Print Page | Close Window

EXPENDABLES TRIVIA QUESTION ANSWER...

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: 31st Annual RAZZIE® Award Nominees & "WINNERS"
Forum Name: THE EXPENDABLES
Forum Discription: Nominated for WORST DIRECTOR / Sylvester Stallone
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4368
Printed Date: July 31 2014 at 9:05am


Topic: EXPENDABLES TRIVIA QUESTION ANSWER...
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: EXPENDABLES TRIVIA QUESTION ANSWER...
Date Posted: June 24 2010 at 10:18am
The total number of RAZZIE® nominations and "wins" racked up by the cast and crew of http://www.razzies.com/forum/aka-the-dirty-razzie-halfdozen-plus_topic4364.html -
http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic1110_post7566.html#7566 - = 29 NOMINATIONS and 10 "WINS" -- so far!  

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000216/awards - (with an un-billed CAMEO) = 9 NOMINATIONS & 1 "WIN" 

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000246/awards - = 4 NOMINATIONS and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120749/awards -

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099409/awards - = 1 NOMINATION  

GRAND TOTAL: 43 NOMINATIONS and 12 "WINS"  

...WOW!  




-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 24 2010 at 12:33pm
Wow, indeed -- 43 nods and 12 wins! And some people still wonder why this movie is considered the prime Razzie target for 2011??  

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 11:25pm
My guess was too high: 44 nominations and 21 wins.

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 21 2010 at 4:01am
Hmmm, 29 nominations and 10 wins for Stallone. I heard over on another thread that he is one of the top ten actors of all time!LOL

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 21 2010 at 1:21pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Hmmm, 29 nominations and 10 wins for Stallone. I heard over on another thread that he is one of the top ten actors of all time!LOL
What a stupid and free attack... 'cause I know you're talking about me! But as you Razzie haven't ever done a real analyze of Stallone's acting the number of his nods doesn't mean anything! Stallone IS the best actor of all time in MY opinion (put the MY in your head!!!) and he one of the greatest star of all time (and on this I'm far of being the only one to thinking that) and The Expendables will be one of the best movie of the year in MY opinion (again) so now please stop pissing me off dude because all want to do is get me angry!


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 21 2010 at 2:42pm
Submitted for the consideration of the group, another individual who can evidently dish it out, but not take it. To refresh your memory TaRaN, you made the statement that Stallone is one of the seven greatest actors of all time (you presented a list), with no qualification as to it being a matter of opinion. You may believe that if you wish, but don't pretend it is even close to a consensus opinion.  And before you whine any further about anyone else attacking you, perhaps you might recognize this quote:
Just a question... are you blind or something? You certainly don't know what is an awful acting... But don't worry I have 2 solution for you... Buy yourself new glasses, or stop doing crack! ;)
 
 


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 21 2010 at 3:12pm
Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

What a stupid and free attack... 'cause I know you're talking about me! But as you Razzie haven't ever done a real analyze of Stallone's acting the number of his nods doesn't mean anything! Stallone IS the best actor of all time in MY opinion (put the MY in your head!!!) and he one of the greatest star of all time (and on this I'm far of being the only one to thinking that) and The Expendables will be one of the best movie of the year in MY opinion (again) so now please stop pissing me off dude because all want to do is get me angry!
Okay, so at least you're saying it's just YOUR opinion. However, I myself doubt at that "Expendables" will be on par with the likes of "Toy Story 3" and "Inception". A fun action movie, yes, but nothing on par with those other movies.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 1:32pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

perhaps you might recognize this quote:
Just a question... are you blind or something? You certainly don't know what is an awful acting... But don't worry I have 2 solution for you... Buy yourself new glasses, or stop doing crack! ;)
 
 
Yeah and to not be an hypocrite, I still think that you should...


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 4:42pm
Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

perhaps you might recognize this quote:
Just a question... are you blind or something? You certainly don't know what is an awful acting... But don't worry I have 2 solution for you... Buy yourself new glasses, or stop doing crack! ;) 
Yeah and to not be an hypocrite, I still think that you should...
No need for personal attacks. You're only digging yourself a deeper hole.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 5:14pm
These are dark times for the RAZZIE boards. Too many of the users (it feels like more than half) have turned to flaming (I categorize that personal attack as "insinuation").
 
I never would've imagined we'd have such a hard time getting along.
 
On topic, as I said, my guess was an exaggeration over the real answer. What do most people think?


-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 9:07pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

These are dark times for the RAZZIE boards. Too many of the users (it feels like more than half) have turned to flaming (I categorize that personal attack as "insinuation").
The problem is we have people taking the Razzies way too seriously. It's a parody award, not something that will make or break your career like an Oscar can. We need to relax and breathe rather than run around yelling, "this actor sucks, that actor is great; we shouldn't be razzing this movie, we should be razzing this one", etc.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 10:08pm
There is a certain degree of understanding the nature of the ice upon which you tread. If you don't want to hear vitriolic attacks upon President Obama, you probably shouldn't listen to Rush Limbaugh. And if one lives in a fantasy world in which Sly Stallone ranks among the great actors of all time, one should probably not dip their toes into reality and try to make their case here.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 8:23am
saturnwatcher does have a point. If you don't want to read about Stallone being made fun of, common sense would be to not read comments on the forum in which he is considered the Razzie version of Meryl Streep.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 1:53pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

The problem is we have people taking the Razzies way too seriously. It's a parody award, not something that will make or break your career like an Oscar can. We need to relax and breathe rather than run around yelling, "this actor sucks, that actor is great; we shouldn't be razzing this movie, we should be razzing this one", etc.
You have a point. I think if there's awards for best of the cinematic world, there must be an Award for the worst! Razzies are there for it! This is why I love that. But it's still that like in every awards, there's things on which I don't agree, my personnal two Razzie-Kings on which I don't agree are Stallone and Kevin Coastner 'cause I find those two actors great that's it!
But I totally agree on Arnie, he's awful! And by far more deserving of Razzie than Sly or Coastner or even Madonna!!


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 2:26pm
Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

You have a point. I think if there's awards for best of the cinematic world, there must be an Award for the worst! Razzies are there for it! This is why I love that. But it's still that like in every awards, there's things on which I don't agree, my personnal two Razzie-Kings on which I don't agree are Stallone and Kevin Coastner 'cause I find those two actors great that's it!
But I totally agree on Arnie, he's awful! And by far more deserving of Razzie than Sly or Coastner or even Madonna!!
Kevin Costner? Have you seen "Water World" and/or "The Postman"? Two of the worst movies ever made and the worst performances of his career. after those back-to-back bombs, he's now Razzie bait for life. I understand you have fond memories of actors' past work, but the past is in the past, and here in the present, their work sucks.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 24 2010 at 8:51am
Kevin Coastner did JFK and Dances with the Wolves two great movies! Ok personnaly I didn't adore Dances with the Wolves and found it boring in someways, but it still be a great movie winner of Best Picture Academy Award!
 
And yes I've seen both The Postman and Water World... Postman is awful but Water World back in time I pretty enjoyed it!
 
But my personnal favourite bad Coastner's movie is Bodygoard! Even if the movie is VERY incoherant and somehow really stupid, I'm in love with the love stoy... I'm sentimental! xD I have the same love for the movie 50 First Dates (even more this one)!


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 24 2010 at 3:04pm
Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

Kevin Coastner did JFK and Dances with the Wolves two great movies! Ok personnaly I didn't adore Dances with the Wolves and found it boring in someways, but it still be a great movie winner of Best Picture Academy Award!
Yes, and then his career went to s***. It's been decades since he last had a hit movie or got good reviews. Another victim of the "Oscars Ruined My Career" curse?

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 24 2010 at 7:47pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Another victim of the "Oscars Ruined My Career" curse?
I agree with you on this!!Shocked


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 24 2010 at 8:08pm
JFK wasn't a particularly good movie...factually, it was outright nonsense. Nor was Costner particularly good in it. Not only was his performance fairly wooden, but he offered an heroic portrayal of one of the most despicable people in recent American history.
 
Further, winning an Oscar for Best Picture doesn't necessarily equate a movie to greatness. In fact, some mediocre to dreadful movies have taken home Best Picture Oscars: The Greatest Show On Earth, The Sting, Rocky, Titanic...a few others could be tossed into the mix. Occasionally, Oscar voters can be swayed by "flavor of the month" selections. Even worse, movies sometimes win due to an obvious mathematical flaw in the balloting system.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 24 2010 at 8:45pm

This is just me being curious, but saturnwatcher, what movies that won the Best Picture Oscar do you think deserved the award and which movies that didn't win do you think should have won?



-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 24 2010 at 9:08pm
That would take some time, but here is a list of what I would consider to be some of the Academy's most appalling misses over the past 60 years. A few are certainly debatable, and I probably missed a few that could also spark reasonable debate. I'll list the year, actual winner first and the nominee that probably should have won:
 
1952: The Greatest Show On Earth...High Noon
1956: Around the World in Eighty Days...Giant
1961: West Side Story...Judgement at Nuremberg
1962: Lawrence of Arabia...To Kill a Mockingbird (this one is a close call though)
1964: My Fair Lady...Dr. Strangelove
1965: The Sound of Music...Dr. Zhivago
1968: Oliver!...The Lion in Winter
1973: The Sting...American Graffiti
1976: Rocky...(either) Taxi Driver or All the Presidents Men or Network (I believe this is a classic case of vote split)
1980: Ordinary People...The Elephant Man
1990: Dances With Wolves...Goodfellas
1994: Forest Gump...Shawshank Redemption
1997: Titanic...L.A. Confidential
1998: Shakespeare in Lust...Shaving Ryan's Privates
 
Almost every year there could be some debate. The above are my opinions, of course. I think some of them would be widely agreed, others controversial. In some cases, there were movies that weren't nominated that might have been better selections than the actual winner. For example, in 1952 Charlie Chaplin's Limelight wasn't nominated, probably due to concerns about his political difficulties. But even it was far superior to Greatest Show on Earth. Another point is worthy of note: There have been years that movies have won that weren't particularly good, but they probably were the best movie that year. Had they been released a year before or a year after, they might not even have been nominated. So Best Picture winners are kind of a crapshoot from several angles.
 


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 24 2010 at 9:21pm
Two other points should probably be made here. While there are years where the pickings are pretty thin, other years can have several worthy choices. The Wizard of Oz and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, both movies that might have won any other year, had the misfortune of being released in 1939, a year in which another picture called Gone With the Wind just happened to come out. Sometimes, great movies can also be just a little too controversial for the Academy.  Charlie Chaplin released The Great Dictator in 1940. It should have blown away every other nominee that year, but Rebecca ended up winning, just because of the controversial nature of Chaplin's film. A year later, Orson Wells released what is now considered by many to be at least one of the greatest, if not the greatest movie of all time: Citizen Kane. It lost out to How Green Was My Valley, largely because members of the Academy were probably more than a little nervous about voting for Citizen Kane. 

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 12:01pm
The same could be said about "Brokeback Mountain" losing to "Crash".  

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Sometimes, great movies can also be just a little too controversial for the Academy.  Charlie Chaplin released The Great Dictator in 1940. It should have blown away every other nominee that year, but Rebecca ended up winning, just because of the controversial nature of Chaplin's film. A year later, Orson Wells released what is now considered by many to be at least one of the greatest, if not the greatest movie of all time: Citizen Kane. It lost out to How Green Was My Valley, largely because members of the Academy were probably more than a little nervous about voting for Citizen Kane. 


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 1:45pm
Probably so, although in my mind, that was one of those years where something had to win out of a list of very mediocre films.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

The same could be said about "Brokeback Mountain" losing to "Crash".


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 2:50pm
Brokeback Mountain and Crash are both great films!!! You don't seem to like anything... you should be more open! But me, too. I think Brokeback Mountain should have won!

-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 3:25pm
For the most part, we are not here to discuss the things we like. Nonetheless, I have made references to films that I have liked with some frequency (scroll up 5 posts for a short sample of a long list). Brokeback Mountain and Crash are good films, but not great ones IMHO, and I think that observation will stand the test of time.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 4:39pm
Out of being curious again, saturnwatcher, what are your favorite movies that you feel have lasted the test of time?

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 4:50pm
What do you mean ''test of time''? (French speaker who needs a little help with English expressions)


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 6:13pm
"Test of time" means a movie (or anything really) that is still remembered by the genernal public and is still held in high regards many years after the movie (or whatever) was released to the public.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 6:20pm

And yet some movies RISE from the Test of Time: They're seen as however good or bad at first, but then people hold them in even higher regard in subsequent decades. Some examples were Mommie Dearest, Who's That Girl?, and Hudson Hawk. At first they were seen as some of the worst ever. These three movies were all finalists in the Worst Picture race for those years, two of them won. In 198X and 199X, people hated them, but since then, these movies have grown on audiences. Now people love "Who's That Girl?"!



-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 6:59pm
That would be a reasonably long list and will take time to compile...  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Out of being curious again, saturnwatcher, what are your favorite movies that you feel have lasted the test of time?


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 7:45pm
How about your Top 5...or 10 perhaps?

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 8:05pm
10, not in any particular order, not mentioned in the post above,  and not necessarily the top 10: Chaplin's City Lights, Shindler's List, Citizen Kane,  The Godfather, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Graduate, Casablanca, A Clockwork Orange, Fantasia, Modern Times

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 8:51pm
Factually, JFK is not meant to be "factual." It's like saying "The Queen" was factual. However, it's a very good movie. Costner in the court room scene shows that he can act, in my opinion.


-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 8:54pm
Crash is a fantastic film. BBM disappointed me because people wanted it to win over Crash and when I saw it, I felt underwhelmed. It was like another Romeo and Juliet story. 

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

The same could be said about "Brokeback Mountain" losing to "Crash".


-------------


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 27 2010 at 9:18pm
... I couldn't have said it better... Agree!

And Hudson Hawk is an awful movie!!!  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

JFK wasn't a particularly good movie...factually, it was outright nonsense. Nor was Costner particularly good in it. Not only was his performance fairly wooden, but he offered an heroic portrayal of one of the most despicable people in recent American history.
 

Factually, it's not meant to be "factual." It's like saying "The Queen" was factual. However, it's a very good movie. Costner in the court room scene shows that he can act, in my opinion.


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 28 2010 at 11:40am
The only reason why "BBM" got all the acclaim that it did was because it was about gay (yet manly) cowboys. If it was about lesbians or flaming homosexual men, no one would have cared, and it would have been written off as softcore porn. 


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 28 2010 at 2:23pm
MWG, your penchant for revisionist history is exceeded only by your appreciation of unwatchable films.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Factually, JFK is not meant to be "factual." It's like saying "The Queen" was factual. However, it's a very good movie. Costner in the court room scene shows that he can act, in my opinion.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 28 2010 at 5:42pm
Good list, saturnwatcher, good list! Clap  

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

10, not in any particular order, not mentioned in the post above,  and not necessarily the top 10: Chaplin's City Lights, Shindler's List, Citizen Kane,  The Godfather, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Graduate, Casablanca, A Clockwork Orange, Fantasia, Modern Times


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 29 2010 at 8:15am
I'm sorry, saturnwatcher. I really don't understand what was meant by the post below... 

But anyway, JFK is a conspiracy film. Nobody walks into a conspiracy film wanting something factual-based. 

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

MWG, your penchant for revisionist history is exceeded only by your appreciation of unwatchable films.
 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Sorry, MWG, but I must admit that I personally find Oliver Stone's JFK to be among the most irresponsible, revisionist and dangerous movies of the last 20 years. The idea that younger movie-goers like yourself think Stone was even remotely telling "the truth," and that Stone himself admitted he had "played around" with the facts, is a big part of why I find the movie so reprehensible...  





-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 29 2010 at 9:29am
The only thing that can be considered a fact in "JFK" is that a "magic bullet" with the ability to cause 7 enter and exit wounds on 2 men is impossible. Other than that, the movie is pretty much up in the air on what actually happened.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 29 2010 at 12:28pm
I never said he was trying to tell the "truth" of JFK's assassination. Didn't I just try to argue that the film wasn't about retelling the accounts of the assassination in the most factual way? I mean, look at Inglorious Basterds and The Queen, if you must. It's not a crime to "rewrite" history in film.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: And I never said Stone didn't acknowledge "rewriting history" with JFK -- My objection was to his admitting he knew he'd done so, and cavalierly saying that he was fine with the idea of people who saw the film being unaware that he had done so, and thus accepting his revisionist version as "history"...  



-------------


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 29 2010 at 2:21pm
... Okay I actually cannot believe what I see.... you guys are bashing JFK now??!!! WTH???


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 29 2010 at 2:52pm
I'm guessing it's because HeadRazz and saturnwatcher were alive during the JFK shooting and trials, so they might know from first-hand experience of what happened during those times, unlike younger generations who saw the movie in the '90s... 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Not only was I "alive" at the time of the actual JFK assassination, I did extensive research on the subject for a term paper about 10 years later, including reading Jim Garrison's own book about his attempt to bring the case to trial in the late 1960s. If you had read Garrison's book, you'd know the man was a whack job, using the late President's name for his own gain and publicity -- and not the Aticus Finch-like, noble character Kevin Costner portrayed in Stone's historically bogus, manipulative movie version...


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 29 2010 at 8:26pm
It is very troubling to me, as well, that Stone (and Costner) portrayed Jim Garrison in a very heroic light without, at any point, offering a disclaimer that in reality, the man was a complete basket case. Worse still, this film perpetuates a lot of conspiracy myths that should have been dispatched to the dust bin of history long ago.  
 
It is on the whole, rather amazing that while I was only in first grade when the events of that terrible November day happened, all of the television images, reactions of the people around me and the other events in the days that followed are still burned so clearly into my mind. We endured the shock of that day, the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald on national televison, and that painful funeral. 

I truly hope America never again has to endure a week like that, and those events do NOT need to be clouded by someone like Oliver Stone.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 29 2010 at 8:34pm
In as much as I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion about JFK assassination mythology, the "magic bullet" wasn't magic at all as demonstrated by recreations by the National Academy of Sciences and other subsequent investigations. Among many other books, I would refer you to Gerald Posner's excellent book, Case Closed. If you ever get the opportunity, I would also urge you to visit the museum in the Texas Book Depository in Dallas. You can actually stand in the exact location of the sniper's nest where Oswald took the shots, and see that they weren't difficult. As poor of a shot as I am, I think I could have pulled it off, and despite claims by some conspiracy theorists to the contrary, Oswald was certified as a marksman in the Marine Corps.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Not to join the "Conspiracy Buff" crowd, but I have always found it significant that from his perch in the School Book Depository, Oswald had a direct, head-on shot at Kennedy's limo before it turned that last corner -- A shot not obscured by any trees or obstacles. If he did indeed act alone, why did he wait until he had to take a far more difficult, less-likely-to-succeed shot? Not necessarily proof of anything, but an interesting paradox...  
 



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 29 2010 at 8:41pm
Well, America did have to live through all of that again, on 9/11. Which, Oliver Stone also made a movie about! The man does love making movies about the worst moments in America's history. I wouldn't be surprised if he'll follow up "Wall Street 2" with a movie about the BP oil spill.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 29 2010 at 8:47pm
Terrible and memorable as the events of 9/11/01 were, and I do not mean to downplay them, I think that at least for those of us who had to endure both, there is very little comparison, simply because the times were so much different in 1963 than in 2001.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 29 2010 at 8:59pm
Please, do go on. The death of one man outweighing the deaths of 3,000 people and the demolishing of two major American landmarks seems like a curious statement to me.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 29 2010 at 9:07pm
But Stone's 9/11 film is not about the disaster, but the hope and survival of two heroes.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Well, America did have to live through all of that again, on 9/11. Which, Oliver Stone also made a movie about! The man does love making movies about the worst moments in America's history. I wouldn't be surprised if he'll follow up "Wall Street 2" with a movie about the BP oil spill.


-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 29 2010 at 9:08pm
I think you have to bear in mind that in 1963, televison was still in it's infancy, and we hadn't been desensitized to tragedy to the same extent...certainly no one had ever witnessed a murder on live television before. The JFK assassination was something of a shocking bolt out of the blue to most of the American public, whereas 9-11, while shocking and terrible, wasn't close to being as disorienting because I think by that point, we all kind of had some exposure to similar events.  
 
To be sure, there were a lot of people around for whom WWII was fresh in their memory, but even an event on that scale hadn't come into American living rooms every night, whereas by 2001, people had seen war and terrorist events and all sorts of other maladies, with some regularity, almost every day.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 29 2010 at 9:25pm
If I may expand on the point one step further: Back in those days, we didn't have the hostile political divsions that are so common now. It is almost sad to speculate that these days, if someone assassinated the President (whoever it might be) half the country would likely celebrate it. Back then, you might not agree with the policies of the guy in the White House, but he was THE PRESIDENT, regardless.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: July 29 2010 at 10:04pm
Why are the political devisions so much deeper these days anyway?

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 29 2010 at 11:05pm
I blame the Fox Noise Network, and other such media outlets, who add fuel to the fears of American citizens, thus causing divides over which political party best represents their beliefs. That, and given the power billion dollar companies now have, CEOs are the ones who are really pulling the strings. You didn't have these things 40 or 50 years ago.  



-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 30 2010 at 10:27am
I've wondered a lot how we got from where we were to where we are, with the political divisions so much deeper these days ...

Both sides probably deserve blame. But a rather famous interview with John Wayne comes to mind.  Wayne was extremely conservative politically, and someone asked him shortly after JFK's election what he thought of the new President. I can't quote him exactly, but it was something very close to this: "I didn't vote for him, but he is my President and I hope he does well." Fast forward just under half a century and we have Rush Limbaugh saying, after the election of Obama, "I hope he fails." That, in a nutshell, is where we were...and where we are.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: July 30 2010 at 1:22pm
I heard in Bowling for Columbine that news-originated fear is why America is so much more violent. But... the news can't make money or get ratings anymore unless they scare people into submission. As for multi-Giga-dollar companies, do they have new powers because political bases weren't willing to sell themselves out back in the 1960s?  

