How controversial would a TV show about freedom fighters fighting a neocon dictatorship be in post 9/11 America?

[CmdrShep2154]

Imagine if during the 2002-2007 time period someone made a TV show where a massive terrorist attack leads to neocons turning America into a dictatorship complete with mass surveillance and Abu Ghraib like crimes committed against American citizens. The heroes would be freedom fighters but they would have had substantial support from elements of the U.S. Military that broke off from the government.

How much controversy would such a show attract?

 

[overoceans]

How much controversy would such a show attract?

If there is no ambiguity, and it's obvious that they're refering to the crew who were then running the White Hoise, Pentagon, and State Department, then it's gonna be something in the vicinity of Trying To Get Animal Farm Serialized In Pravda In 1952. IOW, very controversial, and not gonna last more than a couple episodes.

If it's more ambiguous, and ostensibly just about the abuse of state power generally, with some hints about who the characters are supposed to be, but everyone free to read whatever interpretation they want into it, PLUS some very clear condemnation of terrorism, then it'll be controversial, conservatives grumbling about liberal biases etc, but could probably survive a few seasons, before dying a natural death through waning interest.

 

[Alstein]

It would be very controversial, but there would be a target audience, especially if it was kinda Inglorious Bastards-ish.

Would probably need to be a web series or anime though.

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

I think that I remember someone trying to make the case that Zack Snyder’s adaptation of 300 used the imagery of extreme Western chauvinism (perfectly sculpted, heroic, Aryanesque Greek warriors fighting against a multiethnic, sometimes literally monstrous Persian horde led by someone with ambiguous, seductive sexuality) to mask some sort of subtle critique of American foreign policy, with the Persian Empire representing the military might and reach of the United States encroaching on the rest of the world. I doubt that this was ever the intention, but a slightly different cut could inadvertently better foster this narrative and make it more widely recognized in the mainstream.

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

There’s a reason Arthur Miller wrote “The Crucible” in the 1950s instead of “Stop the Fucking Red Scare Already You Shitheels.”

 

[overoceans]

I think that I remember someone trying to make the case that Zack Snyder’s adaptation of 300 used the imagery of extreme Western chauvinism (perfectly sculpted, heroic, Aryanesque Greek warriors fighting against a multiethnic, sometimes literally monstrous Persian horde led by someone with ambiguous, seductive sexuality) to mask some sort of subtle critique of American foreign policy, with the Persian Empire representing the military might and reach of the United States encroaching on the rest of the world. I doubt that this was ever the intention, but a slightly different cut could inadvertently better foster this narrative and make it more widely recognized in the mainstream.

I heard the same thing, except that the allegation was that he was promoting western jingoism, not critiquing it. By the interpretation you outline, he was ostensibly portraying the positive western self-image(tough macho patriots) in order to parody it.

And I think there was a possible jab at pacifistic "Euro-weenies" when the main character refers to the Spartans' Athenian allies as "boy lovers". That epithet being a stand-in for the now-less acceptable "fags" or "queers".

That said, if, as some thought, he was trying to villify modern Iran via ancient Persia, I doubt he would have made their leaders so sexually ambiguous. The typical neo-con view of the Muslim would at that time was that they were more patriarchal, with their women in need of rescue from the supposedly feminist west. Though I suppose the more rednecky sections of public opinion would just have lumped androgyny in with Islam, as Bad Things Threatening The West.

 

[overoceans]

By the way, I have reason to believe that that line about Sparta helped put into circulation the idea that the Spartans abhorred pederasty. Which I think is far from the truth.

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

If there is no ambiguity, and it's obvious that they're refering to the crew who were then running the White Hoise, Pentagon, and State Department, then it's gonna be something in the vicinity of Trying To Get Animal Farm Serialized In Pravda In 1952. IOW, very controversial, and not gonna last more than a couple episodes.

If it's more ambiguous, and ostensibly just about the abuse of state power generally, with some hints about who the characters are supposed to be, but everyone free to read whatever interpretation they want into it, PLUS some very clear condemnation of terrorism, then it'll be controversial, conservatives grumbling about liberal biases etc, but could probably survive a few seasons, before dying a natural death through waning interest.

Weren’t there already a fair few shows doing that kind of thing already? Off the top of my head, 24 Season 2 in the US and Spooks in the UK both had stuff about basically neocon hawks trying to take over government and invade a nation for spurious reasons (24) or bring in sweeping anti-Muslim/anti-terror laws (Spooks) and the main characters trying to stop them. So if it’s already a thing...would it be that controversial?

 

[steamboy]

Also look at Battlestar Galactica Season 2 where the good guys were using suicide bombers against their oppressors on New Caprica.

 

[overoceans]

Weren’t there already a fair few shows doing that kind of thing already? Off the top of my head, 24 Season 2 in the US and Spooks in the UK both had stuff about basically neocon hawks trying to take over government and invade a nation for spurious reasons (24) or bring in sweeping anti-Muslim/anti-terror laws (Spooks) and the main characters trying to stop them. So if it’s already a thing...would it be that controversial?

Like I say, it depends how directly the neo-cons are portrayed. If it's just some guys talking about how we need to invade other countries and suspend civil-liberties in order to fight terrorism, without their being direct replicas of real leaders, yeah, the network can get away with that. See, eg. the Lincoln assassination movie The Conspirator, with Stanton portrayed as hellbent on avenging America's domestic and overseas enemies.

But something like American Dreamz, with a dim-witted POTUS obviously supposed to be Bush, an evil Veep obviously supposed to be Cheney, and portraying the whole gang as detestable warmongers? You can do that in a niche arthouse flick, not on prime time TV. Especially if you are portraying the good-guys in ARMED REVOLT against the neo-cons.

 

[marathag]

But something like American Dreamz, with a dim-witted POTUS obviously supposed to be Bush, an evil Veep obviously supposed to be Cheney, and portraying the whole gang as detestable warmongers? You can do that in a niche arthouse flick, not on prime time TV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lil' Bush on Comedy Central?

 

[marathag]

Also look at Battlestar Galactica Season 2 where the good guys were using suicide bombers against their oppressors on New Caprica.

More than a few called that season 'Battlestar: Iraq'

 

[SsgtC]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lil' Bush on Comedy Central?

It's Comedy Central though. They have a long history of doing these types of shows about people from every political spectrum. And it's rightly seen as satire. But if we're talking about a serious drama on mainstream television (think one of the big networks like NBC, ABC, CBS or HBO), the show would have a completely different reaction and reception. At most the pilot would get aired and then quickly killed with whatever producer greenlit it getting either blackballed at worse or demoted at best.

 

[overoceans]

It's Comedy Central though. They have a long history of doing these types of shows about people from every political spectrum. And it's rightly seen as satire. But if we're talking about a serious drama on mainstream television (think one of the big networks like NBC, ABC, CBS or HBO), the show would have a completely different reaction and reception. At most the pilot would get aired and then quickly killed with whatever producer greenlit it getting either blackballed at worse or demoted at best.

And if we're talking about a show where the Good Guys are actively trying to commit violence against the state, with the leaders of said state obvious stand-ins for real people, that probably wouldn't even fly on late-night cable. Even Death Of A President had a sympathetic character state that the murder of George W. Bush was a bad thing.

 

[Doesntmatter]

Define neoconservatism. Do you mean the buzzword which is a proxy for general military interventionism or the actual foreign policy ideology? I'm a fan of neither but the popular reducing of the latter to the former doesn't do the position justice.

Edit: For example, I read the aftermath of Calbear's AANW as a good criticism of neoconservatism the ideology whereas criticism of general interventionism is a dime a dozen.

 

[SsgtC]

And if we're talking about a show where the Good Guys are actively trying to commit violence against the state, with the leaders of said state obvious stand-ins for real people, that probably wouldn't even fly on late-night cable. Even Death Of A President had a sympathetic character state that the murder of George W. Bush was a bad thing.

Particularly when it's a show going after the sitting administration. Look at the real world examples we have. The Dixie Chicks made a statement in London in 2003 about being ashamed that the President was from Texas. It ended their careers almost immediately. For a more recent example, look at Kathy Griffin. She did that photo shoot with the bloody Trump head. She's been blacklisted ever since (except for a cameo she had to beg for). And that was with a media that is far more Liberal than it was 16 years ago and was aimed at a President that half the country actively hates. American media is odd. Satire is acceptable. Straight up criticism is acceptable. But an open attack on a sitting President and his administration will end your career before you can blink

 

[overoceans]

Define neoconservatism. Do you mean the buzzword which is a proxy for general military interventionism or the actual foreign policy ideology? I'm a fan of neither but the popular reducing of the latter to the former doesn't do the position justice.

I would use it to mean the movement initiated by US leftists who went over to conservativsm in the 1970s, becoming big promoters of an interventionist and pro-Israel foreign-policy during the Reagan administration. Also carried over into the Bush II administration, although not entirely with the same cast of people, but knowingly beholden to the same belief-system.

Big names: Norman Podhoretz, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, the latter-day Christopher Hitchens etc. Would not include interventionists like William F. Buckley, Pat Buchanan, Bush I, or even Reagan himself, though there were obvious points of agreement between all those people and the neo-cons on certain issues.

 

[overoceans]

Particularly when it's a show going after the sitting administration. Look at the real world examples we have. The Dixie Chicks made a statement in London in 2003 about being ashamed that the President was from Texas. It ended their careers almost immediately. For a more recent example, look at Kathy Griffin. She did that photo shoot with the bloody Trump head. She's been blacklisted ever since (except for a cameo she had to beg for). And that was with a media that is far more Liberal than it was 16 years ago and was aimed at a President that half the country actively hates. American media is odd. Satire is acceptable. Straight up criticism is acceptable. But an open attack on a sitting President and his administration will end your career before you can blink

And that fetishization of the presidency manifests itself in other ways, eg...

BUSH II: Think I'll appoint a Muslim as UN Ambassador.

CONSERVATIVES: Huh? Uh, yeah, whatever, man.

OBAMA: My father was a Muslim. Never knew him.

CONSERVATIVES: OMG!!! IT'S THE APOCALYPSE!!!

Granted, there are probably partisan considerartions there as well, ie. Republicans were mad because it was specifically a Democratic president with lost family ties to Islam. But, it generally tends to be GOPers who engage in this idolization of the presidency anyway.

 

[Puzzle]

Think I'll appoint a Muslim as UN Ambassador.

No one really cares about the UN though.

 

[Don Corleone]

It was a movie, not a series, but "The Siege" had a similar theme (although the bad guys weren't the top levels of government). Or not so much a similar theme but the villains being counterterrorist operatives.

Probably would have needed to wait until 2010 after you had a change in administration. Then make the administration ambiguous in terms of being R or D so you don't get accused of partisan hackery.