Do we REALLY need this new Oliver Stone "World Trade Center" movie?

[Human Torch]

Do we REALLY need to hear from Oliver "Acid-Casualty-slash-Tinfoil-Hat" Stone on this?

When you think of what happened on September 11th, 2001, do you picture Nicolas "I'M CASTOR TROY" Cage as the hero of the day?

People are going to make an assload of money from this. That OK with you? Ready for the Natalee Holloway movie? Terry Schiavo?

And finally, it seems that we only need to remember if we've forgotten, and WHO THE FUCK has FORGOTTEN?

:grr:

[bridgit]

1. eh, Stone doesn't do 'little stuff', it's not worth his time but we'll see

i'll put it on my Netflix queue :thumbsup:

[Warpy]

2. No, but the GOP does

which is why they'll be marketing it through all those little fundy churches in the heartland, just like Gibson's snuff movie was done.

[Human Torch]

3. That's what I'm thinking...manipulation, basically.

Keeping everyone afraid. Reminding everyone that it happened, and it could happen again at any moment, but it probably won't because George W. Bush is "protecting" us.

If I had to choose between this coming Wednesday WITH Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" and WITHOUT Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center," I'd pick WITHOUT.

He robbed Jim Morrison's grave...maybe he could find another rock star corpse to lionize.

:grr:

[whistle]

4. Yes, I believe we do and for many of the same reasons we needed

...the movie JFK, Apocalypse Now, Reds, Men With Guns, Salt of the Earth, and Mr Smith Goes to Washington. Otherwise, as sure as there is a censor's cutting knife, we will have another Hollywood/Show Business/Literature Blacklist in this country, the likes of which nothing from the past will compare :yoiks:

[OwnedByFerrets]

33. I don't believe, however,

that any of those movie's themes were used as propaganda for an excuse to take us into an illegal war.
I believe he has the right to make this movie, but they wont get ANY of my money to support it.

[Jazz2006]

66. That's a legitimate point, certainly.

I don't happen to think that we "need" ANY movie, but your point about censorship is well made and well taken.

I will probably go and see this movie because I am interested in the subject matter, but I doubt that it will be a big box office hit. Neither point of which is as important as yours re: censorship. Thanks for making that point.

No need to :yoiks:

:)

[LWolf]

5. No. I wasn't planning to see it.

Then again, I didn't need the massive propaganda, hype, drama, fear, "unification,' and other less savory fallout that allowed the Bush regime to claim legitimacy, either. This movie appears at a time that allows it to push those buttons all over again, a few months before the '06 elections.

Simply mourning and moving on would have been enough for me.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. If he was going to dig into the questions being asked by the 911

Truth people, or the questions being raised by the 911 widows, or the questions that are bouncing around in many of our heads then fine. If he is going to capitalize on this national tragedy then NO. He should make his money in some other way.

[Human Torch]

9. An excerpt from the "Rotten Tomatoes" Movie Review Site:

"If I hadn't known that World Trade Center was an Oliver Stone movie, I never would have guessed it; in fact I might have ventured Ron Howard as the man behind the camera."

"Rather than re-awakening and focusing our feelings from September 11th with its recreation, it plays on them to elicit a sentimental response."

"Everyone leaving the theatre will be reminded we are at war, the enemy is real, we are not out of danger and there are far too many sympathizing with the enemy."

:wtf:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1158187-world_trade_center/

From all of the evidence I've seen (short of seeing the actual movie) I'm thinking "capitalizing on this national tragedy."

[HysteryDiagnosis]

14. If he is sincerely interested in making truthful movies that

engage the viewer while educating him/her at the same time, he might want to consider digging into this and seeing if there is a movie to be made about it that could be considered a factual recreation of the past that has produced the present.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html
"OSAMAGATE"
by Michel Chossudovsky
Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal
Posted at globalresearch.ca 9 October 2001

Confronted with mounting evidence, the US Administration can no longer deny its links to Osama. While the CIA admits that Osama bin Laden was an "intelligence asset" during the Cold War, the relationship is said to "go way back". Most news reports consider that these Osama-CIA links belong to the "bygone era" of the Soviet-Afghan war. They are invariably viewed as "irrelevant" to an understanding of present events. Lost in the barrage of recent history, the role of the CIA in supporting and developing international terrorist organisations during the Cold war and its aftermath is casually ignored or downplayed by the Western media.

[marmar]

26. Sounds like a Karl Rove-commissioned review...

:puke:

[NMMNG]

67. Like we could forget we're at war

And really, the only enemies we have now are the ones we're creating with our warmongering.

[ronnykmarshall]

75. Love your sig line pic.

I just saw "Walk the Line" this weekend. What a great movie.

