Who was the Zodiac?

Who was the Zodiac?

Paul Averry? Leigh?

As someone who knows nothing about the Zodiac killings, for the first 30 minutes I thought it was Gyllenhaal

You've missed the point of the movie. There is no answer.

I am
killd ur moms pussy

Robert Downey Jr can't act for shit. The movie confirms. He was playing Tony stalk; like he always does in all his films

This is completely true. Watch him in that Rodney Dangerfield movie "Back to School" and he's playing Tony Stark.

He's playing RDJ

Trips of Thereisnoanswer

The film heavily implies that Paul Avery is the killer however you can't form an opinion based on such a heavily biased film and the fact that the DNA extracted from old crime scenes didn't match Avery's practically eliminates him from suspicion.

The killer is irrelevant, this movie is about the chase not the catch

This is completely true I watch Wierd Sience and he was playing Tony Spark

where did it imply that he was the zodiac?
i think you watched a different movie, my man

mb, I haven't seen it in a while. I meant Arthur Allen

You watched something else faggot lover

>faggot lover
>that's the best he could come up with
lol

Gyleenhalls siz in slakle nkzhun

Yep, watching Tropic Thunder, you can see he's definitely playing Tony Shark.

i seem to remember that the movie basically told the viewer that this guy was the killer?

you seem to be a retard in that case

Are you retarded?

actually, he's not

they even had the part at the end where the guy says the Leigh was the man that shot him

Also, when Gyllenhaal went to the tool shop and stared him down at the end, it made it seem like he finally realized it was him

I'm not saying he was the Zodiac, but the movie heavily implied it.

why is that?

Wow, was that really necessary?
Geez do you really need to use homophobic slurs to get your point across?
What's with the r-word? I wonder if you know that it hurts people?

We can do better, guys. Let's make the rest of this thread an example the rest of Sup Forums can follow and be proud of.

No. The movie showed you that Graysmith believed Allen was the killer. That was his BELIEF. Fincher agreed with most of his beliefs in that regard. The entire point of the movie however is to show that there is no answer to the riddle. That these kinds of cases are impossible question marks that plague us because we can't solve their meaning. The whole point of the movie is to show the futility of the search for meaning. To believe that the movie is telling you it's one guy or another definitively is to completely misunderstand the movie's thematic goals.

Can confirm this too, was watching Iron Man 2, he was playing Tony Stark.

The movie was based on Robert Graysmith's book, which was making a case against Arthur Leigh Allen. IRL the case against him is not that strong and a guy named Gaikowski who had connections to one victim and was confirmed near the scene of another attack is the #1 suspect.

You're a fucking imbecile.

Greysmith wrote two books about the Zodiac, both of which were the basis of the film. In the first, there were three circumstantial suspects. In the second, in light of new evidence which was so compelling Greysmith used the suspect's name instead of a pseudonym, Arthur Leigh Allen was named as the most likely perpetrator (though the other two suspects were mentioned in the film, Rick Marshall and Lawrence Kane).

Sadly, Allen's DNA didn't match to an evidentiary burden the DNA recovered from one of the envelopes of the Zodiac Letters to the Chronicle. However, it was never determined whether any other person should be excluded as a source for that DNA (postal worker, mailroom clerks at the Chron), and no DNA was recovered from any of the other letters.

I doubt it'll ever be proved absolutely whether Allen did it, but he remains far and away the best suspect.

If that was the point of the movie then they fucked up by ending the film with a guy literally pointing at a picture of Drew Carey's brother and saying "that's the man who shot me"

this movie is an even duller Spotlight.

the books the movie was based on, outright stated that leigh was the killer based on the evidence. fincher probably didn't want it to be that obvious in the movie so he only hinted at it (heavily), since leigh was not convicted and is now dead.

I've seen a lot of docos on it so I can't remember if the movie had text that said that DNA tests showed that he wasn't actually the killer.

If the movie didn't show that then you're talking out of your fucking ass.

Why didn't the police talk to the mother who he picked up? She got a full look at him didn't she?

>When Allen was convicted of molestation, the police came to his home and were let in by his mother. They found him in the center of his basement room howling and shrieking, live chipmunks crawling all over him and squirrel shit dripping from his shoulders.

interesting guy

It's not considered an official Zodiac encounter. Police thought it was just some nut.

You are a literal retard.

The entire point of the movie is what I have discussed. I don't know if you know this but works of art generally have ideas they want to communicate and they are not merely recitations of the "facts" as you know them. The entire movie is concerned with obsession, with the impossibility of truly getting the truth, with the ability to accept that we may not be able to nail down meaning. The entire sequence with JGL looking at Allen and finally allowing himself to believe in his thought, without having it 100% confirmed, is the point of the movie. We cannot get at the truth, we can maybe only get near to it.

Again, the word you are using is SUSPECT. We will never know if Allen was responsible, that is what the movie is interested in. The random acts of violence that the killer perpetrated before disappearing, a convenient metaphor for a chaotic world that has no coherent, digestible framework.

