POLITICS: TV Stations Afraid To Show Pvt. Ryan

Personally, I think there is a lot more than "afraid of the FCC" to air it going on with this scenario. Don't ask me what I think it is, just think of what this board is and you'll figure it out.

I also think that soldiers-to-be SHOULD see these types of films - for one reason: a possible soldier that is scrared enought by this type of relaism will not kill the enemy, but instead would inadvertantly kill himself and his commrades.

I told my dad (WWII Veteran) about the movie, if he wanted to watch it, he said he couldnt take a movie that real. It isn't, after all, John Wayne gun-ho glory now is it.

@ Whoever said the bit about comparing war to video games:

(unless I misunderstand your context, of which I pre-apologize)
War is NOT a video game, it's not Vietnam on your TV screen with downloadable cheats. Ya don't press shift/F1 and get unlimmited ammo.
War is blood, maming, and death irretrevable - there's no reset button.

@ GradyPhilpott

Political statement? You have this film confused with that of Moore. This movie is what war IS - not what candidated to to watch out for. How can the airing of this movie be political, the political hype of the 4yr term is done with.

@ DontTreadOnMe

Language was not edited because Speilberg said his movie could only be aired on netowrk tv if nothing was censored and/or edited.

Misfit

[Edit = spacing]

[edit on 12-11-2004 by Misfit]

To all:

The film is realistic in its portrayal of the horrific violence of war. It is a piece of propaganda. It is long on gore, anti-war message and short on everything else.

If you want to see the horror of war, watch the news. Play the Iraq beheading videos on a loop for two and a half hours. Watch the myriad documentaries out there about WWII. I encourage you to do so.

Here's just one example:

www.marineswwii.com...

As for the vitriol directed at me. I'm entitled to my opinions, just as much as all those who find joy in berating everything about me.

As for veterans of WWII, no group of veterans has ever been so universally honored as this group. It is true that only recently was there a national memorial, but there are perhaps tens of thousands of memorials around the country. Their GI Bill which created the American middle class as we know it, has never been matched by any successive bill. These men are deserving of all the honor they can get, but don't try to pass off the lie that they have been ignored for 60+ years. They have not.

The Vietnam War Memorial was built with private funds and when it was dedicated the then President of the United States chose not to attend. When Vietnam Veterans came home, the "Greatest Generation" refused to accept us as true war veterans and I have heard the same thing from many Korean War veterans.

By exalting this one cohort of veterans we, in many ways, do a disservice to all veterans who served prior to and after them. It is my humble opinion that if any generation deserves to be called the "Greatest," it is the generation who fought WWI and who were the political and military genius behind WWII, but again, that is my opinion.

Apparently, I was unaware that "Private Ryan" had become a national sacrement that requires us to be exposed to vivid special effects and profanity. It would seem to me that the offensive language could have bee edited out and the violence toned down a bit and everyone could be happy.

How many people here have to rely on the broadcast networks to view the movies of their choice? Do we have here a group of computer and internet savvy individuals who don't have VCRs, DVDs, or DVD-ROMs? Does anyone here not have a video store or three within a day's drive from his home? Are there not video rental services on the internet?

This thread is a rant about nothing.

Grady,

The same can be asked of you. Does your remote not have a channel button?

Your statement starts to uncover part of what your beef is, IMO....you, unlike the veterans of WW II, were not sent to fight a righteous war with unquestionable need and clear-cut measures of victory. You were sent to a no-win situation.

Originally posted by Valhall
You were sent to a no-win situation.

False, Valhall. It was only a no-win situation because people like you keep repeating the lie. The war was won on the battlefield, but that will never convince the eternally deluded who deny reality in preference for hype, a la "Private Ryan." That's your problem, not mine. My conscience is clear.

So, much anger in one view of a movie, an opinion on a choice of showing or not a make believe movie can bring so much anger on some.

It is not good, to have so much anger inside, we have enough trouble in the world right now to keep bringing the horrors of the past.

