The Reagan Miniseries

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,289
Location
Edge's beanie closet
Looks like it might be canceled

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/03/reagans.series.reut/index.html

I hate to agree w/ Barbra :D, but why doesn't everyone just wait to see it? I think it's scary for a political party to have this much influence over a TV network, but I suppose the network is so afraid of bad publicity and losing advertisers that they will cave in.

On the other hand maybe the movie is biased/inaccurate. But I'd like to see it for myself the way it was originally made.

:shrug:

And I'd feel exactly the same way if conservatives were making a movie about a Democrat.
 
The timing is extremely insensitive.

But really, bitching about the actors leanings is ridiculous. I personally have never seen any of Reagan's acting, except for that in the White House:wink:, but did he always play a "conservative"? Probably not, that's why they call it acting people.

Hasn't anyone figured out that all history has a certain bias or leaning. Quit letting TV and Entertainment be your sole source of education and quit your whining.
 
I think maybe the timing is not great. Although I couldn't stand Reagan the president I feel sorry for any family that has to deal with Alzheimer's. One of my best friends at church, who sponsored me through catechism, has a father with Alzheimer's. That being said I really don't think it matters what the actors political views are. I agree, people shouldn't let entertainment be their education. But all history is subjective and this yelling about "objectivity" is nonsense.
 
You can't speak ill of the dead, especially when he is the living dead, and, on top of it, a living dead god in the eyes of the GOP.

*tongue planted firmly in cheek

Anything short of unadulterated worship would have been insufficient for the RNC.

Melon
 
Is it to much to ask that individuals attempt to produce something that is objective, accurate and balanced, instead of the opposite which may please a certain group anger another, and intrigue the masses to watch because of the controversy, there by boosting ratings and money?
 
STING2 said:
Is it to much to ask that individuals attempt to produce something that is objective, accurate and balanced, instead of the opposite which may please a certain group anger another, and intrigue the masses to watch because of the controversy, there by boosting ratings and money?

Now when was the last time you saw that?
 
Any story retold will have some personal perspective. It's impossible not to unless you filmed it while it was happening, from a neutral location.
 
BonoVoxSupastar,


"Is it to much to ask that individuals ATTEMPT to produce something that is objective, accurate and balanced, instead of the opposite which may please a certain group anger another, and intrigue the masses to watch because of the controversy, there by boosting ratings and money?"

The Key word here is ATTEMPT. Nothing is ever perfect, but I think it can be obvious if one actually attempted to be Objective, accurate, and balanced.
 
STING2 said:
BonoVoxSupastar,


"Is it to much to ask that individuals ATTEMPT to produce something that is objective, accurate and balanced, instead of the opposite which may please a certain group anger another, and intrigue the masses to watch because of the controversy, there by boosting ratings and money?"

The Key word here is ATTEMPT. Nothing is ever perfect, but I think it can be obvious if one actually attempted to be Objective, accurate, and balanced.

Ok, yes I agree. But no one here knows if they didn't "attempt" to or not.
 
I think it's fair to ask the filmmakers to make some changes if there are concerns about historical accuracy, such as the AIDS remark. But it would be a shame if the GOP really does have so much power that they could force the filmmakers to completely water down their original version.
 
Bono's shades said:
But it would be a shame if the GOP really does have so much power that they could force the filmmakers to completely water down their original version.

Yet Another Right Wing Conspiracy?


Plenty of movies and television programs go through public scrutiny before and after they are aired. This is all part of public discourse.

Quit letting TV and Entertainment be your sole source of education

:up: Turn off the damn thing and read!
 
STING2 said:
Ever seen "Saving Private Ryan"?

Read a history text sometime. Yes, we have hit sufficient distance between 1945 and the present that we feel that we can report on WWII "objectively." However, look at that same history text when it starts talking about more recent events. All of it is biased.

To be honest, we will not be able to judge Reagan and the effect of his policies until 50 or more years after the fact, when he is as irrelevant to the present as FDR.

