# Oliver Stone's World Trade Center



## Chris (Aug 3, 2006)

I respect Stone as a director, but in my opinion it's WAY too soon for something like this, no matter how Titanic-ly directed it is.  Unless he donates 100% of the proceeds to the families, charities, firefighters, paramedics and countless other civil and private families that died, he's a fucking asshole for capitalizing on such a national tragedy.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Aug 3, 2006)

Couldn't agree more. Way, way, way to fucking soon. Shit, 5 years?


----------



## Shannon (Aug 3, 2006)

My thoughts exactly. Way too soon....but then again, how long is a sufficient time to wait? Think about all the other national tragedies & wars that have had movies about them.


----------



## Chris (Aug 3, 2006)

For me, 9/11 is just something you don't take lightly, you don't hollywood up, and you don't cast Nick Cage to come in and play the woebegotten hero in. It's just not cool.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Aug 3, 2006)

10 years minimum, for something of this caliber.


----------



## Shannon (Aug 3, 2006)

Chris said:


> For me, 9/11 is just something you don't take lightly, you don't hollywood up, and you don't cast Nick Cage to come in and play the woebegotten hero in. It's just not cool.


Yep.


----------



## forelander (Aug 3, 2006)

This reminds me of the South Park episode where it took 21 years for AIDS to be funny.

Not that I'm implying this will ever be funny but the whole "how long do we wait thing" just reminded me. As for the movie itself I don't have particularly strong feelings since I'm not american and thus can't really comment. Most people here seem against it though so maybe they should wait.


----------



## Chris (Aug 3, 2006)

I think every American will be against it honestly. I've been to ground zero, down with about 6 friends of mine to party for the weekend. We all went back to the hotel and cried our eyes out for 3 hours. It was the single most awful thing I'd ever seen.

It'll never be funny, or anything less than horrible to me.


----------



## Leon (Aug 3, 2006)

i'm guessing that lots of people will be pro- on this movie. the hollywood money shakers will probably say something like, "people who don't see this movie aren't being patriotic." then every souless, sheep bastard will shell out $10 to see it.

i will never watch it. i watched the second plane hit. i watched both towers fall. i never want to see it again, for as long as i live.


----------



## Cancer (Aug 3, 2006)

I was like that until I heard that Oliver Stone was directing. I believe he will do it justice, and I also like that he did it as human tragedy piece, as opposed to a conspiracy piece.

However, I will NOT be going to see it when it opens, it's just too soon for me personally, somehow I suspect alot of people will be that way, but at least the DVD's will be out when we are (if we are ) able to re-visit the tragedy.


----------



## Metal Ken (Aug 4, 2006)

Chris said:


> I think every American will be against it honestly. I've been to ground zero, down with about 6 friends of mine to party for the weekend. We all went back to the hotel and cried our eyes out for 3 hours. It was the single most awful thing I'd ever seen.
> It'll never be funny, or anything less than horrible to me.



Thats what you'd think, but everyone was all about that 'Flight 93' movie. WTF? No one even really knows for sure what happened and they just kinda.. made up everything? It was a horrible idea, but they insisted on making it and everyone thought it was amazing. i refused to see it.


----------



## Roland777 (Aug 4, 2006)

Chris said:


> For me, 9/11 is just something you don't take lightly, you don't hollywood up, and you don't cast Nick Cage to come in and play the woebegotten hero in. It's just not cool.



And glorifying the hideous military actions by the US in the middle east, portraying all arabs as savages, by making TV-series and movies is?


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Aug 4, 2006)

Roland777 said:


> And glorifying the hideous military actions by the US in the middle east, portraying all arabs as savages, by making TV-series and movies is?


Shit, I'm not down with making money off 9/11, but I'm not down with any of that particular bullshit, either. Please don't infer like that, Roland. At least, the implication seems to be directed at most of us who commented on WTC. That isn't my sentiment, or even close. If that wasn't your point, my apologies.

It's all fucking wretched. Human lives destroyed by greed, religion, and lust for power.


----------



## Roland777 (Aug 4, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Shit, I'm not down with making money off 9/11, but I'm not down with any of that particular bullshit, either. Please don't infer like that, Roland. At least, the implication seems to be directed at most of us who commented on WTC. That isn't my sentiment, or even close. If that wasn't your point, my apologies.
> It's all fucking wretched. Human lives destroyed by greed, religion, and lust for power.



My point is that people go stark raving mad about a 9/11 movie, yet keep quiet when arabs are continously demonized in movies and TV-series ("Over there" and some movies I saw portraying the kidnapping of that female US soldier), trying to regain some little bit of support to a corrupt military campaign that has left 100.000+ civilians dead.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Aug 4, 2006)

Roland777 said:


> My point is that people go stark raving mad about a 9/11 movie, yet keep quiet when arabs are continously demonized in movies and TV-series ("Over there" and some movies I saw portraying the kidnapping of that female US soldier), trying to regain some little bit of support to a corrupt military campaign that has left 100.000+ civilians dead.


I actually couldn't agree more. People in the US tend to be sorta US-centric. Especially in the right-wing media - Fox news, Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

Shit, after 9/11 Ann Coulter said some nonsense about, we should go to the middle East, kill their leaders, and forcibly convert them all to Christianity. Yeah, there's a plan with merit! 

But none of that takes away the tragedy of 9/11, or how shocking and brutal it was for Americans. Call our long sense of safety a conceit if you will, and perhaps there's a bit of karma involved, who knows? But that feeling immediately afterwords was very, very awful, and very hard to describe. Who wasn't glued to the TV the whole day here in the US, just in shock?

War, death, violence - it sucks.


----------



## Vegetta (Aug 4, 2006)

I dont really care for stone - Whats so freaking great about the 60's  

Seriously tho I thought the same thing - It's way too soon


----------



## Roland777 (Aug 4, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Shit, after 9/11 Ann Coulter said some nonsense about, we should go to the middle East, kill their leaders, and forcibly convert them all to Christianity. Yeah, there's a plan with merit!



This brings me to another point. I'm tired of people claiming to be against Christianity because they see the US and their government as the representative of Christianity. US is as close to Christianity as Stalin was to true communism. Sure, they wear the badge, but they both couldn't care less about the true meaning of what they say that they are; by toting themselves as supporters of a philosophy that the majority of the inhabitants in their respective countries believe in, they can expect their support almost automatically and then continue with their own personal agendas, only throwing the occasional wood on the ideological fire to keep the masses happy while they continue with their own atrocities. Generally speaking, the US populace in particular has the trait of easily being led like a flock of sheep. 
I'll say this: say what you want about the US government - *it does not represent Christianity, no matter what you say*. Just the sheer fact that the bush-administration violates one of the founding principles of the modern state - the separation between Church and State - should be enough to drive that point through.


----------



## Vegetta (Aug 4, 2006)

Roland777 said:


> This brings me to another point. I'm tired of people claiming to be against Christianity because they see the US and their government as the representative of Christianity. US is as close to Christianity as Stalin was to true communism. Sure, they wear the badge, but they both couldn't care less about the true meaning of what they say that they are; by toting themselves as supporters of a philosophy that the majority of the inhabitants in their respective countries believe in, they can expect their support almost automatically and then continue with their own personal agendas, only throwing the occasional wood on the ideological fire to keep the masses happy while they continue with their own atrocities. Generally speaking, the US populace in particular has the trait of easily being led like a flock of sheep.
> I'll say this: say what you want about the US government - *it does not represent Christianity, no matter what you say*. Just the sheer fact that the bush-administration violates one of the founding principles of the modern state - the separation between Church and State - should be enough to drive that point through.





Its fairly obvious you dont care for the US But you shouldnt make broad generalzations about a country - You mention the west's demonization of the arab world in a previous thread. Isn't this what you are doing to the US?


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Aug 4, 2006)

Roland777 said:


> I'll say this: say what you want about the US government - *it does not represent Christianity, no matter what you say*. Just the sheer fact that the bush-administration violates one of the founding principles of the modern state - the separation between Church and State - should be enough to drive that point through.


Where do I say the US Government represents Christianity?  I agree with what you're saying. Shit, I'd hate to see what you say to people who _disagree_ with you! Governments love to have religion on their side. If Mohammed had been born in Mexico, then right now the religious right in America would be demonizing Christians in the oil-rich middle East in the name of Allah. Or whatever.

There's nothing wrong with a Christian belief system per se - I was raised with one. It's when you turn it into an organized relgion that problems creep up. Because then you have _men_ speaking for God. And man does some fucked up shit.


----------



## Roland777 (Aug 4, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Where do I say the US Government represents Christianity?



You didn't - I just saw that particular sentence that I quoted as an opportunity to get something else off my chest.


----------



## Chris (Aug 4, 2006)

Roland777 said:


> And glorifying the hideous military actions by the US in the middle east, portraying all arabs as savages, by making TV-series and movies is?



We're not talking about the war. We're talking about a single event in US history. Since you aren't American, and obviously don't get the concept, please shut the fuck up. 



Roland777 said:


> My point is that people go stark raving mad about a 9/11 movie, yet keep quiet when arabs are continously demonized in movies and TV-series ("Over there" and some movies I saw portraying the kidnapping of that female US soldier), trying to regain some little bit of support to a corrupt military campaign that has left 100.000+ civilians dead.



I've never heard of that movie. You can't compare some made for TV miniseries to a massively publicized, million-dollar-budget Hollywood production.


----------



## Chris (Aug 4, 2006)

Roland777 said:


> This brings me to another point. I'm tired of people claiming to be against Christianity because they see the US and their government as the representative of Christianity. US is as close to Christianity as Stalin was to true communism. Sure, they wear the badge, but they both couldn't care less about the true meaning of what they say that they are; by toting themselves as supporters of a philosophy that the majority of the inhabitants in their respective countries believe in, they can expect their support almost automatically and then continue with their own personal agendas, only throwing the occasional wood on the ideological fire to keep the masses happy while they continue with their own atrocities. Generally speaking, the US populace in particular has the trait of easily being led like a flock of sheep.
> I'll say this: say what you want about the US government - *it does not represent Christianity, no matter what you say*. Just the sheer fact that the bush-administration violates one of the founding principles of the modern state - the separation between Church and State - should be enough to drive that point through.



Jesus fucking christ, dude. You live in Sweden, for fuck's sake. That's not exactly the maw of chaos and a terrorism target. There's nothing more irritating than a foreigner making ignorant, baseless comments about a place he doesn't live from the safety of a country that will never see the kind of terrorism that the US has.



> Generally speaking, the US populace in particular has the trait of easily being led like a flock of sheep.



Generally speaking, the populace of your country has the trait of being a bunch of pussies who sit idly by and do nothing, then have the audacity to point a self-righteous, reprimanding finger at the United States for taking action.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Aug 4, 2006)

^Isn't this the sort of 'discussion' that was meant to be kept out of this board?

Regarding the film, not only is it pretty insensitive to everyone who lost family members on 9.11, it's still far too soon to be able to look at it (including the background and aftermath) objectively. It'll probably be reduced to a 'Pearl Harbour'-style popcorn movie.


----------



## Vegetta (Aug 4, 2006)

distressed_romeo said:


> Regarding the film, not only is it pretty insensitive to everyone who lost family members on 9.11, it's still far too soon to be able to look at it (including the background and aftermath) objectively. It'll probably be reduced to a 'Pearl Harbour'-style popcorn movie.




Sadly this is probably true


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Aug 4, 2006)

distressed_romeo said:


> ^Isn't this the sort of 'discussion' that was meant to be kept out of this board?


I must agree.

Besides, how can a country that gives us THIS (mildly NWS. No nudity)

be anything but wonderful?


----------



## Ibycan7 (Aug 4, 2006)

Amen Dark Wolf.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Aug 4, 2006)

Here's my take...I still get choked up when I see footage from the attack but I think we need this movie. America only remembers what is right in front of them. We have such a microwave society that unles it just happened, we don't think about it. People care more about Brad and Angelina's baby than they do about what is happening in the world. This movie should be painful to watch. We NEED it to be painful. I know that no one has forgotten but our rage at the incident has dulled to complacancy. We need to remember who did this to us and honor those who were in those towers. I sadly think that most of our country don't think about things unless they make it into a movie. There, of course, are plenty of exceptions, but look at the people around you on a day to day basis. How many people can tell you the names of the 3 judges on American Idol and how many can tell you who the Vice President of The United States is? People need reminding.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Aug 4, 2006)

Dive-Baum said:


> Here's my take...I still get choked up when I see footage from the attack but I think we need this movie. America only remembers what is right in front of them. We have such a microwave society that unles it just happened, we don't think about it. People care more about Brad and Angelina's baby than they do about what is happening in the world. This movie should be painful to watch. We NEED it to be painful. I know that no one has forgotten but our rage at the incident has dulled to complacancy. We need to remember who did this to us and honor those who were in those towers. I sadly think that most of our country don't think about things unless they make it into a movie. There, of course, are plenty of exceptions, but look at the people around you on a day to day basis. How many people can tell you the names of the 3 judges on American Idol and how many can tell you who the Vice President of The United States is? People need reminding.


Agreed in priciple. Completely.

However! What you're discussing is history. Not a blatant attempt to capitalize on a national tragedy. Which is what I feel this movie is.

The wounds are still fresh. I certainly don't need a movie to remind me of that terrible day. Just a smidgeon of forgetting might even be appropriate. It takes time to assimilate things like this.


----------



## Chris (Aug 4, 2006)

distressed_romeo said:


> ^Isn't this the sort of 'discussion' that was meant to be kept out of this board?



We have plenty of moderators, so please stop acting like one.


----------



## Nik (Aug 4, 2006)

I 100% agree that this movie probably shouldn't hit the theaters unless all proceeds are donated to a worthy cause, as Chris said. But Dive-Baum makes a great point, and that is that people forget. That is why security always relaxes over time--after 9/11 they tightened airport security like crazy, but over-time, precautions slowly fade away, as the incident that inspired them in the first place distances itself from the present. So, I suppose in a way, it might not necessarily be a bad thing to remind people of the tragedy, although I suppose if they waited a couple more years it would've been better. From what I recall, the widows of the Flight 193 movie were perfectly fine with it, so who knows, maybe this movie won't stir up so much controversy, at least not the controversy it deserves.

I don't think it'll do well, anyway. I think many people won't go see it because of numerous points mentioned in this thread. I probably won't go see it, either; why should I go to the theater to be reminded of this tragedy which I watched live on TV 5 years ago?


----------



## Dive-Baum (Aug 4, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Agreed in priciple. Completely.
> However! What you're discussing is history. Not a blatant attempt to capitalize on a national tragedy. Which is what I feel this movie is.
> The wounds are still fresh. I certainly don't need a movie to remind me of that terrible day. Just a smidgeon of forgetting might even be appropriate. It takes time to assimilate things like this.




