Oliver Stone's The Doors

wiredraven82 said:That’s a pretty solid breakdown of everything regarding The Doors in "When You're Strange." Still, I don't think it's right to claim that the film portrays Morrison as just some drunk loser. I mean, sure, someone might interpret it that way, but wasn't the real Jim Morrison seen as more than that by most people in America for over thirty years? Yeah, maybe, but that's not really the point. It's about what he was trying to achieve and how he's perceived by the people actually listening to him.

Sure. It would be a total idyll if we all just listened to the music and accepted whatever the artist decided to give us. But I always end up getting sucked into these debates about how certain biographies are just garbage because they distort the actual person and the work behind the songs. At the end of the day, it all boils down to extra revenue for record labels. They make a killing off so-called "fans" by selling them movies like Oliver Stone's, not to mention the massive wave of vinyl sales that follows.
Look, we’re only human. We naturally get curious about that private side of things—that connection where you start falling for the artist themselves. And honestly, in any kind of art, that personal stuff is usually tangled up with the work itself. But personally? I don't really care about someone's private relationships. I'm interested in the creative process, their character, and what actually fuels their inspiration—the stuff that shaped the author. And maybe that's just me, but movies about these themes always seem to have the least amount of that.

wiredraven82 said:Nothing in that movie was depicted as being more extreme than what Jim actually lived through. And if anyone wants to argue that it portrayed him as just some drunk or a junkie, look—I bet Morrison wouldn't have even cared if he were still alive to see it. To him, that would mean he was bothered by everything he put into his music. For me, he’ll always be a top-tier artist, an intellectual, and a brilliant musician. All that other stuff? That's just what made him who he was. JIM. 🙂

How can you say it wasn't? I mean, wouldn't adding that elevator scene with Nico from the Velvet Underground or some imagined ritual with that journalist—I can't even remember her name right now—be a massive change? Even his relationship with Pamela feels meaningful, though I'm sure there's plenty of fiction mixed in there too. At the end of the day, only she and Jim Morrison knew the truth, and maybe it should stay that way. Everything else is just guesswork. Besides, it's not like smoking weed and knocking back a few whiskeys wasn't standard practice in the sixties; it's not like Morrison was the only one doing it. People just focus on all the wrong things instead of what actually matters: the music.
I guess I'm giving it to you. Here's the link to the interview. You’re talking to one of Jim’s closest friends and a founding member of the band, yet you’d rather buy into whatever smoke Oliver Stone is selling. He just pushes a pile of trivial, unverified "anecdotes" to make his movie easier to pitch. Meanwhile, you ignore the person who actually knew Jim and spent a huge chunk of his life by his side. On top of ignoring what the actual band members—the ones who actually saw how things went down—had to say, he’s done exactly what Ray Manzarek described: he created his own ego trip:

'He basically took his concept for Natural Born Killers and turned IT into The Doors movie. It’s not Jim Morrison, it’s just Oliver Stone in leather pants.'

wiredraven82 said:...it honestly just bugs me how people are going to view Morrison now. I really don't feel like sugarcoating things for anyone who watches The Doors and thinks he was nothing more than some drunk addict. People like that aren't even worth explaining it to.

Seriously, you're totally right here. I don't even know why I bother posting here sometimes. 😉

Gerald Barrett25 said:I don't know how people who aren't really into Jim Morrison's poetry or the whole vibe of a band playing without a bassist can even process this flick, but for me? It was straight-up transcendental. Since I've always been obsessed with the actual context and era that birthed certain R&R bands, this movie just sort of crystallized—and did it in a super convincing way—that whole atmosphere I’d always pictured in my head.

Plus, that desert scene is pure psychedelia and if you aren't down with that kind of concept, you're probably not gonna dig what comes next. Also, those concert scenes? Phenomenal. They felt spontaneous, or better yet, chaotic enough that you’re left with this "residual after-taste"—you know, that lingering feeling of an event that already happened. Kind of like that feeling after a heavy glass of Dingac.

But hey, judging by all the comments here, the experience is definitely subjective 🙂 😎

signing off, letter by letter☕

Lisa Davis46 said:Look, we're all human, right? And honestly, I’ve always been obsessed with that private, deeply personal connection you get when you actually start falling for an artist's work. It’s like... in every single form of art out there, that raw, personal side of the creator is totally intertwined with what they produce. You can't really separate the soul from the craft. It's all one big, messy thing. Look, I don't give a damn about anyone's messy private life or who they're sleeping with. That’s just noise. What actually matters to me is the creative process—the grit, the character, and where the hell the inspiration comes from. You want to know what actually shaped the artist? That's the real stuff. But honestly, when you watch a movie based on a true story, that's the one thing you almost never get. It's always missing.

Look, I'm telling you, even your private life—all that messy, personal stuff—is actually a huge part of the creative process. It’s not separate. It shapes everything. It's like how a musician's heartbreak feeds the lyrics; those personal relationships basically mold the whole damn thing. 🤷
I honestly think Stone hit that sweet spot by focusing the lens on their most productive—and let’s face it, most chaotic—era. I mean, look, the movie is literally titled The Doors, so it isn't supposed to be some one-man biopic about Jim Morrison, right? But even with that title, somehow he still ends up being the gravitational center of everything. It's just how it works.
Honestly, they really nailed it with the rest of those biographical details too. Everything else was laid out just fine.
So, if you ask me, there’s gotta be a perfect ratio—some kind of magic formula—to actually give a decent overview of a band.

Adolf Hitler in Final Fall was portrayed much more effectively than Morrison was in this one...

I didn't get that vibe 🤷
but yeah, if he banned him, he banned him, and honestly? That’s just how it goes.
It's all part of the rock and roll lifestyle.

Patrick Martin said:I didn't really get that vibe 🤷
but if he banned him, he banned him, and that's cool
it's all just part of the rock and roll lifestyle

Totally. Sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll. I don't see what the big deal is.

Patrick Martin said:I didn't get that impression... 🤷
Look, if he went out banning people, then he went out banning people... and that’s just how it is.
It’s all just rock and roll...

Look, I’m all for rock 'n' roll too, man... but I’m not about that cutting veins business, those crazy rituals, or setting fire to a closet with your girl locked inside. And I'm pretty damn sure Jim Morrison didn't envision rock 'n' roll looking like that either... 😉

Ethan Rivera53 said:ho-ho, look, I'm all about that rock 'n' roll life too, man, but I'm not about slicing up veins, doing some twisted ritualistic crap, or setting fire to a closet with your girl locked inside. I'm pretty damn sure Jim Morrison didn't envision rock 'n' roll looking quite like that either. 😉

I don't know all the gritty details, but I'm guessing it was a total mess. You got a little fame, a little drugs, a wild environment, plus he was just an extravagant guy himself—you mix all that together and yeah, you end up right there.

Ethan Rivera53 said:Well, look, I’m all for rock 'n' roll myself, but I’m not really down with the whole slashing veins, performing occult rituals, or setting fire to a closet where your girlfriend is trapped kind of vibe. And I’m fairly certain that even Jim didn't envision rock 'n' roll turning into that sort of madness. 😉

I’m not exactly looking for that either, but let’s be realistic here—The Doors, much like Jim himself, were never a standard fixture in the rock 'n' roll landscape. If you look at them strictly through a musical lens, they weren't just "rock"; they were this strange, mutant hybrid of rock, jazz, blues, and whatever else felt right at the moment.

Personally, I think only Jim truly knew what his original vision was—his bandmates have even hinted at that in various interviews. 🙂

@Lisa Davis46/">@@Lisa Davis46

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. But no, the film doesn't depict Jim as some isolated case of heavy marijuana use and constant drinking; half of America was doing the same thing back then—it certainly wasn't by accident. The Doors served as one of many catalysts in shaping the American youth culture of the 60s and driving that wedge between them and the "stiff" sensibilities of the 50s. Regardless of how you slice it, The Doors were outliers then, and they remain outliers now.

Most of the band members pretty much washed their hands of the movie. Manzarek and Krieger were only halfway there, but Densmore? He wasn't having any of it. They all basically said that after Oliver Stone’s version, the only way to actually fix the damage done to The Doors' legacy was that 2009 documentary, *When You Are Strange*. According to them, that's the only time you see the real group and the real Morrison. Personally, I think Stone’s flick is great. A huge part of that is Val Kilmer—he didn't just act the part; he lived it. He actually sang the songs, and regardless of how the director tried to spin certain things, he captured the essence perfectly. It’s always been a favorite of mine.