Why do I have the sneaking suspicion...

[astralhaze]

That the same people who defended Limbaugh and Easterbrook's right to make "politicaly unpopular" statements on ESPN will not be protesting this...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nynewsday.com/entertainme...lash-headlines

In an unprecedented move, CBS yesterday canceled a four-hour movie on the life of Ronald Reagan that had angered conservative critics over its portrayal of the 40th president.

The miniseries, "The Reagans," which was to have aired Nov. 16 and 18, now will be shown next year on Showtime, the pay network owned by Viacom, parent company to CBS.

After dropping the film, network executives said, in a statement, the decision "is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film [and] not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script." However, the movie's producers, in their own statement, expressed disappointment "that CBS will not be airing the movie that we produced for them from the script that they approved."

Indeed, the controversy surrounding the film starring James Brolin as Reagan and Judy Davis as Nancy Reagan began in mid-October when a New York Times story reported dialogue portraying Reagan as out of touch and uncaring toward people with AIDS. One reported line - "those who live in sin shall die in sin" - infuriated some Reagan supporters. The network and producers, unable to support the line with documentation or eyewitness accounts, later excised it from the movie.

CBS has been attacked of late on talk radio, and one Web site, boycottcbs.com, had signed up "north of a 100,000" members, according to its founder, Michael Paranzino, a Bethesda, Md.-based consultant and onetime chief of staff to former Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.). Meanwhile, Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie asked CBS chairman Leslie Moonves last week to allow a team of historians to preview the film and "if not, run a crawl informing viewers that it's fiction."

Neil Meron and Craig Zadan, who won an Oscar for "Chicago" and acclaim for many TV movies, produced the miniseries. However, conservative critics have taken fault with CBS' choice of casting, notably Brolin - husband of Barbra Streisand, an outspoken Reagan critic and Democratic Party supporter.

After CBS' decision, there was speculation it had bowed to pressure from Washington where it is entangled in a battle with Congress over the relaxation of media ownership rules. A senior industry executive, who requested anonymity, said the network's concerns over Washington were likely a "catalyst" for the decision. In its statement, however, CBS said that "although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans."

"The last thing anyone wants to do in a biopic is produce a valentine," a TV executive said. "These movies are the stuff of drama so you need conflict." But this executive added, "this is a rare case where you have a former president who's 92 years old and who's suffering from a debilitating illness [Alzheimer's disease]. I don't think this [cancellation] is even about politics but about being humane. A lot of people have come out against this because it doesn't seem humane."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also have the feeling that those same people will try to somehow spin them in to completely different situations when, really, they aren't. Limbaugh and Easterbrook said things that many consider stupid and incorrect. Many people say this movie was going to be stupid and incorrect. The controversy caused Limbaugh to resign, Easterbrook to be fired, and this movie to be pulled.

Now, of course, it cuts both ways. The same people who likely supported Easterbrook and Limbaugh being removed will no doubt be decrying this as censorship. Of course, they will have one point in their favor. Easterbrook and Limbaugh dealt with reaction after the fact. In this case, the movie was not even allowed to be shown.

Myself, I don't think Easterbrook or Limbaugh should have been removed. I don't think Limbaugh should have been hired in the first place, I think Easterbrook's comments were idiotic but had nothing to do with his job, and I think the movie should have been shown and let the chips fall where they may. In all cases, the corporations involved have caved to public pressure. From the left in the cases of Easterbrook and Limbaugh, and from the right in the case of the Reagan film. In any case, food for thought.

[CamEdwards]

let me begin (and hopefully end) this argument by pointing out that

a) there's a difference between one man expressing his opinion and a movie portraying another human being as something he's not.

b) the movie is still airing, albeit on a smaller network. If Rush Limbaugh had been moved to ESPN2 or Easterbrook to ESPN Insider, would there have been much of a stink raised? I don't think so.

