I thought at least a few people would be interested in this.
I came across it on one of my Beatle Comms some days ago, could have been a week by now. I didn't sign it then, but today I was talking to a friend who is really getting into Jared Leto and she was talking about the movie like it was going to be interesting and didn't think anything was wrong with them making the movie.
Normally, I'm not one to have a problem with a movie based on a killer. I've seen movies on Bundy, Dahmer, Gacy, etc. several times. BUt these guys weren't out to seek fame from their crimes. They were simply depraved. Chapman was/is depraved, yes. But he did it to become famous. And it's just wrong that someone would want to make a movie that, you know, is going to portray him in a sympathetic light. It's going to give the younger and future generations the wrong idea. And that's the sad thing.
I take Letos side on this one....He didn't take the role to glorify Chapman....he just wanted to do this role purely for the fact that "it shows the darker side of humanity". Thats the way he put it when he was on Carson. Most say the movie is in poor taste...that may be so, but lets give Jared Leto a little credit for making such a bold move in taking such a risque role....I mean there are and will be alot of people coming down on him for taking such a roll...But lets remember it's Chapman that's the Bad guy here not Jared....And who knows maybe the movie will show Chapman for the sicko he was/is.....it's hard to really say untill it's out....
Okay. He may not have taken the role to glorify Chapman, but that's what the movie is doing. And even if it DOES, by any chance, show the "real" Chapman, it's still playing right into his sick hands. He did it so that he would get famous. That's exactly what he said. And by making a movie about him, it's doing exactly that. Making him more famous for what he did.
Some people, you included I'm sure, since you seem to be taking that side, say that he got his fame when he did it. That may be true, but making this movie is furthering that fame. And that's what he wants.
And if they really just wanted to make it to "show the darker side of humanity" (You mean, there's NEVER been a movie that's done that before? *GASP* What GROUNDBREAKERS!!), they could have fictionalized it. Use the same basic premise but not the real people. Come on. That's a LAME A** excuse.
Personally, I hope it stays on the Indie circuit, places like Cannes and what-not. I hope they don't get a distributer. I can give the Indie film viewing public the credit to know what they're getting into if they decide to see it. I don't trust the kids who would go to see it if it made it mainstream. They'd only be going to see it because of Lohan and Leto. Only because they're trendy. Most of them aren't informed enough to get anything out of it. To them it'll just be about some guy (ZOMG! ThAt JaReD lEtO iZ tEh SeCkSeH!!!!1!!!eleven!!!1) who killed some long dead musician. It will have no meaning and no impact on them. And if this movie HAS to be made, shouldn't it have a point and an impact on the viewing public?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-05-16 04:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-16 04:49 pm (UTC)I came across it on one of my Beatle Comms some days ago, could have been a week by now. I didn't sign it then, but today I was talking to a friend who is really getting into Jared Leto and she was talking about the movie like it was going to be interesting and didn't think anything was wrong with them making the movie.
Normally, I'm not one to have a problem with a movie based on a killer. I've seen movies on Bundy, Dahmer, Gacy, etc. several times. BUt these guys weren't out to seek fame from their crimes. They were simply depraved. Chapman was/is depraved, yes. But he did it to become famous. And it's just wrong that someone would want to make a movie that, you know, is going to portray him in a sympathetic light. It's going to give the younger and future generations the wrong idea. And that's the sad thing.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-17 06:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-17 01:46 pm (UTC)Okay. He may not have taken the role to glorify Chapman, but that's what the movie is doing. And even if it DOES, by any chance, show the "real" Chapman, it's still playing right into his sick hands. He did it so that he would get famous. That's exactly what he said. And by making a movie about him, it's doing exactly that. Making him more famous for what he did.
Some people, you included I'm sure, since you seem to be taking that side, say that he got his fame when he did it. That may be true, but making this movie is furthering that fame. And that's what he wants.
And I will NOT give Leto credit for taking such a risqué role. He's playing into Chapman's hands, too. Just because he's an actor doesn't mean he should be given respect for playing into the game of a sicko.
And if they really just wanted to make it to "show the darker side of humanity" (You mean, there's NEVER been a movie that's done that before? *GASP* What GROUNDBREAKERS!!), they could have fictionalized it. Use the same basic premise but not the real people. Come on. That's a LAME A** excuse.
Personally, I hope it stays on the Indie circuit, places like Cannes and what-not. I hope they don't get a distributer. I can give the Indie film viewing public the credit to know what they're getting into if they decide to see it. I don't trust the kids who would go to see it if it made it mainstream. They'd only be going to see it because of Lohan and Leto. Only because they're trendy. Most of them aren't informed enough to get anything out of it. To them it'll just be about some guy (ZOMG! ThAt JaReD lEtO iZ tEh SeCkSeH!!!!1!!!eleven!!!1) who killed some long dead musician. It will have no meaning and no impact on them. And if this movie HAS to be made, shouldn't it have a point and an impact on the viewing public?