W - The Movie

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
NEW YORK - Like a bill being rapidly pushed through legislation, Oliver Stone?s film about President George W. Bush is expected to begin shooting within a month with a goal toward being released before the president leaves office next January.

A person close to the film, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because plans were still being formalized, said Stone?s ?W.? will begin filming in late April in Shreveport, Louisiana. The Academy Award-winning director only began shopping his script for financing in January, but has quickly captured the interest of investors and Hollywood.

Stone has said that the film, which will focus on the life and presidency of Bush, won?t be an anti-Bush polemic, but, as he told Daily Variety, ?a fair, true portrait of the man. How did Bush go from being an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world??
Click to expand...

I must say I think we've got awesome director and very interesting story that needs to be told. I wonder if Bush will attend the premier? ;)

Oliver Stone to begin shooting Bush film ?W.?
 
C

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
How did Bush go from being an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world??
Click to expand...

By being the son of a president, giving him the credential needed for entry to the game in lieu of the other possible credentials, and being willing to serve the interests of the day to an extent sane and/or responsible politicians would not. Hence, with Rove's assistance, we saw Bush offer carte blanche to the Grover Norquist far-right forces, to right-wing political groups, to corporate interests (hence an unprecedented partnership with K Street, with hundreds of industry people now overseeing their own industries), and the religious right.

You had his own father rejecting Reagan's 'voodoo economics' and partly raising taxes when needed, and the neocon agenda, you had McCain rejecting the religious right, and so on.

They all lost. Bush 41 ran against 'voodoo economics' and lost to their proponent, Reagan, who was also allied with the Religious Right, and only won the presidency on Reagan's coattails.

He lost after raising taxes and refusing to occupy Iraq. McCain ran against the religious right, and lost to Bush 43 who allied very closely with them, and so on.

Bush 43 was just the more extreme version, and it was enough to get him elected.

Even the supposedly 'liberal' Bill Clinton was pretty friendly to the same right-wing interests, passing NAFTA, cutting welfare, passing the Telecommunications Bill, and so on.

Bush didn't need many qualifications other than his willingness to sell out to those interests, and as Karl Rove said, his 'amazing piercing blue eyes'.

Toss in a right-wing media campaign about Al Gore's sighs in the debate and lies about Gore lying, and there you go.
 
M

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,406
6,079
126
The military industrial complex wanted war and war they got. But destroying the nation to benefit a powerful few proved unpopular with most of the people especially since so much of our weapon making went overseas. Now even Bowing is pissed.
 
superstition

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
221
101
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Another Fvcked up Oliver Stone movie ..... meh
Click to expand...
Hopefully he'll put Kevin Bacon in again to make idiotic comments toward Kevin Costner.
 
G

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
81
Originally posted by: Tab
Stone has said that the film, which will focus on the life and presidency of Bush, won?t be an anti-Bush polemic, but, as he told Daily Variety, ?a fair, true portrait of the man. ?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Isn't this contradictory?

 
StageLeft

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I heard a rumor that this movie is only about 3 minutes long. It follows, from a helicopter, a train going down the tracks at high speed and then runs into some stuff on the tracks and crashes and is totalled and then of a crowd of spectators who saw it happen, about 1/3rd of them completely deny that it crashed and tell the others that it's fine.
 
jonks

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Another Fvcked up Oliver Stone movie ..... meh
Click to expand...

Yes, fuck those Oscar winning movies! Arg!!! :|
Click to expand...

Yeah - if it wins an Oscar, it *must* be good! :roll:
Click to expand...

If it wins a Best Picture Oscar, then, yeah, it's good. If it wins best director or best sound editing, maybe not so much. I'm sure you can find some person anywhere to claim that a movie sucks, but go look at best picture winners for as far back as you like and you'll see near universal critical acclaim for almost every single one of them. Only 6 of the last 81 best picture winners had below 75% positive ratings.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/...es/special/2007/botbp/

You can go and argue the critics don't determine whether a film is good or not, and that may be true when considering an individual critic, but when 3 out of 4 of the entire community of critics praises a film, it's more than fair to say the film is objectively good.

As for Stone's films, I loved Platoon and Wall Street, and that's about it.

I think a 'fair and balanced' film about W will by its nature come off like an anti-Bush film.
 
EagleKeeper

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Another Fvcked up Oliver Stone movie ..... meh
Click to expand...

Yes, fuck those Oscar winning movies! Arg!!! :|
Click to expand...

Yeah - if it wins an Oscar, it *must* be good! :roll:
Click to expand...

If it wins a Best Picture Oscar, then, yeah, it's good. If it wins best director or best sound editing, maybe not so much. I'm sure you can find some person anywhere to claim that a movie sucks, but go look at best picture winners for as far back as you like and you'll see near universal critical acclaim for almost every single one of them. Only 6 of the last 81 best picture winners had below 75% positive ratings.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/...es/special/2007/botbp/

You can go and argue the critics don't determine whether a film is good or not, and that may be true when considering an individual critic, but when 3 out of 4 of the entire community of critics praises a film, it's more than fair to say the film is objectively good.

As for Stone's films, I loved Platoon and Wall Street, and that's about it.

I think a 'fair and balanced' film about W will by its nature come off like an anti-Bush film.
Click to expand...
Given Stone's work on many other films, it will be "fair and balanced" according to the Hollywood types that claimed that they would leave the country after the previous election.

 
T

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Given Stone's work on many other films, it will be "fair and balanced" according to the Hollywood types that claimed that they would leave the country after the previous election.
Click to expand...

:roll:

I think you've got problems if you care about what so-and-so said about whatever blah-blah...
 
jonks

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: sirjonk
I think a 'fair and balanced' film about W will by its nature come off like an anti-Bush film.
Click to expand...
Given Stone's work on many other films, it will be "fair and balanced" according to the Hollywood types that claimed that they would leave the country after the previous election.
Click to expand...

I don't think the hollywood types are the reason Bush's approval rating charts like a double black diamond. http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
 
UberNeuman

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Thrill to the pulse pounding action as W picks up twigs and branches and tosses them into the wood chipper!
 
EagleKeeper

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: sirjonk
I think a 'fair and balanced' film about W will by its nature come off like an anti-Bush film.
Click to expand...
Given Stone's work on many other films, it will be "fair and balanced" according to the Hollywood types that claimed that they would leave the country after the previous election.
Click to expand...

I don't think the hollywood types are the reason Bush's approval rating charts like a double black diamond. http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
Click to expand...

My concern is with the 'fair and balanced' comments.
Stone is not.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom