It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CBS and "The Reagans"

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 02:35 PM
link   
After all the media hype.....


CBS STATEMENT REGARDING 'THE REAGANS'

"CBS will not broadcast THE REAGANS on November 16 and 18. This decision is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script.

Although the mini-series features impressive production values and acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience. Subsequent edits that we considered did not address those concerns.

A free broadcast network, available to all over the public airwaves, has different standards than media the public must pay to view. We do, however, recognize and respect the filmmakers' right to have their voice heard and their film seen. As such, we have reached an agreement to license the exhibition rights for the film to Showtime, a subscriber-based, pay-cable network. We believe this is a solution that benefits everyone involved.

This was not an easy decision to make. CBS does tackle controversial subjects and provide tough assessments of prominent historical figures and events, as we did with films such as 'Jesus,' '9-11' and 'Hitler.' We will continue to do so in the future."
taken from the Drudge Report


What a load of crap. It was going to be truthful about a former president, so they dump it.

[Edited on 11-4-2003 by darklanser]



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 02:39 PM
link   
If you are going to make something based off of a trure thing it has to be unbiased. That mini-series was most likely to be liberaly biased,whats so hard doing an un-biased movie?

That CBS thing on Hitler was good as acting and script went but it created IMHO too much sympathy for the Nazi bastard.



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 02:57 PM
link   
True, but what about letting the public decide for themselves. I recall the same upset occurring when the Reagan's daughter wrote her tell-all book. Right. Ronnie Jr. even said some stuff that the family would have liked to keep secret.



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 03:59 PM
link   
At least it'll be seen on Showtime....



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 04:02 PM
link   
It was a truthful film. The repugnants just can't handle the truth. It burns them.

"Although the mini-series features impressive production values and acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script...

REAGAN: It's Armageddon... that's what it is. Armageddon. The Leader from the West will be revealed as the anti-Christ, and then God will strike him down. That's me. I am the anti-Christ.


[Edited on 4-11-2003 by Colonel]



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I admit, this film was asking for it! Yeah, I'm ripped CBS caved,but I think by casting James Brolin was their 1st mistake!He's good & I like him, but casting him is like casting Dennis Miller to play Al Gore or Kelsey Grammar as Clinton.They should have gone for someone less visable.He's very outspoken on Reagan & his views reflect the direction the film was heading.I think CBS relied on that.They wanted some scandal to help boost the ratings.

I am against censorship & way too many people judged this movie before anyone saw it.Example, some of the stuff that Drudge reported was from an earlt draft that was cut out early on.Its like the last temptaion of christ.People blasted the movie before they even saw one frame of it.People are blasting Mel Gibson's film & its not even out yet!I say, show the film & then cry foul after you've seen it. They really didn't even give it a chance which is sad.I heard there was alot of praise for Reagan in it as well,but that went ignored.Only the bad stuff was focused on.Its sad whenyou think of it.I just wonder if people will be as sensitive when a Clinton movie comes out.If they show Bill in a positive light,will corporations threaten to boycott? Look at the JFK films.They show him being a SOB & no one complained.Funny how the rules change. Reagan was no saint & he did have his flaws(showing someone's flaws is not a bad thing,after all no one is perfect)Sometimes people want the negative things dismissed even when they're true.This was nothing more than politics!



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 04:57 PM
link   
People either love Reagan or hate him. Of all the presidents in my lifetime, I like him the most. As more time passes and the more research I've done one thing most stands out regarding him: His name pops up so few times - unlike his Vice President, George Bush, who seems to be right up inside the ol' 'octupus' in every way. Reagan gets blamed for a lot of things that he probably had no knowledge of, too.

Whether you like him or not, Reagan was a great president in terms of foreign policy and vision. He re-built a morally adrift military and wound up creating the world's most awesome military force the earth has ever seen. We crushed the world's 4th largest military like lightning during Desert Storm because of Reagan's stewardship. And I don't know how many of you out there can remember, he gave America back its pride. That was no small thing.

We're all entitled to our favorite president. I say, here's to the Gipper.


I'm not gonna cry about some dumb TV depiction, tho. I could care less.



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I think reagen was a very good president...and now i'm a "repugnant". DAMMIT....i'm so ashamed...

Seriously, the movie was kinda asking for it, as mentioned earlier. You can't come out with an extreamly liberal movie about a figure that MOSTLY everyone loved, and not expect backlash. It happens, even with the hitler movie. However, there was no sympathy there like it was stated earlier. I still pictured Hitler as an evil despotic man.

[Edited on 4-11-2003 by mysteriousbob]



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Whether or not the scenes were backed up with facts or were complete fabrications, I don't think it was a good idea to air this show. Yes, I am not particularly fond of Reagan, but bashing him like that will only feed the fire burning in the minds of the Right, and weaken the credibility of the left.

Let's face facts here, the movie starred Barbara Striesand's husband. You simply do not get more liberal then that.

It would be like making a Clinton Mini-series and then casting Sean Hannity's dad as Bill and Ann Coulter as Hillary.

Most people are already aware of how despicable Reagan was (Breaking of unions including the dissolution of the airline workers union, declaring Ketchup a vegatable in kid's school lunches, trading missles for hostages with Iran, calling Russia an evil empire, ignoring the plight of our inner cities, ignoring aids, and having a very weak anti-drug campaign)

So why even bother repeating all of this stuff in a movie? This is almost as bad as the proposed idea for making a Clinton movie. Three hours of fat chicks in thongs. Real Nice.

[Edited on 4-11-2003 by Kai-Raega]



posted on Nov, 5 2003 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Most people are already aware of how despicable Reagan was (Breaking of unions including the dissolution of the airline workers union, declaring Ketchup a vegatable in kid's school lunches, trading missles for hostages with Iran, calling Russia an evil empire, ignoring the plight of our inner cities, ignoring aids, and having a very weak anti-drug campaign)
- Kai-Raega

Kai-Raega, I have no problem with the notion that you disliked Reagan. That's your right. But as with every president, he had to make some tough choices as in the breaking of the aircraft controllers' strike. It had to be done. An opinion should not be confused with fact - Reagan had nothing to do with trading missiles for hostages. (If anything, BUSH I was behind it.) The proof is out there if you do the research. And yes, he did call the former Soviet Union the evil empire. He stood his ground and had the courage of his convictions to speak the truth before the world. (Rare is the man these days.) The truth is there was no better man for the time.
As for these vague claims:

ignoring the plight of our inner cities, ignoring aids, and having a very weak anti-drug campaign)

Reagan came into office at a very economically depressed and stressed time. Industry was shifting away from the North, moving South. He can hardly be blamed for trends that began long before his administration took office.

Ignoring AIDS? If you remember - maybe you're too young to - AIDS was a new epidemic back then. Nobody knew anything about the disease well into his presidency. He did what he could once he became aware.

WEAK ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGNE? Please.. he was hard-core. Remember who started "Just say no to drugs?" NANCY REAGAN. Maybe you are too young to remember his presidency.. Although Richard Nixon began it, there really wasn't much of any anti-drug campaigning goin' on till Reagan took over. It was mainly because of the explosion of coke use in the '80's.

He made some decisions that made life more difficult for some, for sure. And I don't fault anyone for their likes or dislike of Reagan. I just don't like hearing falsehoods applied. That goes for any president, too.


[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Nov, 5 2003 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I think it's just because he was republican, thats why people are all over taking him down. They think they have an easy target now because the dems are freaking out and pointing the crooked finger of doom at any person they can!

Thats the only thing I can think of.



posted on Nov, 5 2003 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kai-Raega

It would be like making a Clinton Mini-series and then casting Sean Hannity's dad as Bill and Ann Coulter as Hillary.
[Edited on 4-11-2003 by Kai-Raega]


Yeah, but the difference is that they would have allowed that movie to show...



posted on Nov, 5 2003 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Ignoring AIDS? If you remember - maybe you're too young to -

...snip....

Maybe you are too young to remember his presidency..


ECK, you can quit the act. I think we all know what is up with you. I'm 27, and I act like I'm 27.

Although I do not know your age, you act, and type, and write, like a 15 year old. This isn't a flame, nor is it some sort of comeback to get the mighty "EastCoastKid", the brave and heroic Gulf War Veteran, off my back.

It's just a fact.

You may be well into your 30's son, but you simply do not have the mental acumen or maturity to talk and act like one.



posted on Nov, 5 2003 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx

Originally posted by Kai-Raega

It would be like making a Clinton Mini-series and then casting Sean Hannity's dad as Bill and Ann Coulter as Hillary.
[Edited on 4-11-2003 by Kai-Raega]


Yeah, but the difference is that they would have allowed that movie to show...


