Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Kennedy mini-series canceled. But why?

A place to debate issues or to rant about what's on your mind. In addition to discussions about historical fiction, books, the publishing industry, and history, discussions about current political, social, and religious issues and other topics are allowed, so those who are easily offended by certain topics may want to avoid such threads. Members are expected to keep the discussions friendly and polite and to avoid personal attacks on other members. The moderators reserve the right to shut down a thread without warning if they believe it necessary.
User avatar
Divia
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 4435
Joined: August 2008
Location: Always Cloudy, Central New York

Post by Divia » Tue January 25th, 2011, 12:07 am

MM was the hottest thing at the time too.

I still think the family killed her. I know its a long shot, but her whole murder is just weird. The more I read about it the more I wonder. 3 days before her death, she said it was the happiest time of her life. I dunno.

Rich men like to cheat on their wives. The whole have your cake and eat it too nonsense. I mean if pretty young things are throwing themselves at you, hanging off your every word and telling you how awesome you are why wouldn't you do it?
News, views, and reviews on books and graphic novels for young adult.
http://yabookmarks.blogspot.com/

User avatar
MLE (Emily Cotton)
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3562
Joined: August 2008
Interest in HF: started in childhood with the classics, which, IMHO are HF even if they were contemporary when written.
Favourite HF book: Prince of Foxes, by Samuel Shellabarger
Preferred HF: Currently prefer 1600 and earlier, but I'll read anything that keeps me turning the page.
Location: California Bay Area

Post by MLE (Emily Cotton) » Tue January 25th, 2011, 12:53 am

Um-- maturity? Character? Self-control?

I know lots of men who wouldn't. In fact, despite Kinsey's tweaked stats, most men actually ARE faithful, once married.

One would hope that a man entrusted with the highest office in the free world could at least manage to be faithful to his wife. If he can't manage that, why should he be trusted on anything else?

Just sayin.

User avatar
Divia
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 4435
Joined: August 2008
Location: Always Cloudy, Central New York

Post by Divia » Tue January 25th, 2011, 2:27 am

It's all about the power. Power corrupts and all that jazz.

I'm sure a lot of men cheat. In fact I know more men that do than don't. But no sense in debating how many do and how many don't. I think its all about the circles one travels in.

Either way, it doesnt shock me when rich men do it.
News, views, and reviews on books and graphic novels for young adult.
http://yabookmarks.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Kveto from Prague
Compulsive Reader
Posts: 919
Joined: September 2008
Location: Prague, Bohemia

Post by Kveto from Prague » Tue January 25th, 2011, 3:12 pm

[quote=""MLE""]JFK's doctor published a book a few decades back, detailing JFK's lifelong struggle with Addison's Disease and how they kept him functioning while in the white house by a cocktail of methamphetamines and other stimulants. Just reading it scared the willies out of me when I think how very close we came to WWIII on his watch. And the Bay of Pigs incident was incredible hubris. For those who don't remember it, the US tried to remove Castro from Cuba on the reassurance of several Cuban exiles that the people would rise up in support. No research was done to discover how wrong that assumption was. This was the beginning of Castro's regime, and the Cuban people didn't know how bad he would be, but they sure knew that the exiled upper class had been horrible. Well, the popular uprising didn't happen and the US got its butt kicked and internationally humiliated.

Actually, Kennedy got almost nothing positive done while president. His claim to fame, other than projecting a certain glamorous image, is that somebody shot him.[/quote]

Im not too up on American politics

this seems like a dog-pile on Kennedy thread and I dont want to say anything to derail the party but...

The Bay of Pigs debacle came from the Eisenhaur administration. He planned it, trained the rebels, and did everything to make it happen. In fact they expected it to take place under Nixon. Kennedy was originally against it but the operation was so far along that Kennedy would have faced a lot of problems to stop it. All that was left was the go-ahead. instead he went along with it and even accepted responsibility although it was not his wish.

You will find this info in just about any write up on the bay of pigs and both Kennedy and Eisenhaur biographers agree on it. the Bay of Pigs was Ike's baby.

http://www.prouty.org/bay_pigs.html

Im not a Kennedy apologist. I feel he made a lot of mistakes. I blame him for the Cuban missle crisis. Kruschev offered to remove the missiles from Cuba if Kennedy would remove the US missles from Turkey. Which seems reasonable. Kennedy said no take the missle out of Cuba but we will keep our missiles in Turkey. Luckily, Kruschev realized that losing a bit of face was better than having a nuclear war and backed down. As much as it pains me to say positive things about the USSR, the world was lucky that their cooler heads prevailed.

