ABC's 'V' mini-series, which will debut tonight (Tuesday) in the first hour of prime time, is “nominally a rousing sci-fi space opera about alien invaders bent on the conquest (and digestion) of all humanity,” but “it's also a barbed commentary on Obamamania that will infuriate the President's supporters and delight his detractors,” Miami Herald TV critic Glenn Garvin asserted in a review distributed by the McClatchy/Tribune news service and run in Tuesday's Chicago Tribune, among other papers. Garvin contended:
From the fawning reaction of the news media...to the recruiting of human supporters into an alien front group that could easily be mistaken for “community organizing,” the parallels to Obama are unmistakable.
Though the leader of the aliens, in Garvin's words, “is secretly a totalitarian space lizard who's come here to eat us,” the plot has a featured character, a TV journalist, aiding the effort. “Some welcome their arrival,” USA Today's Gary Levin recounted, “but the suspicious form a resistance movement, which leads the visitors' charismatic leader, Anna (Morena Baccarin), to enlist an ambitious TV reporter (Scott Wolf) as a propaganda tool.” Garvin, presumably citing the same character: “One simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question.”
A storyline ripped from real-life!
The top producer of the mini-series, set to air over the next four Tuesdays and then return in March, denied to USA Today's Levin's any parallels to Obama:
Others on both sides of the political spectrum may point to the visitors' explicit promises of hope, change and universal health care as a pointed reference to pledges of the Obama administration. But [Executive Producer Scott] Peters says the show has been in the works since 2007. Reality was “never really a factor,” he says. “There's no political message being shoved down anyone's throat.”
An excerpt from Garvin's Sunday, November 1 Miami Herald review (“'V': The saucer-shaped bandwagon”), which the Chicago Tribune headlined “'V' aims at Obamamania.”
Imagine this. At a time of political turmoil, a charismatic, telegenic new leader arrives virtually out of nowhere. He offers a message of hope and reconciliation based on compromise and promises to marshal technology for a better future that will include universal health care.The news media swoons in admiration -- one simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question: “Why don't you show some respect?!!” The public is likewise smitten, except for a few nut cases who circulate batty rumors on the Internet about the leader's origins and intentions. The leader, undismayed, offers assurances that are soothing, if also just a tiny bit condescending: “Embracing change is never easy.”
So, does that sound like anyone you know? Oh, wait -- did I mention the leader is secretly a totalitarian space lizard who's come here to eat us?
Welcome to ABC's V, the final, the most fascinating and bound to be the most controversial new show of the fall television season. Nominally a rousing sci-fi space opera about alien invaders bent on the conquest (and digestion) of all humanity, it's also a barbed commentary on Obamamania that will infuriate the president's supporters and delight his detractors....
From the fawning reaction of the news media (sample press-conference question to V leader Anna: “Is there such a thing as an ugly visitor?”') to the recruiting of human supporters into an alien front group that could easily be mistaken for “community organizing,” the parallels to Obama are unmistakable.
The anti-V underground, in its frustrated insistence that the aliens have a covert agenda, resemble nothing so much as the anti-Obama teabaggers. And even the president's repeated attempts to suborn Republicans into making his program bipartisan get a scorching reference.
“Compromising one's principles for the greater good is not a shameful act,” a V leader reassures an erstwhile opponent who's just been bought off. “It's a noble one.”
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Hilarious! I watched the
November 3, 2009 - 16:58 ET by jezebelleHilarious! I watched the 80's version of V this weekend and commented to my family how similar it is to the main stream media and the white house.
The ''Visitors'' Logo . . .
November 4, 2009 - 04:47 ET by DoktorFranken. . . . from the original series is somewhat familiar, eh?
Visitor's Logo
JMHO, you understand.
If Saul Alinsky owned a news channel it would be MSNBC. ---- Me
I was watching the old series with the Wife...
November 3, 2009 - 17:04 ET by Army Bratcasually at first. Then I started to see parallels tweenst V and what's happening to our Republic.
To state that this particular version of the series reflects the Obamamania now seen in our liberal brothers and sisters is I think, inaccurate. It would appear that the theme is same as the old one and both fit.
Obama is a liar and Truth is
killing his Marxist agenda.
This is just going to
November 3, 2009 - 17:03 ET by ConservativeRexThis is just going to generate a big.."Huh??..I don't get it??..I don't see any parallels"...from todays media...and they never will.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Does a fish know it is wet?
November 3, 2009 - 17:37 ET by CO2MakerDoes Chris the Wide Mouth Frog get a tingle when his leg falls asleep? What if his foot falls asleep while he's watching O'Bama? Can he tell which kind of tingle it is?
It's also not devoid of symbology and blasphemy...
November 3, 2009 - 17:08 ET by stage9In the sneak peek of the show, an alien mothership begins to move into the city. Buildings begin to shake. The film makers made sure to include a huge, towering crucifix at a Catholic church that comes crashing to the floor, shattering into a million pieces. The inference is that a "higher intelligence" has arrived and we no longer need the so-called (by godless liberals) limitations of religion.
Consequently, this is the very montra espoused by the likes of Richard Dawkins - High priest of the Religion of Atheism in which he and other atheists hope that mankind "outgrows religion".
If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore, God exists.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will
be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for
pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner."
— Malcolm Muggeridge
stage9, If God does not
November 3, 2009 - 17:19 ET by hydrodynDMstage9,
How do you know objective moral values exist?
Is it wrong to take a baby...
November 3, 2009 - 17:35 ET by stage9from her mother's arms and murder her in cold blood with a machete right in front of her then rape the mother and kill her?
Is it wrong to walk up to a total stanger with a gun and without provocation blow his brains out, set him on fire and walk away?
Would you say that these two instances are right, wrong or morally neutral?
What moral standard led you to your conclusion?
(By the way, these two instances are real. They are a daily reality in the Sudan.)
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will
be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for
pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner."
— Malcolm Muggeridge
stage9, Is it wrong to
November 3, 2009 - 17:44 ET by hydrodynDMstage9,
Is it wrong to take a newborn child and throw it into a pit because it's underweight?
Folks in Sparta did it - and considered it the morally correct thing to do.
Your appeal to my or your or most people's sense of morals doesn't in any way demonstrate that those moral views are objective.
Hmmm....
November 3, 2009 - 18:19 ET by retroconI'll side with Stage9 on this, for the following reason:
Individuals do make bad decisions that they believe to be morally correct, but in any one of the cases cited, would the victim of the immoral act consider it to be moral?
It's true that subjective morality often relies on brute force subjugation. But an objective morality, i would submit, does still exist. Specifically, it exists in the forms of the Golden Rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you...," the Hippocratic Oath, "do no harm...," the constitution, "shall not infringe...," or the libertarian perspective that "i don't care what you do, as long as it doesn't affect me negatively."
Nobody wants someone elses actions to negatively affect them personally, so we all agree there. Viola', we have a common "objective moral baseline." But some cultures and leaders choose to use brute force to impose their subjective morality on a population, a morality that may favor some, but may be quite devastating to others.
That is "morality by concensus," or "morality at gunpoint."
just my 2cents....
retrocon, I get your
November 3, 2009 - 18:30 ET by hydrodynDMretrocon,
I get your point - but if you are going to assert that there is an objective morality as a way to argue for the existence of God, you really do need to show that such a morality exists.
Appeals to consensus or gut feelings don't constitute proof that those morals are objective. It might just shows that they are appealing to most people.
Ok, here goes.
November 5, 2009 - 14:19 ET by stage9I'm reminded of the debate between the philosopher Frederick
Copleston and the atheist Bertrand Russell. At one point in the debate,
Copleston said, "Mr. Russell, you do believe in good and bad, don't
you?"
Russell answered, "Yes I do." "
How do you differentiate between
them?" challenged Copleston.
Russell shrugged his shoulders as he was
wont to do in philosophical dead ends and said, "The same way I
differentiate between yellow and blue."
Copleston graciously responded
and said, "But Mr. Russell, you differentiate between yellow and blue
by seeing, don't you? How do you differentiate between good and bad?"
Russell, with all of his genius still within reach, gave the most vapid
answer he could have given: "On the basis of feeling-what else?"
I must
confess, Mr. Copleston was a kindlier gentleman than many others. The
appropriate "logical kill" for the moment would have been, "But Mr. Russell,
in some cultures they love their neighbors; in others they eat them,
both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference?"
Feelings are not the basis for morality.
When you say there is evil, you are admitting that there is such a thing as good.
When
you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on
the basis of which to DIFFERENTIATE between good and evil. (Evil exists only because good exists. Good exists only because evil exists. What differentiates them?)
But when
you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. That, however,
is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. For if there is no
moral lawgiver, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there
is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil. What then is your
question?
Even the staunchest critics - J.R. Mackie, Richard Dawkins - even they
concluded that there is no rational way to talk of objective morality
if God is outside the picture. So if they grant it, then those who
criticize it are not listening to their own Gurus of logical thinking.
G.K. Chesterton said, " the depravity of man is at once the most
empirically verifiable and intellectually resisted argument that we
face."
Empirically it's all around us intellectually. We just don't
like to accept it.
