Bush administration by association.

Moving right along...

After they viewed the final product and heard the complaints, CBS decided it was in their best interest not to air the program, but to sell it to a cable network. I imagine that if CBS was the one with the hidden agenda, they would have held out for a little longer before giving up. Could it be that the finished product did not match the idea that was sold to CBS?

But earlier you said CBS wanted to discredit the Bush administration. Fortunately, you have a charming disregard for basic consistency:


About the timing; likely it was set up when it the idea was sold to the network by the producer. Why not a movie on Bill Clinton's private life? An equally popular president with even more juicy private life details. Could it be that it is right before an election year? This would probably have had an encore presentation and perhaps another run next summer.

Or maybe -- and I'm only throwing this out there as a possibility -- the country suffers from Clinton fatigue; every aspect of his private sexual life has been repeated and documented in explicit detail and talked about ad nauseam.

Whatever the case, any CBS documentary on Clinton could probably never satisfy Republican ideologues who view the man as evil incarnate. The criticism would not change: "Oh, they're presenting Clinton in a favorable light to discredit Bush."


I know, I know, but you're a political apostate, a former liberal, so your opinion is special blah blah blah blah blah blah.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Cain

{deleted... not worth repeating}


But earlier you said CBS wanted to discredit the Bush administration. Fortunately, you have a charming disregard for basic consistency:
All you've proven here is that you can't read.

Or maybe -- and I'm only throwing this out there as a possibility -- the country suffers from Clinton fatigue; every aspect of his private sexual life has been repeated and documented in explicit detail and talked about ad nauseam.
Valid point. It completely omits the fact that we are coming up on a re-election year for a Republican president, but valid point anyway.

Whatever the case, any CBS documentary on Clinton could probably never satisfy Republican ideologues who view the man as evil incarnate. The criticism would not change: "Oh, they're presenting Clinton in a favorable light to discredit Bush."
Really ... :rolleyes:
Pass that doobie around a little, will you?


I know, I know, but you're a political apostate, a former liberal, so your opinion is special blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Not worthy of a reversal of a Custer decision. :p (see Little Big Man)

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


I'm equally suspicious of how much Mr. Streisand's wife had to do with this movie, since Barbara is well-known to be a full-blown liberal activist. And like you, I can't prove it, either :D


Yes, like everyone else, including you, who has an opinion on this matter, I can't definitively prove anything.
I was simply basing my comments on my experiences with studios and how I felt that CBS's story just doesn't make sense. Their behaviour is inconsistent with the usual process when a studio or network is involved in any project. (except where a director has final cut, which is a unique situation)
However, I'm not asking you to take my word as anything but speculation on my part.
And to further speculate, I will agree with you that I am skeptical of the claim that Streisand had nothing to do with this mini-series. I'm sure she had her nose stuck right in the project.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Yes, like everyone else, including you, who has an opinion on this matter, I can't definitively prove anything.
I was simply basing my comments on my experiences with studios and how I felt that CBS's story just doesn't make sense. Their behaviour is inconsistent with the usual process when a studio or network is involved in any project. (except where a director has final cut, which is a unique situation)
However, I'm not asking you to take my word as anything but speculation on my part.
And to further speculate, I will agree with you that I am skeptical of the claim that Streisand had nothing to do with this mini-series. I'm sure she had her nose stuck right in the project.

CBS gave their statement. You can believe it ... or not. I think they could do a mini-series on the scandal behind this mini-series.

[shecky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


About the timing; likely it was set up when it the idea was sold to the network by the producer. Why not a movie on Bill Clinton's private life?

Primary Colors was considerd to be a thinly veiled depiction of Clinton.


I had been pretty uninterested in the Reagan movie until this mess. Now, I actually want to see it. I think CBS is now dropping the ball by nixing it. This much publicity is great for ratings, and would put all the conservative yahoos on the defensive. And CBS would no longer look like they're caving in to pressure from a bunch of nuts.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by shecky
This much publicity is great for ratings, and would put all the conservative yahoos on the defensive. And CBS would no longer look like they're caving in to pressure from a bunch of nuts. And I would like to know why the right (as an organized group, though there must certainly be individual exceptions) didn't get as hot and buttered over the much more egregious treatment of, say, Al Gore and John McCain during the 2000 election.

The crazed affection of so many for Ronald Reagan is certainly a mystery.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

You don't know me very well, do you? Otherwise, you'd have seen how hard I tried not to draw any conclusions about this movie.Whether I know you or not is irrelevant. You did draw a very significant conclusion.

My hearing works just fine. I heard it on radio and television broadcasts. I also read about it. I don't recall critiquing your hearing. It's your thinking that's sloppy. As I stated, neither you nor the people you heard from have seen the film. Your second and third-hand accounts of it are heavily biased and filtered. You notice that I have access to the same information that you do, but so far my only comments are regarding the furor surrounding the film, not the content of it, of which I profess complete ignorance. I will watch it when it comes out on Showtime, however.

Believe or not, I can read at least at a 3rd grade level.
Well, it's been awhile since my pass through the 3rd grade, but a 101 level logic text will show you how to diagram an argument. Here's yours:

I have not seen the Reagan Movie, but I like Ronald Reagan.
Others, who similarly have not seen the movie, say it is biased and fictional.
Therefore, it will be used in classrooms to distort the opinions of our fragile youth.

It is impossible for you to speak from a position of knowledge on the topic of this movie's accuracy or relevance, yet you have come to a clearly-stated conclusion about it.

Speaking of which, it wouldn't take much more than a third grade education to figure out why this movie is coming out now. It is nothing but a transparent attempt to discredit the Bush administration by association.
Opponents of Bush have his own none-too-impressive resume to work with. This movie would be a poor choice to be the cornerstone of a Vast Liberal Conspiracy to unseat Bush.

Bush has many times promised to be more Reagan than Reagan, if at all possible. In the media biz, it's known as "topical" to do things like this. If St. Reagan is really as great as his fans say, no doubt a competing documentary can be made which will show the true truth of his administration. Regardless, Reagan was and remains a public figure, and it doesn't matter if he's at death's door or not -- he is at all times from now until the end of history going to be subject to criticism. Those who cannot tolerate public criticism should stay out of the public eye.

The real danger of this movie is that it could end up in classrooms, being peddled as a "documentary".And again you state this conclusion. It's a short sentance, but I'm fascinated by the convoluted assumptions you must have had to make to get there.

[Regnad Kcin]

Quite a fine analysis, SlippyToad.

And welcome to the forum.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


CBS gave their statement. You can believe it ... or not. I think they could do a mini-series on the scandal behind this mini-series.

You're right. And I don't believe it.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by SlippyToad

Well, it's been awhile since my pass through the 3rd grade, but a 101 level logic text will show you how to diagram an argument. Here's yours:

I have not seen the Reagan Movie, but I like Ronald Reagan.
Others, who similarly have not seen the movie, say it is biased and fictional.
Therefore, it will be used in classrooms to distort the opinions of our fragile youth.
I spend enough time diagramming software and using logic to earn my living, thank you very much. I refuse to be completely logical about politics. Besides, politics isn't always logical, you may be blinding yourself to the truth in your quest to be admired by other skeptics.
I don't like Ronald Reagan, and never have. If it passes as a "documentary", it will likely show up in classrooms. Fortunately, it has not been passed off as a "documentary", so we will never know.

It is impossible for you to speak from a position of knowledge on the topic of this movie's accuracy or relevance, yet you have come to a clearly-stated conclusion about it.

Brolin himself admits to borrowing his character from "Spitting Image". Maybe you're too young to remember that show, they made Reagan look quite the idiot.

Opponents of Bush have his own none-too-impressive resume to work with. This movie would be a poor choice to be the cornerstone of a Vast Liberal Conspiracy to unseat Bush.
Swiftly winning two wars, lowering taxes and beginning economic recovery before the end of his first term. That's got to look bad for him. :rolleyes:

Bush has many times promised to be more Reagan than Reagan, if at all possible. In the media biz, it's known as "topical" to do things like this. If St. Reagan is really as great as his fans say, no doubt a competing documentary can be made which will show the true truth of his administration. Regardless, Reagan was and remains a public figure, and it doesn't matter if he's at death's door or not -- he is at all times from now until the end of history going to be subject to criticism. Those who cannot tolerate public criticism should stay out of the public eye.
I wouldn't mind an honest criticism of Reagan. I would rather see stories like this portrayed with the good, the bad and the ugly. As long as it is as truthful as it can be. Every clip I've seen from this movie and every story I've read on it shows it to be heavily biased, to the point of being a satire, not a documentary. Maybe you have a pointer to somone who has viewed it and has a different opinion?


