HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Just great. Another "base...

Fri Aug 19, 2016, 10:54 PM

Just great. Another "based on a true story" made by Oliver Stone.

"Snowden"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3774114/

If Oliver Stone runs true to form, he'll have one or two facts in this movie, and the rest will be fiction.

And of course, the biggest bad guy will be the government.

45 replies, 11359 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply Just great. Another "based on a true story" made by Oliver Stone. (Original post)
Archae Aug 2016 OP
msongs Aug 2016 #1
Egnever Aug 2016 #2
applegrove Aug 2016 #3
stopbush Aug 2016 #4
MicaelS Aug 2016 #5
Archae Aug 2016 #7
MinM Aug 2016 #9
former9thward Aug 2016 #28
stopbush Aug 2016 #29
former9thward Aug 2016 #30
stopbush Aug 2016 #31
former9thward Aug 2016 #33
stopbush Aug 2016 #34
former9thward Aug 2016 #38
stopbush Aug 2016 #39
former9thward Aug 2016 #41
stopbush Aug 2016 #42
snooper2 Aug 2016 #45
MinM Aug 2016 #6
Archae Aug 2016 #8
Octafish Aug 2016 #11
Archae Aug 2016 #14
cali Aug 2016 #18
Octafish Aug 2016 #23
Archae Aug 2016 #25
thucythucy Aug 2016 #27
Archae Aug 2016 #37
Jeffersons Ghost Aug 2016 #22
whistler162 Aug 2016 #32
cali Aug 2016 #10
Archae Aug 2016 #13
cali Aug 2016 #15
Archae Aug 2016 #20
cali Aug 2016 #21
Rex Aug 2016 #12
cali Aug 2016 #16
Rex Aug 2016 #40
Orrex Aug 2016 #17
joeybee12 Aug 2016 #19
randome Aug 2016 #24
Archae Aug 2016 #26
MinM Aug 2016 #35
Blue_Tires Aug 2016 #36
oberliner Aug 2016 #43
Johonny Aug 2016 #44

Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Aug 19, 2016, 11:15 PM

1. I liked JFK. probably wrecked the real truth but it was still an interesting flick. havent seen

any other oliver stone pics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 19, 2016, 11:18 PM

2. Yea was a fun movie

 

I wasn't trying to be educated when I saw it though.

Course I liked pearl harbor as well so there is that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 19, 2016, 11:48 PM

3. Yes I liked JFK too. But I've never believed JFK's death was a conspiracy. Just saw

the movie as historical fiction. Which I usually didn't like at that point in my life. But I loved Kevin Coshner. And it was very entertaining.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Reply #3)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 12:03 AM

4. Stone called his JFK movie a fiction, and boy, is it ever!

The Warren Commission got it right. Bugliosi's book is required reading.

I can't watch the Stone movie anymore without laughing. Maybe it's supposed to be a comedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 12:43 AM

5. I used to believe all the conspiracy stuff until..

I visited the Dealy Plaza and the 6th Floor Museum there. I walked Dealy Plaza and it is SMALL. In the museum you can stand right next to the window Oswald fired from. Since I know guns and shooting, the immediate thought that popped into my head was "Shit, this was an easy shot. Oswald didn't need the scope, he used the iron sights because of the scope mount. And 6 seconds was plenty of time since he already had a round chambered.."







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #5)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 08:14 AM

7. "Nova" on PBS just had a show about the science, regarding the shooting of Kennedy.

They didn't have all our newer forensic tools back in 1963, and the House investigation in the mid 70's made a real screwup, with that recording of "four" shots.

Science says the shots came from the school book depository.

Hysterics still cling desperately to their wild conspiracy stories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #7)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 09:27 AM

9. Historical Consultants: John McAdams & Gerald Posner

With funding provided by the Koch Bros?

Talk about fantasyland.

Ryan Lochte must have been unavailable to lend his historical perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #5)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 06:51 PM

28. I guess we need you to show us how it was done.

Getting off 3 shots in 6 seconds has not been replicated. The Warren Commission tried and failed and others, such as CBS, have tried and failed. In addition Oswald, who had the lowest shooting rank in the military as a "marksman", was using a cheap piece of crap Mannlicher rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #28)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 06:59 PM

29. Absolute bullshit.

The marksmen used by the Warren Commision ALL got three shots off in under 6 seconds WITH ACCURACY USING OSWALD'S RIFLE.