I think your argument is flawed, because you believe what Limbaugh and Easterbrook said was incorrect. Opinions can never be incorrect. They can be unpopular, but not incorrect. Movies that purport to show a balanced look at someone's life can be incorrect, especially if they make up scenes that never happened.

Apples and oranges, my friend.

[Bee]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Opinions can never be incorrect. They can be unpopular, but not incorrect.

My opinion is that you are incorrect.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
let me begin (and hopefully end) this argument by pointing out that

a) there's a difference between one man expressing his opinion and a movie portraying another human being as something he's not.

b) the movie is still airing, albeit on a smaller network. If Rush Limbaugh had been moved to ESPN2 or Easterbrook to ESPN Insider, would there have been much of a stink raised? I don't think so.

I think your argument is flawed, because you believe what Limbaugh and Easterbrook said was incorrect. Opinions can never be incorrect. They can be unpopular, but not incorrect. Movies that purport to show a balanced look at someone's life can be incorrect, especially if they make up scenes that never happened.

Apples and oranges, my friend.

For some reason I expected that would be coming.

Of course that does not end the argument.

a) You, as a conservative, claim that the film shows Reagan as something he is not. The writers and producers of the film would claim that it is something he was. Your opinion versus theirs. Which is correct?

b) CBS canned the movie but it is showing on a smaller network. Easterbrook was canned but is writing his column for another web site. Limbaugh resigned but still has his radio show.

It can be argued that what Limbaugh and Easterbrook said was not only opinion, but was incorrect. It can be argued that what the movie was going to show (who knows anyway since it has never been aired) was not opinion, but was correct.

The only thing that has been presented about the film that, as you say, "never happened" was the line that had Reagan saying "those who live in sin, die in sin." It can be argued that while Reagan never said that, it summed up his feelings. Is that true? I don't think so, no and in any case it was removed from the film.

The writers and producers of the film say that they can produce sources for every single event in the finished product. I am sure that is slanted and in so doing reflects an opinion. Just as what Easterbrook and Limbaugh said was slanted and reflected an opinion.

[Ben E Lou]

How 'bout this opinion?

ESPN and CBS BOTH are gutless wimps.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by SkyDog
How 'bout this opinion?

ESPN and CBS BOTH are gutless wimps.

I would say that opinion is correct

[Bee]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Opinions can never be incorrect.

I forwarded this to my wife, but she just responded with:

LOL. He's never met you.

Is this good or bad?

[Tigercat]

I love how just because Reagan can be percieved as a more respected human being by some, that its blasphamous to try to fill in some blanks on his life that COULD be controversal or COULD look bad. But with Clinton, we can fill in the blanks wherever we want, because he is percieved by some as a unrespectable human being from the get-go.

As someone who thought Clinton could be a good man, at least in some respects, while still doing some incomprehensable things, I will also say that I think Reagan is a man that should and will be respected independent of a film that may have some negative undertones. In fact, I think if you really respect the man, you let it get shown. Let his record and supporters speak for themselves, but don't silence a critical voice(if it is even that).

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by astralhaze

a) You, as a conservative, claim that the film shows Reagan as something he is not. The writers and producers of the film would claim that it is something he was. Your opinion versus theirs. Which is correct?

Conservatives have certain opinions of the Clintons, but that dosn't mean they'd make the basis of an appropriate movie.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by astralhaze
a) You, as a conservative, claim that the film shows Reagan as something he is not. The writers and producers of the film would claim that it is something he was. Your opinion versus theirs. Which is correct?

The difference, as Cam pointed out, is that this film is purporting to be a factually-based representation of Reagan's life, as opposed to an opinion about what kind of man he was. I've already read conflicting statements by those involved with the movie that they did not (and then they said they did) have confirmation that certain scenes could be supported by actual events. For instance, the comment about people with AIDS (a very callous comment about sinners having to live and die with their sins, or something like that), I read a comment from someone with the film who admitted that there was no evidence any such scenes actually took place, that Reagan believed that, etc. They basically constructed that scene based on the sole fact that Nancy was instrumental in getting Reagan to deal with the issue - even though they admit they don't know what his feelings were on the issue.

Having said all of that, I'm not sure I agree with pulling the movie. Like Michael Moore's movies, I just think they should be labeled for what they are. Same with Stone's JFK. As a piece of fiction, I thoroughly enjoyed it. The problem is, most people who saw it believed it to be an accurate representation of what occurred, because that's how it was presented.

As a conservative, I'll be honest. I don't mind seeing it get pulled. The entertainment industry has had its way with being able to portray conservatives any way they want to, so in a way, I'm glad to see someone draw some kind of line where fiction and fact cannot be reconciled with each other. Hollywood will always have the ability to propagandize fiction, so when it comes to a purported fact-based story, let's hold them accountable. I loved Bob Roberts as a fictional movie - frankly, I thought it was brilliant, the portrayal of conservatives in that movie notwithstanding - but something tells me that Tim Robbins couldn't make an objective, fact-based movie to save his life.

[Tigercat]

Originally posted by cuervo72
Conservatives have certain opinions of the Clintons, but that dosn't mean they'd make the basis of an appropriate movie.

I am sure whoever made a Clinton movie would focus on Clinton's percieved positives and negatives, successes and failures. No one knows to which length Clinton went to hide his affairs, but that kinda info would have to be filled in.

It could very likely be filled in as Clinton REALLY going out of his way to cover his ass. It could even go as far as to make Clinton's problems overshadow his successes. (As oppposed to the Reagan miniseries, where the contested parts aren't essential parts of the movie.) If that happened I don't think you would hear too much crying from either side of the political spectrum argueing on if the movie should air.

[Tigercat]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
The difference, as Cam pointed out, is that this film is purporting to be a factually-based representation of Reagan's life, as opposed to an opinion about what kind of man he was. I've already read conflicting statements by those involved with the movie that they did not (and then they said they did) have confirmation that certain scenes could be supported by actual events. For instance, the comment about people with AIDS (a very callous comment about sinners having to live and die with their sins, or something like that), I read a comment from someone with the film who admitted that there was no evidence any such scenes actually took place, that Reagan believed that, etc. They basically constructed that scene based on the sole fact that Nancy was instrumental in getting Reagan to deal with the issue - even though they admit they don't know what his feelings were on the issue.

The writers and producers claim that they have evidence to back up every scene that was written, I do not know how true that is, but if it is true, and they did just fill in guesses at the dialogue, than how is it not a factually based representation?

How many fact based movies can be made where dialogue and situations can be remade precisely? Where you don't have blanks to fill in?

[Joe Stallings]

This is hilarious. The right-wing makes a living on dredging up sleaze on everyone from Anita Hill to Bill Clinton (ok, not too hard there...) to John McCain (one of its own, to boot), and then of course is "offended" when the tables are turned. LOL.

Of course, let there be no doubt about who is in control of politics and the so-called "liberal" media:

Anita Hill: Discredited slut; Clarence Thomas wins nomination and goes on be one of the most conservative judges in Supreme Court history

Bill Clinton: Impeached for getting a BJ in the Oval Office. Bush, Cheney, et. al. clearly involved in securities fraud and a whole bunch more, but since corporate fraud is not really addressed in the Ten Commandments like adultery is, let's let it slide.

John McCain: No, Karl Rove, McCain a) is not gay, b) is not pro-abortion, c) did not vote for the largest tax increase ever, d) has not been reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee, e) did not father an 'illegimate black child,' and so on and so forth. And if you were still wondering, no, John McCain did not win his party's nomination for the presidency.

Reagan TV Movie: Offhand comment about AIDS in the script sends Reagan movie from CBS prime time to public access television in Aurora, Illinois, right after Wayne's World.

The liberal media strikes again.

[Ksyrup]

I think, in Clinton's case, we have a lot of public record material that would go a long way toward filling in the gaps. For instance, we know he lied, because he told us he did. With Reagan, it's not so cut and dried on issues no one has publicly commented on.

