Talk:Oliver Stone

Permission to change

I would like to include Stone's recent comments on the holocaust . any objections? (i am not being bold because wikipedians over the last year or two have not taken kindly towards that idea) 69.114.177.238 (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

CAUTION: EXTREME BIAS

Whoever recently edited this article has a severe bias toward Oliver Stone. Someone should put in a "neutrality is disputed" box.

I was the last person to edit this article. I gave my reason for my additions directly below here in the 'Jack The Ripper' section, backed up by several press citations. If you have any problem with it, how about arguing your case in that section, rather than adding an unsubstantiated allegation, titled in capital letters, with nothing whatsoever so far to back it up - bingo99 20 October 2007, 04:24 (UTC)

Thank you bingo99, you're absolutely right. I thought the bias was obvious enough to be seen in reading the article, but now that you mention it--I wasn't wild about the sugar-coated way the article addressed "Alexander's" critical and commercial failure; the movie flat-out bombed. In addition, you definitely were not the last person to edit the content in question. The "Jack the Ripper" bit was lovely, really--so no need to take offense. If press citations are your forte, I suggest you finish up your masterwork on this still allegedly uncited article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.233.71 (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of the article, I just added the bit about the Jack The Ripper incident and its media response as impartially as I could. So I was, I think, a bit peeved by the title of this section. Don't worry, I'll get over it though. And press citations aren't my forte, their in Wikipedia's rules, that demand you back up what you've written. Seems straightforward and reasonable enough to me - bingo99, 13:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

I've taken out the part of the controversy section regarding the Jack the Ripper joke, because if you watch it on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUXp0GyohXc), you'll see that it actually got a HUGE laugh and did not go badly at all like the article says it did.

It never got a huge laugh, it got a huge shocked reaction, followed by a few embarrassed laughs. I'm putting it back in, slightly rephrased. The press reaction makes it noteworthy on its own. - bingo99 —Preceding comment was added at 18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a few press quotes.

"But there was a sour note at the ceremony when Hollywood film-maker Oliver Stone shocked the audience with a bad-taste reference to the Suffolk serial killer." BBC News - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6177591.stm

But his attempt at comedy was met with jeers and gasps of horror from the celebrity audience. Realising his joke had bombed, Stone sneered: "You're a lovely crowd." One audience member said: "If he was trying to be funny, then he failed. To make a joke like that when five young women have been murdered and the killer is still on the loose was in unbelievably bad taste." news.com.au - http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,20926329-7485,00.html

"Sometimes an audience gets misjudged by what they will respond to favorably, and director Oliver Stone recently this found out the hard way with a badly timed serial killer joke in all places: England." Monsters & Critics - http://people.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1233530.php/Oliver_Stones_Ripper_joke_backfires

"The only real moment of note came on ITV2 when a seemingly intoxicated Oliver Stone stumbled out and started burbling on about Jack the Ripper, which is hardly the cleverest thing to do given the current mood of the nation. He might have got away with such terrible taste and timing if his remarks were actually in any way funny but they weren’t and Liza Tarbuck very wisely chose not to bandy words with him when it became obvious that he was less than coherent." Digital Spy - http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/a40837/not-having-a-laugh.html

- bingo99 20:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

His love for Castro

In this article nothing states how mutch he loves Castro, I think it is pretty important. I mean if you are going to include his vietnam stuff include this.

We've got to rename these pages (perhaps /JFK, /Nixon, etc., or JFK the film, etc.), because the names of the movies overlap with subjects of encyclopedia articles...

Now using disambiguating parentheses, like "JFK (film)", see the page source for detail. The Anome

www.joematters.com

"Love" might not be the correct word, "admiration" perhaps. And even so, not because he admires Castro it means that he adores communism, on the contrary, many people in the world both admire and loath Fidel Castro as a person, not a communist leader.

The original editor here obviously doesn't understand the rules of Wikipedia. Oliver Stone did a series of interviews with Fidel Castro and made a documentary about him. He did not profess love for the man at any stage and no serious media source has stated that he 'loved Fidel Castro' while providing sources to back up their story. So in other words this is a matter of the original editors opinion ENTIRELY.--Senor Freebie (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Alleged comment in Rolling Stone or Playboy

This entry was just added to the "Persons of debated lesbian, gay, or bisexual orientation" in the List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people.

• Oliver Stone, hinted at past same-sex relationships in a 2004 interview with Rolling Stone magazine.

Any information about this interview or the "hints?" Cheers, -Willmcw 19:46, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

• That's totally unecessary in an article of this length. He made an extremely vague comment in an interview, with PLayboy, I think, about homosexual relationships (sex, really) and his one-time connection with that area in the 60's. That was all. Blintz 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I just added the bit about his novel, but as I look at this article, it seems a little disorganized. It also seems to lack depth for someone as notorious as Stone. I may take some time tonight to reorganize and expand on this thing... unless anyone has any objections. Dr Ellipso 20:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

just changed the bit about mushrooms - it's not stone talking on the dvd, it's a member of cast, I think his producer, talking about oliver pressing on the accelerator and the car swerving all over the road... but it's not stone saying it to the interviewer.

"Tufano" vandalism

Note that edits inserting supposed information about "Marc Tufano" are vandalism and should be reverted on sight. This has affected multiple articles (Robert De Niro, The Beatles, etc. etc.) -- Curps 18:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

criticism

I have heard him criticized for the Doors movie, which embellishes quite a bit despite looking like a biography. Should we add something about this?

• The Doors really doesn't embellish any more than any other biopic. Blintz 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, among Doors fans (real fans) this movie depicts Morrison nothing but on the lines of a drunkard poet (and a hipocrit one from time to time), if well that was one of the sides of Jim Morrison, it wasnt his best side or his predominant one, in fact, people who knew him have the image of a very sensitive man (some even remember him as a cry baby, but thats maybe to harsh), for example Jim never set a closet on fire, that was completely ficticious. The comercial for "come on baby light my fire" for example, well that never happened too and many other factual innacuracies like that. None of the remainning members of the Doors liked the movie, and Manzarek has speaked numerous times against it.

defamation

the discussion of drug use is completely irrelevent. the following quotation criticizing him is completely out of place. this is a disaster.

Disagree; he was arrested for doing drugs. This reflects in many ways his prior movies, and cannot be ingnored as a contributor to his outlook on life.

work

I actually think this is a pretty poor article for someone so famous and with such a history with such views. In the latest issue of Empire (UK film magazine) which is September, there was an extremely long interview spanning a few pages (their fourth interview of the man!) which covers all of this article and gives much more detail. Such as, he speaks about being on psychedilic drugs for nine hours straight and his experiencews. I think people with the time and skills should get this magazine, do a little research and make this a FA. I will try my best because I find him so fascinating. 80.47.229.199 23:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

picture

Why was the picture changed? I don't like the new one. Can someone come up with a better one? He looks like a deer in headlights in this one. Dr Ellipso 11:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The image was changed from an unfree publicity photograph to one released under a free license; if you want a better image, please contact Mr. Stone and arrange to take one yourself. Personally, I find the current image just fine. --SB | T 12:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Claim

Stone's films often deal with political matters and are sometimes critical of the US government. JFK, for instance, hypothesizes about many high-level government officials having a hand in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. In 1991, he showed the film to Congress on Capitol Hill, which helped lead to passage of the Assassination Materials Disclosure Act of 1992

I have heard this many times but does the claim have a source??

I recall him addressing some official gathering in Washington where he talked of conspiracies such as 'Iran-Contra' etc. Mr Stone is a passionate and patriotic American, but can we take his 'JFK' seriously?. Over and over in the Movie he shows the 'Head Snap' shot from the Z film. What you are seeing is a bullet exiting JFKs head and muscle reflexes throwing the head back. Not according to Mr Stones Movie. The bullet somehow (only God knows how?) explodes as it enters the head (turning Newtons physics upside down and driving material 'behind' it) then kicks the Presidents head back while throwing other materials in the opposite direction. No where on Gods Earth (outside JFK) does matter behave like that.Johnwrd (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wall Street?

