SMF - Just Installed!
Username  
Password
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Documentary of "Killing Lincoln"  (Read 1552 times)
Christine
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 87


View Profile
« on: January 13, 2012, 09:54:56 AM »

You knew it had to happen!

"Forget Edward, Bella, Batman, Ethan Hunt, zombies, vampires, fairy tales or whatever other trend you might think is gaining heat, because it seems nothing is hotter right now than Abraham Lincoln. Last year, Robert Redford investigated his assassination with "The Conspirator," and in 2012 we'll have two versions of the famed president hitting screens, first in the revisionist genre tale "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" then in Steven Spielberg's prestige picture "Lincoln." But guess what history buffs, there is even more Abe on the way.

Powerhouse producing brothers Ridley and Tony Scott are teaming with the National Geographic Channel for a documentary based on irrtiating and loudmouth political commentator Bill O'Reilly's book "Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever." Why they are using this source material is beyond us. Already a lightning rod for its various inaccuries -- including references to the Oval Office (which hadn't been built at the time) to dredging up the long debunked rumor that Secretary of War Edward Stanton was somehow involved with the plot to kill to the president -- the book is so factually inept, the National Parks Service has banned it from being sold at the Ford's Theater. Oof.

Anyway, after all that in case you're still interested, the doc will feature both re-enactments (including some done by CGI for some reason) and archival material but we'll see if the any of the book's more dubious posits make it to the finished product. The Scott Bros. are old hands at American history docs, having delivered "Gettysburg" last year, so we'll see how this turns out."

 http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/ridley-tony-scott-proudcing-documentary-based-on-bill-oreillys-killing-lincoln
Logged
Rob Wick
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 650



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2012, 01:32:48 PM »

Given the fact that News Corporation owns 67 percent of the National Geographic Channel, and it also owns Fox News, is there any wonder why they're doing this?

Best
Rob
Logged

Using the internet since the 1990s to avoid actually getting something accomplished.
Rob Wick
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 650



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2012, 07:16:53 PM »

Yeah, Betty, it's still on the best-seller list. You have no idea how difficult it is for me not to say something when someone asks me about it.

Best
Rob
Logged

Using the internet since the 1990s to avoid actually getting something accomplished.
Christine
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 87


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2012, 12:07:27 PM »

Well, I'm still dealing with people who have seen The Conspirator (and who know about my Aiken work) who think Mary Surratt was completely innocent and all the government evidence was a set-up.  Ugh. 
Logged
Kate Larson
Full Member
***
Posts: 117


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2012, 01:14:41 PM »

ugh!  This is nauseating!  And btw, when was the last time we saw much of anything about history on Nat Geo that was accurate and not sensationalized?  Not much. And they mostly do environment, cultures, and exploration stuff with the obligatory sensational aspects.  Yuck!

I am becoming a bigger Stanton fan by the day because I find myself defending him so much.
Logged
rich smyth
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 628


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2012, 04:13:21 PM »

I have just now begun reading "Killing Lincoln." it is a very easy to read book but full of inaccuracies . This might pass if the book was classified as historical fiction, but as O'Reilly says in "A note to the readers," "The story you are about to read is true..." Will this book and the subsequent Nat Geo special perpetuate all the false tales?  If a box of sugar coated children's cereal claimed to contain no sugar and zero calories, it would be forced to change the writing on the package. Should "Killing Lincoln" be required to post a disclaimer or does this fall under the 1st amendment or poetic license?
Logged
jonathan
Full Member
***
Posts: 104



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2012, 04:38:11 PM »

That's funny Rich, my buddy MatthewR and I had similar questions after reading that book. We wondered how many mistakes/inaccuracies/fabrications does a book require before it crosses the line from non-fiction to fiction?
Logged

"I try not to break the rules, but merely to test their elasticity" - Bill Veeck
BoothBuff
Guest
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2012, 05:14:35 PM »

     I got it for Christmas and have yet to read it. I may read it soon, after my next surgery, just to pass the time. The past few months I've read some real good ones on this subject, including Betty Ownsbey's, Kate Larson's, Randal's Smoot book and Terry Alford's spin on Asia Booth's book. I put this one off to last. I'm expecting to be disappointed.  
« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 06:32:34 PM by BoothBuff » Logged
rich smyth
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 628


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2012, 07:33:39 PM »

I freely admit to being an expert on nothing. That is why I will read multiple books on a subject hoping to learn something new. The problem with this book is, there are so many things that I do know are incorrect, can I believe anything?
Logged
Gene C
Full Member
***
Posts: 200


Fido


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2012, 07:52:27 AM »

Laurie, 

I think that's what the TV news shows call "Fair and Balanced"
I enjoyed the book, but I was expecting more considering who the author was supposed to be.  Was also disappointed in the  innaccuracies, and conjecture that they represented as fact.  Hopefully they will do a little better job on their next book.

When they make the movie, they aren't using any of the experts that helped produce Geraldo Rivera's "The Mystery of Al Capone's Vault's" are they?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 08:15:31 AM by Gene C » Logged

The more you know, the more you think the less you know, because you know that you don't know.  The less you know the more you think the more you know, because you don't know that you don't know. 
 (Not bad for an old dog)
Capt.Herp
Newbie
*
Posts: 4


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 03, 2012, 10:14:13 AM »

I have been abused by a few posters for about six months since having the misfortune to write a review at Amazon.com on the book shortly after I received it.  My review remains the most helpful critical review.  I gave it three stars, because it was entertaining even if loaded with BS and innuendo about Stanton's supposed involvement -- which O'Reilly gratuitously inserted and then moved on to other things.  I've been accused of being partisan, a leftist, and of getting a kickback for recommending the book Blood on the Moon by Edward Steers as the book on the assassination, if the reader had to pick one.

These O'Reilly viewers are just nuts!  I watch the guy's show occasionally, but man, all you gotta do is say that the only reason this book sold so heavily is because he STILL markets it on his show, not because it's accurate, and you're instantly assaulted.

My copy got flipped onto the resell counter at Bookman's a while back, not only because it was not much of a book, but because attackers made me feel as though I needed to get rid of the damned thing.  At least I got a couple bucks back. 
Logged
jonathan
Full Member
***
Posts: 104



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 03, 2012, 11:18:08 AM »

For what it's worth, I agree that the book was entertaining. I had no problem with the style of writing, it makes for easy reading, especially for those with little knowledge of the assassination. But there are just too many problems with what was written to take it very seriously, which of course everybody here knows. I can only imagine the beating you take from the O'Reilly crowd, but it only shows their own ignorance. I have paid exactly zero attention to Bill O'Reilly over the years. I know who he is, but I literally pay zero attention. I remember when he used to do Inside Edition, but only because I remember the commercials for it. Of course I still see his book prominently displayed every time I go to Barnes and Noble, so my favorite thing to do is go grab a copy of Blood on the Moon or American Brutus to stick right up there beside it.
Logged

"I try not to break the rules, but merely to test their elasticity" - Bill Veeck
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to: