Behold: The power of ch... er The Internet - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 11-04-2003, 10:03 AM

Quote:

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."

In only a week or two the story of the new Reagan mini-series spread like proverbial wild fire across the internet and sparked a reaction that had CBS doing a duck and cover. They can claim it had nothing to do with the outrage a number of people felt, but I find that far fetched, in part because of this line " and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script", where even the producers admitted they made a lot of it up based on how they FELT Reagan would react. Regardless it doesn't matter.

Now my question is, IS this good? Has the internet become a way to prevent the wool being pulled over the publics eyes. No story can go unchallenged, no voice unheard. Or has this become a negative thing, where everyone can spin freely and anything controversial gets removed out of fear of public reaction?

Has the internet become a censoring filter, where only the bland is allowed to come out?

2wolves · 11-04-2003, 10:42 AM

And they reacted to people who had lost their wits, who had not actually seen this bit of entertainment. Flame bait for the ronnie worshippers. Talk about a chilling effect on the media. Will anyone now dare to show anything about r. & n. without it being vetted by the/a great right hope?

2Wolves

Phaenx · 11-04-2003, 10:57 AM

"and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script"

No.

There was a part in this movie where Reagan says "They lived in sin, let them die in sin." when questioned about AIDS. Even the writers said he never actually said that.

I'm glad CBS pussed out, they should. Character assassination, and slanderous falsities masquerading as factual accounts of peoples lives should be held in contempt regardless of both your political leaning and that of the person in question.

maximusveritas · 11-04-2003, 12:30 PM

Its impossible to create a good movie without creating some of the dialogue. You're gonna tell me every line of dialogue in "'Jesus,' '9-11' and 'Hitler'" was actually spoken? You're gonna tell me those were 100% factually accurate? Give me a break, its a movie for godsake.

Ustwo · 11-04-2003, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by maximusveritas
Its impossible to create a good movie without creating some of the dialogue. You're gonna tell me every line of dialogue in "'Jesus,' '9-11' and 'Hitler'" was actually spoken? You're gonna tell me those were 100% factually accurate? Give me a break, its a movie for godsake.

The problem with 'The Reagans' wasn't creative dialog, it was what the dialog said. Its one thing to put things that someone MIGHT have said or said something like it, its another to have the character say things totally out of character. The show was designed as a smear of Reagan. He was to be portrayed in a light his critics have always tried to put him in. That he is stupid, confused, racist, and uncaring. I wonder how the same people who have reacted if they included a story about Bill Clinton which included the rape allegations or that Vince Foster was murdered, which was produced by Charlton Heston and Rush Limbaugh? There is at least SOME who claim that those events happened. From what I gather they didn't even interview any of the Reagans or staff members who worked with R.R..

seretogis · 11-04-2003, 03:56 PM

Another interesting article about this:

LINKY LINKY

Quote:

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Tuesday Nov. 4, 2003; 10:17 a.m. EST

CBS Nixed 'Reagans' Following Letter from Rock Hudson's Ex-Lover

CBS's decision to pull the plug on its mini-series "The Reagans" came on the heels of a letter to the network from Rock Hudson's ex-lover, who complained that the film's portrayal of the 40th president as a virulent homophobe was provably false.

"The notion that President Reagan was a homophobe strikes me as silly beyond belief," wrote Marc Christian, in a letter to CBS entertainment chief Les Moonves made public Tuesday by her friend, conservative commentator Tammy Bruce.

"Not only did he have several gay men on his staff when he was Governor of California," said Christian, "he called my lover, Rock Hudson when he was on his deathbed just weeks before he died of AIDS and wished him well and voiced his and Nancy's concern and prayers."

As Bruce reported in her FrontPageMagazine.com column, Christian's letter continued:

" . . . The Reagans had known Rock for years and knew he was gay [as did most in Hollywood]. The point is Reagan could have ignored Rock's illness and didn't. He could have just issued a public statement concerning his 'official sorrow' but made a personal phone call instead."

Hudson's partner slammed the Tiffany network for having become "the official arm of the Democrat party," adding, "I bet President Reagan's phone call to Rock Hudson isn't in the screenplay or should I say smearplay, is it?"

Instead of portraying President Reagan as compassionate towards AIDS sufferers, the CBS biopic had him condemning them to death, with the Reagan character saying at one point, "Those that live in sin shall die in sin." Reagan insiders say they never heard him voice anything like that harsh sentiment.

Wrote Bruce, "This note from Marc to Moonves is important for several reasons, mostly for the injection of the truth into a world ruled by vacant, malevolent leftists."

"Marc's letter, and the e-mails, letters and calls all of you made to CBS to register your protest and to support a great and decent man and his wife, obviously do make a difference," she concluded.

Kadath · 11-04-2003, 09:16 PM

"Wrote Bruce, 'This note from Marc to Moonves is important for several reasons, mostly for the injection of the truth into a world ruled by vacant, malevolent leftists.'"

This ruling the world thing is really hard when we're not allowed to run cheesy TV movies critical of former presidents! Come on! We want to be vacant and malevolent!

captain · 11-05-2003, 08:36 AM

The CBS portrayal was a hatchet job from the start--why would the producers not interview one Reagan insider but rely on people on the outside with a axe to grind?

Moonves admits it was flawed but couldn't stand the heat.

The producers saying all incidents were vetted with at least two sources give me a break. If that were true CBS would not have backed down.

I think it was a clear case of trying to slide it under the radar.

123dsa · 11-05-2003, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
The problem with 'The Reagans' wasn't creative dialog, it was what the dialog said. Its one thing to put things that someone MIGHT have said or said something like it, its another to have the character say things totally out of character. The show was designed as a smear of Reagan. He was to be portrayed in a light his critics have always tried to put him in. That he is stupid, confused, racist, and uncaring. I wonder how the same people who have reacted if they included a story about Bill Clinton which included the rape allegations or that Vince Foster was murdered, which was produced by Charlton Heston and Rush Limbaugh? There is at least SOME who claim that those events happened. From what I gather they didn't even interview any of the Reagans or staff members who worked with R.R..

Great point. The idea that anything goes in a movie is bogus when the movie is heralded as some sort of quasi documentary expose. I don't agree with cencorship, but CBS has to make the best decision for the company.

LSD

maximusveritas · 11-05-2003, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
The problem with 'The Reagans' wasn't creative dialog, it was what the dialog said. Its one thing to put things that someone MIGHT have said or said something like it, its another to have the character say things totally out of character. The show was designed as a smear of Reagan. He was to be portrayed in a light his critics have always tried to put him in. That he is stupid, confused, racist, and uncaring. I wonder how the same people who have reacted if they included a story about Bill Clinton which included the rape allegations or that Vince Foster was murdered, which was produced by Charlton Heston and Rush Limbaugh? There is at least SOME who claim that those events happened. From what I gather they didn't even interview any of the Reagans or staff members who worked with R.R..

How many people have actually seen the movie? The only examples given so far of him saying things out of character is that he says in the movie "Those that live in sin shall die in sin." While he may not have said those exact words, in his authorized biography he reportedly said "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague" because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments"
No one's saying the guy raped or killed someone here.

When the movie "DC 9-11" came out a couple months ago, there was no effort by liberals to keep it from being aired. Instead, everyone waited for it to come out and then made the judgement that it was BS. What bothers me in this case is that many people make judgements without having seen the thing and then try to keep other people from seeing it. If the movie is really bad and full of lies, why not let people watch it and decide for themselves?

Ustwo · 11-05-2003, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by maximusveritas

When the movie "DC 9-11" came out a couple months ago, there was no effort by liberals to keep it from being aired. Instead, everyone waited for it to come out and then made the judgement that it was BS. What bothers me in this case is that many people make judgements without having seen the thing and then try to keep other people from seeing it. If the movie is really bad and full of lies, why not let people watch it and decide for themselves?

Almost no one watched "9-11" it as it as on pay cable, which is where 'The Reagans' is going too.

And no there are MANY MANY more lines and claims that were made and totally out of wack.

maximusveritas · 11-05-2003, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo

And no there are MANY MANY more lines and claims that were made and totally out of wack.

could you give some examples? Or maybe post a link to an article that lists them?

I've looked around and haven't found anything else.

Conclamo Ludus · 11-05-2003, 10:28 AM

I smell an Oliver Stone movie coming.

"REAGAN"

working title.

2wolves · 11-05-2003, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
I smell an Oliver Stone movie coming.

"REAGAN"

working title.

I was hoping for a Mel Brooks comeback.....

Pity.

2Wolves

Ustwo · 11-05-2003, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by maximusveritas
could you give some examples? Or maybe post a link to an article that lists them?

I've looked around and haven't found anything else.

Here is one of them.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...536971,00.html

Conclamo Ludus · 11-05-2003, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by maximusveritas
If the movie is really bad and full of lies, why not let people watch it and decide for themselves?

I agree. Apparently Les Moonves knows something we don't. He's seen it and pulled it from CBS Broadcast. It was his call. Maybe he thinks its really bad and full of lies. Who knows?

seretogis · 11-05-2003, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by maximusveritas
How many people have actually seen the movie? The only examples given so far of him saying things out of character is that he says in the movie "Those that live in sin shall die in sin." While he may not have said those exact words, in his authorized biography he reportedly said "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague" because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments"
No one's saying the guy raped or killed someone here.

There was a discussion about this on the GLIL list, and a response deals with the existence of a similar passage on Morris's book (which is supposedly part fiction, part fact).

Below is a reply from one person which I feel answers your question:

Quote:

From: FRODOBLATT@isphidden.com

<< "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague because illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments." Is this quote one of Morris's fictional parts? >>

It would likely be fiction, given that the Reagan of leftist myth is a die-hard member of the Christian Right. Recall than in 1980, the religious right were backing Phil Crane for the GOP nomination. And recall than in 1978, Reagan, against the advice of his political advistors, cut radio commercials opposing the anti-gay Briggs initiative. Even then Governor (and current Oakland Mayor) Jerry Brown did not do so much to oppose such a pernicious initiative.

Reagan was more libertarian in his beliefs than fundamentalist Christ[ian] and to attribute such comments to him (as that made in the "biopic" (maybe we should call it a "lie-opic") and the Morris book) is to misunderstand his political philosophy. Ronald Reagan simply would not have said such things.

Food Eater Lad · 11-05-2003, 03:16 PM

Sounds like democracy in action.

eple · 11-05-2003, 03:21 PM

How strange...Norway is considered a "big government" country, with socialistic tratis, yet we are one of the countries in the world with the least cencorship on movies (we only cencor extreme and speculative use of violence or violent sex. We were, as far as I know, one of the only countries to show the totally uncencored version of "South Park: The Movie", correct me if I am wrong). Seems our politicians believe that citizens are able to judge the movies from their own point of view.

Food Eater Lad · 11-05-2003, 03:38 PM

I saw the uncensored version of South Park in the USA. CBS is not under any censorship. Censorship is government interference, and I have not seen the government say anythign about this movie.
It seems to have been pulled due to CBS getting flack from people that heard about its distortions. I am sure George Bush didnt like this movie, but as far as I know, he or his administration didnt lifet a finger to stop it.

So the people complained, and the free market responded, and pulled a product that would not make them the money the wished it would have.

onetime2 · 11-06-2003, 05:37 AM

I love how people scream censorship when it has nothing to do with the discussion. CBS decided not to air the movie on network tv. The government did not deny them the right to show it and the movie will still be available on cable and DVD in the near future.

If people want it aired on network tv then get organized and convince CBS that it should go on their network.

Hanxter · 11-06-2003, 09:29 AM

this movie project bothers me on a couple of points...

1: we are in a national election year and the democrats are scrambling for dirt on the republicans...

think this is not a smear campaign? look who's playing reagan - james brolin - yeah - the guy who's wife is barbara streisand

2: kids today are going to watch movies such as this and take it as fact - fiction or not...

this is where our children are going to learn about our history and heritage - they'll learn what they want and believe it to be true

3: the networks are colored, not to their ideology but to the controversy created and the backlash from advertisers they bow out...

the idea of making a film and titling it after someone of high profile is fine - but to portray the person as one other than has been proven is fictitious and as such - imo - malicious and harmful - history in the name of the all mighty dollar

2wolves · 11-06-2003, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hanxter
this movie project bothers me on a couple of points...

1: we are in a national election year and the democrats are scrambling for dirt on the republicans...

think this is not a smear campaign? look who's playing reagan - james brolin - yeah - the guy who's wife is barbara streisand

2: kids today are going to watch movies such as this and take it as fact - fiction or not...

this is where our children are going to learn about our history and heritage - they'll learn what they want and believe it to be true

3: the networks are colored, not to their ideology but to the controversy created and the backlash from advertisers they bow out...

the idea of making a film and titling it after someone of high profile is fine - but to portray the person as one other than has been proven is fictitious and as such - imo - malicious and harmful - history in the name of the all mighty dollar

Did you read "Dutch?" and feel the same way about that?

2Wolves

Hanxter · 11-06-2003, 09:48 AM

"dutch" ???

2wolves · 11-06-2003, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hanxter
"dutch" ???

The official Ronnie bio. Lots of whole cloth involved.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

2Wolves

Hanxter · 11-06-2003, 10:35 AM

nope - just the way i see it...

11-04-2003, 10:57 AM	#3 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	"and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script" No. There was a part in this movie where Reagan says "They lived in sin, let them die in sin." when questioned about AIDS. Even the writers said he never actually said that. I'm glad CBS pussed out, they should. Character assassination, and slanderous falsities masquerading as factual accounts of peoples lives should be held in contempt regardless of both your political leaning and that of the person in question. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

11-04-2003, 09:16 PM	#7 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	"Wrote Bruce, 'This note from Marc to Moonves is important for several reasons, mostly for the injection of the truth into a world ruled by vacant, malevolent leftists.'" This ruling the world thing is really hard when we're not allowed to run cheesy TV movies critical of former presidents! Come on! We want to be vacant and malevolent! __________________ it's quiet in here

11-05-2003, 08:36 AM	#8 (permalink)
captain Crazy	The CBS portrayal was a hatchet job from the start--why would the producers not interview one Reagan insider but rely on people on the outside with a axe to grind? Moonves admits it was flawed but couldn't stand the heat. The producers saying all incidents were vetted with at least two sources give me a break. If that were true CBS would not have backed down. I think it was a clear case of trying to slide it under the radar. __________________ captain

11-05-2003, 10:28 AM	#13 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	I smell an Oliver Stone movie coming. "REAGAN" working title. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

11-06-2003, 05:37 AM	#21 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	I love how people scream censorship when it has nothing to do with the discussion. CBS decided not to air the movie on network tv. The government did not deny them the right to show it and the movie will still be available on cable and DVD in the near future. If people want it aired on network tv then get organized and convince CBS that it should go on their network. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

11-04-2003, 10:42 AM	#2 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	And they reacted to people who had lost their wits, who had not actually seen this bit of entertainment. Flame bait for the ronnie worshippers. Talk about a chilling effect on the media. Will anyone now dare to show anything about r. & n. without it being vetted by the/a great right hope? 2Wolves

11-04-2003, 12:30 PM	#4 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Its impossible to create a good movie without creating some of the dialogue. You're gonna tell me every line of dialogue in "'Jesus,' '9-11' and 'Hitler'" was actually spoken? You're gonna tell me those were 100% factually accurate? Give me a break, its a movie for godsake.

11-05-2003, 03:16 PM	#18 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Sounds like democracy in action.

11-05-2003, 03:21 PM	#19 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	How strange...Norway is considered a "big government" country, with socialistic tratis, yet we are one of the countries in the world with the least cencorship on movies (we only cencor extreme and speculative use of violence or violent sex. We were, as far as I know, one of the only countries to show the totally uncencored version of "South Park: The Movie", correct me if I am wrong). Seems our politicians believe that citizens are able to judge the movies from their own point of view.

11-05-2003, 03:38 PM	#20 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	I saw the uncensored version of South Park in the USA. CBS is not under any censorship. Censorship is government interference, and I have not seen the government say anythign about this movie. It seems to have been pulled due to CBS getting flack from people that heard about its distortions. I am sure George Bush didnt like this movie, but as far as I know, he or his administration didnt lifet a finger to stop it. So the people complained, and the free market responded, and pulled a product that would not make them the money the wished it would have.

11-06-2003, 09:29 AM	#22 (permalink)
Hanxter The Griffin	this movie project bothers me on a couple of points... 1: we are in a national election year and the democrats are scrambling for dirt on the republicans... think this is not a smear campaign? look who's playing reagan - james brolin - yeah - the guy who's wife is barbara streisand 2: kids today are going to watch movies such as this and take it as fact - fiction or not... this is where our children are going to learn about our history and heritage - they'll learn what they want and believe it to be true 3: the networks are colored, not to their ideology but to the controversy created and the backlash from advertisers they bow out... the idea of making a film and titling it after someone of high profile is fine - but to portray the person as one other than has been proven is fictitious and as such - imo - malicious and harmful - history in the name of the all mighty dollar

11-06-2003, 09:48 AM	#24 (permalink)
Hanxter The Griffin	"dutch" ???

11-06-2003, 10:35 AM	#26 (permalink)
Hanxter The Griffin	nope - just the way i see it...