Text 8045, 143 rader
Skriven 2006-09-10 23:16:00 av Robert E Starr JR (8542.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: ABC backs down on 9/1
=================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <V9Kdnb3it6xmwJ7YnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY:
<C12752DC.EFC0%gabryant@fuse.net><0001HW.C1285444042A1BFEF0407530@news.verizon.net><7tudnfh8DPEidp_YnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@com


"Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C128C72B00194391F0407530@news.verizon.net...
>>>On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 19:00:58 -0400, Carl wrote
> (in article <YZ6dnTGWwO0x2p7YnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com>):
>
>>
>> "Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.C128B859001614ABF0407530@news.verizon.net...
>>>>> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 18:00:49 -0400, Carl wrote
>>> (in article <IeKdnRBS4voJpJ7YnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@comcast.com>):
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When the CBS show on Reagan came out, the right did the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> Everything is biased. Anyone that thought shows like the West Wing or
>>>> whatever the Geena Davis as president show was called was a fair
>>>> portrayal
>>>> is wearing some very tinted glasses. <<
>>>
>>> But West Wing and Commander-in-Chief were _fictional_ series, through 
>>> and
>>> through.  They weren't portraying actual, living people who served in
>>> government and actual events and screwing up the facts with their
>>> Hollywood
>>> liberal bias.  HUGE difference.
>>
>> Nor has GWB been killed by a terrorist.
>>
>> We'll see if the Dems argue as loudly when the GWB movie is made or if 
>> they
>> minimize
>> the  inevitable departure from fact. <<
>
> As it happens, I have gone on record in another newsgroup as saying I 
> don't
> think that film should be permitted to be shown -- I think it's tantamount 
> to
> an incitement to action.  You have been saying over and over "when the GWB
> movie is made," and I just assumed you had been talking about some bio-pic 
> of
> Bush that may theoretically be made in the future.  Had I known you were
> talking about the British assassination pic, I would have been happy to
> express this opinion previously.

Actually, I was thinking of a future movie that I think is inevitable.
Your "actual living people"  comment made me think of that one too.
I haven't seen that, so I can't make any comment as to the content
of that movie either (as I said, I avoid all of these types of movies),
so I have co other comment on the movie's content.

>
>>>>>> A person can either try to suppress the other side (and by doing so
>>>>> giving
>>>> up all right to complain when they do the same) or they can let the 
>>>> other
>>>> side go and then correct whatever mistakes and misstatements that were
>>>> made.
>>>> Scream them at the top of your lungs until you're hoarse... then
>>>> broadcast
>>>> them all over the 'net.  If the mistakes are intentional and 
>>>> aggregious,
>>>> then anyone that cares about such things will factor that into anythng
>>>> from
>>>> that source in the future.   I doubt that many people care anyway
>>>> though.<<
>>>
>>> All of this 'pc' evenhandedness is getting in the way of objective 
>>> truth.
>>> There _is_ an objective truth, and it's one thing to present a biased
>>> picture
>>> of what someone in Hollywood would like American government to be 
>>> like -- 
>>> "West Wing" -- and say, "Okay, that's biased -- I'm not going to watch
>>> it."
>>> But you cannot let people present lies and distortion about _actual
>>> events_
>>> as _history_.
>>
>> My understanding is that Nixon did that too.  I had a list of 
>> inaccuracies
>> and lies about Nixon that was compiled about that movie, but it's long 
>> gone
>> because I wasn't interested.   Even people I know on the left have said 
>> that
>> Oliver Stone went way overboard on that one.<<
>
> In the cases of "Nixon" and "JFK," they are pretty far removed 
> historically,
> and from times when we did not have the coverage we do now.  Moreover, 
> many
> of the key players are dead.  It's simply not the same as something that
> happened five years ago.

I think it would be polite to have a voluntary agreement that
all movies about presidents wait until 10 years after their death in order
to give some time to gain perspective, I can't imaginine that happening.

On the other haand (to counter your point above) as time goes by it's easier 
to get
away with "dramatic license" because there are fewer people left and fewer 
people
care as much, so perhaps that's not always the answer either.

> It's also not the same as airing something on a
> major network, which many millions of people can see for free, and which 
> many
> people associate with news programming.  If you're going to try to tell me
> that changing the description from "documentary" to "docudrama" is going 
> to
> make one iota of difference in the minds of average Americans, you're 
> going
> to have a very, very hard sell.

I don't think people associate it with ABC news programming, and I think
that the fact that there are actors rather than the people whose faces they 
know
very well (because the events are recent) will allow people to recognize it 
as fiction.

As to seeing it for free, even if it's a movie people see clips, reviews and 
trailers
on TV and the net for free... and trailers are likely to include the most 
controversial
parts anyway.  Chances are, more people will see the trailers of a movie 
than will
watch a TV "docudrama."

Carl
                                                                               
                                   
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)