Oliver Stone is an Idiot

You know what? If the movie was entertaining and moving, I wouldn't care. If you went on the talk show talking about how I'm a Nazi child molester, what do you think people would say? Do you think they would care? No one cares about what Oliver Stone thinks, they care about whether his movies are good or not. All I'm saying is that I believe Oliver Stone's storytelling skills are tremendous (not to mention original -who else makes movies like his?), and that his manipulation of facts are secondary to how emotionally involving his movies are.

It's the same thing with other art forms. I can paint a picture of Bill Clinton as a tyrannical, oppressive, uncaring, baby-killing individual, and no one would say a thing, because that's how I saw him when I painted it. But if the same thing is done in a movie, everyone is up in arms about it. Bias is good - without it the world would be a pretty boring place. Just because you disagree with Oliver Stone's views should you dismiss his art? Ever seen the documentary Triumph of the Will?

Movies are here to make us feel something, not to tell us the truth. That's a pretty common misconception about them, I think.

Well, first off, I think you would care. You'd very likely denounce the charges as false. Besides: personally, I don't really care if you would mind or not...what matters is whether or not it's reasonable for OTHERS to mind being accused of those things...which it most certainly is.

Original? Whatever...I'm tired of hearing about that. A movie about paint drying would be original. Original does not equal good...not by a longshot. For ever "Being John Malkovich," there are 100 "Monkeybone"s.

Um, who said people wouldn't be up in arms about you painting that picture? It'd be spoken against no matter what form it was in...because it's not true. He's got some serious problems, but I would even speak out against that...depsite my strong opinions against him.

Nope, haven't seen it. Disagree with his views? Hang the hell on. This is not about opinion...this is about crazy conspiracy theories and, above all, taking historical records and facts and mixing them around just to make things interesting. The fact that some people consider some movies to be "art" doesn't mean anything...the word "art" does not give it some magical forcefield that we cannot touch.

See, this tells me that you're not getting the point I and others here have been trying to make. If a movie claims to be factual, then it ought to be factual. If it's trying to display a real, historical event, it should do so. The misconception is your own: that movies, even if they're meant to be taken as fact, or based on fact, are somehow just like any other fictional movie, and cannot be criticized as a result.

Let's get something straight: just because something is a movie, or some form of art (although many movies are far from art), it doesn't mean they are somehow set apart from everything else, and off-limits for factual criticism. If you make a movie, like Stone does, and start proclaiming it as fact, and it is clearly not fact, you have no excuse...none. If you base it on fact, and brag about your historical accuracy and research, then you have no excuse whatsoever when you have gaping holes in your story.

As much as you may want movies to be in their own little world apart from reality, they are not...they are based on reality in many instances...they are not exempt from criticisms based on accuracy just because they're movies!

Simple question for ya, Steve-o: it's reasonably to criticize an inaccurate documentary, isn't it? So why is a movie different? Because it uses the word "movie" instead of "documentary"? If they're both meant to show you something historical, what's the big difference?

Documentaries and movies are different things. That's why there are different words for them. It is far more reasonable to criticize an inaccurate documentary than an inaccrate movie. If a movie was advertised and hyped as being a historical replica, than it had better be. If its not, so be it. Cool Runningas may be the story of a Jamaican bobsled team at the Calgary olympics but that doesn't mean it has to be THE story of THE Jamaican bobsled team in the REAL Cowtown games. I think creative liberties on such things are necessary. I'm not gonna get pissed at Mel Gibson for using Irish bagpipes in Braveheart because they were more melodic than Scottish ones.

Also, it is my opinion that film is art, just as is any other subjective creation.

If you read my post, you would understand that I think Oliver Stone's originality lends something to his storytelling skills. I never said original equals good (like you said, let's look at Monkeybone). Originality is an asset... I'd much rather watch a piece of sh-t movie that's original than a piece of sh-t that's just like every other movie ever made.

