Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

What More Can Be Reinvented?? How 'Bout...The American REVOLUTION?!?!

FIRST!!!! by Bill Brasky	Oct 19th, 2007 08:38:18 AM

"Just tell me he's OK!!!!!" by Bill Brasky	Oct 19th, 2007 08:43:31 AM
"United State?" OK, so this could also be some complete ultra-left wing "I hate America" typical Hollywood bullshit; or it could be some really good, dark, violent science fiction. Hopefully it will the the latter.
seen it by PVIII	Oct 19th, 2007 08:46:37 AM
it was called earth 2.
"Do you want to win the war on terror?" by Bill Brasky	Oct 19th, 2007 08:50:29 AM
-yes, as I feared, another Hollywood America-Bash Fest. The article goes on to say that it's "...filled with issues that we identify with: freedom and the rights of the individual versus the rights of the state. All of those things are very much in the world we live in now," God damn it man, just shut the fuck up and do something constructive with your pitiful life, I don't know, like teaming up with Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinijhad and funding the 'Hippie' Museum that just got shot down yesterday. Fucking losers.
Sounds like the Firefly backstory... by Abin Sur	Oct 19th, 2007 08:52:24 AM
Geez, I think people would rather be escaping the Iran and North Korea regimes in the future...
So...It's THE PATRIOT...in space. by SpyGuy	Oct 19th, 2007 08:53:18 AM
(SPOILER) The Heath Ledger character fights for independence against his reluctant father's wishes, then ends up being killed by the chief bad guy, which drives the father to take up the cause for independence and carry a flag into a battle in slow motion.
DAMN YOUSE by Chilli815	Oct 19th, 2007 08:56:17 AM
It is, as Abin Sur noted, pretty damn similar to the Firefly backstory, which annoys me. Just hire Whedon to do a Firefly prequel re: the war for independance.
Please kill me by BetaRayBill07	Oct 19th, 2007 09:04:31 AM
This is gonna suck.
No, it sounds more like 'North & South' in space... by Sledge Hammer	Oct 19th, 2007 09:14:36 AM
...and I bet that was exactly how it was pitched too. And while there is the outside chance that you could do something with such a concept, let's face it, it's on sci-fi, so even if it doesn't suck (or especially if by some miracle it doesn't suck) then it'll probably get cancelled anyway.
NOT FIRST, BEEYOTCHES! by Pennsy	Oct 19th, 2007 09:23:29 AM
!
I liked this when it was season 4 of Babylon 5 by Pennsy	Oct 19th, 2007 09:24:31 AM
Breaking away from big, bad earth, and all that...
1 last thing; did anybody see the new Heroes commercial by Pennsy	Oct 19th, 2007 09:30:28 AM
At the very end of the Office last night. 20 seconds of bliss. Basically Peter vs. Elle...'and the showdown begins'. Wow. It'll be on YouTube soon enough, but it was a brilliant tease for Monday night.
A Pelosi-Hillary Run America by MarkWhittington	Oct 19th, 2007 09:40:23 AM
Since the issue of raising taxes was mentioned in the article, I suggest that the colonists are really Bush supporters rising up against a Pelosi-Hillary run America.
Funny ass talback. All the 'anti-American' ranting... by raw_bean	Oct 19th, 2007 09:57:45 AM
...of a show that is designed to be an allegory of the formation of the USA. Are you yanks so ashamed of your country's past that a story that re-tells it sounds like America-bashing to you?
Simon West? Ugh. by Big Bad Clone	Oct 19th, 2007 10:02:22 AM
The guy makes Brett Ratner and Michael Bay seem like geniuses.
As for Firefly/B5 comparisons... by raw_bean	Oct 19th, 2007 10:02:41 AM
...I can see the points, but Firefly was more the American Civil War than your War of Independence (despite the name, the 'Independents' from Firefly are stand-ins for the Confederates), and Mars' struggle for independence was the closest thing to this in B5, not the main stories. The Earth Civil war in B5 was more about a coup to overthrow a Fascist regime than it was about colonial break-away.