And again, there's nothing wrong with making a movie that portrays him as the worst human being in the world. Just label it as such, and don't try to make it come off as an objective view of the person.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
The difference, as Cam pointed out, is that this film is purporting to be a factually-based representation of Reagan's life, as opposed to an opinion about what kind of man he was. I've already read conflicting statements by those involved with the movie that they did not (and then they said they did) have confirmation that certain scenes could be supported by actual events. For instance, the comment about people with AIDS (a very callous comment about sinners having to live and die with their sins, or something like that), I read a comment from someone with the film who admitted that there was no evidence any such scenes actually took place, that Reagan believed that, etc. They basically constructed that scene based on the sole fact that Nancy was instrumental in getting Reagan to deal with the issue - even though they admit they don't know what his feelings were on the issue.

And they would still claim that it was fact based. Besides the AIDS quote, which was removed from the final version, what basis do you or Cam have for saying that it wasn't fact based? I don't know that it was or wasn't fact based since I never got the chance to see it. The producers and writers say that they have sources for everything portrayed in the final version. Even CBS, in their statement announcing that they were pulling the series, acknowledged this.

The issue here is not whether the movie was based on opinion or fact or whether it was balanced enough or not. The issue is that a certain segment of the population caused enough stink to prevent the rest of society from being able to see the film and make up their own mind about it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Gee Joe, I bet Showtime would be happy to hear what a high opinion you have of them.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Tigercat
The writers and producers claim that they have evidence to back up every scene that was written, I do not know how true that is, but if it is true, and they did just fill in guesses at the dialogue, than how is it not a factually based representation?

How many fact based movies can be made where dialogue and situations can be remade precisely? Where you don't have blanks to fill in?

As I said, they are NOW claiming to have evidence. Two days ago, in a CNN article, they admitted that the AIDS scene was not backed by any evidence other than Nancy's role in getting Reagan to deal with the issue. That says nothing about what his opinion was. That goes beyond filling in dialogue - it's guessing about what his opinion was, then concocting a conversation that may or may not have ever taken place, and THEN filling in the dialogue to an imaginary conversation.

I have no problem (well, I do have a problem generally with certaing dialogue just to make something seem more dramatic than it really was, but that's not really an issue here...) with creating dialogue, it's creating the situation in which the dialogue is used that I have a problem with.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by astralhaze

The issue here is not whether the movie was based on opinion or fact or whether it was balanced enough or not. The issue is that a certain segment of the population caused enough stink to prevent the rest of society from being able to see the film and make up their own mind about it.

The problem is the segment of the population that would have seen it and would not have the sense to make up their own mind about it, but would take it part and parcel as fact.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
As I said, they are NOW claiming to have evidence. Two days ago, in a CNN article, they admitted that the AIDS scene was not backed by any evidence other than Nancy's role in getting Reagan to deal with the issue. That says nothing about what his opinion was. That goes beyond filling in dialogue - it's guessing about what his opinion was, then concocting a conversation that may or may not have ever taken place, and THEN filling in the dialogue to an imaginary conversation.

I have no problem (well, I do have a problem generally with certaing dialogue just to make something seem more dramatic than it really was, but that's not really an issue here...) with creating dialogue, it's creating the situation in which the dialogue is used that I have a problem with.

And, once again, THE AIDS QUOTE WAS REMOVED

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Joe Stallings
Bill Clinton: Impeached for getting a BJ in the Oval Office. Bush, Cheney, et. al. clearly involved in securities fraud and a whole bunch more, but since corporate fraud is not really addressed in the Ten Commandments like adultery is, let's let it slide.

Ummmm....

He was impeached for lying under oath. He did so in order to deny Paula Jones her day in court. If your wife, daughter, or mother accused a man of sexual harrassment and he attempted to get out of it by lying under oath, you might think differently about the impeachment.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by cuervo72
The problem is the segment of the population that would have seen it and would not have the sense to make up their own mind about it, but would take it part and parcel as fact.

You have that low an opinion of the population of this country?

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Joe Stallings
Bill Clinton: Impeached for getting a BJ in the Oval Office.

I swear, if I have to read this one more time...I'll scream. The man lied under oath. I don't care if he was trying to cover up the fact that he changed his left front tire instead of his right front tire, the man lied. The underlying conduct is irrelevant. He had every right to lie to his wife - or hell, I'd argue he could even lie to US about it - but when it comes to sitting down with a court reporter, it is inexcusable. Especially from an attorney, and the man who at the time oversaw the federal government's enforcement of the laws.

[Tigercat]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I think, in Clinton's case, we have a lot of public record material that would go a long way toward filling in the gaps. For instance, we know he lied, because he told us he did. With Reagan, it's not so cut and dried on issues no one has publicly commented on.

And again, there's nothing wrong with making a movie that portrays him as the worst human being in the world. Just label it as such, and don't try to make it come off as an objective view of the person.

Again, if they can, and the writers say they can, produce facts and quotes to attribute that every scene took place, and that only pieces of dialogue were used to fill in the gaps, how is that not objective enough? Its not like they used the tagline "Most objective and accurate view of Reagan ever put together!"

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by SkyDog
If your wife, daughter, or mother accused a man of sexual harrassment and he attempted to get out of it by lying under oath, you might think differently about the impeachment.

He didn't "try to get out of it by lying under oath."

I don't disagree that he lied under oath, but his lying under oath really had nothing to do with trying to get out of the suit (which nothing came of) so much as trying to avoid getting caught committing adultery. I'm no Clinton fan, but that's an unfair portrayal of events IMO.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by astralhaze
You have that low an opinion of the population of this country?

I do. Have you ever talked to people about the JFK movie? 90% of the people I talked to about it at the time it came out thought it was 100% true, that Stone had pieced this all together and somehow "solved the mystery."

It's part of the reason why the government requires certain disclosures on the food and other products we buy. Because if most people read something on a package - no matter how outrageous the claim - the tendency is to believe it.

[CamEdwards]

it's not about my opinion, astralhaze. Scholars, family, friends... virtually everyone connected to Ronald Reagan says this is an inaccurate portrayal of the man. CBS says they have sources for everything in the film. Let's see these sources.

As to what Limbaugh and Easterbrook said, how can it be construed as fact? Limbaugh said he believed the media was looking for a good story and wanted a black quarterback to succeed. Easterbrook said in his column that Jewish movie executives should know better than to continue to put out films that devalue human life. Both of those are hardly statements of facts.

By the way, your assumption that the only thing that "never happened" in the film that's been released to the public was the "those that live in sin shall die in sin" line is incorrect. I'd suggest you go and look at some of the scenes that both Matt Drudge and the New York Times have reported. Also, Michael Reagan (Reagan's son) watched an eight minute press reel of the film and said he didn't recognize his father in the portrayal. I understand it's acceptable in some quarters today to simply disregard the truth in order to bolster your argument, but that typically only works when the reader doesn't have a chance to respond.

In my opinion, you really are barking up the wrong tree. There's a big difference between stating something unpopular and telling lies about another human being while presenting it as fact.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by astralhaze
He didn't "try to get out of it by lying under oath."

I don't disagree that he lied under oath, but his lying under oath really had nothing to do with trying to get out of the suit (which nothing came of) so much as trying to avoid getting caught committing adultery. I'm no Clinton fan, but that's an unfair portrayal of events IMO.

OK. I agree that the "get out of it" part is debatable. We don't really know what was in his head. It is conceivable that he was trying to avoid his wife finding out, but it is also conceivable that, as an attorney, he knew that they were trying to establish a pattern of reckless sexual behavior against him, and he wanted to avoid that pattern being establish.

My guess is that it was probably a little of both reasons, but ultimately that doesn't matter. When the Chief Executive places his own personal gain about the justice system, it is a serious offense.

