What would you ask Ozzy? I may be able to have it answered.

[Alex]

xx123456

[Trigger]

We have to give the poor old fellow a chance Alex!!

[halo8th]

I'm starting to get the gut feeling that there IS NO footage coming out. At all.

[Paul Wolfe]

...not like the Doors film, (thank goodness!).

What was wrong with the Doors film?

[GUITARIDOL5682]

...not like the Doors film, (thank goodness!).

What was wrong with the Doors film?

Yeah i thought that the Doors film was a good portrail of the bands story and the characters came across well. If the Ozzy film is anywhere near as good as, this should be well good. The Doors film was a great plugging tool for people to go out and buy their music. It relit the fire on a 60's band and brought them back to life.

[whoopiecat]

What was wrong with the Doors film? For starters:

The surviving Doors members were all to one degree or another unhappy with the final product, and were said to have heavily criticized Stone's portrayal of Morrison as an "out of control sociopath". In a 1991 interview with Gary James, Manzarek criticized Stone for exaggerating Morrison's alcohol consumption in the movie, saying, "Jim with a bottle all the time. It was ridiculous . . . It was not about Jim Morrison. It was about Jimbo Morrison, the drunk. God, where was the sensitive poet and the funny guy? The guy I knew was not on that screen." In the afterword of his book Riders on the Storm, Densmore says that the movie is based on "the myth of Jim Morrison". In the same place, he criticizes the film for portraying Morrison's ideas as "muddled through the haze of the drink [alcohol]". In a 1994 interview, Krieger said that the film doesn't give the viewer "any kind of understanding of what made Jim Morrison tick." Krieger also commented about the film in the same interview: "They left a lot of stuff out. Some of it was overblown, but a lot of the stuff was very well done, I thought."

In the book The Doors, Manzarek says, "That Oliver Stone thing did real damage to the guy I knew: Jim Morrison, the poet." In this book, Densmore says of the movie, "A third of it's fiction." In the same volume, Krieger joins Manzarek and Densmore in describing the movie as inaccurate, but also says, referring to the film's inaccuracy, "It could have been a lot worse."

Also:
Krieger, Densmore, and Kennealy are all credited as technical advisors for the film; however, they have all commented that although they may have given advice, Stone often chose to ignore it in favor of his own vision of the story. The settings for the film, particularly the concert sequences, are depicted in mostly chronological order, although the crowd scenes contain many blatant exaggerations, such as portrayals of nudity that did not occur.

From an online chat with Manzarek in '97:

Smoken asks "Did you find the movie "The Doors" accurate in terms of the bands history"

Ray Manzarek says "Not accurate. It's accurate in terms of the Doors' history, but not accurate in terms of Jim Morrison. Many things are wrong with the Doors' movie. Jim was not a drunken jerk! Jim burning up Pam in the closet never happened. Jim throwing a television set at Ray never happened! The car commercial on TV never happened. The big fight after Ray and Dorothy's wedding never happened etc., etc., etc. . . . Big fabrications; Oliver "White Powder Ma" Stone: That's my nickname for him. And that comes from that movie with Mickey Rourke in Chinatown, The Year of the Dragon. They go to Thailand to make a purchase from White Powder Ma. . . Got it? Nuff said!"

I suppose the movie is fine from the standpoint of Hollywood fiction, but not my cup of tea. If a docu-drama were to be made about Ozzy, I can say with confidence that most within the community would be unhappy with the portrayal of Randy. As the film would be about Ozzy, Randy would become like one of the band members in the film 'Rock Star'...a cardboard cut-out in the background.

T.

[GUITARIDOL5682]

Randy would be portrailed in the background thats because the film is about Ozzy. Randy only played a short part in his life time so cram that into a 40 year career. He may be in the film for 10 mins max. say if the film is 90 mins long. Then it will be Randy the accident, next part of his time line.

[whoopiecat]

Understood, but you could imagine how fans would be pissed nonetheless

[GUITARIDOL5682]

Well without being a total Doors nut/fan i went to see the film and enjoyed it. I honestly seen alot more people who became fans after seeing the film. The Doors were back on the jukeboxs in pubs. The soundtrack from the film sold well and they released the best of compilation etc. So for a film that didn't portray the characters well it did them alot of good and financialy would of seen them ok.

[whoopiecat]

Good deal, I was asked what was wrong with the Doors film, so I provided the best answer I could, instead of just saying it sucked.
Yes it did generate a lot of new interest in the band and the sales of their albums, I've just never been that big a fan of any of Oliver Stone's movies.
Most of these biopics tend to miss their mark, as Hollywood wants to amp up the tragedy and drama for the sake of filling theater seats, as opposed to an honest portrayal of the subject.
It would be tough to encapsule Ozzy's forty years of stomping across concert stages in two hours, and you're right, Shaun, Randy's character would get about ten minutes time if that.
The film would focus more on stuff like the doves, the bat, the Alamo, Leesburg, the court case over Suicide Solution, Ozzy's alcohol/drug consumption, retirement, Ozzfest/rebirth, MTV and the Quadbike.
All I really require anymore from the Osbournes is whatever they may have in their vaults from 1970-1990.
Otherwise I'm all good.

Tom

[Cryptic Night]

IF they made a movie about Ozzy, I'd be worried that it'd be from Ozzy and Sharon's point of view. I'd like it if the director (Just wishful thinking I suppose) would visit the various people Ozzy's played with in the past (Bob Daisley, Tommy Aldridge, Lee Kerslake, etc) to get their point of view of Ozzy's life, and then write out the story.

But knowing it's a movie about Ozzy (Not saying there IS one) Sharon would have her hand up the director's backside, and it would be a movie from the Osbourne's point of view, thus exaggerating things, or downplaying other things. (Ozzy punching Randy would be a definite downplay, I'm sure they'd even downplay the fact that Randy wanted to quit)

I'm not saying there's going to be a movie about Ozzy coming out, this is all just speculation IF there was.

[Tito]

i wouldnt watch a "movie" on ozzy..movies tend to exaggerate things just to keep the viewers attention...i would love a 4 hour biography on ozzy cuz then there is more than enough time to go into his life without blazing through it like a 2 hour movie would..

[The Flying Dutchman]

I'm starting to get the gut feeling that there IS NO footage coming out. At all.

Me too...., it's a bit too quite about the footage.

[GUITARIDOL5682]

Well i have heard some news and it's not good. Ozzy has been interviewed and he has said that the live footage of the RR live show is in super 8 format ?.Remember what $haron said about putting all the films together as i remember super 8 was only available in short length films. So are we going to see the NY Paladium gig that we have already seen a million times. I just hope Ozzy is very much mistaking. I'd rather of seen a mint version of 'After Hours' i've never rated that super 8 film.

[Tito]

who knows but if thats the case it shows how out of touch the osbournes are with todays technology..ahhhhh