No saving "Saving Private Ryan" on Veteran's Day

djbnh · « **on:** 12 Nov 2004, 02:27 am »

As a vet, and on Veteran's Day, I'm sorry to see that the three ABC stations in my area ALL pulled showing "Saving Private Ryan" this evening. IMHO, what a disgrace to our brave women/men in uniform who have made, and those who will make, so many sacrifices in so many ways, including the ultimate sacrifice. I salute our brave men and women who have served, and who are currently serving, our country so faithfully. Your memory deserves better than what was offered, or not offered, today.

ton1313 · « **Reply #1 on:** 12 Nov 2004, 03:21 am »

Political Correctness at its finest! I totally respect and thank all of the Vets out there, from all of the wars. Private Ryan is a great film. Very well done & I think that it should be shown in the high schools to teach this younger generation, just what war is all about. If you have not seen it, please check out HBO's Band of Brothers DVD series. IMHO it smoked SPR.

Thanks again to all the Vets.

Zero · « **Reply #2 on:** 12 Nov 2004, 03:24 am »

Rgr that, DJB. Utterly shameful. I have to wonder if those who made the decisions have ever adorned the uniform.

rosconey · « **Reply #3 on:** 12 Nov 2004, 10:51 am »

the stations are scared to show it because of the current regime running the country-
the same unqualified person ( mike powell) who is going after howard stern and others has scared the stations from showing because of the threat of fines for what he calls indecency-the rule is so vauge that they couldnt take a chance-
our local paper has a article today about it- they are disapointed

i guess the current regime has forgotten the part of our constitution about freedom of speech-just like the seperation of church and state-

its like a slap in the face to those who served

ctviggen · « **Reply #4 on:** 12 Nov 2004, 12:47 pm »

No one thinks this isn't too violent to show on TV? Heck, they'd have to cut over half the opening scenes. I have the DVD (so I'd never watch it on TV anyway), but I've only seen the DVD once -- it's simply too brutal for me to watch. I'm glad the movie was made in a realistic manner, but I'll probably never watch it again.

ohenry · « **Reply #5 on:** 12 Nov 2004, 01:57 pm »

Maybe it's a little too violent for an 8:00 pm showing. I think the local station managements used the FCC threat to deflect public criticism for not showing it when all along they were just using good judgement.

It was a great movie, but not for prime time IMO. Also, it's a stretch to say it's absence was disrespectful to vets, another fine example of some folks searching for a reason to be offended.

jpsartre · « **Reply #6 on:** 12 Nov 2004, 02:26 pm »

Then again the stations may have used this as a pretext to villify the FCC and the new strict rules. For example "...look at how bad these new rules are, they prevent us from showing such a noble movie on Vet's day...". Everyone has an agenda, everyone.

JoshK · « **Reply #7 on:** 12 Nov 2004, 02:31 pm »

They aired it here. I didn't watch, I turned the channel as I am not usually found of seeing movies again.

hmen · « **Reply #8 on:** 12 Nov 2004, 03:36 pm »

According to what I read, ABC asked the FCC to review the movie ahead of time and tell them what they should cut before the broadcast but the FCC said that determining what is allowable ahead of time would be "censorship" and they could only act on complaints.
In other words, there aren't firmly established standards for broadcasters to follow and everything they show can put them in jeopardy of being fined if some self-appointed guardian of public morals decides to complain. The complaint will then be judged by political apointees who have the power to make arbitrary descisions which are not based on predetermined rules. It's a pretty scary situation.

byteme · « **Reply #9 on:** 12 Nov 2004, 03:45 pm »

Quote from: hmen

According to what I read, ABC asked the FCC to review the movie ahead of time and tell them what they should cut before the broadcast but the FCC said that determining what is allowable ahead of time would be "censorship" and they could only act on complaints.
In other words, there aren't firmly established standards for broadcasters to follow and everything they show can put them in jeopardy of being fined if some self-appointed guardian of public morals decides to complain. The complaint will then be jud ...

Yes, but so is editing up front to determine what we're allowed to see. This is a fine example of why I listen to XM radio and other than for sports and my one guilty pleasure Survivor we don't watch network TV at all. It's all D*!

Bwanagreg · « **Reply #10 on:** 12 Nov 2004, 03:57 pm »

The ironic thing is that the violence would likely not cause an FCC fine -- it would be the "dirty" words. Welcome to the growing American Theocracy. Better get used to it I guess.

byteme · « **Reply #11 on:** 12 Nov 2004, 04:03 pm »

Quote from: Bwanagreg

The ironic thing is that the violence would likely not cause an FCC fine -- it would be the "dirty" words. Welcome to the growing American Theocracy. Better get used to it I guess.

Ya, go kill two people, keep playing football, do no jail time, endorse products make millions.

But don't dare offend anyone! What a place it is where the worst possible thing you can do is offend somebody.

nathanm · « **Reply #12 on:** 12 Nov 2004, 04:53 pm »

"Saving Private Ryan" couldn't be any more or less violent than the REAL violence going on all over the world. Where's the 'War Channel' so that we can tune in to see who's getting shot today?

jpsartre · « **Reply #13 on:** 12 Nov 2004, 05:49 pm »

Speaking of censorship, have you seen what's in some of those "late-night" cartoons nowadays? I know it's basic cable vs network but is there really a difference nowadays in terms of accessibility?

hmen · « **Reply #14 on:** 12 Nov 2004, 06:04 pm »

Quote from: nathanm

"Saving Private Ryan" couldn't be any more or less violent than the REAL violence going on all over the world. Where's the 'War Channel' so that we can tune in to see who's getting shot today?

There is a "War Channel". It's called Fox News.

djbnh · « **Reply #15 on:** 13 Nov 2004, 04:00 am »

Quote from: ohenry

Maybe it's a little too violent for an 8:00 pm showing. I think the local station managements used the FCC threat to deflect public criticism for not showing it when all along they were just using good judgement.

It was a great movie, but not for prime time IMO. Also, it's a stretch to say it's absence was disrespectful to vets, another fine example of some folks searching for a reason to be offended.

I accept you have your point of view. If you think I wrote my comments as "another fine example of some folks searching for a reason to be offended", I'm not searching for reasons to be offended, I found the lack of broadcast backbone deplorable, and I note your avatar is also yellow.

dyfromhawaii · « **Reply #16 on:** 13 Nov 2004, 09:16 am »

the 47x they say the 'f' word...they informed the audience the night before that they will not be showing the movie as they 'have a fiduciary responsibility for their owners' due to the janet jackson incident'...

Ears · « **Reply #17 on:** 13 Nov 2004, 02:17 pm »

I was able to pull this one in with my HD anteanna in hi def whith DD to boot.

To all the stations that pulled it

Bwanagreg · « **Reply #18 on:** 13 Nov 2004, 02:20 pm »

The FCC does not want a fair legal fight - they don't allow these cases to go to court where they could be fought on constitutional grounds. They blackmail the parent companies with delays in license renewals and other BS tactics. I wish broadcasters would develop a spine, but it's big business. Profit and shareholder value uber alles.

I'd love to have European TV interrupt our regularly scheduled broadcasts for a week, just to show everyone how far out of the global mainstream our neo-Puritanism is. So much for free speech. Jerry Falwell for President.

Bwanagreg · « **Reply #19 on:** 13 Nov 2004, 02:24 pm »

... deleted my attempt at humor that might be over the line. Not trying to troll ...