Is enough horrors right now.

Originally posted by marg6043
What you are going to do about it spank me? with muaddib? Get real, this thread is about a movie and a comparison of the results of war and Iraq by the standard of most of the war happy people is another american war.

Maybe that is how it looks in your convoluted mind, but I seem to recall that the topic is TV stations afraid to show Pvt Ryan. There was no mention of a comparission between that movie and what is going on in Iraq. There are few things that they have in common.

Anyone who compares WWII to OIF is a fool. They are two seperate entities.

CoolHand it seems you are kind of off track on the thread now, perhaps you should go back and find the the link

Don't know how many(few) actually read one media report (CNN link), but is worthy of this direct posting:

==========================

Cole [president of Citadel Communications] cited recent FCC actions and last week's re-election of President Bush as reasons for replacing "Saving Private Ryan" on Thursday with a music program and the TV movie "Return to Mayberry."

"We're just coming off an election where moral issues were cited as a reason by people voting one way or another and, in my opinion, the commissioners are fearful of the new Congress," Cole said.

===========================

Again, reasoning being that the airing was replaced - broadcasters are afraid to show a film most closely real war. To air a film that is about gung-ho John Waynes is ok, because you do not get the whole "sense" of war. to air a film where such death and carnage IS sensed (and to a point even felt), it cast's the immoral aspect upon war. This gov does not want us to see the true side of war - only John Wayne.

Misfit

Misfit you bring a valid point, and that is how much of our country has turn into totalitarian rule that television is afraid of shows becasue of our government.

It this the begining of the NWO.?

Grady:

Don't let this cinematic feature affect you too much. "Private Ryan" is a political statement masquerading as entertainment. The graphic horror was not necessary to tell this story. The timing of the film had everything to do with scaring the hell out of young people and dispensing the message that nothing is worth going to war for. Films like this do a disservice to veterans on our day

Okay sorry, now I'm SURE you're actually not a veteran. It's a story about World War Two and the graphic horror was "not necessary to tell this story"?!?! It was for scaring young people?

Do you not think that young people should be PREPARED for the horrors of war? To KNOW that, yes, you may in fact be splattered with brain matter from the guy beside you as he gets a bullet in the face and his head explodes all over you.

Yes, in fact, you might get shrapnel from a grenade that burst open your stomach and you need to pick up your own guts and try to jam them back in, all the while you are soiling yourself.

War is NOT a movie, war is living hell, and the fact that you have a problem with depicting it on television tells me that you are in fact NOT a veteran, but you had me going for a while there.

The TRUTH is that war is horror piled atop other horrors, if you had actually been in combat you'd know this. Unless you're telling the truth about being in Vietnam and in fact nothing affected you because you blanked it all out and refused to accept anything. Or you were a desk jockey.

Apparently, I was unaware that "Private Ryan" had become a national sacrement that requires us to be exposed to vivid special effects and profanity. It would seem to me that the offensive language could have bee edited out and the violence toned down a bit and everyone could be happy.

Yes, protect people from bad words and blood, because in actual war, it's all about tea-parties and bridge tournaments. Don't scare people into not wanting to recruit, right? Let's not call it censorship let's call it "information management".

It was only a no-win situation because people like you keep repeating the lie. The war was won on the battlefield, but that will never convince the eternally deluded who deny reality in preference for hype, a la "Private Ryan." That's your problem, not mine. My conscience is clear.

Again, underscoring my suspicion that you're no veteran, you seem to believe the Vietnam War was WON by the Americans, even though the Communists drove you out of the country with your tails between your legs. "We lost because of public sentiment in the U.S.". Yeah whatever, you LOST, and trying to say that you didn't is ludicrous. Read ANY history book.

Don't be insulted that I doubt you're a veteran, I know many veterans and not ONE of them has ANYTHING positive to say about war. Why? Because they've experienced it and it changed their lives.

j

Originally posted by Jakomo
Okay sorry, now I'm SURE you're actually not a veteran. It's a story about World War Two and the graphic horror was "not necessary to tell this story"?!?! It was for scaring young people?