Am I misinformed or didn't he direct the movie Wall Street? There is no mention of this in the posting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.211.217.253 (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Stone and FARC

I personally disagree with the title given to the section about FARC. Stone did not visit FARC. He was merely there to shoot the hostage liberation. However, I do agree that by saying FARC is 'heroic' and justifying the hostage-taking, Stone is supporting FARC, at least ideologically. For this reason, I think we should revert the changes some of you made, but I would like to hear your opinions. My proposal is: "Alleged support to FARC", which I don't like but at least tries to compromise. Jedalonso (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I could call US soldiers who served during the troubles in Fallujah heroic but that doesn't mean I agree with the US governments ideology. I could call Soviet Red Army soldiers heroic during their defence of Stalingrad but that doesn't mean I agree with their ideology either. If I stated that I was a believer in pre-emptive strikes / capitalism or socialism I would be agreeing with ideology but that has nothing to do with heroism.--Senor Freebie (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Insufficient info in Biography

The bio read is confusing. It talks about his time in the Army and then immediately speaks of his making three Vietnam themed films, completely circumventing how he came to learn to make movies and what set him in that direction in the first place. I suggest a remedy, as it's a wide open hole that deserves elaboration. --CmdrClow (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bass/Keyboardist (Ray) & last edit by User:216.197.188.208

Ka'Jong was under the impression that The Doors lacked a bassist, so Ray Manzarek usually played the bass parts on a Fender Rhodes piano Bass. Ka'Jong knows Ray was known predominately as the keyboardist for The Doors and that his signature sound is that of the Vox Continental organ, an instrument used by many other psychedelic rock bands of the era. He later used a Gibson G-101 Kalamazoo (which looks like a Farfisa) because the Italian Continental keys "sticked" and remained "down" without pushing it. Ka'Jong (Ka'Talk) 15:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Platoon/Pinkville

Needless to say after seeing "Platoon" I now greatly look forward to seeing "Pinkville".

Since I was Infantry in Nam from 1967 thru 1969 during the same time Oliver was there then I can attest to the accuracy of Stone's war films. "Platoon" was so realistic that it made me realize for the first time that I had suppressed the horrors of war so well, (as trained), and for so long that I couldn't even hardly function anymore. For the first time since Nam I wept and waited for hours in the movie theater parking lot before I could even drive home. That's how real Oliver's films are. They will tear at and expose the areas in your warped Psyche until healing begins. Who else can use films and books to such an extent to help others? None that I know of except for Kimberly Peirce who produced "Stop Loss" and Col. Chaplain Jerry Autry who wrote "Gun-Totin Chaplain" and whom I had the privilege to serve with in Nam. He even wrote of my head gun shot wound during the Tet Offensive and the horrors of seeing war torn young soldiers dying every day. True Heroes.

Your Nam buddies and I wish you the greatest success with "Pinkville" and stand ready to assist you in getting this next great war film off the ground. Not that you would ever need us to do it but just to let you know that we are still willing in spirit, just as I freely volunteered to serve in combat and even waived my only child status. We made it, Welcome Home !!!GPageIII (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

MIA 25th ID

Mr. Stone,,if u have any feeling for MIA listed with 25th ID 1968..PLEASE contact me immediately or anyone in this audience who has contact with Mr. Stone, please see that he gets this article. Contact me ASAP..I have info on an MIA..he is deceased..but am needing guidance to promote the issue before I go ahead with same. Have video evidence taken on 25 April, 1968 near the District of Trang Bang..This is serious..PLEASE no phonies..This is very important. Thanks and PLEASE..if anyone can get this to Mr Stone he will see the value .I was also in 25th ID a grunt, 1968.

Bill

Contact billybee68@yahoo.com

This is NO JOKE!!! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.134.150 (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

directing: composer

have been following producers, concerning nbk, and the likes of journalism, and common interests somewhere in the area of doors & platoon. stonehenge seems to capture these compelling, as far as a seemingly voice in common theatric and journalistic persuasions, as if dancing olympia, sometimes. is that bias? yoda christine75.251.72.244 (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC-EP: Outdated info

The FARC-EP related article contains outdated information from 2003. Colombian officials say the FARC-EP has some 12000 active fighters, not 17500 as stated in this article. The amount of money from cocaine generated by the FARC is also based on a 2003 estimate found in the same outdated source. Furthermore, the section also contains personal opinions and "wild" conclusions drawn entirely from the source from 2003.

