The question the court has been deliberating the past few weeks is the following:

In the current media environment, are radio personalities being held to a different and tougher standard than their peers in print and on television?

Each justice has presented their own set of arguments regarding the above question, and we as a court have come to a decision regarding the subject at hand.

By a vote of 4 to 2 (3 Abstentions at the moment), the court has decided that indeed Radio Personalities are being held to a higher standard than their peers in Television and Print.

Concurring: Jess, Becca, Aaron, James
Dissenting: Heidi, Matt
Abstaining: Jeremy, Jim, Nikki

Presenting the Majority position will be Justice Aaron and presenting the dissenting opinion on this subject will be myself, Chief Justice Matthew.

The Majority Opinion:

In the current media environment, are radio personalities being held to a different and tougher standard than their peers in print and on television?

My decision:

In November 2004, a talk radio host based in Madison, Wisconsin, called Condoleezza Rice “Aunt Jemima.” John “Sly” Sylvester of WTDY-AM was referring to comments made by Harry Belafonte that the price of admittance of blacks to the Bush White House was subservience, and that Rice (whose tenure as national security advisor he characterized as incompetent) was being used to present “an illusion of inclusion.” For his opinion, Sylvester was on the receiving end of an uproar that included not only listeners, but the NAACP, the Mayor of Madison, and Senator Russ Feingold.

If the question here is whether or not radio personalities are being held to a different standard than other media, I would say the answer is yes.

Using Condoleezza Rice is an example of a divisive issue, she’s been ridiculed in every form of mainstream media, from television to print to radio. But I’ve never heard of a mass outcry from a television audience that Jon Stewart be beheaded for making fun of Condi (despite John T. Jones’s attempts at chastisement ). Sure, Pravda can get away with saying her problems stem from being single and childless merely by benefit of being European, but when Pat Oliphant makes fun of her by calling her subservient, there may be disagreement, but there’s never a mass outpouring of anti-political cartoon sentiment.

Why, then, did 100 people call WTDY-AM and demand that John Sylvester be fired? Why should he not be allowed to express his opinion, like Jon Stewart or Pat Oliphant or the head of the Russian Liberal and Democratic Party? Is it the medium itself? Does the fact that it’s live somehow make it more immediate?

Sylvester apologized to Aunt Jemima, saying “She wasn’t a self-serving hack politician who got up in front of Congress and lied. Aunt Jemima didn’t kowtow to Don Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney.” He also said “Aunt Jemima never lied about yellow cake uranium; she just makes a damn good pancake.” The NAACP was not amused.

What bothers me in this case is the racial issue, which seems to be at the fore of many of the attacks on radio personalities. When Don Imus used a racial slur, he was suspended; when Al Sharpton denounced him, CBS couldn’t fire him fast enough. One might argue that CBS had employed Don Imus long enough to know the kind of things he said, but as soon as he became a supposed liability, he was immediately turned loose. Soon after, Opie and Anthony were suspended for a bit in which a caller referred to as Homeless Charlie fantasized about having violent sex with Condoleezza Rice. Al Sharpton again denounced the bit, but didn’t call for anyone to get fired. (Fellow blogger Chez wonders if this is because Homeless Charlie is black, and “therefore in possession of a genetic get-out-of-jail-free card.”)

Perhaps there’s a point to be made about race relations here. There are certainly a number of black people in this country who don’t like Condoleezza Rice, and do consider her an Aunt Jemima (Skeptical Brotha for example, as well as Harry Belafonte), but Al Sharpton is not running around insisting that they be fired or boycotted. Why is that? Is there something else going on here? Are radio hosts not, in fact, being held to a higher standard, but in fact just easy targets for people with their own agenda?

If we truly have free speech in this country, then all speech has to be tolerated. The cardinal sin in America right now seems to be offending anyone, especially those considered minority groups. What this seems to have led to (at the risk of being offensive) is a fear among corporations of seeming to tolerate anything offensive toward black people, and some opportunists like Al Sharpton use that to stamp out anything that they don’t agree with. Calling Condi Rice “Aunt Jemima” is not a slur directed at all black people–it’s a criticism of Rice’s place in the Administration. When Al Sharpton calls a white man a racist for criticizing her, what he’s doing is not standing up for the rights of the criticized, he’s attempting (and in some cases succeeding) to stamp out thought he doesn’t like. With a minimum of hyperbole, that’s simply un-American. Because when we decide that there’s a right and wrong way to think, we can easily start applying it to the simple act of stating an opinion. And when opinions are outlawed, that’s a standard that no one will be able to live up to.

The Dissenting Opinion:

The question before the court this week is: In the current media environment, are radio personalities being held to a different and tougher standard than their peers in print and on television?

To answer that question, we must examine both if radio personalities are held to a different standard than their peers in the other mass media and then determine if they are in fact being held to a tougher standard.

And the tempest that began this whole discussion is naturally the firing of Don Imus and his producer for their remarks about the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team (comments that were in part lifted from a Spike Lee movie). The Imus incident had an equivalent immediate effect on the reporting of radio incidents that the Janet Jackson incident had on television… the operative word that is immediate. But the thing to remember is it was public outcry and not a regulatory offense that led to the dismissal of Don Imus. He did not break the law, and no FCC fines were levied in the case, despite the best efforts of people like Al Sharpton.

There are other incidents in the recent past, from a New York City shock jock stating he was looking to have inappropriate sexual contact with the daughter of a rival to someone castrating a pig on the air to even a pair of shock jocks playing an audio portion of the Nick Berg murder with music, jokes and laughter that have caused a stir.

The reason it seems like radio hosts are now being held to a higher standard is now a precedent has been set with the firing of Don Imus… and with the memories of that incident fresh in the minds of other interest groups, they have seen an opportunity to push their own agenda, and because of that, the networks that carry potentially offensive material are a little wary of courting controversy. The three recent widely known incidents (Imus, JV and Elvis and Opie and Anthony) have something else in common besides being offensive to a certain vocal segment of the population… all three programs were on the CBS radio network (Portions of Opie and Anthony’s XM show were being rebroadcast on CBS since April 2006), which means that the Imus situation was squarely pointed at one broadcaster, a broadcaster whose contact information is still fresh on the mind of those with a particular agenda.

Radio personalities, by and large, are allowed to express themselves in a much freer manner than their counterparts in print or on television because they aren’t as reliant on gatekeepers for the distribution of their content. Print journalists are constrained by editors and publishers who are often given the opportunity to have their sentiments and words softened or altered before they are publicly consumed, as well as some time to reconsider the way in which something is phrased. And in the world of television news and punditry, there are similar barriers to such free expression, because the use of scripts and teleprompters as well as a set list of reliable guests who present the information that is expected of them. And in many cases, such guest also employ a set of talking points which they consistently use across programs and networks. There are a lot of safety nets for the people appearing on these shows to avoid the wrong kind of controversy (by approaching the line, and not crossing it through clever editing and framing of issues). And on entertainment shows, it is usually the guests which court the controversy (one example that comes to mind is Sarah Silverman’s appearance on Conan O’Brien in July 2001 where she told a joke about getting out of jury duty by writing “I love Chinks” on her application), and not the hosts.

Therefore, it is general quite difficult to get through the filters and say something truly controversial. However, there is one venue on television where it is far easier to get into trouble, and that is any show that involves open debate of topics (as Bill Maher would likely be the first to admit), is also the most likely place to generate controversy because it is in that kind of setting where an off-the-cuff remark can turn into something much bigger.

Contrast that with the system radio hosts have. Radio personalities often don’t have the same kinds of intermediaries their peers in the other media do. In fact, for the most part, they have the freedom to explore topics at their own pace, and have ample time to fill on a daily basis (from two to five hours), and as such, there are fewer restrictions on what they can or cannot say, because frankly trying apply the same limits on those kinds of relatively freeform shows would require much tighter controls over the entire process which would lose much of its power and appeal. Controversial Civil Rights Lawyer and radio host Ron Kuby has stated, “Once you get beyond the FCC, a host is left to the discretion of a program director, station manager, bosses they’ve never seen, advertisers and a fickle public. What might be fine today results in a boycott tomorrow.”

And they are called shock jocks for a reason. They are encouraged to push the boundaries of good taste and court controversy on a daily basis. In fact, it is that very factor that Imus is using to dispute his firing, as there was a clause in his contract which stated that is exactly the kind of behavior that was expected of him. And in the arena of political punditry, the figures involved say the same sorts of things that draw fire for shock jocks, but because of the kind of reporting, very few groups and individuals try to bring the same kind of lobbying power to having their shows punished for their transgressions.

For the amount of latitude most of these figures have, a little controversy is a small price to pay, and given the sheer amount of work each of these radio personalities produces versus their counterparts on television and in print, the fact that there isn’t MORE controversy generated from their programs is surprising. I mean, if any one of us had to talk extemporaneously for ten to twenty-five hours a week to thousands or millions of listeners, we would probably say something within our first few days which would generate controversy.

Therefore while radio personalities are indeed held to a different standard, it is far from being a tougher one. So no, I do not think that radio personalities are being held to a higher standard than their counterparts in the other media. In fact, if anything, television for the purposes of entertainment seems to be the whipping boy for the entire media industry. I only have to mention such incidents as ABC’s reluctance to show Saving Private Ryan uncut on Memorial Day 2004, an event they had done twice before without major controversy, or Without a Trace’s recent run-in about a teen orgy scene, or even the period where the FCC and groups like Focus on the Family were going full bore against the networks over fleeting swearing during live events. Because the truth is, television personalities could never dream of getting away with some of the things their peers in radio do.


The issues surrounding remakes has been discussed throughout the blogosphere for years and in traditional media even before that, and as such, they seemed to be an ideal subject to adjudicate.

Each justice has presented their own set of arguments regarding the above question, and we as a court have come to a decision regarding the subject at hand.

By a vote of 6 to 3, the court has decided that there should be no Moratorium on remakes in Hollywood, despite their flaws.

Concurring: Nikki, Jim, Jess, Jeremy, Heidi, James
Dissenting: Becca, Aaron, Matt

Presenting the Majority position will be Justice Nikki and presenting the dissenting opinion on this subject will be Justice Becca.

The Majority Position:

To propose there should be a moratorium on movie remakes would suggest that the problem with movie remakes is not leaving enough time between the original and the remake. But timing is not the issue — a movie remake can be successful, depending on the remake director’s respect of the original film, understanding of the concepts and themes behind it, willingness to put his or her own spin on it, and a possible involvement with the people who made the original. I’ve considered four categories of film and chosen a good remake and a bad one (in my opinion) to show that timing really has nothing to do with how good or bad a remake is going to be.

I should preface this by saying that generally I hate remakes, and therefore I’ve never seen many of these movies, but I’m going by critical reaction as opposed to mine. I believe most movie remakes are unnecessary, though there have been a few excellent exceptions. (And the same goes for television; while most American versions of British shows are terrible, The Office remains one shining example of one that worked. And Battlestar Galactica, a remake of a 1978 short-lived series, is one of the best things on television.) But for the most part, choosing film remakes that I hated was easy; choosing good ones was a lot more difficult.

The idea behind most sci-fi film remakes is usually that the special effects are now better than they were before, so it will necessarily make the movie better. (See George Lucas’s original Star Wars and his updated versions in the 90s to see how that idea can be total crap.)

Didn’t work:
Planet of the Apes (1968), with its bad costumes, campy premise, and overacting, is nonetheless a sci-fi classic. Its impact on popular culture is immeasurable, and that twist ending is one of the greatest climaxes in cinema. (It’s no surprise that Rod Serling played such a big role in it.) So why do a second version of it? For his 2001 version, Tim Burton knew that fans would know the twist, so it’s not like he could shock us with it. He knew how revered it was, spawning sequels, action figures, and a cult following rivaling that of Star Trek, so he couldn’t be looking to shed light on a previously overlooked movie. Burton simply had the ego to think he could do it again, and do it better. And he was wrong. The twist at the end was completely different, yet very much the same, and I still remember the moans of “oh COME ON” that came from the audience when that ending happened.

War of the Worlds (1953 & 2005), on the other hand, took a movie that was similarly revered, but rather archaic, and made it new. The special effects were spectacular, the psychological horror and suspense were thrilling, and the story was engaging. Of course, it had a typical Spielberg ending, but hey, the guy can NOT do endings (see A.I. for the perfect example of an atrocious ending that killed a brilliant movie). While I have not actually seen the original, most of the reviews at the time said Spielberg’s version trumped it by a long shot.

Foreign remakes are common, and are a special category because they’re usually different interpretations of the same film, and can often be quite successful. Plus, for most of the mainstream audiences going to films, they don’t want to make that effort to read subtitles, so a Hollywood actor will translate it for them.

City of Angels (1998), starring Nicholas Cage, was a remake of Wim Wenders’ genius Wings of Desire (1987), a gorgeous film with the idea of everyone having angels (albeit morose and depressing ones) on our shoulders. Cage, as usual, overacted his way through it, it watered down the premise, and of course, it lacked that long scene in the bar at the end of the Wenders film where the angel has a very long monologue about life and death and everything in between.

That’s why:
The Ring (2002) was one of the most successful horror films of all time. Based on the similarly successful Japanese film Ringu (1998), The Ring was terrifying for its suspense and psychological mindfraks. Little easter eggs were stuck throughout the film, such as a single frame of film of a ring that flashed during an otherwise boring scene, and the imagery was enough to give nightmares to even the most diehard horror fan. This is another film where I haven’t seen the original, but many friends of mine did and said it wasn’t nearly as frightening as the U.S. remake.

Comedy remakes are usually done to showcase the talents of a single actor. Someone who has made their name in comedy — often physical comedy — thinks they can take on some of the great films, and they’re usually doomed to a lot of finger-pointing and derision.

This is a comedy?:
The Pink Panther (2006) was just baffling. A remake of the Peter Sellers gem A Shot in the Dark (1964), which is one of the funniest films of all time (disagree with me on that… I dare you), it was one of those trailers that when you first saw it in the theatre, your jaw dropped in shock and horror. Steve Martin… what has happened to you?! You used to be awesome, and you haven’t lost it — Bowfinger is one of my favourite films EVER — but then you have the balls to go and think you can top Sellers’ performance? Are you kidding me?! I’m THRILLED to say I didn’t see this one.

The Nutty Professor (1996 & 1962) was originally a Jerry Lewis film (barf) and while it was immensely popular, Eddie Murphy’s remake was funnier. I know this is one several people might disagree with me on, but I thought it was funny, and Murphy made it his own by coming up with the idea of playing most of the roles. Of course, he should have stopped there, but the guy has no filter in his brain, so now we’re subjected to disasters like Norbit. But I like to think of him as the OTHER guy in Bowfinger… The movie was not only funny, but it had Jerry Lewis on board collaborating, so the remake showed respect to the original while still making it seem like its own.

Classics are remade just because producers believe “kids nowadays” won’t watch a black and white film. They could be right, but it’s the classic remakes that tend to get people’s undershorts in a tight bunch. There are very few exceptions to the awfulness and unnecessary nature of these films, but one is a standout.

Psycho (1998 & 1960). I don’t really need to say much here. Gus Van Sant — the ego to end all egos — filmed this movie shot for shot, right down to the second. Scenes were timed and reshot if they went a millisecond over Hitchcock’s original. In other words, it was remade only as an exercise in technical proficiency, and comes off that way. I’ve only seen part of it, and had to shut it off in disgust. Shame on Vince Vaughn for agreeing to this garbage.

Cape Fear (1991 & 1962), on the other hand, is a lesson in brilliant filmmaking. The movie stands on its own, is riveting, and Robert De Niro turns in one of the performances of his career. It’s very much like the original, and many scenes are almost exactly the same, but Scorsese had an immense love of the original, and wanted to pay homage while making it his own. He rarely wavers from what the original movie did. Where Psycho comes off as a lesson in futility, Cape Fear — which used even the same music as the original film — somehow made audiences just want to see the original to compare it. Was Max Cady as creepy and perverted in the original as he was here? Was the tension the same, or has it been modernized? It took a special kind of director to pull that one off, and Scorsese managed it.

What does all of this show? Cape Fear had 29 years between films; Psycho had 38 — Van Sant waited longer, and the wait did him no good.

The Nutty Professor took 34 years to get to a remake; The Pink Panther took 42. Again, Murphy’s version came out sooner, but was better.

City of Angels had only 11 years between the original and the remake, where The Ring had a mere 4.

Only in the first instance does the idea of a moratorium hold weight: it took Spielberg 52 years to improve on the classic, where Burton waited only 33. Perhaps when it comes to sci-fi, waiting slightly longer really does make the movie better, since the goal simply seems to be improving on the technology of the first one. That said, if someone remade The Matrix 50 years from now, there’s no way they could improve on it, new technology or no.

Therefore, in the end, I believe a moratorium would have no impact on improving remakes. Bad remakes usually come down to large egos involved, whereas good remakes are ones where the new movies respect and refer back to the originals. A ban on egos would be a hard one to pull off, because if I were a bettin’ woman, I would have said Murphy’s movie would have been terrible based on what we know about him, but it wasn’t. But the timing between the original and the remake would have no impact.

My ruling is no.

The Dissenting Opinion:

A few weeks ago some of us bloggers got together and decided to create a blog to discuss and present our opinions on a variety of pop culture topics. We’ve decided to call our group The Pop Culture Supreme Court and much like the real world counterpart we will use precedent, experience and opinion to reach group decisions.

