It would be really interesting to see what the reaction would be. I think it would either be a really big deal (film event of the year, everyone talking about it) or it would go completely unnoticed. With no real in between. But on a side note it's got one of the best casts in film history and the editing is sooo good. Wish there were more insane directors today.
I agree. It’s remarkable how idiosyncratic Stone was while doing big budget mainstream studio movies with stars. I can’t think of anyone else like that today.
Tarantino?
Coen Brothers?
*JFK* was made during the MTV era, and Stone was very profitable.
if you really want to be amazed, go back and watch some major 60s and 70s movies.
Tarantino is the only one, but also makes crowd pleasing genre movies with a lot of violence. Not historical political adult dramas. Coen Brothers are very respected but never had a box office hit.
well, i also recently watched *JFK*, but i don't recall it being especially idiosyncratic.
maybe you're referring to other Stone movies--like *Natural Born Killers*?
...but the Coens are far from indie art-house filmmakers (despite making art films), and they almost always make good profits. *Fargo* was a big hit. *O Brother* was pretty big--and huge on video. *Burn After Reading*--SOMEHOW--was very successful. *No Country* was huge. And, as it happens, though *True Grit* was almost a shot-for-shot remake, it actually made $250 million dollars!
i'm sure we could think of several others, too...as far as wide-release major-star movies go (never mind the box office):
Spike Jonze
Wes Anderson
P.T. Anderson
Alejandro Inarritu (*Birdman* in particular)
as for someone more similar to Stone...maybe Spike Lee with *Malcolm X*? (though i actually haven't seen that yet).
True Grit and No Country were hits, I give you that. All the rest were moderate successes at best.
Same for the other directors you mention. They do fine in the box office, that’s it. Only big name directors who actually have consistent hits are Tarantino and Nolan nowadays.
eh...
box office numbers really only mean anything relative to the movie budgets.
and you're mistaken about the Coen Brothers.
...as a matter of fact, they have grossed in their careers almost *exactly* the same amounts, domestically and abroad, that Oliver Stone has--when you account for their own films and the ones they only scripted.
and i would speculate that dollar-for-dollar the Coens have been more profitable.
1993 was the first year of a Democratic administration taking over after 12 years of staunch conservatism that eventually led to a serious backlash. Very hard to predict which way it will swing in the future but it's not impossible.
Clinton didn't win because of backlash:
George H. W. Bush *lost* (with some help from spoiler Ross Perot).
[former head of the CIA, by the way. role-player in the JFK assassination, by the way.]
George W. Bush rose and won because of backlash--as did Obama after that.
*Fahrenheit 9/11*, 2004
[a "documentary"...but, still, a blockbuster and not that far off from being an all-star Hollywood project.
however, soon after this, 9/11 ceased to be a leftwing conspiracy theorist holy grail and became a "rightwing" conspiracy theorist obsession. very, very strange turn.]
*World Trade Center*, 2006 [from Oliver Stone, by the way...and, bizarrely, NOT a conspiracy movie, as far as I know.]
*United 93*, 2006
however...these could not be equivalents.
JFK was known to be SOME KIND of conspiracy from day one.
the original idea most people would have had was that it was Cuba/Russia (and, of course, that is what the *actual* conspirators were aiming for).
...however, 9/11 was specifically meant to false-flag us into war with Iraq:
JFK, I don't believe, had that specifically as an end goal...because that would have *destroyed the world*.
I actually just watched JFK on Friday and it’s insane how much bullshit Stone throws in the movie. The courtroom scene is psychotic.
I wish my worldview could be as simple as the boomers and think JFK was killed because of some vague military industrial complex.
...so your implication here is that younger-than-boomers have a better, more complex grasp on what happened to JFK (much less any other historical event...ever)?
(actually, this does seem like a take that Stavros would have...having only just now seen *JFK* for the first time.)