And, I don't think it's unreasonable for others to be offended, not at all. I do think it's unreasonable to attack someone's credibility as a storyteller because some things he's said you don't agree with. I'm offended by a lot of the things Rush Limbaugh has said, but that doesn't mean I immediately deny that he's an well-spoken and smart man.


By this rationale, you could say that the Starry Starry Night by Van Gogh should offend people because it doesn't look like a starry night. It's just an artist's interpretation of reality into a vision of his own. Who are you and I to judge someone's interpretation? If I see Bill Clinton as a baby killing dictator, why can't I paint him that way? And if I go around saying that he IS a baby killing dictator, does that mean my art is somehow less respectable, or that a lesser amount of heart and talent went into it? It's the same principle with Oliver Stone's movies. He draws from his own feelings to create the worlds in his movies.


Actually, it is all about opinion. You don't like Oliver Stone's reinterpretation of facts in order to make them into a story. I don't mind it.

Here's the thing about JFK, and why nobody's argument against it holds up: Every possible theory is used. At least ten different organizations and groups in the movie are portrayed as the people behind the assassination, all with different motives. Anyone could be responsible - the final monologue in the courtroom throws all of the stories together in a tapestry leading up to the actual assassination as a POSSIBLE solution. There are so many other ways things could connect. Logically (I know you all are big fans of logic), the movie can't be seen as fact, because they all contradict and cross each other out. Oliver Stone isn't even saying that the EVENTS in his movie are factual - it's the emotions in them. The movie isn't about who killed Kennedy, it's about how we feel about it. We don't know what exactly happened. This movie is the embodiment of that feeling. TWT, ryan, have you guys even watched it? Judging from your arguments against it, it sure doesn't sound like it.

I haven't said that art creates a "forcefield" - I'm saying that the movies aren't about accuracy.

So what do you think of Pearl Harbor, then? A small amount of American G.I.s fend off a regiment of machine-gun-armed Japanese with pistols, after flying a thousand miles, bombing Tokyo, and crash landing? That movie was marketed and hailed as an "accurate" portrayal of World War II combat, and I didn't hear a peep from any of you about it.

Ever seen the movie The Siege? What do you think of how that portrays Arabs? I bet the director went specifically out of his way to make sure the guns fired properly and the military uniforms & riot gear looked right, but he didn't pay attention to how racist his movie was. Did you complain about this?

The point is that movies, good or bad, create their own worlds, not recreate this world. You all put up a big fuss when James Cameron portrays some crew members on the Titanic as selfish twits, but when the entire Arab nation is portrayed as anti-american terrorists, you're all okay with it. A lot of talk about double standards comes up on these boards... You people holler about Oliver Stone's taking liberties, when you just let these examples be.

But there is a difference. A lot of art exists outside the real world, and movies are a type of art. Not once have you complained about the impossibilities behind the countless car chases and action sequences in all those dreadful Hollywood movies. Factual accuracy is no different. Sure, you can criticize Oliver Stone for proclaiming his movie is the truth, but HOW is it relevant to the entertainment value of it?

Let me ask you a question: Do you think Saving Private Ryan is a great movie because of how accurate it is, or because of how it made you feel?

Here's another, for that matter: WHY does historical accuracy matter? I've been asking everyone this question for months and months now, but nobody answers it. Sure, you say things like "because it offends the few people who were involved", but it's like someone said earlier, there's probably people who were mad at Mel Gibson for using Irish bagpipes instead of Scottish ones. So let's hear an answer. Why is it so important to how entertaining a movie is?

By your logic, neither are paintings. I'll use my Bill Clinton portrait as an example: everyone knows it's not accurate (concerning the general public's opinion), but was that my intention in the first place? Maybe I just painted him that way because I saw him that way. And if it's still good, then so what?

They are in their own little universe. Rather, they make their own universes. That's their appeal. They may borrow from reality, but the entire reason they exist is to entertain us and take us to new places, let us meet new people, share experiences, have revelations, seduce us, make us fall in love - EMOTION. The movies are an escape from reality - they're about creating worlds, and if they borrow from reality, then so be it. Why do you sit in the dark to watch movies instead of with the lights on?

The viewer brings the outside world into the movies, not the other way around. Oliver Stone's movies, while they may be historically inaccurate and may even offend some people, create their own reality using bits and pieces from the real world hammered together with Stone's own beliefs and imaginings. How is this different from Van Gogh's Starry Night? Or Rush Limbaugh's broadcasts?


The answer to this is simple. The heart of the documentary is based in fact. The heart of a fictional movie, even one based on "real life", is storytelling. Both are aimed for the viewer's emotions.

Why do movies even exist? Are they here to restate all the facts we've been learning for years and years in our textbooks? I sure hope not, or I've fallen in love with the wrong art.

Hmmmm...

another deep debate I came too late for.

It's like walking in on a movie late, you've missed so much that you can't catch up with...

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

No no no. I'm not talking about a painting...a painting of a starry night is incapable of slandering someone...and I doubt Van Gough ever claimed "This painting is a replica of a group of stars in the sky." It's about the claim, Steve: if you're a braggart about the historical accuracy of your film, like Cameron has been with "Titanic," then you've really got no excuse when you leave gaping holes.

That logic just doesn't hold up...it's that weird sentiment that somehow we're ALL right because we all feel our own way. No, sorry...some things are just incorrect, and others are correct. There is no "everybody is right" in reality. Some people over-dramatize fact to make it more glamorous...which does a disrespect to it...especially if in the process they slander specific people, and misrepresent a very solemn historical event.

Nope, haven't seen it. I'm not arguing specifically about Stone, though...even though, from what I've heard, he does go around boasting that the theories he puts forward (I dunno which, though) are indeed factual.

That's because I didn't see it.

Didn't see it either...but from what I've heard of it, I doubt the accusation of racism is appropriate. If 90% of all terrorist attacks are carried out by Arabs, and I'm going to make a movie about terrorism, do you really expect me to go against the actual real-life odds just to avoid someone like you calling me a racist? I don't think so.

If you think that's wrong, then you'd better start complaining about Goodfellas, The Godfather, and Casino...because apparently the vast majority of mobsters are Italian...and even their wives get in on the act. Go write a letter to Scorscese telling him to cast all British guys for his next gangster movie, if you want to be consistent.

Assumptions, assumptions. First off, I haven't seen "The Siege." Secondly, I've never in my life seen that generalization made. Thirdly, I doubt that such an offense was in "The Siege," but even if it was, I've never seen the movie.

Movies CAN create their own worlds...but when someone specifically aims to recreate this world, then they had damn well better. You cannot for even one second try to tell me that James Cameron was not specifically aiming to recreate a part of our world when he made "Titanic." That's why he agonized over the way the sets looked.

It's not about the entertainment -- that's a seperate issue. I can like the entertainment value of a movie (13 Ghosts), but think it's plot could have been better (13 Ghosts, again). I can love certain aspects of a movie (Titanic's grandeur and emotional nature), but hate another part (it's historical slander).

Of course I don't complain about car chases: they don't claim them as fact! Furthermore, no one will believe that they're fact. You know as well as I that we've got a bunch of stupid teenage girls walking around thinking "Oh no, those poor people! Those awful crew members! Blah Blah Blah." People believe these things, man. Sometimes people EVEN believe fiction (like LOTR)...so you can bet that lots of people will take a movie like "Titanic" seriously.

How it made me feel. But a great movie (Titanic is arguably a great movie) can still having historical aspects that p*ss me off. Truth comes first...misinformation is NOT justified by an hour or two of entertainment.

It matters because misinformation is a bad thing, and it's hypocritical for a director to claim fact, and not deliver it, while boasting all the while (even without the boasting it's out of line). You keep asking about entertaining, but I never denied that a movie making these offenses can be entertaining.

So what? So you'd be wrong. Sorry, but I don't subscribe to the "we all have our own perspective, and therefore none of us can protest" way of thinking. If I think there's a problem with something, I say so...I don't let it be just because we all have our own perspective. Adolf Hitler had his own perspective.