The first question we have decided to discuss is the following: Should there be a moratorium on direct remakes in Hollywood?

Before jumping into an immediate opinion…something I find myself doing far too often in the real world…I tried to consider all sides of the question, the pros and cons as it were of film remakes in Hollywood.

There have been a lot of movie remakes in Hollywood going as far back as the silent era right on up to today; they’ve remade silents into talkies, classics into moderns and foreign cinema into big budget American popcorn flicks. In fact if Hollywood can get the rights to remake a film they’ve probably done it. Arts & Entertainment has an interesting piece on remakes, what qualifies as a remake and what does not.

John Huston one of American Cinema’s greatest filmakers once said “Don’t remake good movies, remake bad ones!” but was he right? Let’s explore the possible reasons why a remake should be made:

1. To improve upon the original.
Angela Coleman thinks the only time someone chooses to remake a movie is for lack of personal creativity but that said there have been many instances where a new take on old material has given us a great movie…King Kong, The Mummy, Freaky Friday. But for every good remake there are 4 or 5 bad ones…Planet of the Apes, War of the Worlds, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Thomas Crown Affair The Hutch Report has the theory that the “copy usually isn’t as good as the original and most of the time Hollywood remakes popular television shows and old movies because there is less risk of failure when a proven idea is recreated once again.” Perhaps that’s true and the recognition factor clearly had something to do with the movie’s success.

Of course there is something else to take into consideration when you are remaking an older film: society changes. People change as time does the same and ideals, perception, relationship roles and standards all change. Is a story from 40 years ago still relevant, does translate to today? A good example of changing a films story to match societal changes is the 1978 remake of 1956’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and then the 1993 remake just called Body Snatchers. All three movies changed their story and characters to make it relevant to the era’s current societal beliefs and problems. In 1956 it was a communist allegory, in 1978 it was an attack on the selfishness of the me generation and the 1993 version focused on conformity and militarism. These are three films that did it right, there are many more that haven’t.

2. To see a new actor/ writer/ director’s take on pre-existing material.
On the surface of things this always seems like it will be a good idea to see a talented individual whom you appreciate take on pre-existing material but Kurt Russell had an interesting quote in Entertainment Weekly on the proposed Escape From New York remake “I didn’t play Snake Plissken. I created him!” and to me that is the final word on the matter. I don’t know of one instance where an actor was able to adequately recreate or rein vision a role enough to blow the original out of the water or even equal it. For example Gene Wilder will always trump Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka, Sean Bean is a great actor but how can he compete with the menacing Rutger Hauer in The Hitcher. So on and so forth…

3. To modernize the look of the film, add new effects, make the story more current.
asipreynccce suggests that modern effects cannot create the same magic that the original held and I have to agree with that. Like any movie remake or no it comes down to the story not the effects. If you don’t have a good story then you don’t have a good movie. Would a CGI Kraken make Clash of the Titans any better a movie? Ultimately no.

4. To take a foreign film and explore how the story would unfold in our culture as opposed to theirs.
In theory taking a foreign movie and adapting it to American societal ideas is intriguing but rarely are English remakes of foreign films good movies. The Japanese cultural horror film Ringu became the fatuous and ridiculously boring The Ring. The riotous yet emotionally adult La Cage Au Folles became the over the top, silly and childish The Birdcage which scored a. The hilarious, again French, Les Visiteurs en Amérique with Jean Reno and Christian Clavier became the mediocre Just Visiting oddly enough it also starred Jean Reno and Christian Clavier; but even with the same actors in the leading roles this movie could not soar any higher than run of the mill comedy. Hollywood should just stay away from foreign remakes.

So taking the previous statements into consideration I would say yes there should be a short moratorium on direct Hollywood remakes, The Moratorium Would even take that further saying lat out says Hollywood should take a 20 year break from remakes. “Walk into any bookstore and you could spend a life time going thru all the DIFFERENT stories. Why are they not adapting more books into movies? I’ll tell you why. LAZY. Why should I go thru the hassle when I can just take some funny 70’s movie and just throw some big stars in it and be done with it? ”

Ultimately the few entertaining remakes that we enjoy do not justify the mountain of terrible ones that torture us and I would say that most of my fellow bloggers agree with me.

For more on remakes visit Movie Remakes a website dedicated to movie remakes of all types good and bad.