One of them did it in 4.6 seconds. And modern analysis shows the shots were spread over 8 seconds, not 6. With the first round already chambered, Oswald had 8 seconds to get off two more shots, which he did.

In addition, Oswald achieved the level of SHARPSHOOTER in the Marines when he was first tested. That's one level under EXPERT, the highest rating. He was later tested again right before he left the Marines and scored as a Marksman. His shooting scores are all part of the record and easily searched. The USMC testified under oath to the Warren Commission that Oswald was an "exceptional shot."

Stop peddling such idiotic bullshit. It demeans DU and anybody who knows the actual evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #29)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 07:13 PM

30. Bullshit back at you.

Of course I will supply links -- something you won't do.

For the benefit of the Warren Commission, expert riflemen from the US Army and the FBI attempted to duplicate the assassin’s task, using the rifle that had been discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
Even after fixing some of the gun’s mechanical problems, and despite firing at stationary targets from an easier vantage point, they failed to achieve the combination of accuracy and speed demanded of the lone gunman: two hits out of three, within about six seconds (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.446 and pp.403–10).

In the 1950s Marines had the following shooting qualififcations:

Expert: a score of 220 to 250.
Sharpshooter: 210 to 219.
Marksman: 190 to 209.

In May 1959, Oswald scored 191: one mark above the minimum for a ‘marksman'

Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission:

The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor “shot” and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good “shot”.(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, pp.17f

The Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, was a “cheap old weapon” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.29).

It was examined by the FBI’s firearms specialist, who stated that:

Every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. … We fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact.(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.405)

Ronald Simmons of the US Army also examined the rifle, and found problems with the bolt and the trigger mechanism:
There were several comments made — particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. … There was also comment made about the trigger pull … in the first stage the trigger is relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually fire the weapon. … The pressure to open the bolt was so great that that we tended to move the rifle off the target.(ibid., pp.449–51

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #30)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 07:25 PM

31. Oswald scored 212 in 1956 - earned a Sharpshooter rating.

Why didn't you mention that?

Do you deny that fact?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #31)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 08:11 PM

33. That was after 3 weeks of intensive training.

By 1959 he was barely above the minimum.

I have presented the facts. You have just presented allegations based on no facts. I presented testimony from the Warren Commission which you seem to worship. Why are you running away from the report?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #33)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 08:16 PM

34. You can search the DU archives. I've provided chapter and verse

on the WC findings many times over, including the reports on the shooters who did the tests for the WC.

The fact remains that you omitted the fact that Oswald achieved the rank of sharpshooter while in the USMC. One assumes you did that because it doesn't fit your imagining that he was a poor shot. You either knowingly omitted the fact or you did so through ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #34)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 12:26 AM

38. Again no links

Typical. We need you to make those shots and show everyone who could not do it how it was done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #38)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 12:30 AM

39. Sorry, but I long ago grew tired of arguing with CTists who ignore science

and evidence.

But here ya go - testimony given to the Warren Commission: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zirbel.txt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #39)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 12:32 AM

41. LOL

You are ignoring the testimony given to the Warren Commission which you worship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #41)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 12:40 AM

42. Er, the link I provided IS the testimony from the WC.

Last edited Mon Aug 22, 2016, 02:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Obviously, you didn't bother reading the whole text at the link (it is long and it is informative).

Maybe you're not interested in the testimony from Robert Frazier, who ran the tests.

BTW - the Warren Commission never said the shots had to be fired in 6 seconds. With modern research using the Zapruder film as evidence, the actual time for all three shots was 8.4 seconds. CTists harp on the 6 seconds because they think it means something. It doesn't, especially when firarms expert Robert Frazier testified that one of the marksman got the three shots off in 4.6 seconds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #38)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 11:11 AM

45. has the intertubes told you who did it then?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 08:12 AM

6. Salvador, Platoon, Born on the 4th of July, JFK...

Were all pretty spot-on...



Snowden should be a good one

Edward Snowden Verified account ‏@Snowden

[font color=darkred]For two minutes and thirty nine seconds, everybody at NSA just stopped working.[/font]


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017362940

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinM (Reply #6)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 09:19 AM

8. "Spot-on" in fantasyland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #8)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 12:26 PM

11. Yeah, like when Reagan said the Contras were the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.

Like when George H. W. Bush at CIA helped terrorist Luis Posada Carriles escape justice.

