An Unbiased Ending, or Pure Propaganda? Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Zodiackiller.com Message Board » Zodiac Movies » David Fincher's "Zodiac" » An Unbiased Ending, or Pure Propaganda? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 7:59 pm:   

Considering that open-ended finishes aren't too popular with American audiences, let's say the film concludes that Arthur Leigh Allen was definitely the Zodiac. What obstacles must the filmakers overcome to make a reasonably logical case to support that conclusion? Especially considering filmgoers are only a click or two away from finding unbiased case info.

1) Allen's DNA doesn't match the Zodiac's DNA

2) Allen's handwriting doesn't match the Zodiac's handwriting

3) Allen's fingerprints don't match the Zodiac's fingerprints

4) Allen's palmprints don't match the Zodiac's palmprints

5) The writer's palmprint on the Exorcist letter -- definitely made by the author, Zodiac -- doesn't match Allen's palmprint
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Johno
Username: Johno

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 8:19 pm:   

All of the above and 6) Allen denied being the Zodiac to his death.
I don't see a definitive ending of a film about a subject that has no definitive ending. It can only be open-ended with more than one possibilities other than it was Allen and he got away with it.
Once it's made and out, no matter how popular it is I can't see them ever making a sequel to it unless new evidence comes up that leads to who Zodiac was.
They might end it leaving the audience to question if Allen was Zodiac with a wink, wink.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 10:28 pm:   

That's easy... Yellow Book already dealt with some of these issues:

1) Someone else licked the stamps/envelopes, such as neighborhood kids (Allen was a convicted pedophile, after all), and he got off watching it as well as ensuring his saliva wasn't on anything (while DNA typing didn't exist then, blood typing via saliva did, if I am not mistaken).

2) Allen changed his handwriting via the projector theory.

3) Allen used the severed fingers of some victim we don't know about.

4) To add to the severed finger theory, maybe Allen actually cut off the victim's entire hand and managed to removed the skin, which he used as a glove in order to leave fake palm prints.

5) The palmprint must've come from elsewhere, perhaps the editor or someone else who sloppily read the letter, or perhaps it came from one of Allen's friends or relatives who happened to place his palm on the paper, and Allen later used it to write a Z note (not necessarily because of the palm print, but just because the paper was handy). If not, see #4 above.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Davidmm
Username: Davidmm

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 9:28 am:   

In the vast and mushy realm of Movie Reality, I think the film could easily satisfy both viewpoints, depending on how it's handled and written.

"Se7en" didn't show us the killer for most of the movie, and even then, we weren't aware of his plan until the end. It could have been a repeditive series of watching Kevin Spacy commit judgemental murders, but it managed to keep us guessing. Same with "Panic Room." It could have been two hours of Jodie Foster locked in a room with someone banging on the door, but Fincher kept that story fairly lively and surprising.

I know that some people have seen rough cuts of the movie and test screenings. I've not heard if you sit there and watch ALA kill people, or if the murders are commited by a shadowy mysterious Zodiac.

Even in RG's "world" of Zodiac, ALA drops dead before any proof is found, so it's possible that the movie will end with the ambiguious "solution." After all, how many Jack The Ripper movies have ended with his escape?

More concerning to me is the repeated delays in the release date. That almost-always guarantees a mess of a movie. The times that postponed movies turn out great are extremely rare. Titanic springs to mind, as it was delayed from Summer to Christmas for effects and editing, and more recently, the Steve Martin "Pink Panther" remake was delayed and delayed, yet when it came out it did extremely well. (No comment on "quality.")
Of course, there's also the famous reshoot and overhaul that "Fatal Attraction" recieved before becoming a smash hit.
The number of delayed flops are too numerous to mention.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 1:57 pm:   

I have a feeling the movie people might have stumbled upon info that they think is a smoking gun, not knowing it has already been debunked/disproven.

I don't care how many researchers are on the staff, there's too much info out there to be able to properly absorb it in the time the movie has been in the works.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Davidmm
Username: Davidmm

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 2:26 pm:   

I did hear that they "uncovered major new info while researching and are holding onto it until the movie's release."
But, I'm taking that with a grain of Zalt.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 2:33 pm:   

Betcha that "major new info" won't be new to us. Oh well, they aren't making this film to satisfy us hardcore followers.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Davidmm
Username: Davidmm

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 2:54 pm:   

It would be fun to start a poll of, "What new(old) factoid are they going to trot out as their major discovery?"

Of course, they're not making any noise about it at the moment. I can't wait until they do!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 3:32 pm:   

Of course, it's a movie "based on true events," and it's purpose is to make the studio lots and lots and lots of $$$. It's not a documentary, but I do find it mildly amusing when the writer(s), producers et. al. spend lots of time on research and then end up doing whatever the hell they want, never mind that it's at variance with the facts (or even contradicts the facts) or is even simply based on two novels with lots of made up stories that they include as if they actually happened.

