Gee, you think anybody is trying to tamper with an election? Oliver stone has done some great films and some terrible films. I think he needs to get the immediate politics out of his head and go back to historical political masterpieces (JFK, Platoon).

Why make this movie if not to sway an election? Release it a month after the election and prove that it is just a biopic, not political meddling.

Is it coincedence that Josh Brolin is playing Dubya, being that Dad James Brolin called Bush a war Criminal and called for impeachment several times? Mom in Law Babs Striesand is probably in a top ten list for people who hate the president.

I have no problems with this movie and criticisms of Bush, (I think hes mostly an assclown too) but put someone neutral in there for a non biased depiction. THAT would be a good flick.

He is trying to sway the election, and he has every right to as an American citizen.

The republicans swayed the last election, why can't Oliver Stone try to sway it this time?

The republicans swayed the last election, why can't
Oliver Stone try to sway it this time?

Yes, because Bush is running for a third term...

lol wut

Seriously, though, there's nothing sadder than rampant Bush Derangement Syndrome, especially during the last 6 months of his term. I'm no Bush supporter, mind you, but Jesus H, some of you really know how to show your bitterness.

Are you saying its fair for him as a filmmaker with unlimited resources to do this, where as you or I (average citizens) have nowhere near this power. What makes his opinion so much more valuable than ours?

And how long will I have to keep hearing this "he stole the election" crap when Kerry was easily beaten and Gore Conceded? Thats right!!! I forgot that G.W.'s administration single handedly caused 911, which caused the economy to fail, and create global warming.

You guys are like the Confederacy. Losers who keep claiming "were gonna rise again"

I think the masses will enjoy it if it's a humourless take on the presidency of Bush.

I hope this film is not sypathetic towards bush or it could help the republicans.

I highly doubt they are releasing this movie in October to "sway" the election. It is just smart marketing. It makes business sense to release a political movie of this nature in the election season, that's when Loinsgate is going to get the most bang for its buck. If they release this movie in like february of next year no one is gonna care and it will not make anyway near the amount of money it would in an October release.

"I hope this film is not sypathetic towards bush or it could help the republicans."

Thanks. We all just got dumber.

Everyone seems pretty darn committed to this project, so I'm sure it will get into high gear and shoot in under six weeks. A little rushed? Maybe, but if it's really the Oscar-sniffer it thinks it is, I'm ready for it. And I think Stone has learned lessons about how people react to his films. I really doubt it will be a comedy in any real sense of the word.

Also, I'd agree that Stone is not necessarily the right person for this project if you're going for total accuracy or a lack of bias, but again, he does have every right to make this film, but he's not the first to attempt to sway an election (anyone remember Fahrenheit 9/11? Do you think that was in any way a message to NOT re-elect Bush?).

@Scott

What do you expect? government money to make your own pro-bush movie? I'm sorry if you had talent like Oliver Stone the studio would be financing your movie as well. stop your whining, I donot agree with Ben Stein's anti evolution movie but do you see me complaining about it? His opinion is no more valuable then anyone; if you don't value his opinion don't watch the movie, in the same sense if you make your own low budget movie and if people value your opinion they will watch it. And this is not a political website, stop regurgitating GOP talking points, everyone knows that 2000 & 2004 elections were stolen; in case of 2000 it is blatantly obvious, in 2004 there were problems with voting in Ohio and had they not been there Kerry would have won Ohio and hence the presidency.

Look, I think this is a bit too soon, poorly timed, and frankly going to be cruel.

George W. Bush is an unpopular President who did not do a good job in his 8 years of service. But time will show he's not THE worst to take the office. Ulysses S. Grant? Herbert Hoover? Richard Nixon? Maybe you guys should retake US History or take an AP exam (I did today, it was a bitch), and maybe you'll learn that while we're at a crossroads as a country, we've been in much worse positions.

@Joe: Talk to me after you finish college and gain a little perspective.

Hey Robert,

Why don't you become a little less cynical. Just cause someone is young doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about!

I wish the bloggers here would keep their politics to themselves. I come here for your regurgitated movie news not your regurgitated political commentary. Maybe if any of you had an original thought now and then it could tolerated. As it is though, I can tell what drivel is going to be spewed just by looking at the headline. Leave the political insight to those people that actually have some. Thanks!

Sway, tamper, or manipulate an election? I'll ignore the obvious "questions" regarding the last two presidential elections and simply say - last I knew, we can't vote for this loser any more. And John McCain is nowhere to be found in the film. I seem to recall people also said the very same things about Michael Moore when he released "Fahrenheit 911" - and "W" still got re-elected. Filmmakers like Oliver Stone, and Moore, are hardly the problem. I'm much more concerned about voters who - can - be swayed by movies - and who seemingly - can't - be swayed by reality.

This, I thought, was a movie site.

Could you please keep your idiotic politicizing to yourself?

Jeez. It's like Madonna carping about particle physics. Just stop.

@ Kevin: That's what I though when I was in high school. I knew everything! Cynicism has nothing to do with it.

@ David
While appreciated, your comment is incredibly cliche. This is a biopic about a current U.S. president, so discussion under this post about politics as related to W. is fair game. To say anyone here is not qualified to wax on these issues reeks of snobbery, especially since you probably do not know one of these commenters'/bloggers' academic, professional and personal backgrounds. You are ostensibly equating people who like film to close-minded dolts as well, which is a bogus and naive generalization.

Yes, this is a movie site, big thanks for pointing out the obvious, so at least offer an observation/opinion about the film in question, rather than commenting on commenting/comments. It's 2008, we all know how this works by now. Your policing leads nowhere, and if it does it leads the discourse to hell. If W. was a movie about time travel (I friggin' wish it was), then comments about quantum psychics and quarks would be perfectly fine as related to the theory(ies) presented therein. Would you still be so offended and frustrated? Thanks.

"George W. Bush is an unpopular President who did not do a good job in his 8 years of service."

You make it sound like the guy made you a crappy milkshake. He's done much worse than "not a good job". And I'm not going to list the endless crap this guy ushered in while in office. I can't wait until this idiot and his "crew" are out of office.

Anyways, I think this film looks bad from just the pictures alone. Brolin doesn't even look like Bush at all. But I guess if you put him in a suit and tell people he is playing Bush Jr. People will buy it. Oliver Stone has just become a hollywood caricature.

People who claim Bush is the "worst" President, or has done a "horrible" job, are either poorly educated, or completely clueless. He certainly hasn't been more than mediocre, but neither were Clinton, Bush, Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, etc. It is astonishing that Americans are so poorly educated, and so lacking in historical context, to be able to make such idiotic statements.

LIKE ALL of the anti-military, anti-war, anti-America films produced over the past eight years, this too will fail miserably in the theaters.

SURE, the media and all of the leftist elite will fall over each other screaming about how "wonderful," "entertaining," and "enlightened" it is, but the overwhelming majority of Americans -- i.e. moviegoers -- will see through the B.S. and not waste their 10 bucks.

And then it will get an Oscar nomination from the commies in Hollywood.

So predictable.


.

"And then it will get an Oscar nomination from the commies in Hollywood."

haha BURN BOOKS too!

this may go a way he dosn't expect.

the worst people in the world catch sympathy in movies.

this could actually sway things mc cain's way.

i dig the idea of the movie.
but it should wait untill after november.

Oh come on with all this talk about the movie swaying the election.

The Bush administration, the Republican Party and some really stupid Democrats have already proven a failed policy where giving corporations and wealthy investors tax breaks would result in new jobs. Perhaps new jobs at McDonald's, but who can support a family on that sort of income?

Lost your job? Blame Bush.

The movie won't have to sway you.

Blame Bush? That's the dumbest post yet.

Favorable corporate tax treatment boosts 401(k) performance and creates jobs. So do tax policies that encourage investments. But, Presidents and their policies have always had neglible effects on the economy and job creation. That's the problem. Partisan non-thinkers want to give undue credit to Presidents they support -- and irrationally blame those they oppose.

Now, thankfully, you have made the dumbest post yet. Who has led this country into debt when he inherited a robust economy and turned it into trash? Why did Clinton win against Bush's father stating, "It's the economy, stupid."?

It's the same arrogant, elitist policy you apparently endorse. It's a policy that has failed time and again. I have to admit, you sunk to make the point of my stupidity. But you lost.

What plans do you have for improving the economy - more windfall profits for corporations and the wealthy? It has not worked so far. Matching 401K funds are going down and salaries are stagnating. What is your point?

