RNC wants to vet Reagan drama before it airs

[Beeblebrox]

This kind of crap just boils my water.

Two things:

1. Why is this any of the RNC's business?

2. Since when does the RNC give a flying pig-fuck about "accuracy"?

The Republican National Committee Friday asked CBS to allow a team of historians and friends of former President Ronald Reagan and his wife to review a miniseries about the couple before it airs.

Republicans have expressed concern that the miniseries, titled "The Reagans," may inaccurately portray the couple.

In a conference call with reporters, RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie said he sent the request to CBS Television President Leslie Moonves.

Gillespie said that if CBS denies the request, he will ask the network to run a note across the bottom of the screen every 10 minutes during the program's presentation informing viewers that the miniseries is not accurate.

CBS spokeswoman Dana McClintock said Moonves received the letter, but neither he nor CBS had any comment on it or the miniseries.

Gillespie said that if CBS rejects both requests, the RNC would to sell tapes and DVDs on its Web site that would present "the real Reagan record."

"It's not the kind of thing we'll make money on -- I'm trying not to lose money on it," Gillespie said. "I want to publicize Reagan's record."

Gillespie added that print and TV ads are being prepared to rebut the miniseries and that Republicans may try to buy time to run the ads during the miniseries.

While Gillespie -- who acknowledged that he has not seen "The Reagans" and has formed his opinion of it based solely on news reports -- had a number of complaints, he said he was most concerned about a comment attributed to Reagan in one episode. There is no evidence that the president told his wife during a conversation about AIDS patients, "They that live in sin shall die in sin," Gillespie said.

The author of the screenplay, Elizabeth Egloff, has acknowledged that there is no evidence Reagan ever uttered those words, but she told the New York Times that "we know he ducked the issue over and over again, and we know she was the one who got him to deal with that."

The miniseries is scheduled to air November 16 and 18.

[Tom Samborski]

Message to CBS: don't give into those stupid Republicans. The RNC has absolutely no business in Hollywood.

Morons.:mad:

[Moviefan1234]

Now if it had been a movie about Clinton they'd be all for exposing his mistakes. :rolleyes:
CBS better not bend.

[Judge_Smails]

I think it's actually in the RNC's interest to let this thing air in it's current form. If the film truly is a smear-job, then I think most viewers will be smart enough to dismiss it as such... the same way most people take Michael Moore's films with a huge grain of salt.

[Lynn7]

I agree with Judge- I think CBS should let the thing air in its current form so everyone can see it and make their own judgement about what is going on. I think the Repubs are fully in the right to boycott though. If CBS believes in this movie, money should not be an issue. Personally, I don't like any movies made about famous people who are still alive. Especially the ones where they have the star playing themselves! I think Joan Rivers did that once. It's creepy.
PS Tom, Repubs aren't stupid- they're brilliant! ;)

[Jon Lyrik]

It's all politics. They want a jingoistic rah-rah show.

If it was a democrat they'd want them to show his mistakes extensively.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
It's all politics. They want a jingoistic rah-rah show.

If it was a democrat they'd want them to show his mistakes extensively.

That's exactly my point. That they are claiming this has anything to do with "accuracy" is a lie. DC 9-11 was an ADMITTED pro-Bush propaganda fest, and I didn't see any banners scrolling across the bottom of that one.

Imagine if EVERYONE with some POLITICAL interest in a movie's content had that kind of say to interfere with studio films or TV movies.

Not going to happen.

[APzombie]

I don't think some peple get it, if it was about a democrat and it quoted the president with lies, dems would be pissed too...

I think it sucks that they put in lies for what they *think* Reagan *might* have said when the guy is dying right now, his family doesn't need this kinda shit.

I'm not very politically biesed, it goes fo all presidents, liberal and concervative, nobody should quote figures with stuff they didn't say to favor the opposing political party.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by APzombie
I don't think some peple get it, if it was about a democrat and it quoted the president with lies, dems would be pissed too...

There have been plenty of biopics about the Kennedys and other Dems but NO requests for content approval.

