Bush to be assassinated on Channel 4

[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

[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

[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.

[GepperRankins]

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

i hope so