cue "it's too soon" bullshit.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/wtc/large.html

i might actually see this one

That is one intense, moving film.

The music they chose for this trailer is corny as hell, btw.

of the pre 9/11 world, no?

These fools capitalize on tragedy and the very lucrative and marketable sentimentality that goes along with it and do not not add or contribute to any type of dialogue/solution et al. I dont know about Stone's film yet though remain skeptical but United 93?? I suppose you could argue its a tribute but I personally dont buy it.

I dont entirely agree with the above pt but what the hell. Let's talk.

a 9/11 widow writing a book in 2002, or someone releasing a book of images from 9/11 during the same year.

I don't care either way, but I'm just posing a question.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
A thick b****
with big legs
yeah
it's Gutfest '89

---
Refusing to Let Go:
OkayBlowhards Champ 2004

---
Real Man Talk:
http://www.imageyenation.com/main

I dont know. I think I get uncomfortable when money gets involved. That's my knee-jerk reaction.

You could argue the widow finds it therpuetic and wants to honor someone very close to her and expose truth. Are Stone and United 93 doing the same thing? Maybe.

Is there a difference, like cerefusion is saying, between journalism (ie) memoirs/photojournalism) and a fictionalized drama which ultimately serves as entertainment? There is and that gets at some of my initial reaction. Then again a movie like Battle of Algiers is a fiction, also tragedy, in some sense and really moves me.

___________________________________________________________________________________________
A thick b****
with big legs
yeah
it's Gutfest '89

I'm interested either way and, who am i fooling, I'll more than likely see it at some pt. Its not like I'm a boycott it or anything. Just an issue I have with this sort of stuff. I'll always be skeptical.

No conspiracies or theories to be found anywhere. But I hear you.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
A thick b****
with big legs
yeah
it's Gutfest '89

>These fools capitalize on tragedy and the very lucrative and
>marketable sentimentality that goes along with it and do not
>not add or contribute to any type of dialogue/solution et al.

his job isn't to contribute any dialogue or solution. his job is to make an entertaining movie. period.

>I dont know about Stone's film yet though remain skeptical but
>United 93?? I suppose you could argue its a tribute but I
>personally dont buy it.

it doesn't have to be a tribute. it's just a movie.

>his job isn't to contribute any dialogue or solution. his job
>is to make an entertaining movie. period.

there are people who don't want to be entertained by 9/11. To call that view bullshit is silly of you.

>there are people who don't want to be entertained by 9/11. To
>call that view bullshit is silly of you.

but just because someone tries to make an entertaining, compelling film that's based on a tragedy doesn't mean they're being exploitative or sleazy. and it doesn't mean that the movie is necessarily going to be bad.

if Spielberg had thought that way, he wouldn't have made some of his best movies.

>if Spielberg had thought that way, he wouldn't have made some
>of his best movies.

besdies, we're talking about something that happened FIVE YEARS AGO.

>besdies, we're talking about something that happened FIVE
>YEARS AGO.

i was working at 1 liberty plaza last year and to say that it was just 5 years ago, shows you have no clue as to how much 9/11 has affected NYC..

we still get our bags checked on the trains and they are now installing bomb sniffers at penn station..police will be walking around with these gadgets scanning people for biochemical weapons and bombs...

the threat of that shit happening again is something people in NYC live with everyday...reason being...there is next to nothing the govt can do to really prevent another terrorist attack...so in my opinion 5 years is way too soon....he is taking advantage of the fact that wtc is still fresh...to me its tasteless...

holocaust movies were made how many years after ?
pearl harbor was made how many years after ?
platoon and all those big nam movies..?
even the jamie fox persian gulf movie was made more than 10 years after and that war lasted only a few months...

>>but just because someone tries to make an entertaining, compelling film that's based on a tragedy doesn't mean they're being exploitative or sleazy. and it doesn't mean that the movie is necessarily going to be bad.

but its a fine line and that's what i'm getting at. and "compelling" suggests in some ways of opening up dialogue, no? like on a message board? lol. good pts. though. thanks.

I haven't seen anything from Oliver Stone that I've really liked since the 80s.

Plus it was 91, so it barely counts, even if you think it's good.

I loathe Oliver Stone.

actually, i'm not a fan of that joint, but Any Given Sunday wasn't that bad.

-30-

Ryan Francis
1987-2006
r.i.p.

http://www.myspace.com/ikemoses

I just don't trust Stone to really put together a good movie, and the jump cuts show that a) he doesn't film action sequences that well at this point and b) I'm dizzy.

.

I'm not a New Yorker so I won't sit around and decide what they should or should not still be raw about. I'm not going to pass judgement on something that I really know nothing about.

I know what you're all saying: "But this is PTP, that's what we do here. We talk about movies we haven't seen and discuss their important symbolism that we don't really understand." Not this time.

That being said, I could see myself catching this on DVD, no real desire to see it in the theater. Which is exactly what I said about United 93.

Or Vietnam movies that came out before the end of that war.

Issues seem clear at first, then they become muddled, then, in some instances, they become clear again -- clearly different than first thought.

An easy example: Did any of the early WWII movies touch on what our government knew about Japanese attack plans prior to Pearl Harbor? I'm sure they didn't cover the treatment of Japanese Americans immediately after.

People can make entertaining, compelling movies anytime the want. And when emotions are still raw and the issues are still fresh in people's minds, frankly, it's not the hardest thing to do, not for the talented. (Does anyone doubt that a story about individuals lost in this tragedy can be compelling?)

But perspectives change, often radically, from year to year after an event. People are caught up in whatever emotion is involved in the event, whether it's anger, grief or compassion. Very often, however, new, relevent information comes out much after the fact that changes how the people affected by the events feel about it.

I never doubted that Paul Greengrass or Oliver Stone could make an entertaining and compelling movie covering events surrounding 9/11. My problem with it is that I am not convinced that we, collectively, have made up our minds how we feel about what happened. Let's face it, we still don't *know* what happened. And that has nothing do with conspiracy theories. One only has to look at the recently concluded Moussaoui trial to understand this.

And it's not about a fear of overly patriotic propaganda. I would have as little faith in a movie lambasting the government for 9/11 as would in a late '60s anti-Vietnam movie.

Still, I feel one of the main reasons for these movies (and books) right now is the filmmaker's or writer's desire to tell "their side of the story." For example, I've read that the reason some the families of United 93 victims agreed to cooperate with filmmakers of the TV movie was because they wanted their story told. Can't really fault them for that, but their side of the story is necessarily an incomplete part of the whole picture.

Everyone fights to get their version of events out in the airwaves, in varying degrees, to influence the collective consciousness, to have their part of the story be part of the "official story." Not that anyone has any disingenuous motives, but it makes each individual story a little more suspect.

And now I am done rambling.

RED
http://arrena.blogspot.com

working with Wu Tang Clan.....damn....

on the ep of Reno 911 when they were trying
to petition to keep their mustches, one person
they asked to sign the petition said they looked
liked gigolos.

yeah, thats what nick cage looks like to me.


the legendary sigs:
__________________
<------ the first.



http://www.myspace.com/georica

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

...but I wonder if I'll ever be ready and willing to watch a movie like this.

>

is that it's being made while people are still politicizing the events of September 11th. So it gives people in flyover country a reason to break out their Lee Greenwood singles and American flag underwear, and hop back on the 9/11 bandwagon. And when that happens, as we've seen in two straight elections, stupid, backward thinking motherfuckers get elected/re-elected. So no, I will not be seeing either film.

I saw enough of it the morning of.

And, quite simply, I really don't see the chance for artistic statement; especially with Nic Cage. It's an event that far too many people have USED for their own gain, politically, financially, and emotionally, and I'm really fucking sick of people piling on.

>And, quite simply, I really don't see the chance for artistic
>statement; especially with Nic Cage.

come on man. you don't even see the CHANCE for artistic statement?

but I think that whatever artistic statement that comes out of it will be far overshadowed by a) the studio's marketing engine and b) the reaction of a lot of dumb motherfuckers.

the towers fall down.

The Muslims did it.

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT DID.

*wink*

why not September obviously???

plus, it looks like NOBODY wanted to be in this movie, horrible casting, 3 known actors

>plus, it looks like NOBODY wanted to be in this movie,
>horrible casting, 3 known actors

these are all very well known actors:
Nic Cage
Maggie Gyllenhaal
Stephen Dorff
Maria Bello
Patti D'Arbanville
Nicholas Turturro
Frank Whaley

plus people who follow movies and TV know who these guys are:
Jay Hernandez
Danny Nucci

this is exactly the kind of shit i'm talking about.

Nic Cage, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Stephen Dorff, Maria Bello, Patti D'Arbanville, Nicholas Turturro, Frank Whaley, Jay Hernandez and Danny Nucci...exactly

you stupid fucking cocksucker, I know who everyone of these people are, my point is, if I was the casting director for an Oliver Stone movie based on one of the most important events in United States history, with a guaranteed 100 million plus grossing, I would hire someone besides the "dude from Blade" as my main supporting actor

don't be mad. just be wrong. now go outside and play.

so predictable, of course you were going to respond, so let me guess..."panties in a bunch" is your clichéd catch phrase

I think you should spend your free time worrying about the Amazon reviews you obviously monitor every 30 seconds and your two cats, cause we all know REAL MEN love cats

let's see...childish name calling didn't work.
getting personal didn't work.
you got anything else?

n/m

When they catch Bin Laden.

Until then I'm watching Why We Fight and Power of Nightmares.

that shit looked completely overdramatic, cheesy, sentimental, and all those other awful conventions the PTPers (rightfully) hate?

I guess people probably give a pass cause of the subject matter, but come on, it looks REAL bad.

in context, stuff like this just seems so clearly on the "propaganda" side of things from my point of view.

panties ain't in a bunch or nothing.

that's all.

My friend who recently got dumped and I were watching TV and an ad for the Break Up comes on. He kind of sighs and says, "It's too soon for that movie." I just looked at him. I didn't know which was worse, him unwittingly comparing his break up to 9/11 or his thinking that Hollywood should cater their release schedule to his social life.