I agree with you Queen
Anything that Sonny takes part in I will not touch
Even if they pay me
I don?t think some fans would really like a film like those simply because they focussed too much on Johnny and Ray addictions wich I think is fair because that were part of their life but I don?t think they would like that aplied to their Elvis so I guess not everyone would be satisfied with it anyway.
What I hate most of the movies made about Elvis is that they seem to focuss more on what others around him had to put up with and how important they were in his life than Elvis himself.
Excellent post Donut! You are right...no matter what kind of movie they made...how accurate, or how realistic...there would still be some who wouldn't like it. Just a difference in people... I do like what you said about the focus being on others and what they had to put up with outta Elvis... Would it not be GREAT if Elvis could voice his opinion and tell us all what he had to put up with??? Oh...I am sure the story would be much different...
Daddy, I miss you more every day. You will always be my hero..
And he couldnt stop loving his father he would pray for him but sadly his father died still blaming him for Jack's death because he couldnt blame himslef.
In case of an Elvis movie ofcourse people show that they were all for Elvis and Elvis was all for drugs people are bais they'd rather put themselves in the positive light than the man who truely deserve it...its a shame Johnny wrote the draft for Walk The Line and his son modified it (to make his parents love story seem alot more than it was..i understand why but still).
And as for Sonny if i had to choose between him and the devil i'll pick the devil anyday he's smooth and decieving..Im really happy thou queen we have a little common ground
Here's another thing that boggles my mind. The movie Walk The Line doesn't portrait Johnny as being an angel either, in fact his temper was much worse than Elvis' and his drug intake was a lot more evident. Elvis was able to hide his addiction a lot better and maintained his dignity in public more as well.
I also bought and read a biography on Johnny that shocked the heck out of me even worse than Elvis What Happened.
So, my question is: Why does everybody come down so hard on Elvis for it but never say much about Johnny? Ditto with John Lennon, Bob Dylan etc. etc. etc.
All I can think of is the bigger the person is, the more some want to tear him down.
Elvis did introduce Johnny to the pillls, least thats what the movie says, but l do believe johnny was more of a wild child. John lennon was into everything back than, but elvis hid everything he did, it didn't want people talking crap about him, not like the others around him.
When it comes to Johnny however he is always hard on himslef he told the director of WTL "if there is going to be a bad guy in this film its gonna be me"
he blames himself because ever since he was a child people blamed him for his brother's death to the point that he became obsessed with his death calling a PI to see if it was a murder of an accident. he even kept a seat for him at the table (thus the thanksgiving scene) its even rumored he left a room!!!
l haven't read alot about jonny, but what l do know he was as wild as they come, but l wouldn't say anything bad about him either, just for the fact l don't know much.
Elvis' image - both by his own hand and by fans and the media machine - was sanitised over many years until "The King" was portrayed as almost perfect in everyone's eyes.
Certainly the best looking of the people you mentioned - and many more who succumbed to the perils of drugs and an unhealthy lifestyle - his physical deterioration was made all the more painful because he had farther to fall.
Also, most of the others here managed to maintain their appearance, which Elvis didn't in the last couple of years. Lennon, Dylan etc maintained their drug usage for many years, although Lennon had a bad time with heroin. And they managed to use their drugs of choice and come out the other side only marginally worse for wear. Drugs - for the most part - rarely affected their creativity and lifestyles.
Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix etc took it too far, and burned out quicker than Elvis did. He burnt out too in exactly the same way ... it just took him 21 years to do it.
Additionally - and this is probably an unfair criticism - Elvis made a lot more crap music than the rest mentioned here. And, I suppose in the general public's eye, it's all tied in somehow. (But I digress here).
Johnny Cash - with very few exceptions - managed to maintain his musical credibility throughout his life. Elvis, sadly, did not. And for those that disagee, I have three words for you: the movie years. While the Beatles were delivering Sgt Pepper, Elvis gave us Clambake. And the seventies were very similar.
Elvis died an awful, undignified death, and I think the general feeling among the public was that he'd somehow let us down by going that way. The "perfect", all-Amercian boy kept his secrets hidden all his life. He was the first of the big, "established" rock stars to go, really.
Last edited by Getlo; 09-05-2007 at 10:05 AM.
Getlo - cute'n'cuddly
Getlo, yup you had a lot of valid points there, but I for one LIKED and ADMIRED the fact that Elvis tried to hide his addiction because in so doing he didn't influence his fans into doing it too. Can you imagine how many kids Lennon and others have to account for because they made it seem like the "cool" way to be? A lot of them lost their lives in doing so. I sure wouldn't want to be in their shoes when they reach the Pearly Gates!
but i don't think that person (Jelvis) above should be in a new movie about The King ... he doesn't look a thing like Elvis!
I've got those hup, two, three, four, occupation G.I. Blues, From my G.I. hair to the heels of my G.I. shoes