I liked this better when it was called "The Young Rebels"... by KazamaSmokers	Oct 19th, 2007 10:05:24 AM
... and it aired on ABC back in the 70's.
MarkWhittington thinks there's a difference between the two part by KazamaSmokers	Oct 19th, 2007 10:06:41 AM
How endearing.
MarkWhitington thinks theres a difference between the 2 parties by KazamaSmokers	Oct 19th, 2007 10:07:33 AM
How endearing.
There's nothing I like better... by honestune	Oct 19th, 2007 10:13:56 AM
Than a back-door pilot.
by Omar B	Oct 19th, 2007 10:17:43 AM
I love these alternate history type of things, the books tend to be interesting, might work great on TV.
God this sounds stupid. by ImFixingtoDie	Oct 19th, 2007 10:29:10 AM
But then my first screenplay was THE SCARLET LETTER set on a space station, so who am I to talk.
America is awful! by BLWiseass	Oct 19th, 2007 10:39:43 AM
Thats why we need about 17 movies coming out this fall where America is pure evil. Everything America does is bad. America pees on little kids birthday cakes. Bad America. Bad.
DOES THIS MEAN THEY SENT ANIMALSTRUCTURE TO SPACE? by BringingSexyBack	Oct 19th, 2007 10:41:52 AM
He hates America.
CAN I GET 15 CENTS OFF MY CABLE BILL? by BringingSexyBack	Oct 19th, 2007 10:43:11 AM
Since I never watch Sci-Fi anyway?
Poul Anderson? by berserkrl	Oct 19th, 2007 11:14:35 AM
I wonder whether this is based on Poul Anderson's books _Orbit Unlimited_ and _New America_? That series too was a family saga about a planet called New America rebelling against an oppressive Earth-based government. (If so, the story's political spin would be neither liberal nor conservative but libertarian, since Anderson was a libertarian. Though who knows what the Sci-Fi Channel would do with it.)
I did a version of the Scottish Play by Bloo	Oct 19th, 2007 11:14:57 AM
set in the future one time, it was an interesting take. Anyways if they're going to go with this they need to hire Harry Turtledove to either a)write the script b)write the novelzation c) be a creative producer d) all of the above
I'm disappointed with Sci Fi as of late but... by GreatCzarsGhost	Oct 19th, 2007 11:25:11 AM
but will watch this "Revolution" from what little I see here. Sci Fi isn't the best channel on basic cable but it is far from the worst (think... Golf channel).
Read a book? by Jack Parsons	Oct 19th, 2007 11:38:34 AM
"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein, the classic SF novel about an American-style revolution against the tyranny of Earth. If y'all want to discuss science fiction, please, TV and movie "sci-fi" aren't even in the same conceptual county. If the writers of this work haven't read the quintessential revolution novel of SF, then I haven't much hope for intelligent writing. Heinlein's work also informs us today about how exactly we've messed up in the middle east with erroneous assumptions about faraway places, and how revolutions and wars really start.
The world doesn't hate America by Jack Parsons	Oct 19th, 2007 11:42:01 AM
It hates Americans. The concept of America is beloved by all. Americans, however, haven't exactly been representing what's on the label. Imagine a country, bent over double, heads in laps, giving itself autoerotic oral sex. That's Americans. Never saw so many people blowing themselves. It's not attractive. Not to mention insane.
raw_bean is right about howard johnson by Jack Parsons	Oct 19th, 2007 11:46:54 AM
Americans, the right-wing variety, have gone so far out into the valley of the mad that they can't even recognize their own founding fathers as holding American values. Thomas Jefferson would be banned from network TV and radio in the US. The US was founded by radical liberals who hated a warmongering absentee unitary executive.
More revisionist films??? by ccchhhrrriiisssm	Oct 19th, 2007 12:19:19 PM
Just about every film about this nation is a revisionist film through the eyes of very liberal film makers. Can anyone smell "propaganda?" How many times does Hollywood have to make a film that displays their far-left political and social views (where they feel that their views are the only ones that matter)? All well -- I hope that it is at least worth watching for the entertainment value. I did enjoy "V for Vendetta" -- even if creator Alan Moore distanced himself from it and dismissed the film as "propaganda."
Hillary Obama Pelosi-Kerry would be so proud of such a film! by ccchhhrrriiisssm	Oct 19th, 2007 12:27:35 PM
Right Jack Parsons? If you believe that the views of the far left are superior than the rest of America (who is certainly "right" from Hollywood) -- then you might want to buy this ocean front property that I am selling in Nevada.
BUT WHEN by Series7	Oct 19th, 2007 12:32:43 PM
Is Johnny Travolta going to grace us with Battlefield Earth 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
these movies aren't anti-american by Shakes	Oct 19th, 2007 12:33:38 PM
Alright, I keep seeing commercials for Rendition, and Lions for Lambs, and i know it's going to start a shit-storm of talk about how Hollywood is Un-American. These movies are not anti-American. They're anti-policy. The Grapes of Wrath was not anti-American, it was anti-policy, in that case the policy of exploiting the migrant workers. Was Schindler's list an anti-German movie? No, it was anti-Nazi. And given the current climate I don't blame anyone for a knee-jerk reaction to this and think it could have a very left leaning bias. But wait until the thing actually comes about before you start calling it propaganda. And hey, maybe if you are offended by some of this stuff, you should be. There was a country music song a few years ago called "Murder on Music Row" all about how modern radio and commercialism had ruined traditional country music. And the people most offended by it were the ones who the song was calling out. On a side note, I remember back in the 90's when my cable company first picked up Sci-Fi channel. They only had a sci-fi original movie every other month or so. I think Official Denial was the first one that I saw, and it was actually a pretty decent self contained sci fi flick. The next month was a vampire movie, I think it was called Deep Red or something like that, again, pretty high quality. And now, to think of the crap they churn out.
Jack, if the entire country is busy blowing themselves, who is.. by SpyGuy	Oct 19th, 2007 12:38:40 PM
...producing the culture that your country lovingly favors over your own? Way to overgeneralize, douchebag.
The United States IS the greatest nation... by ccchhhrrriiisssm	Oct 19th, 2007 12:43:23 PM
I don't see millions of people walking a thousand miles to immigrate to France, Germany or Russia. Besides, I studied for a year in Europe. Even though there was quite a bit of anti-American sentiment, they still do their best to immitate us. Those dang French, Germans and Dutch just can't seem to call the Marshall Plan.
And even if the world did hate America... by Phimseto	Oct 19th, 2007 12:50:05 PM
...who cares? I'm surprised the Chinese can stay upright long enough from tripping over some forty million "Great Leap Forward" victims to say anything or that Iranians would take time from pushing walls onto accused homosexuals. How about the Europeans? They can't even be bothered to disrupt their vacations when their elderly parents are dying from heat in the summer. How can they be bothered to express true hate from us? At best, all we get from them is dinner table talk (or, in the case Sarkosky, pillow talk). Dear world, if America seems condescending, it's not because we are. It's because we tire of hearing your incessant, misguided and more often than not hypocritical bitching and decide we have to do or say something that stammers you into sullen, resentful silence. In other words, American foreign policy is based on getting just a few minutes peace and quiet from the kiddies. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.
How can a work be "revision history"... by Kid Z	Oct 19th, 2007 01:07:02 PM
... if it takes place in the FUTURE and is a work of FICTION?!!? Dittohead dumbasses...
I remember when I read this as a book call THE MOON IS A HARSH M by Randy of AFTIMES	Oct 19th, 2007 01:09:07 PM
Thanks, Jack Parsons. I thought I was the only one who had read this. My bet is SciFi went "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we could make TMIAHM as a mini-series?" "Yeah! But we can't afford the rights." "No problem! We'll change the story a little and get a newbie screenwriter to cut-and-paste it." "GENIUS!"
Anderson pre-Heinlein by berserkrl	Oct 19th, 2007 02:02:55 PM
The Poul Anderson stories I mentioned above were published BEFORE Heinlein's _Moon Is A HArsh Mistress_.
"America was founded by liberals" by BLWiseass	Oct 19th, 2007 02:18:16 PM
Hilarious hahah. While the forefathers don't exactly represent either modern day "conservatives" or "liberals", I will ask a simple question. If the basis of American revolution was the willingness to take military action to get an interfering government off the backs of the people and eliminate excessive taxation while promoting free economy, which group of modern day politicians do those characteristics best describe. If you answer "liberals" you're an idiot.
BLWiseass by spidercoz	Oct 19th, 2007 02:56:00 PM
Liberal - adjective, favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. Conservative - adjective, disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. Now, which one of these sounds more like a group of pissed-off colonials who decided to throw off the yoke of absentee tyranny to establish a new self-governing nation, hmm? Idiot.
But will it have Coolio in it?! by Rei-Ginsei	Oct 19th, 2007 03:02:37 PM
And will he fight giant pterodactyls?!
Spidercoz by BLWiseass	Oct 19th, 2007 03:03:08 PM
Taking definitions of words out of context and failing to apply them rationally to the discussion at hand only proves the point made in my previous post. By your definition George Bush is a liberal because he wanted change in Iraq. Think on that (don't hurt yourself) and get back to me.
I stopped reading when I saw "sci-fi channel" by ATARI	Oct 19th, 2007 03:11:13 PM
It's gonna suck -- that I can guarantee!!
OK, I'll succumb to the temptation to talk politics .... by berserkrl	Oct 19th, 2007 03:15:25 PM
Liberal = someone who trusts government control in economic and military matters but not in matters of personal lifestyle and expression. ----- Conservative = someone who trusts government control in matters of personal lifestyle and expression but not in economic and military matters. ----- Authoritarian = someone who trusts government control in all of the above areas. ----- Libertarian = someone who DIStrusts government control in all of the above areas. ----- Hence the American Revolution was more libertarian than it was either liberal or conservative.
Aaaack! Please ignore my previous post. by berserkrl	Oct 19th, 2007 03:17:15 PM
What I MEANT was:::: Liberal = someone who trusts government control in economic and social-engineering matters but not in military matters or matters of personal lifestyle and expression. ----- Conservative = someone who trusts government control in military matters and matters of personal lifestyle and expression but not in economic and social-engineering matters. ----- Authoritarian = someone who trusts government control in all of the above areas. ----- Libertarian = someone who DIStrusts government control in all of the above areas. ----- Hence the American Revolution was more libertarian than it was either liberal or conservative.
Probably made like Flush Gordon... by DarthFloyd	Oct 19th, 2007 03:20:15 PM
Made in Vancouver, lame special effects, pretty people who can't act their way out of a paper bag, cheap budget, hack writers...yes, I think Sci-Fi might have the replacement for Painkiller Jane!
BLWiseass by spidercoz	Oct 19th, 2007 03:27:09 PM
First of all, Bush isn't a real conservative. If he was, he wouldn't be trying to force the country towards an authoritarian police state by spying on everyone and trying to push his personal beliefs on the rest of the population re: abortion, gay marriage, and religion. Second, Bush didn't give a shit about the plight of the people of Iraq and couldn't care less about change. It was about revenge, pure and simple.
BLWiseass, out of context? by Shakes	Oct 19th, 2007 03:36:34 PM
BLWiseass, how is taking dictionary definitions of two words you used, and then applying those definitions to a situation you described taking words out of context? And he hit the nail on the head, about how if you were to take modern day liberals, and modern day conservatives and place them in similar circumstances to Revolutinary America, the liberals would be the ones that would want the change. As for George Bush being a liberal, well I've always considered the terms and their definitions to be applicable only to Domestic politics, so I wouldn't go so far as to say wanting change in Iraq is a liberal belief. Now if there were an internal Iraqi movement to overthrow Saddam, I would call that a liberal movement. But for international policy, I can't really picture what a conservative or liberal viewpoint would be, with the exception of how said policy directly affects domestic policy.
after flush gordon by palewook	Oct 19th, 2007 04:07:11 PM
going to treat anything skiffy does with an extremely short viewing session. sci-fi gets about 5 mins now per attempt to make me decide their programming isnt shit.