You could literally NEVER ever make a fictional film about a historic figure if you couldn't dramatize what they said. That critique is just asinine. It's not a "lie," it's a DRAMATIZATION. Do you think everything said by Bush in DC 9-11 was a quote? Of course not.

The fact is that these pig-fuckers don't care about accuracy, only portraying their demi-god in a positive light and positive light ONLY. What they are criticizing is not the accuracy, but the possibility that not everything in the movie is particularly flattering to the Reagans.

In other news, it looks like CBS may be close to caving in. So much for that myth about the liberal media.

[APzombie]

I don't think it is dramatization when they made up "People with aids deserve to die". He never said anything that harsh, and probably never said anything like that in private life. That’s not exaggerating or altering for dramatic purposes, that’s a statement of a president condemning people with a disease, which will naturally piss him and his family off. Don't you see the difference?

Ofcourse there have been plenty of bio pictures of other political people, but non where they totally turned a persons opinion around, making them look immoral and making their party look incompetent. It would be different if he did say that, it would make him look horrible but it would just be pointing out the truth.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by APzombie
[B]I don't think it is dramatization when they made up "People with aids deserve to die". He never said anything that harsh, and probably never said anything like that in private life.

The documentary does NOT quote Reagan as saying, "People with aids deserve to die."

According to "Dutch," Reagan's authorized biography, the author writes that Reagan once said of AIDS, "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague," because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."

In the script, Reagan says "They that live in sin shall die in sin" and refuses to discuss the issue further.

And according to the movie's producers, they did not include any facts that were not verified by at least two different sources.

[bowieee]

Oh God....

If they win this battle, It's going to open a door that should never be opened.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by bowieee
Oh God....

If they win this battle, It's going to open a door that should never be opened.

Looks like they caved.

CBS insisted it was not bowing to pressure about portions of the script, but that the decision was made after seeing the finished film.

Yeah. Right.

[the saw is family]

yeah it's bullshit they caved on this, i'm honestly a little suprised but they mini-series is being shown on showtime so at least it's not being completely swept under the rug.

[Lynn Minmei]

Doesn't matter too much now, CBS canned the show and Showtime picked it up.

[SykkBoy]

I said it in another post and I'll say it again in this one "There is no one left in Hollywood with any balls"

[Lynn Minmei]

Originally posted by SykkBoy
I said it in another post and I'll say it again in this one "There is no one left in Hollywood with any balls"

What about Tarantino? Kill Bill was hardly a more conservative film compared to other actioners this year.

[The Postmaster General]

Now, this is fucking rant worthy!

Beeble hit it on the head. While I agree it is not nice to pick on old people....

It's all sticks and stones.

If it was a smear campaign, there shouldn't be political influence to stiffle The People's right to make such a basic choice.

What I think this comes down to is them putting the lock on what Bush has deemed a liberal-biased media. Election time is coming up, and they are a bit nervous about making the GOP look bad.

This isn't like rap lyrics, where, at least you can argue some grounds for public hysteria. We are talking about people being censored from saying they think someone is an asshole.

Fucked!

[TheDeadWalk]

What if this were a film about a movie critic who owns a site called Joblo.com ? And the owner/critic of this site was a fat red headed hairy beast of a monster that took cash and sponsorships for positive reviews? (And got his head shown in a cameo of some popular horror remake)

Would all the schmoes cry an outrage? Or would we be pissed off at the insulting, inaccurate portrayl of Joblo, and call the thing bullshit? Who would really then say "No one in Hollywood has balls anymore". Its just the same as I don't wish to have a movie based on my life that has me downgrading minorities or "alternative lifestyle couples", when in fucking reality, I don't.

Stupids are en masse in the world today. Stupids believe everything they see and hear, and I don't believe it's aptly suitable to give the stupids a miniseries about one of the most beloved Presidents in the United States and have him talking about AIDS patients citing "Those who live in sin shall die in sin". Its shit like that, that Regan never, EVER said, and when you flash it in front of the eyes of the stupids en masse, they'll do nothing but sit around and talk on the phone or to their bridge partners and say "Oh my... I didn't know he was really like that! Can you believe he would say such a thing?! Oh my..."

