Announcement

**blinky** · 11-12-2004, 08:44 AM

As Peter said, it wasn't a decision by ABC but affiliates.....
ABC has no problem showing it and has told it's affiliates if the FCC decides to impose fines they will pay them for their affiliates. I guess look at the markets where it wasn't shown and make your own judgements.....

**J.von Canon** · 11-12-2004, 10:27 AM

"p.c.",etc.

"P.C." is ALWAYS agenda-driven.Absolutely always!
Saving Private Ryan was a masterpiece,in spite of the usual gaffs that we(nitpickers)can recognize.But it is powerful and gave a fleeting glance at the character and sacrifices of W.W.II fighting soldiers.
It also gave some insight to a very "dumbed down" historically illiterate nation of Americans in a massive way.
But what I can't understand-how can some excrement like the "Howard Stern Show" manage air time?
Where are the liberal women's protestors?
I'm not a prude but how can(mostly "poor",I notice)females be paraded nude,groped by that maggot,and otherwise be treated like they were nothing but a slab of meat?
It's a Roman Circus!
Maybe someone can explain this to me because I don't "get it!"

**JaimeH** · 11-12-2004, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Chris Boonzaier

Hi,
WHY does ABC want to do that? do they have a box full of snuff movies they want to air and cannot?
There must be a REASON why they do something like this.

All you have to of done is watch ABC for the last 20 years to know their agenda. But let's not get political.

**Greg Sebring** · 11-12-2004, 10:43 AM

With the proper advanced warnings to parents, I see nothing wrong with it. In my opinion a good percentage of the population walk around with their heads in the clouds (or sand) and have no real conception of the sacrifices made or what it takes to maintain the freedoms they so take for granted. The uninterrupted DVD is the best way to see it anyway...that goes for any movie.

Greg

**Peter_Suciu** · 11-12-2004, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by JaimeH

This was an orchrestrated "event" by ABC. As long as there are warnings about language and content, the FCC has no problem with these types of movies. This was an attempt by ABC to push the idea they are being censcored, and by the responses here, some of you bought it.

No it isn't an orchrestrated event by ABC. They have a contract with Spielberg to show the movie uncut. They paid a lot of money for the broadcast rights and therefore they want to show it to recoup on their investment.

**Chris Boonzaier** · 11-12-2004, 10:51 AM

Oh Boy... conspiricy theories... and rather harmless ones because we are talking about a film here....

I have not been watchng ABC for 20 years so I go into this blind to their agenda. I thought Murdoch was a big business fan and rather conservative, but that may be wrong... here are my 5 theories...

Theory 1) Murdoch is out to get spielberg for being on the other side of the political fence (according to an article I read, the local channels were willing to play the movie if they could edit a bit of swearing and gore... ABC said NO!)

Theory 2) The areas where they did not play it are doing so because they were short listed to be the place where Indiana Jones 4 is going to be filmed... they lost out so are trying to get back at Spielberg by not showing his movie.

Theory3) The senders in these states are liberal left wing pinkos and dont want to show war movies that glorify the USA (although this seems like a weak argument if they were willing to show edited versions

Theory 4) The senders are full right wing and figure that seeing there is a pretty bloody battle going on at this time, it would not be right to weaken the publics resolve by showing real blood and gore war films.

I dont understand the P.C. cry here,,, who are we being politically correct for by banning the film... I dont see any P.C. connection in any of the above... so I will advance the following

Theory 5) The areas where those stations are , are where a lot of Germans settled and it would not be P.C. to rub it in their face 60 years after the event, that they were reamed by a tousle haired guy who looks like Forrest Gump.

**JaimeH** · 11-12-2004, 10:51 AM

My copy of SPR was recorded off the television about 4 years ago, profanity and all. You're not going to convince me this isn't a post Janet Jackson mammary publicity stunt.

**Adam H** · 11-12-2004, 11:14 AM

I'm just glad I live where I do...

I almost never watch movies aired on the American channels I receive...they are invariably "edited for time and/or content".

Canadian stations allow significantly more violence, nudity and "adult themes"...those near the border may want to consider tuning in if you can pick up our stations if you want to see more films the way they were meant to be seen.

Cheers,

Adam

**Robin Lumsden** · 11-12-2004, 11:19 AM

Does anyone really care............SPR's widely available elsewhere on DVD, video, etc. etc.

The last time I was across the pond the best thing I could get from 30-odd TV channels was an old re-run of 'Dr. Who'!

And, boy, were these Daleks VIOLENT !!!!!!!

**Peter_Suciu** · 11-12-2004, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Robin Lumsden

Does anyone really care............SPR's widely available elsewhere on DVD, video, etc. etc.

The last time I was across the pond the best thing I could get from 30-odd TV channels was an old re-run of 'Dr. Who'!

Hey Robin--You are absolutely right about the availability of the film. In fact I'm shocked that the networks still pay so much for the broadcast rights of these films given that they're available on DVD, VHS and have made the rounds on Pay-Per-View and the movie channels. But strangely those high profile films still do well in the ratings.

And on the second point...30-odd TV channels? Get with the program! I have 300 TV channels, yet still mostly watch The History Channel or home improvement shows on the weekends.

Also...my wife worries that some day I might have a whole shelf of Dr. Who DVDs!

**Jack T** · 11-12-2004, 11:32 AM

Couple of clarifications:

1) ABC contract with Spielburg specifically prevents any editing of the movie. Spielburg required this to protect the integrity of the movie.

2) ABC said they would cover any fines their affiliates incurred as a result of showing this film. They can not cover the risk of loss of licence for an affiliate.

3) The FCC was asked by ABC to clear SPR for viewing before Thursday. The FCC responded that they would not approve/disapprove a movie ahead of time as that would be censorship. They stated that they would only react to complaints filed. They would then determine is the complaint was valid and if so would access penalties.

4) The group AFA (American Family Association) has threatened to file FCC complaints against any station that airs SPR. Here is the article- http://headlines.agapepress.org/arch...fa/112004a.asp They have pre-printed e-mails to the FCC where you just have to enter you name and hit send.

5) The FCC has never defined with is inappropriate for primetime TV (8pm-10pm). The rules say nothing profane or indecent. The FCC, despite repeated requests from the networks, has never defined "profane or indecent".

6) The AFA filed complaints against SPR when it was aired two other times on network television. In both cases the FCC, ruled the movie was neither profane or indecent.

7) Affiliates who pre-empt network television get to keep the advertising fees for themselves rather than passing them on to the network.

Based on the above facts I would theorize that the networks and affiliates are trying to send a message to the FCC that they want clearer rules. They are doing this by holding back a movie most people except as a great picture in order to pressure the FCC. Imagine if they had complained that they couldn't show "Debbie Does Dallas" because they didn't know if they would get a fine. They picked a safe movie that people would complain about not seeing, especially on Veterans Day and made it into an industry issue. The affiliates also gain by picking up some extra cash and blaming the FCC.

Just my 2 cents.

Jack T

**Chris Boonzaier** · 11-12-2004, 11:56 AM

Just who are the FCC...why are they there... who wants them...

Hey... I asked the same thing back in the 80s with the PMRC

Who is this AFA? what agenda do they have?

**Chris Boonzaier** · 11-12-2004, 11:59 AM

WELL WELL..... There is irony for you... the folks who want to stop the broadcast are NOT left wing commie pinkos....
http://www.afa.net/

**Peter_Suciu** · 11-12-2004, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Chris Boonzaier

Just who are the FCC...why are they there... who wants them...Hey... I asked the same thing back in the 80s with the PMRC

Who is this AFA? what agenda do they have?

The FCC is actually the government agency that is in charge of regulating broadcast radio and TV, setting standards and issuing licenses. The FCC is some what necessary if only to make sure that stations adhere to a set of rules, as the public (not the government) owns the air waves.

The PMRC is actually very much like the AFA; both are independent groups that try and tell the masses what is good for them.

**Chris Boonzaier** · 11-12-2004, 12:02 PM

Parents Suggest Shaving Private Ryan's Indecent Content
Thursday night's airing of the movie Saving Private Ryan, uncut, on network television could lead to thousands of complaints against ABC, due to the film's graphic violence and profane language. More than 20 network affiliates around the U.S. have chosen not to carry the World War II drama, rather than risk Federal Communications Commission penalties. Read Details

From what I saw on an M-T-V show today... there already is a Movie called "Shaving Private Ryan" and I assume they Do shave her indecent content..... but I dont think that is the movie they are on about.... and I dont think they realise the irony of the title of that article..

Announcement

No Saving Private Ryan here in Atlanta

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread