Anyone going to see the movie?

[chew]

World Trade Center?


I hear mixed feelings about it, and I am a little mixed about it as well, but after hearing people saying its no different than seeing JFK, World War, or any other movie depicting human tragedy.  I agree to a point but if it were me I would have waited another 5 years before making the film.  But I am still debating whether to go see it this soon or not...

[Ruckus]

i hope they make return of world trade center, revenge of world trade center and world trade center 4 : your all tools

[DragonMage]

hahaha, ruck wins again

[chicago]

ggz

[chew]

amazing...way to fuck up a thread on a serious subject...

Ruck loses

[chicago]

how about trade center in 3d

[chew]

Yeah lets start joking about it Chicago.  I am sure you would be joking if it were the Sears Tower that got blown up. 

[KungFoo]

How about: Snakes In A Tower

"I've had it with these mother fuckin snakes in this motherfuckin Tower."

[m J o]

Snakes in a PLane!  now theres a creative title!

[dusty]

Yeah lets start joking about it Chicago.  I am sure you would be joking if it were the Sears Tower that got blown up. 

The city isn't the fucking point -- hey I have an idea

WHY DON'T YOU GO BITCH ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO SPEAK SPANISH.

[neotic]

The movie looks like a melodramatic peice of shit. United 93 will be proven to be 100x better.

[DaDolly]

My dad is trying to make me go see it. Him and a bunch of other Chicago firemen went there the day after it happened to help out so it's a soft spot for him.

My theory is, this movie being made is one of the biggest atrocities to happen as a result of the attacks. People are making money off of this movie, which essentially means they are making money off of the attacks. That is horrible. We all know the story, we all know how horrible it is, we saw the pictures, read the articles. Do we really need a movie? This is a horrible gimmick. The fact that people and production companies want to make this movie is despicable.

[rue]

Under this assumption, then there never should have been a Ben-Hur, a Saving Private Ryan, a Schindler's List, a The Diary of Anne Frank, or a Titanic, and the list goes on for a couple dozen good movies.

Well, with the exception being Titanic.  :D

[Stinger]

Titanic, Ben-Hur, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's Lost, etcetera, all these movies came out decades after the events they were "Inspired by". "Caligula" waited centuries before Gore Vidal wrote it, and a smut-house made it. Big difference.

That said, I tend to agree with the "Fuck it, let them make whatever movie they want, whenever they want" point of view on this one, because this is America, and even though there are a lot of things about this country I dislike, "Freedom of Speech" is on my "I like" list. I don't plan on seeing it because sensationalist hype movies put out for opportunistic reasons tend to be poorly executed tear-jerkers, at best, and that doesn't count as "entertainment" for me.

What does bother me about this movie is the melodrama being used to sell it. But, "Questionable taste" and "Modern-day marketing" do tend to go hand in hand.

Fahrenheit 911 was worse, from an opportunistic standpoint, by the way.

[Mnementh]

No, DD, I don't think that you can apply what DaDolly said to the movies you cited.  Titanic was not a terrorist attack, it was an iceberg attack.  Neither was WWII.  Ben-Hur, well that is just about betrayal and revenge, nothing like a terrorist attack at all.  There is, in my opinion, no correlation between those movies/situations and the attack on the WTC.

I have to agree with DaDolly, I think it is an absolute travesty that this film was made....especially now.  But like Stinger said, this is America, and they have every right to make the movie, I'll just show my diagreement with it being made by not going to go see it.

[Ruckus]

SNAKES ON A FORUM

"Ive had it with these mutha fuckin snakes posting on this ..........."

sorry   

[DragonMage]

hahaha man ruckus is on a roll lately.

PROPS TO YOU BROTHA

[neotic]

So Mnementh and DD, you were equally disgusted by United 93? I'm just curious. United 93 feels like its in an entire different league than World Trade Center. Any ways, lots of other things have profited from 9/11 prior to this, I'm sure that doesn't make you feel better though. I think the flaw of thinking here is that, profit is entirely evil. Plain and simple, is it better to not have a movie historically documenting the tragedy or not? If its better to have one, then profit is irrelevant.

[Mnementh]

You make a good point, Neo, but I would counter that if the intention was to indeed "historically document" the event, then a movie in documentary format would be much more appropriate, no?  I mean, if I want historical accuracy, I sure don't turn to Hollywood blockbuster films to give me that.

And I'm not saying that it is the profit that is evil, but that it is the motive of profit that is wrong.  If the makers of this film had come out and said that all of the proceeds were going to benefit some charity or other such thing, then that is a bit easier to swallow.  But they are using 9/11 to turn a profit, and THAT is what I find reprehensible, not the profit in and of itself.  Now, hey, it is fine to me that they made the film, and again, I'll protest it simply by not going to go see it and not adding to their 'profit'.

[rue]

I think the flaw of thinking here is that, profit is entirely evil.

The Book of Ruckus 4:23-25 clearly states that it is. 

[rue]

Titanic, Ben-Hur, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's Lost, etcetera, all these movies came out decades after the events they were "Inspired by". "Caligula" waited centuries before Gore Vidal wrote it, and a smut-house made it. Big difference.

I hate these arguments.  They're so deeply entrenched in opinion.  IMO, either an event is movie-able or it isn't movie-able.  The deciding factor is revenue, not an arbitrary time.   

For example,  if someone made a movie about the Russians invading Berlin circa 1945 (fyi, it was NOT pretty) they can analyze the market and decide if a movie full of death, destruction and murderous rape is something a lot of people would be interested in.   My guess would be: probably not. 

As always, the market decides.

[kai]

I believe that people were spitting out WWII movies during and right after WWII like they were spitwads in detention.

[Angel]

I will not go see this movie.

I still can't bring myself to go to Ground Zero, let alone go to a theater to revisit events that are still clearly in my mind.

[m J o]

I dont blame you Angel

[neotic]

You make a good point, Neo, but I would counter that if the intention was to indeed "historically document" the event, then a movie in documentary format would be much more appropriate, no?  I mean, if I want historical accuracy, I sure don't turn to Hollywood blockbuster films to give me that.

And I'm not saying that it is the profit that is evil, but that it is the motive of profit that is wrong.  If the makers of this film had come out and said that all of the proceeds were going to benefit some charity or other such thing, then that is a bit easier to swallow.  But they are using 9/11 to turn a profit, and THAT is what I find reprehensible, not the profit in and of itself.  Now, hey, it is fine to me that they made the film, and again, I'll protest it simply by not going to go see it and not adding to their 'profit'.

Fair enough, if World Trade Center didn't benefit some charity thats sad. I do know United 93 did, so win for that movie again!

[Ruckus]

how the fuck did this get into the conspiracy theory forum


fucking scrotch !

[m J o]

OK lets take a break for a second.

WTC movie is based from actuall recorded events correct?


and UN93 is based off some supposed cell phone calls and someone who has an imagination...

tell me because I'm not from the Yank Country...I would say that the story that actually has some truth to it would be the better movie.

but I'm not yank so sue me, but dont get me wrong, ALL Canadians felt the loss from 911. /edit drunk ends

[DaDolly]

A historical documentary would be great, but lets not turn it into a drama starring Nicholas Cage. The History Channel already made a GREAT documentary on it. This movie is made to entertain and profit, a good documentary is made to educate and to a lesser extent entertain by education. I would hardly ever expect to be educated from a movie; Farenheit 911 being a great example.

And yes, I hated the idea of Flight 93 even more. What they did there was took a few shaky cell phone calls and filled in the gaps with what they pleased. I heard they were donating money to the charities, but please, do not tell me that people's wallets did not get fatter.

And yes, the movies you cited before do not apply here; they are two different types of death. Scholars have gone on for years and years about how WWII was unavoidable. The WTC attacks were one senseless act of murder.

Like Rue said, it is hard to say what event is movie-able or not. Yes there is a freedom of speech issue here. However I still do believe it is very irresponsible to put this movie out. I do have a great feeling that it is going to be much like Flight 93 where they take the few facts available and spin them into a tear-jerking drama. Unfortunately most of the American public is very impressionable and will take everything they say as fact.

There is no doubt that this is going be a blockbuster. I have no problem with a WTC documentary being a blockbuster, however, I think this falls very short of a documentary. The History Channel should really consider putting their documentaries into theatres.

[Ruckus]

I think the flaw of thinking here is that, profit is entirely evil.

The Book of Ruckus 4:23-25 clearly states that it is. 

The DEVINE book of Ruckus evidently :      http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14250032/

** Public service announcment **

"Profit can be derived from many sources. Entities profit from war and religion most notably. All the more reason to start both.

Here at the Ruckus institute, our goal is to start a 'Religous War' ... based on profit . "


what ??  you mean its been done before ??   Its being done RIGHT NOW ?

[rue]

You make a good point, Neo, but I would counter that if the intention was to indeed "historically document" the event, then a movie in documentary format would be much more appropriate, no?  I mean, if I want historical accuracy, I sure don't turn to Hollywood blockbuster films to give me that.

And I'm not saying that it is the profit that is evil, but that it is the motive of profit that is wrong.  If the makers of this film had come out and said that all of the proceeds were going to benefit some charity or other such thing, then that is a bit easier to swallow.  But they are using 9/11 to turn a profit, and THAT is what I find reprehensible, not the profit in and of itself.  Now, hey, it is fine to me that they made the film, and again, I'll protest it simply by not going to go see it and not adding to their 'profit'.

Fair enough, if World Trade Center didn't benefit some charity thats sad. I do know United 93 did, so win for that movie again!

10 percent

Hey, it's somethin.  And if we are to trust Reuters word for word, they said "box office receipts" which means 10% of the revenue--not the profit--for the first 5 days.