Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

World War Z, starring.... Piers Morgan?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I just got back from seeing World War Z (cool movie!) and had to jump on here to start this discussion. No spoilers don't worry!

At the beginning of the movie, there are some clips of real "journalists" reporting on the fictional virus outbreak. Piers Morgan and Erin Burnett were definitely featured. I've seen real journalists reporting fictional news in other movies as well, but cannot recall which ones.

The point I want to make is, if these journalists are also paid actors on another medium, does this hurt their credibility at all? I mean, actors technically lie for money... correct? Does it really make sense that these journalists can retain any credibility when they also lie for money on the side? They receive a script, speak the words into a camera, and cash their check. Do you think this is unique only to movies? What difference does it make to them which camera they are speaking into, and who is signing their checks? It seems to me that Piers Morgan and Erin Burnett are actually aspiring actors... not journalists. If there is a line between the two, maybe I need a microscope to see it, because I think I'm standing back too far.

Think about it for a little while, and let me hear your input!
edit on 2-7-2013 by Frettin because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Frettin
 


I don't think it hurts the credibility of the person at all. In fact, I really think seeing a familiar face in a new movie adds a sort of connection to the film. Think about it, if you watch Piers Morgan every day and then you see a character in the film getting their information from the same person you get yours from, it adds a bit of approachableness* and relatability* that otherwise wouldn't be there.

As far as actors being paid liars... Technically yes that's true, but when enjoying a movie the director relies on the suspension of disbelief to get everyone on the same level. Watching WWZ and thinking the entire time, "zombies aren't real this is dumb" would leave you sitting in a theater eating over priced popcorn and being unhappy. But, we usually don't do that; we get caught up in the moment, and it all becomes a little more real. So, because of the suspension of disbelief, I don't think it hurts the real new reporters any to be in a fictional film.

edit on 2-7-2013 by Mapkar because: ETA: * Chrome said these weren't words, but they get the point across and that's what language is all about. Right?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Frettin
 


I think you couldn't possibly be wrong.




posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Frettin
 


Wait you're asking if Piers Morgan appearing in a movie hurts his credibility? That's not possible considering he's a complete tool and no one with half a brain listens to anything he spews to begin with.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Frettin
 


It's an interesting premise but I don't think it hurts whatever credibility they have. The thing is imo there isn't much credibility there.

I don't believe most of the crap MSM spoon feeds the public. I often wonder why so many important stories are ignored.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Mapkar
 


I fully understand why the director puts familiar faces in a movie like that. That is obvious. Below the surface however, it is revealing the blurry line between "fictional news" and fictional news. Why would these "journalists" want to take part in a hollywood production? I'll answer that for you, because it is the exact same thing as their day job. You don't think it hurts their credibility when they are willy-nilly to APPEAR credible in a fictional movie? It proves these people will say ANYTHING into a camera if you got the cash!
edit on 2-7-2013 by Frettin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 


Good point. That should go without saying around here. I just want to point out more evidence of their shillish ways. I see it literally everyday. They don't care about facts.. They just want to be FAMOUS.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
They are ALL actors.
Thats why they are on TV in the first place.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
two of the worst presenters of all time, piers and erin. to call them journalists is an insult.
ben swann, now there is a journalist



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by thesmokingman
 


Not sure if you are agreeing with me or not, but yes they are all actors portraying a fictional reality both in the movies and on television. They are not on T.V. because they are outstanding journalists. They are there because they "play ball" so to say.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jazzguy
 


Yeah I really like that guy. Is he exclusively on the internet or like a local station somewhere? I can't believe he can actually get away with using facts like that. Did he not get the memo??
edit on 2-7-2013 by Frettin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   


The point I want to make is, if these journalists are also paid actors on another medium, does this hurt their credibility at all? I mean, actors technically lie for money... correct? Does it really make sense that these journalists can retain any credibility when they also lie for money on the side?
reply to post by Frettin
 


Some REAL Journalists also Lie for Money. .. And Yes, it does hurt their credibility.


ETA:

I had to add this. It is about a reporter that fabricated major news stories.
Ex-USA TODAY reporter faked major stories

His credibility was completely destroyed and now he reports solely to himself.
edit on 2-7-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 


What makes him a REAL journalist? I agree with what you said, however, this story that you linked is irking me.

They all lie and they all plagiarize. He was just ousted because he fell out of line somehow. They can come down on every single reporter if they wanted to. He said he thought he was being set up. Well, to his knowledge he was just reporting what he was told to report. He didn't think he was doing anything wrong. IMO.

Every journalist is being blackmailed to lie for TPTB. They can destroy anyone's career either by making something up, or just exposing the truth. The same "truth" that was given to them by TPTB.

He was also ousted AND investigated by his own paper. Not only that, the story posted is from the same paper! Now, THAT is a conflict of interest. Someone could've just wanted to climb the ranks and pulled the dirt on this ONE guy. Even though they all do it.

Good post, but that is just scratching the surface!

ETA: Now check THIS one LOL!

www.huffingtonpost.com...

One month suspension from CNN and TIME. They didn't destroy his career, because that dude definitely plays ball. The suspension was just a PR stunt. Both of those reporters were too lazy to reword their memos and came up with the exact same thing. Gee, what a coincidence! I think you get kicked out of college for plagiarizing, but in the big leagues it's a month suspension.
edit on 2-7-2013 by Frettin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   


Every journalist is being blackmailed to lie for TPTB. They can destroy anyone's career either by making something up, or just exposing the truth. The same "truth" that was given to them by TPTB.
reply to post by Frettin
 


DING DING ! ! !, .. You just won the booby prize. A Cupie Doll.

But, I don't think it is used as blackmail material until they want something. Then when there is non compliance is when it is used.

So they are like indentured servants without even knowing it.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 


Right, that's what I meant by "fall out of line" and "playing ball". BTW, what is a cupie doll??



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Frettin
 




It was a little doll that they gave as a prize at carnivals. I think back in the 40's or 50's.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Frettin
 


I don't think it hurts their credibility to act in a movie any more than it helps the credibility of an actor who plays somebody positive.

For example, if a clown attacked me with crazy gadgets, I'm not going to call Micheal Keaton to save me.

I know he's not Batman just as I know that Piers Morgan isn't really a journalist.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Its just because the movie has some corporate/production/publishing connection to NBC Universal. The corp that pays Morgans salary.

You see the same with any 20th Century Fox movie using Fox News broadcasters.

Its a cheap way to enhance immersion and realism without having to pay extra to license other networks, their employees and logos.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
production companies use real journalists in movies for two reasons.

1. to make the scene more realistic. In WWZ it makes those news clips seem more real, more chilling, than it would if it was some inexperienced bit part actor.

2. for laughs. Bob Costas in basketball comes to mind.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Was excited to see this film............saw it...........BIG YAWN....!!

Another Hollywood mash-up and money making exercise................

If you want to watch a 'Proper' film on the same subject then watch 28 days Later and 28 weeks later..

Two separate films on the same Zombie story BUT far more realistic and grittty and gory......

WWZ (Z and not Zee BTW) was very weak and could have been alot more involving but just didn't meet the hype im afraid....

Regards

PDUK





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join