Why are people like this?

[jackson13]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060806/ennew_afp/afpentertainmentfilmusattacks_060806051818

That link is to a story about how many New Yorkers are shying away from "World Trade Center", directed by Oliver Stone.


The reasons given are some of the most bogus damn reasons to not see a film I have ever heard. People are acting like Oliver Stone is showing the planes hit the towers and showing thousands of people dying and pretty much just replaying footage from 9/11 and putting it on the big screen.

He is not. Why cant people ever do the neccessary homework when it comes to watching movies? Stone has said in numerous interviews that "I dont show the planes hitting the towers in this movie." The movie isnt about the attacks, or exploiting the attacks, the movie is the true story of the last 2 men to be successfully pulled from the rubble. It's a movie of hope, survival and overall, the American spirit.


"I have no interest whatsoever. I think it's horrible. Just the idea of having a movie about 9/11 bothers me," said Jessica Amato

So where was she when "United 93" was released? Every single person in that movie died. It wasnt a happy movie. It had no happy moments. It was simply a movie about how Americans stood up to the terrorists and didnt let them follow through with their plan.

"It was enough to live it once as a New Yorker. I don't think I want to pay money to see it again on the screen," Amato said. "To me it's sacred ground, it's a grave site, and it should be (left) alone as such."

But you arent paying money to see it on the screen! The attacks arent shown! Sure, you know what happens. Anyone living on the face of the earth the past 5 years know what happens, but the movie doesnt focus on the attacks. It focuses on the rescue, and survival of those who did the rescuing. The men and women who stepped up and went above the call of duty that day just to help the common man/woman/child who happened to be caught up in that mess. And as for it being "sacred ground", yes, Ground Zero pretty much is sacred ground. But Stone didnt film the movie there. He filmed it thousands of miles away, in open fields and airplane hangars and movie studios. He didnt step on nor tarnish hollowed ground. He is simply relaying a story, a story of survival, as mentioned, onto the big screen for others to see.

Before I heard about the movie and read the plot and all, I had no idea who the men were and that they were even rescued. Or that they were the last to be rescued. But now thanks to Stone, I know the story.

Are these people gonna protest the new building once its built? Because its on hallowed ground? Because its a sacred area not to be touched/messed with in any way? If it weren't for the new Freedom Tower being built, America would always have just an empty hole right there in New York to stare at as a reminder of what happened. But we dont have to. People are moving on from the tragedy and rebuilding, just like we have done all our lives. Why cant these people?

No one got mad or upset when 'Titanic' was released. No one made a fuss when 'Pearl Harbor' was made. Some people caused a little stink over 'Saving Private Ryan', but that was only because the movie was so realistic it caused flashbacks to the storming the beach moments for some people. 'World Trade Center' isnt like that. Like mentioned, the planes do not hit the towers in the movie. You dont see it. The movie is simply just about what happened that day, how police and firefighters stepped up and did their job, and how they were rescued.


I realize this is a touchy subject. Of course it is, it's America, where everyone is touchy about everything and holds grudges for years about stuff. But it's been 5 years since the attacks. Things are being rebuilt. People are moving on with their lives. It's happening. And a little movie about the story of what happened that day isnt such a big deal. It's not the first movie to be made that features the attacks in some way/shape/form, and it wont be the last. Are we gonna have to deal with this everytime a movie gets made that references 9/11 in some way?

[RustyRazor]

I was directly on the Jersey side when the Towers were hit.
I went to go see "United 93".
It's a tough thing to reflect on for some. Others will come out and say "shame on you for doing a movie like this!" and while I don't believe that this movie HAD to be made, I can't say it SHOULDN'T have been made.
It's one of the darkest moments in this country's history, so who can truly say whether its right or wrong?
Some may want the story of many brave people to be told.
Others might not want to relive that time.
I truly respect both sides. What I don't like are those that try to "shame" people into not seeing the film, forcing their personal opinions on others.
We're all grown ups.
We all know within us whether we're ready to see these movies.
Personally, I don't think I'm going to go see it.
I just don't want to revisit it.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the families of everyone that lost someone they loved that day, as always, but that's where I stand.

[APzombie]

Comparing it to Titanic and Pearl Harbor is a bit unfair. Those events are 90 and 60 plus years behind us. Not only were the terrorist attacks on the U.S. a mere five years ago, they were also broadcast on live t.v. and replayed on t.v. nearly every hour in the u.s. for two years. Not to mention within a year NBC broadcasted the french filmmakers 9/11 documentary that has footage in the building as it happened following the firemen. In my opinion that documentary beats the shit out of any film adaptation.

I finally got around to seeing United 93, I loved it. It was a story we heard about, but never witnessed. World Trade Center tells a personal story within a larger picture that every American has seen, and nearly every new yorker has seen for their own eyes. To judge people who were actually there and possibly had family or friends killed in the disaster seems a bit distasteful. If the planes attacked your town and killed people you care about would you jump to the first showing of a film that reproduces it? i imagine you would at least think twice. I would.

In any event, I wasn't going to see the film if I heard it was as bad as the trailers looked. Fortunately, the reviews coming in have been very positive, so I'll likely see it in theaters.

[KyleG]

One year after the attack on Pearl Harbor, a movie was released about it (Remember Pearl Harbor) and its been 5 years for this movie. If you don't wanna see the movie then don't see it, you don't have to bad mouth it just because your not ready to watch it. People are different, some people are ready to watch a movie about 9/11 and some arn't, but it should be up to the individual to make that decision.

[The Postmaster General]

Thanks for spoiling United 93 for me, Jackson13.

[inglourious basterd]

The reasons given are some of the most bogus damn reasons to not see a film I have ever heard. People are acting like Oliver Stone is showing the planes hit the towers and showing thousands of people dying and pretty much just replaying footage from 9/11 and putting it on the big screen.

He is not. Why cant people ever do the neccessary homework when it comes to watching movies?

I think that a lot of people watch movies for the simple pleasure of immersion. Even dramas.

On September 11, 2001, new yorkers were immersed in the events that took place in the movie. Many may have even known people that died that day or witnessed the event first hand.

Yes...if people had done the research, then they would have found how much respect Stone gave to his source material. But if you are someone who lived or worked near ground zero, then I'd imagine that you may not care.

Some of us like to think that these films are made for their artistic qualities. Maybe so. But I'd imagine that some of the people in new york may have the cynical instinct that the film was made for commercial interests. Afterall, when you pay to see these movies, the money isn't going to rebuild ground zero.

On that note, here is what one reviewer has said about WTC. Yes...the reviews are overwhelmingly positive; however, I found his input interesting.

United 93 was a truly remarkable film because it kept its integrity even while facing a low box office potential due to an unknown cast of actors. The press screening for United 93 was a quiet daytime screening and there were no trailers shown before the film. World Trade Center got some pretty big fire power from the acting community and I’m not entirely sure that it wasn’t just so that the film would have a bigger box office draw. Just speculation here, but after watching the press screening, I am under the suspicion that Paramount is really just trying to use this to make money rather than to tell a much-needed story. Before the screening, representatives were giving out tons of DVDs for silly trivia questions and then they wanted to make sure everyone left with their official WTC posters. I felt ashamed to be there. It was like being in the temple before Jesus threw out the money changers. This should be a somber experience worthy of the utmost sensitivity and instead it felt like a state fair.

I'm not saying that I wont see this film. Nor am I saying that I agree with the closedmindness that some people have with respect to the film. I simply post my thoughts because I could understand why people would want to skip this film. And if they should be vocal in their dissents, I feel that they're more than entitled to do so.

[electriclite]

Here's the problem in making a film about 9/11 half a decade since the event: Movies, by and large, are made to entertain. Therefore, most people, read the movie as Hollywood making an "entertaining" film about 9/11.

I know the filmmakers are going out of their way to make the viewing public aware that they did not make this move to entertain, but to "tell a miraculous and hopeful true story", and I'm gonna say I believe that. But no matter what the story focuses on, it still brings you back to that day, and those images come back to your mind. Just seeing the shadow of the plane pass over a building is going to bring you back to those images we all saw on the news that were played over and over and over again.

But the people who are making these "bogus" reasons not to see the film, just don't want to sit in a theatre and be brought back to a day that is seared into their memory because they lived there. That day was like a movie for them, but worse because it was real. Five years seems like a long time, but its not if you lost someone and its not if you live in NY and pass by the site. You're always reminded in NY, most people don't need a movie to bring'em back.

But its actually been noted that there is an unexpected audience for the film: teenagers.

Apparently many teenagers who were just children when the attacks occured are showing immense interest in the film in order to really understand the events since they were so young and confused when they first happened.

So for those who need to go back, they have the option. But let's not knock too hard on those who remember the day far too clearly.

[ChemicalRomance]

The film isn't needed becuase WE LIVED THROUGH IT.

[jolanar]

Originally posted by ChemicalRomance
The film isn't needed becuase WE LIVED THROUGH IT.

That pretty much sums up how I feel. A movie like this could be a wonderful thing for the following generations however.

[The Young Son]

I am having mixed feelings about this.

I am from Australia, so I wasn't there when it happened.

But I do remember waking up at 2am to hear my parents talking about it in the living room. I walked out and watched the attack as it was happening.

I am having the same feelings about this film as I had for the Da Vinci Code, which is to say whether I will see it or not.

I probably will, but if others who were involved choose to boycott it, I mean no disrespect to them in any way. From what I hear, it is a story about courage and survival. If that is the case I will surely see it.

However I must add that I feel this film did not have to made so soon after the event. It should have waited.

[inglourious basterd]

Thinking more about the review I quoted, it has bugged me how much they've advertised WTC before unrelated films. I feel bad for New Yorkers. Even before movies like Lady in the Water, they had to be reminded about that traumatic day.

With respect to Saving Private ryan, you mentioned this:

but that was only because the movie was so realistic it caused flashbacks to the storming the beach moments for some people

Don't you think that seeing the shadows of a plane, hearing the sounds of a low-flying plane, and the large vibrations of a crash re-enacts the feelings that many had when a plane went into the building?

As a fan of movies you should be able to fully appreciate the fact that filmmakers dont necessarily have to physically show a brutal murder onscreen to get viewers emotionally invested.

No one made a fuss when 'Pearl Harbor' was made.

Re-read reviews. The biggest complaint about Pearl Harbor is that it trivialized the event with a sappy romance, horrible dialogue, and sensational, entertaining explosions.

[jaw2929]

I don't get why fucking hollywood feels they need to make movies about 9/11 so soon... There's no fucking point... Anything we saw on the news casts/in person that day was WAY worse than anything anyone could put on the big screen, real life story of people or not... I didn't see United 93, and I won't be seeing World Trade Center... At all, ever. And because of the current illegal war going on, I'll never watch another modern war movie again either.

They're profiting off of this horrible tragedy, raking in the money... Stone's lining his pockets off of this, and it's fucking ludicrous in my mind... 9/11 is something far worse than Pearl Harbor, because it was an attack on civilians/civilian property, rather than an army base... I believe these terrorist's everyone speaks of, are sitting in the white house right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if they got a cut of the money either.

But that's another topic for another thread, so I'll just take my "crazy conspiracy theorist" ass outta here.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by psudoazn
Some of us like to think that these films are made for their artistic qualities. Maybe so. But I'd imagine that some of the people in new york may have the cynical instinct that the film was made for commercial interests. Afterall, when you pay to see these movies, the money isn't going to rebuild ground zero.


Actually, I think some of the proceeds ARE going to rebuilding ground zero. I'm pretty sure I saw something on CNN, about the movie, that said Oliver Stone planned on sending proceeds to rebuilding the site.


I think the movies need to be made just for the purpose of reminding people of what happened. I'm sure New Yorkers don't need the reminder, but I think the rest of the country has taken for granted that this happened and a lot of pride and patriotism was a result of that event. I know I'm hoping the movie makes people remember those feelings.

I don't think the movie is degrading the lost lives, but in a way, honoring them by remembering them.

If you don't want to see it for whatever reason - fine. Nobody's going to question why. But don't criticize those who made it and those who want to see it either. The movie isn't degrading or insulting anybody involved in the real events.

[inglourious basterd]

Originally posted by bigred760
Actually, I think some of the proceeds ARE going to rebuilding ground zero. I'm pretty sure I saw something on CNN, about the movie, that said Oliver Stone planned on sending proceeds to rebuilding the site.


I looked into it.

10% of all ticket sales for the film between now Wednesday 8/9/06 and Sunday 8/13/06 are going to be donated to charities. They're hitting a diverse portolio of charties ranging from the memorial, the families, and the police department fund. So if you plan to see it, make sure to try and see it on this week.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by psudoazn
I looked into it.

10% of all ticket sales for the film between now Wednesday 8/9/06 and Sunday 8/13/06 are going to be donated to charities. They're hitting a diverse portolio of charties ranging from the memorial, the families, and the police department fund. So if you plan to see it, make sure to try and see it on this week.

Thanks man. And good call.

[ElderPredator]

Sounds very good, I might see it but I feel the same way as many others, it's way too soon for this movie to be made.

[ILuvNachos]

Why do you need to see the movie? Just donate your whole ticket price to any worthy cause.

Hollywood made movies about WWII as it was going on. Action in the North Pacific (Bogart) was made in 1943 to name one.

[rilocay]

Like Young Son, im from Australia aswelll and saw everything since it first got feeded to our tv's, and although even our tv's wer bombarded with alot of news and speculation on the attacks, im not sure of EVERY country did, and definatly not as much as what America had. So i think the main gripe is with America obviously with the film, but really i dont think it matters about the timing, 5 years has been a good time, its still pretty fresh in peoples minds, any longer and it could lose accuracy and what not, plus weve also had enough time to have facts about the situation and what not.

[ilovemovies]

9/11 was a terrible, horrific, tragic event. But that's pretty much all it was to me. I was not directly and personally effected by the day's event. I do family in Manhattan, but they were far enough a way from the Twin Towers that they were never in any real danger. So that's the perspective I have on these movies. Maybe that's why I don't have any problem with these movies coming out.

These movies are important to celebrate the courage and heroism of many people that day though. That's what World Trade Center is about from what I gather (I have not seen the movie yet but plan to either tonight or tomorrow). Even United 93 was a celebration of heroism. Yes, the people on board flight 93 all died, but their actions saved the lives of countless more. And it's not just the courage of the people on board, but also the air traffic people and so on. It was a thoroughly gripping and involving movie. A worthy movie. I hope the same is true of World Trade Center.

[Country1969]

What's the difference if you see it on film? No matter who you are and where you been on that day, you will always remember that day. I am 37 and I wasn't in Vietnam but I am interested in what happened. My father was in the service around that time and he was sent to Germany's US Army base. These movies are meant to show us what happened in a closeup view. It may hurt many people but it's life. It pays respect to the people that die and who lived. It shows the heros who did what they did and who tried their best. We should give these people acknowledgement for that. You will never close the book on this subject like many of the ones in the past. What the difference if it waits 10 or 20 years to be put onto film, it will always be in our heads and heart. If you feel uncomfortable seeing this film ,then dont. But don't sit there and bad mouth a film you know nothing about without seeing it first.

[floydtheater07]

These movies honor those who didn't justs it back and sigh on that day. We can all proudly display our bumper stickers and pray a little bit every September 11th from now on, but let's not lie to ourselves. A lot of Americans have forgotten what occurred. The films reminds us about the good that people found in themselves, and if you think it's too soon to see that, well I'm not quite sure what to say.