"Good Morning America" continued its seemingly endless promotion of "Angels & Demons" on Wednesday, highlighting the film for a third day and almost 17 minutes thus far this week. Once again, co-host Diane Sawyer completely ignored the anti-Christian story elements in the film, including members of the Catholic Church brutally slaughtering a secret society, while talking to star Ewan McGregor.
Even when McGregor, quite unprovoked, brought the subject up, Sawyer avoided the issue. "However, I would stress there is, really, no controversy. There's no anti-Catholicism or anti-Christianity in the movie at all. I wouldn't have wanted to do it if there had been," he explained. (See Townhall for video.) However, an impending twist in the film makes that claim quite ridiculous. [Spoilers below the fold]
Considering that McGregor plays the chief villain in the film, a man who murdered the previous Pope and, it turns out, is the son (through artificial insemination) of the deceased leader, how, exactly, could any journalist take seriously McGregor's claim that the film is not anti-Catholic? Instead, Sawyer was cagey and asserted, "I'm not going to give anything away here." She later vaguely added, "And there's so much to learn about this father."
Over the last three days, for a grand total of 16 minutes and 47 seconds, Sawyer has interviewed McGregor, director Ron Howard on Tuesday and star Tom Hanks on Monday. With Hanks, she completely skipped the contentious, anti-religious elements of the film, instead calling the movie a "scary, spiritual scavenger hunt." On Tuesday, she prompted director Howard to say how much of a non-confrontational person he is.
A transcript of the May 13 segment, which aired at 8:34am EDT, follows:
DIANE SAWYER: He is now playing a priest in the upcoming "Angels & Demons" thriller, as it is. It is, of course, a sequel in a way to "The Da Vinci code." And it's great to have you here.
...
8:37
SAWYER: Okay, let's take a look at the results of what you did. As we've been saying all week long, it's a super thriller.
EWAN MCGREGOR: It's great fun, yeah.
SAWYER: Vatican- I'm not going to give anything away here. I have to think about your character. You're a priest very close to the former Pope, the late Pope. And you're trying to convince the Cardinal to tell everyone that an attack is imminent. Danger is at hand.
MCGREGOR: [clip from "Angels & Demons]: If the outside world could see this church as I do, looking beyond the ritual of these walls, they would see a modern miracle, a brotherhood of imperfect, simple souls, who want nothing more than to be voices of compassion in a world spinning out of control. Signora, I ask, I pray, that you break this conclave. Open the doors. Evacuate St. Peter's Square. And tell the world the truth.
SAWYER: And there's so much to learn about this father. This robe that we just saw you in. I don't know if this is true or not, is this true that the Pope's tailor himself made your robe?
MCGREGOR: It's the cassock. It was so very beautiful because it was made by the Pope's tailor, yeah. I mean, I don't know that the Pope knows that. Because, I don't know that he might be too pleased. The Vatican weren't very happy about "The Da Vinci Code." And as a kind of hangover from that, aren't too thrilled about "Angels & Demons." However, I would stress there is, really, no controversy. There's no anti-Catholicism or anti-Christianity in the movie at all. I wouldn't have wanted to do it if there had been. But, anyway, his tailor made me my cassock, yeah. And it's beautiful.
SAWYER: You look swell. A couple quick questions about your family. 'Cause last time I saw you, your brother, Collin, who is an Air Force pilot, with the RAF? Back home?
MCGREGOR: Uh-huh. Yeah. Back home, safe and sound. Yeah. Yeah. Yes, indeed.
SAWYER: Okay, that's good news. And your three daughters? Now seven to 13?
MCGREGOR: 13 and two sevens, yeah. They're all good.
SAWYER: And re they going to see "Angels & Demons"?
MCGREGOR: My eldest might. There's a little bit of gruesome- Within the story, some of the Cardinals are murdered. And so, some of it is a bit gruesome for the young ones. But, I think my 13-year-old will see it. Yeah. She's excited about it.
SAWYER: Right. And now, are they more and more aware of what it is you do for a living? I know they were saying why do people give you papers and pencils?
MCGREGOR: It's quite interesting. It's something I don't quite understand myself. Why does that man want you to sign that bit of paper? I'm like, "I don't know. I don't know what he's going to do with it, but lose it. Or show it to his friends." I don't know.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
raises his eyebrow
May 13, 2009 - 11:59 ET by lotrWould anybody happen to know the basic plot of this sequel to the DVC? The DVC was without question anti-Christian propaganda. It is therefore not an unreasonable stretch to conclude that the sequel will also necessarily be more of the same.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
Based on this comment
May 13, 2009 - 12:01 ET by Mike SargentI now refuse to read any more comments on this blog. Sorry, Scott...
??
May 13, 2009 - 12:05 ET by lotr'Splain please.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
From what I understand,
May 13, 2009 - 12:30 ET by moderncommentaries83From what I understand, years ago the Catholic Church killed a whole bunch of people who supposedly found out the "truth" behind the creation of the world and now, they're coming back to destroy the Vatican out of revenge.
We also, apparently, killed Copernicus (he actually died at age 70 from a stroke, and his research was supported by the Church). Here are a few other little gems in Angels and Demons:
Brown claims: “Antimatter is the ultimate energy source. It releases energy with 100% efficiency.”
Fact: CERN, the lab which plays an important role in his story, actually debunked
this claim on their website: “The inefficiency of antimatter production
is enormous: you get only a tenth of a billion of the invested energy
back.”
Brown claims: Churchill was a “staunch Catholic.”
Fact: Any history buff could tell you that Churchill
wasn’t Catholic, he was Anglican; nor was he particularly religious.
The only things Churchill was staunch about were cigars, whiskey, and
defending the British Empire.
Brown claims: Pope Urban VII banished Bernini’s famous statue The Ecstasy of St. Teresa “to some obscure chapel across town” because it was too racy for the Vatican.
Fact: The statue was actually commissioned by Cardinal Cornaro
specifically for the Cornaro Chapel (Brown’s “obscure chapel”).
Moreover, the sculpture was completed in 1652 — eight years after
Urban’s death.
Brown claims: Bernini and famed scientist Galileo were members of the Illuminati.
Fact: The Illuminati was founded in Bavaria in 1776. Bernini died in 1680, while Galileo died in 1642 — more than a century before the Illuminati were first formed.
But I haven't read Angels and Demons because Dan Brown is a terrible writer - subject matter aside. I read about 10 pages of The DaVinci Code and put it down because the writing was awful.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
"No controversy." Then why
May 13, 2009 - 12:07 ET by SickofLibs"No controversy."
Then why did the Vatican and Bishop of Rome adamantly refuse to allow any filming on their properties whatsoever?
It must have been because Opie & Co. really wanted to spend an extra $20 million building sets of St. Peter's, etc.
"However, I would stress
May 13, 2009 - 13:59 ET by motherbelt"However, I would stress there is, really, no controversy.
There's no anti-Catholicism or anti-Christianity in the movie at all. I
wouldn't have wanted to do it if there had been," he explained.
Well, I'm glad that's all cleared up!
\sarc
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
Infomerical, is all this is, Wonder how much GMA charges/ minute
May 13, 2009 - 12:13 ET by upcountrywatergotta make money, while the alleged bail-out funds are on their way.
Reagan VS 0bama
Is there some connection?
May 13, 2009 - 12:16 ET by Tom PaineIn checking the IMDB for Angels and Demons I noticed the following production companies are involved
Columbia
Imagine Entertainment
Sony Pictures Entertainment
Sony
Anyone care to bet there is some connection to ABC and/or the Disney Company causing them to hype this film?
That's what I've been wondering
May 13, 2009 - 12:27 ET by GalvanicWhenever you see TV programs spend this much time on a movie or television series event, you can bet that the network and the filmmakers are financially connected at some higher corporate level.
My guess is that they spent
May 13, 2009 - 14:02 ET by motherbeltMy guess is that they spent so much time on it because they really enjoy the anti-Catholicism.
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
yup
May 13, 2009 - 14:17 ET by SickofLibs"Hey, mind if I grab that fly there off your shoulder? Cause I'd sure enjoy pulling the wings off it."
Doubtful. They spent so much
May 13, 2009 - 14:21 ET by balboaDoubtful. They spent so much time on it because the book was a HUGE bestseller, like the last one, there's lots of interest, lots of controversy. They hope that translates into good ratings.
Funny, Mark Levin's book has
May 13, 2009 - 15:04 ET by Tom PaineFunny, Mark Levin's book has been number 1 on the NY Times bestseller list for weeks and not one of the network morning shows has had him on. Just an oversight I guess.
Sad too
May 13, 2009 - 19:52 ET by general companyIt is a great book, just what the folks need.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I'm not sure that Levin's
May 13, 2009 - 19:57 ET by balboaI'm not sure that Levin's book has had as big a splash in the world as Brown's books.
Really
May 13, 2009 - 20:15 ET by general companyJim or Jerry?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
aethiests
May 13, 2009 - 12:22 ET by BDelaneyNow I am no fan of Catholicism, but the film is obviously anti-Catholic. Its another attack on organized religion. They (the libs) attack what they don't understand, and that would be any Christian based religion. They relate to the outsiders (muslims) because they feel they are outsiders as well. Living in a society not made for you can be frustrating so they try to destroy it to create a new socialist state without religion where they will finally fit in! Religion teaches us not to be dependent on government and depend on God and ourselves instead, so of course they are anti-religion!
