Bush to be assassinated on Channel 4

[j2k4]

Should go over big, I imagine...

Don't quite know what to think about it, but I'm not shocked.

I do wonder what could be the point of depicting the "mock" assassination of a real political figure if not to be, for lack of a better term...suggestive?

I don't know that this has ever been done before.

I'm curious; what do you guys think?

Bush 'assassinated' in British TV mockumentary
AFP Thursday August 31, 06:09 PM


LONDON (AFP) - A British television channel is to screen a mock documentary showing the imagined assassination of US President George W. Bush, it announced in a move which looks set to court controversy.

Channel Four's "The Death of a President" mixes archive footage and computer-generated imagery to give a chillingly realistic representation of an actual killing.

In the film, the president makes a speech to business leaders in Chicago and faces a massive anti-war demonstration.

He is shot by a sniper as he leaves the venue and the investigation into his killing focuses on Syrian-born man.

The film will debut at the Toronto Film Festival, which starts on September 7, and will be aired on Channel Four's digital channel More4 on October 9.

Producers are hopeful of selling rights to broadcast "The Death of a President" in the United States following its debut.

Peter Dale, head of More4, said the drama was a "thought-provoking critique" of contemporary US society.

He said: "It's an extraordinarily gripping and powerful piece of work, a drama constructed like a documentary that looks back at the assassination of George Bush as the starting point for a very gripping detective story.

"It's a pointed political examination of what the war on terror did to the American body politic.

"I'm sure that there will be people who will be upset by it but when you watch it you realise what a sophisticated piece of work it is.

"It's not sensationalist, or simplistic but a very thought-provoking, powerful drama. I hope people will see that the intention behind it is good."

[Snee]

That's just silly.

[vidcc]

I'm not so sure that use of a syrian as the assasin is "thought provoking". Perhaps if they made it a white non muslim American then it could be a little more of a talking subject. look back at how many leaders have been assassinated by one of their own.
As it stands it appears to be just an anti Bush subject and that will overshadow any point to the production.

[Seedler]

Cool Will watch.

[Agrajag]

Cool Will watch.

Do you get Channel 4 in Canadia.

[j2k4]

Cool Will watch.

Do you get Channel 4 in Canadia.

Perhaps someone objective on your side of the pool might watch for those of us who cannot watch?

I'm mighty interested in why it was thought necessary to graft Dubya's face onto an actor, rather than tell a fictional story as fiction in all aspects...

[Biggles]

It is one of those "watch the world unravel and scare yourself silly" things. I think the idea is to make it as plausible as possible and suggest to people that such events could be just one bullet away.


I rather think the US public might be rather more robust - albeit in the Dr Evil sense when confronting the possible loss of Mini-me.

"I would be inconsolable.....well obviously for 15 minutes or so, then I would move on" or something of that ilk.

I don't believe it is supposed to be a "this would be a good idea" but rather "look how bad things could get". To that end Bush and his confrontation with radical Islam is more relevant than a fictional President and to be effective in worrying people, now rather after he leaves office is a better playing time. Questionable taste though.

[Agrajag]

It is one of those "watch the world unravel and scare yourself silly" things. I think the idea is to make it as plausible as possible and suggest to people that such events could be just one bullet away.


I rather think the US public might be rather more robust - albeit in the Dr Evil sense when confronting the possible loss of Mini-me.

"I would be inconsolable.....well obviously for 15 minutes or so, then I would move on" or something of that ilk.

I don't believe it is supposed to be a "this would be a good idea" but rather "look how bad things could get". To that end Bush and his confrontation with radical Islam is more relevant than a fictional President and to be effective in worrying people, now rather after he leaves office is a better playing time. Questionable taste though.

What he said.

Other than the "mini-me" part, which was just silly.

[Biggles]

It is one of those "watch the world unravel and scare yourself silly" things. I think the idea is to make it as plausible as possible and suggest to people that such events could be just one bullet away.


I rather think the US public might be rather more robust - albeit in the Dr Evil sense when confronting the possible loss of Mini-me.

"I would be inconsolable.....well obviously for 15 minutes or so, then I would move on" or something of that ilk.

I don't believe it is supposed to be a "this would be a good idea" but rather "look how bad things could get". To that end Bush and his confrontation with radical Islam is more relevant than a fictional President and to be effective in worrying people, now rather after he leaves office is a better playing time. Questionable taste though.

What he said.

Other than the "mini-me" part, which was just silly.

:naughty:

I thought it apposite to the 15 minute culture.

[Appzalien]

I think anyone with half a brain, US citizen or some other culture, would think twice about assasinating a fool like Bush just to have a tyrant like Dick Cheney take over. Thats like "Out of the frying pan and into the fire". Replacing a moron with a wicked and cruel master manipulator would be unforgivable.

[Agrajag]

What he said.

Other than the "mini-me" part, which was just silly.

:naughty:

I thought it apposite to the 15 minute culture.

I disagree, I thought it was exactly the same. :O

[j2k4]

I think anyone with half a brain, US citizen or some other culture, would think twice about assasinating a fool like Bush just to have a tyrant like Dick Cheney take over. Thats like "Out of the frying pan and into the fire". Replacing a moron with a wicked and cruel master manipulator would be unforgivable.

That is so 2003.

Nobody even talks about that anymore. :dry:

Besides which, you are off-point.

My curiosity is piqued by not only the pseudo-alternate reality of the tack the producers have taken, but that they feel an actor with a resemblance (enhanced by the latest movie-makeup techniques), playing the part of Bush is somehow not enough to create the "necessary" impression-they must super-impose Bush's actual face on the actor.

Along these same lines, I wonder what would be the reaction to a movie about the Iranian hostage crises, wherein the leader of the terrorists is depicted as Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, and using the same technique (never mind that many of the hostages swear up-and-down that's who it really was)?

Let us further make a movie about Saddam's torture chambers, utilizing all the latest nifty techniques, and have Saddam, Uday, and Qusay joined by Osama bin Laden and Bashar al Assad in all the requisite juicy rape, torture, and murder scenes?

Hell we could even throw in Kim Jong Il, Vladimir Putin, and (for good measure) Jacques Chirac...

















...or would that be too provocative?

[MagicNakor]

Plenty of movies about JFK about. But then I just finished watching Dark Side of the Rainbow. :P

:shuriken:

[Agrajag]

I think anyone with half a brain, US citizen or some other culture, would think twice about assasinating a fool like Bush just to have a tyrant like Dick Cheney take over. Thats like "Out of the frying pan and into the fire". Replacing a moron with a wicked and cruel master manipulator would be unforgivable.

That is so 2003.

Nobody even talks about that anymore. :dry:

Besides which, you are off-point.

My curiosity is piqued by not only the pseudo-alternate reality of the tack the producers have taken, but that they feel an actor with a resemblance (enhanced by the latest movie-makeup techniques), playing the part of Bush is somehow not enough to create the "necessary" impression-they must super-impose Bush's actual face on the actor.



You're an American, we don't expect you to get it.

Subtlety is not one of your people's more obvious attributes.

Sometimes one can be subtle with a sledgehammer.

[j2k4]

That is so 2003.

Nobody even talks about that anymore. :dry:

Besides which, you are off-point.

My curiosity is piqued by not only the pseudo-alternate reality of the tack the producers have taken, but that they feel an actor with a resemblance (enhanced by the latest movie-makeup techniques), playing the part of Bush is somehow not enough to create the "necessary" impression-they must super-impose Bush's actual face on the actor.



You're an American, we don't expect you to get it.

Subtlety is not one of your people's more obvious attributes.

Sometimes one can be subtle with a sledgehammer.

You must be right; I don't have the slightest idea where in your quote is contained the subtlety to which you refer...could you enlighten this poor benighted Americano at all, at all.

[Tempestv]

I'm mighty interested in why it was thought necessary to graft Dubya's face onto an actor, rather than tell a fictional story as fiction in all aspects...
It hits closer to home that way. what makes me wonder is if revealing that the killer is from syira is really a good idea. cirtainly, right now, the biggest terrorist danger comes from the middle east, however, we should remember that pryor to 9-11, the most deadly terrorist act in the country (oklahoma city federal building bombing) was carried out by a white american citizen. also, there are a disturbing number of home grown terror cells in the united states- I hear a lot about them since they feature on the local news here in montana. http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia58.html I don't know how to go about decideing on a villian in that respect though- having a middle eastern killer ignores that there are terrorists from the united states, while having a killer from the states is kinda like saying that we are ignoring the middle eastern threat. I don't know how you would look at both- follow two main suspects maybe- one American, another middle eastern?

[JPaul]

You're an American, we don't expect you to get it.

Subtlety is not one of your people's more obvious attributes.

Sometimes one can be subtle with a sledgehammer.

You must be right; I don't have the slightest idea where in your quote is contained the subtlety to which you refer...could you enlighten this poor benighted Americano at all, at all.

I didn't say, or even suggest, that there was any subtlety in the post to which you refer.

In kind, could you explain your use of ellipsis, it appears to me that a comma would have been the better option.

[j2k4]

You must be right; I don't have the slightest idea where in your quote is contained the subtlety to which you refer...could you enlighten this poor benighted Americano at all, at all.

I didn't say, or even suggest, that there was any subtlety in the post to which you refer.

In kind, could you explain your use of ellipsis, it appears to me that a comma would have been the better option.

Actually, I was torn.

I tried it with commas, and hyphens as well, before deciding it was a parenthetical addition.

In essence, I finally opted for the ellipses to evoke your exception once you read my post.

A magnificent success, I'd say. :)

[GepperRankins]

I think anyone with half a brain, US citizen or some other culture, would think twice about assasinating a fool like Bush just to have a tyrant like Dick Cheney take over. Thats like "Out of the frying pan and into the fire". Replacing a moron with a wicked and cruel master manipulator would be unforgivable.

That is so 2003.

Nobody even talks about that anymore. :dry:

Besides which, you are off-point.

My curiosity is piqued by not only the pseudo-alternate reality of the tack the producers have taken, but that they feel an actor with a resemblance (enhanced by the latest movie-makeup techniques), playing the part of Bush is somehow not enough to create the "necessary" impression-they must super-impose Bush's actual face on the actor.

Along these same lines, I wonder what would be the reaction to a movie about the Iranian hostage crises, wherein the leader of the terrorists is depicted as Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, and using the same technique (never mind that many of the hostages swear up-and-down that's who it really was)?

Let us further make a movie about Saddam's torture chambers, utilizing all the latest nifty techniques, and have Saddam, Uday, and Qusay joined by Osama bin Laden and Bashar al Assad in all the requisite juicy rape, torture, and murder scenes?

Hell we could even throw in Kim Jong Il, Vladimir Putin, and (for good measure) Jacques Chirac...

















...or would that be too provocative?
if there's archive footage in the show, it'd be kinda hard to keep track of the story if george bushes face changes completely every other shot.

remember this is a hypothetical thing, and will be presented as so. i reckon it would be ok to put any politicians in any situation as long as it's explained that it's hypothetical. except calling them gay, that's going too far

[j2k4]

That is so 2003.

Nobody even talks about that anymore. :dry:

Besides which, you are off-point.

My curiosity is piqued by not only the pseudo-alternate reality of the tack the producers have taken, but that they feel an actor with a resemblance (enhanced by the latest movie-makeup techniques), playing the part of Bush is somehow not enough to create the "necessary" impression-they must super-impose Bush's actual face on the actor.

Along these same lines, I wonder what would be the reaction to a movie about the Iranian hostage crises, wherein the leader of the terrorists is depicted as Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, and using the same technique (never mind that many of the hostages swear up-and-down that's who it really was)?

Let us further make a movie about Saddam's torture chambers, utilizing all the latest nifty techniques, and have Saddam, Uday, and Qusay joined by Osama bin Laden and Bashar al Assad in all the requisite juicy rape, torture, and murder scenes?

Hell we could even throw in Kim Jong Il, Vladimir Putin, and (for good measure) Jacques Chirac...

















...or would that be too provocative?
if there's archive footage in the show, it'd be kinda hard to keep track of the story if george bushes face changes completely every other shot.

remember this is a hypothetical thing, and will be presented as so. i reckon it would be ok to put any politicians in any situation as long as it's explained that it's hypothetical. except calling them gay, that's going too far

Having read your post, I believe it would be best to wait until the program has aired to comment further.

[GepperRankins]

Channel Four's "The Death of a President" mixes archive footage and computer-generated imagery to give a chillingly realistic representation of an actual killing.


The 90-minute film shows Mr Bush being targeted by a sniper during anti-war rally in Chicago in 2007.


well, unless you can easily convince yourself you've been in a coma for a year, it's obviously hypothetical. presuming i understand that word :ermm:

[j2k4]

The 90-minute film shows Mr Bush being targeted by a sniper during anti-war rally in Chicago in 2007.


well, unless you can easily convince yourself you've been in a coma for a year, it's obviously hypothetical. presuming i understand that word :ermm:

Do you understand the word "obvious" as well?

We can continue this in another vein if you like.

Tell me, as comprehensively as you can, what you think my concerns with this film actually are.

For instance:

Do you imagine me to be offended?

Take it from there...

[GepperRankins]

well, unless you can easily convince yourself you've been in a coma for a year, it's obviously hypothetical. presuming i understand that word :ermm:

Do you understand the word "obvious" as well?

We can continue this in another vein if you like.

Tell me, as comprehensively as you can, what you think my concerns with this film actually are.

For instance:

Do you imagine me to be offended?

Take it from there...
i don't know if you're offended. don't really care to be honest.


i presumed "My curiosity is piqued by not only the pseudo-alternate reality of the tack the producers have taken, but that they feel an actor with a resemblance (enhanced by the latest movie-makeup techniques), playing the part of Bush is somehow not enough to create the "necessary" impression-they must super-impose Bush's actual face on the actor."

...meant you were slightly disturbed by the effort they've gone to, to simulate the president. i was just saying it'd be much easier to follow the show if the character looks exactly the same as bush. particularly if the show constantly switches between newsreel and acted out stuff.

[j2k4]

Do you understand the word "obvious" as well?

We can continue this in another vein if you like.

Tell me, as comprehensively as you can, what you think my concerns with this film actually are.

For instance:

Do you imagine me to be offended?

Take it from there...
i don't know if you're offended. don't really care to be honest.


i presumed "My curiosity is piqued by not only the pseudo-alternate reality of the tack the producers have taken, but that they feel an actor with a resemblance (enhanced by the latest movie-makeup techniques), playing the part of Bush is somehow not enough to create the "necessary" impression-they must super-impose Bush's actual face on the actor."

...meant you were slightly disturbed by the effort they've gone to, to simulate the president. i was just saying it'd be much easier to follow the show if the character looks exactly the same as bush. particularly if the show constantly switches between newsreel and acted out stuff.


Ah.

So you've chosen to predicate your point on a big, fat, "IF".

'Tis precisely why I would demur until it has run and been viewed by those who can adequately gauge it's intent/effect.

[JPaul]

i don't know if you're offended. don't really care to be honest.


i presumed "My curiosity is piqued by not only the pseudo-alternate reality of the tack the producers have taken, but that they feel an actor with a resemblance (enhanced by the latest movie-makeup techniques), playing the part of Bush is somehow not enough to create the "necessary" impression-they must super-impose Bush's actual face on the actor."

...meant you were slightly disturbed by the effort they've gone to, to simulate the president. i was just saying it'd be much easier to follow the show if the character looks exactly the same as bush. particularly if the show constantly switches between newsreel and acted out stuff.


Ah.

So you've chosen to predicate your point on a big, fat, "IF".

'Tis precisely why I would demur until it has run and been viewed by those who can adequately gauge it's intent/effect.

To be fair it was you who started the topic and as such presumably wanted people's opinions. To now say that it would be best to watch it, prior to expressing an opinion, seems a bit of a strange position to take. Or have I picked you up wrong.

[j2k4]

Ah.

So you've chosen to predicate your point on a big, fat, "IF".

'Tis precisely why I would demur until it has run and been viewed by those who can adequately gauge it's intent/effect.

To be fair it was you who started the topic and as such presumably wanted people's opinions. To now say that it would be best to watch it, prior to expressing an opinion, seems a bit of a strange position to take. Or have I picked you up wrong.

You didn't take me wrong.

Discussion has been somewhat limited, and perhaps I was premature into the bargain.

Speculation goes only so far, and actually reverses itself when attempted by The.

We can plug along, but there may be more to talk about afterward.

[JPaul]

To be fair it was you who started the topic and as such presumably wanted people's opinions. To now say that it would be best to watch it, prior to expressing an opinion, seems a bit of a strange position to take. Or have I picked you up wrong.

You didn't take me wrong.

Discussion has been somewhat limited, and perhaps I was premature into the bargain.

Speculation goes only so far, and actually reverses itself when attempted by The.

We can plug along, but there may be more to talk about afterward.

Unless you have access to channel 4 it would appear you will be none the wiser after it has been shown here. Would you like me to keep an eye out for a torrent to allow you to download the prog.

[j2k4]

You didn't take me wrong.

Discussion has been somewhat limited, and perhaps I was premature into the bargain.

Speculation goes only so far, and actually reverses itself when attempted by The.

We can plug along, but there may be more to talk about afterward.

Unless you have access to channel 4 it would appear you will be none the wiser after it has been shown here. Would you like me to keep an eye out for a torrent to allow you to download the prog.

I appreciate the offer, but I can't for the life of me determine how viewing it would alter my preconception, which admittedly has only to do with the sensationalistic aspects advertised.

I don't believe I'd have any interest in it absent the obvious intent of the producers, which seems to be, "What if George Bush were assassinated", rather than, "What if, given the current state of world affairs, the American president were assassinated".

My interest extended to what someone such as yourself thinks of it.

I already know what I think; seeing it wouldn't change my mind.

I can imagine no context for utilizing his image as they apparently have.

Again, I appreciate the offer.

[Agrajag]

I'm not really understanding your apparent offence.

Channel 4 are making a documentary about a hypothetical situation where POTUS is assasinated. It happens to be Mr Bush just now. They are using the most up to date technology they can to make the person playing the part seem as like him as possible.

Surely that makes sense.

Or are you suggesting that, were it someone other than Mr Bush then they would not use the same technology. If you think they are being sensatonalist then surely they would do the same whoever they were portraying.

The one comment which concerns me is your claim that watching the programme would not change your impressions. How so, surely watching it would give you a better idea of the maker's intent.

[j2k4]

I'm not really understanding your apparent offence.

Channel 4 are making a documentary about a hypothetical situation where POTUS is assasinated. It happens to be Mr Bush just now. They are using the most up to date technology they can to make the person playing the part seem as like him as possible.

Surely that makes sense.

Or are you suggesting that, were it someone other than Mr Bush then they would not use the same technology. If you think they are being sensatonalist then surely they would do the same whoever they were portraying.

The one comment which concerns me is your claim that watching the programme would not change your impressions. How so, surely watching it would give you a better idea of the maker's intent.


There have been several shows of this type, involving such as Lincoln and JFK that I have seen here or there.

As to the question of the maker's intent:

I'm sure, at bottom his intent is to tell a realistic story he/she/whomever has authored.

That in and of itself is in no way extraordinary, as I'm sure you'd agree.

That it's subject is the assassination of POTUS is of little significance.

Even that POTUS is George Bush is of no special moment.

However, if in this case heretofore accepted movie-making technique and sleight-of-hand is deemed to fall short of the desired mark, and, in order that the film's maker take advantage of every available option in order to attain his requirement, he has chosen this method, which brings us full circle.

Is it beyond your imagination the consideration given to realism in case is so painstakingly given because the subject is George Bush?

I note here my recollection of historical figures reproduced interactively in the movie Forrest Gump about 11 years ago, and several times several commercial advertisements in the interim; the gimmickry is not new at all though I'm sure the technology has advanced.

As I said, I am only curious as to what others think; quite curious, actually.

[Agrajag]

See, we fundamentally disagree. What you are suggesting is that Channel 4, in the UK is singling Mr Bush out for special treatment. I have seen nothing to suggest that is the case.

To be honest old bean I really think it is up to the accuser to provide the proof, not the accused. That's why I'm confused as to your attitude that seeing the programme is irrelevant. Surely the best way to gauge this is to watch the programme, to see if it takes a political position, or an anti-Bush stance.

The position that you have made up your mind already and that further facts are not needed just strikes me as being a bit prejudgemental.

[Agrajag]

Does it make you feel any better to know that they are making a similar thing, where Gordon Brown is PM and Tony Blair is put on trial for war crimes. I don't know what type of technology they are using.

The programme is actually being made by More4. A part of Channel 4 recently created to make more adult (in the true sense of the word) mature programmes. It will be shown on More4 first and then on the main Channel.

The point of More4 is to broadcast / make programmes which will make people think and consider different options.

Couple of quotes

"More4's chief, Peter Dale, said the headline-grabbing conceit was used as the hook for an intelligent examination of American politics. "It's a mixture of a gripping detective story and a political examination of what the war on terror is doing to the American body politic," he said.

Gabriel Range, director of the film, said: "Inevitably there will be people offended by the premise. But anyone who does see the film will recognise that it's not a personal attack on Bush but an oblique way of exploring the direction his foreign policies have taken us.""

[GepperRankins]

i don't know if you're offended. don't really care to be honest.


i presumed "My curiosity is piqued by not only the pseudo-alternate reality of the tack the producers have taken, but that they feel an actor with a resemblance (enhanced by the latest movie-makeup techniques), playing the part of Bush is somehow not enough to create the "necessary" impression-they must super-impose Bush's actual face on the actor."

...meant you were slightly disturbed by the effort they've gone to, to simulate the president. i was just saying it'd be much easier to follow the show if the character looks exactly the same as bush. particularly if the show constantly switches between newsreel and acted out stuff.


Ah.

So you've chosen to predicate your point on a big, fat, "IF".

'Tis precisely why I would demur until it has run and been viewed by those who can adequately gauge it's intent/effect.

lol!

the intention is a sensational controversial hypothetical documentry thing. the effect will be "liberals" and "conservatives" calling eachother names.

if you really have a problem with it, the best course of action is to ignore it. it's gonna get shown whatever you say so... if it's poor television let it be recieved as poor television. if it's good but you think it could cause a threat to your president, don't hype it up and give more potential assassins the idea.



oh and that predicated "if" is comfirmed in your copy and pasted story :dabs:

[j2k4]

Does it make you feel any better to know that they are making a similar thing, where Gordon Brown is PM and Tony Blair is put on trial for war crimes. I don't know what type of technology they are using.

The programme is actually being made by More4. A part of Channel 4 recently created to make more adult (in the true sense of the word) mature programmes. It will be shown on More4 first and then on the main Channel.

The point of More4 is to broadcast / make programmes which will make people think and consider different options.

Couple of quotes

"More4's chief, Peter Dale, said the headline-grabbing conceit was used as the hook for an intelligent examination of American politics. "It's a mixture of a gripping detective story and a political examination of what the war on terror is doing to the American body politic," he said.

Gabriel Range, director of the film, said: "Inevitably there will be people offended by the premise. But anyone who does see the film will recognise that it's not a personal attack on Bush but an oblique way of exploring the direction his foreign policies have taken us.""

Well then.

Let me say that I feel I will be able to comment afterward based on what I hear of the show from those who have watched, and, then, further be able to expound on the felt need to use Bush himself rather than an approximation.

The actual events may be favorable or not-it does not bear on my curiosity about usage of the technology.

I am not talking about being "offended by the premise", which premise exists whether or not Bush's image is reproduced.

As to the prospect of the Gordon Brown/Tony Blair film, my curiosity would exist in equal measure.

If the same technique is used, I would assume the effort would necessarily be even more comprehensive than it will for the Bush film.

If that film is done without using the same technology, I will wonder why not...won't you?

BTW-The-

You've grabbed a great big fistful of air.

Again.

I don't know what you're about.

[GepperRankins]

Does it make you feel any better to know that they are making a similar thing, where Gordon Brown is PM and Tony Blair is put on trial for war crimes. I don't know what type of technology they are using.

The programme is actually being made by More4. A part of Channel 4 recently created to make more adult (in the true sense of the word) mature programmes. It will be shown on More4 first and then on the main Channel.

The point of More4 is to broadcast / make programmes which will make people think and consider different options.

Couple of quotes

"More4's chief, Peter Dale, said the headline-grabbing conceit was used as the hook for an intelligent examination of American politics. "It's a mixture of a gripping detective story and a political examination of what the war on terror is doing to the American body politic," he said.

Gabriel Range, director of the film, said: "Inevitably there will be people offended by the premise. But anyone who does see the film will recognise that it's not a personal attack on Bush but an oblique way of exploring the direction his foreign policies have taken us.""

Well then.

Let me say that I feel I will be able to comment afterward based on what I hear of the show from those who have watched, and, then, further be able to expound on the felt need to use Bush himself rather than an approximation.

The actual events may be favorable or not-it does not bear on my curiosity about usage of the technology.

I am not talking about being "offended by the premise", which premise exists whether or not Bush's image is reproduced.

As to the prospect of the Gordon Brown/Tony Blair film, my curiosity would exist in equal measure.

If the same technique is used, I would assume the effort would necessarily be even more comprehensive than it will for the Bush film.

If that film is done without using the same technology, I will wonder why not...won't you?

BTW-The-

You've grabbed a great big fistful of air.

Again.

I don't know what you're about.
yeah i know. the predicated "if" was confirmed in your first post though :dabs:

[Agrajag]

Well then.

Let me say that I feel I will be able to comment afterward based on what I hear of the show from those who have watched, and, then, further be able to expound on the felt need to use Bush himself rather than an approximation.

The actual events may be favorable or not-it does not bear on my curiosity about usage of the technology.



One starts to get the feeling that you are being a wee bit precious about this whole thing. Why does it matter in the slightest what technology is used to make the "mockumentary" as realistic as possible. That's the whole point, it has been declared, in advance, as a drama. However they are making the actual broadcast as realistic as possible. That's good TV.

One suspects you would have burned Orson Welles for his overly realistic rendition of "War of the Worlds". Albeit he used sound rather than vision to create the illusion.

[j2k4]

Well then.

Let me say that I feel I will be able to comment afterward based on what I hear of the show from those who have watched, and, then, further be able to expound on the felt need to use Bush himself rather than an approximation.

The actual events may be favorable or not-it does not bear on my curiosity about usage of the technology.



One starts to get the feeling that you are being a wee bit precious about this whole thing. Why does it matter in the slightest what technology is used to make the "mockumentary" as realistic as possible. That's the whole point, it has been declared, in advance, as a drama. However they are making the actual broadcast as realistic as possible. That's good TV.

One suspects you would have burned Orson Welles for his overly realistic rendition of "War of the Worlds". Albeit he used sound rather than vision to create the illusion.

Precious?

I am a student of media.

The little things mean alot-that's why this one specific thing is under my microscope.

Would it help if I said I'd have the same curiosity if it were 1998, and Bill Clinton was the subject?

Would you expect this technique to be used in every applicable instance in the future?

BTW-

Insofar as Orson Welles used sound, I doubt he had recordings of actual Martian spaceships and aliens, or anything else at all, really, to enact his radio play.

