View Single Post
Old 09-08-2006, 05:44 AM   #11
scaeagles
I LIKE!
 
scaeagles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,819
scaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of cool
Curious - would it have been good if Michael Moore had given into pressure and modified Fahrenheit 911 because of pressure from the Republicans? Or if the new movie (a British film, if I recall) that depicts the assassination of Bush were yanked because of pressure from government sources?

If ABC is rattled by pressure from their viewers, that's great. If ABC is rattled because of pressure from Nancy Pelosi, that's not great.

I understand you are saying that because you want this modified or pulled. Again, no problem with that. I just can't help but think that the reaction would be different if it were pressure coming from officials in the government on the other side of the political spectrum regarding a movie or some such thing that you did not find to be dishonest or that fit in with what you believed.

I am saying this over and over again because I don't want to be misunderstood. I think the consumer raising their voices about what they don't like is wonderful. I do it all the time.

A quote from NY Times critic Alessandra Stanley:
"Dramatic license was certainly taken, but blame is spread pretty evenly across the board. It's not the inaccuracies of 'The Path to 9/11' that make ABC's miniseries so upsetting. It's the situation on the ground in Afghanistan now."
scaeagles is offline   Submit to Quotes Reply With Quote