Full Version: THE REAGANS pulled on CBS
From the Isthmus, a weekly Madison newspaper by Dean Robbins
------------------------------------------------
"After conservatives made a fuss, CBS handed The Reagans off to Showtime. Based on the excerpts I've seen, I can understand why Reagan partisans got mad: The TV movie doesn't glorify Ron and Nancy, but instead sticks to the facts.
Thus we hear all about the Iran-Contra scandal. We see Ron watching war movies in his White House bedroom and failing to recognize his national security adviser. We see Nancy throwing hissy fits and consulting her astrologer about key policy decisions. Most frightening of all, we hear Ron refer to his wife as "Nancy-poo-pants."
So, yes they caved.
------------------------------------------------
"After conservatives made a fuss, CBS handed The Reagans off to Showtime. Based on the excerpts I've seen, I can understand why Reagan partisans got mad: The TV movie doesn't glorify Ron and Nancy, but instead sticks to the facts.
Thus we hear all about the Iran-Contra scandal. We see Ron watching war movies in his White House bedroom and failing to recognize his national security adviser. We see Nancy throwing hissy fits and consulting her astrologer about key policy decisions. Most frightening of all, we hear Ron refer to his wife as "Nancy-poo-pants."
So, yes they caved.
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Dec 3 2003, 08:23 PM)
Wertz,
I didn't know that any other opinions mattered
. Seriously though I think everybody expected it to be boring. It's Produced by CBS. We just didn't like the slander in it. Or the Treason. Nor did we appreciate the fact that the liberals wouldn't see the way things ought to be. So now I can say, see I told ya so 
.
I do gather you're right though, Wertz. However I really don't think anyone expected it to be openly hateful.
I didn't know that any other opinions mattered
. Seriously though I think everybody expected it to be boring. It's Produced by CBS. We just didn't like the slander in it. Or the Treason. Nor did we appreciate the fact that the liberals wouldn't see the way things ought to be. So now I can say, see I told ya so .I do gather you're right though, Wertz. However I really don't think anyone expected it to be openly hateful.
I'll wait till I've seen it to gauge for myself whether there is any "slander" or "treason" involved. Unless, of course, charges are brought against the writers, producers, CBS, and Showtime before it gets its second airing.
QUOTE(Beladonna @ Dec 3 2003, 05:51 PM)
I watched about 1 1/2 hours of the movie, then fell asleep. The movie did what it set out to do - make Reagan look like a fumbling disorganized puppet and Nancy look like Mommy Dearest.
Ya, have to agree- in others words, pretty much true to a degree LOL
NOTE: Moved to Casual Conversation from The Media forum. Please carry on with the debate questions and also now also free now to critique the movie if you watched (or even if you didn't and like to appear foolish 
)
Enjoy!
)Enjoy!
I did finally see this thing. It was reasonably innocuous and moderately sympathetic with little to ruffle anyone's feathers, really - no slander, no treason, little drama, much truth - and an outstanding performance by Judy Davis. On the other hand, I thought James Brolin was a bit wooden, fairly mannered, relatively unconvincing, and not at all as charismatic as reputed - in short, a pretty good Reagan impersonation. 
Which is why I revive this thread after more than a month: both James Brolin and Judy Davis have just been nominated for Golden Globe Awards for their portrayal of Ron and Nancy. Heh - I wonder if many would even have seen the thing if it had quietly aired - once - on CBS, rather than running for more than a week on Showtime after much media hype (thanks to conservative reactionaries). Will the publicity of the Globes give it even more airtime and an even larger audience? Nice one, Drudge.
Which is why I revive this thread after more than a month: both James Brolin and Judy Davis have just been nominated for Golden Globe Awards for their portrayal of Ron and Nancy. Heh - I wonder if many would even have seen the thing if it had quietly aired - once - on CBS, rather than running for more than a week on Showtime after much media hype (thanks to conservative reactionaries). Will the publicity of the Globes give it even more airtime and an even larger audience? Nice one, Drudge.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jan 10 2004, 03:21 AM)
Will the publicity of the Globes give it even more airtime and an even larger audience? Nice one, Drudge.
It already has. Not surprising though since it's very common for people to gawk at things like car crashes and train wrecks.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Jan 10 2004, 06:22 AM)
Not surprising though since it's very common for people to gawk at things like car crashes and train wrecks.
Car crashes, train wrecks... and the Reagan presidency? I'm impressed, Passion!
Hey, it's just a movie and a "B" drama at that. Without the all the hype, protesting, and CBS pulling the plug on it...the anticipated ratings would have been at best disappointing and re-classified from Drama to Soap like in Opera.
I have admired James Brolin's acting for years and to be honest IMO, his portrayal of Reagan was probably one of his weakest.
As far as a drama movie being factual? Probably docudrama or documentaries or The History Channel would be a better source than "based on a true story" drama.
I have admired James Brolin's acting for years and to be honest IMO, his portrayal of Reagan was probably one of his weakest.
As far as a drama movie being factual? Probably docudrama or documentaries or The History Channel would be a better source than "based on a true story" drama.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.