What Is Ignored by Stone (and His Fellow Members of the "Radical Chic") in the Director's Documentaries

I added the following to the Controversy section: The Castro dosumentaries 'were panned by conservatives, as was Stone's more recent South of the Border about Castro ally and Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez. Investor's Business Daily weighed in with the opinion that "Hugo's a movie star now, with Stone creating a propaganda film in his honor, just as Leni Riefenstahl did for Adolf Hitler." Specifically, the editorial criticizes the film for, say, not paying "attention to those Middle Eastern and Colombian terrorists with Venezuelan passports" and berates Venice's film crowds for ignoring Chavez's "forging deadly links with regimes as brutal as his own — or worse." The IBD concludes with a condemnation, referring to Tom Wolfe's "radical chic", of "the self-destructive propensity of the privileged elites to sidle up to predators trying to kill them".' (Chavez's Deadly Star Turn In Venice by Investor's Business Daily) Asteriks (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And I've removed it. You must have a reliable source; an editorial is a source for only what the commenter thinks, and the IBD is hopeless as a source for anything not financial - and I wouldn't even use it for something financial unless I had 2 or 3 other sources to back it up. This is, let me remind you, the paper which did not know Stephen Hawking was a Brit. Given that, I wouldn't use them as a source that water is wet. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it from Talk:South of the Border (2009 film) for much the same reason. It's not a review in so much as the the author admits only to watching the trailer. Dynablaster (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lloyd Kaufman? Be Serious.

I'm removing this: "Stone and known independent filmmaker Lloyd Kaufman were childhood friends, and have since collaborated on a number of projects."

It's unsourced, and a search on imdb for joint credits comes up empty. Lloyd Kaufman is a self-promoter likely to make a claim like this if he thought it would sell one extra copy of Toxic Avenger. Bustter (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

With further research: Stone appeared in a bit role in an early Kauffman film, and was credited as coproducer of Sugar Cookies, cowritten by Kauffman, but according to this source

http://www.avclub.com/articles/lloyd-kaufman,14238/

he now disowns that work.

So far as I can tell, Kauffman is the only source for the "childhood friendship" allegation Bustter (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Prophet

Mr. Stone seems to be modern media mogul in films that really have prophesied the future, past, and present. In the film about The Doors, there were controversies, and must be difficult to find places within the media, and virtual reality that persons commonly could relate to, and apply themselves from where they are. I'm doing time for Morrison & Galileo75.250.12.16 (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oliver Stone says Hitler an 'easy scapegoat'

This Israeli site: [Ynetnews] tells that Oliver Stone says Hitler an 'easy scapegoat'.Agre22 (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

the most notable yet most insignificant director of all time?

while I realize O Stone is a very notable film directory, is there anyone who is less significant? His dishonest portraits of history give his films a shelf life of about 6 months. look at the great directors and film makers of the last 30 years and you can't help but notice Oliver Stone is that smushed up residue on the bottom of the barrel. Popular, yes, significant, no. One day we'll all be saying "Oliver who?" I think this fact should go in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, since this "fact" is your personal opinion, I don't see that happening. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Current Marriage

In the article we have: He is currently married to Sun-jung Jung. Does anyone have a source for this? Since this is a living person bio, I'm for removing the sentence if we don't have a source. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

sourced it. GaussianCopula (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Stone is not any better than the people he criticizes

Oliver Stone talks crap about Latin American middle class and such and so on. Maybe he should worry more about problems closer to his own home. Americans aren't exactly the most honest of people either, you know. And its not like Oliver Stone lives on minimum wage either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.26.242.190 (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam Vet?

His veteran status is entirely unsourced and perhaps we have only Mr. Stone's word for it that he's a war hero. Given the popularity of his films it seems important to have this nailed down. If sourcing is not provided within a week I will remove the statements on his military life.Dynasteria (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC) This article is so nauseatingly self-congratulatory that I removed the Vietnam statements. I suggest that whoever is the proponent of Stone's biography provide the sources ... other than some filmic website. Dynasteria (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it says in the lead he was an infantryman, and in Platoon it states it was based on his combat experiences, yet in the prose it just says he was a teacher and a wiper on some Merchant Marine ship. Major inaccuracy? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Times interview

It's difficult to edit the section on the Times interview without a subscription - at the moment, it appears that the article has been *very* selectively quoted from. In the interests of NPOV, can someone add some context? Pexise (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There are some quotes here: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Should have looked here, first, but obviously this information has got to be in the reference, as well as actually telling us what the name of article is, date, etc. Very sloppy work for a BLP which those responsible should correct. And context is important. And mainstream sources. Since partisan ones may blow an incident up, we must make sure that we don't allow it to become WP:UNDUE on wikipedia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

His supposed "Anti-semitic" remarks

His remarks were not anti-semitic. Jews and their supporters just don't agree with what he said and are pulling out the anti-semitic card like they always do.