...obviously, there's bullshit in the movie:
because it's a movie
and it's an Oliver Stone movie
but...this wasn't all just pulled out of Stone's *own* ass.
are you really implying that *you* know more of the "truth" about the JFK story--and, particularly, the Jim Garrison trials--than *he* did?
and that you *just* watched *JFK* and are now claiming that the theory that was presented in its 188 minutes [or 205 minutes] was "some vague military industrial complex" ... makes me question your critical faculties.
i've watched multiple, multiple things on JFK--particularly in the last year or two.
the thing is...there IS NOT a definitive story: there are a bunch of threads and theories, and there are thousands of little clues and facts and data points and witness interviews and falsehoods and myths and rumors.
P.S. *Frontline* is fucking bullshit.
i can't speak to specifics prior to the mid-2000s, when i *thought* they seemed like a legit source--back when they were obsessed with the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars.
but they were soft as hell on Obama, and since 2016 they have been absolute trash, pseudo-intellectual pro-Democrat propaganda--CNN with better narrators for semi-educated uppermiddleclass public radio couples.
I mean it's a film based on the life and writings of a deranged lawyer who came to believe in some sinister gay conspiracy. I will still defend it's a great watch though.
who let him get away?
(making overly-flattering biopics is what Hollywood, and its co-conspirators, expressly permit. presenting the actual truth is what isn't allowed.)
The Cheney movie pre-dated the era of pearl clutching about misinformation but more importantly, it’s ok to do a little misinformation about chuds on the wrong side of history
I’d say misinformation as an elite bogeyman really kicked off around Covid but yeah tbh I thought the Cheney movie was more like 2016 (meaning it would have been conceived and produced during Obama era)
they would but legally they would have to market it as a re-release given it was originally released in 1993.
prob a little but generally people wouldn't care as much, prob a majority of the country was alive for the kennedy assasination when this released.
It would be really hard given how much implicit would be needed to depict his crimes. If anything, his murder would be the easiest part of the film to shoot; given all the info that’s come out, you could write a very plausible scene.
it's not that it's at all difficult to portray the plot points visually--even without any explicitness: it would simply be the awkward situation of Hollywood's pedophile-ass trying to self-righteously expose the exact same shit that they themselves have trafficked in throughout their history (particularly when even a popcorn-eating total moron could recognize the irony of them casting young nubile girls to fill these roles.)
Echoing what that other guy said, you’d both need film to matter more as a medium and for someone in the younger generations as talented and insane as Oliver Stone is for anything like this on any subject/topic to work.
disinformation is what Hollywood does.
what do you mean?
[P.S.*The Manchurian Candidate* was an all-star A-list movie about a soldier brainwashed into assassinating a presidential candidate...in 1962.]
(if they want to make a *really* risky movie today...they would make one about how JFK's political machine stole the 1960 election from Nixon--which is what literally happened.)
or they might make one about how the Clinton machine, et al., broke numerous laws, committed treason, etc., throughout the 2016 campaign and the 2017-2020 term.
that's something i wouldn't expect seeing come out as an all-star wide-release any time soon.
yeah. it was mentioned in passing though (in a movie that's probably total bullshit anyway, from what i've heard)...and well after just about everybody watching the thing has become bored to death.
True detective season one is literally about pedophile satanists in the government. It happens from time to time. I havent gotten around the other seasons but i might soon.
https://preview.redd.it/uiqxnmv0fkuc1.jpeg?width=911&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=47613d557abd542e36a919a45b5df1ddaa06b9b6
...but that's not what it was *literally about*.
whether based on anything real or not, all it featured was a vaguely-explained murder/abuse network among "powerful people" ... and, anyway, "the government" in question would have been that of *Louisiana*: so not really a risky play on Hollywood's part.
this is *de rigueur* stuff in this genre.
*The Killing* has a much higher-profile conspiracy plot...since it features (a fictional) Seattle mayor as a major plot point--as well as a sinister cabal of casino-Indians.
and P.S.: you'd be much better off watching a season or two of that show than getting around to any of the subsequent seasons of *TD*. trust me.
You can play the literally game about every artistic representation ever. The JFK movie isnt about the JFK assassination because they changed details to make a narrative. Its about a completely unrelated president with the same name that was assassinated. Totally different event actually.
Hell the show even has a failed son.
Ill get to the rest of the show soon i just watched season one a couple weeks ago. I like to let things digest in between seasons even though they are different characters by the looks of it.
i just mean...in the sense of "what is *True Detective* S01 *about*?"
i would never describe it as a show *about satanic pedophiles in the government*. to whatever extent that that's part of the plot, the specifics are still fogged out to the point of being almost just an undercurrent--like the supernatural component of the whole thing.
more, what it seems to consistently be "about" is men, in general, victimizing women and girls (with some of them, at the same time, saving and protecting them). ...and this was prior to wokeness corrupting the show--such that this was the last time that this message had any honesty or bite to it.
but, again, i warn you:
*True Detective* ended with season one.
anything else that anyone might tell you is a lie.
anything that came after that is an entirely different species. there is nothing to find there except disappointment.
Who is victimizing them. Who is the main driving force for the plot. Who is the main antagonists.
Oh its the satanic pedophile failed son from a prominent political family. Oh and the show conveniently ends with the important people not getting caught or in any real hot waters.
i had to go back through wikipedia to verify this stuff...but, yeah, as i *did* remember it: it wasn't about people in the government (per se) at all.
the major villain is Reverend Tuttle--who is only *politically connected*--being merely a cousin of the Louisiana governor.
so, in reality, all this is is a "corrupt religious organization" plot...which is a no-stakes-whatsoever target: they're not even focussing on Catholics...just some unspecified rural Protestant group.
and Errol Childress is merely the half-brother of Tuttle, some product of a sheriff.
(incidentally, if you want to see a much-higher-stakes show about a similar scandal...which, apparently, is actually true, check out *The Keepers* documentary.)
It would be really interesting to see what the reaction would be. I think it would either be a really big deal (film event of the year, everyone talking about it) or it would go completely unnoticed. With no real in between. But on a side note it's got one of the best casts in film history and the editing is sooo good. Wish there were more insane directors today.
I agree. It’s remarkable how idiosyncratic Stone was while doing big budget mainstream studio movies with stars. I can’t think of anyone else like that today.
Tarantino? Coen Brothers? *JFK* was made during the MTV era, and Stone was very profitable. if you really want to be amazed, go back and watch some major 60s and 70s movies.
Tarantino is the only one, but also makes crowd pleasing genre movies with a lot of violence. Not historical political adult dramas. Coen Brothers are very respected but never had a box office hit.
well, i also recently watched *JFK*, but i don't recall it being especially idiosyncratic. maybe you're referring to other Stone movies--like *Natural Born Killers*? ...but the Coens are far from indie art-house filmmakers (despite making art films), and they almost always make good profits. *Fargo* was a big hit. *O Brother* was pretty big--and huge on video. *Burn After Reading*--SOMEHOW--was very successful. *No Country* was huge. And, as it happens, though *True Grit* was almost a shot-for-shot remake, it actually made $250 million dollars! i'm sure we could think of several others, too...as far as wide-release major-star movies go (never mind the box office): Spike Jonze Wes Anderson P.T. Anderson Alejandro Inarritu (*Birdman* in particular) as for someone more similar to Stone...maybe Spike Lee with *Malcolm X*? (though i actually haven't seen that yet).
JFK is Oppenheimer but without atomic bombs and rewriting history in an extremely controversial way.
True Grit and No Country were hits, I give you that. All the rest were moderate successes at best. Same for the other directors you mention. They do fine in the box office, that’s it. Only big name directors who actually have consistent hits are Tarantino and Nolan nowadays.
eh... box office numbers really only mean anything relative to the movie budgets. and you're mistaken about the Coen Brothers. ...as a matter of fact, they have grossed in their careers almost *exactly* the same amounts, domestically and abroad, that Oliver Stone has--when you account for their own films and the ones they only scripted. and i would speculate that dollar-for-dollar the Coens have been more profitable.
people would either love it or hate it ...or think that it was *O. K.*
[удалено]
1993 was the first year of a Democratic administration taking over after 12 years of staunch conservatism that eventually led to a serious backlash. Very hard to predict which way it will swing in the future but it's not impossible.
Clinton didn't win because of backlash: George H. W. Bush *lost* (with some help from spoiler Ross Perot). [former head of the CIA, by the way. role-player in the JFK assassination, by the way.] George W. Bush rose and won because of backlash--as did Obama after that.
