David Fincher's 'ZODIAC' Blu Ray Release

[duckking2001]

The film doesn't necessary endorse the Allen-as-Zodiac stance which a lot of people (myself included) thought was the case. It's a great film.

"Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it's not true."

I disagree with that, moreso after hearing what Fincher had to say on it. We were really supposed to believe that a film telling blatant lies presented as fact from it's protagonist, and Toschi agreeing with him, was only meant to be Graysmith being humored and we as the audience were supposed to interpret it that way? If that is truly the case, he has failed as a director then.

I just have a hard time really believing that Fincher is skeptical about Allen being guilty when he made a film based on a screenplay that is even more firm about Allen's guilt than the real Graysmith, and filled it with BS that confirms that, even during many scenes where it is presented objectively and not just from film Graysmith's perspective. So saying "Graymsith merely feels that Allen is guilty, but the movie itself doesn't show that to be true." is a cop out.

and I agree that qoute is totally asinine, but I do not believe that it was intended to be conveyed ironically.

[morf13]

The Guy that wrote the screenplay, was interviewed in the bonus DVD, and stated that they don't endorse Allen as being or not being Z, but rather, presenting a movie based on the book. I think they accomplish that pretty well.

[Paul_Averly]

Films need endings and closure. The Z case is far from over. In the film it's the Graysmith character freeing himself from the mystery that gives him closure. The film was really more about Graysmith and obsession than Zodiac.

So, it makes for a good ending and great film, but fails when it comes to providing a solid ending to the case.

[Norse]

Protect her from who, Mike?

Different times. A guy was supposed to protect a girl, generally speaking. I think that's what he means.

Plus, he's voicing a form of survivor's guilt which is not uncommon - but pretty much impossible to fully understand unless one has experienced it.

[duckking2001]

The Guy that wrote the screenplay, was interviewed in the bonus DVD, and stated that they don't endorse Allen as being or not being Z, but rather, presenting a movie based on the book. I think they accomplish that pretty well.

Deja vu. Didn't I post that guys crazy screenplay on here? I guess it must've been in some other thread about this movie. If you had read it you'd see that they changed and toned down a lot from the screenplay for what was in the actual movie.

In the original ending Graysmith goes on even more about how Allen is guilty and he delivers the speech to some mythical Zodiac task force at the DOJ who basically say "thank you for solving the case", instead of just to Dave Toschi by himself in a coffee shop like in the movie.

[morf13]

Ducking, thanks I missed that post. Sounds like an egotistical ending for Graysmith. I liked the movie ending as-is

[mike_r]

When Toschi first approaches the cab in the movie he looks as Stine and asks Pete, "Who rolled him?" What does he mean by this? Does he mean who rolled him over or is he using thee slang term "rolled," as in someone who got rolled or got robbed? I've never understood this. The response is "the stewards" meaning the ambulance workers. So the obvious answer is that he's referring to who rolled Stine over. However Vince Repetto told me that in those days ambulance workers would "roll" a victim and take his money out of his pockets because he reasoned that he didn't need it anymore. That's why I don't know what Toschi is talking about.