[guinivere]

105. I agree. Capitalizing on a tragedy.

Whip people back into the fear frenzy. It'll go over big with the freepers.

[laura888]

13. Yes.

A movie that provokes thinking as to "why did this happen?"

[HysteryDiagnosis]

15. See message #14 n/t

[valerief]

7. We don't need this. We also don't need another Cage movie. n/t

[stanwyck]

86. ain't that the truth

for me, this is a toxic mixture of a director whose movies I don't find particularly compelling, an actor I generally find too creepy to watch, and a topic that is so distressing and complex that I don't want to delve into it during an inspirational movie. The ads alone make me queasy.

[Foolkiller]

8. Yes

We need more movies about 9/11.

After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor (the last equivalent event), Hollywood kicked out dozens of movies in only a couple of years. After 9/11, we only have two.

Whatever side of the aisle you are on, 9/11 was a horrible event in which murderous islamofascist agents targeted civilian men and women in a deliberate act of war. They attacked all of us, both Democrats and Republicans. We need stories about that day.

[Human Torch]

10. We have a great one. "Fahrenheit 9/11."

I have nothing against movies that tell it like it is.

I do have a problem with "stories about that day."

But I do respect your opinion. I just don't share it.

:patriot:

[Foolkiller]

12. You know . . .

Even though I'm a Democrat, I can't bring myself to watch Farenheit 9/11. I'm originally from Flint, MI, and what Michael Moore did to our city was simply disgraceful, so I really can't bring myself to watch anything he does.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

18. Would you care to expand on that? (n/t)

[mrcheerful]

27. What Moore did to Flint? What did Moore do other then show what happens

when a city loses its main means of jobs? Being from Saginaw I can tell you what Moore did was show how crass GM has been to their workers since 1979. Same thing going on in Saginaw, with the same results, very few jobs, high crime, and everything going to the dogs. What happened to Flint is not Moore's fault, its the fault of GM CEO's.

[jrd200x]

37. What did he "do" to your city

wasn't it his city also?

I thought he made you famous.

[flamingyouth]

41. Damn Michael Moore for laying off those auto workers

That capitalist pig. x(

[bananarepublican]

69. You're cool! America and the world is stuck on stupid! Dead-crap bankers..

... rule the chickenhawk roost, as well as, the roost of other "elites". When will we all wake up?

[Mr_Spock]

47. We're all waiting with baited breath - what did MM do to Flint?

??

[ReadTomPaine]

50. You're going to be waiting for a long time it seems...

[Mr_Spock]

68. Darn

...and we hardly had time to play with it...

[Sapphocrat]

101. Don't feel bad!

You know they always come back and read from beyond the grave. Which is why I feel fine about having just spent a few hundred words on it. It will see what I said, TS'd or not. :)

[Foolkiller]

17. But thanks . . .

for respecting my opinion, even though we differ.

[TahitiNut]

56. RIP, Suicidal

:eyes: Sheesh! Whadda cretin!

[Pastiche423]

30. "murderous islamofascist agents targeted civilian men and women

in a deliberate act of war"

SAY WHAT?

Where the hell did you hear that? Either provide proof or retract your claim.

[Mr_Spock]

43. I've heard "islamofasist" from Bill O'Reily or Hannity

I think those are the folks who coined that term.

Interesting hearing it from a newby.

[DemonFighterLives]

96. Kind of like a movie about the "New Pearl Harbor"

Enough to make PNAC proud

Welcome to DU!
If this movie delved into the questions remaining about 911, I would be all for it. To recreate the fear and trumpet the official word, no.

[Sapphocrat]

100. About those Pearl Harbor movies, yes and no.

Yes, Hollywood did kick out dozens of "we're at war" movies after Pearl Harbor, but aside from documentaries and newsreels, no fictional or dramatized film in memory (name one if it's escaped me) dealt directly with the attack itself until 1953 ("From Here to Eternity").

Certainly, the attack on Pearl Harbor figured prominently in countless war movies from 1942 on, but (primarily in war movies set in the Pacific) PH was used only as a catalyst for a different story. To pull a typical example out of my head, "Wake Island" (1942) takes place on, yes, Wake Island -- where the peaceful existence of the Marines stationed there changes when PH is attacked. There were a lot of movies in which "everything changes" the moment PH is attacked, and even more that were set days, weeks, or months after the attack -- but not a single Hollywood movie produced immediately after the real attack depicts the attack itself.

As difficult as this may be for anyone to conceive, you can probably chalk up Hollywood's avoidance of such a depiction to respect and simple good taste; my guess, as I am no expert on war movies (it's my least favorite genre) is that emotions were much too raw in the period immediately following Pearl Harbor. (John Huston's "Across the Pacific" (1942) also comes to mind; the movie was originally about a Japanese plot to blow up Pearl Harbor -- !!! -- but during filming, Pearl Harbor was attacked, so the target was changed to the Panama Canal. There was an opportunity to exploit the real PH attack for all it was worth, yet they didn't do it. Wisely.)

If you don't buy the respect-for-the-dead theory, there's also the reality (and this much I do know) that war movies produced during WWII were largely propaganda pieces, made with the assistance of and endorsed by the U.S. War Department (and whichever branch of the military a particular movie depicted).

That's not to say there weren't any good war movies at the time, but there was a reason half of them had John Wayne spitting out epithets like "Chopsticks Charlie" while gunning down buck-toothed, Coke-bottle-bespectacled "dirty Japs": Aside from making a pretty penny for the studios, WWII war movies were cranked out (at breakneck pace) to demonize the "Yellow Menace" and keep morale high at home. (Had to keep those munitions factories running, you know!) To depict the then-most devastating attack on American soil while trying to fight a war against the aggressor (a clearly identified aggressor, mind you, which is something else that sets Pearl Harbor apart from 9/11) would have done more harm than good to the collective American psyche.

Times may change, but people don't -- which is why I disagree with you 100% that we "need more movies about 9/11." Five years on, our emotions are much too raw, and our collective psyche much too fragile for this new WTC film to act as a catharsis (which may be what Stone intends) -- although this fragility has little to do with the makeup of the average American (we are, if nothing, resilient), and everything to do with how badly 9/11 was and is handled by our "leaders." We were not allowed a proper time or method of grieving, and have since been left to fend for ourselves, as individuals, to find a way to heal. (And those of us who question this bogus war borne out of the ashes of the WTC are mocked -- and I'm not referring solely to Ann Coulter's attack on the 9/11 widows).

I might be in favor of 9/11 dramatizations this soon if they served as a true catharsis -- or even fulfilled a revenge fantasy, as did the war movies of WWII. But how can 9/11 movies even do that -- fulfill a revenge fantasy -- unless such a movie were to depart completely from reality?

9/11 is a huge, open wound, and no dramatization can help us heal as long as OBL is at large, as long as this misguided war on Iraq continues, and as long as our countless questions about that day, and all the days leading up to it, remain unanswered.

Until then, I see no point in Stone's movie, or "Flight 93" (the made-for-TV movie), or the upcoming "United 93". Which, by the way, makes three fictionalized 9/11 movies so far, not two.*

I don't understand why you want more movies like these. If you "need stories about that day," why not focus on real stories, told by real survivors and real victims' families? (Here, start with the statement of the amazing, brave Mindy Kleinberg.) Why do you need dramatizations that can only be a pale imitation of the real thing?


* Actually, there is a fourth semi-fictional post-9/11 film -- and the only one so far I have seen, or believe serves its audience well: "11'09"01" (2002), a collection of eleven different short films concerning the attacks on NYC. I won't go into a long review here; I'll just say that the entire piece is devastating, yet somehow managed to help me start to find a way to heal, if only a little.

[rug]

11. It's a cop melodrama.

[RB TexLa]

16. People have made money on WWII films

and films about all sorts of real life tragedies.

[Foolkiller]

19. Without knowing the actual numbers . . .

My guess is that Michael Moore and the studio made a lot of money on Farenheit 9/11, which was at least part of the point of making it.

[NYCGirl]

20. So what's your point? NT

[WinkyDink]

78. Not as much $$ as Bushco/Cheneyburton have made on the Illegal Invasion.

[Golden Raisin]

21. Resounding NO!

I'm a New Yorker and have no need of a film to remind me of what happened on that day, or for Hollywood to document the history of that day for future generations. I'll leave that to the genuine historians instead of the profit-oriented studios. Stone would have done better to have made a film about goddamn Bush and the Neocons turning this country into a fascist state, spitting on the Constitution, evoking fear and using the tragedy of 9/11 in a shameless, vile & evil manner.

[Skip Intro]

22. Prediction: it will not set the box office on fire

I just don't believe people want to see this, and I don't think a whole lot of people will.

[Jazz2006]

65. Agreed. I doubt that it will be a big box office hit...

but then, most movies aren't.

[Book Lover]

23. This native New Yorker says Hell No!

As if I can ever forget.

[MoseyWalker]

24. Have we seen the script?

Do we know how it plays out? I don't.

I have respect for Oliver Stone, something that you obviously don't.

That's ok, but that just means that I have an open mind about it.

[Human Torch]

25. Nothing wrong with a lack of respect for Oliver Stone.

Watching "The Doors" with an open mind (without knowing how it will play out) will do that to a person. That and a few other Stone flicks.

:toast:

[TayTay]

28. No thanks. Not on red cent to anyone who aided the SBVT

The NYtimes reported that Creative Response Concepts, which was key in promoting the Swift Boat liars in the '04 race are doing the publicity for this film. I will not knowingly spend any money on anything that benefits anyone associated with those despicable attacks. (BTW, these are the same people who are now trying to 'swiftboat' John Murtha.)

Such glowing reviews for an Oliver Stone movie might have seemed blasphemous to many conservatives until recently, when Creative Response Concepts, on retainer for Paramount, began pitching “World Trade Center” to pundits who would not normally be considered part of Mr. Stone’s core audience.

A screening in Washington last week, for example, drew members of the Family Research Council, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the evangelical Wilberforce Forum, along with a producer for William Bennett’s radio show, writers for The Washington Times and a reporter for the Web site of Human Events, which first reported the event. Creative Response Concepts has played a prominent role in promoting conservative causes. Heading into the 2005 Supreme Court nomination battles, it advised members of the Federalist Society on how to handle television interviews and was active in promoting the nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. When the AARP came out against President Bush’s plan to overhaul Social Security, the firm went to work for a conservative group that took on the AARP. And it promoted Newt Gingrich’s 1994 political strategy, Contract With America.

But it was in the 2004 campaign that Creative Response Concepts made its biggest mark on the political landscape, advising the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which assailed Mr. Kerry’s Vietnam record as a Navy officer and as a leader of the antiwar movement after he returned home. Its well-funded attacks were among the most damaging blows to the Kerry campaign.

The firm also played a major role that year in assailing CBS — then a corporate sister of Paramount at Viacom — for the “60 Minutes” report on President Bush’s record in the Texas Air National Guard that led to Dan Rather’s resignation as anchor of the “CBS Evening News.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/movies/27stone.html?ei=5070&en=144d8adbcc6a8114&ex=1155009600&pagewanted=print

free subscription signup needed to access this NYTimes article.

[pansypoo53219]

29. after JFK

which i did NOT see, i vowed not to see ANY stone movies. and so far i have only seen bits while surfing by.

[MoseyWalker]

32. the logic of this post of yours

flies way over my head. After not seeing a movie, you decided to not ever see a movie again by the guy?

whoa.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

92. You dont have to see a movie to give it a thumbs down.

It's actually a lot easier to give it a thumbs down without seeing it
because who can argue with total ignorance, plus you save eight dollars.

[johnnie]

31. It;s just a fucking movie

Don't go and see it :think:

[Malikshah]

40. Uh...so was Triumph of Will, Birth of a Nation, The Passion of Christ

No effect on popular psyche...jingoism...timing of film...

Yes-- I know from AICN that it focuses on the attempts to save the brave first responders.

But in a period of 9/119/119/119/119/119/1119/11 to ratchet up fear and hate...

[Jazz2006]

64. So, it's not the movie you object to but the impact that you think

it might have on the "popular psyche"?

I don't recall any significant impact on the "popular pysche" by the other movies you cited ~ do you have some kind of study or statistics that shows they did?

United 93 came out in theatres a few months ago and it didn't seem to have much of an impact on the "popular psyche" either.

So, what makes you think this one will?

It's just a movie.

[Malikshah]

103. United 93 and WTC are two different movies

Yup-- nothing like bringing up impossible scenarios...let's do a group mindmeld over time.

Let's ignore the educating role played by films that seek to depict historical events.

After all, no one ever thinks of the Civil War and has images of Fiddle dee dee in their mind.
No one ever thinks of Ptolemaic Egypt and has an image of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton...

Nope. Never.


"It's just a movie" Keep repeating that if it helps.

Enjoy the oblivion.

[sdfernando]

34. No we don't need this movie

Not right now, not at this time...maybe never. I refuse to go see this movie and any other that trades on this painful event.

[applegrove]

35. Might be cathartic. I saw flight 93 (TV movie) and cried my eyes out.

There is something about reliving a horror after it has ended..having a cathartic experience..and perhaps reconnecting to the world at a latter stage of grief.

I wasn't even American but was affected by 9/11. If it could do that for me.. undo a tiny little block that wasn't so personal to me..but that was an awful week to be in the west..well...that is a good thing.

I think people who have moved on totally will simply not go to the movie. Others.. may gravitate.

Traumatized children will play act their traumas... and change the outcome to a better one...to get over the trauma a little. Adults are different but it is still the same thing. Movies are play with form (like all art). Movies are play for adults. To experience something in a secure venue (a theatre) where the outcome is better (two men survive). Not such a horror.

We used to sit around a fire and tell and retell traumatic stories. To get it out..

If you don't need it .. you will not see the movie. Neither will I. But it may help some. Maybe even kids.

[jrd200x]

36. What do you mean "NEED." We don't need any movie

if you don't want to see it, don't.

[mmonk]

38. No exploitation films for me.

I might watch something entirely verifible in a documentary sense but we don't need any movies that cloud the mind from thinking clearly and asking questions. America hasn't dealt with any of the lies yet.

[Jazz2006]

39. Do we ever "need" any movie? Probably not.

There was an advance screening here in Toronto for firefighters, cops, and other emergency response team members on July 27 but since it was my birthday, I didn't go because we had other plans (my beau is a fire captain, thus the invitation). From what I hear, it was rather well received by those who went, but still, there are a lot of people even among the rescue worker groups who are not too keen on seeing it. Some think that the hundreds of deaths of their "brothers and sisters" who died that day should never be dramatized in film; some think it is a fitting tribute to those who died; some think it should have been made sooner; some think it should never have been made at all; in other words, opinions vary. And that, at least, is how it should be.

Personally, I will probably go and see it this week because I can't comment on its contents unless I see it for myself.

[Mr_Spock]

42. Fine with me though I couldn't watch it

I get weepy eyed whenever I see scenes of 9/11 on the big screen (i.e. in F 9/11).

Maybe I can think about it in another 5 years.

[ContraBass Black]

44. This one is a real story about the last two survivors to be rescued,

Two police officers, made with their approval. It might not be such a travesty.

[Swamp Rat]

45. The epitome of crass

:eyes:

[Jazz2006]

57. And you're sure of that without having seen it?

Sure, okay.

[Swamp Rat]

60. Yes

The movie is crass and so are the people who made it and those who pay to watch it.

So there. :P

[Jazz2006]

61. Well, that settles it then. "Because Swamp Rat Says So" ~ got it.

edit - grr, quotation marks in wrong spot.

[Swamp Rat]

62. Thank you!

I knew you'd see it my way. :D

[Jazz2006]

63. I do not

see it your way at all, which I'm sure you realize.

(but if it makes you feel better to have the "last word", knock yourself out)

[CoffeeCat]

46. I don't get Stone's "about face."

Stone used to be hated by the right and laughed at, as a conspiracy theorist.

JFK helped us to question or government and to distrust it. I always considered Stone a truth seeker--and someone who was interesting in unearthing corruption and crime.

I'm not understanding his past reputation, compared to his actions now. He's making a movie about the two firefighters who were caught in the rubble. No doubt, the movie will stoke the fires of the BushCo "war on terror" and remind everyone that we need to hate everyone in the Middle East.

If Stone is truly a truth-teller and someone who wants to unmask corruption---why isn't he digging into the administration's mistakes that enabled 9-11 (The ignored PDB, decreased funding for terror, etc). Why not do a movie about BushCo's exploitation of 9-11 to further a Fascist agenda? There's plenty of corruption to be revealed.

Why would Stone make a movie that only helps BushCo sink us further into a mess.

I don't get it. Stone will shine the spotlight on the Kennedy assassination, but he ignores Bushco crime and corruption---which is far more obvious, more easily depicted in a movie--and much more of a threat to our country.

[ContraBass Black]

48. It's a story about two people who survived.

How does that imply supporting and justifying Bush?

[ReadTomPaine]

51. I think it's a matter of how the film will be used...

He should have known a tear jerker about 9/11 would be exploited by the RW. It's a shoe in, esp just before an election.

Whether or not he cares is another matter. He's been affiliated with RW filmmakers before (John Milius for example) so his progressive views don't always have a lock on his work.

[ContraBass Black]

52. The RW will exploit anything in sight.

That's not on him, or his movie.

[ReadTomPaine]

53. This is tailor made for abuse, it seems.

I agree he has the right to make the film he wants, however.

[CoffeeCat]

54. Stone's movie comes out before the 06 elections...

...just in time to remind everyone of 9/11.

BushCo incessantly reminds us of 9/11--to stoke our fears and to suggest that Republicans are better at handling the terrorists.

I think any movie that whips up emotion about 9/11--helps Bush--especially when you fail to mention the incompetence that led up to 9/11--or you don't show how 9/11 has been exploited by this administration.

Stone's movie will evoke a great deal of fear, anger and sadness. Unfortunately, many people cannot see through those emotions--and that's when they begin to believe that Iraq was part of the war on terror.

Stone may not be directly supporting and justifying Bush. However, the movie will have the same effect as the 04 RNC Convention---which was a 9/11-inspired production--designed to stoke that same fear, anger and sadness that Stone is doing with his movie.

I'm not understanding why Stone is releasing this movie now, why he made the movie and why he has chosen to ignore the corruption surrounding BushCo and 9-11. Clearly, Stone understands how BushCo has used 9/11 to take away our freedoms, spy on us and stomp on our and civil rights. He also understands that the emotions stoked by passionate 9/11 movies will cause some to more willingly lie down and take the BushCo crimes.

[LSK]

80. Let someone else make that movie

Stones movies used to be about rocking the boat.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

88. The right liked "Nixon" a lot, which was a pretty sympathetic portrayal

(But then they hated Commandante which did the same, albeit in documentary form, for Castro.)

[Bucky]

95. Nixon's human story is a compelling tragedy, which Stone showed.

It doesn't mean Stone, or anyone who enjoyed the movie, supported Nixon's politics. Nixon came off human, and not a little bit pathetic, in the movie. His political views and motivations came off as corrupt and wrong-headed. It sure wasn't a puff piece. Stone isn't interested in selling a political viewpoint--he's an artist telling a human story.

[RamboLiberal]

49. It's only a movie people!

If you don't want to see it don't. I do.

Oliver Stone is a filmmaker. Funny the DU'ers who feel betrayed, and the Freepers who want to love this movie but are having a hard time cause it's made by one of their "Hollywood Liberal" enemies.

9/11 is part of our history. Movies good, bad, thought-provoking, hokie, etc., get made about history.

It's the 5th year anniversary so expect a lot of coverage and books to come out. In fact I posted a list of both in non-fiction books forum here on DU :tinfoilhat:, historical, sentimental, etc., coming out this month and next.

[Jazz2006]

59. Indeed.

There are numerous books and videos about Sept. 11/01 from all sides of the spectrum already, as well as a couple of movies ~ so I don't quite get the angst that is being generated and projected here.

It's quite simple, really, as it all comes down to choice: either buy the dvds or not; buy the books or not; watch the movies or not.

There's nothing really complicated about those simple choices, and I don't understand why there is so much angst about this movie on threads in DU ~ the same thing happened when United 93 came out in theatres, but there was no similar angst when dozens of conspiracy theory videos, dvds, books, etc. came out. It seems very odd to me.

Edit for clarity.

[Justice Is Comin]

55. He did a cut and splice job on JFK trying to sell it as documentary.

I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw the Word Trade Tower.

[Lilith Velkor]

81. Bollocks

It was sold as a drama, but a lot of people go into kneejerk hysterics at the very mention of the subject matter, probably because of the vast amount of bullshit that's been spewed about it.

[JVS]

58. It's not about what we need, it's about what he wants to do a movie about

[Endangered Specie]

70. If there is a way to make a sleazy buck off a movie...

you can count on Stone to make it.

anyone want to bet what drug hes on this time?

[RamboLiberal]

71. Get ready for another movie next year - 102 Minutes

Based on the book. Here's description of book from Amazon.com - I read the book and it is quite interesting and heart breaking. Don't know quite how they will make a film of it, will they focus on the victims or the shortcomings in the building and equipment that day, but it is supposed to be released in '07.

In 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers, New York Times writers Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn vividly recreate the 102-minute span between the moment Flight 11 hit the first Twin Tower on the morning of September 11, 2001, and the moment the second tower collapsed, all from the perspective of those inside the buildings--the 12,000 who escaped, and the 2,749 who did not. It's becoming easier, years later, to forget the profound, visceral responses the Trade Center attacks evoked in the days and weeks following September 11. Using hundreds of interviews, countless transcripts of radio and phone communications, and exhaustive research, Dwyer and Flynn bring that flood of responses back--from heartbreak to bewilderment to fury. The randomness of death and survival is heartbreaking. One man, in the second tower, survived because he bolted from his desk the moment he heard the first plane hit; another, who stayed at his desk on the 97th floor, called his wife in his final moments to tell her to cancel a surprise trip he had planned. In many cases, the deaths of those who survived the initial attacks but were killed by the collapse of the towers were tragically avoidable. Building code exemptions, communication breakdowns between firefighters and police, and policies put in place by building management to keep everyone inside the towers in emergencies led, the authors argue, to the deaths of hundreds who might otherwise have survived. September 11 is by now both familiar and nearly mythological. Dwyer and Flynn's accomplishment is recounting that day's events in a style that is stirring, thorough, and refreshingly understated. --Erica C. Barnett --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

