Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
GOP Wants To Review Reagan Movie  
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 11 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1103 times:

Now the GOP wants to get into the movie editing business.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20031031175509990005&_mpc=news%2e10%2e2

NEW YORK (Oct. 31) - Worried about how former President Reagan and his wife are portrayed in a CBS TV mini-series "The Reagans," the Republican Party asked the network on Friday to submit the program to historians for review or label it as not historically accurate.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie expressed his concerns about the mini-series, to be aired on Nov. 16 and Nov. 18, in a letter to CBS Television president Leslie Moonves. A CBS spokeswoman had no comment on the letter.

The New York Times, which said it obtained a copy of the final script, reported earlier this month that the four-hour, two part film depicts both Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy, in a largely unflattering light while omitting much of what supporters see as his key achievements.

"To avoid any confusion as to what constitutes treating the President, Mrs. Reagan and the Reagan administrations in an honest sort of way, I respectfully request that you allow a team of historians to review the program for historical accuracy," Gillespie wrote.

"If you're unwilling to do so, I respectfully request that you inform your viewers via a crawl every 10 minutes that the program is a fictional portrayal of the Reagans and the Reagan Presidency, and they should not consider it to be historically accurate."

According to The Times, the movie dwells on Reagan's shortcomings, such as his moments of forgetfulness, painting him as contemptuous of gays and AIDS victims.

Nancy Reagan, meanwhile, is cast as a control freak with considerable sway over White House policies, even setting her husband's schedule according to the advice of astrologers.

CBS has said the film is fair and well-documented, based in part on Reagan's authorized biography, the former first lady's own memoir, and books written by his supporters.

"The mini-series is a compelling and historical account of Mr. and Mrs. Reagan's remarkable relationship set against the backdrop of the former president's political career," the network said in a statement.

"The film has been meticulously researched and offers a respectful and balanced portrayal of the Reagans."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, gotta protect the icon of the Party!! Let it run, for God's sake.


14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1097 times:

Yes, gotta protect the icon of the Party!! Let it run, for God's sake.

Had it ever occurred to you that there may be some incorrect biases that paint an untrue picture Alpha about Reagan? Maybe these beefs are realistic.







[Edited 2003-11-01 06:21:45]


Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1097 times:

I wonder if the RNC has a point.

After all James Brolin got cast to play Ronnie.

And we all know to what bitch he is married to, and her politics.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1077 times:

And of course you wonder, L-188. You're as anxious to protect this illusion of Ronald Reagan as the rest of the GOP

But not as anxious as you, the DNC, and 90% of the actors cast in this TV movie are to denegrate the truth behind one of Americas great leaders.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1069 times:

"The film has been meticulously researched and offers a respectful and balanced portrayal of the Reagans."

Why do I smell a parody on "fair and balanced" news here? This is so ridiculous, it maybe even beats Schröder's lawsuit against those chaps that said his hair was dyed... Gotta protect your "icons".  Insane



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 11 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1062 times:

But not as anxious as you, the DNC, and 90% of the actors cast in this TV movie are to denegrate the truth behind one of Americas great leaders.

A few corrections for you here, L-188.

1. I'm not even going to watch it, so I don't care what's in it, either way. I find it amusing that the GOP, and people like you, are so up in arms over a freakin' TV show.

2. I have no personal animosity towards Ronald Reagan. I think he is a good man, and was a decent president, although I disagreed with many of his policies. But I don't harbor any ill will towards the man.

3. He was not one of American's great leaders. His imporatance, and his "greatness" has been so overblown by the GOP PR machine to the point where it is THEY who have distorted his presidency, not anyone else. So, for them to be worried about someone else distorting it, allegedly, in another direction, is sheer lunacy.

He was a good president-not great, not bad, above average. But there's nothing that he did while President that made him a "great" leader.

And please, spare me that "he brought down the Soviet Union." Please. The notion, pushed by the GOP that he destroyed the U.S.S.R. is one of the great untruths ever pushed by anyone in this nation. The Soviet Union was a lie, and eventually, that lie caught up with them. The Soviet Union collapsed of it's own dead, putrid, lying weight. Did he encourage it's demise? Absolutely, but so did every U.S. President since Harry Truman. The Soviet Union collapsed not because of anything the U.S. did, but it collaped under 70 years of mismanagement and the lie that is communism. Reagan pushed it to this brink, no doubt, but he didn't "win the war" was Tom Clancy puts at the beginning of one of his books.

The Soviet Union collapsed because, next the U.S., it was shown to be the opposite of what man desires on this planet.

4. It's a fucking MOVIE. Every movie will have an agenda. If the GOP is so concerned about Reagan's legacy-or the illusion of his legacy that they want to protect-no one is stopping them from creating their own PR.

The GOP isn't upset because the movie is accurate or not, per se. They simply want to protect the long-crafted image, the illusion, of what Reagan's presidency was.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 6, posted (10 years 11 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1060 times:

I'm not even going to watch it, so I don't care what's in it, either way.

Then why post this? Another free cheap shot at the GOP from an embittered CLE gay man?

I find it amusing that the GOP, and people like you, are so up in arms over a freakin' TV show.

No more than the GOP-haters and demagogues such as you are filled with glee about it. 6 of 1 and a half dozen of another?????

The Soviet Union was a lie, and eventually, that lie caught up with them.

Really? When? The USSR was going strong in 1980 after 63 years. How many more decades till it collapsed naturally? It was Reagan's defense spending (which the USSR tried to match) which brought down the USSR.







Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1053 times:

Then why post this? Another free cheap shot at the GOP from an embittered CLE gay man?

Because I find it amazingly amusing, Yyz717, that the GOP is in such an angst over this. And, like in the thread about Muslims, you make another stupid statement-I'm certainly not gay, if you can tell from reading my posts. I've been married 16 years to a great gal from Des Moines, IA, and I have 3 lovely kids, ages 13, 10 and 4. Now, if you want to keep making a total ass of yourself, keep on going, partner.  Laugh out loud

No more than the GOP-haters and demagogues such as you are filled with glee about it. 6 of 1 and a half dozen of another?????

Again-and as usual-you're off the mark. Did you not read what I said? I don't think Reagan was a bad president, and I think he's a good man, but he's not this demi-god that the GOP is making him into. They're trying to protect an illusion here, not the truth. And, again, the word "hate" coming form a National Socialist like yourself strikes me as quite amusing.

Really? When? The USSR was going strong in 1980 after 63 years.

Actually, if you know anything about your history, Yyz717, you'll know that the Soviet Union was never the behemouth that they wanted the world to believe it was. With the introduction of ariel reconnissance in the 1950's, with the U-2 and the SR-71 Blackbird, the U.S. found out that, for the most part, the USSR was really a paper tiger. It had some serious weapons, and a big army, but the weapons were third-class, and the army never did have very good morale. The weight of this lie, and the economic catastrophe that was the U.S.S.R. finally caught up to them. It took 70 years for it to happen, but the U.S.S.R. was a sick nation for it's entire existence.

It was Reagan's defense spending (which the USSR tried to match) which brought down the USSR.

That's just another half-truth, that the GOP has tried to maintain. Did Reagan's over-spending on the military contribute to it? Did it perhaps hasten the demise of the U.S.S.R. by a few years? Perhaps, but I think the hastening came after the U.S.S.R. invaded Afghanistan in '80, and they lost their will to fight there, and, after that, the lie unraveled to the point that the U.S.S.R. was on it's way off history's stage. Reagan's spending didn't bring down the Soviet Union-that's just a self-serving pat on the back. It was seven decades of mismanagement and lies that brought it down, finally.

The illusion of what the GOP wants Americans ot remember about Reagan-that he was this unbelievably great leader is just that-an illusion. I guess the fact he was a pretty good president isn't enough for them, or for you.


[Edited 2003-11-01 17:05:48]

User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (10 years 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1047 times:

Alpha 1, I have to agree and disagree with some of your points. I agree that the fall of the USSR was inevitable and all US presidents had a part of that in conjunction with its self destruction. But because it was inevitable, it didn't mean President Reagan had a huge part in it. It doesn't mean the fall was going to happen when it did regardless of whom was president.

What I disagree when is when you say 'it just a movie'. It is, and movies are generally ficticious and contrived. That's fine, but if that's the case then the characters should be fictitious. I think it would be completely unfair to create a fake storyline for a real person. Embellishing facts is one thing and we all know Hollywood does that, but that's different. I also think its fair for the GOP to be concerned. Why? Because of the historical position the Hollywood types have with anything Republican. Wouldn't you be suspicious if FoxNews produced a documentary on President Clinton? I know how that would turn out and I'm sure Democrats would want to see that before it aired and with good reason. So I don't think its outrageous as you do that they are concerned. I don't blame them one bit.



"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1041 times:

But because it was inevitable, it didn't mean President Reagan had a huge part in it.

And I cannot argue with that. Reagan did come along, JetService, at a point where the U.S.S.R. was in a quagmire in Afghanistan, and they were thus vulnerable. But I do not think this defense build-up in the U.S., and the subsequent spending by the U.S. affected that downfall much, if at all. Afghanistan really revealed to the world what the U.S.S.R. was, and from there, they went down hard and went down fast.

Wouldn't you be suspicious if FoxNews produced a documentary on President Clinton?

No, not really, because, as in this case, I'd take it with a grain of salt, considering the source, and would not take it at face value. Unfortunately, too many GOP officials don't think that Americans old enough to remember Reagan are smart enough to make the same distinction, so they're trying to spin the movie before it even hits the airwaves, and that to me, is in an effort to protect their illusion of this presidency.

Again, if you want to watch it, go ahead, and draw your own conclusions if it's accurate or not. It's not that big a deal to get so worked up over. Reagan was a man, a good one, but not a demi-god. Let's not treat him like one.

Unlike other persons on here, JetService, you make some great points, though.


User currently offlineDc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (10 years 11 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1023 times:

Censorship is a core "value" of the GOP.....


Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6295 posts, RR: 33
Reply 11, posted (10 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1006 times:

I would be the last person on earth to support Ronald Reagan as a president, I think he was, at best, mediocre.

But. From what I've heard so far, he is being portrayed as a homophobe, a racist and a fool. None of which he was. My source is NPR which tends to be just about as "left wing" as possible.

We must remember that Reagan is being portrayed by the husband of an extreme Reagan hater, Barbara Streisand. I wonder who the producer was?

So much for the theory of "the liberal media."



Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (10 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 994 times:

The producers are under no obligation to submit to GOP censorship, while the GOP is free to sue the producers for libel.

Pete


User currently offlineCsavel From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1365 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (10 years 11 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 972 times:

If the movie is so bad, then the GOP, and right-wing commentators can flame the producers about being typical Hollywood lefties. They can take out ads. THe right-wing talk shows can excoriate the liberal media. People can refuse to buy products advertised on the networks, etc., etc. but to ask for this takes some cojones grandes. "Any" historical drama is a fictional dramatization. The Showitme one about Bush, Oliver Stone's Nixon, all fiction. There may nbe some facts, there may be some half-truths, and there may be some outright lies. THe producers may have had an agenda. Remember Mississippi Burning? Do you think that was accurate? I remember a lot of trees being sacrificed for the pundits to write about it, but I never remember a demand for a disclaimer every ten minutes! It would be outrageous, and a horrid example of censorship if the producers caved in to this demand. If every ten minutes viewers are reminded (are reminded what, exactly?) that it isn't historically accurate, what if others believe it was, then you have a disclaimer about the disclaimer?
Would the disclaimer say "According to the GOP, or this was added at the request of the GOP?"

If an unflattering movie about Clinton was on Fox, and the Dems asked for the same thing, wonder what Hannity, or O'Reilly would have to say about it.

I agree with ALpha1, Reagan wasn't my favorite president (nor my least), but I do believe he did what he did out of a geniune belief in what he was doing was right. He probably speeded up the SU's demise by outspending them on defense, but it would have collapsed anyway because of what ALpha1 said, its own weight, Afghanistan, and also in the 80s, information made its first baby steps to the cross-border force it is now. It's hard for a country to stop that.



I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
User currently onlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39898 posts, RR: 74
Reply 14, posted (10 years 11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 958 times:

Has Reagan died yet?

Will this be a comedy?
Will this be a B movie filled with sugary one liners?



Bring back the Concorde
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
GOP Wants To Change Rules To Protect Tom Delay posted Wed Nov 17 2004 18:09:13 by Falcon84
Arnold Wants To Be Reagan; Passed Biggest Tax Hike posted Fri Sep 19 2003 00:38:40 by Superfly
GOP Group Wants To Bash Gays In Ohio-Again posted Sun Oct 1 2006 18:17:25 by Falcon84
Audience:Who Wants To Be Millionaire Tonight posted Tue Dec 5 2006 15:03:13 by Kieron747
John Murtha Wants To Be House Leader posted Fri Nov 10 2006 07:49:34 by AndesSMF
IRB Wants To Depower The Scrum - Rugby posted Fri Oct 13 2006 09:56:58 by Zkpilot
GOP Trying To Pull Dems Into Foley Scandal posted Sat Oct 7 2006 05:06:42 by Falcon84
US Soccer Wants To Play In Venezuela posted Tue Oct 3 2006 18:33:47 by Derico
Myspace Wants To Kill Anet Members... posted Wed Aug 2 2006 21:55:49 by Kazzie
Bush Wants To Destroy American Unions posted Sun Jul 16 2006 11:12:31 by NWDC10