The heading Anti-semitic Remarks MUST be renamed to something like "Controversal remarks" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iosephus sanctus (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

According to prominent Jewish rights groups, Oliver Stone's comments were antisemitism and consistent with the classic Jewish conspiracy canards. "Controversial remarks" almost sounds like a euphemism. I changed it to "allegations" of antisemitism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally agreed, Wikifan12345. Now it seems adequate. I just added a space before the parenthesis. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversial remarks is a better title for the section since it also contains quotes and not only "Allegations of antisemitism" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is already a subsection of a section named "Controversy" - so calling it "controversial statements" doesn't really add much. The previous name was more descriptive and informational. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Sanctus; the remarks do not prima facie demonstrate anti-semetism (regardless of what you or I may think; e.g., Stone may claim he was commenting on the Holocaust's coverage vs. that of other genocides), and it is driving an opinion if we say they do. They do, however, unquestionably detail the Holocaust, and it's appropriate to include the Jewish rights groups' responses and subsequent allegations. I'm going to be bold and change the title to Holocaust remarks, and leave out the year (what does the year help?). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, upon further review, the remarks were unquestionably anti-Jewish in character, and thus by very definition anti-semetic. I've reverted the name change. [[User:Magog the

Ogre|Magog the Ogre]] (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is not our place to judge whether what he said was anti-semetism, that is for the reader to decide. Of course, its a very strong issue and people become incensed, rightly sometimes. My other point however, is that the section is given undue weight. It is a large section discussing in quite alot of detail a sentences worth of remarks from Stone. It is a small part of his career and discusses a relatively small incident in his life. I think the section needs cutting down. There is no need for the weighty analysis quoted from various groups. We just need the remarks themselves and the analysis of "[The following groups} criticised Stone for what they claimed were anti-semetic remarks." Much more fair, and not giving anything undue weight. ValenShephard (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikilink

Stone's reference to "The Jewish domination of the media" wikilinks to the article about the 'Jewish lobby'.

The thing is that this isn't quite true. To make a reference to Jewish lobbies in the U.S., which exist alongside the Irish lobby, Indian lobby, etc., is totally different then saying that Jews control the media. I would prefer to take all links out of Stone's comments and let him speak for himself.173.57.61.233 (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Jewish domination of the media" could be wikilinked to Jewish domination but I figured Jewish lobby is less controversial. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the commentary in the controversial remarks section needs a much greater position of accuracy, because theallegation that essentailly a person is racist, ie by posting the aforementioned section that he said a Jewish lobby exists, implicates the acial idea of Judaism. Isn't it fair to assume good faith for the interview in that he articulating the idea that a wider religious lobby exists in the U.S? This actually reeks of bias, because it implies that any and all criticisms of a faith aren't above board. I would warn people about ad hominem attacks in future.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam Experience & Non-Mainstream Views

I think his Vietnam experience should be elaborated on, since it was formative. A list of his decorations would be helpful, since they relate to actual incidents. What rank did he make? What weapons did he use? What was his MOS (military specialty)? This should be a large section unto itself. As for his iconoclastic views, how much of these were a result of meditation and how much owing to drugs? Since most people just "toady" along with the pop fad of the moment, Stone's iconoclastic views are always refreshing. The history that we're taught in school is such a big lie. When a prestigious filmmaker like Stone has non-mainstream views and he gets lambasted, though, what chance do the rest of us have? The Wright Bros., for instance, didn't build and fly the first powered airplane, about a dozen other guys did it before them; Chuck Yeager was not the first to break the sound barrier, George Welch did it first; Edison did not invent the first light bulb, lots of other men did it before him; Pocahontas did not save John Smith's life, Smith made the story up; Gutenberg did not invent movable type, a Dutchman named Janzoon Koster did it, etc., etc. 64.169.154.183 (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)