It's a Movie and/or TV Series, People by kevinwillis.net	Oct 19th, 2007 04:32:39 PM
Seriously. Either it will be interesting on it's own merits, or it won't. Rendition will probably tank because it sounds tedious and stupid, as will Lions and Lambs, which looks about as fun as that other great movie, Lazy-Eyed College Professors Debate Proust for 4 Hours. But even they attempt to take on issues of contemporary American policy (real or imagined), re-imagined in a future setting, they could be anything. And the founding fathers ran the gamut from libertarian to practically fascist, and none of them was entirely happy with the outcome . . . and that, my friends, is America, the greatest nation on earth. End of line.
Shakes and Spidercoz by BLWiseass	Oct 19th, 2007 04:51:26 PM
The words were used with quotation marks, which to me indicated I was referring to the generally accepted political stereotypes not the words themselves. I do not think Bush is a liberal nor do I think he is "true" conservative but he is definitely lumped in with "conservatives". I was simply pointing out that Spidercoz's use of webster's definitions as part of an argument was completely flawed. Spidey - We can agree that Bush is not a true conservative. But you said "Liberal - adjective, favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs." If you were to take that definition literally than Bush would be a "liberal" because he is seeking to completely reform the government in Iraq. I disagree with you that it was purely about revenge, but regardless motivations were not covered by your definition. Anyway, if anybody hit the nail on the head, it was berserkrl when he said "Hence the American Revolution was more libertarian than it was either liberal or conservative." Philosophically speaking I think the modern day political view point typically called "conservative" has more in common with America's revolutionary forefathers than "liberal". In a gross generalization, today's "liberals" seek to expand government control over everyday citizen's lives and create government agencies to oversee anything they can think of, while taxing out the wazoo to pay for it. Independence from government control, lower taxes blah blah, are all generally credited to "conservatives". If the only thing you can point at is the colonists sought change and therefore must be "liberals", its not a very solid argument. The types of changes they sought jive more with "conservative" ideals and beliefs
Cough Earth 2 Cough by NZGUY	Oct 19th, 2007 05:22:15 PM
This does sould like Earth 2. And by the way, New America?, not New Earth?
liberal Ron Moore... by lynxpro	Oct 19th, 2007 05:53:08 PM
You know, I think Moore's claim is bogus. BSG is far too hard core for the man to be liberal. He just uses that label to get work in Hollywood. His work seems to indicate a philosophy that makes the folks helming 24 out to be Lydon LaRouche supporters.
Jefferson was a traitor. by lynxpro	Oct 19th, 2007 05:55:26 PM
Look up the XYZ Affair.
excessive taxation causing the Revolution by lynxpro	Oct 19th, 2007 06:05:00 PM
That wasn't the cause of it. You add up the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, and everything else and you are talking about less than 1% of an average colonists annual income. Ridiculous. In fact, the Boston Tea Party was about protesting the monopoly the British gave to the East India Company that destroyed the trade in illegally imported (and inferior) Dutch tea. The East India Company tea was cheap (and better) since it was sold directly from the East India Company to their affiliated stores, cutting out wholesalers and other areas of the distribution chain. That's what our dumb revolution was about. The British Parliament was trying to raise funds to pay off the massive debt the British Empire incurred during the prior Seven Years War (French and Indian War) in which they protected the American Colonies from the French that were trying to obliterate them. That was the culmination of almost 150 years of hostility, with events such as the Deerfield Massacre that the French perpetuated against the American colonists. So what did we do? On idiotic principle, terrorist groups like the Sons of Liberty rebelled against the very forces that had protected them for years over ridiculously low levels of taxation while people in Great Britain proper (and Ireland) were being heavily taxed because of American insolence perpetuated by 25% of the general populace. I'm sure this will be glossed over in the SciFi Channel's little "clever" exercise in scifi analogy.
What about the planet's indigenous peoples? by Billy Goat	Oct 19th, 2007 06:39:34 PM
Do the revolutionaries steal the planet from them while slaughtering them as "savages"? ...Just askin'. ;-)
Shlock? by Cobbio	Oct 19th, 2007 06:49:58 PM
Sounds like an interesting idea, but I think the plot details will make or break this show. Like, for example, whether the subjects of genetic engineering, nanotechnology, biocircuitry (soon to hit), FTL travel, and other "science fiction" elements are used and taken seriously. Because if they aren't, and life 200 years in the future is pretty much like life in 2007, this show will be another big steaming pile of garbage. Judging from how "seriously" SciFi takes its other shows, I don't hold out much hope. "Battlestar Galactica" was a decided exception to their rule, not a product of it. I understand why SciFi insults the intelligence of its core audience with stinking pieces of shit like "Flash Gordon" and "Ghost Hunters" -- namely, they're scared to take chances on quality. Also, in the short term stupidity sells. This is obviously good enough for the people in charge. But not for me. Man, I hope "Revolution" gives us a well-written character drama with guts and heart. But I'm 99 percent sure it won't. Simon West directing the pilot could work, but what then? I say bring in some hardcore science fiction writers to help scribe an epic. Because otherwise this show will quickly turn into embarrassing shlock. But as we've seen in the past, SciFi loves their shlock.
George Skywalker Bush vs James T. Clinton in the year 2208 by GornPirate	Oct 19th, 2007 08:40:13 PM
Two Families. One White House. One Will Gain Power...again...and misuse it. One will Revolt in Space. Who Will Win? Who Will lose? Who the fuck cares any more? Find out this Summer on Sci-Fi!
ccchhhrrriiisssm by TheNorthlander	Oct 20th, 2007 12:09:54 AM
The reason you don't see it is because the only thing you know anything about is your own back yard, dude.
TheNorthlander... by ccchhhrrriiisssm	Oct 20th, 2007 12:42:36 AM
How clever! Did you have to think about that one, or did you read that from Nancy Pelosi's talking points?
Why do liberals... by ccchhhrrriiisssm	Oct 20th, 2007 12:45:23 AM
...think that their views are the only ones that count? Why do they only tolerate those who agree with them? Tolerance with such hypocrisy isn't really tolerance at all.
Wnanahara7... by ccchhhrrriiisssm	Oct 20th, 2007 01:15:47 AM
...are u that brainwashed by the far left? Get a life...and a better understanding of Presidential politics and domestic/foreign relations!
Feedback for the future's Thomas Paine. by Dingbatty	Oct 20th, 2007 07:44:35 AM

ccchhhrrriiisssm by TheNorthlander	Oct 20th, 2007 08:01:05 AM
It's not a question of views, it's a question of you not being aware of the massive outpouring of people fleeing the middle east to Europe whereever the US decides to invade. I don't mind muslims, they're like any other people - most of them are cool if you treat them with respect - but you asuming your own country is the only one that takes care of refugees is just plain wrong on every level. In fact, it's A LOT harder to get into the US than over here, which is WHY a lot of people come here. Who the fuck is Nancy Pelosi?
Dont forget to make all the British gay by Col. Tigh-Fighter	Oct 20th, 2007 08:05:32 AM
Which is what usually happens in American \|Revolution movies
Memories-of-Murder... by lynxpro	Oct 20th, 2007 07:57:03 PM
I can think of one such film. The Broken Chain. TNT made it for cable when Ted Turner was on his pro-Native American kick. The film is about Joseph Brandt, Mohawk Chief and British Army General during the Revolution. The actor who portrays him was in Dances with Wolves. Pierce Brosnan plays Sir William Johnson, the man that had he lived long enough, probably could have prevented the rebellion as he was a master negotiator, friend of the Colonies, friend of the natives, and loyal to the Crown.
In a distant future... New England Patriots fans are confused. by LordEnigma	Oct 21st, 2007 06:50:18 AM
Yeah... this could easily be a complete and uttter misery, or they can get all DANIEL WEBSTER ON THIS MOTHERFUCKER! DANIEL WEBSTER AND NATHANIEL GREENE WITH LASER RIFLE BITCHES! WOOO!!!
You know it is possible to have a cautionary tale by Yeti	Oct 21st, 2007 09:21:25 AM
about what "could" happen given current politics without being anti-american/freedom etc. Stop reading Anne Coulter would be a good place to start.
EARTH: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT, YOU BASTARDS. by uss cygnus	Oct 21st, 2007 01:39:20 PM
Anytime liberals would like to board the rocket, allow me to open the hatch for them. And take your friends in Al Qaeda with you.
Fox News = Pure Comedy Gold by Yeti	Oct 21st, 2007 02:26:42 PM
Notice how beet red Bill O'Riley gets when he's on his soapbox about (well anything really) the man will have an anurisim or heart attack on air. Trust.
Yeti by TheNorthlander	Oct 21st, 2007 03:08:23 PM
Now that's YouTube material.
The Revolutionary War never happened by Guy Who Got A Headache And Accidentally Saves The World	Oct 22nd, 2007 01:02:19 AM
The US Government was always here. The American way was always the John Wayne way, and talking bad about your government never happened in the "good old days"
Yes!!!! A little froth brewing at the top! by Bill Brasky	Oct 22nd, 2007 10:37:00 AM
Oh, and redfist, the only moron lame enough to elicit a response: I am man enough, I have picked up a rifle and manned a post, and, as other talkbackers here at AICN may know, am a 17-year prior-enlisted, Army Captain with three tours under my belt (Afghanistan, Iraq and GTMO). Call me what you want, but a "chicken-hawk" I am not.
THIS IS.... by Reel American Hero	Oct 22nd, 2007 02:16:19 PM
AMERICAAA!!!
Freedom to a Libertarian means: by Lornsorrow	Oct 22nd, 2007 03:38:16 PM
EVERY PERSON IS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF HIS OR HER OWN LIFE AND SHOULD BE FREE TO DO WHATEVER HE OR SHE WISHES WITH THEIR OWN PERSON OR PROPERTY, AS LONG AS THEY RESPECT THAT SAME FREEDOM IN OTHERS. Now, if any movie was focused on that, and those principles, I would probably watch it. Any decent look at the American Revolution would focus more on something along these lines. But what America has become today is a bloated, moralistic, aristocracy that has really no conception of what real freedom means and instead trashes real freedom for a fascist version containing an chaotic mix of extreme right and extreme left views. EVEN SO, America at least is trying to be the "Land of the Free" which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for a lot of other countries who aren't even in the ball park. My only hope is that one day us Americans will one day stop playing with our balls and be willing to stand up for what true freedom in this park is really all about...
2176?! by ColinWexler	Oct 22nd, 2007 05:14:13 PM
This sounds like a blatant rip-off of 2176, a project that was announced several years ago by Ron Shusett (Alien, Total Recall) and Daniel Alter (Hitman, Jonny Quest). And I seem to recall that the guys who'd written that had already been working on it for years when it was announced in 2004 in the Hollywood Reporter!!! http://www.hollywoodreporter.c om/hr/search/article_display.j sp?vnu_content_id=1000522907
Shakes: "Deep Red" wasn't a vampire movie by mbeemer	Oct 23rd, 2007 10:34:01 AM
It was about a mad doctor trying to control the supply of nanites he'd discovered in the blood of a young girl and her parents, who'd been physically perfected by them.
Good God. by radio1_mike	Oct 23rd, 2007 11:01:04 AM
I like that premise- future off-world New Americans fighting against essentially the New World Order of Earth. But Sci-Fi will ruin it. I don'y know how BSG survives. The is the same network that in 1999 killed off MST3k for that teens wearing Adidas sportswear in space opera. We can't even trust them to play the sci-fi classics anymore.

Talkbacks

What More Can Be Reinvented?? How 'Bout...The American REVOLUTION?!?!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks