OT: "Path to 9/11"versus"The Reagans"

===Examples of Bipartisan Hypocrisy===

From "Variety":

....Criticism of "The Path to 9/11" carries strong echoes of the barbs hurled
at CBS over "The Reagans." Reagan partisans railed against scenes showing
Nancy Reagan consulting an astrologist and Reagan condemning AIDS victims.

Conservative drumbeat against "The Reagans" started months before the mini
was slated to air and intensified after a copy of the script was leaked. Eye
ultimately decided to sell the project to sister company Showtime -- a move
that, *ironically*, prompted howls of protest from liberal groups who
accused CBS of censorship.

Cliff Kincaid, editor of publications for conservative watchdog group
Accuracy in Media, said the Democratic outcry is a bit of a surprise.

"Usually Democrats can count on the support of big media in Hollywood," he
said. "It's like things are upside down now."



===I say to the Libs, just let the miniseries air, after all, lefty,
Oscar-winning film director Paul Haggis is producing the official Richard
Clarke approved mini-series of events leading up to and after 9/11.

....Curtin/Dobbs

Curtin/Dobbs

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:25:43 -0700, "Curtin/Dobbs"
<curtin-> wrote:

>===Examples of Bipartisan Hypocrisy===
>
>From "Variety":
>
>...Criticism of "The Path to 9/11" carries strong echoes of the barbs hurled
>at CBS over "The Reagans." Reagan partisans railed against scenes showing
>Nancy Reagan consulting an astrologist and Reagan condemning AIDS victims.
>
>Conservative drumbeat against "The Reagans" started months before the mini
>was slated to air and intensified after a copy of the script was leaked. Eye
>ultimately decided to sell the project to sister company Showtime -- a move
>that, *ironically*, prompted howls of protest from liberal groups who
>accused CBS of censorship.
>

For what it's worth, though, the producers of The Reagans never
claimed their film was "100% based on fact," did they? Seems the
people behind the 9/11 film are insistent that everything in their
film comes directly from the 9/11 Commission Report, and I think
that's what's really got them in trouble - if they'd claimed "creative
license" from the start, it might not be quite as easy to dispute the
details.

-lugnut

lugnut

You wrote:

> Seems the
> people behind the 9/11 film are insistent that everything in their
> film comes directly from the 9/11 Commission Report

Wrong. The first frame of the ABC show explicitly states that it is a
dramatization, not a documentary.

Face it, 9/11 was the result of ****ups from both sides of the aisle, from
Bush 43, from Clinton, from Bush 41 (using Saudi soil to stage Desert
Storm) and from a string of Presidents back to Truman giving blind support
(and hundreds of billions of dollars) to Israel.

Alotta Fagina

Alotta Fagina <> wrote:

> You wrote:
>
> > Seems the
> > people behind the 9/11 film are insistent that everything in their
> > film comes directly from the 9/11 Commission Report
>
> Wrong. The first frame of the ABC show explicitly states that it is a
> dramatization, not a documentary.

I think you mispelled whitewash.

>
> Face it, 9/11 was the result of ****ups from both sides of the aisle, from
> Bush 43, from Clinton, from Bush 41 (using Saudi soil to stage Desert
> Storm) and from a string of Presidents back to Truman giving blind support
> (and hundreds of billions of dollars) to Israel.

Frank Malczewski

> ===I say to the Libs, just let the miniseries air, after all, lefty,
> Oscar-winning film director Paul Haggis is producing the official Richard
> Clarke approved mini-series of events leading up to and after 9/11.
>
> ...Curtin/Dobbs

Yeah. I liked the take of this well-known commie on the whole uproar:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...o dhoretz.htm

Kingo Gondo

Kingo Gondo wrote:
> Yeah. I liked the take of this well-known commie on the whole uproar:
>
> http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...o dhoretz.htm

Oh yeah, John Normansson.

tomcervo

You wrote:

> Alotta Fagina <> wrote:
>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> > Seems the
>> > people behind the 9/11 film are insistent that everything in their
>> > film comes directly from the 9/11 Commission Report
>>
>> Wrong. The first frame of the ABC show explicitly states that it is a
>> dramatization, not a documentary.
>
> I think you mispelled whitewash.

Says someone who can't spell "misspelled". Nice.

>> Face it, 9/11 was the result of ****ups from both sides of the aisle,
>> from Bush 43, from Clinton, from Bush 41 (using Saudi soil to stage
>> Desert Storm) and from a string of Presidents back to Truman giving
>> blind support (and hundreds of billions of dollars) to Israel.

Alotta Fagina

X-No-archive: yes

"lugnut" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> For what it's worth, though, the producers of The Reagans never
> claimed their film was "100% based on fact," did they? Seems the
> people behind the 9/11 film are insistent that everything in their
> film comes directly from the 9/11 Commission Report, and I think
> that's what's really got them in trouble - if they'd claimed "creative
> license" from the start, it might not be quite as easy to dispute the
> details.
>
=========================================
I am sure that you complained about Michale Moore's film too............
(probably not)

Richard C.

lugnut wrote:
Seems the
> people behind the 9/11 film are insistent that everything in their
> film comes directly from the 9/11 Commission Report, and I think
> that's what's really got them in trouble - if they'd claimed "creative
> license" from the start, it might not be quite as easy to dispute the
> details.


They could have made their own movie, based on their own story, like
"Syriana", but that demands a level of creativity that no one behind
the camera on this project has ever displayed. So they do with "based
on a true story", the hack's favorite crutch.

tomcervo

lugnut wrote:
Seems the
> people behind the 9/11 film are insistent that everything in their
> film comes directly from the 9/11 Commission Report, and I think
> that's what's really got them in trouble - if they'd claimed "creative
> license" from the start, it might not be quite as easy to dispute the
> details.


They could have made their own movie, based on their own story, like
"Syriana", but that demands a level of creativity that no one behind
the camera on this project has ever displayed. So they go with "based
on a true story", the hack's favorite crutch.

tomcervo