It's not about balls, tits, or pussy. It's about right and wrong. Granted it's kind of stupid for Showtime to pick the miniseries up on any grounds other than because there is now a high curiosity ratio on this film, but due to the public outcry already and the fact that you have to pay a subscription to Showtime (therefore dilluting the number of stupids who will be watching) I'm a little more easier on the fact now that its being shown.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
Would all the schmoes cry an outrage? Or would we be pissed off at the insulting, inaccurate portrayl of Joblo, and call the thing bullshit? Who would really then say "No one in Hollywood has balls anymore".


The MAJOR difference is that CBS wouldn't stop a Joblo movie if we were outraged.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
Stupids believe everything they see and hear

Ah, the irony.

Its shit like that, that Regan never, EVER said, and when you flash it in front of the eyes of the stupids en masse, they'll do nothing but sit around and talk on the phone or to their bridge partners and say "Oh my... I didn't know he was really like that! Can you believe he would say such a thing?! Oh my..."

First of all, he DID say something like that, if not those exact words. He called AIDS a "plague" on homosexuals because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."

Second, "accuracy" has nothing to do with the RNC whining. They were protesting ALL of the negative potrayals of Reagan, even the accurate ones.

And the reason is because the RNC knows that YOU will believe everything you see and hear as long as it comes from the RNC media machine. You'll believe it without even questioning it.

By your standard, what does that make you?

[TheDeadWalk]

The MAJOR difference is that CBS wouldn't stop a Joblo movie if we were outraged.

The stereotypical "If you wouldn't do it for me, then why should we do it for you" is a very ugly generalization that is seen in this country. It shouldn't be about me and we, but rather right and wrong. You should go watch it's a wonderful life and eat a bar of Irish Spring you dirty bird.

First of all, he DID say something like that, if not those exact words. He called AIDS a "plague" on homosexuals because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."

Regan stating his relgious beliefs, and having a movie showing him actually casting judgement upon others as if he were God himself is totally different. They might as well of had Regan say "You live by the cock, you die by the cock!" Fuckin fall sweeps baby, can't hold nothin back for the stupids.

Secondly, I'm not following the RNC Media Machine. Through AP Network News, and MSNBC's "First Light with Dirk Van" news and opinion talk radio show have persuaded me into my belief.

And my belief is that I don't think you should put an irrelevant spin on something for ratings, or to make your show look good just so it can perfectly slam a well-respected man at the end of his dying days. Ronald Regan is practically on his death bed with Alzeheimer's disease at the age of 92, unable to defend himself from this bullshit mini-series and their horrible portrayal of him. He was a good man and a great president, he should be treated as such.

It's a shame we live in a country where a dying President can be treated like shit, but a man who starred in Problem Child can be treated like a King after his death.

By your standard, what does that make you?

I know you are, but what am I?

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
Ronald Regan is practically on his death bed with Alzeheimer's disease at the age of 92, unable to defend himself from this bullshit mini-series and their horrible portrayal of him. He was a good man and a great president, he should be treated as such.

So doing it after he's dead is perfectly okay? Are you suggesting that inaccuracy is more about timing than "right and wrong"? If that's your "principle" then what difference does it make if they do it now or twenty years from now?

How many networks have done TV movies about the Kennedys? And how many of those were you outraged over? What about the Martha Stewart movie? I'm willing to bet that not every line said in those movies was an exact quote of what they said in real life. They were, at the very least, somewhat inaccurate by these sudden new "standards" of right and wrong.

Where was the RNC then? If their argument (and by extension your argument) isn't TOTAL BULLSHIT, then where were the protests then?

Or could it be that the RNC's argument (and by extension your argument) IS total and complete nonsense, and that this has more to do with protecting Reagan's legacy than it does accuracy, or right and wrong, or Reagan being able to defend himself.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
"Those who live in sin shall die in sin". Its shit like that, that Regan never, EVER said"Actually, Reagan never mentioned homosexuals until 7 years into his presidency. You can see why people are upset. CBS made someone completely indifferent seem callous."

~ Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
The stereotypical "If you wouldn't do it for me, then why should we do it for you" is a very ugly generalization that is seen in this country. It shouldn't be about me and we, but rather right and wrong.


What I you seem to be missing, at least with my opinion of it, is that I'm not focused on the "we and me" but am in fact focused on the right or wrong - however, not in light of whether it is right or wrong to degrade a person -- which I feel is wrong, but instead I am focusing on the motives behind the sudden interest in this Biopic.

To me, I am wronging this ordeal based on my own speculation. If this were not nearing election time, and the GOP wasn't already getting heat, then I believe the RNC wouldn't care ass one about Reagan (who I like, by the way).

Instead though, this APPEARS to me to be one more bout by Republicans to shout that there is this left-wing bias in the media. The fact of the matter is that right now the media is making THEM look bad, and that is what they are concerned about -- THE REPUBLICANS - they are not concerned with Reagan, only their own agenda.

Let's look at the fact that a book was realized during non-election times that blatantly characterized George Bush Sr. as manufacturing The Gulf War and being a pill addict. So, why can we paint one picture that's okay, and the other that's not.

If I felt that this was really about Reagan's dignity, I wouldn't care. How many people really took Stone's JFK seriously? I don't think it has anything to do with Reagan. It has to do with bad times for a party, and their efforts to make people feel guity for taking stabs at them.

Also, this is a political party -- not an organization telling someone what they should do. Why wasn't the center for Alzheimer's that started the protest? Why not the Elder's Affairs Administration? Why political interests?

If it had been some organization, and not a bunch of POLITICIANS (many of whom don't know Reagan) -- I wouldn't be bashing the Pubs.

I understand why CBS did what it did. I've seen The Insider!

[TheDeadWalk]

So doing it after he's dead is perfectly okay? Are you suggesting that inaccuracy is more about timing than "right and wrong"? If that's your "principle" then what difference does it make if they do it now or twenty years from now?

How many networks have done TV movies about the Kennedys? And how many of those were you outraged over? What about the Martha Stewart movie? I'm willing to bet that not every line said in those movies was an exact quote of what they said in real life. They were, at the very least, somewhat inaccurate by these sudden new "standards" of right and wrong.

Where was the RNC then? If their argument (and by extension your argument) isn't TOTAL BULLSHIT, then where were the protests then?



You took one slice of my argument and practically bloated it as if it was my thesis argument. I don't recall my argument being titled "REGAN TOO OLD TO DEFEND: WAIT UNTIL HE'S DEAD."

Re-read the end of that last sentence of the paragraph you quoted: "He was a good man and a great president, he should be treated as such."

Where did that imply that I say we wait until he croaks until you slander him? The fact that he is a 92 year old Alzeheimer's patient just makes it more pathetic. Twenty years from now doesn't make it any better, nor did I imply that it did. What's wrong is wrong, and should be labeled wrong for all times, as such is slander.

I look at it as a respective issue and not as a political one. I am a registered democrat and have voted mostly as such. With or without respect of Ronald Regan, putting a negative spin on anything so you can make your fucking fall sweeps is wrong.

As far as all of the other movies, mini-series, on Martha Stewart, The Kennedys, Hubert the Love Monkey, or whoever; all are wrong if they try to come off as a true dramatization but look to slander the true events because "it makes good tv." When Easter rolls around and should I choose to watch the tale of Jesus of Nazareth, I certainly hope they don't have additional footage this time of Jesus and his homeboys smoking cigars, reading porn mags and downgrading homosexuals because the networks felt it would have been "hella cool".

Oliver Stone has been in hot water time and again over his inaccurate portrayals of shit. Watch the documentary on "The Doors" film as Jim Morrisson's witchcraft second wife(or what not) spouted that she would never forgive Oliver for his bullshit treatment on how Jim ended their relationship in the movie saying "I thought it was something cool to do when I was high"(paraphrase) Ever since then I've only believed about half of what I see in Stone flicks, and usually read up on the "true story" before or afterwards because you can't trust his lying ass.