From Ravi Zacharias' book: Can Man Live Without God.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will
be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for
pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner."
— Malcolm Muggeridge
stage9, I'm not sure why
November 5, 2009 - 19:14 ET by hydrodynDMstage9,
I'm not sure why you would quote a text rather than address my point directly, but ok...
Yea, I know. I said that in my post to you.
I don't accept that there is objective evil or objective good. If I did, then I would pretty much be forced to believe in an objective morality - which I don't. Consequently the two paragraphs that follow the above sentence in the quoted text don't apply to me or anyone else you rejects objective good and evil.
I don't accept an objective morality - I think I pretty much made that clear in my posts - so I'm not obligated to accept the existence of God (which works for me since I'm an agnostic on that subject).
My two cents
November 3, 2009 - 18:43 ET by ahusserMorality is subjective and subject to the era and social environment extant. Many things moral to us were considered immoral in other eras. The belief in God or participation in religion doesnt automatically make one moral or non belief automatically makes one immoral. I don't believe in and hate socialism/communism because it is Godless but because it is anti-thetical to the individual freedoms and rights we possess under our constitution and the way of life it has fostered and personally I find the socialist point of view illogical, un-American, and offensive. Granted the Constitution mentions God but there is no imperative to believe to be protected by this document. I don't want to have to be affiliated with Christianity or any religion to be a Conservative.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Of course morality is objective.
November 4, 2009 - 01:56 ET by SILVERNAMEsubjective morality isn't morality, its just wishfull thinking, morality by nature is objective. morality is either objective or it doesn't exist, the folks in Sparta were wrong, God is right. so follow God, if you don't , you won't get it right. Amen.
Homophilia is a worse threat than terrorism.
Good grief
November 4, 2009 - 13:20 ET by mvfreeman"Homophilia is a worse threat than terrorism"
That has to be one of the single most ignorant and dumb assertions I've ever heard.
The good folks in the armed forces and relatives of people killed in terrorist attacks would certainly beg to differ with you.
It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.”
SILVERNAME, "... morality
November 4, 2009 - 18:01 ET by hydrodynDMSILVERNAME,
"... morality is either objective or it doesn't exist".
Well, that settles it. How can anyone possibly argue with that?
Wrong about Sparta-Only a myth.
November 4, 2009 - 13:55 ET by hcocdrhttp://www.medindia.net/news/Spartans-Never-Discarded-Deformed-Babies-In-An-Apothetes-30529-1.htm
Mothers are all alike and would never let that happen. Good story though, made people fear them.
Interesting
November 4, 2009 - 15:34 ET by mvfreemanIt seems that would be the case at this particular site, but doesnt necessarily discount the practice entirely.
I realize that it was mostly through oral history that this story was passed along.
http://books.google.com/books?id=kkIeyCEedrsC&pg=PA351&lpg=PA351&dq=proof+of+spartan+infanticide&source=bl&ots=8YnEyqk_Vt&sig=nA_EC4XB2zGX5oBZetc93fV958Y&hl=en&ei=z9vxSrWOCtTS8QaC5JGECQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=proof%20of%20spartan%20infanticide&f=false
The link goes to a 1994 book Encyclopedia of Social History. Along with the Spartans it mentions other cultures that practiced infanticide. With regards to the Spartans it mentions "exposure" and not pits specifically.
But it does mention this little caveat, "Although widespread infanticide is assumed for the premodern world, lack of evidence makes it difficult to establish actual rates."
hcocdr, Fair enough. I'm
November 4, 2009 - 18:09 ET by hydrodynDMhcocdr,
Fair enough. I'm no historian.
I could just as well have used examples of civilizations that practiced human sacrifice or any number of other examples of behavior that most of us would find immoral.
Or not. My main point wasn't the example - it was the last sentence of that post to stage9.
Depends on your perspective
November 3, 2009 - 17:48 ET by mvfreemanIn the minds of the people committing these acts they are apparently morally acceptable on some level, therefore subjective and not objective.
"Morals" vary among different cultures. That's old news.
Catholicism? Well, that sucks, too
November 3, 2009 - 17:41 ET by CO2MakerAlso from the ChiTrib article:
A handful of dissidents hold out against the rapturous reception given the V's. Some are simply uneasy, such as the youthful priest Father Jack (Joel Gretsch, "The 4400"), who sharply criticizes the Vatican's embrace of the V's as divine creations: "Rattlesnakes are God's creatures too."
The Vatican (with a V, doncha know) embraces the Vs as divine. Give me the f****** break, will ya! Those old guys in women's dresses and prissy shoes know a lot more about credulity and belief than some stoner Hollywood writer.
these Hollywood types
November 3, 2009 - 18:17 ET by JeffC...These Hollywood types believed that this kind of creeping fascism occurred during the Bush administration.