The screen is easier to see that way. Again: just because movies are about entertainment, it excuses nothing. If you want to entertain someone, great! I'm all for it. If you want to entertain with someone, and tell them what they're seeing is basically factual, then you'd better not let any glaring holes slip by. Don't say one thing and deliver another...which is what "Titanic" did, my friend.

Van Gough does not claim accuracy. Van Gough does not slander someone with a painting of the stars. Limbaugh is open for criticism, and receives it daily. If someone wants to call him on something and ask for proof, they can. That's a world of difference. Limbaugh puts himself out onto a public stage, and is willing to back things up. Cameron can't back anything up, and isn't willing to...he's probably sitting at home right now. Either that, or he's shooting another film, which, hopefully, will be fiction, and recognized as such.

I don't think you can speak for all movies here. Storytelling? Well, then this requires that you don't tell someone "this is a true story," only to make things up instead. It's like a bait-and-switch. It's the spread of ignorance, among other things.

It's not one extreme or the other. It's not as if all movies are either documentaries, or made up crap claimed as fact. There IS a middle-ground: if your movie isn't accurate, don't say it is. Tell everyone it is indeed fiction. Everytime we talk about this, you say something dramatic about how you don't want a world with movies like textbooks, or some such thing...that's over the top...no one is even mildly suggesting that.

Crap! I posted a reply to this like an hour ago but my computer disconnected. I'll post one later on tonight.

Alright, no big whoop. It's not exactly life or death. Oh, BTW: check your email and/or messages, man. Sent you one of each.

Just want to chip on.

I'm on Steve's side of the debate here. Not only because I'm a big Oliver Stone fan but because what he says makes a whole load of sense.

Do you want directors to put a credit before any historical movies saying that "This film is based on a true story but has been fictionalised for entertainment purposes".

No movie ever made about the past has ever been 100% accurate. Could you imagine the tedium of such a film? History, itself, is often subjective. If a Nazi sympathiser and a concentration camp survivor both made films about Hitler, do you think they would agree on the principle facts? Not a chance.

Documentaries are fact. Film is fiction. What Oliver Stone did in JFK was produce a fictional account of a true-life case and while doing so he threw in dozens of conspiracy theories that he had read or heard about in his lifetime. He showed beyond doubt that Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman but he never offered any one opinion as to who did kill Kennedy.

If a film was to be based entirely on fact, then would the scripts have to depend solely on transcripts of the historical event.

Schindler's List was based on a true story and because it is such a noble movie, nobody questions its accuracy, but that film was as historically accurate as Titanic or any other Hollywood movie. It needed to be so as to tell a good story. Filmmaking, as in stage, is about enrapturing the audience in a story. But stories, since the dawn of time, have been exaggerated and improved upon so as to increase an audience's satisfaction. A filmmaker will try to be as historically accurate as he can but if it interferes with what he is trying to say then I don't see the problem in twisting history to suit the story.

My one source of agreement with TWTCommish is when films such as U-571 are released. U-571 caused quite a stir in Britain because it portrayed the Americans as heroes when in reality British soldiers cracked the Nazi code. When history is this blatantly bad, then it deserves a second thought. But that film is an exception.

__________________
I couldn't believe that she knew my name. Some of my best friends didn't know my name.

No one is calling for perfect accuracy, bigval, because we all know that it's impossible...but, like you said, blatant problems are out of line. Wouldn't you say "Titanic" falls under that? It shows citizens being held below the main deck to drown, simply because they are "lower class" passangers...that didn't happen. It shows the crew members and most of the men as cowards, pushing women and children out of the way and shooting people left and right...also not true. In addition, Rose and Jack are incredibly unlikely to have actually met each other...but obviously that point is minor.

Wouldn't you say those blunders are just as inexcusable as U-571s, especially when you consider that Cameron went to special lengths to get other, less consequentical aspects of the movie correct? My problem does not lie with fiction, it lies with directors who take fact, make up things to try to make it more entertaining, and then try to pass that off as fact. If you're going to display gross inaccuracies under the "Based on a True Story title," not only should you find a way to mention that liberties have been taken, but you CERTAINLY should not boast about your film's attention to accuracy and detail!

