World Trade Center

[offspring515]

So I'm guessing the people who have a problem with this movie have never seen Titanic. Or if you did y ou made sure that a portion of the profits went to the ancestors of the survivors, right?

I realize that there is a timeliness issue (80 years is more easy to accept than 5, and I understand that. Time heals all wounds so to speak.) At the same time I feel that entertainment has the right to dramatize real life events and issues.

I wont even get into the Passion of the Christ, or the fact that Swarm thinks the people who saw it and liked it are fools. I'm guessing it will lead to some anti religious hoopla. I'll just say that I enjoyed that movie as well, both from a content standpoint and as a beautifully shot movie.

[Trent Lawless]

I have no plans to see it. Basically I have the same attitudes as a hodgepodge of other posters here, so no need for me to rehash that. But in a nutshell, even if the movie is based on two survivors' accounts and has that reality as its base, it's still a fictionalization to some extent. For me, to remember that day, it needs to be from the news reports of that day, and from documentary-type accounts, which although flavored with their own biases to a greater or lesser degree, are the closest we who were not there will get to the actual reality of that day. That's what I feel I need to remember.

Although I didn't know her then, my future sister-in-law was stuck in Manhattan for several days because she was in New York that day. Even though she wasn't near Ground Zero, I listen to her if I want to know what it felt like to be even that close.

[Knapik]

I don't see one could compare a romance with Leonardo di Caprio set in the early 1900s with the story of September 11th, something that hurt or at least touched many of us very deeply just a handful of years ago.

[gatekeeper]

knapik said:

I don't see one could compare a romance with Leonardo di Caprio set in the early 1900s with the story of September 11th, something that hurt or at least touched many of us very deeply just a handful of years ago.

Ok, here's the comparison: Titanic was based on an actual event that happened. So is WTC.

I understand people not wanting to help moviemakers "get rich" off of the movie, but they are donating some of the profits to the victims' families and it's not a blatant overdramatization with characters who weren't even involoved (like Titanic). And it's not a dramatization of something that may or may not be true (like The Passion).

Oliver Stone did a lot of research to get this story "right." It's kind of in the vain of a Schindler's List, in that they're trying to tell a story that not many know about - and it's about people doing good. It's not about evil or anything like that.

[Darth Turkish]

Yes but Titanic was told through fictional events of a true occurrance. This 9/11 movie is told through the tale of survivors. A bit different.

I am still too angry to watch something other than a documentary style display. I do not know if I will ever watch those movies. I remember vividly watching it all on TV for three days. It was my first year teaching and that is all we did for three days, every class, (even math).

Was too surreal then,. Not something I need some movie to tell me how to feel about; I clear enough.

[offspring515]

Ummmm....Titanic was a national tragedy.

Maybe Pearl Harbor would be a better pick for comparison. That's a movie that was based on an attack on our country in which lots of lives were lost.

The point stands. I wouldn't expect anyone to see it, and I'm not trying to change anybodys mind. Just stating that I personally dont feel it's wrong for this movie to be made.

[Darth Turkish]

Well again,. Pearl Harbor had the story of FICTIONAL charatcers told in the backdrop of tragedy.
World Trade Center does not. It is about two REAL people in the backdrop of a tragedy.
Both of your examples, offspring, are tragedies, but my point was a bit different.

I also am not saying it should not be made. I just have no desire to see it.

[Splattercat]

These examples are Decades ago...Pearl harbour didn't come out in 1946...Titanic wasn't filmed in 1917...See the difference..? The only one I can think of that came out sooner was Black Hawk Down (it was 8 years from the event), but that's not really the same thing ...

Maybe if the movie were release in 2012 people wouldn't mind...

[Darth Turkish]

splattercat said:

These examples are Decades ago...Pearl harbour didn't come out in 1946...Titanic wasn't filmed in 1917...See the difference..? The only one I can think of that came out sooner was Black Hawk Down, but that's not really the same thing (it was 8 years from the event)...

Maybe if the movie were release in 2012 people wouldn't mind...

I was actually thinking Black Hawk Down was kind of similar. Using real people aabout a real occurrance, although it was not a national tragedy.

[offspring515]

Well it's sort of the same way that jokes about Abraham Lincoln's assassination can be made and people don't go into hysterics. At the time it happened, peole would have had similar reactions.

[Splattercat]

turkish said:

splattercat said:

These examples are Decades ago...Pearl harbour didn't come out in 1946...Titanic wasn't filmed in 1917...See the difference..? The only one I can think of that came out sooner was Black Hawk Down, but that's not really the same thing (it was 8 years from the event)...

Maybe if the movie were release in 2012 people wouldn't mind...

I was actually thinking Black Hawk Down was kind of similar. Using real people aabout a real occurrance, although it was not a national tragedy.

That's where the difference is...It was a hostile/war environment and they made an action movie out of it...The situation in Somalia wasn't about thousands of unwary people dying for no reason...

Reading up on it, I see a couple of.....Interesting comments:

“The movie isn’t about the planes or the buildings collapsing,” stresses (producer)Shamberg. “It’s about survival. And if we don’t tell these stories of survival and heroism, it’s almost as if the bad guys won.”

how many times have we heard THAT one..? "If you do this/don't do this the terrorists win."

This one I think is a bit more...Well, more...

With the collapse of the South Tower, Amoroso died instantly while Pezzulo died trying to free Jimeno. Cutting them out of the movie was impossible, says Stone.

“I was aware that [the widows] might be upset but Dominic is a hero,” stresses the filmmaker. “He died a hero’s death, which is validated by Will over and over again. [His death] is very important to the storyline because it gives Will a reason to live.”

And their take:

Jeanette Pezzulo, the widow of Port Authority police officer Dominick Pezzulo (who died on 9/11 and is played by Jay Hernandez in this film), has expressed anger with this film and feels it's wrong McLoughlin and Jimeno participated in the production. She's quoted as saying, "My thing is: this man died for you. How do you do this to this family?".[2] Staten Island resident Jamie Amoroso, whose husband also died during the rescue operation, has also expressed her anger over the film and said she does "not need a movie" to tell her "what a hero" her husband was.

[swarm]

Maybe your strongest post ever Splatter cat.

[Shon Maxx]

Well, I'd say the creators already succeeded. They've got people talking, and that's what sells movies. If it has the same effect offline, the movie will do well, regardless of how many people it ticks off.

I just hope the families get a large perecentage of the profits (and not something like 0.0001%).



Take care,

Jay

[Darth Turkish]

I believe that 10% was going to be going to victims' families/

[Splattercat]

"Oliver Stone's movie about the rescue of two police officers from the towers on Sept. 11, will donate 10 percent of its opening weekend box office receipts to a ground zero memorial and three other Sept. 11-related charities.

Five percent of the box-office proceeds from Aug. 9 through Aug. 13 will be donated to the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, which is raising money to build a $510 million memorial to the 2001 terrorist attacks at the trade center site. An additional 5 percent will be split equally between three charities."

[Darth Turkish]

I would liked to have seen a much larger portion go to the charities.

It's not like Ollie or Nick need any dough.

[Splattercat]

I'm slightly embarrassed about this but...I scoured the internet for over half an hour looking for the exact number of World Trade Center's box office opening weekend...About the 28 minute mark I realized this IS World Trade Center's opening weekend...

[pikemojo]

I can understand why some people feel like they have seen all that they would like to see about 9/11 but to me movies like this are slightly different. What we saw on the news were generally in the news or was involved in politics somehow. These 2 movies have been based on the people that were heroes during that tragic day and the days that followed. I feel that it is important for us to see that side of the story and hollywood movies are probably the best way to do it. It sucks that Nick Cage and Oliver Stone are getting rich off of it but I still feel these are important stories to be told. I won't compare it to other movies because there are really no other good comparisons. The fact is people have short memories. Add on top of that our tendency to brush things to the back of our minds the more we hear about it and I feel it is good to bring it up on a more personal level.
Back when Columbine happened I was in Junior High. That event kinda scared me a bit. But I am sure a lot of people brushed it to the back of their minds. One of the fathers of a girl killed that day wrote a book that brought attention to that day and the events that happened in a way that the news, made for tv movies, and tv specials never could. That is the best possible comparison that I could think of. Of course in this case the victims family (her father) was getting much more than 5% but it is the idea of bringing it back to the public's eye.

[Darth Turkish]

pikemojo said:

I can understand why some people feel like they have seen all that they would like to see about 9/11 but to me movies like this are slightly different. What we saw on the news were generally in the news or was involved in politics somehow. These 2 movies have been based on the people that were heroes during that tragic day and the days that followed. I feel that it is important for us to see that side of the story and hollywood movies are probably the best way to do it. It sucks that Nick Cage and Oliver Stone are getting rich off of it but I still feel these are important stories to be told. I won't compare it to other movies because there are really no other good comparisons. The fact is people have short memories. Add on top of that our tendency to brush things to the back of our minds the more we hear about it and I feel it is good to bring it up on a more personal level.
Back when Columbine happened I was in Junior High. That event kinda scared me a bit. But I am sure a lot of people brushed it to the back of their minds. One of the fathers of a girl killed that day wrote a book that brought attention to that day and the events that happened in a way that the news, made for tv movies, and tv specials never could. That is the best possible comparison that I could think of. Of course in this case the victims family (her father) was getting much more than 5% but it is the idea of bringing it back to the public's eye.

Good post. Well written.

[Subvert69]

Don't forget if you are talking about Pearl Habor and you can throw in Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers there are a lot of veterans who didn't want to see these and didn't think it was worthwhile to make these. I remember seeing a documentary on Band of Brothers and one of the veterans watched the first episode and couldn't watch the other 9. He said it was too real for him.

I have no interest in seeing WTC...but that's just me.