Even though it's not made at all for Zodiologists but rather for the fan base of all the stars in the movie, I have no doubt it'll be enjoyable (just not historically accurate).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Johno
Username: Johno

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 4:08 pm:   

Since it's described as major new "information" not evidence and since they have a Don Cheney role in the film it probably has to do with something that Allen had told Cheney that Cheney had never told anyone about.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 5:20 pm:   

I wonder if they alerted the various jurisdictions in which Z crimes occurred about this "major new information"? I'd be willing to be they didn't or, if they did, it was somehow irrelevant (well, did SFPD officially reopen the case?), in which case, it's probably BS.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 5:44 pm:   

Well, if they're going to promote the Allen-was-Zodiac theory, the news would have to pertain to him. Maybe they found an absence slip from Nov. 1, 1966? Or they found someone who claims to have licked Allen's envelopes?

I really feel that it'll be way old "news."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 5:50 pm:   

I wouldn't be surprised. Not enough to get us to look up from munching on popcorn, lol...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hawk
Username: Hawk

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 1:05 am:   

There's only one way I can see the writers can make Allen appear as the guilty party, and that is to give him a silent partner. This person wrote the letters and killed Stine. That way they can explain everything away.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 12:49 pm:   

The infamous two-perp theory! If they're going to do that, why not just do Hunter and the Team Zodiac theory (which includes Paul Petri, Larry Kane, Bruce Davis and whoever else Harry Martin felt like throwing into the mix)??? LOL
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Oklahoma_mike
Username: Oklahoma_mike

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 8:16 pm:   

I also doubt there will be any 'new' information to serious students of the case, just something that most of the movie-going population does not know, which would encompass most of the case, as most people know nothing of the details.
Let us remember that many Zodiologists still favor ALA as the best suspect, including many on this board (myself NOT among them). So, if the movie concludes by stating ALA was Zodiac, many will still be satisfied. But some of those people will be interested and begin researching the true facts, just as many of us did after reading the first book.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kevin
Username: Kevin

Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 8:37 am:   

Who knows, maybe the sensationalism of this move will bring something out. At this stage of the game, it's about the last card to be played. That and DNA.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bargle
Username: Bargle

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 4:18 pm:   

Yea, it would be great if somebody realized the significance of that old shirt tail that creepy Uncle Bob kept or some such.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Temusa
Username: Temusa

Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 5:52 pm:   

In the end, regardless of whatever new evdience or stuff the production claims to have, remember one thing....David Fincher will do what he wants, it's his film, his take. The production made that very clear when it started, and I'm sure it's how it will turn out in the end, regardless if any of us are happy with it's facts or not.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Davidmm
Username: Davidmm

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 4:01 pm:   

Although the media does shape the public's perceptions, there are a host of horribly inaccurate movies that don't overshadow the reality.

"The Black Dahlia" is a simular one that springs to mind. It also boasted, "Inspired by true events" and was made by a respected director, screenwriter, and included an all star cast. It was a freaking mess. Not only did it not incorporate common mythos and suspects, but the
'solution" was absolutely unbelievable in every sense of the word. They mystery lives on.

"Hollywoodland" is another recent big screen treatment that bore little resemblance to the facts of a famous case.

Dirty Harry has already tread on "Zodiac" ground.

How many Jack The Ripper movies have been made, even ones that boasted to be a real revelation of the "final solution?"

Oliver Stone's "JFK." Need I say more?

Movies regularly botch great books, musicals, biographies, and events.

Just as you'll find few people who honestly believe "Poccahontas" had a talking tree for a grandmonther, or that an old lady threw the priceless Jewel of the Ocean into the waves, I think that the movie "Zodiac" won't indoctrinate the public's mind too much, regardless of how much it postures.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 7:43 pm:   

Stone's JFK was about as factual as you can get. The truth hurts.

Dirty Harry did tread on Zodiac ground, in a whimsical, romantic way. No one ever said it was the truth. It sure was an audience grabber though, wasn't it?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Davidmm
Username: Davidmm

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 8:48 am:   

My sarcasm-o-meter is still a little cold this morning, so I might be missing it, but, you're kidding about "JFK," right? Even Oliver Stone admitted that he made up a ton of it, including the Kevin Bacon informant character and all his "facts."

