MovieChat Forums > The Manson Family (2004) Discussion > was ANYTHING at all in this movie accura...

was ANYTHING at all in this movie accurate?????

posted 17 years ago by johnq0583
16 replies | jump to latest

i mean come on for one thing why did they change it all so that it looks like tex
did all the killings? susan atkins stabbed sharan tate 16 times and in this movie tex stabs her while the others just giggle, and patricia krenwinkle killed abigail folger, caught up to her on the lawn and continued to stab her, but again in this movie shes stabbed a few times and gets her throat cut in the house and staggers out on her own and drops, than TEX comes out and stabs her some more after shes dead. did the directors read up on this at all before they filmed this piece of garbage? plus the acting is like a stage play!!! and what was going through their minds when they casted whats his name to play charlie????? and whats with the horns growing on tex'es head when he enters the tate house??? STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!!! if anyone is interested in an accurate version of the manson story i reccomend HELTER SKELTER 1976 version,(get the dvd, because it is 180 min. as the older vhs version is only just 2 hours) it follows the book and actually tells what really happened. the only feeling i got from this movie was that they only used the idea of the manson story but took it in their own direction, the hell with whats accurate. thats what i think they did, and failed miserably every step of the way...... N O T R E C O M E N D E D !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[–] bredlau3 17 years ago

he based it more on Tex's book. This is where he claims that he alone stabbed Sharon. By most accounts, Susan did not stab Sharon. She only said this basically 2 times. When she was in jail and bragging that she killed sharon, and then when she 'testified' during the penality trial, which all the girls were spewing out lie after lie.

Marcelo didn't even really want to play Charlie. He just got the role by default cause he had long hair and a beard. He even dropped out of the film halfway into it.

[–] johnq0583 17 years ago

i still say they could have done soooooooo much better with this movie. they could have atleast tried! so in other words no one will ever know who did what, it makes no sense that she would change her story like that after she TOTALLY SCREWED herself bragging about it in the trial and to other cell mates....she still would have been put away but maybe for not as long as shes stayin there now,what i mean is thats atleast one life sentence taken off, so why would they change the story now do they think that their sentence would be reduced if they changed it again or what? it makes ya think tex is taking the blame to lighten her time in jail or something. she was soooo proud about her achievement in stabbing tate to death, she described it in full detail what she said and did to her. years down the road she decides she didnt do it? think about it!

[–] bredlau3 17 years ago

it wasn't years down the road, it was like weeks. She bragged about it to her fellow cell mates in Sybil. Then when she was interviewed by the detectives about it, after Howard and Graham turned her in, she denied it. Then weeks later at the Grand Jury hearing she denied it. Then months and months later during the penalty phase of the Tate/LaBianca trial, she once again said she stabbed Sharon. After that slip up, she went back to the story that she didn't do it. It was just years later that she wrote a book. Susan bragged about a lot of crap in prison to get attention and to look tuff. She was scared in there. She claimed she stabbed Gary Hinman while Bobby held him. Any one with any knowledge of the case knows this isn't true. She even claimed to have been the one to be making love to Zero when he was murdered. Little did Ronnie know that Zero's murder happened while Susan was in Sybil. She claims that there was a hit list, to my knowledge nothing has ever been produced about this. I think all her bragging was a subconcious way of dealing with what she had done.

I don't know why Tex is claiming it. He stands nothing to gain from it. In prison, being a murderer of a pregnant woman is pretty low. Inmates have a strange code about other inmates. Child molesters, rapest and murderers of women and children are the lowest of the low and targets for violence and death. My only feeling is, I thin Tex is telling the truth.

But yes I think they could have done a lot better with this movie.

[–] CptHowdy87 13 years ago

he based it more on Tex's book. This is where he claims that he alone stabbed Sharon. By most accounts, Susan did not stab Sharon. She only said this basically 2 times. When she was in jail and bragging that she killed sharon, and then when she 'testified' during the penality trial, which all the girls were spewing out lie after lie.

I saw Susan Atkins interviewed on Diane Sawyer in 2002 and Susan admits killing Sharon and saying "I have no mercy for you bitch" there's also footage of her parole hearings where she tearfully admits to stabbing Sharon Tate and saying those infamous words.

By the way is it worth reading any of the books written by any of the Manson family? My Dad said he read Susan Atkins book years ago and that it was quite interesting so I might try to find that.

[–] bredlau3 13 years ago

they are all worth reading. I would like to see the Diane Sawyer interview, because she has claimed that she didn't stab, in her parole hearings.

[–] Thomas Dunson 12 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwqooUe0wC0

Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to (P. Green)

[–] kndykss 12 years ago

Thank you for clearing that up- I didn't think atkins stabbed sharon 16 times.
She was stabbed a total of 16times. Only 3 were fatal.So SAD::*(

[–] calib805 16 years ago

There is so much wrong with this movie i don't know where to start... But i do want to make mention that if this movie is based more on 'Tex's' book than they could have at least gotten SOME things accurate.. Like for instance.. In the Movie, Tex is banging Patricia Krenwrinkle when in his book he lays claim to the fact that she was considered, ugly, hairy and *beep* by most except for charlie. I mean it's irrelevant but it's the little things that make the movie, ya know?

[–] bredlau3 16 years ago

no offense to Leslie Orr, who I think did a great job, but I think the character of Pat was far different in the scrip than she was in person. Patty took care of the kdis for the most part and was quiet.

there are tons of things wrong with this movie.

[–] parvati_patil 16 years ago

Was the pregnant woman Tex killed supposed to be Sharon Tate?

"After all this time?"
"Always" said Snape.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] krammerhead 15 years ago

Did they have a hard time finding people to act in this film? The actor playing Tex looked nothing like the ex-football player Watson, he looked more like Les Nessman from WKRP in Cincinnati. Tex Watson looks more like Frankenstein than a tiny feeble man.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] samaels_venom 14 years ago

To me, Tex looked larger and more powerful than the other family members in the movie. Not only that, not everybody that played football back then was built like Dick Butkis.

[–] coex 13 years ago

if you're watching this film for accuracy, then you certainly have another thing coming. From the looks of things here in this thread, everyone seems to buy the Bug's Helter Skelter theory hook, line, and sinker. If one looks at facts, one starts to see things differently... this film is NOTHING BUT EXPLOITATION. Now, let's discuss the film and not worry about the facts this film has no real interest in, okay?

[–] JaggedDagger 8 years ago

I've done more research on the family than anyone I know!

All histories are conflicting!

I don't think anyone will ever know what happened but Tex!