CBS pulls Reagan miniseries

[zimv20]

link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/04/cbs.reagans.ap/index.html)


NEW YORK (AP) -- Following a storm of protest and threatened advertiser boycott, the CBS television network announced Tuesday it was pulling "The Reagans" miniseries off the air.

The network said it was licensing the completed film to Showtime, a pay cable network that, like CBS, is owned by Viacom.

CBS insisted it was not bowing to pressure about portions of the script, but that the decision was made after seeing the finished film.

"Although the miniseries features impressive production values and acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience," the network said in a statement.

(more)


pussies. i don't for a second believe a grass-roots conservative movement got it yanked. more likely the efforts of the GOP party itself.

i'm seeing a pattern in how anything critical -- or even potentially critical -- of republicans can be "dealt with."

[SPG]

Somebody remind me...
What country is this?

[Taft]

Does everybody see the liberal media in action???

A major network pandering to conservative groups who dislike a portrayal of a conservative president. Sounds really liberal to me. :rolleyes:

Taft

[Ensoniq]

There is no more evidence that CBS pulling the mini-series was done due to efforts by the GOP directly than there is that Bush "intentionally lied" to the American people.

CBS pulled the mini-series because none of the "sources" they used for their film actually worked directly for Reagan, and they knew that if they put out a piece of fluff that made fun of and/or villified Ron and Nancy while the poor man is dying of Alzheimer's that it would be sponsorship suicide.

The decision was made for business reasons, not political...although the public backlash from Americans of all political affiliations was already rising. It was not a Republican issue, except to those the farthest left politically who see no reason why not to attack a man practically on his deathbed.

[Taft]

Originally posted by Ensoniq
There is no more evidence that CBS pulling the mini-series was done due to efforts by the GOP directly than there is that Bush "intentionally lied" to the American people.

CBS pulled the mini-series because none of the "sources" they used for their film actually worked directly for Reagan, and they knew that if they put out a piece of fluff that made fun of and/or villified Ron and Nancy while the poor man is dying of Alzheimer's that it would be sponsorship suicide.

The decision was made for business reasons, not political...although the public backlash from Americans of all political affiliations was already rising. It was not a Republican issue, except to those the farthest left politically who see no reason why not to attack a man practically on his deathbed.

And why is this wrong?

If analysis of Reagan's legacy opened up questions as to his character, effectiveness, and legality of his presidency, should they just shut up until he is dead? Conservatives are painting this as an attempt to demonize a man who can't defend himself; a poor soul near the end of his life battling a horrible desease.

Sure, Reagan has alzheimers, but that doesn't make him untouchable. What would you say if this movie was released in 5 years, after he was already dead? I'm sure you would have absolutely no problems with the movie, right? :rolleyes:

And just because you say this wasn't a political issue, doesn't make it so. As far as I can tell, only right wing organizations, media outlets, and persons were fighting this movie and speaking out against it. Show me the rising number of lefties and moderates who were speaking out against this.

You are simply trying to demonize the left by taking some sort of high moral ground here. This is a partisan issue. Go read any AP news release about the movie. Notice how the GOP and the RNC are listed as the top critics of the movie? Notice how they appealed to sponsors and righ-wingers to go against the movie? How can you possibly call that non-partisan?

Taft

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Ensoniq
while the poor man is dying of Alzheimer's that it would be sponsorship suicide...except to those the farthest left politically who see no reason why not to attack a man practically on his deathbed.

What does it matter whether he's dead or alive -- or alive and unable to defend himself?

It's a story about what he did in his life. Should we not make critical movies or bad comments about Hitler because he's dead?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
What does it matter whether he's dead or alive -- or alive and unable to defend himself?

It's a story about what he did in his life. Should we not make critical movies or bad comments about Hitler because he's dead?

Not unless Hitler can defend himself. Then it's fair.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by mactastic
Not unless Hitler can defend himself. Then it's fair.

Then he's just a good ol' fella until further notice I guess.

[mactastic]

In fact, no documentaries should be allowed unless the subject is there to defend themselves. That oughta cover it.

CBS botched the movie big time, but this whole defending yourself thing is ridiculous.

[Ensoniq]

The issue isn't whether or not Reagan can defend himself...I never said that, though other's did. The issue is whether or not CBS can defend themselves.

Apparently they cannot...apparently despite their claims of all their "facts" being checked, they caved into pressure from the "right-wing media" because no legitimately credible sources close to Reagan verify the accuracy of the questionable scenes. Of course the AP is reporting the biggest complaints came from right-wing sources. That is to be expected. That doesn't mean ONLY Republicans found the mini-series questionable.

The mini-series was based on the "Dutch" book which in itself was semi-fictitious and already debunked by legitimate historians as being inaccurate. To then make the mini-series even more into "historical fiction" instead of biographically accurate makes you wonder what the intent of the creators really was.

The straw that broke the camel's back on this one was a line in the movie which basically claimed Reagan said that AIDS victims deserved to die, to which CBS now admits there is no historically proven basis. It was a line written as a work of fiction for the mini-series, based on some people's OPINIONS on how Reagan may have felt.

Is that fair? Maybe, if the piece is billed completely as historical fiction, much like the movie "Primary Colors" was all about Bill & Hillary without claiming it was really about Bill & Hillary. But if CBS was going to air a movie that showed Bill Clinton saying "Yeah, I molested Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones, but they asked for it", you don't think the far-left would be whining just as much as the right? Of course they would. And without evidence of the quote being a fact, but with the intent of the film to present it as fact, then I'd be just as outraged at the producers as I am now.

I do NOT consider creating a campy semi-historical piece about a dying president to be a smart move for a major network...freedom of speech or not. There is an issue of common decency. Apparently, CBS now agrees. Whether or not it was political pressure that persuaded them doesn't change the fact that it's still the right decision.

[mactastic]

Ulitmately it was economic pressure that changed the TV execs minds. The loss of money is very bad!

[Sayhey]

For many, many years there has been a cottage industry of people who make their living portraying JFK in the most unflattering of lights. This towards a President who was assassinated in office. Now, some of it is good and the unrealistic mush about "Camelot" needed to be put in perspective. However, do you think any of the folks yelling about respect for a dying President would say word one to stop all the nonsense that has been put out there about JFK? As has already been pointed out, this is all about whose ox is being gored.

[jonapete2001]

I think they are pulling the mini series because they made aligations about regan and his family that were just true. They were called on their blatant lie and decided not to make a**ses out of themselves.

WHen people want to make a movie about real people they better have reliable sources or they are toast.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001

WHen people want to make a movie about real people they better have reliable sources or they are toast.

?????

that's not true at all. unless it's a documentary (which this mini-series is not), you can expect anywhere from some fiction to rampant exaggeration in a film. it's a work of fiction.

that's why there's writers.

heck, even a documentary still tells the story the filmmaker wants to tell.

CBS isn't inventing a new thing here. haven't you ever watched a movie before?

[jonapete2001]

Yeah but it is a movie that is about a living president. It is supposed to be accurate. ANyone can tell a story and slant it one way or another. It is when they make stuff up with no reliable source. If in a documentary the host falsely claimed something that was obviosly untrue they would be discredited. That is what was going to happen here. CBS writers made stuff up and got caught.

If it would have been acurate they would not have pulled it.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Yeah but it is a movie that is about a living president. It is supposed to be accurate.

there aren't suddenly a new set of rules about filmmaking because it's about a president, living or dead. c.f. what sayhey said about jfk, Primary Colors, Dick, et. al.

please re-read my previous post. if you can't accept what i've said, then you'll forever be disappointed by the entertainment industry.

they disappoint me, too, but for other reasons.

[jonapete2001]

Yes their different rules when publicly owned airwaves are used to broadcast garbage. CBS did not kill the series, they moved it to their afilliate showtime. If people want to pay the showtime premium rate to see garbage then most people have no problem, it is when the network wants to broadcast on public air waves. All the movies you listed were holywood movies, not made for public broadcast.

Oh yeah Primary colors was a fictional story, The main character was jack stanton not clinton.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
...

Oh yeah Primary colors was a fictional story, The main character was jack stanton not clinton.

So if the miniseries changed the name of the main character to Bill Johnson you'd have nothing to complain about? ;)

[Frohickey]

I dunno.

I would have liked to have CBS air that mini-series as planned.

