http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7804380/replies/19948198 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7804380/replies/19947576 19948198 MAthePA responded to "PS: Which Movie Best Makes Legal History?" 2019-01-11T19:09:53Z 2019-01-11T19:09:53Z MAthePA http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/9889365 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/29c5cb73b1a5699baea4abb8666c83b6?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG mathepa_a3hykm7n2dxp2 <blockquote alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""><b alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="">Which Movie Best Makes Legal History?</b><br alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="" /><br alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="" />Which movie inspired by a real-life courtroom case or litigation do you find to be the most compelling legal story?<br alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="" /></blockquote>If the above is the draft for this poll, my suggestion is to avoid the semantic and textual transforms between "story" and "history". At least, "<b alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""><i alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="">Which Movie Best Makes Legal </i>Story?</b>" would be enough to equal the further heading lines. A lot of nutral slogans may be produced if you need, e.g. "Best Movie for Actual Legal Story".<br alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="" /><br alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="" />Anyway, whether you change the heading or not, the main problem I see in a little part of content that, IMHO, spoils the clean idea:<br alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="" /><br alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="" /><b alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="">1)&nbsp;</b><a alt="" href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151137" name="" rel="nofollow" target="" title="Link httpswwwimdbcomtitlett0151137" type="" value="">Joan of Arc</a> (1999) may be entertaining for audience, but if the juridical procedures is the heading for this poll, for these historic events&nbsp;I see no better movie-version than&nbsp;<a alt="" href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0019254" name="" rel="nofollow" target="" title="Link httpswwwimdbcomtitlett0019254" type="" value="">La passion de Jeanne d'Arc</a> (1928);<br alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="" /><br alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="" /><b alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="">2)</b>&nbsp;<a alt="" href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299658" name="" rel="nofollow" target="" title="" type="" value="">Chicago</a> (2002). I do love this unique musical, but can not understand placing it here. The movie is based on a stage-play (!) which in its turn is inspired by two different stories. The two actual protagonists and their legal cases were not known untill the stage accepted them for pure entertaiment. The stage-play and the further musical resulted to no changes or any impact for any legal system. Pure entertainment;<br alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="" /><br alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="" /><b alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="">3)</b>&nbsp;I agree&nbsp;<a alt="" href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102138/" name="" rel="nofollow" target="" title="" type="" value="">JFK (1991)</a>&nbsp;had impact on public opinion, but it is concerned on post-investigation and is more manipulative than historic - it is not an opinion of one man or a little group of people. Its creator is not denying the fact the whole movie was aimed to make the files open for public. If we take&nbsp;<a alt="" href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/10/26/16536122/oliver-stone-jfk-assassination-trump" name="" rel="nofollow" target="" title="" type="" value="">How a 1991 movie resulted in JFK's assassination files being released</a>&nbsp;mentioned above, it lacks of interrogation mark.&nbsp;<a alt="" href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102138/" name="" rel="nofollow" target="" title="" type="" value="">JFK (1991)</a>&nbsp;did not fulfiled its mission.The 75 years of initial taboo were transformed into less strict 50-years taboo (such norm is in practice much longer than the age of&nbsp;Oliver Stone, btw) reffering to the President's right to actualize it or not, or do it partially. Finally, 25 years after the movie release date the President of USA made a part of the files open for public. Ask Oliver what he has read new in the opened files... We may go a long and endless way in disputing, but I consider it not worthy for time and efforts, because who wanna be fooled finds the way to be happy with that )))<br alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="" /><br alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="" />I'm further thinking of additional titles, but prefer to separate printing them, if any. 3