The media and the aliens (ala Kent Brockman)
November 3, 2009 - 17:16 ET by nolotrippen"I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords." (Kent Brockman, "Deep Space Homer" The Simpsons)
“It is almost impossible to distinguish a politician from a gangster.” (Will Durant, 1931)
MEchelle doesn't look like a
November 3, 2009 - 17:23 ET by bse5150MEchelle doesn't look like a lizard but I bet she can devour a lot of small to mid-sized animals in one bite!
Hoofs and all...
November 4, 2009 - 07:22 ET by CCsteelcityNice one bse5150
"But a constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." - John Adams
v and obama
November 3, 2009 - 17:45 ET by thewooki was thinking the same thing last night watching the old version on syfy channel.
Hmmm...
November 3, 2009 - 18:27 ET by retroconI remember the original (being a scifi freak)...
And it was pre-O. So, i'll submit that Rahm was probably a sci fi fan, too.
That aside, anyone giving odds for how long ABC will let this run if they start to get complaints from the kOol-aid drinkers?
complaints may not be so likely
November 3, 2009 - 23:18 ET by needleKool-aid drinkers complaining would imply that they recognize connections between their hero and the villain of this piece, which psychologically they are not prone to do.
The ability to draw such a connection would suggest a significant amount of sobering up from their Kool-aid.
- Relying upon the State Run Media for your information is like relying upon an embezzler for your portfolio management.
- I didn't leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left me.
Obama is the hero
November 3, 2009 - 18:31 ET by MidAmericaObama is the hero archetype come forth from the collective unconscious of a sleeping media.
sorry, her hair is too short
November 3, 2009 - 18:31 ET by UndercoverConservativeAll invading lizard women need to be sultry dominatrix brunettes with long hair. If I'm gonna be subjugated, at least make the scenery worthwhile:P
I loved the old series.One of the best parts was the scenes of the kids playing with licensed alien merchandising.
WWW.GS2AC.COM. 2nd Amendment Grass Roots Action in the Bay Area, CA. We're not all "Breakfast Cereal" folks here! :)
V was made during the Reagan
November 3, 2009 - 19:02 ET by Dan The Man 2V was made during the Reagan years and I posit it was a statement against President Reagan and the authority he represented. Duh Vain One is real and V is fantasy, we should concentrate on reality. The charismatic stranger from nowhere moving to the top and being a bad boy is standard. Heck its in the Bible, Satan a charismatic entity uses his wiles to take over a people and lead them to destruction but defeated at the last moment?
Not impressed. Passing "V"
November 3, 2009 - 19:06 ET by UnsaneIf I want to read a new story (or see one), I will read an old one. (I forget who originally said that but it is awesome and oh so true...)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I watched for all of 5 minutes
November 3, 2009 - 20:31 ET by Candance MooreYou enjoy bashing Christianity, we get it.
I dunno...
November 4, 2009 - 09:05 ET by retroconCM, i watched the whole thing, i think that the young priest will be a key "hero" player, and i don't think it's Christian bashing...
I actually thought the metaphor of the cross falling because of the "V" arrival was very clearly a statement about the attempt by the current left to destroy the Christian faith.
I was actually very pleasantly surprised at the very clear and unapologetic parallels with the left and the"O"
Don't know if it will continue, but i am watching ABC for the first time in YEARS (literally), so i think i'm sending a message that they can't ignore ;-)
There's definitely
November 3, 2009 - 20:54 ET by robertlbryantThere's definitely parallels. They mentioned hope, change, and yes, even the words "universal health care" were uttered haha
I liked the original when I was a child, so I'll give this show a shot.
Here's a Question
November 3, 2009 - 21:17 ET by wagreenHow long before they call it racist?
Well . . .
November 4, 2009 - 04:54 ET by DoktorFrankenI, for one, am a lizard hater. And I hear, so is Rush. He put 'em on a stick and cooks 'em over an open fire.
BWAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!
JMHO, you understand.
If Saul Alinsky owned a news channel it would be MSNBC. ---- Me
V - The New Pilot
November 3, 2009 - 21:21 ET by Gat New YorkI watched the 1 hour pilot of "V" tonight.
I was floored just how much they aligned the show to the Obama administration - how they treat the press - and even talked about hope and change in the way the administration does.
Axelrod cannot be happy with this pilot. Expect the show to be pulled.
What about the Universal
November 3, 2009 - 21:29 ET by tssclsWhat about the Universal Health Care reference? It's going to get pulled.
Or change it's tone.
(Jedi Hand Wave)
November 4, 2009 - 04:57 ET by DoktorFranken''These aren't the Visitors you're looking for. Move along.''
JMHO, you understand.
If Saul Alinsky owned a news channel it would be MSNBC. ---- Me
I watched. It didn't.
November 4, 2009 - 05:47 ET by motherbeltI watched. It didn't.
Am watching it now, Gat
November 3, 2009 - 21:36 ET by BO STINKSI think ABC will be surprised at the response to this mini-series. The creepie-crawlies are getting to me, but it is very good!
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the Plain Meaning of Words!" ~Sam Adams
The existence of a supreme being
November 4, 2009 - 02:56 ET by Army Bratis, for me, a foregone conclusion
And as for the spiritual realm... I have no doubt that the end of this existence is the beginning of another. My Mother "died" a couple of times in her life...well...three times actually. The last time took. Out of body stuff involving dead Aunts. Predictions made to her by them that came true. Lotsa other stuff like that.
There exists on this planet, a supreme intelligence. Some one person who is superior in intellect to all others. There must also be a supreme intelligence on this plane, out there in those numberless galaxies. Now as to whether or not that intelligence is aware of us on an "each sparrow that falls" scale or not...beats me.
Of course I could be wrong.
V
November 4, 2009 - 12:45 ET by UnsaneI could swear I heard about this 26-year-old series being reborn some 18-24 months ago. Which, if true, this thing has been getting written and prepped long before His Majesty The Shahinshah took over.
Which, if my hunch is right, makes all this talk about V being an allegory of the Administration of His Majesty The Shahinshah all the more hilarious. You gotta love unintended consequences sometimes.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
It was unreal
November 4, 2009 - 09:13 ET by Pha PhaI watched it last night and couldn't stop laughing at the parallel references to the current administration. It was so obvious, Obama must be steaming.
Sooo...
November 4, 2009 - 09:15 ET by retroconI was thinking... is the weaselly complicit "journalist:"
a) Olbermanniac
b) Tingles
c) Clintonopolous
Hints: Baby face and good hair. Immediately tried to deflect criticism of the"VO" (code name for Anna). But, a brief sense of journalistic integrity before going to the dark side.
Ok, should we add Smith? Williams? Blitzer? Nah, no journalistic integrity there, either. i'm stumped.
Oh, and did you catch the manipulative nature of "VOs" right hand man? Very "deadfish" like, if you ask me.
Can we have a weekly "VO" thread? ;-)
retrocon - the complicit 'journalist'
November 4, 2009 - 11:43 ET by BO STINKSis definitely Snuffleupagus! So smug, so arrogant, so willing to jump into bed with a lizard (BJC)!
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the Plain Meaning of Words!" ~Sam Adams
Ok, so now I am confused.
November 4, 2009 - 09:25 ET by pcantidoteOk, so now I am confused. Is Obama really a space lizard? I had him pegged as a space fennec fox.
Enforce Term Limits if They Won't: Vote Against ALL Incumbents in 2010.
v (c)... I knew I should
November 4, 2009 - 09:32 ET by vrwc13v (c)...
I knew I should have done this sooner. They have stolen my name signature...
Oh well, let's see v = visitor and visitor could mean alien, and I am called to be an 'alien" in this world....I guess this is o.k.
v
Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. 1 Peter 2:11
Conservatives are from Earth. Obama is from Planet Lizard
November 4, 2009 - 13:10 ET by Jack BauerBut there's no secret with Axelrod. He looks just like a space lizard in a badly fitting human suit with a comb over
And have you ever seen ANITA DUNN speak. Watch her voice orrifice. Her tongue shoots about every other second.
David Brooks says Reps need to embrace Space Lizards
November 4, 2009 - 13:18 ET by Jack BauerIn his latest NY Times column, David Brooks complains right wing conservatives lack nuance and show knee-jerk response to invasion.
Recommends we should work with Space Lizards on non-partisan destruction of planet.
Sounds Like A Fascinating Premise...
November 7, 2009 - 00:12 ET by The7SticksDon't get me wrong, I am a supporter of President Obama, and I do think he is doing the right moves in order to guide America to a better future, but I don't really mind the allegory in V. From the sounds of it, you didn't really mind the allegories between the space lizards and President Reagan, as it appears to me. Of course, I'm not exactly familiar with the old V, so I wouldn't know. I don't mind though, I just care about the truth.
At least it's not as pernicious as some of the thinly-veiled attacks against President Bush (and I say that very generously, knowing that a pseudo-documentary was made called The Assassination of George W. Bush.) Well, enough said.