"Death of a President"

"Death of a President" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 9:40:00 AM)
Scoured the net for the "outrage" Americans are supposed to be experiencing but could find none. Then again, it's in the section for TV & showbiz, so most likely the "outrage" is an advertising ploy. But also couldn't find any threat to ban the BBC channel on cable or pull its license. I didn't see any ex-President, known for redefining "is", calling for pulling the program. I'm sure many will install the link as a screen saver. Remember though... It's just a movie. Like the internet, it can't hurt you. Wonder how many people watching this will assume that President Bush was killed? quote: Watch the video of George Bush being assassinated By BAZ BAMIGBOYE in Toronto The £2 million movie, called Death of a President, has sparked controversy in America, with its British film-makers having to be guarded by private security men at this week's Toronto International Film Festival after threats were made on their lives. Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=404685&in_page_id=1773&in_a_source= President Bush Assassination Video If I didn't post the link for the video properly it's also contained in the story.

CrappyDom -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 9:43:56 AM)
Its fiction Merc...although it seems some have difficulty telling fiction from reality. Us wacky liberals know that if a movie shows something happening tomorrow or with space ships...it isn't real. Oh and just to add, it would really piss me off if some idiot wacked Bush as I can't wait to see him hung for treason against America and for the warcrimes he has committed against Iraq and others.

juliaoceania -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 9:44:36 AM)
Um, the amount of people that will believe something like this are the same ones that believe Elvis is still alive and soap operas are real The amount of people watching a docudrama that says it is based on the 9-11 commission report and mixes historical fact with fiction will be significantly higher. I do not think this movie is a good thing necessarily, but that does not mean that the comparison is a valid one in my eyes.

CrappyDom -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 9:51:12 AM)
Perhaps I misunderstood your worry Merc, are you afraid that Republicans are too dumb to realize Bush wasn't actually assinated and that they are going to go into a tizzy claiming that the Bush they see tomorrow is actually an alien impersonator? I wouldn't worry, they will be reprogramed by Fox News if that happens, in fact, they will be reprogrammed anyway...

KenDckey -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 9:58:28 AM)
I haven't seen the movie or the script so I won't comment on it but by all means lets show it. I like a good movie

KenDckey -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 10:00:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Perhaps I misunderstood your worry Merc, are you afraid that Republicans are too dumb to realize Bush wasn't actually assinated and that they are going to go into a tizzy claiming that the Bush they see tomorrow is actually an alien impersonator? I wouldn't worry, they will be reprogramed by Fox News if that happens, in fact, they will be reprogrammed anyway... Hey Crappy I don't watch Fox News. I don't watch ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or any of those either. I think the media is biased. Sometimes I think it is biased towards liberals and sometimes toward conservatives, but always I think they are biased toward making a buck

CrappyDom -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 10:02:56 AM)
Ken, The trick is to read a wide variety of sources, understand what their slant is, because as you said, everyone has one, and from that, form an opinion. I get my news from NPR, from the wire services, and from well researched and documented books, oh and The Daily Show, the only TV news worth watching.

SirKenin -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 10:03:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Its fiction Merc... No shit? Is that what the article said? quote: Perhaps I misunderstood your worry Merc, are you afraid that Republicans are too dumb to realize Bush wasn't actually assinated and that they are going to go into a tizzy claiming that the Bush they see tomorrow is actually an alien impersonator? I wouldn't worry, they will be reprogramed by Fox News if that happens, in fact, they will be reprogrammed anyway... What he is saying is clearly quite the opposite. If you were not being such an ass and so idiotically blinded by your own hatred of Republicans and your agenda you would have caught it the first time you read it. He is saying that the article is making insinuations of American outrage, when in fact there are none. Obviously to Americans it is viewed as just a film like any other. It is not worth getting upset over. You have just proven to get worse and worse and worse. Complete blather is all that erupts from your beak... You are cut off.

Mercnbeth -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 10:05:16 AM)
quote: The amount of people watching a docudrama that says it is based on the 9-11 commission report and mixes historical fact with fiction will be significantly higher. julia, The fact that you used "higher" and not zero is scary and I agree it's not zero. There are websites based on Elvis being alive. 9/11 being a US government plot was being taught as a class. People believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon not a jet. "Based on" isn't based. "Docu-drama" isn't a documentary. Both statements make the point that some people have a problem with the distinction of reality versus 'entertainment'. Worse are those who are entertained and take as fact the Micheal Moore disinformation 'documentary', carrying no "based upon" disclaimer; and outraged over the ABC program labeled as a docu-drama carrying a "based upon" disclaimer. Without consistency there is no credibility. Rationalization only impacts personal reality.

CrappyDom -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 10:10:29 AM)
Ken, Thanks Ken, you just made my life a bit more pleasant and reality based.

KenDckey -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 10:13:43 AM)
hey crappy to each his own as long as it is legal and doesn't inifringe upon the rights of others

juliaoceania -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 10:15:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin What he is saying is clearly quite the opposite. If you were not being such an ass and so idiotically blinded by your own hatred of Republicans and your agenda you would have caught it the first time you read it. He is saying that the article is making insinuations of American outrage, when in fact there are none. Obviously to Americans it is viewed as just a film like any other. It is not worth getting upset over. Actually I took Merc's post a different way than you based upon Merc's outrage at the fact that former Clinton staffers took exception with a recent "made for TV 9-11 'docudrama' " I took Merc's post to show that "republicans do not get outraged over TV movies of the week", even if it is airing in a different country and has no relation to showing fiction as fact... he can correct me if I am wrong.

KenDckey -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 10:19:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Ken, The trick is to read a wide variety of sources, understand what their slant is, because as you said, everyone has one, and from that, form an opinion. I get my news from NPR, from the wire services, and from well researched and documented books, oh and The Daily Show, the only TV news worth watching. I have seen the daily show a couple of times. It is fact based and humorously distorted in my opinion. Makes for good feelings no matter how bad the news is. When I was in the Army I was required to read the daily propoganda sheets of bias. I was even tested on them. like one question Whose birthdday is today (being the day I was asked)? the answer they were looking for was Snoopy. the military was so wierd that way. They wanted us to keep up with "current events" so they had us read all these periodicals as mandatory reading. And you had to sign your name or initials that you had done it. Wierd people some of those military people.

SirKenin -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 10:31:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin What he is saying is clearly quite the opposite. If you were not being such an ass and so idiotically blinded by your own hatred of Republicans and your agenda you would have caught it the first time you read it. He is saying that the article is making insinuations of American outrage, when in fact there are none. Obviously to Americans it is viewed as just a film like any other. It is not worth getting upset over. Actually I took Merc's post a different way than you based upon Merc's outrage at the fact that former Clinton staffers took exception with a recent "made for TV 9-11 'docudrama' " I took Merc's post to show that "republicans do not get outraged over TV movies of the week", even if it is airing in a different country and has no relation to showing fiction as fact... he can correct me if I am wrong. I took it that Merc was making reference to Crappy making a complete ass out of himself about a docu-drama that did not even profess to be factual. I could be wrong too of course... But those are the undertones I caught. Merc: That news article was thick with sensationalism. It looked like it was a bunch of propaganda to promote a movie. That is what I got out of it anyways. I would hardly even class it as newsworthy. In fact My wife and I were more interested in the article off to one side where Britney Spears gave birth to a new baby boy on Tuesday (and I can not stand that dummy). So yeah, a bunch of overblown hullabaloo to sell from the sounds of it.

Mercnbeth -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 10:52:43 AM)
quote: Actually I took Merc's post a different way than you based upon Merc's outrage at the fact that former Clinton staffers took exception with a recent "made for TV 9-11 'docudrama' " I took Merc's post to show that "republicans do not get outraged over TV movies of the week", even if it is airing in a different country and has no relation to showing fiction as fact... he can correct me if I am wrong. julia, No, it wasn't a Clinton-centric post. The point was consistent with the original post regarding the 9/11 ABC movie. There was outrage from many directions, not just from President Clinton's camp. He's just the poster child for the problem. The same would hold if President Bush the 1st called a press conference regarding this movie. There is no US outrage concerning this movie. The outrage regarding the ABC movie was created by people who didn't see it in its entirety and were/are paranoid about their legacy. I didn't see it, for reasons stated, but I've read reviews and commentary that said both sides, democratic and republican, took hits - As they should! If the movie showed President Clinton being assassinated, I'd take issue. If the President was Al Gore on 9/11 and President Bush was identified as a background cause for no action against bin Laden; I wouldn't take issue. The problem is that before providing an opinion or stating a position, some ask first how in affects the party they support. It the representation of a standing US President is wrong and bothers you, it shouldn't matter what political party he represented. If anyone is foolish to believe that any aspect of the US security or either political party got it "right" concerning the threat bin Laden posed in up until 2001; they'll get taken in by the smokescreen of political rhetoric that occurred regarding the ABC movie. There is some good to come from this. It appears that enough people are, like me, tired of politics coming before pragmatic action. According to a new poll, 46% of the voting public would vote for a third party candidate versus a candidate from either party. I think this great news! quote: New poll shows dramatic increases in anti-incumbent sentiment sweeping the nation. The corruption, mismanagement, and incompetence of our federal government and the nation have finally awakened the sleeping giant that was the silent masses, if these polls are credible. Fox News found similar results in their poll reported on Aug. 11. This link has cites polls by both CNN and Fox. The common denominator is that more and more people want to "vote the bums out" as one poll puts it. It's become evident to many that both parties are more concerned with politics than they are of the citizens they represent. We can only hope it carries forward to November of this year and builds to the 2008 Presidential election.

juliaoceania -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 11:10:36 AM)
When you say your movie represents a factual historically based event and it contradicts actual history, well I take issue with that... It is a trend of making "infotainment" that is downright scary to me. If you make up a fictional event then you have created a work of fiction and it is not based upon any factual event. If you do not see it that way I suppose we have to agree to disagree about this, but I plan on voting for a third party in every race in November, except for the govenor's race, and that is due to union influence.

Mercnbeth -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 11:22:37 AM)
"When you say your movie represents a factual historically based event and it contradicts actual history, well I take issue with that... It is a trend of making "infotainment" that is downright scary to me." Julia, As much as I hate clogging up a thread going back and forth with a one person. I think in this case it brings to the table and important point. I think our disagreement is a matter of semantics. "Representing factual history" - The WTC was subject to an attack and both towers fell - no argument right? No contradiction on history? How we got to that point? Nothing but politics which don't change or impact the factual history. The only people outraged at the lead up had their focus on politics not the fact that US citizens died as the result of an attack by Muslims. The fact that the focus was taken away from that fact was the issue that disturbed me. I'd have the same sentiment if the movie was produced by someone putting the entire blame on President Bush and he and his camp changed the focus them. Remember, it's difficult for me to speak, or point to specific scenes regarding specifics persons, I didn't see the movie.

juliaoceania -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 11:36:04 AM)
I know that Scholastic pulled research materials and the ABC logo off their site in relationship to this docudrama. Instead it told students to compare the movie to the actual 9-11 commission report with a link to download it. I also know that they changed the wording introducing the movie as "based on the 9-11 report" when scenes within the movie contradicted what the report actually said. They would have ran the movie as "based on the 9-11 report" but for the flack they received. If your words were misrepresented and words were put into your mouth that made it seem as though your actions aided the attacks of 9-11, I bet you would be galled to the depths of your soul Merc, Sandy Berger had a RIGHT to be outraged about the way his role in the Clinton whitehouse was depicted because it was a fabrication that the producers of this movie sold as fact based up historical documentation. You can be disgusted with their reaction to it, if it were me, I would not let it stand either. I would be screaming from the highest mountain top that the movie did not match the 9-11 report on points of substance. But that is just me and I could be wrong

Archer -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 11:57:09 AM)
Now I only saw the second night of it I skipped all the first night ( dinner out with family and freinds) where it depicted the story of the Clinton aspects and only saw the part where Bush's administration fouled everything up. Can I believe all of that stuff??? LOL

juliaoceania -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 12:05:25 PM)
Nope, you can't believe anything in that movie. I make no secret of not liking Bush or any of his policies, and I do not need invented scenarios to back that opinion

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125