|Go back to previous topic|
|Forum name||Pass The Popcorn|
|Topic subject||Get your panties in a bunch...again. Oliver Stone's WTC movie trailer|
182357, Get your panties in a bunch...again. Oliver Stone's WTC movie trailer|
Posted by bignick, Wed May-17-06 10:46 AM
cue "it's too soon" bullshit.
182364, At least it LOOKS more interesting than United 93.|
Posted by Ryan M, Wed May-17-06 10:55 AM
182447, I agree|
Posted by SammyJankis, Wed May-17-06 01:41 PM
i might actually see this one
183451, uh..but after seeing 93, it will be hard to top.|
Posted by biscuit, Sun May-21-06 11:18 PM
That is one intense, moving film.
The music they chose for this trailer is corny as hell, btw.
182407, that trailer suggests a weirdly sentimental view|
Posted by DrNO, Wed May-17-06 12:14 PM
of the pre 9/11 world, no?
182418, I'll bite...Here's my issue|
Posted by dr invisible, Wed May-17-06 12:41 PM
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.
182424, My question is what's the difference between this and, say|
Posted by ZooTown74, Wed May-17-06 12:58 PM
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
it's Gutfest '89
Posted by cereffusion, Wed May-17-06 01:01 PM
Refusing to Let Go:
OkayBlowhards Champ 2004
Real Man Talk:
182429, Its a good question|
Posted by dr invisible, Wed May-17-06 01:09 PM
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.
182431, This film is based on the true story of two first responders.|
Posted by ZooTown74, Wed May-17-06 01:13 PM
A thick b****
with big legs
it's Gutfest '89
182433, Right but its Oliver Stone...lol...fact = fiction=fact=fiction...|
Posted by dr invisible, Wed May-17-06 01:25 PM
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.
182435, I've read that the story is being told in a straightforward manner.|
Posted by ZooTown74, Wed May-17-06 01:30 PM
No conspiracies or theories to be found anywhere. But I hear you.
A thick b****
with big legs
it's Gutfest '89
Posted by bignick, Wed May-17-06 01:48 PM
>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.
182455, well I think you've nailed it|
Posted by DoctorBombay, Wed May-17-06 02:03 PM
>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.
182457, i have beef with them acting like it's some kind of affront.|
Posted by bignick, Wed May-17-06 02:07 PM
>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.
182458, this takes us back to the "too soon" debate, no?|
Posted by DoctorBombay, Wed May-17-06 02:09 PM
>if Spielberg had thought that way, he wouldn't have made some
>of his best movies.
182467, yeah. but, for me, there is no debate.|
Posted by bignick, Wed May-17-06 02:43 PM
besdies, we're talking about something that happened FIVE YEARS AGO.
185477, tell that to anyone that worked or STILL works downtown|
Posted by Justin_Maldonado_7, Sat May-27-06 12:19 PM
>besdies, we're talking about something that happened FIVE
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...
185484, and none of that makes it wrong to make a movie about it.|
Posted by bignick, Sat May-27-06 12:58 PM
182463, I agree with this|
Posted by dr invisible, Wed May-17-06 02:40 PM
>>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.
182464, I just don't think it'll be very good|
Posted by johnny_domino, Wed May-17-06 02:41 PM
I haven't seen anything from Oliver Stone that I've really liked since the 80s.
182471, ^^^Probably the truest statement of this thread|
Posted by dr invisible, Wed May-17-06 02:59 PM
Posted by theprofessional, Wed May-17-06 04:34 PM
182572, I really didn't like it all that much|
Posted by johnny_domino, Wed May-17-06 07:45 PM
Plus it was 91, so it barely counts, even if you think it's good.
182541, If even then|
Posted by Marauder21, Wed May-17-06 06:10 PM
I loathe Oliver Stone.
182645, cosign on both points|
Posted by Mynoriti, Thu May-18-06 02:43 AM
182646, Natural Born Killers?|
Posted by IkeMoses, Thu May-18-06 02:51 AM
actually, i'm not a fan of that joint, but Any Given Sunday wasn't that bad.
182684, Any Given Sunday wasn't that bad but it wasn't that good either|
Posted by johnny_domino, Thu May-18-06 09:46 AM
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.
182957, RE: Natural Born Killers was TIGHT|
Posted by violence, Fri May-19-06 09:37 AM
182472, Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhall, eff the rest of that noise|
Posted by JungleSouljah, Wed May-17-06 02:59 PM
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.
182493, I wonder about the WWII movies that came out during the war|
Posted by REDeye, Wed May-17-06 03:59 PM
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.
182580, When I saw the title of the post I thought Stone was|
Posted by sonofodin, Wed May-17-06 08:55 PM
working with Wu Tang Clan.....damn....
182644, nicholas's mustache.|
Posted by rambunctious, Thu May-18-06 02:42 AM
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
yeah, thats what nick cage looks like to me.
the legendary sigs:
<------ the first.
182651, RE: Get your panties in a bunch...again. Oliver Stone's WTC movie trailer|
Posted by ToeJam, Thu May-18-06 03:09 AM
182696, You may call it 'bullshit'...|
Posted by FrankEinstein, Thu May-18-06 10:25 AM
...but I wonder if I'll ever be ready and willing to watch a movie like this.
182744, looks very good|
Posted by fire, Thu May-18-06 01:01 PM
182745, looks very good|
Posted by fire, Thu May-18-06 01:01 PM
186376, I agree n/m|
Posted by MME, Wed May-31-06 11:24 AM
182935, the thing about this and U93|
Posted by magilla vanilla, Fri May-19-06 07:31 AM
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.
183001, so you're not gonna see it because of how someone else will react to it?|
Posted by bignick, Fri May-19-06 12:26 PM
183138, well, I have no interest in seeing it.|
Posted by magilla vanilla, Fri May-19-06 11:50 PM
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.
183579, i can but that, but...|
Posted by bignick, Mon May-22-06 11:39 AM
>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?
185553, admittedly, that's overstating things|
Posted by magilla vanilla, Sat May-27-06 06:03 PM
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.
183003, *SPOILER ALERT*|
Posted by Guinness, Fri May-19-06 12:31 PM
the towers fall down.
183009, *ADDITIONAL SPOILERS*|
Posted by Frank Longo, Fri May-19-06 12:46 PM
The Muslims did it.
183454, no they didn't silly...|
Posted by biscuit, Sun May-21-06 11:21 PM
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT DID.
183095, why August 9th???|
Posted by Jay Cam, Fri May-19-06 07:09 PM
why not September obviously???
plus, it looks like NOBODY wanted to be in this movie, horrible casting, 3 known actors
Posted by bignick, Fri May-19-06 07:48 PM
>plus, it looks like NOBODY wanted to be in this movie,
>horrible casting, 3 known actors
these are all very well known actors:
plus people who follow movies and TV know who these guys are:
this is exactly the kind of shit i'm talking about.
183119, fake ass celebrity, Kate Hudson ass nugga|
Posted by Jay Cam, Fri May-19-06 09:42 PM
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
183124, ^^^panties are DEFINITELY in a bunch^^^|
Posted by bignick, Fri May-19-06 09:55 PM
don't be mad. just be wrong. now go outside and play.
183126, ^^^wishes he was the famous Nick Adams^^^|
Posted by Jay Cam, Fri May-19-06 10:15 PM
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
183129, ^^^still mad. still wrong^^^|
Posted by bignick, Fri May-19-06 10:33 PM
let's see...childish name calling didn't work.
getting personal didn't work.
you got anything else?
183155, looks pretty stupid n/m|
Posted by dba_BAD, Sat May-20-06 01:32 AM
183520, I'll watch those movies|
Posted by Nettrice, Mon May-22-06 08:05 AM
When they catch Bin Laden.
Until then I'm watching Why We Fight and Power of Nightmares.
185620, how am I the first one to say.................|
Posted by mc_delta_t, Sun May-28-06 01:00 AM
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.
185712, there's a fine line between art and propaganda.|
Posted by ororo_munroe, Sun May-28-06 08:13 PM
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.
185728, "It's too soon" has jumped the shark|
Posted by SoulHonky, Sun May-28-06 09:45 PM
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.