JarHeadJim Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 Great idea for Veterans Day but way to graphic for network TV
SeanO Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 But it is a reality of war! Great idea for Veterans Day but way to graphic for network TV 112664[/snapback]
aussiew Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 They're not showing it in the Dallas area because they're saying it's innapropriate language and violence for TV. And the local station managers is concerned about the fall-out because of th Super Bowl incident. I don't know how anyone can compare the showing of this great movie with Janet Jackon's Super Bowl caper. The movie is using violence and language that would be "realistic" for that time and the event. Also, parents have a choice whether to allow their kids to watch it or not. The Super Bowl trick was just a slutty action that was pushed on us with no choice.
Rico Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 Wonder if it's letterboxed or fool-frame? I'll check it out on HDTV.
KD in CA Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 ABC's agreement with Steven Spielburg that the movie be shown unedited is the reason why... 112725[/snapback] Good for Spielberg. Once the editors get cutting, they ruin movies, especially one like that. War doesn't get edited....neither should the movie. If it's too nasty for the kiddies to watch, put them to bed. But it might be a eye opener for a teenager.
Mike In Illinois Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 I believe ABC showed this movie uncut on Veterans Day 2001 and 2002. The affiliate I work for plans on airing it. There are a handful of companies who own ABC stations who are afraid of being fined by the FCC. The asked for a waiver to exempt the broadcast from being fined, but the FCC refused those requests. The result is the FCC could fine those stations, or they may not. Also, ABC has said they will pay the fines for any station hit by the FCC. I agree that this should be held in a different light than the Super Bowl incident, as this is a special day and the movie might be used to reflect and remember those who fought for our freedom.
aussiew Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 as this is a special day and the movie might be used to reflect and remember those who fought for our freedom. Amen.
Rico Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 ABC's agreement with Steven Spielburg that the movie be shown unedited is the reason why... 112725[/snapback] Not without precedent, I believe Schindler's List was also shown uncut.
DC Tom Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 Not without precedent, I believe Schindler's List was also shown uncut. 113188[/snapback] Yes it was, uncut with no commercials, sponsored by Ford (which was an incredibly classy thing for them to do). And Schindler's List was a far more graphic movie than Saving Private Ryan...
Golden Wheels Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 The ABC affiliate in Boston isn't showing it either. The candy@sses are afraid they will lose their FCC license if they do. They are showing Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman's "Far, Far Away" instead.
The Avenger Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 It's a political move by some stations. It's a way for them to proclaim that they are essentially barred from showing any sort of programming that might be considered controversial becaue there is no clear guidance from the FCC. There seems to be no distinction between a top notch movie tribute to veterans like "Ryan" and any sort of sitcom or drama with violence/sex/rough language in the eyes of the FCC - they refused to clear stations for showing it and seemed to take the approach of "if the public launches complaints about the broadcast we'll let you know if you're in trouble". I wouldn'tr anything I wasn't 100% sure I wasn't going to get in trouble for if nobody told me the rules ahead of time. All it takes is one person to file a complaint to the FCC and you've got a big fine (even if the network pays for it). The FCC should be forced to spell out exactly what is allowable/not allowable in such situations and then stations can make informed choices on what to air and what not to air. If the FCC is going to be wishy-washy and non-comittal this is what happens.
nodnarb Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 i think it should be required viewing (as should band of brothers) for every generation. let's not be naive about what youth can "handle" on tv regarding language and violence. what makes this any different from a tarantino film that they watch on hbo when their parents are asleep?
Rico Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Not on in Baltimore either. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Think I'll crank up the DTS disc (soon as the Apprentice is over ).
Dan Gross Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 2001 and 2002 came before the ruling by the FCC regarding Bono's use of the "F-word" at the Golden Globes. It was decided that the use of the "F-Word" falls under the "profane" guidelines, which means it's illegal: Profane Broadcasts Restricted to 10 P.M. - 6 A.M. The FCC has defined profanity as “including language that denot[es] certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.” See Complaints Against Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of the Golden Globe Awards Program, FCC 04-43 (released: March 18 2004) (“ Golden Globe Awards”). In announcing this definition, the FCC ruled that the single use of the “F-word” in the context of a live awards program was profane. The FCC further stated that it, “depending on the context, will also consider under the definition of profanity the “F-Word” and those words (or variants thereof) that are as highly offensive as the “F-Word,” to the extent such language is broadcast between 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. We will analyze other potentially profane words or phrases on a case-by-case basis.” http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/opi.html
gantrules Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Bwahahaha....what a fvcking joke this country has become. We can get pictures from Iraq of children bleeding in the street on national television but we can't show a documentary about a small story in WW2? Probably the most noble war we were involved in and it get censored b/c it's too gory and they say the f word??? If you don't want your kids to watch it and they are still up record it, put them to bed, TIVO it, DVR it.....
Kevbeau Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Didn't show it in Atlanta either. Ran some reruns of "intellectually stimulating," reality shows.
MrJaimie Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 I'm just curious. How many people on this board were upset that Janet showed her booby? And of those people upset, how many of those are upset further that they didn't show Saving Private Ryan on many of the ABC affiliates?
gantrules Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Didn't care about Janet, I thought it was funny. I watched Private Ryan and I thought it was appropriate to keep the movie the same.
stevestojan Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 I didn't watch that... but I did watch "Saving Ryan's Privates" ... it was good, although the plot was lacking.
aussiew Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 I'm just curious. How many people on this board were upset that Janet showed her booby? And of those people upset, how many of those are upset further that they didn't show Saving Private Ryan on many of the ABC affiliates? I was upset about Janet's boob because I had "no choice" to see it or not. ( and it was an ugly one). I was upset about NOT allowing the movie to be shown because we should be able to choose to watch it or not.
Recommended Posts