Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[captveg]

I would think, of all people, Scorsese has earned the benefit of the doubt that he didn't simplify the story for the sake of scoring PC points. It reads like he and DiCaprio did the opposite, finding the procedural angle too common to be worth the time to do the film, and therefore decided to explore characters and ideas that they found compelling.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by captveg

I would think, of all people, Scorsese has earned the benefit of the doubt that he didn't simplify the story for the sake of scoring PC points. It reads like he and DiCaprio did the opposite, finding the procedural angle too common to be worth the time to do the film, and therefore decided to explore characters and ideas that they found compelling.

Here's the issue that I have with that take, expressed in your post and elsewhere by others, including Plemons in the NYTs article.

It's easy to state that the story of Tom White in the book, and his role in Osage murders, was simply his role in bringing the perpetrators to justice as part of a true crime procedural.

But it's not the truth.

The juxtaposition with the White family story and the story of the Osage is not only the essence of the entire book, it's a powerful parable for the creation of America.

That is the truth articulated by the book, along with the truth about this country and our history, and why it's so highly acclaimed.

Now, to be fair, I haven't seen the film, and one could argue at this point the book is a footnote at best, the true story of the Osage murders an inconvenient truth.

But if the big takeaway from KOTFM is bad people do very bad things for money, cue the voiceover and soundtrack, well, thanks for invite to the kiddy table, Mr. Scorsese, but I've seen that flick, and yes, it's very entertaining, but it could of been so much more.

[Modren]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

No one is throwing a temper tantrum. If you and others, including the filmmakers, want to reduce Tom White and the truth of his story to a cliche simply because the color of his skin or on point, how Hollywood has historically chosen to portray white men who have accomplished heroic deeds, well, apparently you've got your movie.

I get it. No one is going to give a true story about Tom White an Oscar.

Just don't tell me we didn't tell the true story as presented in the book because it's been done before, or it's more interesting this way, or some other nonsense.

It's simply a case that Scorsese & Co. interpreted the story as a story of white supremacy and its effects, and that certain true characters had no place in the story that they wanted to tell because it would have been in conflict with their interpretation.

That's all. And I don't believe I'm being unfair to Scorsese.

He, along with Leo and Bob didn't want to tell the true story as outlined in the book, they wanted to tell the story as they saw it, and in the process eliminated the book.

Like the title says in the trailer, based on a true story...

...but eliminating some of the truth, and at least half of the book.

I see no indication that White is being ignored by the film, nor that Scorsese and co. are making stuff up to make the movie more marketable. He's being played by Jesse Plemons and I'm sure he'll be a significant part of the story. We're just shifting the primary POV from him to the Burkharts and seeing how the murders affected them.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Modren

I see no indication that White is being ignored by the film, nor that Scorsese and co. are making stuff up to make the movie more marketable. He's being played by Jesse Plemons and I'm sure he'll be a significant part of the story. We're just shifting the primary POV from him to the Burkharts and seeing how the murders affected them.

When you say that you've seen no indication, let me ask the following:

1. Have you read the book?
2. Are you aware that Tom White is the lead character in the book, and the story of his family is a significant portion of the book?
3. That the intertwining narratives of the White family and the Osage history is parable about the creation of modern America?
4. The comments from the filmmakers about how and why they changed the story as written and why DiCaprio switched roles, from White to Burkhart?
5. The early reviews of the film, noting the diminished role of White/Plemons, and the disparity from the film to the book?

I ask because if you are basing your statement on "...he's being played by Jesse Plemons and I'm sure he'll be a significant part of the story..." line of wishful thinking, well, sure, I guess that could be the determining factor.

After all, it's Jesse Plemons, how could it be otherwise?

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Now, to be fair, I haven't seen the film

Hey why watch the movie when you can cherry pick reviews to manufacture outrage! It’s the modern day way! Don’t watch movies just yell and scream about them online!

[fighthefutureofhd]

If we didn't yell and scream about things online what else would we do? One can yank on their chain for so long.

[dkelly26666]

The main point I'll make is, that none of you have seen the film, yet.

This reminds me, for different reasons, of all the outrage over Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" back then. The loudest complaints came from people who hadn't seen it. Although some still hate it to this day, I knew and knew of a great many people then who hated it beforehand due to their assumptions, and then loved it after they saw it.

And, yes, though he may not be the main focus, Tom White is still a heroic character in this. And all of the characters seem to have a humanity about them, even the 'bad guys'. Nor are all the Native Americans saints, either. Scorsese never does it any other way, really.

Why don't you wait and see?

The following statement doesn't refer to anyone in this thread, just based on what I've seen on comments sections all over (Youtube, Facebook, etc.). :
Also, worth noting that some people have an agenda or two, regardless. There's a lot of people who are going to stay mad at De Niro, now, LOL. Some already hate De Niro for that, some already hate DiCaprio for his left leaning environmentalism and so on, some are already hating Lily because of her outspokeness, and there's even some people who are mad at Scorsese, still, over some nonsense, LOL. So, there are some trolls that will never be reached on this. Best to disregard those people, altogether. Then, you have the people who truly are against this just because of what it's showing. They, too, are misguided.

[HipsterTrash]

So what's the likelihood that this will get a physical release? I see Paramount is a distributor for theatres (yes!) yet Apple TV+ is the VOD home.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Hey why watch the movie when you can cherry pick reviews to manufacture outrage! It’s the modern day way! Don’t watch movies just yell and scream about them online!

The film has yet to be released, has only been screened at Cannes, and on point, I plan to screen the film when it is released.

You seem to be confusing comments you don't wish to hear with behaviors no one is expressing.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by HipsterTrash

So what's the likelihood that this will get a physical release? I see Paramount is a distributor for theatres (yes!) yet Apple TV+ is the VOD home.

No one really knows, yet.

It could be that Paramount will be giving it a physical release, as well, maybe after it's been on Apple for some time.

I'm most hoping, after a year or so on Apple, that Criterion are the ones to release it, physically.

[HipsterTrash]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

No one really knows, yet.

It could be that Paramount will be giving it a physical release, as well, maybe after it's been on Apple for some time.

I'm most hoping, after a year or so on Apple, that Criterion are the ones to release it, physically.

It seems to be the case that most of Scorsese's work is now appearing on Criterion, so I hope that's what happens. The man is cinema incarnate so it makes sense that would be his home for his work.

But I'm putting the cart before the horse here. The trailer is phenomenal and I can't wait for this.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by HipsterTrash

So what's the likelihood that this will get a physical release? I see Paramount is a distributor for theatres (yes!) yet Apple TV+ is the VOD home.

I feel good. Velvet Underground was Apple and that got a release, and I have to imagine Criterion liking Scorsese & Apple liking Scorsese they would hopefully play ball. I guess I’ll say I’m optimistic!

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

The film has yet to be released, has only been screened at Cannes, and on point, I plan to screen the film when it is released.

You seem to be confusing comments you don't wish to hear with behaviors no one is expressing.

Your posts read like a petulant child who is mad that a movie wasn’t an exact reproduction of the book. So excuse me if you read as a kid screaming for his mom to buy him a toy he really really wants.

[Bubbles-11]

Rated R for violence, some grisly images, and language

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

The following statement doesn't refer to anyone in this thread...

Yes, but for the most part, this thread isn't about any of the views of the filmmakers, but the decision to deviate from the book. Personally, I don't take offense to their views, nor that they express them publicly except to note it does potentially diminish a future viewing experience.

As I've already stated, I also don't have an issue the film's focus and related message, other than it's unfortunate that Scorsese made the decision to leverage the popularity and critical acclaim of the book and then apparently choose to deliver a different story and related perspective.

What I'll add is an opinion that his comments, and the comments of the other parties, have now soured the field by not letting the audience reach their own conclusions about character motivations and the essence of the story.

Finally, I really don't want to go down the path of political opinions and related sides, especially with posters who obviously haven't even read the book and whose comments reflect personal allegiances rather than the simple facts as have been broadly reported.

I just wanted to share that in my opinion, KOTFM is a phenomenal book, and as written, it would have made a phenomenal film.

To your point, soon enough we'll all see for ourselves what the filmmakers believe was a more vital story.

[Michael1989]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Your posts read like a petulant child who is mad that a movie wasn’t an exact reproduction of the book. So excuse me if you read as a kid screaming for his mom to buy him a toy he really really wants.

Looking at his comments, and then yours, you're the only one who comes across as a "petulant child"

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Your posts read like a petulant child who is mad that a movie wasn’t an exact reproduction of the book. So excuse me if you read as a kid screaming for his mom to buy him a toy he really really wants.

Funny, I was just about to add that your posts read like someone who hasn't read the book and is not informed of the comments made by the filmmakers themselves, so you really don't have anything of value to add to the thread other than to say you don't like my comments.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by HipsterTrash

So what's the likelihood that this will get a physical release? I see Paramount is a distributor for theatres (yes!) yet Apple TV+ is the VOD home.

100%
* Criterion Collection (?)



Anything else is cheap whiskey.
_____

** Extra:

“A release date has been set for Martin Scorsese’s highly-anticipated “Killers of the Flower Moon”.

The historical drama about “the serial targeting and murder of members of the oil-rich Osage tribe,” as per Variety, will first open in limited theatres on October 6. Then, on October 20, the film will have a wide release.

The project, produced by Apple Original Films, will also stream on Apple TV+ at a later, unspecified date. For the theatrical release, Apple will partner with Paramount Pictures.”

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

The main point I'll make is, that none of you have seen the film, yet.

This reminds me, for different reasons, of all the outrage over Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" back then. The loudest complaints came from people who hadn't seen it. Although some still hate it to this day, I knew and knew of a great many people then who hated it beforehand due to their assumptions, and then loved it after they saw it.

And, yes, though he may not be the main focus, Tom White is still a heroic character in this. And all of the characters seem to have a humanity about them, even the 'bad guys'. Nor are all the Native Americans saints, either. Scorsese never does it any other way, really.

Why don't you wait and see?

The following statement doesn't refer to anyone in this thread, just based on what I've seen on comments sections all over (Youtube, Facebook, etc.). :
Also, worth noting that some people have an agenda or two, regardless. There's a lot of people who are going to stay mad at De Niro, now, LOL. Some already hate De Niro for that, some already hate DiCaprio for his left leaning environmentalism and so on, some are already hating Lily because of her outspokeness, and there's even some people who are mad at Scorsese, still, over some nonsense, LOL. So, there are some trolls that will never be reached on this. Best to disregard those people, altogether. Then, you have the people who truly are against this just because of what it's showing. They, too, are misguided.

One good voice of reason ^

[spanky87]