Regardless, the "he was impeached for getting a BJ" thing is a complete mischaracterization of what happened.

[Tigercat]

Originally posted by Ksyrup

I have no problem (well, I do have a problem generally with certaing dialogue just to make something seem more dramatic than it really was, but that's not really an issue here...) with creating dialogue, it's creating the situation in which the dialogue is used that I have a problem with.

That is a little troubling, and I must admit I do not like the idea of putting such a line in someones mouth if you don't have evidence that something close to it was used. We must keep in mind though, that this is just one scene. This is one issue where they were probably unable to find any evidence to how the White House discussed or dealt with the problem behind closed doors. Other "bigger" events in the movie no doubt had multiple sources that could be used as information on how things went down behind the scenes. I am willing to give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt when they say there was evidence that all scenes took place in some form or another, who knows if thats truly the case.

[Bee]

Clinton was impeached? Man, I really need to keep up with things better.

[Tigercat]

The main problem I have with this is, if this movie came out with only the most glowing view of Reagan possible and nothing that can be considered critical, the movie would still be going to air. And I would bet no one who is complaining about it now would be complaining about it then.

So I really do not think this is about historical accuracy. I think this is about using the POSSIBILITY of historical inaccuracies to shield a former President.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
There's a big difference between stating something unpopular and telling lies about another human being while presenting it as fact.

And really, that's my only issue with it. Look at it this way - you've got the Reagan "docudrama" (as someone called it, further bolstering my belief that it's being portrayed as something it's not), the Jessica Lynch story, and that Smart girl movie. The Lynch and Smart movies are certainly going to be dramatized, but I don't think anyone would doubt the accuracy of the events that took place (except Saddam, maybe). Then you have the Reagan movie, where the accuracy of events is being called into question. Coming on the heels of those other two movies, you don't think someone would watch the reagan movie and have an expectation that they were watching a factually correct, even though dramatized for TV, version of the "Reagan Years?"

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by astralhaze
And, once again, THE AIDS QUOTE WAS REMOVED

dola: the movie is going to be re-edited for Showtime, and since neither you or I have seen it, I think it's a little premature to assume that it was taken out. Now that it's airing on Showtime and there are no advertisers to offend, I wouldn't be surprised if all of the deleted scenes were put back in the finished product.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Tigercat
I am willing to give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt when they say there was evidence that all scenes took place in some form or another, who knows if thats truly the case.

And I guess that's what it boils down to, because given the fact that the subject of the movie is a political figure and the people making this movie have obvious political ties to the other party, I can't give them the benefit of the doubt. It seems to me that they viewed this as an easy way to disseminate propaganda about the conservative movement under the guise of entertainment, as opposed to simply making a movie about a former president. Do you really believe that the idea of a movie about Ronald Reagan was suddenly seen as a great idea in Hollywood, simply because of 80's nostalgia?

[Fritz]

Who among us would not have bedded Reagan given the opportunity? With that in mind, lets go get donuts and forget the whole thing.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Tigercat
The main problem I have with this is, if this movie came out with only the most glowing view of Reagan possible and nothing that can be considered critical, the movie would still be going to air. And I would bet no one who is complaining about it now would be complaining about it then.

So I really do not think this is about historical accuracy. I think this is about using the POSSIBILITY of historical inaccuracies to shield a former President.

Another Dola: has anybody on the right complained about scenes regarding Iran-Contra, making ketchup a vegetable under school nutrition guidelines, or any other factual flaw of Reagan the man? The answer is no.

It's not about producing a glowing movie about Reagan. It's about not producing a fictional account of Ronald Reagan's life.

[Bonegavel]

For the record, it was pulled because of LACK OF SPONSORS. Sure there was a stink, but the ultimate decision was to pull because of no sponsors. If that was because of the 'stink' then that is the free market working its little magic and this is the way a lot of this should be handled: don't protest and waste your time with all that nonsense. Simply hit your foes in the wallet. Don't go to see their movies, or buy their products.

