NationStates Jolt Archive

President Bush 'assassinated' in new TV docudrama
(http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23365246-details/President+Bush+assassinated+in+new+TV+docudrama/article.do)

It's the talk in the US by now.

It's just a speculative docudrama, a kind of alternate history movie that's part of a series being done. But what really makes this interesting is how Real Americans™ are throwing a fit about a piece of speculative fiction, as if the movie was encouraging the assassination of Dear Leader.

Here's one choice sample:

Granted the Constitution gives everyone the right to free speech, but is this really free speech? Though I personally do not like Bush, I would never wish death upon him or anyone else for that matter. Making a movie like this could have tragic consequences, such as influencing some nut to actually attempt a "real" assasignation of the President! Think about it, how would Brits feel if we made a docudrama entitled "Death Of Tony Blair"?

- Livingston Ian Hampton, Houston,Texas

The poster of the above failed to read how Blair wasn't spared the speculative coalraking himself:

Death Of A President is not the only way More4 will be exploring the impact of the War on Terror, the channel announced at a launch yesterday.

The Trial of Tony Blair, by the makers of the farce A Very Social Secretary, will take a 'darkly humorous' look at what will happen to the Prime Minister after he leaves office.
Starring Robert Lindsay as Blair, a role which he also took in A Very Social Secretary about David Blunkett's affair with Kimberly Quinn the show will focus, the drama will kick off with his resignation.

But overall, the outrage of Real Americans over a piece of fiction reminds me exactly of Kirk Anderson's Bushevik cartoons (http://www.kirktoons.com/busheviks/busheviks.html) or in particular, the first one of the lot:

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: The Due Reward for all who responsibly report the virtues of Our Glorious Leader

It's also a repeat of the Rushdie Effect; by bitching out loud about an interesting if harmless alternate history fiction, Real Americans™ will in fact generate tremendous publicity that will get more people interested in watching it than would have otherwise.

And they say only 3b1l m0zl3mz are fanatical about censorship.

poor taste - sure
controversial - sure
ban - nope we need to protect the right to free speech
watch it - never, my right to vote with $ so that they go broke

:)

There was a thread on this earlier today. It was pretty much decided that any redeaming qualities the film may have will be over shadowed between the types of individuals the OP mentioned and it being a form of porn for those who get off on thinking about the president being killed.

poor taste - sure
controversial - sure
ban - nope we need to protect the right to free speech
watch it - never, my right to vote with $ so that they go broke

:)

Well, to be fair it can't be judged "poor taste" until it is seen. It might be in very fine taste, for all we know.

There was a thread on this earlier today. It was pretty much decided that any redeaming qualities the film may have will be over shadowed between the types of individuals the OP mentioned and it being a form of porn for those who get off on thinking about the president being killed.

:eek: porn??!

:eek: porn??!
you really don't know what some people "get off" on.

Granted the Constitution gives everyone the right to free speech

He does realise we Brits aren't covered by the constitution doesn't he?

you really don't know what some people "get off" on.

I'm sorry, but if they are not "getting off" on nudity and penetration, then it's not porn. It's just a lame excuse.

Porn does have some standards to maintain.

I wonder how us who are in the USA are able to see the film.

I wonder how us who are in the USA are able to see the film.


Bittorrent?

Bittorrent?

huh?

huh?

Bit torent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_torent)

I wonder how us who are in the USA are able to see the film.

getting connections with someone in Britian to tape it.

and if you have the ability to translate PAL to NTSC... :D

You can judge something of being bad taste without seeing it. Like if theres a movie called, kill all niggers. Could I not judge it in being bad taste? You're only saying it's not bad taste cause you probably don't even care if Bush is assassinated. Is this doc. like some fucks dream? Like another manson fuck wanting to kill a president cause of a fucking war. You must have to have no life to think of something like that. Fucked up people, it's just a war, no one you know is being killed, so stfu. It's not your war, it's the presidents war, it's not your business unless you've enlisted. If you enlist you are willing to risk your life to fight in a war. That's war, don't like war? Move to greenland hippie.

You can judge something of being bad taste without seeing it. Like if theres a movie called, kill all niggers. Could I not judge it in being bad taste? You're only saying it's not bad taste cause you probably don't even care if Bush is assassinated. Is this doc. like some fucks dream? Like another manson fuck wanting to kill a president cause of a fucking war. You must have to have no life to think of something like that. Fucked up people, it's just a war, no one you know is being killed, so stfu. It's not your war, it's the presidents war, it's not your business unless you've enlisted. If you enlist you are willing to risk your life to fight in a war. That's war, don't like war? Move to greenland hippie.


Why does it always amount to that? You don't like "x" action, then move the fuck away. I never understand that logic. I thought if one disagreed on something, they should stay around and try to change things for the better. I got one for ya, You don't like peace? Go to hell, bastard. :)

Why does it always amount to that? You don't like "x" action, then move the fuck away. I never understand that logic. I thought if one disagreed on something, they should stay around and try to change things for the better. I got one for ya, You don't like peace? Go to hell, bastard. :)there is a difference between trying to make a difference and just bitching about it.

if all one is going to do is Bitch and moan about it, then move. If you will actually try to make a change and not just Bitch on the boards, then stay and make that change.

Edited... sorry, I'm tired... going sleep now... :p

there is a difference between trying to make a difference and just bitching about it.

if all one is going to do is Bitch and moan about it, then move. If you will actually try to make a change and not just Bitch on the boards, then move.

Well I'd rather leave this place anyways, then have to put up with the jerks here.

Well I'd rather leave this place anyways, then have to put up with the jerks here.

I would just like to say I like your sig. :)

Well I'd rather leave this place anyways, then have to put up with the jerks here.

whoops, sorry, misposted. I made the correction. :D

Why does it always amount to that? You don't like "x" action, then move the fuck away. I never understand that logic. I thought if one disagreed on something, they should stay around and try to change things for the better. I got one for ya, You don't like peace? Go to hell, bastard. :)
There is a kind of logic in it that resides in the notion of collective identity. If you do not wish to adhere to what an identity aspires to, it does not make sense to continue to adopt that identity for your own. A Nationality is an identity that arises from the attitudes of its members, and the choice is entirely up to you to subscribe to this identity, but it would not make sense to do so if you did not feel that it was a group to which you would wish to subscribe.

Think about it, how would Brits feel if we made a docudrama entitled "Death Of Tony Blair"?
:D

That's all I'm going to say.

You can judge something of being bad taste without seeing it. Like if theres a movie called, kill all niggers. Could I not judge it in being bad taste? You're only saying it's not bad taste cause you probably don't even care if Bush is assassinated. Is this doc. like some fucks dream? Like another manson fuck wanting to kill a president cause of a fucking war. You must have to have no life to think of something like that. Fucked up people, it's just a war, no one you know is being killed, so stfu. It's not your war, it's the presidents war, it's not your business unless you've enlisted. If you enlist you are willing to risk your life to fight in a war. That's war, don't like war? Move to greenland hippie.

I think you President said it with fewer words:

"Either you are with us or against us"

The beauty of freedom of expression is the fact you can make movies like this; write books that piss off people and make them scream about morality.

Any civilization that is damanged by the printed word or a movie; does not deserve to exist.

Assassins and presidents invite the same basic question: Just who do you think you are?

-Sarah Vowell

Any civilization that is damanged by the printed word or a movie; does not deserve to exist.
I disagree, just as I did when the current targets said the same about muslims. Every civilisation has the right to exist as long as its people have the right to associate. We don't have to like it, of course, but its continued existence is not our choice to make. We just need to provide an alternative and let them choose for themselves.

I disagree, just as I did when the current targets said the same about muslims. Every civilisation has the right to exist as long as its people have the right to associate. We don't have to like it, of course, but its continued existence is not our choice to make. We just need to provide an alternative and let them choose for themselves.

What's the alternative to having the right to associate, then? And why does an alternative (to having the right to associate) have to be provided? To whom?

...And who is "we" supposed to be? Hell, who are "they"? What on Earth are you talking about?

I'm generally a Bush supporter, but that's just because he seems the lesser of two evils - the other evil being the democrats.

To be honest, the only people I've heard getting upset about this are the republican puppets at Fox News. My personal opinion - if I hear the film is interesting, I'll watch it. If I hear it's not good, I won't watch it. Speculative fiction has never hurt anyone.

Eh, while I think this is kinda creepy and sick, mainly because the guy is still in office and already we have a movie out about assinating him. I do respect the film makers right to make this film and would defend it.

What's the alternative to having the right to associate, then? And why does an alternative (to having the right to associate) have to be provided? To whom?

...And who is "we" supposed to be? Hell, who are "they"? What on Earth are you talking about?
The right to associate cannot be removed save by rewriting the very way our minds work, nor an alternative to it provided that does not completely reshape the very notion of civilisation. You cannot reasonably expect to disband a civilisation for the ideas it holds, since people will always recongregate again.

Anybody can, however, provide an alternative association. "We" in this case is my society, "they" is a society with whom mine disagree, and all "we" should be doing with regards to this disagreement is providing another form of civilisation that anyone who choses can subscribe to. It is not a matter of "them not deserving to exist", since those who think like that have every reason to exist collectively if they wish to do so and will inevitably do so regardless of our intervention. We might differ with that civilisation, but we cannot oppose it without changing the very hearts of the people that compose it. Instead, all "we" do is to maintain our own standards and way of thinking such that those who wish to associate with them can do so.

Association is one of the world's greatest dilemmas. On one hand, without it, nothing would be possible. The entire of biology and civics depends on beings and people being willing to coexist. On the other, its current execution is responsible for every act of international, inter-racial and interdenominational conflict that has ever been and ever will be. The only ways around this are either a global scheme of localised isolationism or complete globalisation; societies that do not oppose each other but either work together or separate themselves. "You're either with us or you've got nothing to do with us" is the aim of the game, and as long as a policy of potential aggression against the "others" exists in any society, there will always be opposition, tension and resulting suffering.

Granted the Constitution gives everyone the right to free speech, but is this really free speech? Though I personally do not like Bush, I would never wish death upon him or anyone else for that matter. Making a movie like this could have tragic consequences, such as influencing some nut to actually attempt a "real" assasignation of the President! Think about it, how would Brits feel if we made a docudrama entitled "Death Of Tony Blair"?

- Livingston Ian Hampton, Houston,Texas

In a word : Elated.

That's a little harsh....while I have a great dislike for the current President of the United States, that doesn't mean that he deserves to die. Justice would be too swift for him and his cronies. What would be better, would be having him and his cronies tried and brought to justice legally (but not executing him and his consorts, as I feel a better punishment would be to let him live on with the pressures of society and a purely tarnished reputation), if it could be proven that he deliberately lied.

A question. Is the film about Bush being assassinated or is it about the aftermath? They are two completely different things.
As for Blair, I don't wish death on anyone but it would put an end to the whole debate about when he's going to leave. I think after a few months the public would be over it.

Trilby63;11628209']A question. Is the film about Bush being assassinated or is it about the aftermath? They are two completely different things.
As for Blair, I don't wish death on anyone but it would put an end to the whole debate about when he's going to leave. I think after a few months the public would be over it.

From what I've read, it's more about the consequences, though the assassination itself (he's shot during a walkabout, I think) is shown as a dramatic hook, at some point. Won't know for sure till we see it, though.

If More4 were showing a work about Tony Blair getting himself assassinated, I certainly wouldn't care, anymore than I care about Bush being killed in this effort. If a foreign company did it though... I think I'd feel differently.

I'd watch it looking for my country to be ridiculed, and just waiting to feel outraged! Still wouldn't care that Tony popped his clogs, really, but what lead up to it and what happened after might piss me off - depends who did it and why, and what the reaction to it was in the fictional Britain - that'd determine how I felt about it.

If it was a generic US President, it would be no big deal.

That it is a sitting US President is just plain wrong.

...I may as well green-light that project I was debating which involved having Keira Knightley, Elizabeth II, Robert Earnshaw, and David Tennant all horribly mangled and killed in a Free the Wales! terrorist attack.

(Yes, the UK in one movie loses its prettiest movie star, the Queen, one of their best strikers and Doctor Who. Have a nice day.) :D

...I may as well green-light that project I was debating which involved having Keira Knightley, Elizabeth II, Robert Earnshaw, and David Tennant all horribly mangled in an Free the Wales terrorist attack.


Fucking Nationalists ruin it for everyone.

Fucking Nationalists ruin it for everyone.

Yeah. I can't wait until the Brits adopt the Euro. ;)

Who cares about the consequences, mainly those who voted for him?
The others are paying the consequences, but do they know it?

I really don't see the problem here, its a "What If" situation exploring the effects of Bush being shot. It isn't advocating it.

So, who cares?

I really don't see the problem here, its a "What If" situation exploring the effects of Bush being shot. It isn't advocating it.

So, who cares?

Spot on statement. I think the point of this docudrama is not to advocate the killing of the President, but rather explore its possible consequences.

Come now, after all that has been exposed to us on TV, are we really that shocked and appalled over this television show? Frankly, I'd be extremely interested in watching a docudrama about the potential side-effects of an assassinated John Howard, but unfortunately no such show has been made. And besides, who would want to assassinate the Aussie gremlin, anyway? :D

Frankly, I'd be extremely interested in watching a docudrama about the potential side-effects of an assassinated John Howard, but unfortunately no such show has been made. And besides, who would want to assassinate the Aussie gremlin, anyway? :D

Nobody, that's your problem right there ;)

And besides, who would want to assassinate the Aussie gremlin, anyway? :D

Workers of Small Businesses?

Why does it always amount to that? You don't like "x" action, then move the fuck away. I never understand that logic. I thought if one disagreed on something, they should stay around and try to change things for the better. I got one for ya, You don't like peace? Go to hell, bastard. :)

I get the feeling that if by some circumstance the situation was reversed wherever he's staying, Bul-Katho would be screaming his head off to change things instead of quietly packing up and leaving.

If it was a generic US President, it would be no big deal.

That it is a sitting US President is just plain wrong.

Why? The point of the piece, by all accounts, is to examine the real world, not a fictional one. It's like a counter-factual essay.

It'll be a total piece of shit and the subject matter, not how well its done, is whats getting it attention.
There are hordes of disturbed douche bags salivating right now, desperately waiting for this to come out. Just for a moment, they'll forget their fantasy lives as elven extras from Lord of the Rings with magical herbs and bare feet.

It'll be a total piece of shit

I dunno, I never watched A Very Social Secretary but it was very well recieved. I see no particular reason why this won't

YLike if theres a movie called, kill all niggers. Could I not judge it in being bad taste?

Going slightly off-topic for a moment, there was recently a TV play on TV where the original title was "Fuck Black People." Obviously name was changed for TV "fuck" is far too provocative.

Incidently, it was quite good.


I cannot help but feel many are getting a bit too worked up about this. The programme isn't calling for Bush to be killed and it isn't as if American presidents getting assassinated is an outlandish thought.

Hah, you know, if this movie was being made in america, say by some rightwing nutjob, im sure they'd show liberals crucifying GWB. Give the martyr complex. Hehe Its making me giggle thinking about that.

If it was a generic US President, it would be no big deal.

That it is a sitting US President is just plain wrong.


Would you have maintained the same stance if it was made during Clinton's time?

Would you have maintained the same stance if it was made during Clinton's time?

Hell yes!

Heck, even during *Ford's* lifetime. And he was a total joke!

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c181/noxidee/repost.jpg

Why? The point of the piece, by all accounts, is to examine the real world, not a fictional one. It's like a counter-factual essay.

So if I do a movie with your mom, sister, wife, etc being gang raped, that's just objective cinema too, eh? :headbang:

So if I do a movie with your mom, sister, wife, etc being gang raped, that's just objective cinema too, eh? :headbang:

Depends how you did it.

Yea, it's clear that C4 are liberals out to undermine the war on terrism.

That's why it showed a 2 1/2 hour documentary this evening about what the NYC firemen had to go through in the aftermath of 11/9; showing the horrors caused by terrorism.

Truly, supporters of Al Quaeda.

watch it - never, my right to vote with $ so that they go broke

Considering that C4 is a state broadcaster, I very much doubt they'll be going broke any time soon, or that they particularly care what you watch.

President Bush 'assassinated' in new TV docudrama
(http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23365246-details/President+Bush+assassinated+in+new+TV+docudrama/article.do)

It's the talk in the US by now.

It's just a speculative docudrama, a kind of alternate history movie that's part of a series being done. But what really makes this interesting is how Real Americans™ are throwing a fit about a piece of speculative fiction...

Ohhh:( the title got my hopes up. :D

More4 is to screen a docudrama about the fictional assassination of George Bush in 2007. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Republicans have branded it 'disturbing' and 'shocking'.

I have to admit, I do find the idea of 'killing a man' on television slightly distasteful, even if it is just 'drama'. So would you watch this programme, if and when it comes to a screen near you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5302598.stm?ls

Already been 2 threads on this ;)

Already been 2 threads on this ;)

Bugger. :p

Men die on TV all the time.

Anyway, theres already 2 threads on this.

See Death of A President

Men die on TV all the time.

Anyway, theres already 2 threads on this.

See Death of A President

I know, I know, my fault. Didn't even check the first page - no excuse.

This is sooooooooo two days ago.

This is sooooooooo two days ago.

*Smacks Ruffy*

Quiet, you!

As much as I hate Bush, I don't want him assasinated. I don't want to be stuck with Dick Cheney as a president.