And you're right. I didn't protest, I didn't make public outcry over any of these, but once again... who said I was? You made your post about how you didn't like how this film was cancelled off of CBS' airwaves and I replied. I have an opinion, but I'd rather keep it in intelligent discussion than to get signs and start marching up and down the streets with signs like a fucking retard over shit that won't matter to me a week from now.

(I hope you read the next paragraph! Tee hee!)

But I do have an opinion on it, and felt like joining the discussion. I didn't like what I heard about The Regan mini-series and so I've put in my two cents worth. But from what it sounds between this Regan Mini-series and Coupling, you're down two shows Beebleboy.

[Beeblebrox]

You took one slice of my argument and practically bloated it as if it was my thesis argument. I don't recall my argument being titled "REGAN TOO OLD TO DEFEND: WAIT UNTIL HE'S DEAD."

If it was irrelevent to your argument, which you now say it was, then why did you include it?

Re-read the end of that last sentence of the paragraph you quoted: "He was a good man and a great president, he should be treated as such."

I see. So it's okay to slander anyone else, but not good men who are also great presidents. Gotcha.

And I guess the RNC is the final word on who is a "good man" as well, eh? I mean, obviously JFK doesn't qualify since docu-dramas about him have aired with nairy a whimper from you or the RNC. (oh, and we have to redefine the word "slander" to include truthful but negative comments about the person in question).

The FACT is that there have been thousands of docu-dramas during dozens of sweeps months that captilize on some person's celebrity and dramatize the events of their lives, both good and bad.

But now ALL OF A SUDDEN, you and the RNC have decided that it's "wrong" and that such TV shows shouldn't be aired.

The problem is that the docu-dramas or how they're made hasn't changed, only the reaction from the RNC (and you). Am I supposed to believe that the fact that this particular mini-series features Republican demi-god Ronald Reagan is just a coincidence and that the RNC secretly harbored these principles all along?

**coughbullshitcough**

When Easter rolls around and should I choose to watch the tale of Jesus of Nazareth, I certainly hope they don't have additional footage this time of Jesus and his homeboys smoking cigars, reading porn mags and downgrading homosexuals because the networks felt it would have been "hella cool".

As has been mentioned before and which you don't seem to grasp is that CBS did not invent those scenes out of whole cloth. Reagan DID pass moral judgement on homosexuals (he didn't simply express his religious views as you laughably claimed earlier) and DID call AIDS a plague on them for it. And that's according to his OFFICIAL biography.

And the other objectionable scenes, according to the RNC, were all part of common public headlines in the 1980s, including Nancy Reagan's control over the White House and Reagan's absentmindedness.

As docu-dramas go, this one was as accurate as any other. The complaints weren't because of accuracy (whatever those people claim). This is about a negative portrayal of a Republican icon, that they wanted to get rid of and would literally say or do anything to make that happen. And it worked.

I didn't like what I heard about The Regan mini-series and so I've put in my two cents worth.

So I guess you believe everything you see and hear, eh? You had some interesting comments about people like you a couple of posts back.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
The fact that he is a 92 year old Alzeheimer's patient just makes it more pathetic.



The pathetic thing is the GOPs attempt to turn a political matter into a subject of social controversy.

[Buck Turgidson]

There were open, public threats from the Republican leadership in Congres to go after the FCC licenses of individual CBS stations in retaliantion for airing this. That's past Nixonian and into Juan Peron territory.

[Tom Samborski]

Great, now they're going after FCC licenses just because of a T.V program about Reagan? Is it a fucking law in the U.S to cherish Ronald Reagan? Geez. What those Republicans are doing is fucking childish. They don't seem to realize that there are people with DIFFERENT views in the U.S. This wasn't a terrorist act, this wasn't an act of piracy, this was just a movie being aired on television by someone who had a different view of Reagan. And now the Republicans want to strike back just because of that.

Welcome to crazy world.

[Lynn7]

There has to be responsibility on the part of the movie makers to back up the claims they present. Inaccurate representations are very damaging, ecpecially since much of the public has dumbed down over the years and believe everything that is on TV. In fact I read that many people get their news from the late noight comics. i think I heard last week that like 75-80% of people don't even know the democratic challengers who are running for prez. In that case I beleive that makers of movies need to be more responsible.

Though I am now voting Repub, when Regan was in office, I spent 8 years despising him becasue I was voting Democrat at the time. Looking back, I don't think the guy was a bad guy and I don't think they deserve to be targeted for political revisionism (the Aids comment was not documented anywhere so why did the writers put it in?) From reports I've read, lots of stuff in the movie sounded like they were trying to paint the Regans in a very unflatering light, which they have the right to do, I guess but they dont have the right to put false words into his mouth, IMO.

[Lynn7]

One hting I'd like to add about AIDS is that during the time period the disease first came out, the atmsophere was a lot differnet than it is today. There was widespread ridicule and disdain for homosexuality and when the disease first surfaced there was a lot of public anger at GAy people and especially fear in respect to the illness. We have come a long way since then- now Gay people are very accepted in society, as evidienced by the numerous shows about Gay characters and the public acceptance of the life style has improved a lot. Liz Taylor and Elton John are responsible for much of the acceptance that people take for granted today.

The sickness is now treated in a way that is much more compassionate than it was back then. It' s easy to go back in time and take anyone's comments regarding the AIDS situation and bring them into the present accepting climate and label people as homophobic haters, but it would be taking something out of context which leads to an erronous presentation. But this aside, there doenst seem to be any documaentaion of Regan making that hateful statement and if he was indifferent as Jon Stewart joked, he was no differnet than most of society at the time and he probably evolved and became more empathetic as did the rest of society.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Looking back, I don't think the guy was a bad guy and I don't think they deserve to be targeted for political revisionism (the Aids comment was not documented anywhere so why did the writers put it in?)

In REAL LIFE, Reagan said that AIDS was a "plague" that targeted homosexuals because "illicit sex goes against the 10 Commandments." That's hateful. It's judgemental. And it's DOCUMENTED in his OFFICIAL biography.

In the MOVIE, Reagan says that "those who live in sin, die in sin." It's not exactly what he said but the movie is a dramatization that captures the overall mood and spirit of what happened. Every docu-drama does that.

I'll say this again. This mini-series is NO LESS ACCURATE THAN THE HUNDREDS OF DOCU-DRAMAS that every network has aired at one time or another.

Second, the RNC was upset over negative scenes in the movie that ARE accurate. They wanted those scenes removed from the movie as if they never happened (like Nancy firing Ronnie's chief of staff, her consulting an astrologer, Ronnie's absent-mindedness). Isn't THAT revisionism?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why they have this sudden absurdly high standard for TV movies. If this reasoning isn't total bullshit (and I say it is) then why no outrage for the Martha Stewart docu-drama, the Kennedy docu-drama?

And if what Buck says is true, why no outrage over the draconian tactics used by the RNC to bully a network into capitulation? Why is THAT less outrageous than CBS airing a mini-series that is no less accurate than any other mini-series they've ever aired??

[JoBlo]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
Stupids believe everything they see and hear
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, the irony.


Beeblebrox:

You know very well that this is a controversial and political issue and it's FINE to bring it up in the RANT, RANT, RANT forum since it does deal with the industry that we are here to speak about, but if you can't retort with nothing less than constructive arguments, instead of cheapshots like the one above (and a couple of other posts in which you "imply" that another schmoe is "stupid"-- no call for that), we will have to refer to our BASIC RULES AND GUIDELINES (http://www.joblo.com/rules.htm) and reconsider your participation on our board.

This is a GREAT topic and an interesting debate, folks...as per usual, we ask that you KEEP TO THE TOPIC and not let it denigrate into potshots, etc...

Thanks for understanding.