Whether you believe it or not, I am exactly what I say I am.

Again, underscoring my suspicion that you're no veteran, you seem to believe the Vietnam War was WON by the Americans, even though the Communists drove you out of the country with your tails between your legs. "We lost because of public sentiment in the U.S.". Yeah whatever, you LOST, and trying to say that you didn't is ludicrous. Read ANY history book.

I don't need to read a history book because I was there, but I have read some history books and the fact is that the Viet Cong was defeated at Tet 68 and the NVA was defeated at Tet 69. Unfortunately for all those Vietnamese running restaurants in your hometown, the US yeilded to mob violence from the likes of John Kerry and began withdrawal of combat troops in the fall of 1969. All US combat troops were gone by April of 1973 and Saigon did not fall until April of 1975. Those are the facts. You need to read some history books.

Don't be insulted that I doubt you're a veteran, I know many veterans and not ONE of them has ANYTHING positive to say about war. Why? Because they've experienced it and it changed their lives.

I have experienced war and I know that it changed my life forever, but it didn't make me stupid.

[edit on 04/11/12 by GradyPhilpott]

11-12) 14:33 PST NEW YORK (AP) --

Sixty-six ABC affiliates, covering nearly one-third of the country, ultimately decided not to air the movie "Saving Private Ryan" on Veterans Day due to skittishness over whether the Federal Communications Commission would deem it indecent.

The FCC received complaints about ABC's broadcast and will review them to decide whether to open an investigation, a spokeswoman said Friday.

There are a total of 225 ABC stations. All 10 stations owned and operated by the network showed the movie, but affiliates in Boston, Atlanta, Dallas, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Nashville, Honolulu, Phoenix, Orlando, Fla., and Charlotte, N.C., were among those that did not.

etc.....

www.sfgate.com.../news/archive/2004/11/12/entertainment1733EST0679.DTL


You can be sure your living in a Dictatorship when the media is in fear of the federal government. That is how Hitler got a toe hold in Germany before he was made a citizen. He terroized the media.
Look at all those cities and add up all the numbers of people that were denied there freedom of choice, due to fear of Federal retaliation on Veterans Day. The day we remember those that died so the ones left could be free. Free to choose, free to speak, maintain your extreme blind patriotisim to a corrupt criminal administration and one morning you will wake up and you will be next.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Polar Bear
.......
Why don't I see it that way. Must be the 100,000 innocent dead civilians. And as usual I must agree with the Prolific Okie writer as far as Grady's perspective is concerned.
Polar Bear

ok, can we please have a link where this amount of Iraqi civilians are reported "as being killed by the coalition"?.....

It is getting pretty tiresome that people keep coming up with this figure and nowhere have I seen any information to back this up.....

You should also know that the insurgents are killing Iraqi civilians too...and yes there are quite a few Iraqis that are grateful of the coalition ousting Saddam.... All we see in the news are reports from those areas where there are attacks, but if you notice those places where there is a lot of violence are few in Iraq....

The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service



Civilian death toll in Iraq exceeds 100,000


Updated 13:05 29 October 04

NewScientist.com news service

www.newscientist.com...


But neither Cheney's ''mad scientist'' nor the apparition of bin Laden himself can truly compare to the very real horror of the conclusions of the 'Lancet' study, which was conducted by field surveys of Iraqi doctors and conceived by a team of researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, just 50 kms north of the U.S. capital.

Its conclusion -- that 100,000 more Iraqis have died, most as a result of military action, since March 2003 than would have been expected if the invasion and subsequent occupation had not taken place -- attacked the very heart of the Bush administration's last remaining justification for the war: that Iraqis are better off today than they were under former President Saddam Hussein.
ipsnews.net...

Muaddib, You are a failure.

[edit on 12-11-2004 by Polar Bear]

www.iraqbodycount.net...