There was recently a documentary-style film on Discovery Channel about what would happen if a solar storm hit the Earth, where they had New York being one of the few cities with a single working powerplant 'cos they shut it down before the EM wave hit.....



.....so does that mean I'm the only person here with the electricity to post to the internet and the rest of the world is struggling along and candlelight?



It does seem a little tasteless, but hey -- it's no worse than some alternate history novel where Hitler won WWII, or where a disastrous climate change causes an ice age that destroys modern day earth.

Relax.

*Smacks Ruffy*

Quiet, you!

*gags self with a spoon*

:p

I don't know why people are getting upset about this. People have freedom of expression. No matter what they say, they have a right to say it. To me, this movie is no different than some hate group protest; I don't have to like it but I do have to allow it.

I am bothered by so many people hating someone simply because of who they are and what they believe but that's the price of freedom. Take the good with the bad and hope that good will eventually win.

Now I'm curious about the plot. Surely one cannot make a Docudrama solely on that action.

Now I'm curious about the plot. Surely one cannot make a Docudrama solely on that action.

It probably won't be. It will most likely consist of about 2 minutes but that's all anybody will focus on. The Bushites screaming "How horrible" and the BDS sufferers hitting the repeat button w/ one hand.

Now I'm curious about the plot. Surely one cannot make a Docudrama solely on that action.

The assassination is a brief opening scene. The story will focus on what happens afterwards.

And it's alternate history fiction no different than Fatherland, White Man's Burden or even Gladiator.

The assassination is a brief opening scene. The story will focus on what happens afterwards.

And it's alternate history fiction no different than Fatherland, White Man's Burden or even Gladiator.

AGAIN I point out: All the main characters in Fatherland, White Man's Burden and Gladiator were all DEAD. They were historical figures, NOT living people.

There was recently a documentary-style film on Discovery Channel about what would happen if a solar storm hit the Earth, where they had New York being one of the few cities with a single working powerplant 'cos they shut it down before the EM wave hit.....



.....so does that mean I'm the only person here with the electricity to post to the internet and the rest of the world is struggling along and candlelight?



It does seem a little tasteless, but hey -- it's no worse than some alternate history novel where Hitler won WWII, or where a disastrous climate change causes an ice age that destroys modern day earth.

Relax.

Do we get to see Hilary Clinton electrocuted when she plugs in her hairdryer?

Look, it is just WRONG to have ANY living person portrayed in a fictional film without their acquiescence!

Or has "Any resemblance to real people, either living or dead is entirely coincidental." suddenly become the right to fabricate anything we want?

So if I do a movie with your mom, sister, wife, etc being gang raped, that's just objective cinema too, eh? :headbang:

To me, no - to others, yes.

Is Bush your dad? Brother? Husband? etc.?

No. He's a powerful political figure, and a drama-documentary detailing possible consequences of his removal is wholly legitimate. He's not just a private citizen, but the most high profile political leader on the planet.

'Objective' isn't all that relevant - it's a political essay, so can't help but have a bias in it, I'm sure. I hope it allows some argument, airing more than one side of any debate - that'd make it a _good_ political essay.

To me, no - to others, yes.

Oh, please. You've got to be kidding. You'd be happy with such a film being made? Don't you realize that this sort of thing is wrong? It's already getting hard to seperate blog from news. (New Orleans Superdome anyone?)
People making movies of REAL PEOPLE (without approval) like this is just plain wrong.

Is Bush your dad? Brother? Husband? etc.?

Is he a living human being? Yes. QED.

No. He's a powerful political figure, and a drama-documentary detailing possible consequences of his removal is wholly legitimate. He's not just a private citizen, but the most high profile political leader on the planet.

All the more reason why this sort of thing shouldn't be allowed. Listen, I don't care if it is Bush, Clinton, Putin, or even Saddam: things like this set a bad precedent.

'Objective' isn't all that relevant - it's a political essay, so can't help but have a bias in it, I'm sure. I hope it allows some argument, airing more than one side of any debate - that'd make it a _good_ political essay.

It may or may not be, I haven't seen it. And I would have no problem with it IF THEY USED A GENERIC PRESIDENT.

Are shock tactics and smilies all you have in the way of debate?

Nah, I only use the headbang one when I feel someone is being particularly dense. :rolleyes:

Oh, please. You've got to be kidding. You'd be happy with such a film being made? Don't you realize that this sort of thing is wrong? It's already getting hard to seperate blog from news. (New Orleans Superdome anyone?)
People making movies of REAL PEOPLE (without approval) like this is just plain wrong.

You keep saying this, but then fail to provide a reason why you think it's wrong. Would you be saying the same thing if they used a guy who looked a lot like the president, but was called President Tootybum? Seriously. It's fiction.

It's totally tasteless, and I frown upon the people who made this movie.

You keep saying this, but then fail to provide a reason why you think it's wrong. Would you be saying the same thing if they used a guy who looked a lot like the president, but was called President Tootybum? Seriously. It's fiction.

1. What does it being Bush add? Shock value? Therepy for Bush haters?

2. I thought I'd stated it quite clearly: making fictional films of real people without their acquiescence is wrong. As in it can be libel, slander, and any number of other wrongs.

3. War of the Worlds was also fiction. That Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 is fiction. Yet lots of people still believed both.

4. Article 3: http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm - Is this right, or isn't it? Or does Bush (in THIS case) not have the social right to not be portrayed in a film against his will? ...note that I'm not even quoting US law, since it doesn't really apply to foreign film makers.

I don't think it's totally in bad taste. The question is the consequences of the assassination, not the actual assassination itself, and it is an interesting hypothetical. The only problem people seem to have is that a living, sitting President is the subject, not a generic or dead President. I suppose it begs the question, what are the limits to the portrayl of a President while he's in office? He's already lampooned, demonized, burned in effigy, and caricatured in the media. What about his status, living, dead, or retired, makes a hypothetical assassination off limits or okay?

...things like this set a bad precedent....
Don't you realize that this sort of thing is wrong?... People making movies of REAL PEOPLE (without approval) like this is just plain wrong.

Why? Bush isn't just a private individual - that's not why he's interesting to anyone who doesn't know him personally - he's the incumbent of the most powerful political office in the world. His very public position makes him fair game for politicians, commentators, political theorists, comedians, writers, and even the schlub in the street to critique him, and the political events he's set in motion/catalysed/retarded.

We have satire and political jokes mocking the powerful, and more relevantly counter-factual historical and political essays: 'what-if so-and-so had done xyz instead of abc, what-if this happened instead of that?'. This is just a televised version of such an essay, from all the advance publicity. No precedent is being set. I don't understand your objections.

I _would_ understand them if Bush was just a private citizen, randomly picked out of the teeming mass and televised. But he picked himself out, and the office he holds demands constant critique, as well as checks and balances, in order to further political debate. Which is all an essay does.

Now, if this turns out to be a gory shocker, intent on exploiting every human nuance of pain and suffering of Bush and those close to him, that's another matter (I don't think, again going by the advance publicity, it is - but we'll see when it comes out). I would still support its makers' rights to say what they want about the POTUS, I probably just wouldn't like it much.

1. What does it being Bush add? Shock value? Therepy for Bush haters?

2. I thought I'd stated it quite clearly: making fictional films of real people without their acquiescence is wrong. As in it can be libel, slander, and any number of other wrongs.

3. War of the Worlds was also fiction. That Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 is fiction. Yet lots of people still believed both.

4. Article 3: http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm - Is this right, or isn't it? Or does Bush (in THIS case) not have the social right to not be portrayed in a film against his will? ...note that I'm not even quoting US law, since it doesn't really apply to foreign film makers.

1. I dunno, perhaps relevancy to today? It firmly sets it in current events, because it's a mockumentary - it strives to be as factually accurate as it is possible to guess.
2. This is neither libel nor slander. At a stretch, you could claim it was satire, and therefore entirely legal.
3. You SERIOUSLY think people will believe that a show that opens with "in the future, 2009, a President is assasinated"? My non-specific diety, you're gulliable. I pity your offspring.
4. No. Those laws apply to private lives. Bush is a public figure - and like any celebrity, can be photographed in public places, or portrayed in a public forum.

Why? Bush isn't just a private individual - that's not why he's interesting to anyone who doesn't know him personally - he's the incumbent of the most powerful political office in the world. His very public position makes him fair game for politicians, commentators, political theorists, comedians, writers, and even the schlub in the street to critique him, and the political events he's set in motion/catalysed/retarded.

We have satire and political jokes mocking the powerful, and more relevantly counter-factual historical and political essays: 'what-if so-and-so had done xyz instead of abc, what-if this happened instead of that?'. This is just a televised version of such an essay, from all the advance publicity. No precedent is being set. I don't understand your objections.

You really put being discussed, joked about or being satarized in the same category as being assassinated? You really don't see the difference?

If so, then I think I need to air a fictional account of your tax returns and credit card statements. After all, that won't hurt anyone, right? I'm just showing an image of your financial data, not the actual finanical data... it just happens that the numbers are exactly the same.

I _would_ understand them if Bush was just a private citizen, randomly picked out of the teeming mass and televised. But he picked himself out, and the office he holds demands constant critique, as well as checks and balances, in order to further political debate. Which is all an essay does.

So when one takes up office, one gives up basic human rights? That because he's President, he's ASKING for it? By your logic, rape victims are asking for it because they're f*ckable. Or robbery victims because they have something of value.

Um, no. That is NOT all it does. Even notice that there has *never* been a film that portrayed a sitting President (or real person, for that matter) being assassinated? This is basically a threat on someone's life.

And assassination is NOT a critique nor a "check and balance"! :rolleyes:

Now, if this turns out to be a gory shocker, intent on exploiting every human nuance of pain and suffering of Bush and those close to him, that's another matter. I don't think, again going by the advance publicity, it is - but we'll see when it comes out.

It doesn't matter if it IS a gory shocker, and it already IS exploitational.

Again, I'd have no problem with this movie if it had a generic President.

You really put being discussed, joked about or being satarized in the same category as being assassinated? You really don't see the difference?

But he's not being assassinated! LOL, it's just a 'what-if' style of essay. There is no fundamental difference at all between satirical license and essay-based license.

This is basically a threat on someone's life.

No, it's not. It's examining the consequences for our world if an important part of it was suddenly disrupted - the chief executive of the sole remaining superpower. It's trying to examine real consequences, so why should you _start off_ by setting it in a fictional world?

And assassination is NOT a critique nor a "check and balance"! :rolleyes:

But, again, this isn't an assassination, this is an essay, or at worst, just a film. The right to criticize our leaders, present our own analysis and commentaries on world events, is an important priviledge we've won as a society, and is jjust as important as any more formal check or balance.

President Bush 'assassinated' in new TV docudrama
(http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23365246-details/President+Bush+assassinated+in+new+TV+docudrama/article.do)

It's the talk in the US by now.

It's just a speculative docudrama, a kind of alternate history movie that's part of a series being done. But what really makes this interesting is how Real Americans™ are throwing a fit about a piece of speculative fiction, as if the movie was encouraging the assassination of Dear Leader.

Here's one choice sample:



The poster of the above failed to read how Blair wasn't spared the speculative coalraking himself:



But overall, the outrage of Real Americans over a piece of fiction reminds me exactly of Kirk Anderson's Bushevik cartoons (http://www.kirktoons.com/busheviks/busheviks.html) or in particular, the first one of the lot:

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: The Due Reward for all who responsibly report the virtues of Our Glorious Leader

It's also a repeat of the Rushdie Effect; by bitching out loud about an interesting if harmless alternate history fiction, Real Americans™ will in fact generate tremendous publicity that will get more people interested in watching it than would have otherwise.

And they say only 3b1l m0zl3mz are fanatical about censorship.
Yup! That movie is in almost as much poor taste as your post. :D

1. I dunno, perhaps relevancy to today? It firmly sets it in current events, because it's a mockumentary - it strives to be as factually accurate as it is possible to guess.
2. This is neither libel nor slander. At a stretch, you could claim it was satire, and therefore entirely legal.
3. You SERIOUSLY think people will believe that a show that opens with "in the future, 2009, a President is assasinated"? My non-specific diety, you're gulliable. I pity your offspring.
4. No. Those laws apply to private lives. Bush is a public figure - and like any celebrity, can be photographed in public places, or portrayed in a public forum.

1. Relevancy? Like that couldn't have been done with "President Smith" or whatever in EVERY.OTHER.MOVIE.EVER.MADE? Please.

2. Have you seen it? If not, that you can hardly make that claim. But you may want to read up on law. Using likenesses illegally can be a big problem.
It's utterly ridiculous to think that anything depicting an assasination of ANYONE is good TV, in good taste or a generally acceptable use of celluloid.

3. 2007. I won't bother responding to the rest, as it's drivel.

4. There are no "private lives". Yes, ANYONE can be photographed, etc. But haven't you ever noticed how magazines and such get SUED when they do so illegally?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5635012

Surely, you're not telling me Bush will get a share in the profits, eh?

But he's not being assassinated! LOL, it's just a 'what-if' style of essay. There is no fundamental difference at all.