And again you state this conclusion. It's a short sentance, but I'm fascinated by the convoluted assumptions you must have had to make to get there.
I'll take my convoluted assumptions over your constipated allusions any day :p

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Quite a fine analysis, SlippyToad.

And welcome to the forum.

You can take your hand out of your sock puppet's butt now. :p

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
If it passes as a "documentary", it will likely show up in classrooms. Fortunately, it has not been passed off as a "documentary", so we will never know.Again with the but-who-will-think-of-the-children scare. (By my recollection, the third time you've brought up your fear of such a possibility in this thread.) Has Oliver Stone's Nixon been used in classrooms? PT-109? This is Spinal Tap?

Lastly, why do you presume that anyone was attempting to present the film in question as a documentary? Do you know what the word means?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Again with the but-who-will-think-of-the-children scare. (By my recollection, the third time you've brought up your fear of such a possibility in this thread.) Has Oliver Stone's Nixon been used in classrooms? PT-109? This is Spinal Tap?

Lastly, why do you presume that anyone was attempting to present the film in question as a documentary? Do you know what the word means?

I brought the point up once and have only been defending it in subsequent replies. Admittedly, it is a weak point.
It's also weak to disguise intent with terms like "docu-drama".

Oliver Stone docu-dramas are curriculum vitae in many college courses. If it hasn't trickled to the high-school level yet, it will. Younger children would be bored stiff by these movies, so it's unlikely that it will be shown at anything under 7th or 8th grade level.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I spend enough time diagramming software and using logic to earn my living, thank you very much.Software logic and rhetorical logic are two different things. I also earn my living designing and implementing large systems. But I have a degree in English Lit, which means I spent my college years learning to deconstruct texts. Software logic works in the context of the rules of the computer system. Rhetorical logic works against a background of things you know, and don't know. And you don't know what this movie is like until you've seen it. I refuse to be completely logical about politics. Then you will spend much of your time defending asinine statements to people like me.Besides, politics isn't always logical, you may be blinding yourself to the truth in your quest to be admired by other skeptics.The only thing I'm confused about here is why you persist in forming an opinion in a vacuum.
I don't like Ronald Reagan, and never have. If it passes as a "documentary", it will likely show up in classrooms. You stated quite clearly in the post that started this thread that you didn't like him in the '80's and have since "seen the light." So how many more reversals of opinion am I likely to get from you?Fortunately, it has not been passed off as a "documentary", so we will never know.But the script is available on Salon. You can hunt it up yourself. I deconstruct below
Brolin himself admits to borrowing his character from "Spitting Image". Maybe you're too young to remember that show, they made Reagan look quite the idiot.Well, Reagan made himself look quite the idiot. This is a guy who recited his personal experiences liberating Europe to public audiences, when it was well known he'd spent WWII making movies in California.
Swiftly winning two wars, lowering taxes and beginning economic recovery before the end of his first term. That's got to look bad for him. :rolleyes:The film gives him credit for this. However, it also makes sure he doesn't get a free pass on many other major gaffes.
I wouldn't mind an honest criticism of Reagan. Since you don't know what this movie is actually like, it's hard to respond to that.I would rather see stories like this portrayed with the good, the bad and the ugly. There's plenty of that in the script.As long as it is as truthful as it can be. Every clip I've seen from this movie and every story I've read on it shows it to be heavily biased, to the point of being a satire, not a documentary.This (http://www.theonion.com/onion3002/reagan.html) is satire. The script I read is largely historically accurate. Lines that Reagan can't be proven to have spoken, especially the crack about living and dying in sin, are nonetheless consistent with his public image. The filmmakers took it right out of history. The events are accurate. Maybe history isn't what you'd like to remember.
I'll take my convoluted assumptions over your constipated allusions any day :p [/B]And I'll take a knowledgable source over someone talking out of his a-hole any day.