[smeghead]

He [j2k4] has a point.
Without wishing to make sweeping generalizations or get involved too deeply.
I find media students do have a tendency to overanalyze any form of media and the techniques employed within.
I have friends who completed Media Studies and it is a nightmare getting them to shut the hell up in a cinema.
Forget the techniques and technology what really matters?
Stand back, take a deep breath, take another look and asses it based on the following criteria,
is it a piece of crap or not?

[MagicNakor]

"What if, given the current state of world affairs, the American president were assassinated".

At this point in time, the two are one and the same. Since their goal is to explore a hypothetical situation in as realistic a manner as possible, to me it makes perfect sense to replicate Bush as the President.

I've seen a few other programs that follow the same lines (albeit with different situations), and generally they try to have as close a resemblence to the historical person as is feasible.

The majority of the time these types of excerises seem to take place in written format, and had it been some new published work, I doubt there would be such an outcry......even if the authour had used biographical details of George Bush.

:shuriken:

[GepperRankins]

Would you expect this technique to be used in every applicable instance in the future?

i hope so :happy:

[j2k4]

He [j2k4] has a point.
Without wishing to make sweeping generalizations or get involved too deeply.
I find media students do have a tendency to overanalyze any form of media and the techniques employed within.
I have friends who completed Media Studies and it is a nightmare getting them to shut the hell up in a cinema.
Forget the techniques and technology what really matters?
Stand back, take a deep breath, take another look and asses it based on the following criteria,
is it a piece of crap or not?

I am not a student.

I follow the media for political reasons.

I'm not looking for a new film to critique.

Your criteria are your criteria, not mine.

Nonetheless, I commend your detection of my "point".

As to your point, I recollect Syriana, a recent political film, netted George Clooney an Oscar nomination for his role in it.

He also produced the film.

Critics raved.

Movie-goers stayed away in droves, and those who did attend panned the film.

Was Syriana a piece-of-crap or not?

[vidcc]

the assaination clip (http://www.tmz.com/2006/09/13/bushs-fake-death-rocks-the-internet/)

I don't know if it's the link (clip seems jumpy) but it doesn't seem all that "detailed" as to it actually being bush.
Granted it is not in with the lead up and follow on that it would be with the movie but it could have been a lot worse.
It seems the shooting is mostly left to the imagination if this clip is the actual whole thing.

As I said, the clip may not be the best.

[DanB]

I thought Syriana was pretty good.

J2 with all the fuss you're making about it anyone would think they we're going to assassinate him for real. :rolleyes:

[Agrajag]

Hope they film it.

[j2k4]

I thought Syriana was pretty good.

J2 with all the fuss you're making about it anyone would think they we're going to assassinate him for real. :rolleyes:

You think I'm making a fuss?

I'm just trying to assess opinion.

You say Syriana was pretty good.

As a stand-alone story good?

As political commentary good?

Good how?

Is it about events you could well imagine happening?

Is it about events you're sure are and have happened?

Tell me...:huh:

[Skillian]

Well I watched it last night and it was pretty interesting. Took a while to get going though, as the more interesting part was the fallout from the shooting and the hunt for the killer.

However most interesting was Cheney's speech at the end (and Bush's speech before he was shot). I'm pretty sure neither of them had made that speech before, so how on earth did they do that? Was it bits of old speechs put together, or was it all CGI? If it was it was the best piece of CGI I've ever seen, totally seamless.

[tracydani3]

Well I watched it last night and it was pretty interesting. Took a while to get going though, as the more interesting part was the fallout from the shooting and the hunt for the killer.

Seems like you saw what they claimed to be doing with the movie from the beginning. I will have to look it up. Sounds interesting.

[100%]

aaaah the modern age.
We can now all video edit our dreams

Everything is possible in cartoons.

[thewizeard]

As Ghandhi replied when asked what he thought of "Western Civilisation: "I think it would be a good idea!"
... Luckily for America, George Bush can't stand again for president and hopefully, the "Bush", era will be behind you all soon.. So assassination won't be necessary...

Maybe they could create a sequel and include Blair and perhaps Putin...