Sure, Dirty Harry was a crowd pleaser, and so was "Pearl Harbor," and "The Sound of Music," but people still didn't completely confuse them with real life. Most people understood the "Based on True Events" tag, as I think they will with Fincher's "Zodiac."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 10:37 am:   

I don't even remember the Bacon character, to tell you the truth. What I do remember, is the movie bringing to public attention certain inaccuracies that have been steamrolled on us since 1963. The Lone Gunman--The Magic Bullet--the roles played by Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and anti-Castro elements of the CIA and FBI--the notion of Jack Ruby as an upstanding night club owner--Hoover pronouncing Oswald guilty within the hour--no shots from the Grassy Knoll--the destruction of evidence by federal authorities--the plan to escalate Viet Nam against JFK's wishes--the switch of positions of vehicles in the motorcade--the change in the motorcade route itself--and on and on---
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Davidmm
Username: Davidmm

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 11:43 am:   

True, those elements are important for the public's understanding of JFK's assisination, but they were mixed in the movie with a massive dose of, not just poetic license, but complete fiction.

DaVinci Code is another that springs to mind.

If people are (rightly) upset with Graysmith and/or the movie "Zodiac," I'm just saying that it's part of an on-going pattern of histortainment. Hopefully, like those movies, "Zodiac's" success will lead to new media being produced which will clairify the facts to the public.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sanfranguns
Username: Sanfranguns

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 11:54 am:   

I've mentioned in another post that if you want a detailed fact by fact film, you should see if there is a documentary out that you can rent. This is a fictional movie based on an actual event and you're really missing the point if you can't get past the artistic choices of the filmmaker. This film wasn't made for us (the Z case buffs) - its made for a wider audience.

I also mentioned that anyone seeing this film who might develop additional interest in the case have access to this site and other resources for the facts. Movie-goers are smart enough to make that transition.

Let's just have some perspective and not set ourselves up for some huge disappointment. This film is really an opportunity for people to learn more about the case and it can have tremendous power without necessarily having every fact correct.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 12:09 pm:   

Sanfranguns, there's a huge difference between mystery buffs and those who just want to read about murder.

If Fincher tells the world the case is solved, which type do you think will be most likely to pursue other resources upon exiting the theater?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sanfranguns
Username: Sanfranguns

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 12:32 pm:   

There's a difference - huge is arguable. But I think they could both potentially be interested in learning more about the story.

And I'm not talking about a "solved" ending necessarily - I get your point on that Tom. I was using that as an example in the other post to make a bigger point - but I see what you're saying about it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nachtsider
Username: Nachtsider

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 9:34 pm:   

Here's an interesting tidbit of information - the information on Fincher's movie featured in Graysmith's 'updated version' of Zodiac mentions that a different actor plays the killer in each murder scene. Nothing is said on whether John Caroll Lynch, who plays Arthur Leigh Allen, is among these men - to me, this seems tantamount to a statement by Fincher and his crew that their movie does not equate Allen and Zodiac, but gives the multiple-perp/'Zodiac Gang' theory a nod.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 10:50 pm:   

I think they're trying to get across the idea that the eyewitness descriptions are not the same in each crime... which is really silly, since there were none at LHR, Mageau admitted his recollections were "mostly impressional" since he was suffering from critical wounds when he saw Z's profile, Hartnell saw Z only with his hood on while Cecelia, who saw his face, slipped into a coma and died. The only good eyewitnesses, all things considered, are the Stine witnesses. Apparently, Fincher and his cronies never bothered to think this simple thing through, and it's even more amazing considering this production is what, $85,000,000??? Seems agenda is more important than facts, truth, historical accuracy and plain old common sense...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 12:48 am:   

This story of mine may or may not be germane to what you're saying, Ed, but once, when I was a professional typesetter, I was contracted to typeset an annual report for a local utility company. The first draft came out looking pretty damned good. I used a typeface called ITC Galliard (you may have heard of it), and I used ITC Galliard Ultra (an extrabold version of the Roman font) for contrast in the headings. Now, when the people who designed Galliard created the Ultra version, they needed to make some minor changes in the design to accommodate the fact that the type was going to end up as printer's ink on paper. One of those changes was to use a single line through the dollar sign, as opposed to the double line they used in the Roman font. The reason for this was apparent--in the printing process, two lines would have bled together and created a huge blob.

Now, when the first proofs were presented to the company, they went all the way up to the board of directors, where some very observant and perspicacious jackass pointed out the "inconsistency" between the dollar signs in the body text and the bolded heads. Believe it or not, they held three or four corporate board meetings to discuss whether this was acceptable. They first asked me whether the extra line in the Roman dollar signs could be removed, which of course it couldn't. Finally they decided on a complete change of typeface, which request I duly accommodated, at great extra expense to them, of course.

That's the way corporate mentality works, and in an $85,000,000 production you're going to get lots of it.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Post as "Anonymous"
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration