History related tv series and movie news megathread.

[Hwen Hoshino]

Oliver Stone is pretty terrible all around. Quite a joke of a person. I can't really think of a good movie he has ever made. I don't think I'm out of line calling the guy a waste of human life tbh.

Joke of a person compared to who? Why is he a waste of human life?

Watch any of his movies. The guy's reach always exceeds his grasp. The Alexander movie was horrible. He tried making a Freudian analysis of GWB that was horrible. He made a movie about Wall Street (2 movies). One was mediocre, the other horrible. He made that stupid JFK movie that perpetuated stupid conspiracy bullshit, especially the myth that JFK was a peacenik that would have kept us out of Vietnam, when JFK escalated the amount of advisors, and was president during the most dangerous period in history (Cuban missile Crisis). There is nothing wrong with having political views in film, or a contrarian streak. But if you are going to preach, try to make the sermon somewhat accurate and entertaining. Oliver Stone is not the worst director, but he really wants his films to be these groundbreaking political masterpieces. Seeing as how he is a mediocre director, and a con artist when it comes to facts, his films should be held to a high standard. He was also a close friend of Hugo Chavez, and strong promoter of his policies. Seeing as how Venezuela is not doing so hot, this virtue signalling should also be scrutinized. In a nutshell, fuck Oliver Stone up his limosine liberal ass. I don't think I'm out of line wishing the man a case of colon cancer.

GWB was a fun movie. I had not watched Alexander in a while but i appreciate the ambition. There are more than enough people debunking the JFK stuff, there is nothing preventing the US government from destroying the conspiracy narratives by not being scummy. So is there something wrong with being a contrarian or not? You are sending mixed messages here. How do you know he does not think his version is accurate? He got plenty of hatred from critics so you should feel good. Thank goodness movie critics are increasingly irrelevant. His friendship with Chavez was not scrutinized?

[SuburbanFarmer]

The Last Kingdom is dope. I think it's on Starz.

Also enjoy the setting in Outlander. The plot is shit, but they really nail the details and scenery.

[heydaralon]

Joke of a person compared to who? Why is he a waste of human life?

Watch any of his movies. The guy's reach always exceeds his grasp. The Alexander movie was horrible. He tried making a Freudian analysis of GWB that was horrible. He made a movie about Wall Street (2 movies). One was mediocre, the other horrible. He made that stupid JFK movie that perpetuated stupid conspiracy bullshit, especially the myth that JFK was a peacenik that would have kept us out of Vietnam, when JFK escalated the amount of advisors, and was president during the most dangerous period in history (Cuban missile Crisis). There is nothing wrong with having political views in film, or a contrarian streak. But if you are going to preach, try to make the sermon somewhat accurate and entertaining. Oliver Stone is not the worst director, but he really wants his films to be these groundbreaking political masterpieces. Seeing as how he is a mediocre director, and a con artist when it comes to facts, his films should be held to a high standard. He was also a close friend of Hugo Chavez, and strong promoter of his policies. Seeing as how Venezuela is not doing so hot, this virtue signalling should also be scrutinized. In a nutshell, fuck Oliver Stone up his limosine liberal ass. I don't think I'm out of line wishing the man a case of colon cancer.

GWB was a fun movie. I had not watched Alexander in a while but i appreciate the ambition. There are more than enough people debunking the JFK stuff, there is nothing preventing the US government from destroying the conspiracy narratives by not being scummy. So is there something wrong with being a contrarian or not? You are sending mixed messages here. How do you know he does not think his version is accurate? He got plenty of hatred from critics so you should feel good. Thank goodness movie critics are increasingly irrelevant. His friendship with Chavez was not scrutinized?

The Alexander the Great movie did not need to be changed the way it was. The original story is awesome enough. Not to mention, the acting and writing was awful in that movie. So much wasted potential.

There's nothing wrong with being a contrarian, but if you are going to challenge the conventional wisdom, you should back your opinions up with facts. Oliver Stone has made a "historical" show that tries to show the alternative history of the US. It falls into the same trap as Howard Shit's People's History of the United States. Bad history, incredible bias, ignoring facts to build a narrative. If you have to lie and obfuscate to convince people your side is right, than you have already lost the argument. It sounds like you are already well versed in the JFK stuff, but its the same thing with that. If Stone wanted to just make mindless movies, I'm fine with that. But don't try that while simultaneously acting like you are some profound historical filmmaker.

Platoon is a decent film, and I like El Salvador, but Stone is guilty of every political and historical sin imaginable.

[Hwen Hoshino]

Watch any of his movies. The guy's reach always exceeds his grasp. The Alexander movie was horrible. He tried making a Freudian analysis of GWB that was horrible. He made a movie about Wall Street (2 movies). One was mediocre, the other horrible. He made that stupid JFK movie that perpetuated stupid conspiracy bullshit, especially the myth that JFK was a peacenik that would have kept us out of Vietnam, when JFK escalated the amount of advisors, and was president during the most dangerous period in history (Cuban missile Crisis). There is nothing wrong with having political views in film, or a contrarian streak. But if you are going to preach, try to make the sermon somewhat accurate and entertaining. Oliver Stone is not the worst director, but he really wants his films to be these groundbreaking political masterpieces. Seeing as how he is a mediocre director, and a con artist when it comes to facts, his films should be held to a high standard. He was also a close friend of Hugo Chavez, and strong promoter of his policies. Seeing as how Venezuela is not doing so hot, this virtue signalling should also be scrutinized. In a nutshell, fuck Oliver Stone up his limosine liberal ass. I don't think I'm out of line wishing the man a case of colon cancer.

GWB was a fun movie. I had not watched Alexander in a while but i appreciate the ambition. There are more than enough people debunking the JFK stuff, there is nothing preventing the US government from destroying the conspiracy narratives by not being scummy. So is there something wrong with being a contrarian or not? You are sending mixed messages here. How do you know he does not think his version is accurate? He got plenty of hatred from critics so you should feel good. Thank goodness movie critics are increasingly irrelevant. His friendship with Chavez was not scrutinized?

The Alexander the Great movie did not need to be changed the way it was. The original story is awesome enough. Not to mention, the acting and writing was awful in that movie. So much wasted potential.

There's nothing wrong with being a contrarian, but if you are going to challenge the conventional wisdom, you should back your opinions up with facts. Oliver Stone has made a "historical" show that tries to show the alternative history of the US. It falls into the same trap as Howard Shit's People's History of the United States. Bad history, incredible bias, ignoring facts to build a narrative. If you have to lie and obfuscate to convince people your side is right, than you have already lost the argument. It sounds like you are already well versed in the JFK stuff, but its the same thing with that. If Stone wanted to just make mindless movies, I'm fine with that. But don't try that while simultaneously acting like you are some profound historical filmmaker.

Platoon is a decent film, and I like El Salvador, but Stone is guilty of every political and historical sin imaginable.

Isn't the original one romantic nonsense? If he would defend his movies in a public forum with a fair moderator it would be interesting. Otherwise i don't know how he could defend himself. What was mindless about JFK? You might think the movie's narrative was wrong but that would be a different matter.

The government he criticizes is just as sinful so i don't really have a problem with it.

[heydaralon]

GWB was a fun movie. I had not watched Alexander in a while but i appreciate the ambition. There are more than enough people debunking the JFK stuff, there is nothing preventing the US government from destroying the conspiracy narratives by not being scummy. So is there something wrong with being a contrarian or not? You are sending mixed messages here. How do you know he does not think his version is accurate? He got plenty of hatred from critics so you should feel good. Thank goodness movie critics are increasingly irrelevant. His friendship with Chavez was not scrutinized?

The Alexander the Great movie did not need to be changed the way it was. The original story is awesome enough. Not to mention, the acting and writing was awful in that movie. So much wasted potential.

There's nothing wrong with being a contrarian, but if you are going to challenge the conventional wisdom, you should back your opinions up with facts. Oliver Stone has made a "historical" show that tries to show the alternative history of the US. It falls into the same trap as Howard Shit's People's History of the United States. Bad history, incredible bias, ignoring facts to build a narrative. If you have to lie and obfuscate to convince people your side is right, than you have already lost the argument. It sounds like you are already well versed in the JFK stuff, but its the same thing with that. If Stone wanted to just make mindless movies, I'm fine with that. But don't try that while simultaneously acting like you are some profound historical filmmaker.

Platoon is a decent film, and I like El Salvador, but Stone is guilty of every political and historical sin imaginable.

Isn't the original one romantic nonsense? If he would defend his movies in a public forum with a fair moderator it would be interesting. Otherwise i don't know how he could defend himself. What was mindless about JFK? You might think the movie's narrative was wrong but that would be a different matter.

The government he criticizes is just as sinful so i don't really have a problem with it.

The original Alexander story is covered by several historians, and the Romans did romanticize him a bit, but there is detailed information about much of his campaigning. It is probably not 100% accurate, but it runs circles around Stone's hagiography. Stone used Robin Lane Fox, a historian of Alexander, as a consultant for that movie. He should have used Peter Green, who wrote the most balanced and interesting Alexander biography out there. Fox's book is pretty lousy in comparison.

As far as your point about government spin versus Stone spin, you don't put a stop to misinformation by spreading different misinformation. Once you venture into that territory, you have lost the intellectual and moral high ground. There are plenty of avenues for the contrarian spirit, but just saying that the United States is always evil is just as empty and pathetic as saying that the United States is always good.

[Hwen Hoshino]

The Alexander the Great movie did not need to be changed the way it was. The original story is awesome enough. Not to mention, the acting and writing was awful in that movie. So much wasted potential.

There's nothing wrong with being a contrarian, but if you are going to challenge the conventional wisdom, you should back your opinions up with facts. Oliver Stone has made a "historical" show that tries to show the alternative history of the US. It falls into the same trap as Howard Shit's People's History of the United States. Bad history, incredible bias, ignoring facts to build a narrative. If you have to lie and obfuscate to convince people your side is right, than you have already lost the argument. It sounds like you are already well versed in the JFK stuff, but its the same thing with that. If Stone wanted to just make mindless movies, I'm fine with that. But don't try that while simultaneously acting like you are some profound historical filmmaker.

Platoon is a decent film, and I like El Salvador, but Stone is guilty of every political and historical sin imaginable.

Isn't the original one romantic nonsense? If he would defend his movies in a public forum with a fair moderator it would be interesting. Otherwise i don't know how he could defend himself. What was mindless about JFK? You might think the movie's narrative was wrong but that would be a different matter.

The government he criticizes is just as sinful so i don't really have a problem with it.

The original Alexander story is covered by several historians, and the Romans did romanticize him a bit, but there is detailed information about much of his campaigning. It is probably not 100% accurate, but it runs circles around Stone's hagiography. Stone used Robin Lane Fox, a historian of Alexander, as a consultant for that movie. He should have used Peter Green, who wrote the most balanced and interesting Alexander biography out there. Fox's book is pretty lousy in comparison.

As far as your point about government spin versus Stone spin, you don't put a stop to misinformation by spreading different misinformation. Once you venture into that territory, you have lost the intellectual and moral high ground. There are plenty of avenues for the contrarian spirit, but just saying that the United States is always evil is just as empty and pathetic as saying that the United States is always good.

I honestly don't know whose historian is wrong.

So having real belief in something you might think is wrong is something one should not do? He just thinks the US government and the higher echelons of the corporate world are evil.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Isn't the original one romantic nonsense? If he would defend his movies in a public forum with a fair moderator it would be interesting. Otherwise i don't know how he could defend himself. What was mindless about JFK? You might think the movie's narrative was wrong but that would be a different matter.

The government he criticizes is just as sinful so i don't really have a problem with it.

The original Alexander story is covered by several historians, and the Romans did romanticize him a bit, but there is detailed information about much of his campaigning. It is probably not 100% accurate, but it runs circles around Stone's hagiography. Stone used Robin Lane Fox, a historian of Alexander, as a consultant for that movie. He should have used Peter Green, who wrote the most balanced and interesting Alexander biography out there. Fox's book is pretty lousy in comparison.

As far as your point about government spin versus Stone spin, you don't put a stop to misinformation by spreading different misinformation. Once you venture into that territory, you have lost the intellectual and moral high ground. There are plenty of avenues for the contrarian spirit, but just saying that the United States is always evil is just as empty and pathetic as saying that the United States is always good.

I honestly don't know whose historian is wrong.

So having real belief in something you might think is wrong is something one should not do? He just thinks the US government and the higher echelons of the corporate world are evil.

So do I. Not intentionally, just for the sake of being dicks, but through rampant corruption and incompetence.

[Hwen Hoshino]

The original Alexander story is covered by several historians, and the Romans did romanticize him a bit, but there is detailed information about much of his campaigning. It is probably not 100% accurate, but it runs circles around Stone's hagiography. Stone used Robin Lane Fox, a historian of Alexander, as a consultant for that movie. He should have used Peter Green, who wrote the most balanced and interesting Alexander biography out there. Fox's book is pretty lousy in comparison.

As far as your point about government spin versus Stone spin, you don't put a stop to misinformation by spreading different misinformation. Once you venture into that territory, you have lost the intellectual and moral high ground. There are plenty of avenues for the contrarian spirit, but just saying that the United States is always evil is just as empty and pathetic as saying that the United States is always good.

I honestly don't know whose historian is wrong.

So having real belief in something you might think is wrong is something one should not do? He just thinks the US government and the higher echelons of the corporate world are evil.

So do I. Not intentionally, just for the sake of being dicks, but through rampant corruption and incompetence.

You are hoping for a socialist revolution or you think more left politics would be a counterbalance?

[SuburbanFarmer]

I honestly don't know whose historian is wrong.

So having real belief in something you might think is wrong is something one should not do? He just thinks the US government and the higher echelons of the corporate world are evil.

So do I. Not intentionally, just for the sake of being dicks, but through rampant corruption and incompetence.

You are hoping for a socialist revolution or you think more left politics would be a counterbalance?

I really have no idea how to fix it, other than a complete wipe of the system. You can't expect congress to pass laws to stop themselves, and apparently, you can't expect Americans to give a fuck about congress.

[Hwen Hoshino]

So do I. Not intentionally, just for the sake of being dicks, but through rampant corruption and incompetence.

You are hoping for a socialist revolution or you think more left politics would be a counterbalance?

I really have no idea how to fix it, other than a complete wipe of the system. You can't expect congress to pass laws to stop themselves, and apparently, you can't expect Americans to give a fuck about congress.

The system meaning capitalism or corruption?