As I understand it, this is a dig at Obamania: a telegenic charismatic leader comes in and promises hope and change, the press all love the leader yet there are a few who question the real motives and rebel against the change.

Should be interesting how this plays out.

The show lends itself to that spin, of course, but I'm mostly sure that there are differences, too. Obama is probably NOT a lizard-like alien who wants to eat us.

Well, it's more likely to be a dig at how America went into Iraq, promising to be fighting for Iraqi interests, when it was really about private US companies profiteering like Haliburton and Black Water, who ruthlessly allow the killing of innocent Iraqis by their security guards on drunken binges, allow their employees to gang rape a female employee, lock her in a cargo container when she threatens to complain, and then forbid her from suing due to some fine print in her contract.

It could also be about how Cheney ensured that Iraqi oil wouldn't be safeguarded for Iraqis but free for any corporation to exploit or how they wanted the free market to do the same there or how Iraqi collaborators promised help by the US government have been left to die at the hands of the insurgents and Al Qaeda. It could be about how people promise democracy but really pick the leadership and are there to prioritize US economic and geostrategic interests.

And Obama promised change, as all US politicians do, and hasn't really delivered. He's more like Bill Clinton II and is far to the right for my liking. George W. Bush promised "compassionate conservatism" to help the poor in America and a humble US foreign policy and delivered neither.

Regarding this clip, the discussion of terrorism was so vague and pathetic. Terrorism is the weapon of the weak against a stronger adversary. American revolutionaries used it, the US Reagan government funded the Contras to use it against the democratically elected Sandinista government, Zionists used it in the '40s against the British and the UN, the Maquis used it against the German-occupied Vichy France regime, and now Hamas and Hezbollah use it against Israeli occupation.

Terrorism is just as morally ambiguous as war and it's time Americans realized it. War can be just as unjustifiable, as it was under the Nazis and the Americans in Vietnam, and terrorism can be just as unjustifiable as it is under Al Qaeda-type groups. However, it's essentially that each cased be judged carefully before condemning the actions of those who seek political change through violence and coercion because states do that all the time.

Muldfeld, get a grip

Everyone get a grip. This story line was pre-Iraq and pre-Obama.

IMHO, V is all about totalitarian rule and how the human psyche seeks freedom and to what extent those willing to sacrifice all to achieve that freedom in the face of this totalitarian rule. There is no way around this. At its core, V is this. I am sure they will add story elements familiar with people of this time and place.

Can't wait to check it out. I wish it was 2 hours and not just 1 hour. If it is good, they better not cancel it!

Lastly, I do not mean disrespect to the cast and crew, but no way are they going to outdo the original.

to comment tammy, yes V was b4 pre-Bush, but the problem is, is that since its a reimaging, they can add the lil innuendos. look at BSG, they did a heck of alot of innuendos to our world b4 scifi took it off. but BSG was technically done a long time ago.

Muldfeld "And Obama promised change, as all US politicians do, and hasn't really delivered. He's more like Bill Clinton II and is far to the right for my liking."

Really?? Clinton OR Obama are too far to the right? Dude, not only shouldn't you be commenting on TV. You should not be commenting on politics either.

V is, was, and will be, about totalitarian control, from any source. It just rings home now because of some conservative moderators talking points.

V is no different than the old "To Serve Man" episode of the Twilight Zone. It is just taken to a different level and, adds twists that Rod Serling, because of time constraints, could not get into.

Scifiwire.com
The Place For Politics

Well, the original V was envisioned as a straight-up allegory of WWII, with a fascist government taking control of the US. As was reported last week on this site, Brandon Tartikoff came up with the alien invasion angle. Whereas Kenny Johnson's aliens were overtly fascist, (a schwastika-inspired logo, everyone in uniforms, a benevolent "lead er," etc), the new Visitors are more subversive. I know I'm going to catch hell for this, but they appear to operate a bit like Fox News (ok, more than a bit), playing on the real and imagined fears of a panicked and ignorant society in a period of social upheaval, offering security and order at the expense of freedom and liberty.

I don't think the new show can top the old one as I don't believe Leonardo Cimino is in it. His role as Abraham Bernstein drove the point of the original miniseries home like a 10lb maul driving a finishing nail. His short role was memorable and made even middle school kids with a minimal knowledge of the events of world war 2 understand the point of the show. The new show looks like it might be good, but I do not believe they can top the original.

You won't catch hell for it but I have the completely opposite reaction. The media is already state run, a mouth piece for the Obama administration. Fox News is the SINGLE news source, that is outside of that dynamic. The ignorant ones are the ones who don't realize Big Brother is already here.

I'm assuming you actually watch Fox News on a regular basis, and compare it to the coverage of channels like MSNBC and CNN right?

This post will probably be deleted because it's off topic, but, media is actually run by Rupert Murdoch (News Corp, FOX), Sumner Redstone (Viacom, CBS), Michael Eisner (Disney, ABC), and Jeff Immelt (G.E., NBC). The one thing these titans of industry have in common is that they are all staunch conservatives. Media in the U.S. is far from state run (and btw, state-run media does not necessarily mean biased media; BBC is state-run and probably does the finest job worldwide of providing substantive, objective news). That is not to say the US media is unbiased; As with all corporate-run enterprises, the media in the US is biased toward whatever will generate the greatest amount of profit for the least amount of money and cause the least amount of damage to their corporate interests. This is why so-called "mainstream" media is big on stories involving carnage and destruction (if it bleeds, it leads) and fluff celebrity gossip. By contrast, FOX is content with being the mouthpiece of a political machine, and is, in fact, the MOST politically biased of any major news network, with MSNBC running a close second. In my view, the ball is now squarely in the corner of the political Right, who needs to admit that they lost, primarily due to their own corruption and ineptitude over the last twelve years, and give up their childish gainsaying and join the Left in actually getting things done.

P.S., did you notice how I sidestepped your straw man?

It was a legitimate question. Most people I come into contact with, who criticize Fox News, don't watch it. They just critique what they've heard about it. So I'll take it that the answer is no, you don't watch Fox News, but you feel that you are justified in having an opinion on its content. Your right to do so of course.

I am a political junkie though, I watch all the networks, read the blogs, I'm just interested in the dynamic of left versus right in the media. What I have seen is an overwhelming lean towards the left in programming and content by the mainstream media, which is literally, anything that is not fox news.

Whoever owns these companies, and what you think their political affiliations are, have no bearing on the fact that whoever runs the programming is left leaning.

Fox News is beating every single cable news channel because yes they do provide idealogical content, but in addition to that, they report all sides of a story in their regular news programming. The other networks, do not.

Have you seen the ratings for Fox News? Have you seen the numbers? The right has succeeded, because people on the right are watching Fox. What is usually ignored is that people on the left, are watching Fox as well.

So, that's my take. Again, I'll assume that you don't watch the Fox News Channel and therefore your info is sketchy at best, and based on conjecture and rumor, or isolated soundbites.

Anyway, enjoy the lizard-alien tv show.

I,m raging at the fact that we won,t see the show (on tv)until next year for those of us who live across the pond.They,ve only just today started showing the ads on the scfi channel here today.I have high hopes for the show and can see the parrells that people are talking about.As with all good scfi shows the special effects are secondary to good charecters,story and sticking to the orginal plotline over hopefully one or two seasons Mr Johnsons first idea was good would have been interesting to see,however he has a chance to improve on the 80s V As to Mr Obama speaking as someone who grew up under Thatcher and to lesser extent Blair you don,t know how lucky you are and as to Fox News you,re smart enough to see what they are doing there is an off switch on the tv so use it or turn over !

cylon_conspiracy "You won't catch hell for it but I have the completely opposite reaction. The media is already state run, a mouth piece for the Obama administration. Fox News is the SINGLE news source, that is outside of that dynamic. The ignorant ones are the ones who don't realize Big Brother is already here."

Agreed, this administration does enjoy a favorable view from the main stream media. If anyone is in doubt Google search Pew Media Research (an independent, non-partisan, media watchdog).

I guess in V the original series when the Visitors jammed the media and assumed control could, and I emphasis could, be likened to how some media outlets appear to support the current administration. But, when the likes of Diane Sawyer, and CNN start espousing the same points being made of FOX that argument quickly looses coherency.

Well, I've seen certain isolated instances where people in the mainstream media have been critical of Obama. It's rare, and it does happen, and it's worth acknowledging when they do their jobs so they can be encouraged to continue.

But I assume if aliens ever do take over, the only way they can jam our communications is to take over the internet. Yes I have concerns Obama wants to do that as well, but I think it would be an uphill battle and hard to win.

When the original V was shown, yeah just taking over the extremely small by comparison media venues would definitely be a way to assume control, and quickly. You can't silent the opposition now as much as you could in the good old days.

@Bobanort -- Shalom... or as Elizabeth says, "Pretenama."

Welcome, our beloved reptilian overlords! Let's be frieeeendzz!! (c) Mr. Gray

"How to Serve Man" the series.

Thanks to Gilveron for bringing up the fact that all the major media outlets are owned lock, stock and barrel by conservatives with openly stated political agendas. considering the way they treated Bush before and during the Iraqi War and many other instances, I am continuously amazed that people still talk about the supposed "Liberal" media.
And yes, I have watched Fox News enough to state that they are indeed obviously biased. But don't take my word for it. Take theirs. They admitted in court in February, 2003 that they intentionally mislead, twist statements, and outright lie to push their conservative slant. Sadly the appeals judge in the case bought their argument that doing so was within their 1st Amendment rights. As they said, the FCC only recommends they tell the truth, it does not require them to. You can check out an interesting article on the story at http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie.

Every single one of your "This show is related to modern day society or politics is complete and utter garbage." This show is just a modern retelling of the 1984 version that aired on TV. The story is parallel to the 1984 version which I would like to point out did not have George Bush, Obama or any of the other things that you are claiming this show relates to! Just another example of how you all take a show and twist it to your own ideals and personal view of the current world around you.

Uh, politics aside.

Anns is WAY hotter than Diana was.

this show pisses on the original!!!!!!!
I have seen the first V 27 times!
I am an expert on the show. This shows potential after day one is f-ing great

This show is not really about Obama I don't think, it's a remake of the original V tv-show.

Responding to jdmimic: the link you provided is in Spanish. Yo hablo Ingles solamente.

I would have loved to catch the show, but, as usual, they premiered it opposite a very popular show on another channel,why?There are five other nights with nothing worth the time. The original series was good, and I would have liked to see the difference, guess I'll wait for reruns as usual with this network.

interesting comments.... I believe that since I will love this show, it will definitely be cancelled within the first season sometime!! LOL