Yes because a character making a statement is the same thing as a movie expressing its theme. Are you a third grader? Also do you remember the flash card that appears an instant layer saying that the case is still open and that DNA evidence taken from a Zodiac letter did not match Allen's? It is deliberately ambiguous, unknowable.

You guys treat art so badly it hurts my soul.

the idea it communicates is that leigh was the killer.

Jesus Christ the level of autism in your posts hurts.

I hate it when plebs watch genuinely great movies. I love how you guys have no idea how metaphors work and you're only able to take movies as receptacles of data.

Why did you never learn that there are ideas in movies that are beyond just reading plots?

>REEEEEEEEEEEE

sure there are other ideas, but you'd have to be stupid not to see that the movie portrays leigh as the killer, only not to come to a conclusion since he wasn't convicted and is now dead. we will never know the truth.

I love how you're so dumb that you can't understand that it would be a paradox to suggest that the movie is about the unsatisfiable search for meaning/truth while also offering a definitive portrayal of who the killer was

are you seriously that illiterate?

No, you missed the point of the movie. There is a very clear answer, yet it can't be proved. If you were smart, you'd understand this.

But it's not like it's difficult to grasp. The final scene was Mageux ID'ing Allen, then cut to title cards explaining how the police continue to suspect Allen.

Honestly, how you're this fucking dumb escapes me.

Ah, you're a high order troll. I regret engaging you.

Wow, just wow. What a weak cop-out. I actually laughed out loud at your post, because it was so pathetic.

I am 100% certain that Richard Gaikowski was the Zodiac killer.

No, no that is not what the movie is about at all. It is about the postmodern search for truth, a truth that does not exist.

Just because you are too dim-witted to understand that some movies actually have genuine ideas that they want to explore doesn't mean that they're about what you want them to be about.

it's unsatisfiable because the killer is dead and can't be punished. guess both my post and your movie went over your head.

Embarrassing.

Please stop rustling me. I'm sorry I didn't realize you were a Tier 1 troll. I won't fall for the bait anymore, I promise.

>doesn't mean that they're about what you want them to be about.
How ironic.

These things aren't mutually exclusive. The movie can both imply that ALA is the most likely suspect, which I agree with that it did, and represent the elusivity of "truth," as you claim.

You're really talking about two different things.

You are so hilariously dim. I love how you can't comprehend a movie's clear framework and structure.

Your opinion is that the movie's thesis is "we know who the killer is, but it can't be proven because he is dead." This to you is a valid reading of a movie's thematic content and you genuinely believe that might be too subtle for someone to grasp.

Please keep this hilarious third grade analysis coming.

Wow. What a cop-out. I'm currently laughing out loud at your stupid post, because it was not any good.

>doesn't understand what the person is arguing about
>has likely never heard the word "postmodern" nor does he understand its meaning
>"I won't talk to you anymore, you troll!"

this

hey at least i'm not angry over your incorrect analysis. you should watch the movie again.

calm down, my man

>Hur durr in 12 angry men the guy says that kid was the one who stabbed him that's so the director means it SO HE DID DO IT

Its been a long time since anything new came out on him. It was an initial rush of info and then nothing.

Any astute analysis of the film by anyone who isn't this dim will discuss the movie's ideas in the same way that I am.

You're reducing what I consider to be a great film to a police procedural that is about nothing beyond its surface details. The movie is not about determining who the killer is. It's about the need that people feel to obsessively seek truth in a world without any.

what i don't get is that when jake goes to that projectionist's house and the movie implies that's the guy but then nothing else happens after from that

Thank you for continuously posting in a way that explicitly demonstrates your stupidity.

I think Se7en might be a little more your speed boyos.

>that is about nothing beyond its surface details
never said that. nice reading comprehension though.

Se7en is better though

yikes, you're a bigger pleb than i thought

It's almost like the movie is deliberately filled with red herrings that are meant to suggest there isn't a clear answer to the case. It's almost like the movie is giving you clues as to what it's getting at.

>It's almost like the movie is giving you clues as to what it's getting at.
Yeah that Leigh was the killer. But it's too late now since he's dead.

>likes Se7en more than Zodiac

Laughable.

Zodiac is Fincher's only great movie and it's a movie that is so good that it's surprising that a director who is generally far more pedestrian (see: Se7en) made something so substantial.

Weird how you're so willing to toss dirt on an innocent man's name just because a movie told you so and he can't rebut because he's fucking dead.

graysmith's books literally named allen as the killer, how did graysmith get away with that? didn't allen's family want to sue?

>innocent
kek, a convicted child molester. deserves all the dirt he gets. also learn the difference between reality and fiction, kid.

>Paul Averry?
why would you think paul avery was the killer?

that's different case because they implied he was the guy but then ignored this for the rest of the movie

Look mate, you lack the mental acuity to evaluate movies beyond a plot-level. That's fine, just resolve yourself to try harder next time or stop spewing bullshit as though you know what you're talking about.

you don't have to look beyond the plot level to realize the movie portrayed allen as the killer, a very straight forward business. kinda hard for someone to see if they're used to having answers yelled in their face like in most hollywood movies i guess.

Ted Cruz.... It's like you guys are living in a bubble

The hilarious part is that this movie is deliberately anti-Hollywood. It refuses to give in to narrative convention, to provide any genuine satisfaction to the viewer. To embrace Graysmith's belief in Allen the viewer has to take a leap of faith. The movie fills itself with moments in which truth is near but cannot be fully discovered, it teaches the audience how to read it, how to understand it. For instance, the very first cipher that we see in the movie. First, it is solved off-screen, preventing us from seeing any sort of moment of satisfaction that we could get were we to actually see the couple engaged in solving the cipher. This is what we would have seen in any conventional Hollywood film. It's denied us, and on top of that the movie focuses on the fact that the cipher isn't even completely solved. It's got characters that are "leftovers," that provide no answer. From the very beginning the movie is obsessed with the idea that there is no definitive answer, that we are trying to arrange the details and turn the world into something logical and coherent but that it can't be done.

I know you just think it's a serial killer movie about a serial killer, but it's clear that you've just never learned that works of art deal in metaphors and ideas beyond the plot-level.

nice wall of text, hope this makes you feel better.

>can't read more than two sentences about a movie

you should genuinely be embarrassed of your stupidity. please go pick up a book and try to improve yourself.

i'm not talking about allen you fucking retard
i'm talking about pic related

>david fincher has ever done anything metaphoric
>half of his films aren't based on actual and prosaic events like facebook
Right, dude, he's like totally the American Eisenstein and like stuff and postmodern or whatever.

Just come clean.

>thinks i didn't read it
nice assumption, guess you're a slow reader?

Good point dude! Making a movie about a real life event means that nothing about it can be metaphorical! You're so intelligent! I honestly pity America.

How does my post imply that I didn't know who you were talking about? He is introduced into the movie as a deliberate way of further dissatisfying the viewer. He is another means of introducing doubt into what we are being sold by Graysmith. That is one of the only conventional, dramatic moments in the movie and it is used explicitly to dissatisfy our expectations even further.

Don't get angry that you're too stupid to understand what I am clearly saying.

stop making digest posts you autistic fuck

>refers to 200 words as a "wall of text"
>is unable to come up with any response due to illiteracy

how do you not see how stupid all of your responses indicate that you are?

but what you're clearly saying is clearly incorrect. it is also drenched in sarcasm and as hominemns, i don't understand how you think people will take you seriously.

It was Dick Gyke.

wow i guess you're unfamiliar with Sup Forums and "wall of text", try browsing a bit before posting. grasping for straws m8. and i have made plenty of responses to you/that guy, no reason to go on and on and on with the same things.

Again, if you could offer a single argument or even try to engage in debate with me in any way, it would make you seem like a more valuable person to discuss something with. All you're saying is "it's clearly not true" without offering an argument as to why.

Why do plebs fail to understand that some movies actually have ideas beyond "well uh gee uh duh I think it was Arthur Lee Allen!"

Do you understand that analyzing a movie based solely on digesting its plot in a literal way is the most reductive way of looking at it?

In real life the Zodiac killer was probably some bloke's dad. He wrote a book about it and it's pretty convincing.

Embarrassing.

Stated in the film and in the real investigation that he didnt lick his own envelopes

Well the books stated it was Leigh, so it makes sense that the movie did as well. Guess they would get sued if they wrote "Leigh was the killer" before the credits since they can't actually prove it and that he's now dead, they just painted him as the killer. Show, not tell.

it is the most practical and correct way

You dumb fuck

I love that you actually admit that you think digesting plot is the best way to analyze a movie without realizing how silly that makes you sound.

When you watch tv (which I'm sure you spend a lot of hours doing) do you see ads for coca cola and just think "oh they're selling me pop, that looks good." You have a genuine form of illiteracy mate. You're not media literate in even the most basic sense.

Enjoy a lifetime of not understanding anything beyond a surface level.

>wait he's not a troll
>he's that unbearable hybrid of autist and moron previously known only to /lit/
>incapable of creating anything of complicated beauty
>enjoys only pedestrian entertainment like the films of david fincher
>reconciles both defects by pretending to be some sort of elite film critic
I get it now. Well, I'd stay to mock and expose you further, but I'm going to a nightclub to srew a woman ten years younger than I. Toodles!

Embarrassing.

Wow.

Just wow.

your posts are the silliest things itt by far.

If you had even read any of my posts you would see that I readily agree that Fincher is a pedestrian director. It makes it all the more strange that he made a masterpiece like Zodiac when practically everything else he's made has been mediocre.

Stupid people who think they're smart are fantastic. Please continue.