Login or register  
TV

FOX Developing Event Series About Boston Marathon Tragedy

 

FOX Developing Event Series About Boston Marathon Tragedy

 

Just over one year removed from the Boston Marathon tragedy, FOX is in the works to develop a limited series based on the event.

The project will be written and directed by Rod Lurie and based on the story from ‘Boston Globe’ reporters Scott Helman and Jenna Russell titled, ‘Long Mile Home: Boston Under Attack, the City’s Courageous Recovery and the Epic Hunt for Justice.’

RELATED NEWS: FOX Announces ‘Grease Live’ Musical Event

The two reporters will consult on the project while Lurie will serve as executive producer alongside Basil Iwanyk and Kent Kubena. Both Helman and Russell were part of a ‘Boston Globe’ team that would go on to earn a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage.

The four-hour drama, which would presumably be spread across two nights, “follows the heartbreak, terror, and triumph on Boston’s tragic Marathon day and the week that followed, told through the eyes of various Bostonians who would not let their city’s fighting spirit die.”

The pair on bombings killed three people and injured 275 on April 15, 2013.

RELATED NEWS: FOX Cancels 'Almost Human'

This would be the latest in a string of so-called event series for the network. Upcoming ones include the British-adapted crime drama ‘Gracepoint,’ the ancient Egyptian drama ‘Hieroglyph,’ and the M. Night Shyamalan series ‘Wayward Pines.’

The next event series will be ’24: Live Another Day,’ which debuts the first of 12 episodes this coming Monday. 


Details
Person:
- Rod Lurie
Network:
- FOX

Written by: AnthonyWrites
May 1st, 2014, 4:04 am

Images courtesy of Charles Krupa/AP

Anonymous

Message Posted On May 2nd, 2014, 12:55 am
anon @ 10:27am may 1st I don't accept everything at face vaule but I don't go around assueing everything is a plot against "us" either. The trouble with most of these "conspircy" thories is that have little to NO proof and what proof they do have is very inoconstant and make no sense when it is. No the NSA has NOT been proven to spy on everone all the time. But why are you so shocked that it was spying on SOME people. It thier JOB. How about takeing your own advice and not take everything at face vaule. Snowden was a RUSSIAN spy so don't belive a word he says.
Anonymous

Message Posted On May 1st, 2014, 9:54 pm
Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events. The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites. The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority. Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.” Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.” In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it. Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.” Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.” In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations. DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime. Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief. In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” – that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.
Anonymous

Message Posted On May 1st, 2014, 8:35 pm
Morning_Star, Riddle me this, the Russians warned about the two brothers. The NSA has been proven to spy on EVERYONE ALL THE TIME, but they could not take the time to add the brothers to any type of surveillance list? Christ some Brit woman was denied a flight because her name resembles Al Qaida. Explain how EVERY INTELLIGENCE agency with knowledge aforehand missed what the brothers were doing? Are you denying that because of the Boston Marathon Bombing the city of Boston was placed under martial law and civil liberties were suspended as a manhunt was conducted? Why not take the time to examine as much information as possible before simply denying anything? Every conspiracy was based on assumption well before the facts were discovered. Examine the Silicon valley wage fixing conspiracy, for example. How many big name CEO's were involved with that? Did that start as a rumor by a few suspicious people BEFORE evidence was acquired? The real problem is people who choose to deny the obvious. Who despite an ever growing list of ongoing and past conspiracies refuse accept the fact various people and groups collude for some type of advantage over everyone else. They collude for personal and political interest. It is the conspiracy deniers who are the threat, ask Snowden or Assange. The deniers ridicule with nothing more than a superficial skimming of the situation. They refuse to do enough research to critically discuss any situation. How about all those kids sent to private prisons in PA because some judge was involved in a conspiracy to receive kickbacks for each one sentenced? If no one uncovered the truth to that, if the deniers won, yet more victims would be suffering physical abuse rape and potentially murder as while having their permanent records forever marred due to greed. I would rather discover after the research that a conspiracy is wrong than have people suffer because I ignored the truth staring me in the face. One life saved, one liberty rescued, that seems a decent price to pay for developing a full understanding of a given situation or theory.
Morning_Star
(Crazed Contributor)

Level 42 (67%)
Points: 14047.2
Mood: Like I have a brand new god
Since: 20/Oct/06
Message Posted On May 1st, 2014, 7:11 pm

As opposed to conspiracy theories, which ask you to accept unsubstantiated claims based on flimsy or non-existent evidence. Yeah, and you know those proven conspiracies, they had things like evidence and thorough investigations on their side. And I'm saying that because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that whatever conspiracies you're referring to actually have been demonstrated to be true, and that you aren't just accepting the alleged proof. You have to have an consistent and reliable means of discovering truth. But if you're cynical enough to go looking for things under the surface, you're going to find them even if they aren't really there.

Anonymous

Message Posted On May 1st, 2014, 10:27 am
Anonymous, I've lived through over fifty years of PROVEN conspiracies. I've read History which includes centuries of various conspiracies. Only a FOOL accepts everything at face value.
Anonymous

Message Posted On May 1st, 2014, 9:26 am
oh joy yet another conspircy nut job
Anonymous

Message Posted On May 1st, 2014, 4:19 am
Will it be covering the suspension of civil rights and the overall inconsistencies between the actual events and those as reported, up to and including the suspicious death of the brothers associate while in FBI custody? And the further suspicious death of the two interrogating FBI agents who accidentally fell from the helicopter a couple of months later. Maybe the fact the Russians had warned about the brothers political associations and despite the intensive NSA spying on the world the ultimate failure of every US intelligence and security agency.
Related news

Glee Knows its ABCs

Glee was intense last night as New Directions went up against rivals the..

House's Hugh Laurie Discusses Shows Future

House has been on the air for eight years on the Fox network. It may also..

Glee Gets a Visit from Housewives Franchise

Glee casting news is on fire with the announcement that a member of the..