Melon
 
melon,

"Read a history text sometime" I've read several. To some extent it is true that there is more controversy on things considered "current events". But I don't think that means one cannot be objective or that its impossible to be objective about current events.

Members of the US military have already been feeling the effects of Reagans policies and continue to benefit from them today. Nearly all of the weapon systems are forces are fighting with and many of the tactics and training procedures in current use were developed during the Reagan/Bush era.
 
STING2 said:
Members of the US military have already been feeling the effects of Reagans policies and continue to benefit from them today. Nearly all of the weapon systems are forces are fighting with and many of the tactics and training procedures in current use were developed during the Reagan/Bush era.

Precisely why one cannot judge him objectively. When he is as irrelevant as other past presidents, then we can observe his positive and negative effects effectively...or, at least, that is the theory.

Melon
 
melon said:


Precisely why one cannot judge him objectively. When he is as irrelevant as other past presidents, then we can observe his positive and negative effects effectively...or, at least, that is the theory.

Melon
Not relevant as "other US Presidents? curse the insulated child.;)
Reagan=Carter-most think not.:mad:
Reagan= Gerald Ford Lite?- Most think not.

Reagan- his own man? MOST THINK SO.

thank u.
dB9
:dance:
 
STING2 said:
Is it to much to ask that individuals attempt to produce something that is objective, accurate and balanced, instead of the opposite which may please a certain group anger another, and intrigue the masses to watch because of the controversy, there by boosting ratings and money?

CBS head Les Moonves made the ultimate decision to pull THE REAGANS off the November schedule after concluding the film was "biased" against the former president, top sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

"It just doesn't work," Moonves told staffers in a bold move of conscience. "Listen, we are not afraid of controversy, we'd go out there if it came in at 50-50, pro and con, but it simply isn't working. It's biased."

Moonves, a self-described liberal democrat, on Tuesday took full responsibility for canceling the movie, sources tell DRUDGE. "He made up his own mind after seeing it," a top source said. "He's made a brave, decisive move."

Meanwhile, REAGANS producers are feeling great disillusionment with CBS and the entire series of events, it has been learned.

..GLAD TO SEE A "BOLD MOVE OF CONSCIENCE" from a lib;)

so "BOLD:";)

DB9
 
Bull. It's comes down to $$$$.

If they wanted to be accurate they should talk about Iran-Contra, the Sandanista's, and other. These were all left out of the movie.
 
diamond said:

Not relevant as "other US Presidents? curse the insulated child.;)
Reagan=Carter-most think not.:mad:
Reagan= Gerald Ford Lite?- Most think not.

Reagan- his own man? MOST THINK SO.

thank u.
dB9
:dance:

You miss my point. FDR is considered an important president, but his policies now can be viewed from a distance, as his legacy no longer directly affects us. Considering the GOP cannot seem to get past Reagan and that they hold him up as some sort of idol, do you think that the GOP will accept anything except worship of that man at this point?

Melon
 
melon said:


You miss my point. FDR is considered an important president, but his policies now can be viewed from a distance, as his legacy no longer directly affects us. Considering the GOP cannot seem to get past Reagan and that they hold him up as some sort of idol, do you think that the GOP will accept anything except worship of that man at this point?

Melon
Melon-
My answer was a knee jerk one admittedly.
Upon a second read of your posts in this thread I see your point.
This movie is blantantly biased though -which is the point of the thread..

DB9
 
diamond, the movie would be "biased" any way it was presented. It would be the product of certain opinions, whether they be favorable or unfavorable. That's the point I'm trying to make. I'm not saying "demonize the guy". That's not fair. Neither is idealization.
 
Scarletwine said:
Bull. It's comes down to $$$$.

If they wanted to be accurate they should talk about Iran-Contra, the Sandanista's, and other. These were all left out of the movie.

Are you kidding?!? I figured this was what all the controversy was about. Is there a link that discusses what the concerns were?

*is aggrevated at censorship*
 
verte76 said:
diamond, the movie would be "biased" any way it was presented. It would be the product of certain opinions, whether they be favorable or unfavorable. That's the point I'm trying to make. I'm not saying "demonize the guy". That's not fair. Neither is idealization.

Good point Verte-
On that point I take my information from many differnt news sources these days, namely-
NPR
Fox News
CNN
MSNBC
knowing full well that the truth probably falls somewhere in the middle.

I do think this movie was tilted way to far one way.

Truth be told if Reagan were allowed to don his cape during his presidenial reign the man woulda been a friggin SuperHero:sexywink:

thank you
diamondbruno:angry:
 
No, from what I've read it's about him making a remark about homosexuals in regards to aids (like living with sin and dying with sin) and yelling at Nancy. At least that's all that Michael Reagon brought up on GMA.
 
Scarletwine, I saw something about the AIDS/gay remark somewhere. I don't remember him making this remark, and I do remember plenty of remarks he made that made me go to an undetermined number of demonstrations against his administration. I lost track of them. I still have scads of demonstration signs in my closet. Needless to say I'm hardly an "unbiased" source. But who in hell is?
 
'Reagans' filmmakers: CBS ruined movie
Network's editing made film 'incoherent'
Tuesday, November 25, 2003 Posted: 10:09 AM EST (1509 GMT)



NEW YORK (AP) -- The director of "The Reagans" complained Monday that CBS butchered his made-for-TV movie, ultimately making it too incoherent for the network to air.

"We were, in a sense, banished" from the editing process before CBS ditched it, director Robert Ackerman said.

CBS decided last month to cancel its movie on the former president, shunting it off to the Showtime on cable. Showtime will air the filmmakers' version Sunday.

Producers and the stars of the movie commented extensively about it for the first time in a conference call Monday.

CBS' decision not to air "The Reagans" came after weeks of complaints by fans of the former president that it would distort his legacy.

CBS President Leslie Moonves said Monday that the movie was politically pointed, and that he would have made the same decision to cancel it even if there had been no public outcry.

"I was told it was going to be a love story, that the politics would be in the background," Moonves said. "I didn't feel that was the case, and I didn't think it was balanced."

Neil Meron, one of the film's producers, said the filmmakers' only point of view was to humanize Ronald and Nancy Reagan.

Moonves said CBS had different standards for movies with political content than cable networks and would not air, for example, a film like Oliver Stone's "JFK."

Robert Greenblatt, Showtime's entertainment president, disagreed, saying that Moonves' "JFK" example was "ludicrous and specious."

Greenblatt noted that Moonves had paid for the movie, and had full access to the script and film as it was being made.

"If he didn't know what movie he was getting, it was not the fault of the producers, the director or anybody else associated with this film," Greenblatt said.

CBS expressed no problems until after a "rough cut" was hurriedly delivered in October, Ackerman said. At that point, CBS ordered changes to the dialogue that were "nonnegotiable," he said.

"What they were doing with the structure of the film, I thought, was making it incoherent," Ackerman said.

The film Showtime is airing Sunday is exactly as the filmmakers intended -- with the major exception of excising the one line that caused the most hubbub.

In a part of the script that was published in The New York Times, Reagan was depicted as judgmental toward people with AIDS as his wife begged him to help people with the disease. "They that live in sin shall die in sin," Reagan's character said.

Reagan supporters said there was no evidence that the former president ever said any such thing.

Film producers on Monday, however, cited a line attributed to Reagan in Edmund Morris' book, "Dutch," about AIDS being a plague brought down because of illicit sex. Ackerman said the line the filmmakers used was intended to soften what had been reported.

James Brolin, who portrays Reagan in the film, dismissed speculation that his wife, liberal activist Barbra Streisand, had anything to do with the movie.

His co-star, Judy Davis, criticized the "level of censorship" involved in CBS' cancellation of the movie.

"The film being taken off the air ... appears to be an attack on free speech," said Davis, who plays Nancy Reagan. "We don't like what we suspect you might be saying, so we'll do everything in our power to remove it from a major network so people can't hear what you're saying."
 
Back
Top Bottom