|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:24 pm
According to the trusty TIME magazine I recieved Tuesday, they are making a movie about Mark Chapman and his murder of our dear John. It's called "Number 27" or something close to that. Lindsey Lohan is in it, and they're FILMING it AT the Dakota building, much to Yoko's disgust. She finds the idea of a movie about it horrific, and when she tried to forbid them from filming the home she and John lived in (where she still lives) she failed because the city granted them permission!
I'm with Yoko. I'm disGUSTED! It's so UTTERLY WRONG~!! It's making a nightmare come to life AGAIN! gonk scream crying
DO TELL ME I'M BAD-TRIPPING!!!!! crying
PLEASE DO NOT GO TO SEE THIS MOVIE~!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 11:21 pm
What..the..f---..
Why would anyone want to make a movie about that!? gonk
AND why the hell is Lohan in it? crying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:59 am
The movie's called Chapter 27 after the missing chapter of Catcher in the Rye. dirty old sod What..the..f---.. Why would anyone want to make a movie about that!? gonk AND why the hell is Lohan in it? crying No idea. I think the whole thing is in poor taste (to focus on the killer). Lohan's probably in it to attract the young people and because she's probably trying to be taken more seriously and break away from her 'teeny-bopper movie' thing she's got going.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 4:36 pm
eek
That just isn't good. If you're going to make a movie on someone, make it on their life, not their death. The movie probably isn't going to be accurate at all, and might even show John is a bad light, which isn't good. And what is with using The Dakota for the filming?!? They could go anywhere else, instead of intruding into someone elses home!
And I agree, why exactly is Lohan in it? What part would she play? Oh well. I'll probably see it anyway, just so I can see exactly what it's like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:37 pm
That's simply awful. Lindsay Lohan? I swear, I miss the days before it was trendy to like the Beatles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:00 pm
dirty old sod What..the..f---.. Why would anyone want to make a movie about that!? gonk AND why the hell is Lohan in it? crying God. My sentiments exactly... confused xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:42 am
You know, I'm going to risk losing the respect of everyone in this guild and say I actually like the idea. Maybe I'm just morbid, but I've been wanting to know more about this taboo subject, and it doesn't bother me in the least that they're making a movie about it. I plan on seeing it.
I don't really see what the big deal is. How is this any different from making a movie about Pearl Harbor or 9/11? It's a single event that changed history and touched people all over the world. I don't see it as sick; rather, I see it as a commemorative effort, something to capture the tragedy of John Lennon's death and the staggering effect it had on those who were there. I wasn't alive at the time, and I'd like to see for myself what it was like. I'm sure this sounds wrong to some of you, but it's just how I feel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 6:48 am
I've heard that this movie is going to be all about Chapman and how he is a tortured soul and such. Lohan is supposed to be a beatles fan that he asks out or something. Jared Leto is playing Chapman. I'm kind of bothered by this, but I might see it anyway. I went to see Karla last weekend and that was highly controversial in this part of Ontario seeing how the rapes/murders happened not 20 minutes from here. Some things I'm just curious about. But that movie (like this one) made Karla out to be a victim. - omh i just saw a picture of jared leto as chapman, now that's sick.http://tinypic.com/ke801w.jpg - gross. i like Jared Leto.
okay i'm done now.
<3 Kimmeh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:27 pm
Little Rachael You know, I'm going to risk losing the respect of everyone in this guild and say I actually like the idea. Maybe I'm just morbid, but I've been wanting to know more about this taboo subject, and it doesn't bother me in the least that they're making a movie about it. I plan on seeing it. I don't really see what the big deal is. How is this any different from making a movie about Pearl Harbor or 9/11? It's a single event that changed history and touched people all over the world. I don't see it as sick; rather, I see it as a commemorative effort, something to capture the tragedy of John Lennon's death and the staggering effect it had on those who were there. I wasn't alive at the time, and I'd like to see for myself what it was like. I'm sure this sounds wrong to some of you, but it's just how I feel. John Lennon was the definition of humanity. Chapman destroyed him for several reasons, all of which were disgusting. One of them was to "steal Lennon's fame", and the movie is doing nothing but centering itself on the maniac. Having a movie made about you is fame enough, ya? People who love John don't need to see the movie. People who hate him will walk away with sick satisfaction. If you really DO need to see it, sneak in. Do not pay for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
Little Rachael You know, I'm going to risk losing the respect of everyone in this guild and say I actually like the idea. Maybe I'm just morbid, but I've been wanting to know more about this taboo subject, and it doesn't bother me in the least that they're making a movie about it. I plan on seeing it. I don't really see what the big deal is. How is this any different from making a movie about Pearl Harbor or 9/11? It's a single event that changed history and touched people all over the world. I don't see it as sick; rather, I see it as a commemorative effort, something to capture the tragedy of John Lennon's death and the staggering effect it had on those who were there. I wasn't alive at the time, and I'd like to see for myself what it was like. I'm sure this sounds wrong to some of you, but it's just how I feel. And seeing what it was like.......oh god, my eyes are brimming again. There is no joy that this movie will spread, no peace-love-harmony of any sort. Those who hate Lennon will be smug, those who love him horrified. Blood and gore will not make John's death any more real or sick. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were horrible events, but they were not centered around one person. Chapman ASKED to be seen, and we're putting him in the limelight! John doesn't need a movie about his death to live on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:41 pm
Starrys eek That just isn't good. If you're going to make a movie on someone, make it on their life, not their death. The movie probably isn't going to be accurate at all, and might even show John is a bad light, which isn't good. And what is with using The Dakota for the filming?!? They could go anywhere else, instead of intruding into someone elses home! And I agree, why exactly is Lohan in it? What part would she play? Oh well. I'll probably see it anyway, just so I can see exactly what it's like. Exactly! I would rant, but IU can hardly see the screen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:52 am
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I'm with Yoko, you shouldn't publicize a murderer, especially not when Yoko has asked time and time again for him to be not immortalized by continued writing.
On the other hand, I'm bothered by how little I know about him. I'm even more bothered by the fact that half the people in my class don't know that John died, and if they do, they don't know he was murdered. I intend on seeing the movie, if only to see how horribly they can screw up John's life and send them an annoyed letter.
Personally, I would've respected Yoko's wishes, but I think it's an important subject and that no taboo on any subject is ever good.
[Note, I heard Lindsay Lohan = Chapman's girlfriend/something related in that manner/psycho.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:16 pm
The more I think about it, the more I'm really against this movie.
It's like
what did Chapman want in his assasination of John?
OH RIGHT: FAME.
So, let's give it to him;
let's make a movie about him and fufill his dream.
Let's not
:}
BUT
on the other hand, It's important to educate as many people as possible
on the brutal way John was murdered.
I'm almost afraid to go see it if it's made
because I know I'll be a complete and utter wreck in the theatre
sobbing and cursing and the like >:'{
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:49 pm
deepxmagic John Lennon was the definition of humanity. Chapman destroyed him for several reasons, all of which were disgusting. One of them was to "steal Lennon's fame", and the movie is doing nothing but centering itself on the maniac. Having a movie made about you is fame enough, ya? People who love John don't need to see the movie. People who hate him will walk away with sick satisfaction. If you really DO need to see it, sneak in. Do not pay for it. I do feel sorry for Chapman, in the way I feel sorry for Osama bin Laden and Hitler. I always feel sorry for the people I have the least respect for. I agree they should be focusing on John, not Chapman, but as L eondra said, no subject should be taboo. You are free to boycott the movie, and I respect you for it, but I'm going to see the movie and pay for it, because to just sneak in would be dishonest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