The only thing up is unemployment. Your facts are out of line with reality.

So educate me, why is the economy so bad? It must have something to do with leadership which we are apparently sorely lacking.

Partisanship has nothing to do with my opinion, it's the performance of the current administration.

Thank you Mr./Ms. Dumber than Dumb.

Directly above me is a butt hurt liberal.
Why don't you take a trip to Starbuck's and suck on a fat latte' while you peruse moveon.org on your Macbook Air.

Sniveling douchebag.

Now that's the kind of partisanship I was accused of. Thank you for confirming that this is the basis for this exchange.

Why don't you go to church and beg forgiveness? god would probably be happy to hear it.

BTW, my butt hurts because of what I have received from this administration and the opinions of people who put them in office. The BIG ONE did it!

Haven't you seen where the current administration hqs put this country? Go talk to the people who have lost their lives or continue to fight the war in Iraq on a fabricated rationale. I bet that more than their butt hurts.

Your sign-off identity describes you and people like you perfectly!

P.S. I don't go to Starbuck's.

Glennst, your kind of partisanship is far worse. A straightforward insult is easy to ignore. However, your partisanship involves what appears to be either a real misapprehension of the facts and issues, or an intentional effort to mislead, both of which are significantly more insidious.

Economists (who are typically not an agreeable bunch) generally recognize that the strong economy that pertained during the Clinton administration was driven by "irrational exuberance" in part the result of the so-called dot.com boom, healthy supply-favoring oil prices, and aggressive bank lending practices. Moreover, even if you disagree on that, there is no evidence linking any White House policies during the 1990's with the strength of the economy. Finally, there is similarly little dispute that the economy was in retraction at the end of Clinton's terms and then rebounded strongly after Bush took office. I believe that neither Clinton nor Bush can be given credit for any of this. And, to the extent that the economy is rougher shape now (still growing according to the latest figures, but at about 2%), it has everything to do with individuals overextending themselves and making stupid decisions about mortgages and a growing demand/supply imbalance for oil.

Clinton won on "it's the economy, stupid" because most Americans can be tricked into believe that the President has something to do with the economy. It's an easy gimmick. Bush II gained votes, in part, on the same argument, as the economy was slowing down at the end of Clinton's second term. And, Bush II won the second time, I would argue, on the robust economy at the end of his first term. We vote with our pocketbooks, even if it's irrational.

The notion of "windfall profits" for corporations is likewise pretty ignorant. First, corporations are taxed twice -- on earnings and on distributions. Money that the corporations save in taxes and then reinvest (rather than distribute as salaries or dividends) are reinvested or held for purposes of liquidity, thus boosting company values (and share values) and resulting in gains for investors. And those investors aren't "elites" by any means. They include every state or federal worker with a pension, and every hardworking American with a 401(k). This "corporations are evil" nonsense is a lot like trying to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Making companies the villains is propaganda, not sound analysis.

As for stagnating salaries and stock market declines (that affect investments), you fail to point to any connection between those effects and the alleged cause, i.e., Bush. That's because there isn't. Not even Bush's tax cuts affected either, for better or worse, because they were too small according most economists. Small tax cuts have little or no impact on the economy. Tax increases, however, can have a startling negative effect particularly when they target capital gains and investment income (so called passive income). Those kinds of increases lead to reductions in corporate and individual long-term investment (the kind of investment that leads to job growth), and most of the "blame Bush" crowd support increases in capital gains tax rates. (Clinton, in contrast, did not.)

Unemployment is up slightly, but continues at record lows. In fact, it is even lower than during the Clinton years. Does the President have anything to do with it? No.

So, this who attempt to blame Bush for jobs is simply dumb. Blame him for Iraq. Blame him for appointing Supreme Court justices with whom you disagree. Blame him for drug and immigration policies. Blame him for criminal enforcement priorities. These are areas where Presidents do make a difference, and there is usually a complicit Congress involved. Blame them, too.

Glennst, your kind of partisanship is far worse. A straightforward insult is easy to ignore. However, your partisanship involves what appears to be either a real misapprehension of the facts and issues, or an intentional effort to mislead, both of which are significantly more insidious.

Economists (who are typically not an agreeable bunch) generally recognize that the strong economy that pertained during the Clinton administration was driven by "irrational exuberance" in part the result of the so-called dot.com boom, healthy supply-favoring oil prices, and aggressive bank lending practices. Moreover, even if you disagree on that, there is no evidence linking any White House policies during the 1990's with the strength of the economy. Finally, there is similarly little dispute that the economy was in retraction at the end of Clinton's terms and then rebounded strongly after Bush took office. I believe that neither Clinton nor Bush can be given credit for any of this. And, to the extent that the economy is rougher shape now (still growing according to the latest figures, but at about 2%), it has everything to do with individuals overextending themselves and making stupid decisions about mortgages and a growing demand/supply imbalance for oil.

Clinton won on "it's the economy, stupid" because most Americans can be tricked into believe that the President has something to do with the economy. It's an easy gimmick. Bush II gained votes, in part, on the same argument, as the economy was slowing down at the end of Clinton's second term. And, Bush II won the second time, I would argue, on the robust economy at the end of his first term. We vote with our pocketbooks, even if it's irrational.

The notion of "windfall profits" for corporations is likewise pretty ignorant. First, corporations are taxed twice -- on earnings and on distributions. Money that the corporations save in taxes and then reinvest (rather than distribute as salaries or dividends) are reinvested or held for purposes of liquidity, thus boosting company values (and share values) and resulting in gains for investors. And those investors aren't "elites" by any means. They include every state or federal worker with a pension, and every hardworking American with a 401(k). This "corporations are evil" nonsense is a lot like trying to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Making companies the villains is propaganda, not sound analysis.

(MORE)

So much for trying to quote.

I'll just add my two cents:

Isn't it possible that war-time spending has had an effect on the economy? That's a decision that is tied directly to Bush. But, I'm not sure if that's a plus or a minus.

If this movie is everything everyone is making it out to be (or wants it to be), I can't even imagine the movie they'll make about our congress with it's alltime low 8% approval rating. One guy on his own is going to make some mistakes. But some 400+ elected officials that cannot collectively get their heads out of their cans to pass a single bit of useful legislation, beyond raises for themselves, now THAT is pathetic. It would make a great horror film (how else can you classify it) Barbara Streisand could be a great Nancy Pelosi, and keep this franchise in the family.

Of course with their Democrat friends in congress, those Hollywood masters of illusion, would never touch that tale. Even though it is considerably more pathetic than our learning disabled president. We all knew what we were getting from a guy that says "Nuke-you-Ler". But I would have though that guys like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy could have done better. Apparently not.

So we'll probably never see that film. But it would be too depressing any way. At least Bush lends himself to comedy quite effortlessly.

I hope they dig into all the details of Bush's Presidency and present them in an unbiased manner.

After "An Inconvenient Truth" it would be nice to have a political movie that actually has some FACTS in it.

Some people haven't been following the thread. I expanded blame to BOTH Republican and Democrat legislators. So much for the partisanship claims made against me...

I am not a liberal and as I mentioned before, my opinion is not based on party affiliation - just the performance, or lack thereof, by our current leadership.

Some of the points made by a few people were not entirely misplaced, but some of them say the President does not affect the economy. Apparently Bush believed he could since his justification for the tax cuts to corporations and investors was to help create more jobs thereby boosting the economy.

Another thought on the tax cuts: I think they went to executives' bonuses to buy Biff or Buffy a second Lambourgini.

As for the unemployment figures, everyone knows that Reagan changed the method of calculating it: it only counts the number of people collecting unemployment. Anyone who has paid any attention to the news knows that unemployment is far greater than the reports say. Some people have used up their benefits and simply given up; but they are unemployed nonetheless.

Guys, the jobs just aren't there. Get the facts!

BTW. Someone once told me that there are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. So much for the quibbling over unemployment stats.

There are 2 movies called “W The Movie” and Stone’s is actually the 2nd one. The first, apparently, has been in the works since 2005 and I discovered the trailer for it on youtube.
The ‘other W’ is a lot different and it looks very psychedelic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0lz5ae4Bls

Idiots.

The only idiots are the ones who fail to articulate why the people they referred to as idiots are idiots. This person is as empty as their statement implies. But they are too hollow to hear this echo in their skull. It simply runs out their mouth and ears and spills out into the street where it is rightfully lost in the sewer.

I don't need to justify myself to you.

On this one point you are right - you don't have to justify yourself to me.

You may continue posting comments anywhere you like without substantiating them. You certainly don't need my permission. I was just trying to give you pause for thought.

You are surely entitled to remain a person condemning other people as idiots without explanation. This is my last attempt to change that aspect of you. Let THIS echo in your skull... But not likely.

A skull so empty that input from others hit one side and bounce out of your ears forever without any thought or consideration. Good luck in your travels throughout life.

Oh well. Here we are now and, finally, everyone understands it in terms of the economy - and they're not ignorant; just observant as to how the country has been served by those at the helm (the TEAM) for a long time. And some people still think that economic policies of the current administration were not responsible. These people don't need more education - they just need some common sense.

Where's the accountability, the acknowledgment, the ownership on our leaders' part? Previously, I simply identified where we, the American people, were being led down the path of ruin. And we were already there!!!

The difference now is the realization and general consensus that our gov't led us here. Just in case you're ignorant as some opponents of this view on this page press and don't accept views contrary to their own - take a look at the election results.

Republican policies and weak Democrats put us here. Oh... Well. So let's reward the the business leaders who brought us here with continued bonuses and salary hikes and the administration whose policies paved the way.

At least some of the politicians and their cronies paid something for it in the election. This was not a matter of these people serving as a deer staring into the lights. Their direction was intentional and it was governance at its worst.

Now they will blame the next administrations for not digging the country out of the hole they created.

When will they own up? Grow up?

Sadly, never. It's their way of doing "business."

What put us here wasn't Republican policies, actually. It was both parties trying to buy votes by promising everyone the joy of home ownership. (Some joy.) Bush and the Democrats patted themselves on the back for forcing banks to give high risk loans to people who couldn't afford them, the Wall Street crew joined the party by buy and selling these bad loans to anyone who wanted to get rich quick, and now the entire economy is tanking because of defaulting loans that no bank should have ever given. That's where we are. The blame Bush crowds are simply deluded. It's actually the blame Bush, Obama, and Frank crew that are right. That's where the common sense is. But, blind partisanship once again rules the day. To bad, really, since it creates the very real possibility that we will never learn anything.

Don't respond reading only my last commentary when you know there is more; and don't ignore the statements I have already posted on this page.

You are responding to only part of what I said. For example, just look back at an earlier posting by me where I blamed both parties for a dangerous direction.

Even my last entry implied that with my reference to "weak Democrats." Please read before commenting.

But the policies that put us were are mainly Republican.

Your response is not to what I said - it's a partisan-based response which subverts any discussion.

Of course I read your whole post. The policies that put us here, actually, were most Democratic policies. You obviously ignored my post. They were policies that were intended to "spread the wealth" by giving home loans to hundreds of thousands of people who couldn't afford them. That is the core reason we are here. Your commentary, trying to blame Republican policies without identifying a single one with any plausible connection to the economic woes that face us, is the partisan one, actually.

Ok David.

Here's your answer: the Republican party claims business is capable of regulating itself. Spread the wealth policies had nothing to do with wild speculation on the part of businesses. It was CDOs and other "packages," other business arrangements made among businesses, not individuals. That's the real "Deal" for them and, now, the taxpayers (though neither the rich nor the corporations) are tasked with the bailout of corporate excesses seeking continued exemption for paying for risky corporate venture excesses.

BTW: why are all the executives connected with the failure looking for bonuses for their failure? If the gov't was not not responsible, then why not these people? Everybody's innocent according to your claims.

I think you are supportive of them seeking to collect these bonuses irrespective of performance on their part.

Okay, you need to do some research. The trigger of the economic collapse was bad loans that were made because of Democratic party politics. Those loans, unwisely, were both forced to be made by the government and also guaranteed by the government. Because of the guarantees, they found their way into exotic investment instruments. But, the cause of the collapse was the predictable failure of those bad loans. It had nothing to do with corporate excesses, but, rather, ill-considered vote buying by politicians stating that everyone was entitled to home ownership. Absent those bad loans, none of this would have happened. The only ones who are not innocent are the politicians who meddled in the free market by forcing high risk loans. Bonuses have nothing to do with it. (By the way, the deregulation on Wall Street occurred under Clinton's watch. Bush, as was typical, did nothing -- either to regulate or deregulate.)