Originally Posted By friendofdd This seems strange of ABC and interesting for the LA Times to report it. ABC is not releasing "The Path to 9/11" on DVD. >>>Even before "The Path to 9/11" aired on ABC late last summer, the docudrama ignited a political firestorm, almost entirely from high-profile Democratic leaders who viewed its account of events leading up to the terrorist attacks as a right-wing hatchet job on the Clinton administration and its efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Attempts to pressure ABC to cancel the miniseries at the time were unsuccessful, but last-minute network edits were imposed to quell the critical outcry. An ABC spokeswoman reached Tuesday would say only that the company "has no release date at this time," and she declined to comment further. Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton's campaign staff did not return an e-mail or a phone call seeking comment.<<< This is the full article. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-path5sep05" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/enterta inment/la-et-path5sep05</a>,1,2480129.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Originally Posted By friendofdd Sorry! I'll just paste the entire article here. >>>Screenwriter of docudrama says ABC exec said delay has been prompted by unflattering portrayal of previous administration. By Martin Miller, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer September 5, 2007 Among the nearly two dozen television DVDs slated for nationwide release on Sept. 11 is the second season of "Bones," the third season of "Grey's Anatomy" and the miniseries "The Starter Wife" that aired earlier this year. Not on the list on that day or any other in the near future is last year's highly controversial "The Path to 9/11." The $40-million, five-hour ABC miniseries, which recently received seven Emmy nominations and drew a combined two-night audience of more than 25 million viewers, is for now on the path to nowhere. Its Amazon page reads: "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock." 'Path' click to enlarge Photo Gallery Movies not on DVDWith no date for the release, questions are being raised about whether political pressure is behind its current status as a stalled or discarded DVD project. The reasons are murky, but the miniseries' writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, believes it's crystal clear: Powerful forces are out to protect Bill Clinton's presidential legacy and shield Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) from any potential collateral damage in her bid for the White House. Nowrasteh, also one of the miniseries' many producers, said he was told by a top executive at ABC Studios that "if Hillary weren't running for president, this wouldn't be a problem." "Whatever anyone may think about me or this movie, this is a bad precedent, a dangerous precedent, to allow a movie to be buried," added Nowrasteh, who received death threats even before the miniseries was broadcast last September. "Because the next time they'll go after another movie. The Bush administration may go after a movie. The next administration may go after a movie. No matter who it is, they may go after a movie. I think this town needs to stand up." Even before "The Path to 9/11" aired on ABC late last summer, the docudrama ignited a political firestorm, almost entirely from high-profile Democratic leaders who viewed its account of events leading up to the terrorist attacks as a right-wing hatchet job on the Clinton administration and its efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Attempts to pressure ABC to cancel the miniseries at the time were unsuccessful, but last-minute network edits were imposed to quell the critical outcry. An ABC spokeswoman reached Tuesday would say only that the company "has no release date at this time," and she declined to comment further. Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton's campaign staff did not return an e-mail or a phone call seeking comment. Last year, a Clinton spokesman referred to the ABC enterprise as "despicable," and then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and four other Democratic senators signed a letter to Disney Chief Executive Robert A. Iger stating that if the miniseries were shown it would "deeply damage" Disney's reputation. As a result of the tumult, ABC was unable to attract advertisers for the miniseries. Thus far, few have noted the DVD's absence in the marketplace. Among those who have are conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh, who questioned last month why the disc isn't available on the nation's retail shelves. (Limbaugh and Nowrasteh have met on several occasions but do not regularly socialize, Nowrasteh said.) With a possible writers strike and fall television premieres around the corner, the DVD's release hasn't galvanized Hollywood as a cause célèbre. But voices traditionally associated with the political left are disturbed by the DVD's uncertain fate. This isn't about politics, said film director Oliver Stone, but about the right of artists to have their work distributed. "This is a shame; it's censorship in the most blatant way," said Stone, who has hired Nowrasteh for several writing projects. "I'm not vouching for its accuracy -- it's a dramatization -- but it's an important work and needs to be seen." Average: four monthsThe time between a program's television broadcast and subsequent DVD release varies, but these days it's generally around four months. However, for TV movies and miniseries -- mostly because so few are made these days -- the rules are less clear. For instance, HBO's movie "Buried My Heart at Wounded Knee," an adaptation of Dee Brown's famous book, and the USA Network's miniseries "The Starter Wife," about a Hollywood power wife scorned, premiered in