CBS Mulls Canceling Reagan Mini Series
Quote:
CBS Mulls Canceling Reagan Mini-Series - Report
Mon Nov 3, 3:52 PM ET Add U.S. National - Reuters
By Steve Gorman
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - CBS is considering canceling or postponing its upcoming mini-series "The Reagans" under mounting Republican criticism that the production inaccurately depicts the former president and his wife, Daily Variety reported on Monday.
Also, the director of the four-hour TV movie, Robert Allan Ackerman, has quit the production over creative differences with CBS executives who have insisted on numerous last-minute alterations to the mini-series, the Hollywood trade paper said.
Depending on the nature of the final cuts, Ackerman may ask the Directors Guild of America to remove his name from the movie in protest, Variety said.
Neither producers for the two-part film, slated to air Nov. 16 and 18, nor Ackerman's representative, could immediately be reached for comment...
But CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves acknowledged on CNBC last week that "there are some edits being made trying to present a more fair picture of the Reagans."
"We've looked at the rough cut. There are things we like ... there are things we don't like ... there are things we think go too far," he told the cable news channel.
The only comment from the Reagans themselves has come from former first lady Nancy Reagan, who in a brief statement issued last week to the Fox News Channel said, "The timing of (the mini-series) is absolutely staggering to me. Obviously, it's very hurtful."
She apparently was referring to the fact that the 92-year-old former president is severely ill with Alzheimer's disease (news - web sites).
Variety, citing unnamed sources linked to the production, said Moonves will decide in the next few days whether to pull the mini-series from the network's November schedule altogether and possibly reschedule it for a later date once he is satisfied with the final edits...
However, if Moonves goes ahead with plans to air "The Reagans" on Nov. 16 as planned, the final product is likely to differ substantially from the film that Reagan supporters have criticized, with many controversial scenes heavily edited or cut from the production, Variety said.
The furor over the mini-series arose after the New York Times, which obtained a copy of the script, reported last month that the film portrays the former president and his wife, Nancy Reagan, in a largely unflattering light while omitting much of what political conservatives regard as his key achievements.
In one scene, the character of Reagan says of AIDS (news - web sites) patients, "They that live in sin shall die in sin." There is no evidence that Reagan actually ever said such a thing.
Adding insult to injury, as far as Republicans are concerned, the Gipper himself is played by James Brolin, husband of Democratic activist Barbra Streisand. Nancy Reagan is portrayed by Judy Davis. Both are self-described liberals, as are the film's two executive producers, Craig Zadan and Neil Meron.
On Friday, Republican National Committee (news - web sites) Chairman Ed Gillespie asked the network to allow a team of scholars to review the film in advance for historical accuracy. Otherwise, he said, CBS should inform viewers that the film is a fictional portrayal of the Reagans.
CBS Mulls Canceling Reagan Mini-Series - Report
Mon Nov 3, 3:52 PM ET Add U.S. National - Reuters
By Steve Gorman
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - CBS is considering canceling or postponing its upcoming mini-series "The Reagans" under mounting Republican criticism that the production inaccurately depicts the former president and his wife, Daily Variety reported on Monday.
Also, the director of the four-hour TV movie, Robert Allan Ackerman, has quit the production over creative differences with CBS executives who have insisted on numerous last-minute alterations to the mini-series, the Hollywood trade paper said.
Depending on the nature of the final cuts, Ackerman may ask the Directors Guild of America to remove his name from the movie in protest, Variety said.
Neither producers for the two-part film, slated to air Nov. 16 and 18, nor Ackerman's representative, could immediately be reached for comment...
But CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves acknowledged on CNBC last week that "there are some edits being made trying to present a more fair picture of the Reagans."
"We've looked at the rough cut. There are things we like ... there are things we don't like ... there are things we think go too far," he told the cable news channel.
The only comment from the Reagans themselves has come from former first lady Nancy Reagan, who in a brief statement issued last week to the Fox News Channel said, "The timing of (the mini-series) is absolutely staggering to me. Obviously, it's very hurtful."
She apparently was referring to the fact that the 92-year-old former president is severely ill with Alzheimer's disease (news - web sites).
Variety, citing unnamed sources linked to the production, said Moonves will decide in the next few days whether to pull the mini-series from the network's November schedule altogether and possibly reschedule it for a later date once he is satisfied with the final edits...
However, if Moonves goes ahead with plans to air "The Reagans" on Nov. 16 as planned, the final product is likely to differ substantially from the film that Reagan supporters have criticized, with many controversial scenes heavily edited or cut from the production, Variety said.
The furor over the mini-series arose after the New York Times, which obtained a copy of the script, reported last month that the film portrays the former president and his wife, Nancy Reagan, in a largely unflattering light while omitting much of what political conservatives regard as his key achievements.
In one scene, the character of Reagan says of AIDS (news - web sites) patients, "They that live in sin shall die in sin." There is no evidence that Reagan actually ever said such a thing.
Adding insult to injury, as far as Republicans are concerned, the Gipper himself is played by James Brolin, husband of Democratic activist Barbra Streisand. Nancy Reagan is portrayed by Judy Davis. Both are self-described liberals, as are the film's two executive producers, Craig Zadan and Neil Meron.
On Friday, Republican National Committee (news - web sites) Chairman Ed Gillespie asked the network to allow a team of scholars to review the film in advance for historical accuracy. Otherwise, he said, CBS should inform viewers that the film is a fictional portrayal of the Reagans.
Comments
Since I haven't seen it, I have no idea if the thing is complete tripe, biased, maudlin, lame or whatever. From my experience with TV miniseries, it's probably all of those things.
(Of course, not having seen it doesn't seem to be much of a problem since, from what I can tell, none of the critics have actually seen it either.)
I mean, imagine the temerity of CBS in running a miniseries which departs from a hagiographic portrayal of the former president!
The only good I can see coming of this is that it puts the lie to all the conservative mumbo-jumbo about 'wingers being for free speech or their being an embattled group oppressed by the liberal media. A little mau-mauing and the plug is pulled.
A TV network produces a miniseries about a former president and the current national chairman of the president's party demands that it be reviewed for historical accuracy by a board of 'scholars.'
The fact that it's put together by people who aren't themselves conservatives (and/or party loyalists) is itself, it seems, another outrage.
Wake me up when we're back in America.
Wake me up indeed!
John Dingell on Historical Revisionism
by DHinMI
Sat Nov 1st, 2003 at 18:27:20 UTC
John Dingell knows a bit about our nation's political history. _He was six years old when his father, John Dingell Sr., was elected to Congress from Detroit. _The elder Dingell was one of FDR's strongest Congressional supporters, and a sponsor of the Social Security Act. _The younger Dingell first worked in Congress in the late 1930's--as a page--where he witnessed the backlash against the later initiatives of the New Deal and the opposition to FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court. Dingell later served in the army, worked as a park ranger, and was an assistant county prosecutor when, after the death of his father in 1955, he was first elected to Congress. _
Dingell was mentored by Sam Rayburn and others veterans of the legislative process, and he began working his way up the ranks. _He held the gavel when the House passed Medicare. In 1964, after redistricting put him into a seat held by the only Northern Democrat to oppose the Civil Rights Act, he won a decisive victory based on his support of labor and civil rights. He eventually sponsored many of the legislative pillars of our environmental laws--the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, The National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. _Under his chairmanship, 40% of all bills went through his Energy and Commerce committee, inlcuding the break-up of AT&T. _Dingell's position was "if it's sold, moves or burns, it's mine." _
Dingell particularly relishes investigations, where his sharp mind and pugnacity strike fear in lazy bureaucrats and unscrupulous contractors. _It was Dingell's committee that discovered that Stanford University charged the federal government for the wedding of the daughter of the University's president, and it was Dingell who found out the Pentagon had paid $640 for a toilet seat.