[edit on 12-11-2004 by Polar Bear]

"Saving Private Ryan" was not aired by many broadcast network stations because of the profanity in the film. I doubt that the vividly gory special effects had anything to do with it. That kind of language does not belong on the public airwaves and in no way honors the sacrifice of those who died so a bunch of cry babies could go crazy bashing their government on this site.

How much profanity do you see here? Why do the administrators censor profanity here? They do it because there are children present and there is absolutely no thought that cannot expressed without profanity.

Grow up! Buy the film or rent it. We veterans don't need Stephen Spielberg to speak for us.

[edit on 04/11/12 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by Polar Bear
..........
Muaddib, You are a failure.

.........

Keep your insults away from the discussion....or don't discuss the topic at all...

Now let's quote some of the things that are said in the link you provided....

The majority of these deaths, which are in addition those normally expected from natural causes, illness and accidents, have been among women and children, finds the study, released early by The Lancet on Thursday.
....................
The figure of 100,000 � estimated by extrapolating the surveyed households� death toll to the whole population - is based on "conservative assumptions", notes Les Roberts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, US, who led the study.

Excerpted from.
www.newscientist.com...

Tell you you what, congatulations, and good luck
Polar Bear

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Grow up! Buy the film or rent it.

Turn the TV off, or change the channel.
That has already been offered as a suggestion.
Common sense.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
We veterans don't need Stephen Spielberg to speak for us.

I am a Veteran, don't speak for me.

I've stated my opinion, which in of itself says you can not speak for all Veterans. It is good for Americans to see as close as possible what war is. Why do you think the gov did not want that first and subsequent shipments of filled caskets to be on tv, they do not want the public to see the results of war. No see = no refute.

Misfit

Originally posted by Misfit

I am a Veteran, don't speak for me.

I've stated my opinion, which in of itself says you can not speak for all Veterans. It is good for Americans to see as close as possible what war is. Why do you think the gov did not want that first and subsequent shipments of filled caskets to be on tv, they do not want the public to see the results of war. No see = no refute.

Well, maybe I missed something, but I didn't think that Veterans' Day was set aside to rub the noses of America in profanity and gratuitous Hollywood violence. If you had read my posts, you might have noted that I have recommended that Americans view the documentaries and videos available on the subject of warfare in the twentieth century. There is plenty of blood and guts in most of them. My point is that "Saving Private Ryan" is not the only theatrical film dealing with warfare and it is far from the best and that there are plenty of documentaries that show real violence and horror and manage to do so without the profanity.

I like "Full Metal Jacket." It's very realistic and entertaining to boot, full of satire and irony, but I don't think that it belongs on broadcast television and I'm glad that the FCC is there to protect the airwaves for the general public. For the rest of you, there are the myriad other alternatives.

And Stephen Spielberg can bite my behind.

TV stations have been doing language edits for years. When Pulp Fiction made free-to-air we counted 65 edits before the first ad-break.

If the movie is that popular and they think they can make money from selling the advertising why can't they just make a tv-edit? Or is it that with a (unexpected?) Bush victory they suddenly found themselves confronted with the Hayes Code again and had been planning on never having to do tv-edits again?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott


False, Valhall. It was only a no-win situation because people like you keep repeating the lie. The war was won on the battlefield, but that will never convince the eternally deluded who deny reality in preference for hype...

I'm neither deluded nor hyped. I said nothing about whether the U.S. was winning on the battlefield or not. I said nothing for or against how well the troops were doing in Vietnam. I said, you were sent into a no-win situation, with no clear deliverable and the U.S. government made damned sure that 55,000 soldiers died for nothing by deciding they really couldn't come up with a clear deliverable. That has nothing to do with the fighting ability of the U.S. troops in Vietnam. That has to do with the government sending soldiers into a conflict and then after several years and several thousand saying...Oops...our bad, let's get outta here! That's no hype. That's no delusion. IT HAPPENED!