JFK - inappropriate title for this Oliver Stone movie?
 

In 1991, Oliver Stone directed a movie called JFK, and if you knew nothing about this movie, wouldn't you think it was a story about John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States?

But its not about John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the President. Its about John Fitzgerald Kennedy's assassination, all posthumous to the President.

Shouldn't JFK have been named something else? Like - JFK's Assassination?

I agree. Independence Day have been called "That Time Aliens Attacked and The President Pitched In"

I think it's a good point to make-- biopics in general seem to come with dumb, unethical names

Pearl Harbor should have been called "Some stuff before the surprise attack and then a bunch of stuff after it too"

When I purchased Gandhi from Amazon.com, I was shocked to find that it was actually a movie about Gandhi, and not the man himself. It should have been titled "A Movie About Gandhi" to clear up confusion.

That's nothing. Stone's Nixon has nothing to do with the reindeer. :mad:

The movie is mostly based on Jim Garrison's book called On the Trail of the Assassins, which would've been a much better title for the movie.

Another good title for JFK would have been The Lord of the Rings because its pure fantasy.

um....it's Blitzen or Vixen.

Welcome to the boards. FYI, Groucho is a sarcasti-holic.

from a certain point of view

If you still believe anything having to do with a second or third shooter, I suggest watching any of the innumerable JFK documentaries that usually pop up around November. The one on the Discovery Channel (I think) had the best scientific explanation I've ever seen; each fact was gone over carefully and shown to have been absolutely possible to have been done by Oswald alone. I can't speak to the "conspiracy" aspect of it, but the shooting itself was wrapped up nicely.

I saw this movie about a bus that had to SPEED around a city, keeping its SPEED over fifty, and if its SPEED dropped, it would explode! I think it was called "The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down."

yeah, but 50 mph isn't speeding. If it were up to me I would have called it Going Slightly Below the Speed Limit :D

This is the dumbest thread ever. There is no biopic about John F. Kennedy so the title still fits, until there is, it's fine. It's like asking why aren't the Florida Marlins called the Miami Marlins. Because at the time no other major league baseball team existed in Florida.

I've watched numerous documentaries on the JFK assassination I've never seen one that didn't support multiple shooters. It's not like Oliver Stone made this stuff up.

technically, the title Jurassic Park is misleading, It should've been called Cretaceous Park

Sure it's possible that Oswald acted alone, but logic dictates he didn't.
There is enough evidence to suggest that it was indeed a conspiracy. Who the conspirators were, of course, leads to endless conjecture.

Fact or fiction, JFK is an incredible piece of filmmaking. IMHO Stone's best work.

I'm also in agreement that this thread is pretty ridiculous.

This is the dumbest thread ever, thanks to replies its getting. JFK is a bad title because it insinuates that his life is about being publicly assassinated. It doesn't have anything to do with a title already being in use or not.

I was just talking about Oswald being the only shooter, which I why I said I couldn't really comment on the conspiracy element of it. Stone's film is indeed incredible and incredibly persuasive, and it nearly changes my mind about the event every time I watch it.

Which probably means you've seen the ones on the History Channel which I like to call the Mythtery Channel.

The Discovery Channel, Court TV and ABC have all had excellent documentaries in recent years supporting the "Oswald did it alone" theory.

I strongly disagree. The evidence for a conspiracy falls apart upon examination.

On that I agree. I think as cinema the film is a masterpiece and I love it even though as history I think it is a steaming pile of bullshit.

That's like calling a team the California Angels, even though there are other California teams. Then changing it to Anahiem. And then changing it to Los Angeles Angels, even though Los Angeles means "The Angels". So the team is The Angels Angels? What does that even mean? That's even worse than the Buffalo Bison

I think the bigger question is why they're the Marlins when the plural of Marlin is Marlin.

uhh... nevermind.