Again, I just wanted to annotate that tidbit on the Bay of Pigs. Ive got a fairly neutral opinion of Kennedy overall.
Last edited by Kveto from Prague on Tue January 25th, 2011, 4:19 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Reason: provide a link

User avatar
Michy
Bibliophile
Posts: 1649
Joined: May 2010
Location: California

Post by Michy » Tue January 25th, 2011, 3:51 pm

[quote=""Kveto from Prague""]
this seems like a dog-pile on Kennedy thread and I dont want to say anything to derail the party but...

[/quote] Nobody's bashing the Kennedys -- or anyone else -- here. His administration is widely regarded with so much nostalgia (for instance, I have already heard several times on the news this week that this is the 50th anniversary of his inauguration, how he advanced the arts, etc etc etc) that those of us who are less than enamored with his presidency are simply expressing another opinion of his legacy, that's all.

User avatar
Kveto from Prague
Compulsive Reader
Posts: 919
Joined: September 2008
Location: Prague, Bohemia

Post by Kveto from Prague » Tue January 25th, 2011, 4:23 pm

[quote=""Michy""]Nobody's bashing the Kennedys -- or anyone else -- here. His administration is widely regarded with so much nostalgia (for instance, I have already heard several times on the news this week that this is the 50th anniversary of his inauguration, how he advanced the arts, etc etc etc) that those of us who are less than enamored with his presidency are simply expressing another opinion of his legacy, that's all.[/quote]

Sure I know. It was meant as a joke. :) Im not enamoured of the Kennedys either. I just wanted to point out where the blame in the bay of pigs falls.
Last edited by Kveto from Prague on Tue January 25th, 2011, 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

chuck
Bibliophile
Posts: 1073
Joined: August 2008
Location: Ciinaminson NJ

Post by chuck » Tue January 25th, 2011, 5:31 pm

"No body's bashing the Kennedy's--or anyone else--here." Are you serious?....generalizations, innuendos, put downs, sarcasm,......lets see did I forget anything?.......

User avatar
Rowan
Bibliophile
Posts: 1462
Joined: August 2008
Interest in HF: I love history, but it's boring in school. Historical fiction brings it alive for me.
Preferred HF: Iron-Age Britain, Roman Britain, Medieval Britain
Location: New Orleans
Contact:

Post by Rowan » Tue January 25th, 2011, 9:30 pm

It seems to me that this whole thread has gotten off track.

Whether you love the Kennedy family or despise them, the fact is, many people don't view anything aired on the History Channel as historically accurate so there is no real basis for not airing it.

As was stated earlier, how the producers didn't know what the contents of the script was is beyond comprehension. One can only assume that they blindly gave money to the movie merely because it had the name Kennedy in it and now they're backpeddaling. But then again, what is so historically relevant about a family whose men cheated on their wives more often than not? In my opinion, it should not be aired not because it's historically innacurate, but because it's historically irrelevant.

User avatar
Michy
Bibliophile
Posts: 1649
Joined: May 2010
Location: California

Post by Michy » Tue January 25th, 2011, 10:01 pm

[quote=""Rowan""]It seems to me that this whole thread has gotten off track.[/quote] That tends to happen around here.
But then again, what is so historically relevant about a family whose men cheated on their wives more often than not? In my opinion, it should not be aired not because it's historically innacurate, but because it's historically irrelevant.
It is the Kennedy family's prevalence in American politics over the past 60-70 years that gives them historical relevance, at least in the minds of many. JFK's assassination has forever enshrined his administration and added mystique and intrigue to the whole family that gives them even more interest (again, to many). That's probably not going to change, at least as long as there are Baby Boomers still alive.

Although with the death of Ted Kennedy, it does seem as if their political prominence is now on the decline. Yes, there are still many of the younger generation involved in politics, but none of them have the aura or influence of the earlier generation.
Last edited by Michy on Tue January 25th, 2011, 10:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
JMJacobsen
Reader
Posts: 113
Joined: September 2008
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington

Post by JMJacobsen » Tue January 25th, 2011, 11:37 pm

It's been my observation that no human being is perfect. Great men (and women) also have great failings. It doesn't detract from great things that they accomplished, nor do their achievements excuse their failings. It just is what it is....they are human, just like all of us are.

Post Reply

Return to “Debate/Rant Forum”