In every Congressional session for fifty years he's introduced for a single-payer national health care program similar to Canada's. _He's personally known our last twelve presidents. If he remains in Congress until 2009--and he's expressed no intention to retire--he will become history's longest-serving member of Congress. _Only Ted Kennedy can come close to matching the continued legislative influence that Dingell has exerted over the last half-century. _And based on this letter, it's safe to conclude that there isn't much that he forgets:
Mr. Leslie Moonves
President and CEO
CBS Television
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Dear Mr. Moonves:
I write to you with regard to your upcoming mini-series "The Reagans." I share the concerns expressed by others that it may not present an accurate depiction of the Reagan administration and America during the 1980s. I trust that CBS will not be a party to a distorted presentation of American history, and that the mini-series will present a fair and balanced portrayal of the Reagans, the 1980s and their legacy.
As someone who served with President Reagan, and in the interest of historical accuracy, please allow me to share with you some of my recollections of the Reagan years that I hope will make it into the final cut of the mini-series: $640 Pentagon toilets seats; ketchup as a vegetable; union busting; firing striking air traffic controllers; Iran-Contra; selling arms to terrorist nations; trading arms for hostages; retreating from terrorists in Beirut; lying to Congress; financing an illegal war in Nicaragua; visiting Bitburg cemetery; a cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein; shredding documents; Ed Meese; Fawn Hall; Oliver North; James Watt; apartheid apologia; the savings and loan scandal; voodoo economics; record budget deficits; double digit unemployment; farm bankruptcies; trade deficits; astrologers in the White House; Star Wars; and influence peddling.
I hope you find these facts useful in accurately depicting President Reagan's time in office.
With every good wish,
Sincerely yours,
John D. Dingell
Member of Congress
Of course the wingnuts don't want that part of his life told do they....
America, the joke continues....
VIACOM CHAIR SUMNER REDSTONE EXPRESSED GRAVE CONCERN FOR NETWORK BROADCAST...
WILL AIR ON SHOWTIME UNCUT [WITH AIDS QUOTE ONLY DELETION]...
CBS will issue press release in morning; Robert Greenblatt, head of SHOWTIME will announce that SHOWTIME will air the telepic. Bob Ackerman the Director has said he will re-edit some portions of the film for SHOWTIME. CBS to write-off $9 million...
Absolutely pathetic. So the "liberal media" caved without much of a fight. Heck, ANY fight! Pathetic.
And why are they writing off $9M if the show is simply being transferred to Viacom's other arm, Showtime?
As a filmmaker I am outraged. My political beliefs should never be a determining factor of whether or not my film is any good REGARDLESS of the subject matter. Every film should be seen in CONTEXT first. There are countless unflattering tomes of Reagan's life sitting on bookstore shelves. Why are made-for-tv movies held to a higher standard? I'll tell you why, because them dumb uneducated folk who don't read will WATCH this teleplay. That's why.
This smells a lot like Hurst versus the studios over the Citizen Kane controversy.
Just cause the media shows your "guy" saying or doing something wrong does not means its "liberal"...
Some media leans left.
Some media leans right (or far right in the case of faux)
And most media are a bunch of lazy stenographers cribbing off each other sheets, doing a little as they can to bring home the almighty dollar.
CBS is a bunch of cowards..
The joke on america continues.
This is not my beautiful house.
Originally posted by Northgate
Joshua Marshall over at Talking Points Memo summed it up perfectly:
Wake me up indeed!
By all accounts, including that of CBS, the series contained significant inaccuracies. The press and pundits, who have quoted the script and/or the trailer, have sufficiently demonstrated the callow fictions in the ?story?. No one outside of the series producer(s) has defended the dialog as remotely accurate, nor are the more sensationalist personal aspects buttressed by historians.
The liberal cry over ?free speech? is really an expression of the fear of all Americans freedom to see what they like, and purchase from whom they choose. Reagan supporters are free to express their opinion and to refrain from seeing the film, as well as purchase their goods and services from someone who does NOT pay CBS for this ?film?. Moreover, it?s a bit disingenuous to suggest they ought to wait and protest until AFTER the film is aired and advertisers have paid CBS.