Would have been nice to see what the reaction would have been, positive or negative. Now, only Showtime would know.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Yes their different rules when publicly owned airwaves are used to broadcast garbage.

please enlighten me as to these rules. the FCC website doesn't mention it.

also consider: it was Reagan himself, in 1987, who vetoed the Fairness Doctrine, when Congress tried to make it law after FCC commissioners (appointed by Reagan) repealed it. held up by the Supreme Court in 1969, it secured the airwaves as a public trust.

in 1986, the DC Court of Appeals upheld an FCC ruling that made TV text immune to the Fairness Doctrine. please note the prevailing judges were Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia.

are we enjoying the irony yet?

[SPG]

Reagan DID make disparaging comments about victims of AIDS, just not the exact one created for the mini series. It's what's called an amalgam, blending many seperate true incidents into one fictionalized scene to tell the story. Worse yet Reagan failed to act in any real way to help slow the spread of AIDS when he had the opportunity to do so.
What really bugs me about this whole thing is how the GOP/RNC/Conservative Media reframes the issue to something irrelevant so that nobody would debate the real issue. It's not about EXACTLY what Reagan may have said. It's not about poor Ronnie's alzheimers.
It is about fighting any attempt to tarnish the image of the conservatives hero, former president Ronald Reagan. Maybe it is time to take an honest look at what reagan did as president. How about we start with the Iran Contra thing?

[SPG]

As much as I hate to reply to my own posts...
In "Dutch," Reagan's authorized biography, the author, Edmund Morris, writes that Reagan once said of AIDS, "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague," because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments.
and to quote Rep Dingell:
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.

[Code101]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Should we not make critical movies or bad comments about Hitler because he's dead?

So you are comparing Reagan with Hitler? If your not, that's sure what it sounds like. That's sad!

As much as I dislike the road Clinton put us on, I would disagree with a film put out about him that is full of half truths.

The cast in this movie would be like having Dennis Miller and Ann Coulter play the Clintons in a movie about Bill Clinton when he is on his death bed. Would this be right? No! I don't think much of him but he was still one of the presidents of the United States and should be respected as such.

President Reagan was a good man and a wonderful President. All it's about is a little respect, that's all.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Code101
So you are comparing Reagan with Hitler? If your not, that's sure what it sounds like. That's sad!
...
President Reagan was a good man and a wonderful President. All it's about is a little respect, that's all.

a. Don't be naiive. Nobody was comparing Reagan and Hitler in this thread. It was a comment showing the idiocy of making people who aren't able to defend themselves immune from criticism. BTW, I have a headache right now so I am now immune from any response to this post that may not agree with me.

b. Your opinion of Reagan is welcomed, so why is the possibility that another opinion be aired by a private company so quick to draw an outcry? If this same mini series ignored the morally questionable things that happened while Reagan was president would it be okay to air?

We all need to remember that we are supposed to be living in a free and open society that welcomes the open exchange of ideas and opinions.

[jonapete2001]

this whole deal about regan comes down to one thing. He was a right wing preisident who is considered one of the nations greatest presidents. This movie is just an attempt to smears him before he dies. They dont want the man to be remembered for the great things he did, they want him to be remembered for the "bad" things he was "involved" in. It is a smear campaign, nothing more.

If they wanted to make a movie that was respectfull yet still showing both sides of the man (the good and the bad) they very well could have. Them pulling the movie just proves that they wre trying to deal Regan a low blow, if the movie was legit they would have defended it and kept it on CBS.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
this whole deal about regan comes down to one thing. He was a right wing preisident who is considered one of the nations greatest presidents. This movie is just an attempt to smears him before he dies. They dont want the man to be remembered for the great things he did, they want him to be remembered for the "bad" things he was "involved" in. It is a smear campaign, nothing more.

If they wanted to make a movie that was respectfull yet still showing both sides of the man (the good and the bad) they very well could have. Them pulling the movie just proves that they wre trying to deal Regan a low blow, if the movie was legit they would have defended it and kept it on CBS.

dude, you haven't even seen it.

[jonapete2001]

Have you.

I have seen many people on tv talking about it. It is obvious, why else would they pull it.


Q. Why would CBS pull something they worked on if it was not a inacurate and a piece of crap?

A. Not because of pressure, they knew they made a mistake and they did not want to pay for it. They pulled it in an attempt to save face.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Have you.


ha! show me where i commented on the content. and have you found the rules about "publically owned airwaves" yet?

be careful not to trip as you rapidly retreat to a more defensible position.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by zimv20
ha! show me where i commented on the content. and have you found the rules about "publically owned airwaves" yet?

be careful not to trip as you rapidly retreat to a more defensible position.

I did not mean literal rules. I am not retreating to a defensible position. The rules i spoke of were not literal fcc rules, they were common rules of decency that most of the public shares. If you couldnt pick that up then i think it is pointless to carry on talking to you.

Anybody who could defend the blatant defamation of a man that is lying on his death bed does not respect common curtousy.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Have you.

I have seen many people on tv talking about it. It is obvious, why else would they pull it.


Q. Why would CBS pull something they worked on if it was not a inacurate and a piece of crap?

A. Not because of pressure, they knew they made a mistake and they did not want to pay for it. They pulled it in an attempt to save face.

No they pulled it because of the potential monetary losses they would be facing from the right wing talking-heads and their fans.

There's no way they would be in any legal trouble over this.

And where was your outrage when a "documentary" portraying Martha Stewart in an unflattering light was made? Didn't hear you squealing then. Could it be because you didn't mind that particular movie, but you object to this one? Hmmm...

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by mactastic
No they pulled it because of the potential monetary losses they would be facing from the right wing talking-heads and their fans.

There's no way they would be in any legal trouble over this.

And where was your outrage when a "documentary" portraying Martha Stewart in an unflattering light was made? Didn't hear you squealing then. Could it be because you didn't mind that particular movie, but you object to this one? Hmmm...

I dont even think i was a member of this forum when the martha stewert movie was made. I hope that answers your question.

And to compare Martha Stewert to Reagan. HA!! no comparison. Maftha is a horible b*tch who bakes cakles and broke some stock law. Reagan, a president who helped bring down the ussr and turn around the economy.

So your attempt at calling me a hypocrite failed. Oh and i never suggested they would have legal trouble.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
I dont even think i was a member of this forum when the martha stewert movie was made. I hope that answers your question.

And to compare Martha Stewert to Reagan. HA!! no comparison. Maftha is a horible b*tch who bakes cakles and broke some stock law. Reagan, a president who helped bring down the ussr and turn around the economy.

So your attempt at calling me a hypocrite failed. Oh and i never suggested they would have legal trouble.

Hehe, actually that does answer my question, since you wern't willing to condemn the MS movie on the same grounds that you condemn the Reagan movie that does make you a hypocrite!

And for God's sake, stop assuming everyone who makes a parallel is directly comparing Hitler and Martha to your beloved Reagan. That's just a straight up logical fallacy, and a cheap attempt to duck the real issue.

Now, what if I happen to think Reagan was a lying criminal who didn't care one whit about the poor or those with mental illness, or those with AIDS?

And wait, are you saying a little stock market manipulation is worse than selling weapons to groups banned by law and then funneling the money to your little private central american army? I think you are.

Talk about blinded by idealism.

[jonapete2001]

HA. you make me laugh

I dont even remember the martha stewert movie. did they have reliable sources to back up what was said. If they did than i will not condem the movie. If they did not, then they should not have made it. Also i thought it was public knowlege that she was mean and controlling and a criminal.

In the CBS Reagan movie, they portray Reagan as actually believing he is the antichrist. THey say that he hates gays and that AIDs is gods rath on the gay comunity.
THey had no source for that. NONE. I have watched all the talk shows with people fighting back and forth over this. Not one source for the script was brought out. (I wonder why)?

It is a matter ethics. Does one make up stuff about a well like president to fufill an ideological goal. Not if they are decent.

If in the future the make a movie about the Clinton white house(THey will) they should have reliable sources, They can make all the criminal acusations about Bill Clinton they want, if they are made up the network will be torn apart just like CBS.

I am not blinded. It is all about having well documented sources. Sources are what make something legit, CBS tried to pull a fast one and lost.

[mactastic]

Glad I can bring you some enjoyment.:D

So did you not read, or just not understand the part about an amalgam of his views into one statement that sums up his beliefs? If only people would apply these same standards to ALL historical movies. In case you haven't noticed, many of them contain historically innaccurate statements.

And I'm guessing by your lack of a reply that you do find stock market manipulation to be a higher crime than selling weapons to a foreign (terrorist supporting nation) against the law, and funding a private army with a record of human rights abuses with the proceeds, then having your people lie to Congress about it. I wonder where blowjobs rank on your list....

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
I am not retreating to a defensible position.

yes, that is clear

[Taft]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
In the CBS Reagan movie, they portray Reagan as actually believing he is the antichrist. THey say that he hates gays and that AIDs is gods rath on the gay comunity.
THey had no source for that. NONE. I have watched all the talk shows with people fighting back and forth over this. Not one source for the script was brought out. (I wonder why)?

That really isn't true.

They based the series on the authorized biography of Reagan (thats right, authorized by Reagan himself) called "Dutch." There were fictional elements to that book, but the content was all footnoted and carefully detailed. Also, the book isn't widely discredited as a previous poster indicated (though there was a lot of mixed reviews due to the abnormal style of writing for a biography).

While CBS might not have directly consulted officials in the Reagan administration, they certainly had much material to work with. Also, would you really trust ex-Reagan administration officials to give you the full truth about what happened during his presidency? I mean they were all so forthcoming with information about the Iran-Contra scandal, right? :rolleyes:

Fact is, the full truth about the Reagan administration may never come out. Reagan is unable to talk about it anymore (and was unwilling to when he could), Nancy won't talk, and most of his administration's officials won't talk either. As a result, there is eventually going to be a war over how Reagan is remembered in history. For better or worse, that will be determined largely by his public decisions and the little scraps of information we have regarding his involvement in various acts.

You obviously have a very deep respect for Reagan. Many people do not, myself included. The reason you are against this miniseries has nothing to do with its factual content. It has everything to do with the light in which Reagan is portrayed. You (and the GOP and RNC) are simply trying to paint a rosey picture of the man you adore. Unfortunately, not everyone shares your view.

This side of Reagan will eventually be aired, no matter how hard the right fights it. I look forward to that day.

Taft

[Taft]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
I dont even remember the martha stewert movie. did they have reliable sources to back up what was said. If they did than i will not condem the movie. If they did not, then they should not have made it. Also i thought it was public knowlege that she was mean and controlling and a criminal.

Right, just like its "public knowledge" that Reagan callously ignored the AIDS crisis. :rolleyes:

I could lookup all of the network miniseries aired over the last decade and I'm sure all of them would be littered with fictional dialog and inaccuracies. And it an undeniable fact that one of those series met with the level of criticism that this miniseries met. Why? Because people love Ronald Reagan and have a vested interested in promoting his name (namely, it furthers their political cause). Nobody cared when a network villanized Martha Stewart. Why? Because people don't respect and adore her (or at least not that many people).

Reagan has a legion of die hard supporters (read: republicans), some of whom occupy powerful positions. When Reagan is trashed, it equates to their ideology being trashed and those people raise a stink.

And that is what is different about the Reagan and Stewart mini-series: people actually have a stake in how Reagan is remembered. It has nothing to do with the series' factual content, it has everything to do with protecting an ideology.

Taft

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Taft

I could lookup all of the network miniseries aired over the last decade and I'm sure all of them would be littered with fictional dialog and inaccuracies.

wouldn't do any good. he's already demonstrated a complete disconnect between what networks air and what he claims the american public will and won't stand for.

[jonapete2001]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Taft
True is has to with protecting a huge figure in the right wing comunity. end quote

The same is also true when it comes to why they wrote the script with fictional material. The left in hollywood did not have enough bad things on Reagan so they had to make them up.

It is true that Reagan somewhat ignored the AIDS problem, but did he ever say that AIDS was gay people's punishment and they deserved to have it. not that anyone can ever remember. The writer of the script admits that she made it up.

"The miniseries is a compelling and historical account of Mr. and Mrs. Reagan's remarkable relationship set against the backdrop of the former president's political career," CBS representatives wrote in a statement. "The film has been meticulously researched and offers a respectful and balanced portrayal of the Reagans."

Can't be historical if it is not true.

"The Leader from the West will be revealed as the anti-Christ, and then God will strike him down," , "That's me. I am the anti-Christ."Brolin says portraying Reagan. This scene was admitted to being entirely made up. What message does this send, that Reagan was a right wing bad president that was involved in illegal activity. No(that might be tolerable) It is saying that the man was completely insane. Give me a break. This is nothing more than a smear campaign.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by zimv20
wouldn't do any good. he's already demonstrated a complete disconnect between what networks air and what he claims the american public will and won't stand for.

they obviously did not stand for this one. who has the complete disconect?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
they obviously did not stand for this one.

please define 'they'

[Taft]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
they obviously did not stand for this one. who has the complete disconect?

I hardly think the GOP and RNC amounts to the American public as a whole. Do you really think middle America picked up their phones and/or pens and vocally were against this mini-series being aired? Give me a break.

Taft

[jonapete2001]

You mentioned what the american public would or would not stand for. "They", is the majority of american public. and dont tell me that you are the american public(nor is the mac comunity) From my experience the mac comunity, which i assume we both belong to, have a left wing tilt for some reason or another. but the trend in politics these days makes me believe that most of the american public is leaning right of center. so i think i already answered what was going to be blast at me. You were gonna tell me about how the american public included you as well an not just the right wing neo-cons who won this "round". I define they. the american public, as the majority of americans.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by Taft
I hardly think the GOP and RNC amounts to the American public as a whole. Do you really think middle America picked up their phones and/or pens and vocally were against this mini-series being aired? Give me a break.

Taft

This may be my point. Middle america does not care. they will believe anything. If they see on cbs reagan claiming he thought he was the anti-christ. they will think that was true.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
"They", is the majority of american public.

i'm skeptical. please point me to a poll that supports what you're saying.

[Taft]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Originally posted by Taft
True is has to with protecting a huge figure in the right wing comunity. end quote

First off, let me say that this is my favorite part of your post. Not only did you completely make up a quote (supposedly written by me), but you also use bad grammar and spelling. Nice.

It is true that Reagan somewhat ignored the AIDS problem, but did he ever say that AIDS was gay people's punishment and they deserved to have it. not that anyone can ever remember. The writer of the script admits that she made it up.

Can I get a link on this one? Just as you paraphrased me earlier in an inaccurate way, that is my guess at what the writer did for this mini-series. From other sources, one could form the opinion that Reagan was callous (even uncaring) towards those with AIDS. I believe this line reflects that callousness.

It is, after all, historical fiction.


"The Leader from the West will be revealed as the anti-Christ, and then God will strike him down," , "That's me. I am the anti-Christ."Brolin says portraying Reagan.

Is this the actual quote from the script? If so, what was the context of this dialog?

To me, this dialog reads as though Reagan was responding sarcastically to something someone else said about him.

Like this:


Presidential Aide: The leader of Iran released a statement today, sir. He said, "The Leader from the West will be revealed as the anti-Christ, and then God will strike him down."

Reagan: That's me. I am the anti-Christ. (rolls eyes)

I can't imagine the script was written to deliver that line as if Reagan actually believed he was the anti-Christ. That makes no sense whatsoever.


This scene was admitted to being entirely made up. What message does this send, that Reagan was a right wing bad president that was involved in illegal activity. No(that might be tolerable) It is saying that the man was completely insane. Give me a break. This is nothing more than a smear campaign.

I think you are reading way more into this than there actually is.

Oh, and you never responded to the information I gave you regarding Reagan's biography and relevant information contained therein. I also anxiously await proof that the writer of this mini-series had no factual basis for writing the fictional AIDS line in the series.

Taft

[jonapete2001]

the quote was wrongfully attibuted to you. Is was an editing mistake. I had quoted you but then deleted it and in my rush my words got mixed in their. I am sorry for that.

My grammer skills are better but i type fast and i dont care about what people on forums think of the grammer, this is not english class. I do not proof read for grammer errors.

quote from script

They that live in sin shall die in sin," says Brolin in his role as Reagan in the movie.
In fact, the movie's playwright Elizabeth Egloff unashamedly concedes that she made that up for the movie.

The Leader from the West will be revealed as the anti-Christ, and then God will strike him down," Brolin says portraying Reagan, according to the Drudge Report. "That's me. I am the anti-Christ." This was a qoute from the script and it is out of James Broland's own mouth. He says this not in a sarcastic way. It is not out of context.

The biography info. what about it. Yes it is true that part of this movie is based off his bio, but what part. It is also based off a book about nancy reagan. At least what they said on msnbc of cnn or one of those last night.

[MacPapi]

All I can say is BFD! We have more important things to worry about in this country! Get over Reagan, get over Clinton, get over Martha Stewart! They were JUST PEOPLE, not Gods or Heroes.