I don't know if it is a blantant atempt to capitalize or not. Stone's movies are usually of a political nature. He always tries to make a point. Yeah, OK, the object behind every film is cash but I think some films serve a higher purpose. Besides, with the complete garbage that Hollywood usually churns out, it is nice to see that something with meaning rise from the fray. I think that is what he had in mind. He has been taking heat for this movie from the begining. If monetary intake was his only aspiration, I think he would have pulled the plug a while back. If anyone else would have done it, I think it would have been in poor taste but Mr. "Back and to the left" has taken some events from American History and made them show in the public eye once more so they are not forgotten.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Aug 4, 2006)

Dive-Baum said:


> I don't know if it is a blantant atempt to capitalize or not. Stone's movies are usually of a political nature. He always tries to make a point. Yeah, OK, the object behind every film is cash but I think some films serve a higher purpose. Besides, with the complete garbage that Hollywood usually churns out, it is nice to see that something with meaning rise from the fray. I think that is what he had in mind. He has been taking heat for this movie from the begining. If monetary intake was his only aspiration, I think he would have pulled the plug a while back. If anyone else would have done it, I think it would have been in poor taste but Mr. "Back and to the left" has taken some events from American History and made them show in the public eye once more so they are not forgotten.


Once again, you illustrate there are generally two sides to every story. Well said. 

I still think it's too soon, and I stand by my money assertion, but it's certainly fair to point out there may be other relevant considerations. It's not "JUST" one way, simply becasue we/I have that opinion on it.


----------



## Metal Ken (Aug 4, 2006)

distressed_romeo said:


> Regarding the film, not only is it pretty insensitive to everyone who lost family members on 9.11, it's still far too soon to be able to look at it (including the background and aftermath) objectively. It'll probably be reduced to a 'Pearl Harbour'-style popcorn movie.



There's only ONE Pearl Harbor Movie -- Tora, Tora, Tora!. None of the unrealistic romance bullshit. None of the other "Navy fighter pilot all of a sudden becomes an army bomber pilot with no training to get revenge on japan" bullshit. Its a straight up account of what happened with both japanese and american input.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Aug 4, 2006)

Metal Ken said:


> There's only ONE Pearl Harbor Movie -- Tora, Tora, Tora!. None of the unrealistic romance bullshit. None of the other "Navy fighter pilot all of a sudden becomes an army bomber pilot with no training to get revenge on japan" bullshit. Its a straight up account of what happened with both japanese and american input.


And a terrific movie, to boot. 



Chris said:


> We have plenty of moderators, so please stop acting like one.


I think the big Quig is channelling his inner Lumbergh.







"Yeah, it'd be great if you'd shut the fuck up. I'm gonna have to go ahead and uh... yeah, pimp slap you bitches."






One thing that's never outta place, is an attempt at levity! (At least in my case. And I stress "attempt".)


----------



## Dive-Baum (Aug 4, 2006)

I love that movie. My Grand Dad was at Pearl Harbor when it was bombed so those movies always have a special meaning to me. He would never talk about it so those movies (especially Tora Tora Tora) showed me what he went through.


----------



## Vegetta (Aug 4, 2006)

Dive-Baum said:


> I love that movie. My Grand Dad was at Pearl Harbor when it was bombed so those movies always have a special meaning to me. He would never talk about it so those movies (especially Tora Tora Tora) showed me what he went through.



/derail

ha small world both my Grandmother and Grandfather were there for Pearl Harbor - LMAO my grandfather was allmost out of the army - he had 30 days and he was out _ Then WW II starts and hes in the service for antoher 4 years.




Oh and Tonight on IFC @ 9:00 Office Space is on


----------



## Dive-Baum (Aug 4, 2006)

No kiddin. Did they ever talk about it? Grandpa died when I was young but I asked him about it a few times. He had a piece of schrapnel from a Zero he used as a keychain. He was the radio operator on the Maryland, which was docked beside the Arizona (can't remember) anyway a torpedo hit it and sunk it that would have hit my Grandpa's boat had it not been there. He was deaf in one ear from the attack. There was an explosion right beside him on deck while he was running to his post. Well your Grand Dad might have been almost out but there was no way he would have stayed out given what happened. I'm sure he would have re-upped. Still sux though.


----------



## Vegetta (Aug 4, 2006)

Yeah they both talked about it a lot - My Grandmother was walking to chuch when all of these planes start flying overhead (she was 17) 

My grandfather talked about it - he talked about a lot of stuff he did in the rangers (used to bitch about how the "stupid jar head marines" got all of the credit in the pacific hahah) He did get some credit tho was awarded a bronze star - I actually didnt know that until he died - (then) President Ford sent a letter to my grandmother.


----------



## Drew (Aug 4, 2006)

Dive-Baum said:


> How many people can tell you the names of the 3 judges on American Idol and how many can tell you who the Vice President of The United States is?



Ironically, Simon what's-his-name is one of the few people who argueably piss me off more than Dick Cheney.  

I guess my major issue with this, much like Flight 193, is that there's a part of me who can't get his head around the possibility that it just might be an attempt to cash in on a horrific national tragedy. 

There's only one peice of 9/11 related media that I've seen or read that I didn't find offensive on some level, outside of the straight news reports - David Foster Wallace was living in a small town in Indiana when the planes hit, and wrote a peice for a magazine that was really more about the town in specific and Suburbia, USA in general than it was actually about the attacks, with the attacks serving as a focal point by which to understand the nature of the people around him. It was honest, it was emotional, it was unsensationalist, and it was human. A movie like that, with the attacks as a backdrop? Sure, I could see it working. But what are the odds? 

I doubt I'll even want to see it when it comes out. Hell, I'm dreading seeing trailers for it. Like leon, I saw the second plane, I saw the towers fall, and I never want to see it again. I'm just eternally grateful that everyone I knew in the area got out in time.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Aug 4, 2006)

I saw a trailer for it online right after they came out. It made me cry like a little girl.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Aug 4, 2006)

Drew said:


> Ironically, Simon what's-his-name is one of the few people who argueably piss me off more than Dick Cheney.
> I guess my major issue with this, much like Flight 193, is that there's a part of me who can't get his head around the possibility that it just might be an attempt to cash in on a horrific national tragedy.
> There's only one peice of 9/11 related media that I've seen or read that I didn't find offensive on some level, outside of the straight news reports - David Foster Wallace was living in a small town in Indiana when the planes hit, and wrote a peice for a magazine that was really more about the town in specific and Suburbia, USA in general than it was actually about the attacks, with the attacks serving as a focal point by which to understand the nature of the people around him. It was honest, it was emotional, it was unsensationalist, and it was human. A movie like that, with the attacks as a backdrop? Sure, I could see it working. But what are the odds?
> I doubt I'll even want to see it when it comes out. Hell, I'm dreading seeing trailers for it. Like leon, I saw the second plane, I saw the towers fall, and I never want to see it again. I'm just eternally grateful that everyone I knew in the area got out in time.




I completely guarantee you're not the only one who feels that way, and that's exactly why releasing this film is so completely wrong.


----------



## steve777 (Aug 4, 2006)

Likewise, I saw the second plane hit, I watched the towers fall, I knew people lost someone there, and I did see the documentary that those two brothers made. I will never get that stuff out of my head. I have seen all that I ever need to see. I still cannot allow myself to think to heavily on what happend that day, or what feelings I experieced in the weeks that followed. I did not see the other film they did, and I will avoid this one, as well. 

By the way, does anyone know how much the Hollywood exects or Stone will be donating to the wives, husbands, and children who lost so much on that day?


----------



## David (Aug 5, 2006)

damn I need to get back in the game on these forums... been gone for 2-3 daysish again and there's a new forum!? and new threads!?


at first, I was thinking "oh great, another bs movie," considering the fact that I'm a 'conspirator.' Then I started thinking, wait, this is the firemen's story, so this should be true, and great. Then it hit me, like all you are saying, why so soon? Capitalizing on other's losses = I hope their careers end.


----------



## Cancer (Aug 5, 2006)

psyphre said:


> I was like that until I heard that Oliver Stone was directing. I believe he will do it justice, and I also like that he did it as human tragedy piece, as opposed to a conspiracy piece.
> However, I will NOT be going to see it when it opens, it's just too soon for me personally, somehow I suspect alot of people will be that way, but at least the DVD's will be out when we are (if we are ) able to re-visit the tragedy.



(3 Days later.....)...

And maybe that's the point? You gotta figure some genius in Hollywood is thinking this exact same thing "Wow, this is too soon,people aren't going to go see this...yadda yadda yadda", maybe that it a theatrical release is an afterthought. I actually appreciate that someone put this into a form (DVD) that people can revisit when they are ready to, to show their kids when they are ready. There is nothing wrong with learning the history through a film, so long as the film is accurate, and I don't think Stone would ruin his credibility but putting out a fluff piece.

My gut tells that Stone did what he normally does, render his perspective of truth into film, and that it was the studios decision to risk a theatrical release.

Regardless I won't be going to see this, it's way to soon for me. I have enough vivid memories of that day I can reference for free, no need to spend 8 bucks.


----------



## Your Majesty (Aug 6, 2006)

Chris said:


> I respect Stone as a director, but in my opinion it's WAY too soon for something like this, no matter how Titanic-ly directed it is.  Unless he donates 100% of the proceeds to the families, charities, firefighters, paramedics and countless other civil and private families that died, he's a fucking asshole for capitalizing on such a national tragedy.



I fully agree. This movie should have never been scripted, let alone, made for viewing. Watching the MOW movie, United, was diffciult enough to watch and capture the horror those poor passengers experienced.

hey Chris, have you gone to St.Paul's Trinity Church that is across the street from Ground Zero? 

Every year when I go to New York, I always visit Ground Zero and walk across the street to Trinity Church. I just sit there and automatically start to cry. It is so heart breaking to see or imagine what could have taken place in that tiny church that survived, while everything around it was destroyed.


----------



## Rev2010 (Aug 7, 2006)

Metal Ken said:


> Thats what you'd think, but everyone was all about that 'Flight 93' movie. WTF? No one even really knows for sure what happened and they just kinda.. made up everything? It was a horrible idea, but they insisted on making it and everyone thought it was amazing. i refused to see it.



I know I'm coming into this thread days late but I have to agree with ya. So many people were OK with Flight93 cause some of the passengers fought back. But I too didn't watch it. I can't watch something like that without having anger, rage, and sadness overcome me. Not things I like feeling. I do think that the 9/11 movie is completely retarded. Simply cause the media coverage of it was so frequent, thorough, and in depth that I personally feel like, "How the fuck could a glossed over Hollywood reproduction of these events provide information of part of the story of what happened any clearer or better?". I think they jumped on it so soon just to get to be the first ones to do a movie on it, before anyone else.

But honestly, I was here in Manhattan on the way to work coming over the Manhattan bridge when the second plane hit and the conductor announced it over the radio and everyone got up and ran to the left windows. I also witness the buildings fall and had to walk home over the Queensboro bridge (59th st) with the backdrop being the smoke still thick and rising. So, I think I've had my fare share of 9/11.


Rev.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Aug 7, 2006)

Rev2010 said:


> "How the fuck could a glossed over Hollywood reproduction of these events provide information of part of the story of what happened any clearer or better?". I think they jumped on it so soon just to get to be the first ones to do a movie on it, before anyone else.


 Great point.


----------



## Metal Ken (Aug 7, 2006)

Rev2010 said:


> I know I'm coming into this thread days late but I have to agree with ya. So many people were OK with Flight93 cause some of the passengers fought back. But I too didn't watch it. I can't watch something like that without having anger, rage, and sadness overcome me. Not things I like feeling.


Exactly. yeah, the passengers fought back, but thats about ALL we know, everything that takes place in that movie that is inside that plane and all the dialouge thereabout --its completely made up and fradulent. If i had a relative invovled in that, i'd be god damned pissed. Its just a ploy to make money off of people's emotions.


----------



## noodles (Aug 8, 2006)

Am I the only one thinking that scumbag politicians in both of the greedy, manipulative, selfish political parties, that make our lives their own personal battle ground, are going to to try and find a way to spin the emotion generated by this movie into an excuse to soak us for more money to "fight the good fight"?

Excuse me if I'm acting jaded, but I'm sick to fucking death of the spin put on disasters for personal gain. Some things need to be left in the past, especially since this type of attack will never happen again. Go ahead, make airport security as lax as you want, and it won't matter. The simple truth of the matter is all future hijackings will result in the entire plane jumping the hijackers in mass, because they will assume they are going to die.

I don't care what Oliver Stone's motivations are, because he should have left this one alone. It took nearly fifty years for a real Holocaust movie to come out. That seems to be about the right time frame to me. Time enough to let a couple of generations go by, and let the political ripples die down, because these are the type of movies that ignite stupid political crusades. Just look at all the ignorant extreme right wingers that came out of the woodwork after Mel Gibson made "The Passion".

Just like a Bruce Springsteen songs, Republicans are going to use this for all the wrong reasons, and just like 1984, a lot of people will listen.


----------



## Loomer (Aug 8, 2006)

My head hurts :cry:


----------



## Mastodon (Aug 8, 2006)

I'm just not able to find the story line interesting. It's like, how am I supposed to garner entertainment and suspense from something so tragic that still effects people today.

I didn't like that Pearl Harbor movie either though, but I think I just happend to find it boring.


----------



## Oogadee Boogadee (Aug 11, 2006)

I don't think it's too soon, or inappropriate. A lot of folks have forgotten, and are probably wanting to go get re-shocked.

It's like refusing to take painkillers - you need to feel the pain. It might be difficult to watch, but it might be good for your soul.

I'm not getting the impression of mad capitalism and greed b/c I'm not seeing WTC The Movie merch in Burger Kings and stuff.

I remember that Tuesday morning like yesterday. I also remember that all i've seen are news clips, footage of crashes, rubble, dust-covered people, etc.... but i don't recall the human footage - the firefighters before the collapses, etc. It's more like data - i remember the points. But i'd like to see the movie to get more of a linear and chronolical view of both the data, as well as the emotions of those who were there, as portrayed by the reenactments.

The day that we're 'ready' to see it is the day that's way too late - by that point you've forgotten too much. You'll be far too removed and it may even be harder to take - it's like getting a brand new cut instead of ripping off a scab.


----------



## noodles (Aug 11, 2006)

Oogadee Boogadee said:


> The day that we're 'ready' to see it is the day that's way too late - by that point you've forgotten too much. You'll be far too removed and it may even be harder to take - it's like getting a brand new cut instead of ripping off a scab.



I disagree. Even though I am (obviously) not old enough to have been around for World War II, Schindler's List still reduced me to the point of tears. Not being able to remember it did nothing to blunt the impact of the absolute horror visited upon those people. I think it has more to do with the human emotional response to tragedy, more than actual memories of the tragedy itself.


----------



## Oogadee Boogadee (Aug 11, 2006)

noodles said:


> I disagree. Even though I am (obviously) not old enough to have been around for World War II, Schindler's List still reduced me to the point of tears. Not being able to remember it did nothing to blunt the impact of the absolute horror visited upon those people. I think it has more to do with the human emotional response to tragedy, more than actual memories of the tragedy itself.



actually, it seems you agree. I was trying to say that forgetting and revisiting is like opening a brand new wound; much like you, being too young to have witnessed the holocaust, experienced a brand new wound with Schindler's List.

You're right about the human emotional response to tragedy. I'm just saying that when the tragedy fades into a memory, so does the emotional response. And the further it fades, the more potential energy those emotions will collect to be released later.... it could be more difficult when experiencing it like it was brand new, as opposed to viewing it now, when we're still in a little pain and our coping mechanisms are still in active use.


----------



## garcia3441 (Aug 11, 2006)

steve777 said:


> By the way, does anyone know how much the Hollywood exects or Stone will be donating to the wives, husbands, and children who lost so much on that day?



10% of the first weekend's gross.


----------



## Rev2010 (Aug 11, 2006)

Oogadee Boogadee said:


> I don't think it's too soon, or inappropriate. A lot of folks have forgotten, and are probably wanting to go get re-shocked



Obviously you're not from the east coast. I'm in New York and yes it is indeed too soon. Movies about the holocaust didn't come out five years later. Sorry, but as someone who witnessed it it IS too soon. And for the rest of the country, still regardless, I can't see how "a lot of folks" have forgotten already. It's changed the lives of americans in so many ways it's hard to forget.


Rev.


----------



## Oogadee Boogadee (Aug 11, 2006)

Rev2010 said:


> It's changed the lives of americans in so many ways it's hard to forget.
> 
> 
> Rev.



Obviously, you live on the east coast.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Aug 11, 2006)

Rev, I realize you have a unique perspective as you were witness to it. 
I think that this movie will stir up a sense of unity again. This is something we lack as a Nation thanks to the Jackass in Chief. I completely see where you are coming from and you are right...other tragedies did not have a movie come out 5 years after they happened. I will chalk that up to 3 things. 1) people remembered things better. People didn't need constant reminding before. We live in an age where we are a slave to media and are inundated by it at every turn. If it isn't in your face, most people forget or at least the image dulls. 2) Technology is better now than it was so disasters are easier to recreate on the big screen than ever before and 3) Movies mostly are complete shit and Stone had a chance to make something worthwhile here. Like I said before..I would rather he do it than anyone else. I think everyone felt like they were a New Yorker that day. We were all attacked in a sense. Please don't take that as a slight to what you went through as I can not imagine what you felt like seeing it in real life.


----------



## David (Aug 11, 2006)

Dive-Baum said:


> I think that this movie will stir up a sense of unity again. This is something we lack as a Nation thanks to the Jackass in Chief.


Unity for what? To unite as one and kill the bastards who started it? Well we never got who we said attacked us... even though many, many soldiers in Iraq are thoroughly confused as I constantly see videos of soldiers saying "we gots attacked, and we came here, lit up their world, and got the bad guys who got us." Sheep in a field...


I just don't think this kind of "unity" is what we need. Especially with my thoughts on this event.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Aug 11, 2006)

David said:


> Unity for what? To unite as one and kill the bastards who started it? Well we never got who we said attacked us... even though many, many soldiers in Iraq are thoroughly confused as I constantly see videos of soldiers saying "we gots attacked, and we came here, lit up their world, and got the bad guys who got us." Sheep in a field...
> 
> 
> I just don't think this kind of "unity" is what we need. Especially with my thoughts on this event.




No man...Unity as Americans...Unity as people who were attacked. Remember when those Senators (Republicans and Democrats) stood up on the steps of the Capitol Building and sang God Bless America? That is unity. That is what I am talking about. We all have so many petty differences, it seemed like 9/11 temporarily did away with the animosity.


----------



## noodles (Aug 11, 2006)

Dive-Baum said:


> Remember when those Senators (Republicans and Democrats) stood up on the steps of the Capitol Building and sang God Bless America? That is unity.



Unity under theocracy. Don't fucking remind me. I'm tired of it always coming down to god and country. Why can't it just be country? Why couldn't all those Senators stand on the steps of the Capitol and sing The Star Spangled Banner?


----------



## Metal Ken (Aug 11, 2006)

garcia3441 said:


> 10% of the first weekend's gross.




Thats lame. if they really cared, they'd donate way more than that.


----------



## Leon (Aug 11, 2006)

Metal Ken said:


> Thats lame. if they really cared, they'd donate way more than that.




i say, 100% after they cover the costs of making the film, since it was only 5 years ago.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Aug 11, 2006)

Dive-Baum said:


> No man...Unity as Americans...Unity as people who were attacked. Remember when those Senators (Republicans and Democrats) stood up on the steps of the Capitol Building and sang God Bless America? That is unity. That is what I am talking about. We all have so many petty differences, it seemed like 9/11 temporarily did away with the animosity.


Yeah. And all that happened was the GOP advanced their far right agenda, under the guise of 'unity'.

Dissent? TRAITORS!  We needed more goddamn dissent.


----------



## Drew (Aug 11, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Dissent? TRAITORS!  We needed more goddamn dissent.



 

This, folks, is patriotism. Unity for the sake of unity has a name - fascism.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Aug 12, 2006)

noodles said:


> Unity under theocracy. Don't fucking remind me. I'm tired of it always coming down to god and country. Why can't it just be country? Why couldn't all those Senators stand on the steps of the Capitol and sing The Star Spangled Banner?



+1. The influence the Xtian right has in the US government is just as disturbing to me as 'Islamism' or whatever it's called at the moment. Then again, I'm speaking as a brit who's never had a chance to visit the US yet (although I hope to eventually), so if anyone wants to counter this, go ahead...



Metal Ken said:


> Thats lame. if they really cared, they'd donate way more than that.



Completely true. An amount that small is nothing more than gesture charity.


----------



## Drew (Aug 12, 2006)

10% of the first week's gross is still likely to be 5-8 million. Not tiny, but given the response of the board thus far still likely to be a noticeably chunk of the studio's net take on this one.

That said, I agree, a for-profit movie this close to the date of the tragedy does leave a bad taste inmy mouth...


----------



## steve777 (Aug 13, 2006)

garcia3441 said:


> 10% of the first weekend's gross.



Wow, that's big of them.


----------



## noodles (Aug 14, 2006)

distressed_romeo said:


> +1. The influence the Xtian right has in the US government is just as disturbing to me as 'Islamism' or whatever it's called at the moment. Then again, I'm speaking as a brit who's never had a chance to visit the US yet (although I hope to eventually), so if anyone wants to counter this, go ahead...



There is a very large chunk of us here in America who find it just as disturbing as you do. I generally try to avoid going down south.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Aug 14, 2006)

noodles said:


> There is a very large chunk of us here in America who find it just as disturbing as you do. I generally try to avoid going down south.




Dude, you live in Virginia...you ARE down south.


----------



## David (Aug 14, 2006)

Dive-Baum said:


> No man...Unity as Americans...Unity as people who were attacked. Remember when those Senators (Republicans and Democrats) stood up on the steps of the Capitol Building and sang God Bless America? That is unity. That is what I am talking about. We all have so many petty differences, it seemed like 9/11 temporarily did away with the animosity.


Yes, unity as American's who were attacked... and are going to seek revenge on the ones who "attacked us." We did away with our petty differences, because we had an enemy to fight. When there's no one to fight, we pick eachother apart.


----------



## XEN (Aug 15, 2006)

On September 11, 2001, I was working in a video store in Monterey, California. We had the TV going and most of the morning I and all the customers who came in just stared at the screen in horror and many a tear was shed. However, by the afternoon things had changed. A customer walked in, looked up at the TV, and said, "Can't you change the channel, or put in a movie, or something? That shit has been on all morning and it's starting to get old."

As an American, there is something that hurts me far more than the tragedy of that day: the indifference of the unaffected. The World Trade Center was not just a couple of very tall buildings with lots of people in them. It was a symbol. It was a symbol of the achievement of men and women of all nations, united in the pursuit of progress and development.

The goal of the terrorists was not necessarily to kill thousands of people, but to make a statement, to strike fear in the hearts and minds of Americans and all those who have dealings with us. They wanted to eradicate our symbols: the WTC, the Pentagon, the White House, and whatever other symbol they could think to destroy. They wanted to pierce our core, our collective spirit, our ideals. The statement was made, and thousands of people died so that they could get their point across.

Yes, they hurt us. They hurt us badly. But we have shown that our core is still intact, our ideals are still strong, and our devotion to personal freedom is as strong as it ever was. We are, after all, not as inspired by symbols as we are by ideas, notions, inspirations, visions, hopes, goals, and dreams. You cannot kill a dream, only delay its realization, because once a dream has been dreamt, it will come to pass. That is the nature of man. Nothing that he imagines can ultimately be withheld from him.

It is also in man's nature to capitalize on circumstances. 

What is the best way to handle the attack we suffered on 9/11? Grief? Anger? Depression? Hate? Violence? Racial profiling and discrimination? Renewed spirituality? A retaliatory war? A movie? 

Who knows? We're still new to this.

Whether the movie is the right thing or not, whether it is the right time or not, we still need to remember, not only as Americans, but as people everywhere who stand for justice, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness, what makes us who we are: hope.

I for one hope that guy from the video store in Monterey goes to see the movie. I hope it breaks his heart. I hope he leaves the theater a changed man. I hope he finds a renewed sense of patriotism. I hope. But God help him if I ever see him again.


----------



## MetalMike (Aug 17, 2006)

urklvt said:


> On September 11, 2001, I was working in a video store in Monterey, California. We had the TV going and most of the morning I and all the customers who came in just stared at the screen in horror and many a tear was shed. However, by the afternoon things had changed. A customer walked in, looked up at the TV, and said, "Can't you change the channel, or put in a movie, or something? That shit has been on all morning and it's starting to get old."
> 
> As an American, there is something that hurts me far more than the tragedy of that day: the indifference of the unaffected. The World Trade Center was not just a couple of very tall buildings with lots of people in them. It was a symbol. It was a symbol of the achievement of men and women of all nations, united in the pursuit of progress and development.
> 
> ...



 Wow. My thoughts exactly. Good post.


----------