POPE HAD A SON...WHO MANIPULATED THE ENTIRE COLLEGE OF CLERGY
May 13, 2009 - 12:31 ET by Rod PatrickMAKING REVENGE AGAINST THE ILLUMINATI AND THE MODERN SCIENCE THAT "DESTROYED" THE IMAGE AND GLORY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH..... AND LATER FABRICATED EVERYTHING TO PUT HIMSELF INTO THE PAPACY?
NOT ANTI-CHRISTIAN?
NOT ANTI-CHRISTIAN?
I SAY ABC IS HARBORING THE MODERN PROPHETS OF ANTI-CHRIST LIKE DAN BROWN!
Nuff said.
/Sorry. I want to shout. I'm angry at the lies of the MSM.
So you're saying you can't
May 13, 2009 - 13:25 ET by balboaSo you're saying you can't make a fictional movie where the Church does something bad. That's off-limits.
So you're saying you can't
May 13, 2009 - 14:04 ET by NewsbusterbrownSo you're saying you can't make a fictional movie where the Church does something bad.
Sure you can, Bal. You could also make a movie about Obama and all other Democrats as communist Satan worshippers.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Sure you can, Bal. You
May 13, 2009 - 15:43 ET by Dan The Man 2Sure you can, Bal. You could also make a movie about Obama and all other Democrats as communist Satan worshippers.
Foul, Bal said fictional.
balboa: Even Hindus don't
May 13, 2009 - 15:29 ET by QueenMumbalboa: Even Hindus don't seem to think it appropriate to release such a fictional account without a disclaimer.
I thought Bill Donahue of the Catholic League stated recently on FNN that India has already released the movie with a disclaimer. Perhaps someone can confirm. I'm still looking for a link.
Edited to add: Found a link Of course, this sort of censorship would not be favored in the U.S. But I don't see anything wrong with a disclaimer in consideration of the concerns of both Catholics and Hindus.
GO CAVS!!!!!
Wouldn't requiring a
May 13, 2009 - 15:46 ET by CamelopardalisWouldn't requiring a disclaimer be similar to the actions liberals want to take under the Fairness doctrine? Making sure opposing views are disclosed?
Wouldn't requiring a
May 13, 2009 - 15:57 ET by Dan The Man 2Wouldn't requiring a disclaimer be similar to the actions liberals want to take under the Fairness doctrine? Making sure opposing views are disclosed?
No because any disclaimer would be from the public and in teh realm of free actions and commerce. The FD is government controlled and not in teh realm of free commerce.
The public would basically force the film maker to do so and he would do so in his best interests to sell the film or he may decide as now that his audience doesnt care and the publicity wont hurt his sales appreciably.
Fairness doctrine?
May 13, 2009 - 16:06 ET by SickofLibsNo comparison between a few lines of micetype-sized legalese disclaimers and forcing a private radio station to re-program their broadcasts.
Not that anyone would actually read it.
Disclaimers vs. Fairness
May 13, 2009 - 16:32 ET by QueenMumApples and oranges. Disclaimers are common in many aspects of American commerce. They say that whatever the product is, there are certain expectations that should not be assumed. In this case, that the product (aka the movie) is not factual. Not at all comparable to what the liberals want when it comes to the Fairness Doctrine.
GO CAVS!!!!!
Disclaimer
May 13, 2009 - 17:07 ET by SickofLibsSince we don't have PT around anymore, I present to you an extensive cut-n-paste, all purpose disclaimer:
Dry clean only. Sanitized for your protection. To be used in conjunction with a calorie controlled diet. Individual results may vary. Beware of dog. Pineapple 50c extra. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. Void where prohibited. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Contents may settle during shipment. Use only as directed. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. Postage will be paid by addressee. Overseas model shown. Subject to approval. Apply only to affected areas. May be too intense for some viewers. Do not stamp. Use other side. May cause drowsiness. For recreational use only. Do not disturb. All models over 18 years of age. If condition persists, contact your physician. Wholesale only. No user-serviceable parts inside. Freshest if eaten before date on carton. Subject to change without notice. Times approximate. Simulated picture. No postage necessary if mailed in U.K. Breaking seal constitutes acceptance of agreement. For off-road use only. As seen on TV. One size fits all. Contains a substantial amount of non-tobacco ingredients. Colours may, in time, fade. Slippery when wet. For office use only. Drop in any mailbox. Edited for television. List was current at time of printing. Not responsible for damages resulting from any defect, error, or failure to perform. Not to be taken internally. At participating location only. Not the Beatles. Penalty for private use. See label for sequence. Substantial penalty for early withdrawal. Do not write below this line. Lost ticket pays maximum rate. Add Toner. Place stamp here. Avoid contact with skin. Sanitized for your protection. Slightly higher west of Manchester. Employees and their families not eligible. Contestants have been briefed on some questions before the show. Limited time offer, call now to ensure prompt delivery. You must be present to win. No purchase necessary. No free list. Shading within a garment may occur. Cleaners -do not empty. Use only in well-ventilated area. Keep away from fire or flame. Replace with same type. Some equipment shown is optional. Price does not include tax. Not recommended for children under five. Reproduction strictly prohibited. No solicitors. No alcohol, dogs, or horses. No anchovies unless otherwise specified. Not for resale. Call toll-free before digging. Driver does not carry cash. Some of the trademarks mentioned in this product appear for identification purposes only. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved. Objects on screen may be smaller than they appear. Your actual mileage may vary. Promotional copy only -- not for resale. Always wear your safety belt. Cannot be held liable for damaged computer components due to electrical shortage. Not responsible for hair growth on palms of hands, blindness, hysteria, homosexual urges, warts, or eternal damnation caused by usage of this page. NJ 5c Deposit -- No deposit elsewhere. You must be at least this tall to ride this ride. May be harmful if you have high blood pressure, back problems, or a heart condition. Please rewind after use. There may be some variation in color and texture due to seasonal variations in ingredients. This page contains no preservatives, artificial ingredients, or meat by-products. Always consult your physician before starting any exercise program. Not for individual sale. Contains no MSG. Sale to or use by minors is strictly prohibited. Do not exceed recommended dosage. Keep out of the reach of children. Actual crustaceans not accepted as legal tender. Checks will not be honored. Please see your doctor if pain persists. May cause anal leakage. Not to be used as a floatation device. Judges' decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into. Prices correct at time of publication.
SoL: Thanks for the
May 13, 2009 - 17:12 ET by QueenMumSoL: Thanks for the warning! LOL
GO CAVS!!!!!
Hilarious!!
May 13, 2009 - 19:36 ET by motherbeltSofL.....you have WAY too much time on your hands....;-)
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
funny
May 14, 2009 - 00:55 ET by rightwinger65Is that all??? Haaahaaa that was funny...You just don't realize until you put it down on paper. Great job sickoflibs...
SickofLibs...
May 14, 2009 - 08:38 ET by Georgia GirlWoa! That is impressive.^_^
OK, but where do you stop?
May 13, 2009 - 17:13 ET by balboaOK, but where do you stop? What movies require these disclaimers, which don't? That's a whole can of worms, IMO.
bal
May 13, 2009 - 15:56 ET by MrShyI think we're all waiting for the big Hollywood blockbuster with stars galore that has a Mosque and some radical Islamic group doing something bad.
We'll be waiting forever, I think. And the last movie done about that religion (more a documentary) the director paid with his life.
Meanwhile, this is like the umteenth time Hollywood has gone after Christianity.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
"There's no anti-Catholicism..."
May 13, 2009 - 12:42 ET by SickofLibsMcGregor just outed himself as a moron.
Seriously, these entertainers are just beyond vapid. Catholic or not, how could you be so misinformed about the very controversial nature of Brown's books and be an adult?
"Just memorize the lines, son. Don't try and put two and two together."
What's next, A&D glasses from Burger King?
May 13, 2009 - 12:44 ET by CobraManThe way this movie is being hyped, like just about every other movie, I don't expect there will be much of a wait until Angles and Demons Action Figures appear on the market.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
CobraMan...A&D glasses~
May 13, 2009 - 12:56 ET by Georgia GirlGood one!^_^
Perhaps Tom Hanks can come
May 13, 2009 - 13:16 ET by Tom PainePerhaps Tom Hanks can come out wearing a huge plastic head in the commercial
TP~
May 13, 2009 - 13:25 ET by Georgia GirlPerfect!
How is a fictional
May 13, 2009 - 12:45 ET by pcantidoteHow is a fictional book/movie putting forth a conspiratorial face on one of the largest, best known and most mysterious organizations in the world at all controversial? I would say it is long overdue. Similar movies have been done countless times on lesser organizations such as the FBI, CIA, LAPD, NYPD, and on and on. It is a movie. Relax. Some otherwise rational people really lose their wits when it comes to anything religious.
Enforce Term Limits if They Won't: Vote Against ALL Incumbents in 2010.
Let’s see, this is the
May 13, 2009 - 13:12 ET by Tom PaineLet’s see, this is the third installment in this particular Catholic-basing series of movies. The main character runs around spouting his fabricated "historical facts" like a broken lawn sprinkler and then Opie and company tell us all to "relax it’s only a movie" when we call them on it. I’m still waiting for the movie that takes a critical look at Islam. I think THAT is long overdue…
Do you get the 'fiction'
May 13, 2009 - 13:20 ET by CamelopardalisDo you get the 'fiction' part? Movies and books use Muslim terrorists all the time.
OHH like the true rendition of Tom Clancy book, In a movie.
May 13, 2009 - 13:35 ET by upcountrywaterThe Sum of All Fears.
What movies, use moslem terrorists ALL THE TIME?
Reagan VS 0bama
Off the top of my head?
May 13, 2009 - 14:19 ET by CamelopardalisOff the top of my head? Earlier seasons of 24, Traitor, The Siege. I will admit though that unfortunately, poor Muslim reaction (and frankly embarrassing, being a Muslim myself) to such stereotypes is making Hollywood shy away from such plots.
Why don't some Republicans
May 13, 2009 - 14:24 ET by balboaWhy don't some Republicans finance a movie with evil Muslims? Why don't they try and change the landscape of movies? You guys had "An American Carol," why not branch out?
Why don't some Republicans
May 13, 2009 - 15:49 ET by Dan The Man 2Why don't some Republicans finance a movie with evil Muslims
Bal the Republicans decided to finance a war instead, much better than a stupid movie.
Yet you'll get very offended
May 13, 2009 - 17:01 ET by balboaYet you'll get very offended about a "stupid movie," and about stupid "Hollyweird" being dominated by liberal movies?
As I understand it, even
May 13, 2009 - 13:35 ET by Tom PaineAs I understand it, even after repeated requests from the Catholic League, Opie has vehemently resisted putting a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie stating it is a work of fiction. That doesn’t seem like too much to ask if he is indeed sincere that he has no grudge against the Catholic Church. As for the Muslim terrorists, even 24 now bends over backwards to show they aren’t really terrorists but are just being set up by rouge government agents and/or evil American industrialists to look guilty. Besides Catholics are a more convenient target. You can disparage our faith in a movie secure in the knowledge that we won’t riot and kill people in protest.
Why do works of fiction need
May 13, 2009 - 14:16 ET by balboaWhy do works of fiction need disclaimers?
you got the ying
May 13, 2009 - 14:28 ET by SickofLibshere's a yang:
because Holocaust deniers, too, have an expanding base.
Both* are fiction, both suck and both are worthy of defending.
(*Catholic conspiracies and Holocaust deniers)
because balboa
May 13, 2009 - 20:37 ET by lotrThe DVC, A&D, and other similar movies are not completely "fiction" -- they intentionally mix historical facts with made-up storylines/characters in such a way to blur the distinction between what's real and what's not. They are, in fact, nothing more than sensationalistic mass propaganda pieces. The example par excellence of this "screenplay genre" is Stone's "work of fiction" JFK. Forty-five years after the fact, we have 70% of the American public believing that a "vast right-wing conspiracy" did the deed, when, in fact, it was a radical left-wing misfit.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
Wow!
May 13, 2009 - 20:49 ET by mandrake"Forty-five years after the fact, we have 70% of the American public
believing that a "vast right-wing conspiracy" did the deed, when, in
fact, it was a radical left-wing misfit."
You mean to say that 200 million Americans have been influenced by one Oliver Stone movie? Boy, you folks sure are gullable :)
Believe it.
May 13, 2009 - 21:05 ET by lotrBelieve it. :-p
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
Sorry, lotr, not buying that
May 14, 2009 - 09:29 ET by balboaSorry, lotr, not buying that one bit.
Why not Bal
May 14, 2009 - 09:45 ET by dvdaughtryWhy aren't you buying when we see this sort of thing done by the media day in day?
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
daughtry, I don't believe
May 14, 2009 - 10:31 ET by balboadaughtry, I don't believe that 200 million Americans believe that JFK's assassination was a right-wing conspiracy because of Oliver Stone's movie.
Ahh
May 14, 2009 - 12:33 ET by dvdaughtryI didn't realize the conversation was that pigeon holed.
I read it in a broader sense as in people see movies based on true events and believe it as gospel.
Different pages. That's all.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Not a problem. But again I
May 14, 2009 - 13:33 ET by balboaNot a problem. But again I don't see it as the filmmaker's responsibility to remind anyone "Oh, by the way, this is a made up story."
OK, I'll grant you that there are other variables at play, but
May 14, 2009 - 14:16 ET by lotrI certainly hope you aren't suggesting that his movie had zero impact on the public's perception. I, for one, was very much (naively) influenced by its "thesis" when I saw it, and I would continue believing it till this day if not for my somewhat anal propensity to read up on things that interest me.
Here's the point: Stone created and released that movie with an agenda in mind. It most certainly is fiction, but in the end it was an elaborate propaganda piece -- its accuracy and its "fictional" status did not matter -- what mattered was its impact on the mass audience -- the fact that it could, in a powerful, emotional way, reach countless scores more people than any history book, or any rigorous accounting of the forensic facts surrounding the case. I see a direct analogy. That's why I (and others here) don't buy the old "it's only fiction" schtick.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
I can understand that POV,
May 14, 2009 - 22:08 ET by balboaI can understand that POV, lotr. When I saw "JFK," it made me wonder if it was true, what was true, so that I actually went looking for answers so I could make up my own mind.
(BTW, there HAD to be someone in the Grassy Knoll, right? Right?)
OK, glad that you know where I'm coming from
May 14, 2009 - 22:18 ET by lotrBut no -- there was only one shooter (other than Zapruder), and he shot from behind.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
:-) I think it was something
May 14, 2009 - 22:25 ET by balboa:-)
I think it was something on The History Channel where they accurately recreated the assassination with one shooter. It seems to make the most sense. But man when you see Kennedy's head fly back like that, your first instinct is that the shot came from the front.
Yep. A entire computer
May 15, 2009 - 10:48 ET by lotrYep. A entire computer model has been rigorously constructed duplicating the entire "crime scene," with the motions of the limo and its occupants derived from Zapruder's motion picture film. The first shot missed due to a tree, the second shot passed straight through both men causing their documented wounds, and then extra time was taken for the more difficult third shot. But never mind that -- the Warren Report quite adequately presented all the relevant forensic evidence, eyewitness accounts, background, motivation, etc. However, they could not imagine that the assassin would shoot through a tree (and miss entirely), so they postulated that it was the 2nd shot that missed, leading to the whole "3 shots in 6.x seconds" -- a possible, but very difficult sequence that conferred an eerie "luckiness" to the assassin that was difficult for people, including me, to swallow. The unfortunate reality is, there was nothing lucky about it. Mind you, this reality is, IMO, more disturbing than Stone's fiction, and thus it was not without some degree of shock that I came to these conclusions.
Incidentally, you are correct that the president's movement after the last shot does, at first glance, appear to suggest a shot from the front. But the physical reality is the opposite -- this part of the film I actually consider additional forensic evidence of a shot from behind. Without getting too graphic, this is precisely what is expected when an explosion is allowed to escape from one end of a cavity but not another. Indeed, when bullet leaves the barrel of a rifle, the rifle recoils in the opposite direction of the bullet (the end where the explosion was allowed to escape). The same goes for the grisly reality of being at the receiving end.
Sorry to ramble on and get off topic -- just trying to highlight my beef with this new "hybrid-history-fantasy" genre of filmaking.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
mandrake needs to visit TX!
May 14, 2009 - 13:19 ET by UnsaneCome on down to Dallas, mandrake, it isn't terribly far from me (230 or so miles), and I'll take you on down to Dealey Plaza, where the School Book Depository has been preserved and turned into a museum dedicated to the assassination.
Down the street is the JFK "conspiracy museum".
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I was there last fall
May 14, 2009 - 21:40 ET by general companyKinda wigged me out to see folks jumping in the road on the X's to get their smiling faces photographed? Saw Tut's stuff that day too.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
lotr, knowing you are not the type
May 14, 2009 - 21:29 ET by JerForty-five years after the fact, we have 70% of the American public believing that a "vast right-wing conspiracy" did the deed [assassinated JFK]
lotr, knowing you are not the type who would simply pull an assertion such as this out of thin air, can you point us to a poll or survey or some other credible evidentiary source for this figure? And, presumably, a product of Stone's movie?
Jer
I am more interested in knowing
May 14, 2009 - 21:36 ET by general company70% of the American public believing that a "vast right-wing conspiracy" did the deed
If you think they did?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
You're kidding,
May 14, 2009 - 21:41 ET by JerYou're kidding, right?
Jer
Am I
May 14, 2009 - 21:49 ET by general companyWhat? did you believe it before Stone's movie?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
g c...
May 14, 2009 - 22:04 ET by JerHave you read Posner's book "Case Closed"? Do you even know who Gerald Posner is? Google it real quick so you don't have to further embarrass yourself.
Jer
C'mon, g c... I know
May 14, 2009 - 22:16 ET by JerC'mon, g c...
I know you're lurking out there. You've had more than enough time to google it and reply. Tick tock...tick tock.
Jer
Actualy, I went to bed
May 15, 2009 - 08:14 ET by general companyAnd no I haven't read it. No, I dont know who he is. Why?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Fair question Jer. I
May 14, 2009 - 22:15 ET by lotrFair question Jer. I certainly didn't make the number up, but it's too late right now for me to fetch the source. I will definitely have to look into that one tomorrow (for my own sake, if no other). I will admit that the phraseology "vast right wing conspiracy" I have borrowed from someplace else, but Stone's thesis was the archetype for this moniker.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
Fair enough, lotr... And,
May 14, 2009 - 22:19 ET by JerFair enough, lotr...
And, for the record, I agree with you about Stone's movie. Highly irresponsible.
Jer
Jer, found a couple
May 15, 2009 - 08:34 ET by lotrFox News Poll: Most Believe 'Cover-Up' of JFK Assassination Facts
World Net Daily Poll: Majority believe JFK assassination a conspiracy
Third party compilation of various polls
You'll note that I rounded to the nearest 10th percentile -- there is certainly a margin of error a plus/minus a few percentage points.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
lotr... Thanks for taking
May 15, 2009 - 12:58 ET by Jerlotr...
Thanks for taking the time to provide the links. They confirm what has been the prevailing view for almost half a century--that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy to murder JFK.
Nevertheless, the polls clearly undercut your original assertion--with which bal and I took issue--that 70% believe the assassination was the product of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Jer
OK, I must concede that
May 15, 2009 - 15:15 ET by lotrMy bad. But I still hold that the Stone's movie has played a non-trivial impact, and, while not 70%, a large number still do in fact buy the "vast right wing conspiracy" mythology.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
Books, maybe. Not
May 13, 2009 - 14:21 ET by motherbeltBooks, maybe. Not movies.
When the Clancy book was made into a movie, they changed the Muslim terrorists to a white neo-Nazi group.
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
To be anti-Catholic I think
May 13, 2009 - 13:23 ET by balboaTo be anti-Catholic I think there has to be more to the plot than "the church did some bad things."
MCGREGOR: It's the cassock.
May 13, 2009 - 14:17 ET by motherbeltMCGREGOR: It's the cassock. It was so very beautiful because it was
made by the Pope's tailor, yeah. I mean, I don't know that the Pope
knows that. Because, I don't know that he might be too pleased. The
Vatican weren't very happy about "The Da Vinci Code." And as a kind of
hangover from that, aren't too thrilled about "Angels & Demons."
If it's not anti-Catholic, why would McGregor admit that the Vatican aren't too thrilled about it?
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
"aren't too thrilled"? Who
May 13, 2009 - 17:22 ET by QueenMum"aren't too thrilled"? Who could blame them? For those who may not have seen this, Errors in "DaVinci Code".
GO CAVS!!!!!
Because he knows the church
May 13, 2009 - 17:26 ET by balboaBecause he knows the church doesn't like Dan Brown's movies.
Unabashed, Religious Bigotry as Entertainment?
May 13, 2009 - 14:48 ET by locomotivebreath1901Yet, unlike the free speech suppressing, FOX news hating & talk
radio bashing, far left totalitarians, I won't call for these network nitwits to be
regulated into silence.
I figure adults can make their own media choices free of gub'mint coersion.
But, please, tell me again who the intolerant hatemongers are??
I'm confused.
http://locomotivebre...
Take a step back...
May 13, 2009 - 20:20 ET by palwalrusOkay, I'm sorry but this is just too silly. I know that everyone thinks the only reason this is being pumped and made into a movie is because of the anti-Christian aspect. Look I have read the book and,even though I would not regard myself as extremely Christian or religious I do believe in the same values, I did enjoy reading it and thought it was a better book than Da Vinci.
Isn't it sometimes just alright to enjoy a read? It wasn't in the non-fiction section was it?
PAL
Actualy, it is fullfilling a purpose
May 13, 2009 - 20:40 ET by general companyPublicity
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
What Is So Great About The Catholic Church Anyway?
May 13, 2009 - 23:58 ET by The7SticksOkay, fine, Ron Howard makes movies that slander the elitist Catholic Hierarchy with lies. So what? The Church is no less guilty for doing the exact same thing to us Jews for centuries, ever since the Stations of the Cross. This is what we call payback. This time it's for real.
Sorry, I couldn't help the Don Lafontaine reference, it was too sweet.
The point is, why are you getting your talking points from William Don-of-puke, the head of the Catholic League Of Douchebags? This is the same moron who tried to insult us secular Jews because we make Hollywood movies. Big fat deal. He tried to get the episode of South Park "Bloody Mary" pulled because, Oh dear, a Statue of the Virgin Mary was having a period that had been mistaken for a miracle. He whines about Chocolate Jesuses, the Vagina Monologues, The Simpsons making jokes about the church, it goes on and on. Oddly enough, this Angels & Demons flick has been distracting them (mostly) from that whole non-controversy about President Obama getting an honorary degree from Notre Dame University.
Until you give a little bit of thought over this bitching and moaning over such a non-issue, I'm gonna keep pestering you all about it. I do because this has to be the most idiotic thing I have ever heard: How can there be bigotry towards a religion? You choose your religion, just like you choose to be gay or straight. I chose to be a secular Jew, and I'm sticking to it.
I chose to be a secular
May 14, 2009 - 09:13 ET by Dan The Man 2I chose to be a secular Jew
You mean you have no core beliefs as in secular. You choose to believe you are descended from the line of Avram but choose not to believe any scripture. Interesting and stupid.
You're short several sticks,
May 14, 2009 - 09:52 ET by SickofLibsYou're short several sticks, you know.