Um, YES he IS being assassinated! That's the whole opening sequence!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14608725/

Now, if you're arguing it's "just a depiction of an assassination in a movie", fine. I argue that it's still as valid a threat on his life as any one of the thousands of lunatic letters that are/have been sent to the White House every year since we've had Presidents.

No, it's not. It's examining the consequences for our world if an important part of it was suddenly disrupted - the chief executive of the sole remaining superpower. It's trying to examine real consequences, so why should you _start off_ by setting it in a fictional world?


If it really is a "what if" essay, it's fiction. No reason to use a real person/President. Face it, this is a cheap stunt.

But, again, this isn't an assassination, this is an essay, or at worst, just a film. The right to criticize our leaders, present our own analysis and commentaries on world events, is an important priviledge we've won as a society, and is jjust as important as any more formal check or balance.

Don't you get tired of ignoring my counterpoints and just arguing in circles?

1. Relevancy? Like that couldn't have been done with "President Smith" or whatever in EVERY.OTHER.MOVIE.EVER.MADE? Please.

2. Have you seen it? If not, that you can hardly make that claim. But you may want to read up on law. Using likenesses illegally can be a big problem.
It's utterly ridiculous to think that anything depicting an assasination of ANYONE is good TV, in good taste or a generally acceptable use of celluloid.

3. 2007. I won't bother responding to the rest, as it's drivel.

4. There are no "private lives". Yes, ANYONE can be photographed, etc. But haven't you ever noticed how magazines and such get SUED when they do so illegally?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5635012

Surely, you're not telling me Bush will get a share in the profits, eh?

The OP is an intellectual dwarf. Dwarf-tossing anyone? LMAO!

if you're arguing it's "just a depiction of an assassination in a movie",

That's exactly what I'm saying, yes.

fine. I argue that it's still as valid a threat on his life as any one of the thousands of lunatic letters that are/have been sent to the White House every year since we've had Presidents.

? You do? Oh, OK, that explains a lot. OK, well, I'm certainly done then; I don't think we'll make any progress in the debate as you do believe that - that's fair enough :)

Thank you for explaining why you objected to the film~essay, it was a real eye-opener for me.

The OP is an intellectual dwarf. Dwarf-tossing anyone? LMAO!

Yeah, I know E. But we must educate them. Without education, everyone is just a part of a group of monkeys tossing shit at each other. :D


Still, I will defer to my esteemed colleague from the great state of North Carolina: If he wishes to be a party to the dwarf-tossing, I surely will not hinder him. ;)

Yup! That movie is in almost as much poor taste as your post. :D

Once again "The Centrist" publically displays his "Impartial Views" to NS General.

:gundge:

So much for the claim you don't worship Dear Leader.

And you still call Cindy Sheehan an attention whore after making this trite post?

The OP is an intellectual dwarf. Dwarf-tossing anyone? LMAO!

Then topping it off with a shallow remark about dwarves. Why not call for a lynching while you're at it Forrest? You live in the right part of the country.

I just don't get it..

If it were Blair who was assassinated.. sure the media would be in hysterics because that's there job but I'm sure the response would be an collective shrug and that's it..

Trilby63;11633391']I just don't get it..

If it were Blair who was assassinated.. sure the media would be in hysterics because that's there job but I'm sure the response would be an collective shrug and that's it..

Exactly. Any other world leader alive or dead and it would be a "Meh" at most.

But Kim Jong-Il isn't the only Dear Leader in the world with a Personality Cult centered around his worship. Markreich and Forrest are just two of the more prominent members on NS General who take offense at anyone suggesting their Beloved President could even be assassinated at all, whether or not the piece is even actually calling for it much less setting up a "What-If" scenario.

And Real Americans™ like them are just simply adding on to the Rushdie Effect, where the movie will get more attention and publicity than it may or may not really merit.

Just like The Satanic Verses.

Just like Cindy Sheehan.

Then again, it just points towards a right-wing compulsion to horde and monopolize persecution complexes even when in complete power.

Trilby63;11633391']I just don't get it..

If it were Blair who was assassinated.. sure the media would be in hysterics because that's there job but I'm sure the response would be an collective shrug and that's it..

Wrong. On this side of the pond we'd be upset when we were told it wasn't real. But hell, I'd watch it for the comedy value.

Wrong. On this side of the pond we'd be upset when we were told it wasn't real. But hell, I'd watch it for the comedy value.

That, or we'd shrug and say "that's an interesting work of speculative fiction." You see, we seem to distinguish between fiction and non-fiction easier than some of you Yanks.