World Trade Center

phyco126 · Post by **phyco126** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:50 am

Anyone plan on seeing it? I'm not sure if I'm going to be seeing it anytime soon, mainly because I know I'll cry and nothing like trying to watch a movie and hearing someone blowing their nose all the time. Therefore, I'll be trying to avoid a theater screening to be polite. The second reason is money and no one to see it with. I refuse to see a movie in a theater alone and with no money, it's not like I can see it anyway.

Anyway, it looks like a good movie. I just saw the trailer for the first time tonight from movies.msn.com. I don't think I've ever started to cry just from a trailer before, but this time I did. Not actual crying, but you know, throat in a knot and tears in your eyes with a running nose....

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:57 am

I want to see it...

though...I think...its ... semi-tasteless... mainly cause nicolas cage is in it...I think that a movie like that should have actors no one knows of...cause if this is bad the stigma will haunt cage forever...but if it is good...

I saw the other one about the Flight...It was damn good....also one of the scariest movies I have ever seen...

But...I hope they dont "dramatize" 9/11

that would suck.

But...I hope this reminds America and the world of Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists. I think we have all forgotten what it was like that morning...and We all need to be reawakened. I know a lot of people feel that we should not be "policing" the world but...In this day and age...I think...No I believe we have to fight for the future. And this is our generation's war...

AbsoluteAlex · Post by **AbsoluteAlex** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 4:19 am

I dont think that just by haveing cage it in will be cheaping it. 9/11 hit everyone in America in different ways. Maybe this was his way of trying to tell the story. I really hope they capture it accurately. I was there, in NY at that time, i spent the next three days ferrying firefighters from Staten Island to Manhattan and working in triage centers. It would be a shame if it came off as another movie that was overdramatized by hollywood.

YoshiMars · Post by **YoshiMars** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:48 pm

I've been pondering about all these recent films and only one thing bothers me, is it too soon for this kind of thing? I know it's been about four years now but... it just seems uncomfortable to me... for lack of a better word. I too worry about Hollywood over-dramatizing it, I don't think that would properly honor those who died and those who still suffer. I guess I'd be more comofortable with something along the lines of a documantary (which I'm sure there are plenty of) where there is no script and the only dialog is what was transcripted from that day. Police radios, flight recordings, even cell phone calls... I think that might really hit home, far more than anything Hollywood can script out.

Still... perhaps these sorts of films should have waited? I've not seen the other movies that were in theaters and I'm not sure I'll see this one.

Agawa · Post by **Agawa** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:22 pm

YoshiMars wrote:I've been pondering about all these recent films and only one thing bothers me, is it too soon for this kind of thing? I know it's been about four years now but... it just seems uncomfortable to me... for lack of a better word. I too worry about Hollywood over-dramatizing it, I don't think that would properly honor those who died and those who still suffer. I guess I'd be more comofortable with something along the lines of a documantary (which I'm sure there are plenty of) where there is no script and the only dialog is what was transcripted from that day. Police radios, flight recordings, even cell phone calls... I think that might really hit home, far more than anything Hollywood can script out.

Still... perhaps these sorts of films should have waited? I've not seen the other movies that were in theaters and I'm not sure I'll see this one.

Yeah, I know how you feel. No one can stop them from making it, but seriously, it seems really tasteless for this to be coming out so soon. I'm just going to ignore as best I can, because I think I'd be really bothered if I went to see it. There's just no need...

Post by **Kizyr** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:08 pm

I'm not going to see it, but I don't have any problem with it being around.

It might be too soon, but consider that movies about the Vietnam War came out much sooner after we pulled out most of our troops. Or that Black Hawk Down was closer to the US pulling out of Somalia than this is to 9/11. The big difference here is that the Vietnam War and US involvement in Somalia were both half a world away, while this was a lot closer and personally affected a lot more people.

I suppose with that I should add that, while I don't have a problem with it being around, I can understand if folks don't want to see it. KF

Diz · Post by **Diz** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:14 pm

I hope that it is acurate since i witness the second tower falling after my mom picked me up from school. Then took me to this part that you can see manhattan right behind my hood and saw the second tower fall. So as long as it is accurate I will be satisfyed

phyco126 · Post by **phyco126** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:05 pm

Well, I don't see it as taste-less, and it would be very difficult to over dramatize something that was so very dramatic already. No director would be stupid enough to create a big film with very famous actors in it, only to butcher it. Like I told my mom, who was probably disgusted by it when she saw part of a preview on TV, "You know mom, it's about two cops that got trapped in the WTC after they fell, and where the last two to be pulled out. I'm sure they arn't going to have one of the cops jump out the 82nd story window with a big ball of fire behind him, land on a piece of falling debree, and surf it along the ruble as the tower fell, then turn around and single handedly save the world from a nuclear disaster and a asteroid impact while discovering an AIDs cure that was cheap enough to get rid of AIDs from the world forever."

Post by **Pisces** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:10 pm

No director would be stupid enough to create a big film with very famous actors in it, only to butcher it.

.....Have you SEEN "Pearl Harbor"???

phyco126 · Post by **phyco126** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:17 pm

Bah, you think that they butchered Pearl Harbor? Pfft. For being a big budget blockbuster hit thingy-ma-bob, it was fairly accurate with the overall story of the attack on pearl harbor and America's responce with the doolittle raid. Can't say the same for the parts of the actors though. Besides, I doubt Pearl Harbor was done with the same reasoning as Flight 911 or possible World Trade Center. Well see though.

Post by **Pisces** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:20 pm

For being a big budget blockbuster hit thingy-ma-bob, it was fairly accurate with the overall story of the attack on pearl harbor and America's responce with the doolittle raid.

It still was melodramatic and Hollywoodified.

DeathBeforeDenial · Post by **DeathBeforeDenial** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:30 pm

I'm not going to see it, and I have no real problem with it existing.

However I will say one thing on the matter, I don't trust Oliver Stone, especially after what he said about a week after 9/11 had happened (Link coming, I need to find it). He made some really tasteless remarks and was pumping conspiracy theory garbage so I refuse to see this movie on the moral grounds that it would in a way be supporting that creep.

phyco126 · Post by **phyco126** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:32 pm

Pisces wrote:
For being a big budget blockbuster hit thingy-ma-bob, it was fairly accurate with the overall story of the attack on pearl harbor and America's responce with the doolittle raid.

It still was melodramatic and Hollywoodified.

No, Titanic was melodramatic and Hollywoodified

. So was Pearl Harbor, but I would be more likely to believe that everything that happened in Pearl Harbor was more likely to of happen, and will happen again if history was repeated, in real life. Titanic: Rich girl with million dollar + jewel falls for poor peasent, runs throughout the ship from a jealous guy with a gun while the ship is sinking, and an entire expidetion to the ship was soley to find that Gem. Pearl Harbor, two guys fly planes, one falls for nurse, then leaves for Britian and barely escapes being a P.O.W. while friend falls for said nurse, base is attacked, they retaliate, one dies, yadda yadda yadda. I'm pretty sure out of thousands of troops, that's more likely to happen

.

Where am I going with this again? I totally forgot... :shock:

Faust · Post by **Faust** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:55 am

phyco126 wrote:
No, Titanic was melodramatic and Hollywoodified . So was Pearl Harbor, but I would be more likely to believe that everything that happened in Pearl Harbor was more likely to of happen, and will happen again if history was repeated, in real life. Titanic: Rich girl with million dollar + jewel falls for poor peasent, runs throughout the ship from a jealous guy with a gun while the ship is sinking, and an entire expidetion to the ship was soley to find that Gem. Pearl Harbor, two guys fly planes, one falls for nurse, then leaves for Britian and barely escapes being a P.O.W. while friend falls for said nurse, base is attacked, they retaliate, one dies, yadda yadda yadda. I'm pretty sure out of thousands of troops, that's more likely to happen .

Where am I going with this again? I totally forgot...

For what it's worth, Pearl Harbour has a cool soundtrack in Faust's opinion...^_^

Definitely will be watching it. Still finds it hard to believe after watching the real videos countless times... And the docmentary Loose Change is not helping...

YoshiMars · Post by **YoshiMars** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:45 pm

Kizyr wrote: It might be too soon, but consider that movies about the Vietnam War came out much sooner after we pulled out most of our troops. Or that Black Hawk Down was closer to the US pulling out of Somalia than this is to 9/11. The big difference here is that the Vietnam War and US involvement in Somalia were both half a world away, while this was a lot closer and personally affected a lot more people.

Good point. I may be a bit out of the loop on popular culture, but I didn't realize that those movies were released as soon as they were (not to mention I believe I was very young at the time... I know Vietnam was waaay before me, and sadly I do not have an experience with much of the older filmography (guess it's not THAT old...)), as far as this and other movies like it go... It saddens me to know that there is going to be a huge profit in making them, now I could be wrong (they could donate procedes from the film to 9/11 funds...) but it also seems a bit wrong to be making money off these kinds of things. Not just 9/11 but other trageities like it. Though then again, I suppose it's part of something people like about seeing movies, not everyone wants to see somthing that's purely fantasy. I suppose it's all a matter of opinion really, I know I'll probably not go to this one... just don't feel right to me.

Post by **Kizyr** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:19 pm

YoshiMars wrote:It saddens me to know that there is going to be a huge profit in making them, now I could be wrong (they could donate procedes from the film to 9/11 funds...) but it also seems a bit wrong to be making money off these kinds of things. Not just 9/11 but other trageities like it. Though then again, I suppose it's part of something people like about seeing movies, not everyone wants to see somthing that's purely fantasy. I suppose it's all a matter of opinion really, I know I'll probably not go to this one... just don't feel right to me.

Profit isn't a bad thing; it's neutral and just another part of doing business. Movies are another form of media, like books or anything else. And while movies are made to entertain, there can be very much a serious element to them. Schindler's List, for instance, invariably made a lot of money, but no one dismisses it as trying to cash in on the Holocaust. And The Killing Fields highlighted the Khmer Rouge's holocaust against Cambodians and brought a lot of that issue to light.

I'm waiting to see how this pans out, and how folks will view it once the movie is released. Hollywood started out small with Flight 93, and I think moviemakers are just taking the next step. There's nothing inherently wrong with making a movie about any tragedy, though how they pull it off will determine how it ends up being viewed by the public. KF

YoshiMars · Post by **YoshiMars** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:19 pm

Hmm... good point again. The profit margin just worried me since it's not been all that long (when would be appropriate? Not sure...), and there are people who do cash in on tragedy (though its not fair to compare people who for instance filed false claims to the government about how Katrina affected them in order to get money to say... go to Hawaii, and people who make movies about 9/11. No similarities.) but that's not what we're seeing here.
You're right about we'll see how it pans out. I think more research is in line before I can jump to any conclusions.

Post by **Pisces** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:26 pm

No, Titanic was melodramatic and Hollywoodified . So was Pearl Harbor, but I would be more likely to believe that everything that happened in Pearl Harbor was more likely to of happen, and will happen again if history was repeated, in real life. Titanic: Rich girl with million dollar + jewel falls for poor peasent, runs throughout the ship from a jealous guy with a gun while the ship is sinking, and an entire expidetion to the ship was soley to find that Gem. Pearl Harbor, two guys fly planes, one falls for nurse, then leaves for Britian and barely escapes being a P.O.W. while friend falls for said nurse, base is attacked, they retaliate, one dies, yadda yadda yadda. I'm pretty sure out of thousands of troops, that's more likely to happen .

Your comparison is wasted on me. I didn't like either of those movies.

They were both poorly done and "stagey".

As for Pearl Harbor, don't think that means I don't like war movies - I thought Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line were both excellent films.

Aquaignis · Post by **Aquaignis** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:42 pm

I will probably see it, though not in theaters.
I kinda liked Pearl Harbor myself, though I think Titanic would be a significant movie for someone who had relatives on it.
A war movie that I think will be better than Pearl Harbor is Flyboys. It’s about WW1 fighter pilots.

not everyone wants to see somthing that's purely fantasy

I can’t wait till Eragon comes out.

phyco126 · Post by **phyco126** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:51 pm

Pisces wrote:Your comparison is wasted on me. I didn't like either of those movies. They were both poorly done and "stagey".

*gasp* SINNER! Nah, that's alright I guess. I loved Pearl Harbor, and I also have Saving Private Ryan. I love war films, from The Postman to Pearl Harbor, Saving Private Ryan to Tears of the Sun, and even when Deep Space 9 was in the Dominion Wars. XD

Lunar Threads

World Trade Center

World Trade Center

Who is online