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 30 2010 at 10:03pm
It has been said that most people are fans of NASCAR and other types of auto racing not because they enjoy the racing, but to watch the accidents. I am inclined to think that news agencies have latched on to that philosophy to some degree, and in many cases they gauge the quality of the story not so much by whether they are reporting the facts, but giving their viewers the most gore. Maybe to some degree, it is because there is sort of a race to the bottom driven by ratings. Back in 1963, all of the news came from the 3 major networks. These days you have the networks, all the cable news outlets and other cable channels with their own news divisions, the internet and radio is still around as well. So to some degree, news reporting has become about sensation and not facts.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 30 2010 at 10:15pm
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Not to join the "Conspiracy Buff" crowd, but I have always found it significant that from his perch in the School Book Depository, Oswald had a direct, head-on shot at Kennedy's limo before it turned that last corner -- A shot not obscured by any trees or obstacles. If he did indeed act alone, why did he wait until he had to take a far more difficult, less-likely-to-succeed shot? Not necessarily proof of anything, but an interesting paradox...  

True...but I guess one might as well ask why he did it at all...Not that a lot of people haven't...and they've mostly come up with preposterous answers. Based upon remarks you made earlier, you've obviously studied the case very carefully, as have I. I've swung back and forth on the conspiracy matter several times, particularly when the NAS study originally seemed to find that open microphone indicating an unaccounted for "shot" noise. That was eventually discredited. 

But for all the moments I've had my doubts, the old scientific principle of Occam's razor seems to apply to this case fairly well, and provide the simplest and best answer: One pathetic loser, acting alone, changed history... 


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 31 2010 at 8:26am
Not to sound like a conspiracy nut, too, but I find it hard to believe a single, ordinary man would be able to kill the most powerful man in the world all by himself without some help (take note: three shots fired, cuasing seven bullet wounds in two men?). It's as hard to believe as we're meant to believe that the Twin Towers were built to cave into themselves as if they were being held up by well-balanced toothpicks, as a result of a 90 to 110 minute long fire. 

There's really no easy answers, just more questions.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 31 2010 at 9:54pm
As far as we are drifting off subject here, sometimes one guy who just happens to be in the right place at the right time can impact history for better or, in this case, vastly worse. Yes, things really can work out that way. As far as the falling of the twin towers, take a jet fully loaded with fuel and crash it into a building; you'll at least briefly get temperatures reaching levels you'd normally only find inside stars. Civilization is a much more fragile gift than we'd like to believe sometimes. As if natural disasters weren't enough to worry about, think how much damage one for a few guys could do tomorrow if they massively crashed the worldwide web for an extended period of time. It could literally bring economic activity across the planet to a standstill.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 01 2010 at 9:58am
Well, it really just comes down to what you believe in. Me, I personally don't believe one little nobody is going single-handedly take out the most powerful man in the world without help from someone else, but after 40 or 50 years of people telling you otherwise, I guess you'll agree with them after a while. Likewise, it was proven jet fuel doesn't get THAT hot, and there have been cases of skyscrapers being on fire for over 24 hours and yet they were still left standing. I'm not saying saturnwatcher is wrong in his opinion, I'm just not totally convinced.
 
Now...shall we go back to bashing this movie?


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Julianstark
Date Posted: August 01 2010 at 10:51am
Since we're sort of on the topic of Oliver Stone, does anyone see Razzie potential for Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps? To me it looks pretty awful...

-------------
For Your 2010 Razzie Consideration: The Bounty Hunter and Leap Year --
Check out my blog! http://julianstark-moviesandotherthings.blogspot.com - Movies and Other Things


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 01 2010 at 11:03am
As I said, it's like Stone waits for something bad to happen to America, and then he goes out and films a movie about it. JFK, 9/11, now the greed of Wall Street. Again, I'm so sick and tired of these "20+ years later" sequels, it screams "We're out of ideas, so let's just do a sequel to a movie that was popular back in the 80s and hope that people want to see it". 

I'm willing to bet money that Stone's next picture will be about the BP oil spill.  


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: August 01 2010 at 12:31pm
I say Money Never Sleeps is likely to be RAZZIE-tagged at the end of this summer.

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 01 2010 at 2:50pm
Well, GREED 2 is a sequel to a movie from 20 years ago that no on asked for, and is only being made to capitalize on the current news stories about Wall Street being run by greedy motherf***ers who get huge bonuses regardless if they cause their companies to go out of business...  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Not to defend Oliver Stone (who's one of my least favorite current film-makers) but I think recent events make a better case for doing a sequel to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wall_street/ -


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 03 2010 at 3:39pm
Maybe Stone should expend his energy on a worthwhile story...like George and Dick Take America On A REALLY Bogus Journey Wink

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 03 2010 at 3:48pm
...and just because I can never resist the temptation to pile on somebody who really deserves it, like Stallone, let's proceed. Quite apart from the fact that Stallone was quick to take the real life role of Don Knott's Mr. Chicken on a couple of occasions when he was asked to do USO tours in Iraq and that whole steroid thing in Australia, here is another reason that the man deserves contempt:
 
These days, we can all go to movie theaters, sporting events, restaurants, plane rides and even work without having to deal with someone else's cigarette smoke. It wasn't always that way. Scientists working for the major tobacco companies discovered that second hand smoke was a serious health hazzard way back in the 60's, but mainstream science didn't really catch on for about another decade. As soon as the issue became public and the battle was on, the big tobacco companies led preemptive strikes against possible future bans. One of their weapons? By golly, his name was Sylvester Stallone! Brown and Williamson ponied up $500,000 to Stallone so that he would use their products onscreen in 5 of his films. Evidently, they figured that the site of Stallone lighting up would give their product an aura of power and strength, particularly in the eyes of impressionable young males. (Glantz et al, The Cigarette Papers 366)


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: August 03 2010 at 5:36pm
That means Sly is driving up health care expenses. This should be exposed to everyone.

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 03 2010 at 5:37pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Maybe Stone should expend his energy on a worthwhile story...like George and Dick Take America On A REALLY Bogus Journey Wink
Yeah, but that would be stealing Michael Moore's thunder (or gimmick, whatever).

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 03 2010 at 6:43pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

That means Sly is driving up health care expenses. This should be exposed to everyone.
Undoubtedly, Sly's supporters/apologists would come up with some craven bootlicking excuse, like, "The cigarette use was just to add authenticity to his character." Oops...that is way too many syllables, but it would be something like that....but in 5 movies? He did everything but invite Joe Camel for a cameo.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 03 2010 at 7:33pm
Sly Stallone should star in a biopic about Michael Moore. . . . LOL


Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: August 03 2010 at 8:31pm

Sly should have won at least 10 Oscars...



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 03 2010 at 8:40pm
Meyer Wieners?

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 03 2010 at 8:42pm
Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

Sly should have won at least 10 Oscars...
Ah ... okay, I know you're his biggest fan and all, but can you keep you rfandom within the realm of reality, please?

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 04 2010 at 2:48pm
Actually, newscctv, I was talkign about the other 2 or 3 STallone fans who declare ANYTHING he has a hand in is automatically an Oscar worthy classic. But hey, at least you're one of the few who doesn't proclaim "Expendables" to be on par with "Toy Story 3" and "Inception" ... because, well, it isn't.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: September 04 2010 at 3:16pm
I think Sylvester Stallone is below average, but his films are much better than those of Nicolas Cage, M. Night Shyamalan, Uwe Boll, and Seltzerberg... until the tobacco product placement is factored in. That's what sealed the deal on me hating Sly.

-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: September 04 2010 at 3:23pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

I think Sylvester Stallone is below average, but his films are much better than those of Nicolas Cage, M. Night Shyamalan, Uwe Boll, and Seltzerberg... until the tobacco product placement is factored in. That's what sealed the deal on me hating Sly.
As I said before, having to choose between those options is like having to choose which nut you'd rather be kicked in.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Jennifar
Date Posted: January 31 2011 at 11:10am
I heard over on another thread that he is one of the top ten actors of all time.


Posted By: Jennifar
Date Posted: February 25 2011 at 6:13am
My guess was too high: 56 nominations and 15 wins.



Print Page | Close Window