The The Path To 9/11 blog is worth a look. Pretty entertaining. Some serious spin going on. They are moderating comments so if you post one it won't appear right away. If ever.
Posted by snark at September 8, 2006 01:19 PM“Incoming Democratic chairmen on key House committees will rethink their positions on Disney-friendly legislation…”
Matt Stoller (and anyone who thinks this is good) should think long and hard about what they want their government to be.
For any politician to use this kind of threat against a film maker is unconscionable. If the statement above was changed to “Incoming Republican chairman” and we were talking about a democrat-friendly film, it would take a profession crew to peel you off of the ceiling.
The vast majority of right-wing blogs have called for any mistakes in the film to be corrected. This would never happen if the situation was reversed.
Do you really want legislators dictating the content of films?
I think ABC will can it---they'll do it at the end of the West Coast business day or early tomorrow. They'll say that it will be presented after they've had a chance to make appropriate edits. That will save face and the timing won't allow a counter-attack by the Right.
It will go straight to DVD or get braodcast during a low period like early summer next year. Someone from the greenlighting process will get fired.
Posted by Rich at September 8, 2006 01:23 PMIf the statement above was changed to “Incoming Republican chairman” and we were talking about a democrat-friendly film, it would take a profession crew to peel you off of the ceiling.
See what a decade of Republican rule has done to all of us.
Posted by snark at September 8, 2006 01:25 PMThe issue is not "dictating the content for films."
The issue is that the liars who made this particular film claim it was based entirely on fact, the commission report, when in fact it was not.
It also lies and distorts history right before an election. Anyone can put whatever content they wish, but they cannot lie about something so critical and then claim it to be true.
Posted by paradox at September 8, 2006 01:27 PM"These are people of integrity," The Post quoted (Gov. Tom) Kean as saying of the filmmakers. "I know there are some scenes where words are put in characters' mouths. But the whole thing is true to the spirit of 9/11."
True to the spirit of 9/11?
WTF does that mean?
They made some shit up but hey it's still true to "the spirit of 9/11".
Why is it so hard for people to understand that this is not about trying to hide the truth? No one's asking for factual representations of things that occured during the Clinton administration to be removed. The objections that are being raised are that they claim they're giving a truthful depiction in one breath and then admit that they made shit up in the next.
Posted by snark at September 8, 2006 01:48 PMWe haven't discussed yet whether the Disney Euro or Asia folks are going to jump on board. It wouldn't take much for the natural distaste of Bush in Europe to migrate into a universal boycott of Disney Europe. Oh what a tangled web we weave.
Posted by mainsailset at September 8, 2006 01:55 PM...to migrate into a universal boycott of Disney Europe.
I know the three people planning on visiting EuroDisney next week. I'll talk to them.
Posted by snark at September 8, 2006 02:02 PMUh, wasn't the "spirit of 9-11" something like "kill, kill, kill, as many Americans as you can?"
Posted by iamcoyote at September 8, 2006 02:11 PMUh, wasn't the "spirit of 9-11" something like "kill, kill, kill, as many Americans as you can?"
Hummm?
So I guess "defame, defame, defame as many Americans as you can" could be considered true to that spirit. My apologies to Gov. Kean.
Posted by snark at September 8, 2006 02:14 PMOT - Why is Selena (or J-Lo) singing in the left-upper image? MyDD gone Hollywood?
Posted by Stompy at September 8, 2006 02:19 PMAnswer me this batmen, why would our President schedule a speech right in the middle of an aledged pro-admin piece on ABC? Take 16 to 18 minutes away from this aledged fluff piece, according to y'all, for an official rememberence of the day? Take away the continuity?
Posted by peter at September 8, 2006 02:31 PMSlightly OT: Last night in commencing my boycott of all things ABC, I turned to the CBS Evening News and watched Katie *gag* Couric. Toward the end was a new segment she's calling Free Speech, and her first commentator was none other than RUSH LIMBAUGH spouting his usual BS. Um, Katie..? Hullo? Were you just trying to light up the switchboard or something?
So now there's only NBC Evening News left to watch (I've discontinued my cable subscription three years ago) and, frankly, I think Brian Williams sucks warm buttermilk as far as his journalistic talent goes. Ah, me. (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at September 8, 2006 02:38 PMCause he's stoooopid.
Posted by snark at September 8, 2006 02:41 PMYesterday the Rightists enthused that the left had "no power" and should just accept with due humiliation the screwing "conservatives" were about to deliver.
Today, objecters on the left are dangerous dictators of content and the Right is now supposedly "calling for accuracy". Seems like sort of a new tune to me.
They just HAD to exclusively pre-release it to Rush and the Right Wing shit troughs!
Hubris.
Posted by euzoius at September 8, 2006 02:44 PMThe Spirit of 9-11™ is trademarked intellectual property of the RNC, and may only be used in RNC-approved situations, such as ribbon magnets, justifying military adventurism, and agitprop movies.
As such, The Left Coaster is asked to curb its use of the phrase, lest it be confused with the actual historical events that occured on September 11, 2001.
sincerely,
The rich people who can stand the sight of bush without puking have TIVO.
Posted by TIKI AL at September 8, 2006 02:48 PMeuzoius,
The point of the comment yesterday was to point out the futility of censorship.
There are hundreds of original copies in the hands of people like Rush, so do you think that the scenes that are altered will get more or less attention now?
Whoever planned this was brilliant if the goal was to focus everyone on the weakness of democrats in matters of national security just prior to an election. No amount of money could begin to bring the discussions prompted by the democrat pushback on this film.
Now the frantic editing and rewriting resulting from the "democratic pushback" is part of a "brilliant plan" to "focus everyone on the weakness of democrats" in national security matters".
Of course. Everything ALWAYS works exactly according to Republican/conservative "plans"). It's going just the way "whoever" envisioned it.
And are the "vast majority" of right wing blogs who have called for the "correction of any mistakes" part of the democratic pushback, too?
Posted by euzoius at September 8, 2006 03:15 PMAnswer me this batmen, why would our President schedule a speech right in the middle of an aledged pro-admin piece on ABC? Take 16 to 18 minutes away from this aledged fluff piece, according to y'all, for an official rememberence of the day? Take away the continuity?
LOL. Of course not. The point is to insinuate the image of GWB in the midst of the movie - to put him back when he was popular with Americans. Just one more pathetic image to remind the voters how much they liked GWB right after 9/11 - they're desperate for a bump in the polls before the election.
Posted by ann at September 8, 2006 03:21 PMChertoff has just made the case on Tweety that Sadaam was tied to terrorism because the terrorist that pushed poor old Leon Klinghoeffer and his wheelchair off the deck of the cruise ship was found living in Iraq.
If that doesn't justify an invasion, what would?
I swear, I'm not making this up.
Posted by TIKI AL at September 8, 2006 03:33 PMThe point of the comment yesterday was to point out the futility of censorship.
This isn't about censorship, it's about not producing a TV show about an historical event and fictionalizing the facts surrounding the event. Good Lord, look how our schools are failing and how kids today can't compete against their peers in other countries. We owe it to the public to present the truth when presenting an account of history. That's the part that bothers me the most, rewriting history for political gain.
This is about protest, not censorship.
Do you consider CBS pulling the Reagan miniseries censorship? Were you disturbed that they were censoring that story as well? Somehow I doubt it.
Posted by ann at September 8, 2006 03:36 PMThe director of this right wing propaganda has ties to an evangelical group that wants to change Hollywood by stacking it with young Christians.
Why not? The same strategy worked for them in destroying the American journalist profession.
I realize that this isn't widespread knowledge -- yet. But research the backgrounds of the Nedra Picklers and other young "journalists" -- focus on those promoted at an unusually fast rate. It's there -- all of it.
Their next target will be Universities, in which hiring practices will be hijacked to favor wingnuts.
Posted by msiz at September 8, 2006 03:41 PMMoveOn now has a petition as well. That makes 5.
Stop Big Media asking to sign their petition as well. This is an ongoing petition and is not to stop the movie, necessarily, but as a reaction to the movie.
Posted by Anjha at September 8, 2006 03:44 PMSteve Jobs is Disney's biggest shareholder. Apple users trend liberal. There must be some leverage there somewhere.
Posted by dj moonbat at September 8, 2006 03:53 PM"Answer me this batmen, why would our President schedule a speech right in the middle of an aledged pro-admin piece on ABC? Take 16 to 18 minutes away from this aledged fluff piece, according to y'all, for an official rememberence of the day? Take away the continuity?"
Well, you see the proper timing here would be after all the Clinton demonizing but before the movie starts to say anything about Bush. That way any unseemly scenes regarding his highness will be interrupted by his highness' glorious self. I suspect that 16-18 minutes is about enough to pre-empt any mention of Bush at all.
3 hours of
Liberals, Airlines, Clinton fucking up
15 minutes of Dubya (pre-empted for a stirring non-political speech by the President)
45 minutes or so of reliving the horrible devastation of 9/11
Movie ends.
The balance of the time will be Keane and other Republicans praising the films courage, grit, pluck, etc.
Posted by j swift at September 8, 2006 04:12 PMWest, You are a proven liar! Why do you bother posting?
Posted by goose1 at September 8, 2006 04:47 PMApple users trend liberal. There must be some leverage there somewhere.
Americablog's on it, dj.
swift, that was great!
Posted by iamcoyote at September 8, 2006 05:11 PMStrange.
When I linked to the Path to 9/11 blog earlier the piece at the top was an endorsement by Chris Salvaterra of Participant Productions, the company that produced An Inconvenient Truth. Now it's gone. Huh? I had added a comment that didn't get posted. Mr. Salvaterra had commented that the path that led to the events of 9/11 was past and could not be changed. To which I commented 'But it is being changed, by the admission of the people making this film. They are using ficticious events that never occured. Why?
Posted by snark at September 8, 2006 06:27 PMjwest pontficated,
Do you really want legislators dictating the content of films?
Hmmm... Do you really want filmakers dictating the content of legislation?
And BTW, Pat Buchanan unequivocally said ABC should pull it.
Posted by buck turgidson at September 8, 2006 06:41 PMI thought docu-dramas changed the names of people. You know, here we have the real George Bush locked in My Pet Goat for 7 minutes...frozen...incompetent...worthless...ridiculous. So you have a docudrama and dramatize some stuff...you know...fiction.
Announcer Guy: The strong forceful president, Chimpy McFuckhead, who was a war hero...supports the Constitution...never deserted anything...all of his businesses were a success, but when he took a financial hit owned up to it...and his Tex-ass accent is real...took control of the situation with a firmly set jaw and squint in his eyes.
Don't you have to change the name of the person if it's this much fiction? I think you do. Otherwise, you have to show the Mad King, idiot son of George, taking it in the ass from Jeff Guckert, right?
Posted by phidipides at September 8, 2006 06:53 PMHey guys, How about not buying any Disney movies or souvenirs or even not going to their parks, for my part, I won't be buying their lousy movies.
Posted by chompiz at September 8, 2006 08:08 PM"Why is it so hard for people to understand that this is not about trying to hide the truth? No one's asking for factual representations of things that occured during the Clinton administration to be removed. The objections that are being raised are that they claim they're giving a truthful depiction in one breath and then admit that they made shit up in the next."
Snark, we know that, but most of America now thinks that the Democrats just don't want the truth to be known (implicating them in being a key factor in 9/11). Rove succeeds, as does the far right and ABC.
Posted by Judith at September 8, 2006 08:41 PM