Bingo.

The first person who actually "Got it".

Congrats Flinx!



posted on Nov, 5 2003 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kai-Raega

Originally posted by Flinx

Originally posted by Kai-Raega

It would be like making a Clinton Mini-series and then casting Sean Hannity's dad as Bill and Ann Coulter as Hillary.
[Edited on 4-11-2003 by Kai-Raega]


Yeah, but the difference is that they would have allowed that movie to show...


Bingo.

The first person who actually "Got it".

Congrats Flinx!


What you saying? CBS is a definatly liberal network and would not allow a series that would deface the moral ground of such a good leader as Clinton



posted on Nov, 6 2003 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kai-Raega

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Ignoring AIDS? If you remember - maybe you're too young to -

...snip....

Maybe you are too young to remember his presidency..


ECK, you can quit the act. I think we all know what is up with you. I'm 27, and I act like I'm 27.

Although I do not know your age, you act, and type, and write, like a 15 year old. This isn't a flame, nor is it some sort of comeback to get the mighty "EastCoastKid", the brave and heroic Gulf War Veteran, off my back.

It's just a fact.

You may be well into your 30's son, but you simply do not have the mental acumen or maturity to talk and act like one.


You're funny, kiddo!

Thanks for the play!



posted on Nov, 6 2003 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Most people are already aware of how despicable Reagan was (Breaking of unions including the dissolution of the airline workers union, declaring Ketchup a vegatable in kid's school lunches, trading missles for hostages with Iran, calling Russia an evil empire, ignoring the plight of our inner cities, ignoring aids, and having a very weak anti-drug campaign)
- Kai-Raega

Kai-Raega, I have no problem with the notion that you disliked Reagan. That's your right. But as with every president, he had to make some tough choices as in the breaking of the aircraft controllers' strike. It had to be done. An opinion should not be confused with fact - Reagan had nothing to do with trading missiles for hostages. (If anything, BUSH I was behind it.) The proof is out there if you do the research. And yes, he did call the former Soviet Union the evil empire. He stood his ground and had the courage of his convictions to speak the truth before the world. (Rare is the man these days.) The truth is there was no better man for the time.
As for these vague claims:

ignoring the plight of our inner cities, ignoring aids, and having a very weak anti-drug campaign)

Reagan came into office at a very economically depressed and stressed time. Industry was shifting away from the North, moving South. He can hardly be blamed for trends that began long before his administration took office.

Ignoring AIDS? If you remember - maybe you're too young to - AIDS was a new epidemic back then. Nobody knew anything about the disease well into his presidency. He did what he could once he became aware.

WEAK ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGNE? Please.. he was hard-core. Remember who started "Just say no to drugs?" NANCY REAGAN. Maybe you are too young to remember his presidency.. Although Richard Nixon began it, there really wasn't much of any anti-drug campaigning goin' on till Reagan took over. It was mainly because of the explosion of coke use in the '80's.

He made some decisions that made life more difficult for some, for sure. And I don't fault anyone for their likes or dislike of Reagan. I just don't like hearing falsehoods applied. That goes for any president, too.


[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]


What's your answer to this NON-intelligent response? (Other than accusing me of something that is patently false.)



posted on Nov, 6 2003 @ 09:30 AM
link   
They have for some time now. That they follow their 'breed flaws' is no suprise - anytime they're in control of something where it would be better to stay low key, they ultimately implode under the sheer weight of their hubris & glee to be sticking it to the opposition ( opposition = anyone who's not them).
This is a resounding example. Or does anyone think that scheduled programming, other than live events, gets yanked on anything near a regular basis?

Reagan is the demi-god figure head to the Far Right - I'm sure most have a velvet painting recreating the Last Supper with Reagan at the right hand of Jesus.
So do you think that the rapist-misstress-marrying-father-of-our-current-slide-into-fascism is going to be hung out on the Network who brought you "Touched by an Angel"!?!?



posted on Nov, 6 2003 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
This is a resounding example. Or does anyone think that scheduled programming, other than live events, gets yanked on anything near a regular basis?



All the time! It burns me up. Anytime local programmers think something's too hot for the unwashed masses, they pre-empt it for some BU# athletic event or something equally meaningless like Inside Edition. It's infuriating.



posted on Nov, 6 2003 @ 10:16 AM
link   
This was yanked at the Network level...practially never happens.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join