But it's the same principle. Van Gogh's Starry Night is no more or less a work of art as JFK or Titanic. And the question I'm posing to you is, if Vincent Van Gogh DID go around saying "this is a replica of some stars in the sky over Florence", would that painting cease to be, well, good?

I mean, what does it matter what the director says? If James Cameron didn't make any claims about the accuracy of his movie, would we even be having this conversation? It would still be the same picture, and those teenage girls would still think the crew members were jerks.

I bet there's some british descendants who are angry about how their great great great great great great great grandaddy Longshanks or whatever was shown in Braveheart as a big jerk. I mean, what if he wasn't really one? What if he was a nice guy? Well, that wouldn't film too well. There had to be a villain in that movie, for dramatic purposes. It doesn't matter what he was REALLY like, because it's not trying to make our world over, it's trying to show us its own world.

Actually, that's not my logic at all. My logic is that movies exist outside what happens or happened in the real world, and if Oliver Stone wants to bring his own feelings into play, he has that right. Whether what he says is true or not doesn't matter; again, it's the principle. What the movies say may not be true or correct in our reality, but inside the theater we're not there to see our world. We're there to see theirs.

He didn't do this in JFK's case. Or in Nixon's for that matter.

Since you haven't seen it, maybe you shouldn't argue about it. In the movie, not only are the Arab terrorists anti-american, but the entire arab population of New York is.

Scorsese can make movies about whatever he wants, just like Oliver Stone, David Lynch, Jean-Luc Godard, James Cameron, and that wanker Chris Columbus.

No one can recreate this world...whether that's the intention or not, it's impossible. Movies, by their nature, are the complete opposite of our world. They are the escape.

I guess if you use a looser definition, Cameron was trying to 'recreate' a part of our world, but he was attempting that technically, not emotionally. He borrowed the Titanic as a springboard to tell his love story, not vice versa. So, yes, he used elements from our world, but it was to create the world of that movie. The sets aren't what speaks to the audience, the drama is.

Car crashes happen in real life, do they not? So what's to prevent me from complaining about how the millions of accidents I've seen on film make me think I can drive through a burning fireball off a bridge? Like I said before, it's not the director's job to teach the audience. It's his/her job to entertain them, and if he wants, express himself in the process.

That's all I wanted to know.

Do you think Ridley Scott is a big hypocrite? I bet he researched his a ss off to get the look of Rome right, but....

Again, I haven't said that protesting is pointless. I just think what you're protesting right now is silly.

If it didn't claim accuracy, would you still have a problem with it? Judging from your previous posts, the answer to that would be yes. So why don't you have a problem with Braveheart and Gladiator and My Dog Skip? All of those movies to some degree have twisted facts in order to play directly to the audience's desire for entertainment. So what's the deal?

If Van Gogh claimed accuracy for his own self portrait (if you've seen it) and you saw that he didn't look anything like it, would you immediately dismiss it as trash that does nothing but spread misinformation? Would it be any less of a work of art? It's the exact same thing with movies.

If we could travel through space and we saw that Star Wars is totally inaccurate, would you be complaining?

I could argue the same thing about Braveheart, over the generalization that all the british were big jerks. In our world, that's a pretty ignorant assumption, isn't it? But in the movie's world, it works perfectly, because it's easier to identify with William Wallace, well, with Mel Gibson.

If all movies adhered to your standards of accuracy, then they would be nothing BUT textbooks. You keep bringing up directors who claim fact but really make things up, but what does this have to do with the movies themselves?

I'm going to refer to this first paragraph throughout the rest of this post, because it addresses a point you are simply not getting: no, Star Wars is not to be criticized for not having the constellations perfectly accurate. Why? Well, for one, IT DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE FACTUAL. It doesn't claim to be highly factual. Besides, it's set a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, remember?

See, there you go again: apparently I have to completely hate a painting if I think it's inaccurate? What kind of warped logic is that? If he told me it was a replica, and I found that it wasn't, I'd say "Hey, you're wrong." I wouldn't say that the painting wasn't beautiful, and I won't say that "Titanic" was an awful movie...just a flawed one that I disrespect partially for it's director's awful misrepresentation.

Sure it matters. If Cameron didn't make those claims, then I'd still have some problem with it, but not as much. It'd be mistakes, but it wouldn't be mistakes, while bragging and claiming accuracy at the same time.

Well, I've read a bit about such things, and it appears that the movie was indeed highly accurate. If I do find out, someday, that Longshanks was indeed misrepresented in that film significantly, yeah, I'll have a gripe with Braveheart...although less of one, because I don't recall Gibson spouting off about any serious claims to factual integrity.

Now you're speaking for all moviegoers? I go to see something entertaining...sometimes it's a fictional world, sometimes it's a "what if" spin on the actual world (Shadow of the Vampire, From Hell, etc), and sometimes it's to see a cinematic represenation of something that actually happened. I don't see how you can reasonably deny that plenty of films are meant to put actual events on the silver screen. It's a simple fact.

I hear things to the contrary, but I admit I am not sure of it.

Well, for one, I don't need to have seen it to know that you've just exaggerated.

This is not about rights. No one is talking about what they CAN make, it's about what they should make, and what is reasonable/unreasonable.

Don't get all weird on me. You know very well what I mean when I say "recreate." Now, you can either go about how it's impossible to recreate any historical event, but you know as well as I do that there is a line, and that many people do indeed intend to represent certain events in history with movies. They are the escape? Escape from what? Oh, our current life. So how exactly does that mean they cannot recreate things? Maybe you don't realize this, but every movie ever made has been made by someone as a result of living through life. You cannot seperate the two, as much as you might like to. People make movies based on experiences and their own lives, and sometimes they try to recreate actual events.

Well, first off, don't speak for Cameron. If he didn't give a crap about the sets, or technical accuracies, then why, oh why, did he spend so much time researching technical details of the ship? Why did he agonize over miniscule details?

Um, those movies don't brag about their accuracy. There are also certain types of movies. I'm not going to go do drugs, and then go b*tch to the makers of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," claiming that they got it all wrong. But if someone is recreating a major historical event where mountains of information is readily available on the subject, and they STILL get major points wrong, well heck, they have no excuse.

He doesn't claim it as fact. But yes, I was annoyed by the fact that he could have just as easily kept things historically accurate, or at least fairly plausible, and still had an entertaining movie. It was a shame.

I've already answered, but I guess once is never enough, eh? A) Yes, I'd have some problem with it...but not as much, that's for sure. B) Braveheart was highly historically accurate. C) Yep, Gladiator's ending bugs me...but then again, it didn't claim to be all that factual, now did it? D) Haven't seen My Dog Skip (doesn't look very good).

If you want to just give people entertainment, WHY SAY IT'S FACT? Why why why? Give me one good reason why you should tell someone that it's fact, when it's not? Just one. One is all I aks. One GOOD reason. See, Steve, I do not HATE a movie completely just because it makes factual mistakes. I dislike a simple thing about Titanic: it's misrepresenation of the truth. That bugs me. A claim was made, and that claim is false...so I said so. Obviously nothing wrong with pointing out a flagrant error (something wrong with not pointing it out, IMO). The reason I don't like it other than that was that I didn't find it all that entertaining.

As Gladiator shows you, I can be miffed at a movie for it's implausibility or it's misrepresentation, and still think that it was entertaining...but why do I need to pick one extreme? Why do I need to shut up about a movie's stupid, inexcusable, giant, gaping factual errors if I found it entertaining?

Read what I typed above again. I'll summarize it here: nope, it'd be just as artistically attractive as before...but that doesn't mean I should say "Yeah, looks just like you." I'd say "That doesn't look at all like you. You really shouldn't say it does when it doesn't. It's not true."

I'll revert to the first paragraph in this post.

Did you pay attention while watching "Braveheart"? It made no such claim...it pretty much only showed you the military. This leads me to believe that you did indeed grossly exaggerate when talking about "The Siege" earlier. You tend to exaggerate on the issue of race...for example, when you tried to make some political statement about Americans/American media being ignorant concerning Arab-Americans...even then, you generalized and exaggerated...the same way the crap on MTV has been doing.

What does it have to do with the movie? Everything. What does it have to do with the ENTERTAINMENT VALUE of the movie? Not as much...unless you know of the history it's based on beforehand. Maybe you're comfortable with a big fat lie just because it's nice to look at, but I'm not. That's a semi-shallow view to take. Pretty or not, my friend, it's still a lie.

Nothing but textbooks? Bull. You're exaggerating again (a talent of yours, it seems). If all movies adhered to my standards, people wouldn't be able to lie about the factual integrity of their movies. People wouldn't make ridiculous things up about real living, breathing people, just to further their own careers and make their movies more dramatic. These are REAL PEOPLE we're talking about, Steve. How they're seen by the world is more important than getting someone to cry in some stupid movie scene.

It's become very apparent to me what it is you've done that's caused this to take as long as it has:

• Firstly, you've made the assumption that somehow, a movie's entertainment value is absolutely all that matters, even if it spreads ignorance and misinformation. You also seem to have a problem with me criticizing people for lying about their movies.
  
• Apparently, wanting people to admit fiction when they've made it, means I want all movies to be like textbooks (). The fact that you need to come to outragous, exaggerated conclusions shows an inherent weakness in your argument.

I'll say it once again: movies are a part of our world, and they reflect our world. They are not made in a vacuum. They're made by products of this world...and quite often, they are meant to display this world visually...sometimes in the form of historical events, which the majority of us were not present for. In times like this, I think those responsible for the film's creation owe everyone a basic level of honesty to their audience, and a basic level of RESPECT for the people who they're now telling stories about.

I asked this before, but I honestly don't remember your answer much...I just remember that I thought it was kind of ridiculous...so here goes: if someone made a movie that depicted all Jewish people during the Holocaust as deserving of their fate, and Jewish people said that they could not enjoy such a movie, and thought it was crap, can you HONESTLY tell me that you'd tell them to back off? Honestly?

EDIT: by the way: why'd you re-register?

Mel Gibson's theory about Oliver Stone in Conspiracy Theory was probably correct...

what was his theory?


BTW: I don't think Oliver Stone is an idiot, in America we have freedom of speech.. people shouldn't be bashed for giving their opinions and political views but like I said it's freedom of speech..I don't think an idiot could make such american classics of cinema!

Free speech has nothing to do with it...no one's saying he should be silenced...just that he's an idiot. People shoudn't be bashed for giving their opinions...they should be bashed for saying stupid things. I'm not mad at him for excercising his right to speak freely, I'm mad at him for using that right to say and do dumb things.

I'm SURE an idiot could make such alleged "classics." Everyone tends to be idiotic in at least one way. If I went around talking about Biology, I'd sound like an idiot, and I'd be saying idiotic things...even though there might be other people who would say "no way, he's not an idiot...he writes code for websites! How can someone who does that be an idiot?" I'm not saying Stone is literally an idiot, who's been cursed with a lack of intelligence...he simply, for whatever reasons, does and says plenty of stupid things, IMO.

I'm an idiot.
Just for saying I'm an idiot makes me an idiot.
But I can also write a 115 page screenplay in three days.

I see what you me, Chris.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

oh... i see; so what exactly did he say if you can remember?

I remember some of it...shame the site went down...I wish I'd have quoted it here (I do that now, but didn't before). He was ranting about the 2000 Presidential Election and saying all kinds of cryptic things, among them "Look for the 13th month!"

I have little to no idea what you're talking about.

Sorta like that.
I wish I hadn't said anything.

Now I look like an idiot.

I didn't even read all of this chyte. All I can say is "What the hell was the person thinking when they started this thread?"