World Trade Centre

[borntohula]

"every generation has a defining moment, this is ours"

:pukes in mouth

yeah no thanks, id rather not be defined something i had nothing to do with nor lived close to.

[Lauren]

i'm hoping i'm young enough to not be included in this generation, if that's it's defining moment.

[garsk]

damn, i am old enought to be that generation. but since i am canadian, i would rather join the generation of Canadians that missed a years worth of NHL hockey. or better yet, that generation of Canadians that have never seen the Leafs win the cup, (which is the fast growing generation of Canadians ever)

[darko]

I dont know what ppl are talking about.....Oliver Stone has done a ton of movies that are factually based and pretty historically accurate. Born on the 4th of July for one, JFK is truth in the sense that it's an historical interpretation (which frankly makes more sense than the other shit that's out there). Alexander, though terrible, was historically accurate. Ppl vs. Larry Flynt as well.

 

Anyway.

 

JFK may not be hard fact, but it's based on a lot more than other reports on Kennedy's death are. I've researched Kennedy a lot and there's very little that comes to mind as being 'a lie' in that movie. There was no Deep Throat character, because he was based on a real life guy that came to Oliver Stone, not to Costner's character.

Edited August 11, 2006 by darko

[garsk]

your right, JFK and Born on the Forth of July do have some real facts in them, like in JFK, JFK was shot. and Born on the Forth of July, there was a war in Vietnam. i think most people when the watch JFK see the parts where Stone add his own ideas, like the court seen where Costner's character gives a speach about the whole day. it was written by stone.

 

also if you look to see how JFK was sitting in the car, you would see that it wasnt a "magic" bullet. that JFK was sitting higher then the person he was infront of, and that he was sitting more into the middle of the car. making the magic bullet travel in a straight line.

[darko]

Im not sure if you really understand the facts. First off, Stone didnt invent anything in B4thofJuly. It was based on an autobiography written by a Vietnam Vet, Ron Kovic.

 

Second, as far as JFK goes, Stone did take liberties (some creative, some interpretive facts), but his theory is no less crazy than the "official" theories that are out there. And as far as what you're saying about the bullet, I dont think you get that either. Stone didnt invent the magic bullet, it was a real explanation brought by the Warren Commission (buy the report if you dont believe me) that said that three bullets made some ridiculous number of wounds (i think about 9 or so?) in two people. Their explanation was that the bullet must have made a 90 degree turn in mid air, after hanging in the air for about a second (which for a bullet is an eternity) and then proceeding to go through a number of vital organs and exit in such a way that it would be impossible for a bullet to do so.

 

For sake of argument (a pointless argument really), your 'straight' bullet theory makes no sense, because it would only cause about 2 entry wounds and 2 exit wounds. The reason they came up with the magic bullet theory was because they realized it was impossible for any sniper to fire 4 bullets in under six seconds, so they had to make it three bullets in six seconds, otherwise there would be no chance of the public believing the report. The Magic Bullet was hushed hushed in order to point the finger at Oswald (who himself had no rifle training and would likely find it impossible to fire even 3 bullets and aim accurately in under 6 seconds).

 

Before you start bashing Stone's presentation of events, I highly suggest you do a bit of research yourself.(for instance, JFK wasnt sitting in front of anyone, he was sitting behind a governor.)

Edited August 11, 2006 by darko

[garsk]

For sake of argument (a pointless argument really), your 'straight' bullet theory makes no sense, because it would only cause about 2 entry wounds and 2 exit wounds. The reason they came up with the magic bullet theory was because they realized it was impossible for any sniper to fire 4 bullets in under six seconds, so they had to make it three bullets in six seconds, otherwise there would be no chance of the public believing the report. The Magic Bullet was hushed hushed in order to point the finger at Oswald (who himself had no rifle training and would likely find it impossible to fire even 3 bullets and aim accurately in under 6 seconds).

sorry, you are right, JFK was sitting in the back. also, oswald was a former US Marine, he knew how to shoot.

 

for the Grassy Knoll idea, know way in hell anyone could have made that shot, the angle is too imposible to make.

 

 

anyway, research that i found of the even.

 

 

 

 

JFK and Oliver Stones

[darko]

As far as I know, Oswald in fact worked on a military base, but his expertise didnt go beyond basic training as far as weaponry.

 

Nonetheless, whether the angle is impossible or not (which i have never heard, but ive never been there), Oswald (and marksmen in general using the same rifle, who tried to recreate the assassination) could not have fired 3 shots with accuracy in under 6 seconds, and definitely not 4 even inaccurately. It implies that there was another shot, at least one more if not two or three, and another shooter. Otherwise, the wounds simply do not make sense.

[mself084]

I thought this thread was about World Trade Centre

[garsk]

well, like all thread on this bored, it went off topic, sorry.

[Azalroth]

Apology not accepted

 

 

Not sure if I want to see this or not

[darko]

I accept the apology. But let's try to stay on topic....

 

So where did the word apology come from? Did you guys know it used to mean "a defense"? Socrates's apology is the famous case. Socrates invented the Socratic Method, didnt ya know? There were more interesting philosophers though. Whatever happened to Stoicism?

[garsk]

it was apology to mself084

[mself084]

Anyone seen the movie yet?

[darko]

I think my joke kind of went over Garsk's head.

[garsk]

meh 45678

[ghost3x]

I refuse to watch this movie. Cage sucks.

[glassjaw]

saw it yesterday, pretty well done, there was definately only one thing that I could complain about, and that was the appearance of 2006-ish model cars EVERYWHERE in the movie set in 2001, but that would just be nitpicking...

 

after the show everyone in the theater just kinda sat there for a minute, and nobody made a sound, it was quite eerie to see that the movie had that much of an impact on people.

 

well done though, I enjoyed it a lot

[borntohula]

Anyone seen the movie yet?

yes. t'was bad. theres no reason for this movie to exist. war is bad, terrorists suck, new yorkers have resolve, etc etc etc. thankfully the movie didnt make these men out to be heroes or anything. the building fell on top of them and then they were rescued. i dont know if that's a spoiler or not. let's say it's not and assume you're up-to-date with what occurred on 9/11.

 

its not an action movie but at the same time it fails as a drama because it does not have any kind of memorable conflict that we all haven't seen before.

 

when making a movie about a real life event, you might want to evoke some sort of feelings that were similar to those that people involved actually experienced. for instance, full metal jacket and apocalypse now are good "nam" movies because they are quite fucked-up, much like the situation at the time.

 

as a WTC movie, this fails to create any sort of emotional attachment to the characters, the symbol of the WTC itself, or even a sense of confusion that ran rampant that day and months after the event itself.