As a postscript, you also might note the utter tackiness, if not cruelty, in producing a demeaning work about a former President at a time he is helpless and dying, and his family is care-giving for his terminal illness. One shouldn?t have to remind ?liberals? of the emotional impact of Alzheimer?s, nor the respect usually accorded living ex-Presidents.
All tv movies have inaccuracies.
Doesn't mean it's a smear job.
Since when does the RNC get to review tv shows and judge them before they're aired?
Let it air and they can cry "BOYCOTT CBS"
Of course many republicans think Reagan was the Greatest President of the 20th century... so I can see why they wouldn't want an even handed or partially realistic look at him.
This is the anit-abortion president who when he was an actor had his girlfriend have an abortion.
The Iran-Contra president.
The Beirut president.
The Big Deficit "star wars" military spending president.
The Saddam Funding president.
The reverse doesn't seem to be true, does it?
Conservatives are up in arms about being sensitive to Reagan while he is suffering from Alzheimer's, but where was the blatant censorship when several unauthorized biographies were written about him - all unflattering? Where is Dr. Laura's compassion for all the dying AIDS victim's while she systematically demonizes them? Where was Rush's compassion for all the drug addicts suffering from rehabilitation, or worse, death when he repeatedly railed against addicts on his show? Whether Reagan is dead or alive he will never be able to defend himself. So, does this mean a tv movie, flattering or not, should never be produced? How does his death make it more...compassionate.
Back in 1998 many Democrats were outraged that the president's personal sex life was out of bounds. Republicans shot back that Clinton was the president and that he is held to a much higher standard of public scrutiny. Really? But, Reagan is off-limits somehow? Interesting. How did Reagan go from someone who had great moments and not so great moments to REAGAN - THE GREATEST LIVING PRESIDENT OF THE 20TH CENTURY!
I've read additional rhetoric from Republicans that none of Reagan's major accomplishments are featured in the script. Come on! Reagan's accomplishments have been repeated in documentary after documentary, book after book, talk show after talk show. Yawn! We all know about the fall of the Berlin wall in excruciating detail. I want to know about the man, not the president. (side note: this is why the film "Ali" sucked...it only rehashed what we already knew.)
Look, I have NEVER seen a dramatization of a famous person's life with certain liberties being taken for dramatic effect. It's part and parcel of the beast. If we are no longer tolerant of creative artistic interpretation, then we might as well discontinue producing these types of films. Films like "Troy", "Alexander the Great", "The Elizabeth Smart Story", "The Jessica Lynch Story" should all be stopped, scrutinized for historical accuracy, and then ultimately shown a Showtime or HBO because the public simply can't handle it.
I think [this] will be a future story and a defeat on leftist politics disguised as art, because when you start talking about a beloved American president -- and if they went and did a Clinton story, there would be just as much outrage, but I think we're safe to say Les Moonves is not ordering the Clinton saga in any version at this hour.
A defeat on leftist politics disguised as art? Here we go. The right-wing attack on anything Hollywood produces that even remotely smells of liberalism has just kicked into high gear. And it will not stop until Hollywood, like traditional news agencies today, are shaking in their boots deathly afraid of the "L" word. If today "The West Wing" were only in development I guarantee the brass over at NBC would be having high-level discussions about whether or not to produce the show. My bet is they'd their balls would rise up and they'd cancel development of the show. Guaranteed.
"...and if they went and did a Clinton story..." What could they possibly do to Clinton that hasn't already been done by conservatives or the new media? Would there be liberal outrage? Probably. Would that campaign have been successful? Never in a million years.
My liberal friends, are we going to let the neo-cons decide what is and what is not art? Are we going to allow our creative arts to homogenize into bland, uber-politcal correctness? Are we no longer willing to challenge, promote thought, criticize? Are we going to allow our rights as American citizens to take two huge steps backwards to Puritanism? Are we?
Originally posted by Northgate
I remember when conservatives were demanding the markets should determine whether or not Dr. Laura should retain her television show. I also remember conservatives lambasting liberals for insisting that her uber-conservative rhetoric against homosexuals be considered by the network before deciding to air her show. Well, Dr. Laura got to keep her show, the markets decided, and her show was cancelled.
The reverse doesn't seem to be true, does it?
...Whether Reagan is dead or alive he will never be able to defend himself. So, does this mean a tv movie, flattering or not, should never be produced? How does his death make it more...compassionate.
Back in 1998 many Democrats were outraged that the president's personal sex life was out of bounds. Republicans shot back that Clinton was the president and that he is held to a much higher standard of public scrutiny. Really? But, Reagan is off-limits somehow?
Look, I have NEVER seen a dramatization of a famous person's life with certain liberties being taken for dramatic effect. It's part and parcel of the beast. If we are no longer tolerant of creative artistic interpretation, then we might as well discontinue producing these types of films. Films like "Troy", "Alexander the Great", "The Elizabeth Smart Story", "The Jessica Lynch Story" should all be stopped, scrutinized for historical accuracy, and then ultimately shown a Showtime or HBO because the public simply can't handle it.
If Dr. Laura were broadcasting a network TV movie demeaning a senile and ill President Carter and his wife, not only would liberals be right in boycotting it, but every compassionate American would be utterly correct in joining them.
But Dr. Laura isn?t the subject, is she? Nor are the differences between an opportunity to boycott her on-going TV show without scripted evidence, versus the disingenuousness of demanding the same chance for this ?film? after one-time commercial contracts are sold and the movie aired.
The issues, you neatly avoid, are: do people have a right to protest and boycott (they do); are there demeaning and gross inaccuracies in the film - all reports and quotes, including CBS?s, seem to indicate so; and is it morally appropriate to air such a film about a living ex-President, regardless of accuracy, for one who is helpless and whose family are compromised by care giving ? it is not.
All too often, liberals find excuses to overturn civil and traditional understandings on appropriate conduct, and introduce a new era of baseness. I can?t think of any film of a living ex-President, including Nixon that was aired in his lifetime, nor under these circumstances. To imply that because he is helpless and is going to die anyway, that its OK to kick him while he?s in this condition is not just an empty rationalization ? its just plain sadistic.
Well, if it had aired, I suppose we could have all looked forward to a nasty ?Jimmy and Rosalind ? the Real Story? on Fox, when he reached the appropriate stage of senility.
Think about it.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Well, if it had aired, I suppose we could have all looked forward to a nasty ?Jimmy and Rosalind ? the Real Story? on Fox, when he reached the appropriate stage of senility.
Think about it. [/B]
Don't worry. They've probably already got the script finished.
The New Era of Baseness has it's channel... FOX NEWS.
This show is going to air on the most whitebread... offend no one network... CBS. I highly doubt the show will be controversial AT ALL.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Don't worry. They've probably already got the script finished.
They do, I've managed to get a draft of a press release, here it is:
PRESS RELEASE, FOX Entertainment ? 2006 New Film
?Jimmy and Rosalind ? the Untold Story? ? a must see!
The untold story of a President and his First Lady, his rise to power in Georgia?s hillbilly politics, his alcoholic brother, his trailer trash relatives, and the real power behind the throne ? Rosalind. You will experience the true story, of Americas born-again Christian President, his battles with ?lust in his heart?, and his vision as the moral patriarch of the republic. You will also see the true story of ?Billy-Bob? and his beer, and his estrangement from his successful and powerful brother.
Who was really behind the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Were there really Soviet troops in Cuba? How did he discover the ?malaise? and why didn?t Americans respond to his call for help? Did the President desert our military men and women in the deserts of Iran? Did Jimmy Carter really consider Captain Quegg as his mentor? And who took ate the strawberry ice cream in the White House?
These and many other questions will be answered in Fox?s new blockbuster film ?Jimmy and Rosalind ? the Untold Story?.
(Film release subject to decline in Mr. Carter's IQ and may vary from published dates).
Originally posted by MaxParrish
They do, I've managed to get a draft of a press release, here it is:
PRESS RELEASE, FOX Entertainment ? 2006 New Film
?Jimmy and Rosalind ? the Untold Story? ? a must see!...(Film release subject to decline in Mr. Carter's IQ and may vary from published dates).
Hmm. The press release that I received from them didn't have that disclaimer at the end.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
...versus the disingenuousness of demanding the same chance for this ?film? after one-time commercial contracts are sold and the movie aired.
So you do believe in censorship before the fact? Apparently you do. Preventing a film to be seen or to be judged on its own merits is far worse a crime than being insensitive to the Reagan's. Additionally, who cares about the contracts sold? That's the network's business and has nothing to do with this argument.
...and is it morally appropriate to air such a film about a living ex-President, regardless of accuracy, for one who is helpless and whose family are compromised by care giving ? it is not.
Speaking of disingenuousness, your statement assumes conservatives would be hunky dory with this film if Reagan were already gone. I think not. It is the direct agenda of the RNC to insure that Reagan is enshrined as the epitome of presidential lore. Everything that gets in the way will be destroyed. This film is one of its victims, whether it be now or five years from now.
I can?t think of any film of a living ex-President, including Nixon that was aired in his lifetime, nor under these circumstances.
So what?
To imply that because he is helpless and is going to die anyway, that its OK to kick him while he?s in this condition is not just an empty rationalization ? its just plain sadistic.
I don't agree. No one's kicking anyone. The minute Reagan entered the public arena, especially the presidential one, he forfeited the right not to get kicked, or to be examined, and re-examined, in great detail. So please, remember that when your party starts kicking the next Democratic nominee and hides under the "full disclosure" act.
Reagan was the President of the United States and his role as such demands that we examine the man, the role he played in office, and more importantly, why he ruled the way he did. Dead or alive. Sick or not. His presidential legacy is alive and kicking and it should be subjected to artistic interpretation. If that makes me cold and callous, so be it.
Well, if it had aired, I suppose we could have all looked forward to a nasty ?Jimmy and Rosalind ? the Real Story? on Fox, when he reached the appropriate stage of senility.
If Jimmy Carter were going down in history as one of the greatest presidents of all time, like Reagan is (just or unjustly), then I welcome a candid motion picture about his life. But, to use your logic, we're not talking about Jimmy Carter, are we?
Originally posted by MaxParrish
They do, I've managed to get a draft of a press release, here it is:
PRESS RELEASE, FOX Entertainment ? 2006 New Film
?Jimmy and Rosalind ? the Untold Story? ? a must see!
The untold story of a President and his First Lady, his rise to power in Georgia?s hillbilly politics, his alcoholic brother, his trailer trash relatives, and the real power behind the throne ? Rosalind. You will experience the true story, of Americas born-again Christian President, his battles with ?lust in his heart?, and his vision as the moral patriarch of the republic. You will also see the true story of ?Billy-Bob? and his beer, and his estrangement from his successful and powerful brother.
Who was really behind the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Were there really Soviet troops in Cuba? How did he discover the ?malaise? and why didn?t Americans respond to his call for help? Did the President desert our military men and women in the deserts of Iran? Did Jimmy Carter really consider Captain Quegg as his mentor? And who took ate the strawberry ice cream in the White House?
These and many other questions will be answered in Fox?s new blockbuster film ?Jimmy and Rosalind ? the Untold Story?.
(Film release subject to decline in Mr. Carter's IQ and may vary from published dates).
I can't wait to see this film.
In the end, however, I just want to be entertained.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
All too often, liberals find excuses to overturn civil and traditional understandings on appropriate conduct, and introduce a new era of baseness.
(Picks up jaw off of floor) You guys are hilarious! Keep the boffo yucks coming, Bizarro World just keeps getting better!