From Publishers Weekly
Drawn from thousands of radio transcripts, phone messages, e-mails and interviews with eyewitnesses, this 9/11 account comes from the perspective of those inside the World Trade Center from the moment the first plane hit at 8:46 a.m. to the collapse of the north tower at 10:28 a.m. The stories are intensely intimate, and they often stir gut-wrenching emotions. A law firm receptionist quietly eats yogurt at her desk seconds before impact. Injured survivors, sidestepping debris and bodies, struggle down a stairwell. A man trapped on the 88th floor leaves a phone message for his fiancée: "Kris, there's been an explosion.... I want you to know my life has been so much better and richer because you were in it." Dwyer and Flynn, New York Times writers, take rescue agencies to task for rampant communications glitches and argue that the towers' faulty design helped doom those above the affected floors ("Their fate had been sealed nearly four decades earlier, when... fire stairs were eliminated as a wasteful use of valuable space"). In doing so, the authors frequently draw parallels to similar safety oversights aboard the ill-fated Titanic nearly 90 years before. Their reporting skills are exceptional; readers experience the chaos and confusion that unfolded inside, in grim, painstaking detail. B&w photos.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

[alfredo]

72. bigger question; did we need "Gigli"?

[butterfly77]

73. No. or the other one that is now showing

repugs think that " Have you forgotten" No I have not forgotten and bush still is a fuck up along with the rest of the crew.

[H2O Man]

74. Yes. Buy it.

Buy it now. Buy it now and like it. Everyone else you know has. Go to Wal Mart. Buy. Consume. Sleep. Eat. Buy. Wal Mart. Oliver Stone. Olive Oil. Pot pies. Now.

[bdamomma]

76. NO

truthfully NO, this is a wound that people would like to pour salt on, and it could even make those who wonder if our government had played a big part in this. Which I believe they orchestrated to take us down this dark road which we are on now. Just my 2 cents.

[misanthrope]

77. Not really...

...Here ya' go, Ollie: The buildings fall. Thousands die. The nation understandably mourns.

End of story.

I find these movies disrespectful to the victims, but that's just my opinion.

[LSK]

79. ive read this will not be a "Tinfoil" movie but a movie about heroism

So coming from Stone, I think he BLEW IT.

[malta blue]

82. "Anyone who is old enough to see the movie

is old enough to remember the horrors of that day" (from Distressed American, yesterday in my car). I could not have said it better. No, we do not need this movie. The event is not eligible for Hollywood license yet.

[VOX]

83. No. The bottom line is the almighty dollar, and this is no different.

It was a horrible tragedy. There are hours of news and documentary footage available. There is no healthy reason to experience any of this horror again. It already has been endlessly replayed on television and in books. The lesson has been learned.

9/11 should not be packaged as entertainment, or as a product.

[Fleshdancer]

84. 9/11 happened to all of us, not just the neocons who exploit it.

I don't like the exploitation of 9/11 for political intimidation either but 9/11 happened to all Americans, not just the neocons. The heroism of that day is an incredible story and deserves to be told.

New Yorkers made me damn proud to be an American on 9/11. Actually it was bigger than that...New Yorkers restored my faith in humanity that day. I sat in awe watching millions of people coming together to help out their neighbors. I cried endlessly for the first responders who risked their lives. I watched people taking the time to make sure every person around them was ok and able to walk and leave the area safely. My heart shattered watching New Yorkers hold up flyers to find their missing loved ones.

For the rest of us outside of New York, we helped in every way that was suggested. We donated our blood, our clothes, our food our money and just about anything else we thought might help. Firefighters from all over the country hopped into cars and drove to NYC to help out. We went to vigils, we prayed and we glued ourselves to the television set to see what more could be done.

I hope this movie does justice to the people of NYC. I hope it accurately conveys how beautiful and strong they were that day. May it remind people that we are strong enough to survive such a hell without being stripped of our civil liberties and may it remind people that Iraq had nothing to do with that day.

[NYCGirl]

89. Thank you so much. I appreciate this post. NT

[AZBlue]

94. Amen.

Thank you!

[RamboLiberal]

107. That day and the following days and nights

I remember seeing on TV those brave New Yorkers; firefighters, police, paramedics, construction workers, aid workers, citizens, at the pile or near it through the fall, in to the winter and then to spring. I don't know how they did it without collapsing. And now many are paying with their lives and their health cause the damn Bush EPA and Christie Todd Whitman lied to them.

Then that bitch Ann Coulter has the audacity to say just 4 year later that New Yorkers would surrender.

From "Hannity and Colmes," August 25, 2005:

COLMES:...And I want to ask you about something, Ann, that you wrote in your most recent column. You had a very funny line, actually, that it is hard to find a parking spot in New York City. There's no question about it. You've had a pretty good day if you can do that.

But then you said, "It's far preferable to fight them on the streets of Baghdad than in the streets of New York, where the residents would immediately surrender." Now, some New Yorkers...

HENICAN: Ooh...

COLMES: ... felt that you were calling them cowards by making that statement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/08/26/ann-coulter-new-yorkers-_n_6277.html

Coultergeist - where the hell was your skanky ass - why didn't we see you down at the pile at least serving up sandwiches and coffee?

[MrSlayer]

85. No. It's not really about the attacks and who did them.

It's a story inside the story movie. I'd like to see Stone do one that exposes the truth.

[Generator]

87. According to my Entertainment Weekly

conservatives are cheering this movie. Mr. Stone doesn't feel it's his place to comment on the Iraq war. And yes..indeed..no one has forgotten..it's the nightmare without end. I don't think we needed a "documentary" style film to help us remember. We have questions..and we know the bravery of those that went into the fire (great song by Springsteen by the way) and for all those that died we want answers.

This is just a freaking TV movie of the week. Isn't it nice to know all our horrors can be made into drama EVEN if there are thousands of unaswered questions. Even for the conservatives, I ask- where is Osama Bin Laden? And why are we in Iraq? This movie asks no questions.

We all lived it, we lived it live on TV-those that were there will never forget. This movie is pointless and Mr. Stone (of all people!)has played into the hands of propaganda. The heart of propaganda is an appeal to emotion without thought.

[porphyrian]

90. "We" don't. But I'm willing to trust Stone a little bit.

I think he's got his head on straight (or crooked the right way, however you want to look at it), and I don't think he'd do a propaganda piece for the neocons. I could be wrong.

[Javaman]

91. Stone is a hack opportunist film maker.

His films suffer what I call a mild glaze of gloss. They touch on points to strike a nerve but never really answer anything. He likes to play mister informed on a topic but when pressed to express his own personal views on a the subject, he gets very evasive.

One more piece of schlock from the king of schlok.

[AZBlue]

93. "Who the f has forgotten?" At least half of America has, that's who.

So, YES, we "need" this movie.

On a personal note, I'm disgusted by the OP and many of the responses to it. Seems lots of people on here would like to forget too. Does the film make you uneasy? Yes, people will make money off it - and I'd rather see all that money go to other causes. But at least people will be reminded of what happened and remember those who were lost, even if just for two hours.

[guinivere]

106. I don't know anyone that has forgotten.

The only uneasy feeling I get is that it seems like this tragedy is being exploited. Making money from the horror seems wrong to me. Having the repukes use this horror (yet again) to scream "terra terra" and justify the asshat's war in Iraq is wrong. Using it for political gain is wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't need to pay 8 bucks to be reminded that innocent lives were lost. I don't need to pay 8 bucks to remember.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

97. Thank you for your compassion for the dead and grieving.

The world needs more thoughtful people like you to remind us
of all that's good and sweet and loving in the world, and what
ought to get movies made about them, and not.

[Human Torch]

98. It has nothing to do with my compassion for the dead and grieving.

If someone is grieving and watching Nicolas Cage re-enact 9/11 brings them comfort, great. Go watch Nicolas Cage.

Thanks for calling me thoughtful, though. I really appreciate your sincerity. I don't know you (just like you don't know me, even though you seem to think you can read my mind and state my intentions). But I really sense the sincerity, and that's all that matters.

:grouphug:

Did I really remind you of all that's good and sweet and loving in the world? Wow, all I was trying to do was suggest that maybe an exploitative movie by a director with a known penchant for tinfoil headgear that's based on a national tragedy might not be a good idea. But if I made you feel better about yourself, that's a bonus. I have the feeling that when you hit the "post message" button you felt better about yourself. That's good. Glad I could help.

Finally, what ought to get movies made about them, and not...first, run a grammar check on that if you would. Thanks in advance. Second, look at the subject line. I asked if we need this movie. I didn't say a word about which movies should or should not get made. And yeah, I plan to exercise my right to not see it.

This is kind of hard to explain, but I know I've become a better person simply by reading your post. I know your intention was to correct my behavior, not to attack me personally. Thanks, and have a super duper day, OK?

:grouphug:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

99. Boy, you sure know how to take a compliment!

[leftchick]

102. fuck no!

he has been smokin way too much weed. He is gone!

[pitohui]

104. no it's pure-dee exploitation, it's too soon

exploiting the dead of 911 just to make a buck and so people can have fun in a cool air conditioned theater munching popcorn

do people even remember that REAL people REALLY died that day?

i won't be seeing this one

oliver stone needs to have his brain scanned to see if he still has one