Bush to be assassinated on Channel 4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

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

:shuriken:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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/mi...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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.