|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 9, 2005 18:21:29 GMT
Even Though Ray was out of line well and truly lying under oath, anybody can see what he means when he goes on about the film.
I was actually saying about jim discussing poetry in the DOORS OFFICE which never was shown in the movie
There was far more"Jimbo" scenes" to"Jim" Scenes, not exactly objective*rolls eyes*
The comment that stone made to someone(i think it was kathy lisciandro, im not sure) about not wanting to make a boring movie when the person voiced there concerns about a lot of the "dark" jim or something being in the script was downright pathetic of stone, a very dire attitude for a filmmaker.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkstar on Mar 9, 2005 19:06:52 GMT
In my opinion Oliver Stone made the "Jim Morrison" movie he wanted to make. Some have argued that Stone didn't grasp what was happening in Los Angeles during the Doors heyday because he was in Vietnam where the only access he had to the band was by listening to their songs being played from a base radio station out of Saigon. It is also argued that Oliver Stone not only took liberties in stretching the truth on the "Doors" movie but other bio-epics such as Born On The Fourth Of July, JFK and his newest flick Alexander. He even incorporated Jim Morrison into the Mickey Knox character in his movie Natural Born Killers. All of the Oliver Stone bio-pics have one thing in common which follows the credits at the end of each film, thats the disclaimer "Although based on a true story, certain events in this motion picture have been fictionalized for dramatic effect." As for Manzarek's rambling on about how bad the Stone movie was I question the fact, if the movie was so bad and inacurate then why did Manzarek give his permission and authorization for the movie to be made in the first place? He would have collected a handsome sum of money for his authorization for his likeness to be used as well as a generous amount for use of The Doors name and the right to use the songs in the movie. If anyone gets a chance to interview Manzarek it would be of interest to ask him why he signed the release for the movie to be made, collected the compensation and then slammed the movie in any medium that would print or record what he had to say. As for the Andy Warhol "Blue Movie" and Jim Morrison's lack of participation therein the Warhol and Nico sides of the stories can be found in these previous postings to the board: Andy Warhol (The Warhol 60's) newdoorstalk.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=jim&action=display&thread=1106773620Nico (Life and Lies Of An Icon) newdoorstalk.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=jim&action=display&thread=1103750636 |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 11, 2005 1:41:02 GMT
Very Interesting Info on the movie- homepage.eircom.net/~mojodk/thedoors/themovie.htmlIf i remember correctly i dont think ron kovic was happy with some aspects of born on the forth of july .... Stone did Make me feel that i was right THERE in the film in that time in history, that was a good thing he did do in the film he should get credit for , the feeling of"Being There". But again please read- homepage.eircom.net/~mojodk/thedoors/themovie.htmlAt the end of the day in the pic regardless of what ever disclaimers he puts at the end of the credits, it's real people he was dealing with and you simply dont have the right to invent things when dealing with REAL life events imo. |
|
|
|
Post by jym on Mar 11, 2005 1:51:45 GMT
Why not? Look at any bio-pic recently about Frida Kahlo fantasy scenes meant to illustrate her creative or what the director thought her creative process, Pollock- characters are run together to create an amalgam of a type of person, Hell you know the dialogue of any bio-pic isn't a transcript of what happened it can only approximate what may have really been said in a well known factual event, & scenes are routinely added to give a feel for the period or things happening around the artist. The recent De-Lovely about Cole Porter would be a good example of this. I think outside of a documentary you're using a standard that isn't applicable-you may think these other movies are fair and factual renderings of a life but you just may not be as knowledgeable about these others so you think of it as more "real" .
One more thing-the recent Bobby Darrin movie Beyond The Sea includes fantasy scenes of song in dance in the streets, are you suggesting those really happened? Or should be cut from the movie because they couldn't possibly have happened?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheWallsScreamedPoetry on Mar 11, 2005 9:43:08 GMT
EVERY Hollywood biopic that has ever been produced made use of inventions....EVERY Hollywood director who EVER made a biopic took liberties with the truth to suit whatever kind of movie they made. You show Stuart what a complete idiot you are to argue that Hollywood directors OWE it to the subject to tell the truth.....John Nash was bisexual....conveniently omitted from A Perfect Mind........Oscar Schindler never went to Auschwitz.......William Wallace never sacked York as Braveheart depicted.....the list is endless. You are simply someone who spouts Ray propoganda because you know many Doors fans will agree with you as there are so many inconsistencies in The Doors movie.....IT WAS ENTERTAINMENT NOT A DOCUMENTARY.....Oliver Stone is a film genius whilst your hero Ray would struggle to direct his own piss into a toilet bowl...Stone made a movie that was a sea-change in Doors fortunes and brought thousands of fans into the wonderful music of The Doors. Your last comment shows your total hypocrisy and ignorance.....Ray Manzarek did not tell the whole truth in his book LMF and embellished his role whilst diminishing others...YET we do not hear an outcry from YOU (who always tells it as it is  ) about Rays book... "you simply dont have the right to invent things when dealing with REAL life events imo.".......John felt strongly enough about it to call Ray a liar.....but where are YOU! Conspicuous by your abscence to that debate...... I don't like Ray but he told his story HIS way and I for one stand with HIM..... NOT John......he told his story in an entertaining way that made people think debate argue and brought a new dimension to The Doors story......a bit like Stone did! Ray told the tale using the tool of invention same as Olly did....John probably was not 100% truthful in ROTS either....nobody ever is! Myth always clouds History and history is simply propoganda written by those left standing after the battle...... Your argument is simply that because YOU are so outraged by the fact Jim was not portrayed as how YOU wanted to see him....teetotal poet who probably never says fuck.....Stone is some kind of criminal.....because ray says this or that is untrue then it must be so as Ray never tells lies as we all know....  Stone made THE most incredible rock bio ever and his film will be remembered for generations......and as such many will get thier Doors history from it and see Morrison through Stones eyes......but many will look deeper and see Morrison through the eyes of others such as Ray, John, you and me..... Its called life and its not always fair...... You are an advocate of the Morrison Heroin theory but Stone did not show Jim snorting an Afghan national H harvest before he went for a bath.....surely another crime in your eyes....Stone choosing to go with the ambiguity of Morrisons demise rather than the sensational...... Jim Morrison lived the dream in TinselTown and its TinselTown that set his history in Stone..... Because of guys like Olly, Ray, John, Danny Jim will be remembered.....and none of them tell the whole truth. As years go by Myths get stronger and 'truth' falls by the wayside.......I remember Morrison/Doors stories when I was a kid that were held as gospel by rock fans back in the 70s that were utter shite but they were part of the rock mythos so Stones movie will become part of that myth for those to come and real life events whatever they are will become less real and more myth....Ray has lived on the Myth for 30 years Stone spent a year and a half on it.....Stone has moved on but people like you and Ray seem stuck in a never ending loop......Stone is NOW being criticised for actually telling the 'truth' about Alexander The Great as Hollywood does not like its action heroes to be gay! ;D The guy has a supreme talent for making people think....just like Morrison. Art is not something to hang on the wall and look at when you walk past ......art should make people think, argue and debate........Tracy Emin produced probably the crappiest piece of art in history ...her bed....BUT she made people who had never even thought about the subject in thier lives sit in pubs and debate the nature of 'art'.....so in one way she was a genius as she shook people up. Stone likewise has ignited a debate that has raged for nearly 15 years.....his movie was not some piece of popcorn that came went and was forgotten......Morrison too made art that shocked and is still remembered 40 years on..... Oliver Stone, Tracy Emin, Jim Morrison all artists that courted controversy but made people think..... which is shown to be true every time you rant on about this movie......yours and Rays vision of Morrison would most likely have been long forgotten by now as Ray the director is about as much use as an arcehole on a statue....Stones vision will still be argued about in decades to come.......thats the mark of true genius.....  "Art adorns our prison
walls, keeps us
silent and diverted
and indifferent."AND ALSO HOW DO YOU KNOW JIM MORRISON EVER DISCUSSED POETRY IN THE DOORS OFFICE? I HAVE HAD MORE THAN A PASSING INTEREST IN THIS FOR NIGH ON 40 YEARS AND CAN'T RECALL A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THAT....YOU ARE ADVOCATING A SCENE IN THE MOVIE THAT MAY WELL NEVER HAVE HAPPENED..... YOU HAVE BECOME A SCOTTISH OLIVER STONE.... ;D And 'Ray was well and truly out-of line' lying under oath at the dork trial........you are a hypocrite plain and simple....you never stop attacking Stone for making a movie but Ray was 'out of line' turning Jim Morrison from highly principled artist that would rather have been buggered senseless by a giraffe than sell out his art (even that which was written by his guitar playing buddy) instead into a sad loser who was in awe of his daddy driving a buick. You sir are a damn hypocrite.....  |
|
|
|
Post by TheWallsScreamedPoetry on Mar 11, 2005 11:49:40 GMT
I will always say how i feel on matters alex......ALWAYS. At the end of the day in the pic regardless of what ever disclaimers he puts at the end of the credits, it's real people he was dealing with and you simply dont have the right to invent things when dealing with REAL life events imo. If thats the case and you are such a champion of the TRUTH being told on screen pray regale us with your stories how you sat in Falkirk pubs and discussed the absolute pack of lies that Mel Gibsons Braveheart was with your fellow Scots and attacked Gibson for his disgraceful depiction of Scottish history..... 90% of what happened in that film was total codswallop.... There is NO evidence to say that Wallace was married NO evidence to support he even met let alone had an affair and produced a child with the aire to the thrones wife NO evidence that he was living in shit on a crapheap of a farm and that his dad was killed fighting the English....he was a son of a minor noble.... The battle of Stirling Bridge was reduced to farce as Gibsons Wallace showed contempt for men who actually fought by his side one of whom led the army as a co-general with him and died later as a result of wounds won there in battle......the battle depicted in the film never happened as there was not even a bridge in that scene which was why the Sots won the battle in the first place..... The Irish did not join the Scots at Falkirk and the long spear tactic was first used there by Wallace NOT Stirling. Gibsons depiction of Robert The Bruce was disgraceful.... There are parts of the film that are true of course but most of it is made up or distorted to fit the narrative the screenwriter was selling......similar to what Stone did in The Doors movie.... But of course you never did debate the bullshit that this film was did you.....the words 'total', 'fucking' and 'hypocrite' spring to my mind... |
|
|
|
Post by ensenada on Mar 11, 2005 17:42:04 GMT
so that would be hypocrite total fucking? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 11, 2005 18:57:31 GMT
I'll be back to reply to all that later. a hypocrite iam not btw(again i will explain that later too).
To tell the truth i have only saw Braveheart once and that was many years ago.
"Your argument is simply that because YOU are so outraged by the fact Jim was not portrayed as how YOU wanted to see him....teetotal poet who probably never says fuck"- that is complete bullshit alex, if stone showed jim as teetotal and a guy who probaby never said fuck, that would have been total fantasy but lots on emphasis on the POET would have been welcome as that is what jim was REALLY.
More to follow.......
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 11, 2005 19:37:50 GMT
"your hero Ray " i have never said ray was my hero(he is not Any of my heroes) alex so please stop making snide attempts to put words into my mouth.
LHM is crap(its good with the commnetary) and stone is a better director than ray, as that is an obvious statement.
I cant really debate the whole braveheart angle as i have said i have only saw that pic once and that was many years ago.
Actually i DO tell it like it is and what i mean by that is what i think, i say, i dont just say things to score pointswith people, i say what i feel and think and if you dont like or respect that, then that's just tough.
Ray should be brought to answer about lying under oath about jim and the whole buick situation , it was completely wrong what he did and i cannot stress that enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 12, 2005 1:10:10 GMT
"art should make people think, argue and debate" I agree with that 100% .
"AND ALSO HOW DO YOU KNOW JIM MORRISON EVER DISCUSSED POETRY IN THE DOORS OFFICE?"
Read "Red Lights " in FOF by Frank Lisciando.
No matter which way you twist and turn, argue and debate alex, stone DID NOT make an objective film about jim which he could have done but chose not to*rolls eyes*.
|
|
|
|
Post by jedi on Mar 13, 2005 13:38:42 GMT
Hey everyone! I watched the Doors film for the first time last night. Being a new fan, thought I should see it! Anyway, Rick told me that not all of it was true and not knowing a lot myself, I'd like to ask you a few questions.  I dunno if you'll know the answers, but I'm gonna ask them anyway! LOL! Did that scene at thanksgiving take place? Did Jim drink blood and take part in ceremonies like the one depicted in the film? Did Jim start out that shy? Did the session in the dessert happen? That's all I can remember right now, but I might come back with more questions! LOL!! Thank you!  |
|
|
|
Post by jym on Mar 13, 2005 13:51:33 GMT
HOHOHOHO Jedi, (deep Jabba the hut tones).
Anywho, here some answers.
1.No.
2.Yes, but not with Patricia, the blood drinking episode happened while Pam was in Paris & JIm finishing L.A> Woman. The same with Paticia being backstage at New Haven the real Patricia didn't meet Jim until 18 months later (I believe).
3. Yes, he couldn't even face the audience, as a matter of fact on the demos Ray does most of vocals, Jim just throwing in some harp & yeahs on them.
4.yes, but not with The Doors (at least never reported by any of them) that seems to be taken from when Jim & Felix & one other friend went out to the desert to get peyote Jim & felix came back beat up & Jim claiming the 3rd dude was murdered, & the guys father called the police & Jim was taken into custody until the 3rd guy showed up
|
|
|
|
Post by jedi on Mar 13, 2005 14:12:14 GMT
Thank you Jym! I thought at least one of you would know! Thanks for the extra info too. Really interesting.... |
|
|
|
Post by ensenada on Mar 13, 2005 14:15:33 GMT
shit i didnt know this - 4.yes, but not with The Doors (at least never reported by any of them) that seems to be taken from when Jim & Felix & one other friend went out to the desert to get peyote Jim & felix came back beat up & Jim claiming the 3rd dude was murdered, & the guys father called the police & Jim was taken into custody until the 3rd guy showed up how many run ins with the cops did jim have? LOL answer - shit loads!  |
|
|
|
Post by eressie on Mar 15, 2005 14:05:29 GMT
Something that really bothers me is the Swedish subtitels in this movie. They have to be the worst subtitles I´ve even seen in a movie! Many things are translated so badly that it gives a whole different meaning and the scenes are missunderstood. I think the least serious misstake was to translate Lizard King to Wizard King, but some things are so horrible I felt like calling the video company and demand a new translation. I can do it for them, at least it can´t get any worse.  |
|
|
|
Post by ensenada on Mar 15, 2005 15:10:44 GMT
Something that really bothers me is the Swedish subtitels in this movie. They have to be the worst subtitles I´ve even seen in a movie! Many things are translated so badly that it gives a whole different meaning and the scenes are missunderstood. I think the least serious misstake was to translate Lizard King to Wizard King, but some things are so horrible I felt like calling the video company and demand a new translation. I can do it for them, at least it can´t get any worse. LOL the wizard king!  |
|
|
|
Post by sparky on Mar 15, 2005 23:07:18 GMT
i like it as a movie but thats all i dont think it shows the true jim but then who am i to say, cos i didnt know jim.
its hollywood entertainment thats all. i would prefer to read a book about the doors than watch a movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandysunshine on Mar 16, 2005 0:36:31 GMT
If I had never seen that film, I might never have gotten interested in the Doors!!! I love Val Kilmer and that was why I watched the film the first time. But I enjoyed the music so much that I was hungry for more!!! I never took the film as gospel though. I've read a few different books and I know the story's gonna be different every time!!!
I don't think anybody could ever write a definitive book or make a definitive film about ANYBODY!!! How could you find out the entire life story of someone that couldn't possibly have spent every waking moment with?! There are of course some people who just write a book for the sensational aspect though. Just take "The Lives of John Lennon" by Albert Goldman. Now THAT'S a fairy story!!! But it's a fantastic read if you're looking for a good laugh!!!
As I was reading through this thread, someone asked a while back, who else we could imagine in the film role of Jim Morrison. At great risk of being hung, drawn and quartered, and I'm not saying I think he'd actually be good in the role, but for some wierd reason Keanu Reeves popped into my head when I saw one of the pictures of Val as Jim!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 20, 2005 16:30:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 20, 2005 17:45:53 GMT
|
|