Personally, as a person that thinks highly of Reagan, I have no problem with them putting out this movie. As a public figure, I don't think there is any recourse, and that is kind of what you open yourself up to when you run for office.

And Joe S., it is such a shame that I have to invoke my rule from above. I won't be able to buy your product now because you seem to be a liberal schmegma-head.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
dola: the movie is going to be re-edited for Showtime, and since neither you or I have seen it, I think it's a little premature to assume that it was taken out. Now that it's airing on Showtime and there are no advertisers to offend, I wouldn't be surprised if all of the deleted scenes were put back in the finished product.

That may well be. The AIDS quote was removed from the finished version that was submitted to CBS, how about that?

In any case, you can talk all you want about how this film was innacurate and biased and whatever you want to call it. I have no opinion on it either way since I never saw it, and I could add that neither have you. I wish I could have seen it, but the right was unwilling to allow me to draw my own conclusions about the matter and THAT is what I have an issue with, just as I have an issue with ESPN not giving me the benefit of the doubt in being able to make up my own mind about Limbaugh and Easterbrook. Of course, CBS has the right to pull the series and it may have been innacurate and biased, but the fact they pulled it due to political pressure (and no matter how anyone spins it that is certainly the case) is what I think it ridiculous. As Skydog said, ESPN and CBS are gutless wimps. What is wrong with having a little controversy?

This movie was not pulled because it was innacurate (CBS still stands behind the accuracy of events portrayed, merely saying that it was not "balanced", whatever that means), but because conservatives didn't like it and yelled loud enough to have it pulled. Does no one on the right see a problem with this?

[tabucko]

Does anyone think that the movie would have more of a negative spin to the facts since the actor portraying Reagan is one that opposed Reagan? Also, I think if in 2 years someone decided to make a movie about Clinton, it is my opinion that there would be a big stink about that as well, especially if Hillary is looking to run for president. Just my 2 cents.

[Ksyrup]

This is from the CNN article:

"CBS believed it had ordered a love story about Ronald and Nancy Reagan with politics as a backdrop, but instead got a film that crossed the line into advocacy, said a network executive who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

Now, I don't know if that is true or not, but if it is, it sounds like CBS didn't ask for a political firestorm, they wanted something completely different. Given the way they met and the fact that Nancy has stayed by side during the past decade, I don't see it as unreasonable that that's the kind of movie they would have wanted. Instead, it appears that the movie is focused much more on politics than what was supposed to be the main theme of the movie.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by astralhaze
You have that low an opinion of the population of this country?

Segments of it, certainly. There are a lot of dim or otherwise uneducated people out there.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
This is from the CNN article:

"CBS believed it had ordered a love story about Ronald and Nancy Reagan with politics as a backdrop, but instead got a film that crossed the line into advocacy, said a network executive who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

Now, I don't know if that is true or not, but if it is, it sounds like CBS didn't ask for a political firestorm, they wanted something completely different. Given the way they met and the fact that Nancy has stayed by side during the past decade, I don't see it as unreasonable that that's the kind of movie they would have wanted. Instead, it appears that the movie is focused much more on politics than what was supposed to be the main theme of the movie.

And from the New York Times article...

"But when CBS picked up the project, the story line had changed. While the network announced that the television movie would be a love story about the Reagans' relationship, one executive involved in the production said the producers had made it clear in several meetings they were aiming to produce a highly controversial film. That was also the message they conveyed in an article in The New York Times on Oct. 21, that for the first time provided details about the portrayal of the Reagans, and that alerted conservative backers of the former president that the film was not going to be entirely sympathetic."

[CraigSca]

Originally posted by tabucko
Does anyone think that the movie would have more of a negative spin to the facts since the actor portraying Reagan is one that opposed Reagan? Also, I think if in 2 years someone decided to make a movie about Clinton, it is my opinion that there would be a big stink about that as well, especially if Hillary is looking to run for president. Just my 2 cents.

Charleton Heston can play Bill Clinton and Ariana Huffington can portray Hillary! Sounds good to me

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by cuervo72
Segments of it, certainly. There are a lot of dim or otherwise uneducated people out there.

Well, those people always have Fox News to set em back on the straight and narrow

[Tigercat]

Originally posted by Ksyrup

Now, I don't know if that is true or not, but if it is, it sounds like CBS didn't ask for a political firestorm, they wanted something completely different. Given the way they met and the fact that Nancy has stayed by side during the past decade, I don't see it as unreasonable that that's the kind of movie they would have wanted. Instead, it appears that the movie is focused much more on politics than what was supposed to be the main theme of the movie.

That is interesting, and if that is true I feel a little better about CBS. If they were indeed promised a feel good story meant to focus on a lighter side(and if that is true, that wouldnt even be a historical piece in any form) and instead got this... Well part of me can't blame them for wanting to pass the buck.

[Ksyrup]

Well, given what astralhaze just posted, it seems that the real problem is probably with CBS. Sounds like they wanted one thing, were told early on that they were getting another, but decided to publicly keep the facade of a "love story" and then hoped that the true nature of the film wouldn't get out, or when it did, it would be too late for anyone to do anything about it.

So, I think CBS got what they wanted - controversy - even if that wasn't their original intent. It just backfired on them, since they decided to advertise it as something they knew it wasn't going to be. They should have just insisted on what they originally wanted, and suggested that the other movie be made, as politically slanted as they wanted it, and broadcast on Showtime.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by astralhaze
That may well be. The AIDS quote was removed from the finished version that was submitted to CBS, how about that?

In any case, you can talk all you want about how this film was innacurate and biased and whatever you want to call it. I have no opinion on it either way since I never saw it, and I could add that neither have you. I wish I could have seen it, but the right was unwilling to allow me to draw my own conclusions about the matter and THAT is what I have an issue with, just as I have an issue with ESPN not giving me the benefit of the doubt in being able to make up my own mind about Limbaugh and Easterbrook. Of course, CBS has the right to pull the series and it may have been innacurate and biased, but the fact they pulled it due to political pressure (and no matter how anyone spins it that is certainly the case) is what I think it ridiculous. As Skydog said, ESPN and CBS are gutless wimps. What is wrong with having a little controversy?

This movie was not pulled because it was innacurate (CBS still stands behind the accuracy of events portrayed, merely saying that it was not "balanced", whatever that means), but because conservatives didn't like it and yelled loud enough to have it pulled. Does no one on the right see a problem with this?

I've read the portions of the screenplay that were released to the public. I've listened to family members and Reagan scholars who've seen both the transcripts and the 8 minute press reel and were disgusted by the falsehoods.

It's not inaccuracy, it's not bias. We're talking about lies, Astral. You don't lie about someone on national television in order to advance your agenda... especially when the person under attack can't defend himself.

I think it's great that CBS says they have sources for every scene. Let's hear them.

You're right about one thing. CBS pulled this because of the public outcry. That's not censorship. It's freedom of speech at its finest. Two sides, each crying loudly, with one side winning out. Sometimes when that happens I'm pleased (as in this case). Sometimes when that happens I'm not (as in the case of Michael Moore).

[Senator]

Brolin playing Reagan makes about as much sense as the time Hitler played Jesus in the Berlin Christmas play in 1938.

[Ksyrup]

Brolin barely beat out Steven Seagal, who had impressed everyone with his dead-on version of Jimi Hendrix. He could have pulled this one off easily.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Brolin barely beat out Steven Seagal, who had impressed everyone with his dead-on version of Jimi Hendrix. He could have pulled this one off easily.

HA!!

oh, and astralhaze....watch a "Jaywalking" segment sometime and you'll know what I'm talking about re: morons.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
It's not inaccuracy, it's not bias. We're talking about lies, Astral. You don't lie about someone on national television in order to advance your agenda... especially when the person under attack can't defend himself.

Okay, point out to me these lies, specifically, and maybe I will agree with you.