Having now read the script of the film in question, I can state that I definitely wish to see the film. Depending on how the director chose to interpret it, it could just as easily be about the relationship between a powerful politician and his wife going through a significant period in history. Reagan gets credit for, among other things, forcing the Soviet Union to begin nuclear disarmament. His unwavering stand on various 'character' issues is highlighted. However, the script also delves into the cultural events surrounding his rise to power, beginning with the McCarthy era as it was perceived by Hollywood, and Reagan's gradual conversion from a Democrat to a Republican. Additionally it gives him no pass whatsoever on Iran-Contra. My take on that was always that his professed ignorance was either a lie or a dangerous indicator that the chief executive of the United States was not entirely of sound mind. The script takes the latter stance. Regardless, you can't whine about bias -- the events are public record, and any movie about a President that didn't cover the most significant scandal of his Presidency would be remiss. It's worth noting that the script focuses on his ability to pull the nation's attention away from Iran-Contra in what appears to be a positive fashion.

A script isn't a movie, but it's the source, and if Reaganites are afraid of the source material they should pause to re-examine their unwavering devotion to the memory of Reagan. Yes, he made the Soviet Union "blink." But he let a lot of stuff go on under his nose that was embarassing, and he deliberately did some things that no one in their right mind should be proud of. No one is perfect, and people who want to pretend that Reagan was infallible are just asking for it.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
You stated quite clearly in the post that started this thread that you didn't like him in the '80's and have since "seen the light." So how many more reversals of opinion am I likely to get from you?


I was no fan of Ronnie when he was in office. I was a liberal in those days. (Thank {insert diety} I've seen the light). I still blame Ronnie for his part in Iran-Contra and allowing Iraq to use CW on the Kurds and get away with it.


I can see how you would become easily confused. I was thanking {insert diety} for not being a liberal any more, not for changing my mind on how I feel about Reagan.

I won't subscribe to Salon, but thanks anyway. I'll watch the movie when I get a chance to.


Reported statements by CBS producers Neil Meron and Craig Zadan that they confirmed the facts of the movie with at least two sources were challenged by established Reagan biographers Lou Cannon and Martin Anderson, who said no contact had been made with them regarding the accuracy of the portrayal of the former president.
Link (http://www.modbee.com/life/mondaylife/story/7685266p-8589553c.html)

[Brown]

All right, now I've seen the movie.

It was about what I expected.

First, Brolin's take on Reagan was not too bad. On the whole, Reagan himself comes out looking pretty good, in spite of a few blunders. The Iran-Contra affair, which has almost disappeared from the public consciousness, was presented as a very serious political event in Reagan's presidency.

Reagan's family don't fare as well as Reagan. Nancy comes off as part witch and part saint, with the witch persona being dominant. Nancy's belief in astrology is prominent in the story.

Reagan's kids don't come off well, either. Despite being identifed with "family values," Reagan couldn't relate well to his own kids. Some of Reagan's staff were not favorably portrayed, either.

I spotted no outrageous historical errors. There were some things in the movie that were overdone, and some places where "artistic license" was evident, but the movie did not appear to me to be a "hatchet job" on the Reagan presidency. Many of the most unpleasant events in the movie are well-documented, and many were made known during Reagan's terms in office.

In my judgment, the movie's scope was too broad. It sought to show Reagan from the onset of his entry into politics, up to his final day in office. As a result, there were several large time leaps, and many important events were given abbreviated treatment. The overall theme of the movie, that Reagan wanted to save the country, was sometimes too heavy handed.

Tonight, I understand Showtime is running a roundtable discussion with historians talking about the movie.

[hgc]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


This isn't about free speech, rather it's about what can be broadcast as non-fiction.

... pepto,

This post of yours is almost a month old, but I just caught it.

How is "what can be broadcast as non-fiction" not about free speech? Should the government set up a mechanism to determine the truth of what is purportedly non-fiction, and thereby restrict the broadcast of such things? Were you perhaps not aware that the concept of free speech includes the right to say things that aren't true?