|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 11/11/04 - 10:28 Post subject: Some ABC affiliates refusing to air Saving Private Ryan
http://us.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/11/movie.canceled.ap/index.html
| Cnn.com wrote: | The decisions mark a twist in the conflict over the aggressive stand the FCC has taken against obscenity and profanity since Janet Jackson flashed the world during the last Super Bowl halftime show.
Steven Spielberg's Oscar-winning movie aired on ABC with relatively little controversy in 2001 and 2002, but station owners -- including several in large markets -- are unnerved that airing it Thursday could bring federal punishment. The film includes a violent depiction of the D-Day invasion and profanity.
"It would clearly have been our preference to run the movie. We think it's a patriotic, artistic tribute to our fighting forces," Ray Cole, president of Citadel Communications, told AP Radio. The company owns three ABC affiliates in the Midwest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/11/04 - 10:31 Post subject:
I'm not saying this just because I thought it was a horrible movie, but they have a point. The film was graphically violent, however true to life it was. If the same scenes were shown in a fiction work, equally graphically violent, I doubt it'd be shown on network TV at any time. Just because it's historically accurate doesn't mean it should be shown on regular TV. That's what cable and DVD are for.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/11/04 - 10:33 Post subject:
I agree with kido on everything except it being a horrible movie.
I own the movie, and I only watched when the kids were asleep.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/11/04 - 10:36 Post subject:
Granted this isn't a children's movie or kiddie appropriate, but they are refusing to air it because of fear of the FCC. Not to mention that it is something the parent network is planning.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/11/04 - 10:40 Post subject:
Although inappropriate for children, I think there is a world of difference between violence in a movie depicting historical actual events and violence created strictly for entertainment, shock value and artistic expression.
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/11/04 - 10:45 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | | Although inappropriate for children, I think there is a world of difference between violence in a movie depicting historical actual events and violence created strictly for entertainment, shock value and artistic expression. |
Violence is violence, whatever the context. And the real life stuff is inherently more disturbing, IMO.
And Pug, everybody fears the FCC. An overhaul of that organization has been needed for years. I am proud to report, however, that I was fined (well, my college radio station) over $140,000 by the FCC. 
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/11/04 - 10:48 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: |
Violence is violence, whatever the context. And the real life stuff is inherently more disturbing, IMO.
And Pug, everybody fears the FCC. An overhaul of that organization has been needed for years. I am proud to report, however, that I was fined (well, my college radio station) over $140,000 by the FCC. |
Awesome!
Also,
| CNN.com wrote: |
Profane speech, which is barred from broadcast radio and television between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., is defined by the FCC as language that is "so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance," or epithets that tend "to provoke violent resentment."
The guidelines say the context in which such material appears is of critical importance.
Cole 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."
The Cole is question here is "Ray Cole, president of Citadel Communications...The company owns three ABC affiliates in the Midwest." |
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/11/04 - 10:53 Post subject:
Schlinder's list was shown in its entireity, and it was unedited.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/11/04 - 10:54 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | I am proud to report, however, that I was fined (well, my college radio station) over $140,000 by the FCC. |
Did the college have to pay the fine?
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/11/04 - 10:57 Post subject:
| Quote: | | Cole 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." |
That's frickin' hysterical! Yet unsurprisingly fitting.
| Cappy wrote: | | Schlinder's list was shown in its entireity, and it was unedited. |
Yes, with COPIOUS disclaimers for two weeks. It was also never shown again. There was nudity as well as disturbing images, but it was tastefully done. A lot of subtle innuendoes, like when "snow" was falling on Schindler and he realized what it truly was. A lot of violence could have been displayed, but it wasn't. Not a good comparison to SPR that showed limbs being blown off, people screaming in agony, and the like.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/11/04 - 11:25 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | Quote: | | Cole 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." |
That's frickin' hysterical! Yet unsurprisingly fitting.
Yes, with COPIOUS disclaimers for two weeks. It was also never shown again. There was nudity as well as disturbing images, but it was tastefully done. A lot of subtle innuendoes, like when "snow" was falling on Schindler and he realized what it truly was. A lot of violence could have been displayed, but it wasn't. Not a good comparison to SPR that showed limbs being blown off, people screaming in agony, and the like. |
So just include disclaimers for SPR. There will be limited commercial breaks, so just include disclaimers during the commercial breaks, too.
|
|
|
|
|
prohemp
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 7716
Location: in the cradle of liberty
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/11/04 - 12:42 Post subject:
The horse has already left the barn.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/11/04 - 16:22 Post subject:
It should be shown in its entirety and after 9:00pm.
Editing does it injustice to those who died and those who carried on. It is historically acurate albeit a fictional story.
Nothing in it is gratitous at all. It is realistic. It should be have disclaimers though.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/11/04 - 21:35 Post subject:
Its showing here in the Philadelphia market
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/11/04 - 23:23 Post subject:
Some of the Digital TV discussion groups I follow have basically come to the same conclusion -- All the FCC needs to do is state whether the movie, in its original/unedited format, violates their decency standards. They refuse to tell the affliates, in advance, if the movie violates those standards -- Thus some affliates fearing the SuperBowl backlash on CBS are deciding to pass on the SPR.
Seems ridiculous to me, but that's our efficient federal govt. in action.
|
|
|
|
