• musclemecca bodybuilding forums does not sell or endorse any bodybuilding gear, products or supplements.
    Musclemecca has no affiliation with advertisers; they simply purchase advertising space here. If you have questions go to their site and ask them directly.
    Advertisers are responsible for the content in their forums.
    DO NOT SELL ILLEGAL PRODUCTS ON OUR FORUM

Zodiac

Flex

Flex

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
6,296
Points
38
I don't know how many of you have seen the movie Zodiac, but it is easily one of my favorites. It's based on the true events of a serial killer in the late 60's/early 70's who called himself the Zodiac and killed at random.

All the top investigators of the case believe Arthur Leigh Allen was the Zodiac, yet when I started browsing online one day, I noticed that a majority of people online claim they "know" it wasn't Arthur Leigh Allen and that it was for certain someone else. It's true that there was no hard evidence on Allen (fingerprints, handwriting, etc). But, there was more than enough circumstancial evidence to pin it on him.

I started jotting down a list of all the circumstancial evidence I could find, this is what I came up with.


  • Arthur Leigh Allen lived only 7 minutes away from the Zodiac's first murder scene.
  • Arthur Leigh Allen lived only 4 minutes away from the Zodiac's second murder scene.
  • Arthur Leigh Allen's brother (Ron Allen) says Arthur was given a "Zodiac" watch at Christmas of 1967.
  • Arthur Leigh Allen's former friend (Don Cheney) said they had a conversation before the murders first started taking place, where Arthur admitted he would go around killing random teenagers in the night and he would send letters to the newspapers to "mess" with them. He also told Don Cheney that he would call himself the Zodiac.
  • Another former friend (named Phil) said Arthur always talked about "hunting man" because Arthur felt people were more challenging to hunt than animals, because of their intelligence.
  • Arthur Leigh Allen's favorite book was "The Most Dangerous Game," where a man named "Dr. Z" went around hunting man, because it was more of a challenge.
  • Before the murders started taking place, Arthur Leigh Allen showed a former friend and his wife papers with codes drawn on them. Later on, when these friends were shown the codes written by the Zodiac, they said it closely matched Arthur Leigh Allen's.
  • The Zodiac spelled Christmas as "X-Mass" which is the exact way Arthur Leigh Allen spells it.
  • The Zodiac once wrote "bussy work" in one of his letters, which was an expression used by school teachers. Arthur Leigh Allen was a school teacher up till 1968.
  • The first murder of 1968 took place at a very depressing time of Arthur's life. He had just lost his job eight months prior for being a pedophile, and the murder took place on December 20, 1968. His birthday is on December 18, which means the murder took place in between his birthday and Christmas. The two most depressing times of the year for most people.
  • Arthur was known to park and drink in rural setting such as Lake Herman Road (where the first Zodiac murder took place). Not only that, but Arthur Leigh Allen always kept a gun inside his car.
  • The young woman murdered by the Zodiac on July 4th, 1969 (name was Darlene) worked at a restaurant located just 1/10th of a mile from Arthur Leigh Allen's house.
  • According to Darlene's friends, Darlene had a friend named "Lee" or "Leigh." Arthur Leigh Allen always went by the name Leigh.
  • According to Arthur's former friend Don Cheney, Arthur Leigh Allen once pointed out a girl at the restaurant where Darlene worked, claiming he was "gonna get with her" or "gonna do something to her," Don can't remember what the girl looked like, so he can't confirm it was Darlene. All he can remember is that she was cute and looked like a nice girl.
  • The survivor of the murder by the Zodiac on July 4, 1969 (Mike Mageau), pointed to a picture of Arthur Leigh Allen in 1991 and said "that's him! that's the man who shot me!" It was the first time he had looked at suspects.
  • Mike Mageau said the Zodiac was driving a corvair. Arthur Leigh Allen had a friend with a corvair, which he would let Arthur drive on occasion. The friend also stated he had left the car in the same place for one week during the summer of 1969, and that Arthur Leigh Allen may have had access to the keys.


 
Flex

Flex

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
6,296
Points
38
  • The Zodiac attempted to murder two young adults with a foot long knife with sheath and rivets at Lake Berryessa on August 27th, 1969 (one survived). Arthur Leigh Allen told police he was planning on going to Lake Berryessa that day, but later changed his mind.
  • When he returned home later that day, Arthur Leigh Allen had bloody knives in his car which he claims were from killing chickens.
  • Arthur Leigh Allen was very familiar with the Lake Berryessa area. In most cases, serial killers use an area they are familiar with.
  • Don Cheney said he had gone up to Lake Berryessa with Arthur in the past.
  • Footprints were found at the crime scene, which were size 10.5 military boots. Arthur Leigh Allen was formerly in the military, and wore size 10.5 shoes.
  • Foot long knives with sheath and rivets were discovered at Arthur Leigh Allen's home in 1991, which matched the murder of August 1969.
  • The survivor at Lake Berryessa (named Bryan Hartnell) said Arthur Leigh Allen's voice and appearance matches the Zodiac.
  • The first suspected murder of the Zodiac took place in 1966 in Riverside (souther) California, nearly 5 hours away from San Francisco. At the time of the murder, Arthur Leigh Allen was confirmed to be in the Riverside area by Vallejo PD and California District of Justice.
  • As a school teacher, Allen was awarded 19 sick days a year. He only used one sick day the entire year of 1966, and it was the day after the Riverside murder. A common trait by murderers is to miss work the days after a murder.
  • Letters were mailed the next year claiming responsibility for the murder, which were typewritten. The typewriting matches a royal typewriter with elite type found in Arthur Leigh Allen's home in 1991.
  • The number 32 was written on these letters, which looks like a sloppy Z. Arthur Leigh Allen was 32 years old at the time, and he lived at 32 Fresno Street.
  • The Zodiac once wrote diagrams of bombs in his letters for blowing up a school bus. Matching handwritten diagrams of bombs were found in Arthur Leigh Allen's basement in 1991, and also magazines on how to build bombs.
  • Ralph Spinelli, a successful club owner, claims Arthur Leigh Allen showed up at one of his clubs and told him he was the Zodiac. He said to prove this, "I will kill a cabbie in San Francisco," which days later a cab driver named Paul Stine was shot and killed by the Zodiac.
  • Paul Stine had the same middle name as Arthur Leigh Allen (Lee), and the same birthday (December 18th).
  • The Zodiac always got so caught up with killing women, that he would almost forget to finish off the men. Arthur Leigh Allen had a lot of hate towards women, possibly because he never had much luck with finding a girlfriend. Women always stayed far away from Arthur, they could sense something was wrong with the guy, which is probably why he started touching young children.
 
co05

co05

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
303
Points
16
I'm intrigued. I'll check it out.
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
I found the movie interesting but not a particularly strong film.

Probably should have been a doco or dramatisation rather than a movie.
 
Q

quorom

Active member
Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
37
Points
6
Yeah, I thought the subject matter was very interesting but the movie just dragged on and on.
 
Line

Line

Chaos reigns.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
9,716
Points
38
I found the movie interesting but not a particularly strong film.

Probably should have been a doco or dramatisation rather than a movie.
Well, it more or less was a dramatization, so I don't understand your criticism. And from a cinematic standpoint, it's very strong.
Yeah, I thought the subject matter was very interesting but the movie just dragged on and on.
What three hour films do you enjoy?
 
Q

quorom

Active member
Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
37
Points
6
What three hour films do you enjoy?[/QUOTE]

Well, The Godfather, Amadeus, The Good The Bad & The Ugly, Heat, Doctor Zhivago, Braveheart, Lord of the Rings, Seven Samurai, Once Upon a Time in America, Lawrence of Arabia, Saving Private Ryan
 

MuscleMecca Crew

Mecca Staff
Flex

Flex

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
6,296
Points
38
I think two parts of Zodiac dragged on, that should of probably been edited out.

First, the whole scene with Melvin Belli on the Dunbar show. It completely slowed the film, for not much purpose. They probably realized this, but left it in since it took so much work to create that scene.

Second, the scene in Bob Vaughn's house. The scene begins after 2 hours of the movie is over with, so everyone expects an absurd climax. Yet, most people are let down, and the rest are confused as to what just happend. I was very confused until I watched it one more time.

Without those two scenes, it may have been a 2 hour movie.
 
Line

Line

Chaos reigns.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
9,716
Points
38
Well, The Godfather, Amadeus, The Good The Bad & The Ugly, Heat, Doctor Zhivago, Braveheart, Lord of the Rings, Seven Samurai, Once Upon a Time in America, Lawrence of Arabia, Saving Private Ryan
There's little wrong with these -- sans the LoTR trilogy, which is flawed to say the least. Still, given the gravitas of Zodiac's themes in showing how events exclusive to an individual can still profoundly effect them, I'd say the running time is adequate. The plethora of cast members serve to show examples of this, which Fincher didn't want to trivialize by excluding some things, or rushing through others. People did actually died and other people's lives really were ruined -- three hours of our time seems piddling in comparison.
First, the whole scene with Melvin Belli on the Dunbar show. It completely slowed the film, for not much purpose. They probably realized this, but left it in since it took so much work to create that scene.

Second, the scene in Bob Vaughn's house. The scene begins after 2 hours of the movie is over with, so everyone expects an absurd climax. Yet, most people are let down, and the rest are confused as to what just happend. I was very confused until I watched it one more time.

Without those two scenes, it may have been a 2 hour movie.
These are two of the film's better scenes. I could go into more detail, but I covered the bit about Fincher purposefully subverting expectation in the first paragraph of my review. The key is to create suspense when there should be none -- Robert Graysmith obviously survived the situation to write the corresponding source book. Kill Bill succeeds in such a practice quite brilliantly as well. Bye the bye, this instance plays up the idea of the ambiguous nature of the crimes, and just how frightening such uncertainty is in larger, social implications.
 
Tech

Tech

Ron Paul FTW
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
10,334
Points
38
There's little wrong with these -- sans the LoTR trilogy, which is flawed to say the least.
23mpki1-2.jpg
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
Well, it more or less was a dramatization, so I don't understand your criticism. And from a cinematic standpoint, it's very strong.

It didn't really have the gravitas of a dramatisation. As a result you are left with a movie.

I preferred the Dirty Harry movie :borat:
 
Flex

Flex

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
6,296
Points
38
These are two of the film's better scenes. I could go into more detail, but I covered the bit about Fincher purposefully subverting expectation in the first paragraph of my review. The key is to create suspense when there should be none -- Robert Graysmith obviously survived the situation to write the corresponding source book. Kill Bill succeeds in such a practice quite brilliantly as well. Bye the bye, this instance plays up the idea of the ambiguous nature of the crimes, and just how frightening such uncertainty is in larger, social implications.
Doesn't matter. The mainstream would of enjoyed the movie more without these two scenes. Once you get through the Melvin Belli television appearance, it leaves an incomplete feeling. Like you just wasted 25 minutes of your life watching it.

This is the reason 75% of the people that watch it whine about it dragging. It's true, it does drag, because that part did nothing but hold the story back. The mainstream would of enjoyed it more without those two scenes, especially the Melvin Belli scene.
 
Line

Line

Chaos reigns.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
9,716
Points
38
Doesn't matter. The mainstream would of enjoyed the movie more
I stopped reading here. The minute artists compromise themselves solely to appease the mainstream is the minute they become uninteresting to me. To think the layperson's opinion of cinema is important outside of receipts is laughable.
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
I stopped reading here. The minute artists compromise themselves solely to appease the mainstream is the minute they become uninteresting to me. To think the layperson's opinion of cinema is important outside of receipts is laughable.

This is why I have a love-hate relationship with arthouse (and general artistic endevours). They can be responsible for some of the most compelling and interesting films (music, art, even so far as the difference between news and newstainment of the mainstream). They can also be the most self-indulgent loads of shit you will ever have the displeasure of being tortured with.

Even the stock standard blockbuster is always made more interesting by being bigger/better than a lot of loud noises and special effects. Will those sorts of details matter to the audience at such a superficial layer? Unlikely. Does it make it more re-watchable, cast a larger shadow and make it endure? Definitely.

But Zodiac wasn't made average by just two scenes, it was the story of the infamous that was made to feel like the mundane.
 
Line

Line

Chaos reigns.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
9,716
Points
38
This is why I have a love-hate relationship with arthouse (and general artistic endevours). They can be responsible for some of the most compelling and interesting films (music, art, even so far as the difference between news and newstainment of the mainstream). They can also be the most self-indulgent loads of shit you will ever have the displeasure of being tortured with.
Give me interesting movements that champion progressiveness and experimentation over tired and passive practices any day. That aside, Fincher's in no way part of what could be considered the American arthouse movement (if there is such a thing). Zodiac is a studio film (Paramount and Warner Bros), but was a case where the director, a fully capable artist, was allowed to create the film he wanted. The end product -- sans the the five minutes the studio wanted trimmed for the theatrical release -- is his vision. The viewer is secondary in this regard because divisive movies tend to find their own audience and, in the long run, tend to be appreciated on higher, more complex levels than mainstream films are. A film is the result of an artist's expression -- he shouldn't have to pacify his thoughts to appease a phantom audience. That's not the way art works. One thing I have noticed is that supposed arthouse pictures tend to treat the viewer with more respect as far as their ability of thematic inference is concerned. I realize that, tonally, this seems almost contrarian to my post to Flex but I'm not the one making these films; I just report on them.
tim290280 said:
Even the stock standard blockbuster is always made more interesting by being bigger/better than a lot of loud noises and special effects. Will those sorts of details matter to the audience at such a superficial layer? Unlikely. Does it make it more re-watchable, cast a larger shadow and make it endure? Definitely.
I hear regular moviegoers remark about how much they enjoyed the special effects all the time. Nonetheless, I find that this statement has little to do with my previous post.
tim290280 said:
But Zodiac wasn't made average by just two scenes, it was the story of the infamous that was made to feel like the mundane.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Fincher took a series of widely known occurrences and, without being manipulative or disrespectful to those victimized, used the story to channel implications concerning the responsibility of the media, communicable progression, terrorism, the cinema-sociology link, the ineptness of dated police practices, race concerns, etc, etc...The result is not just a rehashing of the murder events or even how those who lived suffered greatly in their wake, but a pictorial of how society changes under natural, chronological progression and how such a catalyst can aid said changes. Mundane? Please.
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
Give me interesting movements that champion progressiveness and experimentation over tired and passive practices any day. That aside, Fincher's in no way part of what could be considered the American arthouse movement (if there is such a thing). Zodiac is a studio film (Paramount and Warner Bros), but was a case where the director, a fully capable artist, was allowed to create the film he wanted. The end product -- sans the the five minutes the studio wanted trimmed for the theatrical release -- is his vision. The viewer is secondary in this regard because divisive movies tend to find their own audience and, in the long run, tend to be appreciated on higher, more complex levels than mainstream films are. A film is the result of an artist's expression -- he shouldn't have to pacify his thoughts to appease a phantom audience. That's not the way art works. One thing I have noticed is that supposed arthouse pictures tend to treat the viewer with more respect as far as their ability of thematic inference is concerned. I realize that, tonally, this seems almost contrarian to my post to Flex but I'm not the one making these films; I just report on them.

I hear regular moviegoers remark about how much they enjoyed the special effects all the time. Nonetheless, I find that this statement has little to do with my previous post.
Sorry I should have been clearer, I was actually making a wider comment that lead on from your comment about how good cinema and art isn't constrained by the supposed market appeal. Wasn't meant to be about this film in particular. If you read again with this in mind you'll get where I was going and that we're roughly on the same page.

[off topic]
My post and thoughts about the issue of art and the mainstream media kinda stems from a recent argument that has arisen in the Australian govt and media about the publishing/book industry in Aust. Basically we have a semi-protectionist system of publishing here that has "allowed local artists and stories to flourish" by making it expensive to import books and local printers to have publishing rights. Thus you have local publishing companies with funds to prop up the local industry. So now that the protectionist agenda is being reviewed there are a lot of dooms-day predictions going on about how the "wonderful" local authors and artists will no longer have a voice.

The reality is that these prize winning authors don't have a large audience and don't sell well anyway. It isn't that their art isn't recognised, nor that it hasn't got an audience, but this market/audience is small and marginal with or without protectionist agendas. Art has to have an audience to have any real relevance or meaning. Discussion of not pandering to the mainstream is fair, but that depends what your target audience is.
[/Off topic]

So art is good, but you have to have an audience. Aiming at cinema buffs is usually not the best way to create important cinema, as how many real cinema buffs are there?
I'm not sure what you mean here. Fincher took a series of widely known occurrences and, without being manipulative or disrespectful to those victimized, used the story to channel implications concerning the responsibility of the media, communicable progression, terrorism, the cinema-sociology link, the ineptness of dated police practices, race concerns, etc, etc...The result is not just a rehashing of the murder events or even how those who lived suffered greatly in their wake, but a pictorial of how society changes under natural, chronological progression and how such a catalyst can aid said changes. Mundane? Please.

Mundane; as in you take one of the most compelling and fear inducing periods in SoCal history and turn it into a pedestrian film that had so little tension it should have been a documentary. I've got no issue with the themes discussed and the scope of the film, the issue is that at no point was it compelling viewing. I was interested and wanted to get a better understanding, but at the same time I was more than happy to press stop and go and mow the lawn half way through. My interest was not in the film itself, but the subject matter, which means the film has failed the basic test of cinema.
 
Top