There are other examples, from Vietnam to Libya, worth remembering that Oliver Stone keeps in the public eye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #11)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 12:55 PM

14. Oliver Stone is a liar, and an anti-Semite.

He lies in his movies "based on true stories," and he made anti-Semitic remarks.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/oliver-stone-jewish-control-of-the-media-is-preventing-free-holocaust-debate-1.304108

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #14)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 01:58 PM

18. I can condemn his anti-semitic crap and still recognize his right to make art

 

as he wishes. Hell, Ezra Pound was anti-Semitic, pro-fascist leading up to and throughout WWII where he openly supported Mussolini and Hitler (he was living in Italy) and did pro-Axis broadcasts until Italy fell and he was arrested for treason. He was still a good poet.

You can read about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Pound#Turn_to_fascism.2C_World_War_II

For that matter, one of my favorite poets, T.S. Eliot reflected some ugly anti-Semitism in a few of his poems. He's still one of the greatest poets of all time, imho.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/jun/07/poetry.thomasstearnseliot

Honestly, I don't believe you're thinking this through. OK, you have a strong antipathy toward Stone. Fine. But art (and movie making is an art) isn't reporting- unless it's a documentary. Stone doesn't make documentaries. He tells stories.

If I'd never read or watched or viewed work by artists who were bigoted or just unpleasant people, I would have missed a great deal indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #14)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 05:01 PM

23. I don't think he's an anti-Semite as his father was Jewish.

You might be mistaking his opinion about Jewish power in Hollywood, etc. for your beliefs about his politics.

BTW: He apologized for expressing his opinions that critics used out of context.

OMFT: Do you think Noam Chomsky is an anti-Semite, too?

http://www.alternet.org/world/noam-chomsky-what-american-media-wont-tell-you-about-israel

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #23)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 05:07 PM

25. I saw Stone's "apology." Even Trump put more into his.

It's one of those "politician's apologies," he basically says "If anyone was offended, I apologize..."

And even if his Father was Jewish, he did make that "Jews control the media" slur.
Nobody forced him to say that, and he was not "taken out of context."

We have to stop accepting excuses from those on "our side" when they royally screw up.

As for Chomsky, that's his opinions, not Stone's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #14)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 05:46 PM

27. And in real life Jim Garrison, the DA hero of JFK, was a raging homophobe.

He went after Clay Shaw because Shaw was a closeted gay. Shaw would have won his libel suit against Garrison, if he hadn't died of cancer before the case could go to trial.

I have trouble with anybody who idolizes, pays big money, and even offers a bit part (Garrison plays Earl Warren in the film) to an out and out homophobe bigot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #27)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 10:59 PM

37. Yup. He thought Shaw was part of a "homosexual thrill kill club."

Stone, when confronted with Garrison's statements about "murderous faggots" (Garrison's actual words,) dismissed the statement as "a government smear."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinM (Reply #6)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 03:07 PM

22. Periodically, everyone at the NSA stops working to trick enemies ;-)

How did Snowden fly to an enemy nation, without any FBI agents noticing his plans or asking questions? The FBI asked Director Petraeus of the CIA plenty of questions. Director Comey of the FBI broke protocol by releasing information, in an ongoing investigation of Secretary of State Hillery Clinton, to the press.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinM (Reply #6)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 07:52 PM

32. Except in Born on the 4th of July that

minor thing about NO FREAKIN' RIOTS IN SYRACUSE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Aug 20, 2016, 09:35 AM

10. He's a talented film maker. I want to see it. I'm able to parse fact from fiction.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #10)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 12:47 PM

13. Being a talented film maker doesn't say anything about the truth.

DW Griffith was a talented director.
Was his "Birth Of A Nation" accurate?

Was Leni Riefensthal's "Triumph Of The Will" accurate?

Was Michael Cimino's account of the Johnson County war, "Heaven's Gate" accurate?

"Artistic License" is not a license to lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 01:24 PM

15. He's a movie director. He makes art. Artists interpret what they see. This is simple shit.

 

And damned straight being an artist is license to "lie"- or to put it more accurately, interpret what you see any way you wish.

