9/11 movie

[Discord]

how do you feel about it?

[esoter1c]

I don't.

[Silverwinged]

i dont think it should go to theatres.
i find it extremely disrespectful.

[sidekick]

^have you seen it yet?

i'll probably see it at some point, but i'm not going to rush out to see it.

it was only a matter of time before a movie came out about it. i mean, do we find movies about world war 2 disrespectful? or pearl harbour? or rwanda?

[bungoshlung]

In Markpaul's post about 9/11, the video shows you a few things that suggests flight 93 never happened. After viewing it, I think it's quite plausible the whole thing was a remake.

I don't think any other real life disaster movie was made so soon after the event taking place, so I think this is all propaganda BS.

[Silverwinged]

Originally Posted by sidekick

^have you seen it yet?

i'll probably see it at some point, but i'm not going to rush out to see it.

it was only a matter of time before a movie came out about it. i mean, do we find movies about world war 2 disrespectful? or pearl harbour? or rwanda?

I find them all disrespectful really...
I watch them, but my opinion stands firm.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by Rowina

I don't think any other real life disaster movie was made so soon after the event taking place, so I think this is all propaganda BS.

vietnam movies...

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by Silverwinged

I find them all disrespectful really...
I watch them, but my opinion stands firm.

i think it totally depends on the way that it is portrayed. i mean, i don't see how hotel rwanda was really disrespectful toward that particular conflict. some war and conflict movies are going to be disrespectful...other ones are going to be very important in changing how we view wars (apocalypse now, full metal jacket, jarhead, hotel rwanda)

so, i don't think you can really say a film is disrespectful without watching it. that doesn't really make sense.

[bungoshlung]

Perhaps you're right Mr. Kick, I'm not sure on the timeframe when those came out.

But it seems like for most life event movies, they give people an adequate amount of time to "settle" before releasing the movie.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by Rowina

Perhaps you're right Mr. Kick, I'm not sure on the timeframe when those came out.

But it seems like for most life event movies, they give people an adequate amount of time to "settle" before releasing the movie.

i suppose so...but most of the time when it's been years since the actual conflict it seems that the movies glorify the war instead of portraying the gritty awfulness of war.

compare apocalypse now which came out four years after the vietnam war, with the new pearl harbour movie which came out WAY after the pearl harbour attacks.

one is gritty and terrible and one is a hollywood slopfest.

[bungoshlung]

I haven't seen Apocolypse Now... gonna check it out soon

[Silverwinged]

Originally Posted by sidekick

i think it totally depends on the way that it is portrayed. i mean, i don't see how hotel rwanda was really disrespectful toward that particular conflict. some war and conflict movies are going to be disrespectful...other ones are going to be very important in changing how we view wars (apocalypse now, full metal jacket, jarhead, hotel rwanda)

so, i don't think you can really say a film is disrespectful without watching it. that doesn't really make sense.

I agree with you when you speak of Hotel Rwanada and the others mentioned, but movies that use the premise of war to tell stupidly impossible stories with A-list actors making millions of dollars... Just really gets under my skin.

I haven't seen Flight 93 yet, no. But I suppose I should have expressed my reasoning behind saying I think its disrespectful.
That would be most simply put, that I agree with Rowina. It just seems glorified. They know barely a handful of facts to be true about that event (flight 93, not actually the entire 9/11 thing) but they can make a major motion picture out of it no problem...
I don't think that is right.

[mugsy]

my gut feeling is that this is going to raise a whole lotta issues when its released... is that neccessarily bad? maybe not. i think i have to wait to see it.
i find that the majority of war movies made glorify the event and the american made ones definately seem like they may be puttin a spin on who you feel bad for, if that makes sense. but again, so many amazing war movies\bad event movies have been made - ones that make you think and make you aware. i knew about rwanada but didnt really have the urge to research it and really know as much as i could about it until after i saw hotel rwanada.

war is all about propaganda these days - wait, hasnt it almost always been based around propaganda? this is probably just another patch on the bush administrations jacket, maybe their realizing some steam loss on the war engine, need to stir stuff up. but it could also be an honest film maker wanting to remake an event that people in north america can relate to in some sense. who doesnt remember where they were when the planes hit?

i think i'll wait till it comes out on the movie channels to see.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by Silverwinged

I agree with you when you speak of Hotel Rwanada and the others mentioned, but movies that use the premise of war to tell stupidly impossible stories with A-list actors making millions of dollars... Just really gets under my skin.

they use a bunch of no-name actors for this movie.

there is another one coming out directed by oliver stone and starring nick cage that is called 'world trade centre'...that one is probably going to be more of a hollywood splooge fest...but we shall see.

it'll be interesting to see what this movie is like.

[Discord]

I agree with the disrespect.

whats next?


"Liberation of Iraq......the movie"

[(val)Liam]

I saw the trailer for the "world trade center" movie with nicholas cage... the uber-cheese-o-thon was unbearable for the trailer... I don't think I have the will or the strength to endure it for 2+ hours...

"can you see the light?!"

*puke*