This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

W.

GeoGeo
edited August 2008 in Movies
If any of you are moviegoers than you have no doubt seen the trailer for Oliver Stone's new feature length movie entitled W. which quite simply is about the life of one of the worst presidents who ever lived: George "Dubya" Bush. Personally, I don't whether to think if this a serious documentary portraying the "truth" about Bush's life and tenure as President, or if this is an absolute joke. Here is the trailer of this movie which I will no doubt see since I am totally against Bush's disgraceful role as President.sg7vwicPx98

Comments

  • edited August 2008
    I saw the trailer and added it to my netflix queue. Also, it is an Oliver Stone movie. This is definately not a documentary (because there are actors) but it appears to take true events and dramatize them.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • My Aunt has consulted on this movie, as she worked several locations inside the beltway during this adminstration, including in the White House itself. I honestly doubt it will be completely scathing, but rather will draw the line at a certain point, as W. will still be in office at the time of theatrical release.

    Actually, my Aunt is really cute about it. She tells my Grandmother that she "got a phone call from her friend Oliver" fairly often in recent months.
  • "Here, I'm the referee, and I want a fair, true portrait of the man. How did Bush go from an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world? It's like Frank Capra territory on one hand, but I'll also cover the demons in his private life, his bouts with his dad and his conversion to Christianity, which explains a lot of where he is coming from. It includes his belief that God personally chose him to be president of the United States, and his coming into his own with the stunning, preemptive attack on Iraq. It will contain surprises for Bush supporters and his detractors."
    - Oliver Stone
  • edited August 2008
    - Wacky conspiracy theories in "JFK."
    - Tons of inaccuracies in "The Doors."
    - A guy who worships Fidel Castro.

    Three strikes and your out of my $6. (Yep, movies here still cost $6.)
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • - Wacky conspiracy theories in "JFK."
    Wait, the J.F.K. assassination is focus of conspiracy theories. You don't say...
  • Wait, the J.F.K. assassination is focus of conspiracy theories. You don't say...
    Yup. And people also believe in Bigfoot and UFOs in Roswell. I choose not to give my money to those folks. Call me crazy, but I've got better things to spend it on.
  • - Wacky conspiracy theories in "JFK."
    - Tons of inaccuracies in "The Doors."
    - A guy who worships Fidel Castro.

    Three strikes and your out of my $6. (Yep, movies here still cost $6.)
    Guess what? Stone is not a journalist. He's an entertainer. Weren't you the one trying to justify Bill O'Reilly by saying that he was an entertainer?

    I couldn't care less whether he is a fan of Fidel Castro or Ronald Reagan as long as he makes a good movie.

    I have been entertained by most of the Stone movies I have seen. I will certainly see this one . . . although maybe not in theaters . . . I still haven't seen Dark Knight in a theater yet.
  • edited August 2008
    He's a director that holds his movies out to be factually accurate. That's my problem. For example, he's called the W. movie: "a fair, true portrait of a man."

    When one of the members of the Doors (Ray Manzarek) calls Stone's film about the band "highly inaccurate" and said "What Stone did to Morrison was a travesty."

    Maybe your threshold for quality is lower than mine, but I'm just not that excited for W.

    Stone is a clever guy. He makes movies that say what people want to hear. Want more ticket sales? Allege a JFK conspiracy! (Leaving aside the argument that if you take your history from Oliver Stone, you've gone to amongst the worst sources.)

    If he calls his movies fiction, then great. But he keeps pretending that they are accurate. It's junk social science, and I'm not a fan of junk. You shouldn't be either.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • He's an entertainer.
    A shitty one.
  • He's a director that holds his movies out to be factually accurate. That's my problem. For example, he's called the W. movie: "a fair, true portrait of a man."
    They billed The Amityville Horror as "a true story". No one really believed that it was true. This is entertainment. Lighten up. Sheesh.
    Maybe your threshold for quality is lower than mine, but I'm just not that excited for W.
    A nicer way to say that would be that we have different tastes. If you want to start talking quality, I could counter that some of the comics you've mentioned are low quality in my opinion, but I won't do that.
    He's an entertainer.
    A shitty one.
    That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. As I've already said, I can't think of a Stone movie that I haven't enjoyed.
  • edited August 2008
    - Wacky conspiracy theories in "JFK."
    Doesn't the 'conspiracy' stop being a conspiracy when it fits better with the evidence than the official version?
    Post edited by Linton on
  • - Wacky conspiracy theories in "JFK."
    Doesn't the 'conspiracy' stop being a conspiracy when it fits better with the evidence than the official version?
    Does the conspiracy fit the evidence better?
  • edited August 2008
    - Wacky conspiracy theories in "JFK."
    Doesn't the 'conspiracy' stop being a conspiracy when it fits better with the evidence than the official version?
    Does the conspiracy fit the evidence better?
    Undoubtably. The collaboration both of the military who did JFK's autopsy and the congress who readily accepted the Warren Report shows their readiness to push the insane ''magic bullet'' theory. Only people with a certain amount of power could have that much influence. Then there is the question of JFK's chauffeur who, against procedure, slowed down when he heard shots fired instead of speeding up. All this points to a wider organisation at work.

    Then there is the fact that Kennedy's head of security was sent by the CIA to an obscure foreign mission which he himself says he wasn't needed for and has stated his surprise at being asked to go. This is the man who had previously taken responsibility for JFK's security at public appearances, security which on the day of the shooting was extremely disorganised. The coincidences are stacking up.

    Then there is the fact that Oswald physically could not have done it. The professionally trained shooters were unable to recreate the shot he supposedly made, not to mention the magic-bullet problem. Any reasonable person has to accept this, yet the CIA didn't reopen the investigation and concluded that Oswald was the solitary killer.

    There was also a strong motive for getting Kennedy out the way after he had reduced the power and budget of the military and Big Business. He had refused to enter Vietnam which the US promptly did under Johnson.

    Finally, the fact that the CIA files related to the incident had their secrecy notice extended by 50 years for ''national security''. How could the documents put the country at risk?

    Oswald didn't do it. It had to be a larger group rather than a single shooter because of the evidence stated above. Other people have proposed the Anticastrists after Kennedy promised not to eliminate Castro after the missile Crisis, or the Mafia who had supported Kennedy during the election but who Kennedy then proceded to fight against once in power. However neither of these groups have the power or scope to conduct such an operation.

    I'm not saying that people on the inside certainly did it, it remains a hypothesis. However as I said it is clearly the theory best supported by the evidence.
    Post edited by Linton on
  • Looks interesting, I'll definitely watch it when it comes out on dvd.
  • Then there is the question of JFK's chauffeur who, against procedure, slowed down when he heard shots fired instead of speeding up.
    Source?
    Then there is the fact that Kennedy's head of security was sent by the CIA to an obscure foreign mission which he himself says he wasn't needed for and has stated his surprise at being asked to go.
    Source?
    [JFK's] security... on the day of the shooting was extremely disorganised.
    Source?
    Oswald physically could not have done it.
    I've seen this debunked a few times. Thus, source?
    There was also a strong motive for getting Kennedy out the way after he had reduced the power and budget of the military and Big Business.
    Source? Congress has a lot more control over these things than the president does...
    Oswald didn't do it.
    Source?
  • Source?
    Indeed, I should have mentioned all that is from my high school history class. My teacher has a PhD in 20th century American history, so take it as you will. That is pretty much the standard line on JFK taught in European Schools (for children of people working in the European Commission + Parliament).
  • I should have mentioned all that is from my high school history class.
    WHAT???!!!111one!one!

    Sorry, high school history is NOT a good source.
  • edited August 2008
    Indeed, I should have mentioned all that is from my high school history class. My teacher has a PhD in 20th century American history, so take it as you will.
    Yes, because high school history teachers know everything, and should be believed 100%.
    That is pretty much the standard line on JFK taught in European Schools (for children of people working in the European Commission + Parliament).
    Source?
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • edited August 2008
    Yes, because high school history teachers know everything, and should be believed 100%.
    Obviously not, you should take it as you will but a lot of the information an individual will go on inevitably comes from their schooling. It sure beats just reading Wikipedia. My information comes from someone who not only has a degree in history but a PhD specifically in the period the information concerns. Clearly this isn't a primary source but as a secondary it seems pretty strong.
    That is pretty much the standard line on JFK taught in European Schools (for children of people working in the European Commission + Parliament).
    Source?
    They all have the same curriculum from which I based my final exam preparation on. It matched exactly what the teacher had said.
    Then there is the question of JFK's chauffeur who, against procedure, slowed down when he heard shots fired instead of speeding up.
    Source?
    The footage.
    [JFK's] security... on the day of the shooting was extremely disorganised.
    Source?
    The footage
    Post edited by Linton on
  • The footage.
    So the driver slowed down. Where is there any source that his official procedure in the face of gunfire was to immediately speed up? How about the fact that, as soon as it was apparent what was happening, he did in fact speed away?
    The footage
    Where in the footage (there is very little of it) do you see any indication of his security being "disorganized?"
  • My information comes from someone who not only has a degree in history but a PhD specifically in the period the information concerns. Clearly this isn't a primary source but as a secondary it seems pretty strong.
    Possession of a PhD doesn't prevent a person from being completely insane. That's not a strong source at all.
  • Possession of a PhD doesn't prevent a person from being completely insane. That's not a strong source at all.
    Sad but true. You can get PhDs by mail.
  • Possession of a PhD doesn't prevent a person from being completely insane. That's not a strong source at all.
    Exhibits A and B.
  • edited August 2008
    The footage.
    So the driver slowed down. Where is there any source that his official procedure in the face of gunfire was to immediately speed up? How about the fact that, as soon as it was apparent what was happening, he did in fact speed away?
    The footage
    Where in the footage (there is very little of it) do you see any indication of his security being "disorganized?"
    Disorganization is understandable in this situation. They were in a motorcade. They easily could have been held up by cars or whatever else would have been ahead of them.

    No matter how any security guards, police officers, and secret severice agents were on guard, a crowd of people who not only heard gunshot, but also just watched a very well liked President just get shot are going to be in a panic. Some will want to see what happened and will crow toward the area, while cops and guards may try to fend them off. Some people will run off, which is a fairly reasonable instinct. Some of the officers/agents will be in charge of medical attention of the President and others in the car who were injured or in shock. Some of the officers/agents, will head of in pursuit of the culprit.

    Now, add into this, that you are talking about multiple jurisdictions here. All of the primary people in charge need to be in contact with each other to figure out who needs to go where, and they did not have the advantages in communication that we have today. In fact, they would probably be lucky if they had the name of the man in charge of any other agency that was present. Even today, you should see some of the train wrecks in communication between various first responders.
    Post edited by Your Mom on
  • Your Mom is right on the money.

    In general, these conspiracy "theories" tend to make great leaps in logic when much simpler and more likely explanations exist.
  • edited August 2008
    Occam's Razor owns you. It is possible to come up with an number of infinite explanations to match any set of evidence. The simplest of these is the most likely.

    9/11 could have been a huge government conspiracy. It is not difficult to come up with a conspiracy story about bombs and such that fits the evidence. However, the two planes full of terrorists is a much simpler, and less extraordinary, explanation. Therefore it is more likely. JFK is the same way. I could easily come up with a story about grassy knolls, multiple snipers, and secret service conspiracies that matches the evidence. The Lee Harvey Oswald story is much simpler.

    Remember, claims require evidence to support them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want to say there are aliens visiting earth, blurry video of random lights isn't going to cut it. We're going to need some HD footage that is clearly not doctored in any way. I honestly believe if we gave HD cameras to all the UFO nuts, we would never hear from them again.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • 9/11 could have been a huge government conspiracy.
    Don't you know, the 9/11 conspiracy IS a conspiracy! The government just wants to make itself look competent by perpetuating this theory when in fact its not. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
Sign In or Register to comment.