Not so big on the 1st Amendment, are you? (Not to mention art)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #15)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 03:02 PM

20. Stone can use the 1rst as much as he wants.

Just don't expect me to be silent.

It's one thing to "interpret" events.

It's a whole 'nother kettle of fish, when a book (like Bill O'Reilly's "Killing_____" or movie flat out lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #20)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 03:03 PM

21. I fully support your right to crap all over Stone. I don't find him an appealing figure

 

either, but I explained all that in another post in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 12:30 PM

12. LOL!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #12)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 01:25 PM

16. that really is the best response

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #16)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 12:32 AM

40. It is just a credible as the

 

OPs concern over Oliver Stone's ability to make great movies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 01:53 PM

17. This story deserves to be told.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 02:18 PM

19. Never liked his movies

 

The last few ones have been unwatchable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 05:07 PM

24. Lazy-ass has-been who can't come up with anything original.

 

So he spends his time making 'documentaries' that are anything but. He's a fake.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 05:13 PM

26. Most of us here condemned Michael Bay and his movie "13 Hours."

Because it was largely a lie.

Oliver Stone doesn't get any special dispensation that we didn't give Michael Bay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 08:47 PM

35. The Parallax View: a JFK conspiracy film that gets it right

The Guardian had this piece a few years ago...

The Parallax View: a JFK conspiracy film that gets it right

[font color=darkred]Parkland and other movies about JFK's assassination show just how far to the right Hollywood has shifted. Alan J Pakula's classic film, however, is a high point of New American Cinema[/font]

Just about the only interesting things about the new Hollywood movie Parkland is its demonstration of how far Hollywood has shifted to the right over the last couple of decades...

After a couple of films in 1967 – the documentary Rush to Judgment and Bruce Conner's experimental short film Report – that critiqued the Warren commission's findings, in 1973 a Hollywood feature called Executive Action arrived. It mixed documentary footage with live action, and portrayed the assassination as a conspiracy by the CIA and big business interests. Executive Action is a decent, strangely low-key film; what's interesting is just how mainstream it was. Burt Lancaster played the CIA coup leader, while Robert Ryan and Will Geer played Texas oil men who want Kennedy dead. Dalton Trumbo, once blacklisted, wrote the script, and the film was directed by David Miller, whose CV contains another good picture, Lonely Are the Brave.

Hollywood later revisited the Kennedy assassination with Winter Kills (1979), based on Richard Condon's paranoid thriller; Ruby (1992), a stumbling biopic about Lee Harvey Oswald's killer Jack Ruby; and most famously in 1991 with JFK, Oliver Stone's epic mega-budget version of events. JFK is a hagiography of Kennedy theorist Jim Garrison, a bombastic New Orleans prosecutor and homophobe who tried to convict a gay CIA associate, Clay Shaw, of the president's murder. Garrison's case was ultimately unconvincing: a jury found Shaw innocent, which undercuts Stone's telling of history. Nevertheless, the film provoked a public outcry and led to the release of thousands of previously secret files by the Assassination Records Review board.

For my money, the best JFK conspiracy movie isn't, strictly speaking, about the Kennedy assassination. Made in 1974, Alan J Pakula's The Parallax View borrows from the murders of both Kennedy brothers to tell the tale of a mysterious organisation, the Parallax Corporation, which deals in political assassination and the creation of "lone assassin" patsies. ...

Read more:: https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2013/nov/19/the-parallax-view-kennedy-assassination

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 10:42 PM

36. The sad part is this is only the first Hollywood biopic

you can expect at least one more once they get around to turning Greenwald's book into a movie...

Of course I'm old enough to remember when Snowden kept on swearing that "this story wasn't about him"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 01:05 AM

43. You don't like Oliver Stone?

 

He's made some really great movies, I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 11:03 AM

44. I loved is early stuff up to Nixon on a purely movie making stand point

For instance, JFK movie works as a movie about paranoia and how conspiracy nonsense snowballs.

his later stuff has been so so. His Bush movie is probably his best later period movie, but hit and miss, Bush turns out not to be interesting enough to have a movie based on his life. I imagine Snowden will likely suffer from the same problem. Not enough time has passed and not enough voices are out there so you're likely getting the Snowden view point of most things which isn't...dare I say perhaps the most rounded. His Nixon movie on the other hand was filmed long after the event described.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread