MovieChat Forums > Parkland (2013) Discussion > We Needed This

We Needed This

posted 11 years ago by Soodinum
13 replies | jump to latest

to balance out all the CT crap the JFK film pooled together like Reader's Digest.

The Lone Gunman theory needs an airing out.

'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

[–] PrometheusTree64 11 years ago

to balance out all the CT crap the JFK film pooled together like Reader's Digest.

The Lone Gunman theory needs an airing out.

That's stupid. The only thing the media ever pushes in the ridiculous LoneNut theory --- what's to air out?

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

I'm not worried about media pushing LoneNut theories; I'm talking about large chunks of the populace that subscribe to a conspiracy shored up by works of fiction like JFK.

'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

[–] PrometheusTree64 11 years ago

So you admit you're lying about everything. Thanks for clearing that up.

Now go cash your check.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

Wow - huge comprehension gap there. Is dad home? Maybe put him on.

[–] PrometheusTree64 11 years ago

You're not fooling anybody, Mr Shill.

Now go cash your check.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

This is why people think JFKCTs are a bunch of nutters.

'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

[–] haze58 11 years ago

This is why people think JFKCTs are a bunch of nutters.

Don't judge all CT'er by PrometheusTree64, that's like judging all Muslims by Osama Bin Laden.

-

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

Well ...

'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

[–] kaba-kun-the-hippo 11 years ago

I don't understand...

This film doesn't champion the Lone Gunman theory.

It only accuses Oswald from the point of view of people who did actually believe that Oswald was the killer. It never actually says that he did it.

It's a fact that he was arrested and was shot by Ruby, died in Parkland Hospital, and was buried. This film doesn't go any further than that.

It doesn't even show footage of the shooting other than a tiny bit of the Zapruder film, which doesn't directly accuse anyone as both sides of the argument claim that it supports them and doesn't actually show someone holding a gun and shooting JFK.

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

It's pretty vanilla regarding who did it, which means it's open to the 'official' theory that's existed from the beginning; that it was LHO acting alone.

Given all the CT's that have built up over the years, the silence on the matter actually speaks volumes.

'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

[–] PrometheusTree64 11 years ago

Given all the CT's that have built up over the years, the silence on the matter actually speaks volumes.

Their silence on what matter?

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

The matter of theories other than the obvious one ...

'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

[–] kaba-kun-the-hippo 11 years ago

Or... it could mean, if you ask the director, that he intentionally avoided making a statement about Oswald's guilt because that's not what he wanted the film to be about. He's an investigative journalist. He wanted the film to show his interpretation of the action of the day and how the people in the middle of it dealt with it... rather than forcing an agenda on anyone:

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2013/09/peter-landesman-parkla nd-jfk-assassination

I don’t think that I made a political movie or a movie that picks a fight with 50 years of conspiracy theory. I made a movie about individuals to whom a terrible thing happened and how they survived it.

And just because the story is based on Bugliosi's book, which does toe the guilty Oswald line, Landesman's admitted to using much more than just what's in the book... as he says earlier in the article, he's an investigative journalist:

Research is a means of understanding what it is that I am writing. I have to do it. I can’t just be handed information that needs to be metabolized and translated into a drama.