On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:26:40 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:16:19 -0500, Eisboch
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:
CCred68046 wrote:

Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that
depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II?

Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV before. And it could
have been edited for television easily.

I remember the movie well. I saw it in the theaters and I recall seeing
it on HBO, I believe. There's no reason to "edit" it for television, and
I believe ABC's deal with the studio forbids deletions.

What would you edit? The "cuss words"? They are integral to the movie.
The movie is violent, but no more so than other movies on television.

There's something else going on here.

Ah, come on Harry, get a hold of yourself. You are starting to sound
like the mentality of the 50's when everything unexplainable must be a
commie plot.

Both of the sides, left and right, are acting like the old Rockfeller,
Tri-lateralist, Illumaniti, Lyndon LaRouche, Black Jesuit,
MasonKnight, conspiracists. The "secret" societies of the Roman
Catholic Church. Remember those? :)

You and I must think alike.

By the way, I've never seen the movie. Haven't seen "Deer Hunter",
"Apocalypse Now", "Platoon", "Full Metal Jacket" either.

Now that I think about it, I haven't seen a movie since "Pirates of
the Caribbean".

Television is still over-reacting to the boob show at the
Superbowl.

Michael Powell was a Clinton appointee you know. He was put in place
to clean up the FCC's act - Al Gore's favorite go-to Commission of how
reformed government should look.

Look where it got them - single source news, the new morality in
broadcast standards and now this - broadcasters afraid to broadcast
movies.

You just can't make this up.

Eisboch (back to watching the "Girls gone Wild" infomercial)

Has nothing on the "Women In Chains, Part II" infomercial.

Hubba hubba..... :)

Later,

Tom

Of the Vietnam movies I've seen (not many), "Platoon" was the best
portrayal of what Vietnam was like.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:29:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:06:31 -0500, Eisboch
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:


"Saving Private Ryan," staring Oscar-winning actor Tom Hanks, will
not be shown on the ABC affiliates in Alabama, Georgia, Iowa,
Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and West Virginia.

Well, so much for red state/blue state moral division.

Does it interest anybody that the one state on that list which could
be called the ultimate liberal haven isn't broadcasting the movie?

Later,

Tom

Yeah, but which counties are involved? That would be the telling
aspect of the situation.
John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:14:18 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

~~ mucho snippage ~~

Of the Vietnam movies I've seen (not many), "Platoon" was the best
portrayal of what Vietnam was like.

I was there. It could never be accurately reflected in a movie.

Later,

Tom

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:14:18 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:29:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:06:31 -0500, Eisboch
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

"Saving Private Ryan," staring Oscar-winning actor Tom Hanks, will
not be shown on the ABC affiliates in Alabama, Georgia, Iowa,
Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and West Virginia.

Well, so much for red state/blue state moral division.

Does it interest anybody that the one state on that list which could
be called the ultimate liberal haven isn't broadcasting the movie?

Yeah, but which counties are involved? That would be the telling
aspect of the situation.

It was the Boston Affiliate. :)

Guess that Puritan ethic is still alive huh?

Live long and prosper,

Tom

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:04:45 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that
depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II?


This is nothing more than a case of paranoia. Many TV execs are
nervous following the backlash from the FCC in the wake of that stupid
Janet Jackson stunt. The FCC made no comments about what it would do
for the "Ryan" movie specifically. It's just that the companies are
now more conscious of the consequences of going over the line.

I find it comforting that the gradual erosion of the limits of what we
consider to be material "not meant for TV" has been halted to some
degree.

We were not far from a point where naked people and graphic violence
would have been flashed on prime time TV, where children and other
people would be subject to it.

If the people who provide our entertainment cannot come up with shows
that do not have to rely on either graphic and gratuitous sex or
violence in order to gain popularity, then I would suggest they all
retire and find some more talented writers. They were around in great
numbers 40 years ago....

Dave

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
CCred68046 wrote:
Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that
depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II?

Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV before. And it
could
have been edited for television easily.


I remember the movie well. I saw it in the theaters and I recall seeing
it on HBO, I believe. There's no reason to "edit" it for television, and
I believe ABC's deal with the studio forbids deletions.

What would you edit? The "cuss words"? They are integral to the movie.
The movie is violent, but no more so than other movies on television.

There's something else going on here.

Of course there's something else going on. You've got a bunch of "decency
advocates" bitching about language and family values. Meanwhile, they're too
busy writing letters and advocatin' and jerkin' off in a closet with their
bibles to simply find a way to keep their youngsters away from ABC for one
evening. If you don't want your kids to watch something, you arrange for
things to be that way. Period.

I have an idea for some of these people. They should be attached to the
ground at the ankle with a 25' chain, at the business end of a target
shooting range. Give 'em just enough chain to run around and avoid being
hit. We'll see what kind of language they use when the bullets are flying.
"Oh saints almighty! That was awful close!" Right.

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:30:15 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:14:18 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

~~ mucho snippage ~~

Of the Vietnam movies I've seen (not many), "Platoon" was the best
portrayal of what Vietnam was like.

I was there. It could never be accurately reflected in a movie.

Later,

Tom

Ditto. But "Platoon" was a hell of a lot closer to the mark than
either John Kerry or "Apocalypse Now."

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:47:10 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:04:45 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that
depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II?


This is nothing more than a case of paranoia. Many TV execs are
nervous following the backlash from the FCC in the wake of that stupid
Janet Jackson stunt. The FCC made no comments about what it would do
for the "Ryan" movie specifically. It's just that the companies are
now more conscious of the consequences of going over the line.

I find it comforting that the gradual erosion of the limits of what we
consider to be material "not meant for TV" has been halted to some
degree.

We were not far from a point where naked people and graphic violence
would have been flashed on prime time TV, where children and other
people would be subject to it.

If the people who provide our entertainment cannot come up with shows
that do not have to rely on either graphic and gratuitous sex or
violence in order to gain popularity, then I would suggest they all
retire and find some more talented writers. They were around in great
numbers 40 years ago....

Dave

I don't believe it's paranoia at all. The movie has been shown before.
I believe it's a few stations trying to make a statement to the FCC.

Spielberg won't allow editing of the language in the movie. I think
the movie would be just as good without the foul language.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

Television is still over-reacting to the boob show at the
Superbowl.

Wanna hear something interesting? I can't assume my son's behavior (or
wisdom) is indicative of other kids, but I'll bet he's not that unusual.

A couple of years back, I had the flu. My excellent friend Mike stopped by
and handed me boxed sets of the first 3 years' of the Sopranos series. Then,
he ran away so he wouldn't get sick. A week later, I thanked him and said
I'd return them, but he said to pass them on to someone else who's nailed to
the couch with a fever. So, they're still here.

Recently, I decided my son was old enough to follow the series, so every so
often, we pop in a tape. If you've watched the show, you know there's an
occasional scene in the strip club, and actual, real genuine boobs are
shown. So, the first time, my son was somewhat riveted. The second time, we
were talking about fishing and he didn't skip a beat. At that point, I'm
sure he knew that any time we saw the front of the club, it was likely we'd
see tits. The third time, just as the girls were shown dancing, he got up
and says "I'm gettin' an apple. Ya want one?", and spent a minute washing
them. Didn't rush back in to make sure he wouldn't miss the tits.

After that episode, I said "If your mom finds out I let you watch this, I'm
in deep ****". He said "Watch what?" I said "This show". He said "What
show?" Then, he paused a moment and said "Besides, I don't know what the big
deal is. The nudity's not the point of the show. It's just where those guys
hang out." Later: "Tony's mother's really the center of the show so far.
Reminds me of grandma!*"

Kids should run the world.

*Grandma: The living, walking definition of the Yiddish word "schnorrer".
"Ma...someone sent me a box of Omaha steaks. We brought you a couple". Her:
"Oh please...those are way too fancy for me. I like the cube steaks....".
That's a schnorrer.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


We were not far from a point where naked people and graphic violence
would have been flashed on prime time TV, where children and other
people would be subject to it.

In all honesty, I think infants should be blindfolded while being breast
fed.