No such thing as anti-semitism?
May 14, 2009 - 12:54 ET by Thermistocles"How can there be bigotry towards a religion? You choose your religion, ..."
Invite Louis Farakan or David Duke to the one of your prominent secular Jewish meetings as a guest speaker and give just a little bit of thought over the bitching and moaning that there would be over such a non-issue. Add in movie promotion of the Elders of Zion for laughs and mock those that are offended as idiotic.
No big deal, right? Non-issue, really. Why would this offend anyone?
I chose to be a secular
May 14, 2009 - 13:03 ET by Jack BauerYou mean shticking to it, don't you?
My advice. Change your shtick.
For a start, you may choose to be secular, but as you didn't convert to Judaism you didn't choose to be a Jew, now did you?
Well..
May 14, 2009 - 18:13 ET by sammyanderson2009Personally, I could care less about either aspect, I just think it looks like a pretty solid, well done movie. But I suppose time will tell the real truth. (Once I see it)
-Sammy (Adult Acne Dermatologist)
I am a secular Jew and I
May 14, 2009 - 20:09 ET by Trix RabbitI am a secular Jew and I am going to stick you with it.
You claim to be a Jew and then you make an outrageously stupid statement like how can there be bigotry towards a religion.
You must not get outside too much, do you junior? You are probably as much a Jew as I am the president of China.
But far be it from me to interrupt your chest-beating. Go right on and prove to one and all that you're a mamzer.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
"secular Jew" That is an
May 14, 2009 - 20:18 ET by NL207"secular Jew"
That is an oxymoron, which makes you one of an atheist, agnostic, apostate, non-secular or hypocrite. The term 'secular' cannot be applied to a religious membership affiliation. If you are secular, then you are not affiliated by membership with any particular sect and cannot claim to be a Jew. If you ARE a practicing Jew, then you are by definition not secular.
Problem with semantics?
May 14, 2009 - 20:27 ET by Trix Rabbit"cannot claim to be a Jew." Yes I can. By blood and by heritage. Just because I have not had a bar mitzvah or have been to a temple in years, doesn't change a thing.
Problem with that?
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
Apostate. I'm not the
May 14, 2009 - 20:44 ET by NL207Apostate.
I'm not the one with the semantics problem.
Your credibility quotient: near zero.
Scorecard
May 14, 2009 - 20:46 ET by Free StinkerTrix: 2
NL207: 0
Well, junior, here's a
May 14, 2009 - 20:50 ET by Trix RabbitWell, junior, here's a question you are clearly qualified to answer:
Does it hurt to be stupid and a sanctimonious prick at the same time?
You should leave it at that and not answer, but your gargantuan ego won't allow you. You'll answer me. It's your destiny.
You putz.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
question
May 14, 2009 - 21:05 ET by lotrWhat is meant by "heritage"? I thought Jewish heritage is antithesis of secularism.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
My Take
May 15, 2009 - 09:58 ET by dvdaughtry"cannot claim to be a Jew." Yes I can. By blood and by heritage. Just because I have not had a bar mitzvah or have been to a temple in years, doesn't change a thing.
Sounds like your Israeli to me.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Butthurt so Thick You Can Cut It With A Knife.
May 14, 2009 - 19:43 ET by someloudthunderThere's nothing wrong with this book or the movie. If you are complaining about this - just stop it. You're only making yourself look like a giant tool. Complain about something real like Pelosi or Obama's lack of knowledge on how macro-economics actually works.
I'm tired of this "Oh boo hoo they said something bad about Jesus" garbage.
"You're only making
May 14, 2009 - 20:21 ET by lotrSpeak for yourself. If you like those "movies" (aka, anti-Christian propaganda pieces) and wanna blow your hard-earned 10 bucks then by all means knock yourself out. But don't go insulting our intelligence by telling us this isn't "real." I would presume that you know something about Christianity. To those of us who believe it, nothing is more important than Jesus. Pelosi, Obama, the economic meltdown -- all temporal concerns (and some of us would argue that they are the result of the decline of Faith) -- these things shall pass (and the grave awaits us all)
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
lotr~
May 14, 2009 - 21:00 ET by Georgia GirlAmen. Thank you. ^_^
You are demanding silence of the wrong people
May 14, 2009 - 23:21 ET by UnsaneIf you are complaining about this - just stop it. Why? Does it bother you that some people wish to criticize it?
If no one wanted it cussed and discussed, you shouldn't be demanding other posters SHUT UP. You should have told Dan Brown not to write the book. But, he did, and as a result, some will praise the book/movie, and others will slam the hell out of the book/movie.
Do reactions to art bother you that deeply?
For the record, I will have nothing to do with it. My first warning was when I traveled and I saw seemingly everyone reading it. That's normally a good sign to avoid something.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)