Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by Cholly, Sep 7, 2006.
Of course. Heaven forbid that the truth should come out that Clinton was President for most of the time before 9-11. :nono2:
I've seen enough. I won't waste my time watching the film.:nono2:
So then, I guess the Reagan biopic that CBS pulled the plug on should have just aired without objection?
These type of projects are dangerous because for many they become "history". Speculation and fabrication about the events leading up to 9/11 certainly seems like it should be more of an issue then Reagan's possible personal proclivities or even the fictionalized films of Oliver Stone like JFK or Nixon.
This "docudrama" comes on the significant five year anniversary of 9/11 and just two months before mid-term elections where the GOP is trying to make terrorism and security the main issue and are again trying to paint the Democrats as weak on both. The timing seems suspicious at best.
Oh, you mean like "Farenheit 911"? I just find this delicious. Two years ago we were bombarded with THAT piece of trash, and it was treated like it was an actual documentary. I don't seem to remember Clinton and Co. coming out complaining about that... In fact they gave MM a heroes welcome in DC (doing a premier of his movie, that was attended by all the stars of the DNC) as well as a seat of honor at the convention. And NOW the liberals are upset that there might be a movie that's not a real accurate portrayal of what led up to 9/11? Interesting.
I'll take a peak at this... but will obviously take it with a grain of salt. Even ABC admits it's not a documentary - but a docudrama. All that being said, I agree with you - there is a danger that people will see this an actual historical film... but I find the selective outrage telling...
ABC has the right to air it and the Clinton aides have the right to state that they feel it is inaccurate. My guess is that the Clinton aides wee upset about something other than just the mention that Clinton was president. But i have not seen it so I can't have much more of an opinion about it. M aybe i will watch it to s eee what the fuss is about. But isn't there a football game on then? Indy against the Giant. The battle of the Manning Brothers. Hey that could be good.
Oh, and I think that people got outraged over the Reagan picture was because he was in the last stages of Alzheimer's. Either that, or he was already dead by that point - I can't remember which happened first. But I agree - if they had agreed to put the movie on, it would have upset me, but I wouldn't have objected to their right to show it. But Clinton making threats at ABC because they want to air this is a little chilling to me... I thought Bush was supposed to be seen as the totalitarian who wanted to suppress expression?
Obviously you need a dual tuner DVR.
oky remeber everything wrong is Clintons fault even the fact that Pluto is no longer a planet.
I can't believe that Democrats don't believe in the Art of making a film. I notice that the Bush Administration hasn't issued any complaint on a film showing a sitting President being assassinated. Go figure. As I see it is that Democrats love to shut people up. Freedom of speech I really think is on the Elephant site not the Jack-Asses.
What "threats" have been made at ABC?
Without opening up this whole can of worms again, F-911 did not hire actors or work from a fictionalized script. We can debate the narration and editing, or perhaps that in certain instances Moore might have "set up" his subjects, but the film itself is a "documentary" because it uses only actual people in real life events either from news or other sources, or shot by Moore himself.
Utilizing actors to portray real people in events that are real only in the mind of a scriptwriter is an entirely different animal. And this was true for the Reagan bio, Stone's films and it is true for this "docudrama" as well. The difference is, the Reagan piece was the only one "censored" in the sense that instead of being aired by CBS, it was "demoted" to Showtime where it would be available to a much less broad audience.
In addition, I have not seen anything yet to indicate that anyone has called for the current film to be banned or not aired by ABC. They are merely pointing out that some of the scenes appear to have been fabricated from whole cloth and misrepresent the actual events as they occured. This seems like a valid enough criticism, especially since the producers readily concede this is a dramatization and certain events were combined for efficiency and/or dramatic effect.
From the NY Post:
September 7, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.
Warning ABC? Demanding that it be pulled? Sounds like a bit of a threat to me...
Look, I don't care that a hack like MM (and a hypocritical hack, at that) puts together that garbage. This is America. He's free to do that. The part I have issue with is WHERE the objections are coming from. F911 comes out, and did you hear anyone in the administration demand it be pulled? No. Did anyone in the administration demand that the Reagan miniseries not be aired? No. Those objections came from the public - us. Meaning that we were expressing ourselves. But when a political leader like Clinton demands that ABC pull the mini-series... that crosses the line in my opinion.
Clinton is an American citizen and he certainly has a right to express himself. But he's also a former president and has a higher sense of duty - his words carry a heck of alot more weight. Especially since his wife will undoubtedly run for that office in 2008. When a significant politician demands a show get pulled... you don't have an issue with that?
Let the docudrama play and let Ex President Clinton settle his disagreement in court like the rest of us have to. Well, at least the rest of us law respecting citizens do.
I'm not a fan of Moore's, and havent seen any of his films, nor do I intend to.
Strikes me that the big complaint of Clinton and his aides is that this is purpotedly a program about 9/11, and that the public will think that it's a documentary and not a "docudrama". I'd be pretty upset myself if in a movie or TV show someone playing the part of me made statements that I never made, especially if the show were about the events leading up to the attacks on 9/11.
There are certain limitations to beinga 508 owner.
Well, I don't see a threat there...but, ok. What was the "warning"?
Did he shake his fist and say "why I oughta!!!"
Lotta good that would do... Clinton lied last time he was under oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!!!!! :lol:
Tom in TX