Controversy over ABC

[Patek23]

Tons of controversy as many companies are pulling ABC's broadcastings of "Saving Private Ryan".


First Link
Second Link (Need to Subscrie)

For the second link go to www.bugmenot.com to get a login for the baltimore sun article.


Also a pretty heated argument going on on CNBC news about the issue between Brent Bozell the President of Parents Television or something rather I couldnt catch the rest of it and Paul Levinson for Fordham University

[Agamemnon]

On the one hand, Saving Private Ryan is a pretty great movie. It (imo) is a great representation of what war must really be like. The effects are outstanding, probably one of the greatest visual and emotional experiences (in movies) in the 1990's.

On the other hand, many people have accused these types of films of glorifying and perpetuating a 'willingness' to go to war. As horrible and awful as it appears in SPR, there is a 'manly' quality about doing one's duty, dying for comrades, sacrificing for your country, etc.

There was an interesting documentary on Passionate Eye I believe the other night on movies that did and movies that did not receive support from the military. Obviously movies like Platoon, Born on the 4th of July, Thin Red Line did not receive any support from the US military. Top Gun, SPR, Pearl Harbour did. You can see a pattern where one genre is supported by the state (military), and the other, which tends to paint a more 'real' (or less glorified) picture of an individual in combat garner no state support.

Obvious stuff, but interesting. I'd suggest that many people, especially parents, could see this kind of stuff as glorifying war.

Though maybe I'm putting too much faith in the average parent. They probably have a problem w/ the swears

[Cowperson]

I don't think Saving Private Ryan glorifies war.

It scares the crap out of you. Or demoralizes you like Platoon did.

The issue isn't ABC or its affiliates. The issue is the FCC not granting an advance waiver. Put it square on the shoulders of the FCC.

Cowperson

[Hot_Sauce]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Nov 11 2004, 04:16 PM
On the one hand, Saving Private Ryan is a pretty great movie. It (imo) is a great representation of what war must really be like. The effects are outstanding, probably one of the greatest visual and emotional experiences (in movies) in the 1990's.

On the other hand, many people have accused these types of films of glorifying and perpetuating a 'willingness' to go to war. As horrible and awful as it appears in SPR, there is a 'manly' quality about doing one's duty, dying for comrades, sacrificing for your country, etc.

There was an interesting documentary on Passionate Eye I believe the other night on movies that did and movies that did not receive support from the military. Obviously movies like Platoon, Born on the 4th of July, Thin Red Line did not receive any support from the US military. Top Gun, SPR, Pearl Harbour did. You can see a pattern where one genre is supported by the state (military), and the other, which tends to paint a more 'real' (or less glorified) picture of an individual in combat garner no state support.

Obvious stuff, but interesting. I'd suggest that many people, especially parents, could see this kind of stuff as glorifying war.

Though maybe I'm putting too much faith in the average parent. They probably have a problem w/ the swears

Thank God we have Steven Spielburg to educate us all on the horros of war ......I learned of WWII at my grandfathers knee with his copy of Time Life's massive WWII illustrated book. I absorbed the pictures and maps while listening to his stories and memories. Funny how I don't recall him dropping the F-Bomb in any of his stories. Sure the foul language was present but the presence of it in the movies is not completely required......my kids look now at the very same book but sadly I don't recall enough stories to make the lesson the same. I'd have them watch Saving Private Ryan if it wasn't for the language.

[MarchHare]

I'd have them watch Saving Private Ryan if it wasn't for the language.

If your kids are mature enough to see the violence and gore in Saving Private Ryan, I'm sure they can handle the language. Besides, you're not so niave as to think they don't hear far, far worse on the schoolyard, right?

[habernac]

A scary time with the FCC in the US. And to think, all of this started with the flash of someone's boob. Sensorship is starting to go overboard.

[RougeUnderoos]

I just watched the movie for about the 50th time and come on now, they are worried about swearing? You really have to pay attention to even notice the swearing and you also must have a water-tight rectum and a seriously flawed sense of "indecency" to worry about the language in that flick.

With all the blood, guts, brains, intestines, puke, fear, bullets through the eye, severed limbs, dead bodies, torture, horror, sadness, madness and death in the movie it's pretty silly to worry about the odd "f-word" that can be heard, in my opinion.

It's all quite confusing to me. After the whole team watches the medic (Giovanni Ribisi) die, would the movie be more acceptable if Hank's character said "we are here to follow flipping* orders"?

Re: the Janet Jackson thing -- in the interests of science I have watched the offensive Super Bowl clip many times and I've come to the conclusion that a portion of one of her breasts is exposed for less than one second. To derive any sort of tittilation (or scandal) out of this, you'll have to have a good pause feature and an even better "zoom" feature on whatever it is you are watching it on.

Riddle me this, Americanos -- were people that you wouldn't call "busybodies" actually offended this?


* as opposed to the "other" f-word

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Don't like it, don't watch it. Simple as that. I am so sick of people whining nowadays 'I don't like it so you shouldn't be allowed to watch it!' It's like some of these agencies such as the FCC and CRTC feel they have to run a babysitting service for the whole country because of a few people that are too stupid to change the channel when something they don't like is on...

[sbailey924]

"We're just coming off an election where moral issues were cited as a reason by people voting one way or another and, in my opinion, the commissioners are fearful of the new Congress," says Raymond Cole, president of Citadel Communications, which owns three ABC stations not airing Ryan.

Funny, a war was a major election issue too. However, they won't let a moral issue like war be explored on the air. If people can't see through the curse words and violence to what the meaning behind it is, then that's just sad. I agree, there are a lot of needlessly violent shows on, but SPR is a great piece of work that shows the shame with the profane.

The replacement in some markets: Return to Mayberry.

Haha. So stereotypical. So funny.

Riddle me this, Americanos -- were people that you wouldn't call "busybodies" actually offended this?

Not at all. I laughed. But I'm in the 18-25 age range (no kids/family), so not much really offends me.