late May and will be out on DVD Tuesday. Still, there are plenty of miniseries, most of them produced years ago, that never make it to DVD. The chief reason is usually a perceived lack of interest and profit. "It's really up to the studios when they want to release the DVD," said Gord Lacey, founder of tvshowsondvd.com, a website that tracks DVD releases from television. "But this is odd. It may be this is a very sensitive subject and they [ABC Studios] don't want to go through the PR nightmare again." In 2003, after vehement protests from Republicans, CBS yanked its scheduled miniseries "The Reagans." Republicans complained that the docudrama created a distorted and unflattering picture of the former president. Eventually, the program was shown on CBS' much-less-watched sister network, the pay cable outlet Showtime, and was later released on DVD. Initially, Nowrasteh was told by executives at ABC Studios that the miniseries would have a DVD release in January. Then, April. Then, this summer. Currently, Nowrasteh has not been notified of a specific release date for the DVD. Despite a virtually nonexistent Emmy marketing campaign, "The Path to 9/11" claimed seven nominations, though none in the more prestigious categories for writing and directing. As the miniseries' writer and a producer, Nowrasteh is entitled to revenue from DVD sales, but it would be fractions of a penny for a disc sold. DVD sales, too, could potentially help ABC offset its considerable financial losses on the project. "I go to Blockbuster and I see a lot of crap on the shelves," added Nowrasteh. " 'Path to 9/11' deserves to be available to people who want to see it or buy it or rent it or whatever. Every controversial movie I can think of, whether it's 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' the Reagan miniseries . . . they were all released; they were broadcast. You can get them on DVD." martin.miller@latimes.com
Originally Posted By vbdad55 stange for LA Times to call it out - I agree. But we all know that there were no mistakes make in the White House before W entered - so what could possibly be harmful in the full version DVD ?
Originally Posted By ecdc Of course there were mistakes. That doesn't mean the DVD isn't full of crap. The black and white thinking sometimes... Cries against the Clinton's were muffled somewhat after it came out who the screenwriters and producers were, IIRC. If you claim ABC is biased, they have nothing on these people.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'll add, if ABC is delaying it due to politics, that isn't right. The movie is complete and total garbage, and neocons have every right to rent it or buy it to perpetuate their fantasy view of the world. Part of free speech is putting up with fiction masquerading as truth. Of course, neocons weren't quite so kind with Fahrenheit 9/11, nor as suddenly interested as they are now with free speech.
Originally Posted By friendofdd >>>This isn't about politics, said film director Oliver Stone, but about the right of artists to have their work distributed.<<< ecdc, I'm not a neocon, just an old fashioned conservative. Haven't seen the program and don't intend to. I just thought there might be something to this since the LA Times is normally considered to be somewhat left leaning. Stone is not a neocon and, apparently, sees actions he would not want used on his creations.
Originally Posted By jonvn Oliver Stone is a repugnant jerk. And if he's whining about something, then it's probably the correct thing that needs to be done.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Of course there were mistakes. That doesn't mean the DVD isn't full of crap. The black and white thinking sometimes... < and this would differ from Fahrenheit 911 how exactly ? personally I wouldn't bet my life on the factuality of either one- the difference is one is available and one is not - how is that not a form of censorship. Much like many people here told me about Fahrenheit- if you don't like it - don't watch it and don't buy it -- however now that advice no longer seems to fit all.
Originally Posted By jonvn I saw F9/11. I didn't see any glaring factual errors. I don't think there are glaring factual errors. What there is, though, is opinion and commentary sprinkled throughout the film about the facts as presented. People do not seem to be able to distinguish between opinions and facts. We see this quite a lot online. I don't think F911's facts are in error, but you may disagree with the opinions.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 F911 presents opinions as facts also - and I have no problem with that, they are his opinions. but why the separation between the two, that's the question, not which one is better / more right etc.
Originally Posted By jonvn I didn't notice the opinions as facts. On the other hand, I do concur with many of his opinions, so I may have glossed over some of that, too. I'm not going to see anything by Oliver Stone. Period.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I think since you do agree with him on some items, they would have gone past you. While I think Moore sometimes has some valid points, ( and I feel Stone does also at times ) - those I disagree with stand out - and he presents them as truths, as one would expect him to do. bottom line is there is no difference between these two programs exact the viewpoint - yet someone one is being held back - hardly seems like equal treatment
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It should be released; ecdc got it exactly right in #5. However, also note that it's ABC's right to release it or not. They're not required to put out everything they air on DVD, nor do they. So far, we have the screenwriter's word that it's being held up for political reasons, but obviously he's not going to be the most objective source.
Originally Posted By ecdc vbdad, the fact that one isn't available doesn't equal censorship. There may be any number of reasons why it isn't available. ABC may not feel that reviving the controversy would offset any monetary gain they might have. For example, Don Imus most certainly would have continued to have listeners and sponsors, but CBS determined that it wasn't worth the image issue. Further, the message of the film hasn't been "censored" at all. You can read about the charges in the film in any number of right-wing publications. Ultimately, this is a business and ABC may be making a business decision.
Originally Posted By ecdc BTW, friendofdd and vbdad, I'm not calling either of you neocons - sorry if you took it otherwise. But I do recall that this film was so bad, and the biases of its ultra-conservative, Evangelical Christian screenwriter and producers so transparent, I don't see how anyone who swallows the tripe in the movie could be called anything but neoconservative.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I have no intention of watching it - and only watched a smallportion of F911 before it peed me off - as I hate the use of something like 9/11 for personal agendas which I feel BOTH of the programs are. But let's admit something here - in LP W/E if this was F911 being withheld - the accusations of a neocon conspiracy - and one more dumb move from the White House , another W thinking he's king kind of thread would already be started. Here there " well it may be business reasons " ( and it might be), or "maybe it's too much controversy " ( with all the stuff the networks allow on the airwaves - that's a bigger stretch - etc -- if the shoe was on the other foot those excuses would not fly -- just looking for honesty here.... and I agree the message hasn't been censored, but since it hasnt been released for viewing, that is censorship so let's not twist that. I don;t care to go view what the message is anywhere else - and I am even willing to believe you when you say it is as biased as you claim it to be -- but yet the Michael Moore version of the world suddenyl becomes all fact and not opinion stated as fact ? I'm not buying that.... I am glad I am not in the neocon camp for many reasons , but if I was I'd be pizzed at this decision by ABC because I would absolutely view it as taking sides - If there are as many right wing nut jobs as you say - the DVD would sell well, so it's not money either. The decision by ABC is their decision, let's just be honest about the fact that heaven help us if this was an anti Bush piece they were deciding not to release.
Originally Posted By jonvn How does this even help her? I didn't see the film. Was she in it telling Bill to not go after terrorists? Or is it just because the name Clinton appears in it?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 If I remember right the claim was it showed Bill was less aggressive than maybe he should have been in reacting to something - don't remember if it was the Cole thing - if it was the time Bun Laden was in sights ( supposedly) of the drone thing or what -- can't remember -- I am sure someone here remembers. I did not watch it when it was on. I seem to remember comments here or somewhere also saying it was not exsactly kind to W either, but honestly don't know one way or the other. I do remember the Clintons were not happy about it, that I do remember.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> if it was the time Bun Laden was in sights << I believe that portion was the crux of the controversy. The film portrayed a government in paralysis and the military unable to gain an authorization to "pull the trigger" on an opportunity to take out bin laden. Subsequent reporting on this incident showed that there was far less certainty to the situation than the TV movie depicted. There were many people at this particular gathering, and it would likely have resulted in 'innocent' casualites. And remember, this was before 9/11 and bin laden wasn't quite as "public enemy number 1" like he is today. It's telling that oliver stone would weigh in on this issue. He generated plenty of controversy on his own with his movies JFK and Nixon. They portray events that may not have ever happened. In stone's case, he has actual people such as nixon and kissinger, saying and doing things that have no basis in reality. That's an irresponsible thing to do to real people - especially if you're doing it to sell tickets and entertain people. It's unfair to the principals involved - essentially villanizing them through re-enactments of things that never happened. Farenheit 911 didn't do anything like this (other than sell tickets and entertain people). It didn't use actors, or re-enactments, or scripted dialog - it was a documentary that used actual footage and media reports to tell it's story. And neo-conservatives blew a collective gasket when a few minor matters of content didn't fact check out. Oh the indignation, conveniently not acknowledging that the other 90% of the material was unassailably accurate. And unflattering to the bush administration. Once agsin - kill the messenger. Yet you don't see the same thing on the other side. Democrats and progressives by and large don't care whether they sell this clinton-bashing DVD or even give it away free on the street. Free speech, babe - it's a wunnerful thing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I watched one night of this (I think it was two nights), and besides the obvious bias, it just wasn't very good as a dramatic piece. ABC doesn't release every TV movie it makes to DVD. I would guess it releases less than half. That it might not release this one doesn't necessarily translate to "censorship" - after all is said and done, it might just consider this a mediocre TV movie, which it was. CBS eventually did release "The Reagans" on DVD, but had they not done so, that wouldn't have been censorship either. The concerted (and successful) right-wing effort to keep it off CBS in the first place came closer, but even that doesn't really constitute censorship, certainly not in a first-amendment sense, which has to involve the government itself. Pressure-group tactics yes, censorship no.
