"Death of a President" Fictional Documentary of "Bush" Assassination!

Originally posted by dgtempe
However Garfield enters this equation i guess i only known to you

I was responding to the gentleman above who asked whether or not Garfield had been assassinated.

And I might as well add this pointless sentence just to be on the safe side.

I see, said the blind man.

And i'll add this: It will be interesting to see how they superimposed Bush's face on some dude.

Originally posted by dgtempe
And i'll add this: It will be interesting to see how they superimposed Bush's face on some dude.

I swear, I had absolutely nothing to do with the superimposing of Bush's face on anyone.

That would not be kosher, now would it?

I will watch the movie if it ever shows up, but I doubt that it is going to cause anyone to be motivated to assassinate our president.

i have read on other sites people saying how bad the media is turning and its a waist of time. Channel 4 has had death threats to the film makers. But come on people its just imagination and creativity it may offend some people but its not that bad. Then again its not nice if some one did that about your family either.

But its all in the movie world why be so serious about it, i never saw it but bet it asked question what if it did happen?

As an author of political fiction, I can tell you that credibility is hard to achieve and even harder to maintain. Some writers, like myself, study the precise letter of the law when it comes to slander and libel. that's because it's surprisingly easy to cross the lines of decency and propriety, as defined in those laws.

One of the thing's they'll tell you in some advanced classes is that it's better to write characters are "are like" real people rather than portraying real-world personalities in the first place. That's because your characterization is recognized by the law as a similarity, and not a precise indentification.

Mr. Bush is a public figure. He's open to whatever anybody wants to say about him. First amendment and all that. Even so, you can bet his lawyers will scrutinize every frame of that film if is distributed here the United States.

Until you've actually become a public figure, you may not be able to relate to some of this. As a very minor public figure, I get things written about me that aren't always true. Anyone who makes a guess at what I was thinking, or why I did something is entitled to their opinion, but they've got to know that I'm on the lookout for being slandered.

The truth of the matter is that we now live in an age where media weapons like this one are going to be more and more common. It takes very little to shoot a "movie" in today's world. Digital systems and editing make it possible to have some surprisingly good production values. This means that you really can be filmed without your knowledge, and the perpetrators can get some really good stuff if they are patient.

pfft, what was I thinking? I should just d/l this sucker bootleg. Depriving an advocate of my leader's fictional death from money for his goals should be a good thing no?

That's one way to look at it, but don't forget that piracy is still against the law. To get more mileage out of it, you may think about getting together with a bunch of people you know to view it. Then, whoever has the bootleg could get rid of it, and all of you could go and write your own reviews. Just one more way to use your coice, while you still have it.

From what I am led to believe the media and film industry is controlled and monitored in a very different way in the US to here in the UK.

The UK government only play a very small part in what is allowed to be screened.

Because of the huge opportunities for the low budget small film companies over here there is a totally independent body of advisers who have the say over what is acceptable and what is not, they do follow a guideline but what most of you have touched upon is the freedom of expression, which is exactly as it sounds.

As long as you are not directly accusing persons of derogatory activities while they are still alive there are no limits to what you can put in films, in fact if you insert a small disclaimer you can even scrape through the derogatory one.

The reviews I have read on this particular film have been generally good, and none of the review writers have come across as nut cases, and also I believe that this films story line is based on the idea rather than people getting ideas from the film if you know what I am getting at.

I haven’t seen it myself yet but I have read up on it, and I wont go out of my way to watch it (I prefer real life) but if it airs sometime when I have nothing more pressing to do then maybe I will watch it.

I’m sure if it is aired on Film4 you guys will be able to get it over the net anyway.

Oh! And as far as the death threats go, there are not many actors, film makers, politicians, public speakers etc, that haven’t had death threats.

Are there?

xSmoking,

I dont know, are there? In any case, its only a movie.

This movie is being premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival this week. Anyone in the area can see it this friday (September 15). Tickets available online at the site below after 7:00am on September 15. I would LOVE to see this and will be sure to get my own copy when I can. It's a storyline.. just like any other movie ever made! I give the film make a thumbs have for having the courage to bring out a movie like this. If anyone can get to this movie tommorrow night get us a review!



www.e.bell.ca... on.asp?id=88



[edit on 14-9-2006 by DoNotBelieveThem]

As far as death threats go, I've only had one made agaisnt me, but that's a story best left for another time.

On the other hand, public opinion is a thing t obe taken seriously. If there are enough bad reviews circulating in the States before they can disribute the film here, it may be possible to keep he thing out of most...but not all...theaters. As is the case with most things in America, they've always got the direct to dvd option.

Make no mistake, we are in for a lot more of these kind of films.

Apparently this movie is going to be released in the United States at some point in the future.


According to a comment I heard yesterday on Fox news they are going to release this film in the U.S. amid strong warnings from some who believe the film to be too controversial.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by the_sentinal]

[edit on 17-9-2006 by the_sentinal]

[edit on 17-9-2006 by the_sentinal]

Okay, then. REmember what I said earlier. If lots of you flood the internet with intelligent reviews, you can prop them up or shut them down.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Okay, then. REmember what I said earlier. If lots of you flood the internet with intelligent reviews, you can prop them up or shut them down.

What if the negative reviews create more of a controversy and the reverse effect happens, because controversy can sometimes cause people to become more curious over a film that they wouldnt normally go to see...... just a thought.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by the_sentinal]

This movie will in all likelihood only be shown in small independent film theaters. The vast majority of the movie going public aren't even aware that these theaters exist. This film will probably not be shown at the local AMC-30 or any other theater megaplex. Unless there is a huge MSM circus surrounding it, this movie will go as unnoticed as Groove.

Originally posted by the_sentinal
What if the negative reviews create more of a controversy and the reverse effect happens, because controversy can sometimes cause people to become more curious over a film that they wouldnt normally go to see...... just a thought.

When you write your review, be clear about what you mean to say. Define your arguments precisely and don't mince words. Too many vague criticisms will generate curiosity. If you can "satisfy" readers that this is or is not a film that they should or should not see.

A good movie review can be done in roughly 250 words. I know because I've done them in just that many words. "I like it," "it sucks," or "this guy guy doesn't know what he's talking about" simply will not cut it. Remember that the thing which makes people curious is a lack of information which is sufficient to 'force' them to make up their minds. If your argument doesn't light a fire under somebody to go one way or another, you failed to make your point.

Keep this in mind when you write letters to the editor. Don't forget it when you post movie reviews on any web site. Remember it when you talk with people that you have just met for the first time.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Justin Oldham]

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Assassinations are rarely carried out by a single crazed individual.

Tell that to Jackson, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, T.R., Kennedy, Ford, and Reagan.

Nice group...too bad Bush does not belong...either do Ford or Reagan.

I thought what we watch does not affect the viewer....?

That's why we allow violence and butchery on TV.
It's only a movie!
Right?

Don't worry the village idiot is safe.
Bush is not worth the price of a bullet...and if you do take him out...Cheney steps into his shoes...so why bother, unless you take Cheney out too.

namaste

Raphael

I.M.H.O.I think the bush admin.policies lead 2 this film.Arent we the most hated know?And we are talking about a fictional,rite?O.k.What WOULD bother me is the censorship of this movie from U.S.ala Moore's movie via bush supporting sponsors threatening 2 pull the plug if aired by affialates.I thought we were fighting 4 freedom of speech...Is there hypocrisy here?

How the heck would you assassinate Bush????????????

A bullet through the ... ermmmmm!!! BRAIN????????