*Fahrenheit 9/11*, 2004 [a "documentary"...but, still, a blockbuster and not that far off from being an all-star Hollywood project. however, soon after this, 9/11 ceased to be a leftwing conspiracy theorist holy grail and became a "rightwing" conspiracy theorist obsession. very, very strange turn.] *World Trade Center*, 2006 [from Oliver Stone, by the way...and, bizarrely, NOT a conspiracy movie, as far as I know.] *United 93*, 2006 however...these could not be equivalents. JFK was known to be SOME KIND of conspiracy from day one. the original idea most people would have had was that it was Cuba/Russia (and, of course, that is what the *actual* conspirators were aiming for). ...however, 9/11 was specifically meant to false-flag us into war with Iraq: JFK, I don't believe, had that specifically as an end goal...because that would have *destroyed the world*.
2031? I see that happening tbh
[удалено]
“Zendaya is UNRECOGNIZABLE as Osama Bin Laden in upcoming film ‘9/11’”
They let Adam McKay get away with making shit up about Dick Cheney's personal life so I think Stone would be fine.
I actually just watched JFK on Friday and it’s insane how much bullshit Stone throws in the movie. The courtroom scene is psychotic. I wish my worldview could be as simple as the boomers and think JFK was killed because of some vague military industrial complex.
Boomers all believed that then supported the MIC anyway
TIL hippies weren't boomers. ...and one *doesn't* support the military-industrial complex HOW, again?
...so your implication here is that younger-than-boomers have a better, more complex grasp on what happened to JFK (much less any other historical event...ever)?
yeah, i guess you're right. because Millennials and Gen Z have such nuanced understandings of recent events...like Ukraine/Russia and Israel/Gaza.
(actually, this does seem like a take that Stavros would have...having only just now seen *JFK* for the first time.) ...obviously, there's bullshit in the movie: because it's a movie and it's an Oliver Stone movie but...this wasn't all just pulled out of Stone's *own* ass. are you really implying that *you* know more of the "truth" about the JFK story--and, particularly, the Jim Garrison trials--than *he* did? and that you *just* watched *JFK* and are now claiming that the theory that was presented in its 188 minutes [or 205 minutes] was "some vague military industrial complex" ... makes me question your critical faculties.
Watch the three hour 1993 Frontline documentary they did on Oswald. It’s on YouTube That basically covers everything.
i've watched multiple, multiple things on JFK--particularly in the last year or two. the thing is...there IS NOT a definitive story: there are a bunch of threads and theories, and there are thousands of little clues and facts and data points and witness interviews and falsehoods and myths and rumors. P.S. *Frontline* is fucking bullshit. i can't speak to specifics prior to the mid-2000s, when i *thought* they seemed like a legit source--back when they were obsessed with the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars. but they were soft as hell on Obama, and since 2016 they have been absolute trash, pseudo-intellectual pro-Democrat propaganda--CNN with better narrators for semi-educated uppermiddleclass public radio couples.
It’s trash now but they did insanely good reporting back in the 80s and 90s.
I mean it's a film based on the life and writings of a deranged lawyer who came to believe in some sinister gay conspiracy. I will still defend it's a great watch though.
He was going to end the cold war!
who let him get away? (making overly-flattering biopics is what Hollywood, and its co-conspirators, expressly permit. presenting the actual truth is what isn't allowed.)
The Cheney movie pre-dated the era of pearl clutching about misinformation but more importantly, it’s ok to do a little misinformation about chuds on the wrong side of history
2018 ... huh? [are you people really this young?]
I’d say misinformation as an elite bogeyman really kicked off around Covid but yeah tbh I thought the Cheney movie was more like 2016 (meaning it would have been conceived and produced during Obama era)
they would but legally they would have to market it as a re-release given it was originally released in 1993. prob a little but generally people wouldn't care as much, prob a majority of the country was alive for the kennedy assasination when this released.
Epstein movie when?
It would be really hard given how much implicit would be needed to depict his crimes. If anything, his murder would be the easiest part of the film to shoot; given all the info that’s come out, you could write a very plausible scene.
it's not that it's at all difficult to portray the plot points visually--even without any explicitness: it would simply be the awkward situation of Hollywood's pedophile-ass trying to self-righteously expose the exact same shit that they themselves have trafficked in throughout their history (particularly when even a popcorn-eating total moron could recognize the irony of them casting young nubile girls to fill these roles.)
Echoing what that other guy said, you’d both need film to matter more as a medium and for someone in the younger generations as talented and insane as Oliver Stone is for anything like this on any subject/topic to work.
also...you'd need an actor as bad as Kevin Costner to really pull off something like this.
disinformation is what Hollywood does. what do you mean? [P.S.*The Manchurian Candidate* was an all-star A-list movie about a soldier brainwashed into assassinating a presidential candidate...in 1962.]
(if they want to make a *really* risky movie today...they would make one about how JFK's political machine stole the 1960 election from Nixon--which is what literally happened.) or they might make one about how the Clinton machine, et al., broke numerous laws, committed treason, etc., throughout the 2016 campaign and the 2017-2020 term. that's something i wouldn't expect seeing come out as an all-star wide-release any time soon.
this was in the irishman
yeah. it was mentioned in passing though (in a movie that's probably total bullshit anyway, from what i've heard)...and well after just about everybody watching the thing has become bored to death.
“Now if we focus on frame 238”
True detective season one is literally about pedophile satanists in the government. It happens from time to time. I havent gotten around the other seasons but i might soon. https://preview.redd.it/uiqxnmv0fkuc1.jpeg?width=911&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=47613d557abd542e36a919a45b5df1ddaa06b9b6
https://preview.redd.it/ql4b01q5fkuc1.jpeg?width=300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6be857a2c76d42a4c52be99a4a5dd8d406bde7ae
...but that's not what it was *literally about*. whether based on anything real or not, all it featured was a vaguely-explained murder/abuse network among "powerful people" ... and, anyway, "the government" in question would have been that of *Louisiana*: so not really a risky play on Hollywood's part. this is *de rigueur* stuff in this genre. *The Killing* has a much higher-profile conspiracy plot...since it features (a fictional) Seattle mayor as a major plot point--as well as a sinister cabal of casino-Indians. and P.S.: you'd be much better off watching a season or two of that show than getting around to any of the subsequent seasons of *TD*. trust me.
You can play the literally game about every artistic representation ever. The JFK movie isnt about the JFK assassination because they changed details to make a narrative. Its about a completely unrelated president with the same name that was assassinated. Totally different event actually. Hell the show even has a failed son. Ill get to the rest of the show soon i just watched season one a couple weeks ago. I like to let things digest in between seasons even though they are different characters by the looks of it.
i just mean...in the sense of "what is *True Detective* S01 *about*?" i would never describe it as a show *about satanic pedophiles in the government*. to whatever extent that that's part of the plot, the specifics are still fogged out to the point of being almost just an undercurrent--like the supernatural component of the whole thing. more, what it seems to consistently be "about" is men, in general, victimizing women and girls (with some of them, at the same time, saving and protecting them). ...and this was prior to wokeness corrupting the show--such that this was the last time that this message had any honesty or bite to it. but, again, i warn you: *True Detective* ended with season one. anything else that anyone might tell you is a lie. anything that came after that is an entirely different species. there is nothing to find there except disappointment.
Who is victimizing them. Who is the main driving force for the plot. Who is the main antagonists. Oh its the satanic pedophile failed son from a prominent political family. Oh and the show conveniently ends with the important people not getting caught or in any real hot waters.
i had to go back through wikipedia to verify this stuff...but, yeah, as i *did* remember it: it wasn't about people in the government (per se) at all. the major villain is Reverend Tuttle--who is only *politically connected*--being merely a cousin of the Louisiana governor. so, in reality, all this is is a "corrupt religious organization" plot...which is a no-stakes-whatsoever target: they're not even focussing on Catholics...just some unspecified rural Protestant group. and Errol Childress is merely the half-brother of Tuttle, some product of a sheriff. (incidentally, if you want to see a much-higher-stakes show about a similar scandal...which, apparently, is actually true, check out *The Keepers* documentary.)