View Full Version : 9/11 Movie by Oliver Stone - Is it too soon?

11-03-2005, 03:44 PM

Oliver Stone (of all people) is making a movie about 9/11 now.

Personally I think they should leave things alone. It's not even been 5 years since 9/11 happened and Hollywood is already trying to cash in on it IMO.

What are your thoughts? Discuss.

Matt M
11-03-2005, 04:26 PM
Like they haven't already cashed in on it...

11-03-2005, 04:30 PM
Cough! Michael Moore Cough!.....

Excuse Me!

11-03-2005, 05:00 PM
Imo it sounds like the movie is going to suck because it going to be so watered down. They say this will be no Titanic but how else do you show the horror, the courage, the will to survive if you do't do it grand like Titanic. Imagine watching Titanic without acutally seeing the ship sink or what caused it to sink, and this is exactly what it sounds like the plan on doing with this 911 movie. This movie is going to be so watered down it's not going to make any sense IMO. It's was said in another artical that they cannot show any death or any bodys falling from the towers, no impact of the planes, nor the towers falling so imo what's the point. I guess it's going to be a two hour movie about nothing but a few cops stuck in a stair well for 22 hours, IMO this movie sounds pointless and just another ploy to cash in on a tragedy.

11-03-2005, 05:35 PM
I don't neccessarily have a problem with the making of a film as long as politics are left out of it. I think it should stick to the tragedy and put focus on that it was wrong regardless of what someone believes and that in no way did anyone or our country itself deserve to have a tragedy like that happen.

11-03-2005, 07:37 PM
^I agree...as long as the politics are left out.

11-03-2005, 08:15 PM
I think it's too soon, but only because most people are completely sick of hearing about 9/11 and would like to move on and stop beating a dead horse. It would be better to wait a while, which would also make it seem less like cashing in on it.

11-03-2005, 10:09 PM
I don't think it's too soon, I'm just really sick of hearing about 9/11. Besides, all tragic events are turned into over-dramaticized, overly romantic sob-fests by Hollywood, I don't see why this should be any different.

11-04-2005, 02:09 PM
This movie will suck. If they don't do it big and have real meaning behind it then it will jsut be another hollywood flop, IMO. I thought Micheal Moore did a good job with it but that was documentary, to make a movie about it with actors and special effects just seems dumb.

11-04-2005, 02:19 PM
9/11 was very political. At least the aftermath was. I find it very disturbing that there is a movie being made about this awful tragedy. We know everyone that died in the Towers, or Flight 93, or the police and firefighters are all heros. They have changed history books with this event that was historic.

A hollywood movie about this to me is sickening. We have all heard the phone calls from the men and women on Flight 93 calling their loved ones telling them they are going to die. As well as people from the Towers. Why does Hollywood feel the need to bring this horrific tragedy to life once again?

All of the widows from 9/11 certainely won't see this and have to relive that day again "hollywood style". They live it everyday in their minds and lives. They have no husband or wife to come home to.

Michael Moore is very political. He did Farenheit 911 and Bowling for Columbine. I found they were informative but so very one sided and politically towards the democrats. Which I am one.

I say leave it be, 9/11 will live on forever.

11-04-2005, 03:35 PM
I can understand why some people would be upset about this movie, what I can't understand are who say they're against this film but had no problem with Farhenheit 9/11. Michael Moore used the tragedy for a reason to push his agenda, how is that any better? Not to mention that movie made quite a bit of money. So I fail to see much of a difference. Moore profited greatly from 9/11 but yet what he did was ok???

11-04-2005, 04:01 PM
I didn't say it was ok for him to do it. I said it was very one sided and political. It was informative, seeing he did a lot of research into it. But, that doesn't mean it was ok. I didn't spend the money to go and see it, I had a friend burn me a copy, and for what it was worth, it wasn't worth more then that burned DVD copy.

11-04-2005, 05:08 PM
I wasn't really adressing you specifically but anyone who didn't have a problem with Farhenheit 9/11 but is upset with this film being made. I just found it interesting that some people are upset about a film that will come out almost five years after September 11th when Moore's film came out less than three years after it and I think capitalized more on 9/11 than this film will. But that's just my opinion.

11-04-2005, 06:42 PM
Because, as I see it, Michael Moore's was a documentary, him kind of telling us, hey, look at all this stuff that was going on....whereas a big blockbuster movie is to milk money off of a tragedy.

11-04-2005, 11:23 PM
Yes but Moore still had every intention of making money from it. Regardless of which side or point of view someone stands on, anyone can see that he and the studio still made quite a bit of money from it. Let's be honest, Moore didn't make a nonprofit film where all the proceeds were donated to 9/11 surivors and their families.

Moore made a film to get his point across...and to make money. And last I checked, Farhenheit 9/11 made well over a $100 million domestically which might be far more money than this upcoming Oliver Stone film could make. In fact the last few Stone films combined haven't made as much money as Moore's film.

11-05-2005, 08:33 PM
Well, regardless of how much money it did in fact make, I think the point of the movie was to suade the election away from Bush.

11-05-2005, 10:23 PM
Agree to disagree, I suppose.

If the movie looks good and gets some good reviews, I'll probably go see it. It's a long way off since it's not scheduled to come out until August 11th, 2006. Also, I'm a fan of Nicolas Cage who stars in it and it also has Michael Pena who was good in Crash ansd also had a big role in The Shield during the last season.

11-06-2005, 03:38 PM
I really don't like the entire idea of collecting cash by taking advantage of a tragedy.

I vote...NEVER.

Sir Willow
11-07-2005, 03:11 PM
Personally, I wish that they'd wait a while yet. Wait until there is more time and people are able to have a bit more perspective- not just on what happened but also on it's aftermath and what's happened since then.

Right now it's hard for people to not make it a political issue of some sort- especially those in the media. Movies, TV, news, politics- all use it in some form or another to push an agenda, and a lot of that is because we don't have enough distance from it yet. We don't have perspective because it's still to personal. And that won't change for a while yet. I say give it a few more years.

Unless, and this is the only way I'd want to see it, if it portrays the rescuers and the heroes that day as they went through their jobs and tells their tales. Show us the heroics of the firefighters, police officers, rescuers, and citizens going out of their way to help others. But even that's going to be tough to do without throwing in a bunch of garbage.

11-07-2005, 05:20 PM
This is Incredible! Trying to cash in already, on a tragity, that most people still haven't gotten over?:sick:

11-08-2005, 02:36 AM
No, most people HAVE gotten over it...

with the exception of people who know someone who was actually injured or killed on 9/11, or people who were actually personally effected by it, the people who still dwell on it are morons.

And saying that "it had an effect on every American" is stupid.. yeah, it did, in 2001. Not 2005.

11-08-2005, 02:42 AM
basiclly its just like pearal harbor when that came out no body really cared what vets thought.
but since its so soon after alot of people are against it

Brian F
11-08-2005, 04:24 AM
I don't neccessarily have a problem with the making of a film as long as politics are left out of it.

Like Oliver Stone would leave politics out? LOL!!!!

But, there's no law against it. If he wants to make it, and a studio wants to back it, and people want to go see it- more power to them. Hopefully, he won't present a movie full of half (sometimes that much) truth and call it a "documentary," like some people.

For that matter, I have no problem with Michael Moore making his drivel. I respect his right to have his beliefs, and to express them. The only problem I have with his movie was that he called it a documentary. I guess he meant a documentary of his beliefs, because it certainly wasn't a documentary of the truth.

To me, Fahrenheit 9/?11 is no different than the documentary posted here on TN recently- the one that suggested that the attacks were all a product of the US government. Nicely packaged and interesting, but not real heavy on logic or reality.

11-08-2005, 08:35 AM
^ You Communist! ;)

I agree that Moore and anyone for that matter has a right to whatever they want to produce as "art".

But that doesn't mean I have to pay money and support it. Which I didn't and never will.

He made such a "butt" of himself at the Oscars that I will never respect anything he produces.

11-09-2005, 01:50 AM
Like Oliver Stone would leave politics out? LOL!!!!

Well, it's possible. He directed Natural Born Killers which was definitely a movie based on social issues and the media but didn't really have any politcis in it. It didn't seem as if it was trying to sway people in one way or another as far Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals.

He's also done quite a few other movies that didn't involve politics. So I'd say it's possible for him to do it without directly involving politics so we'll see. Also the whole political thing has been done to the point of nausea involving politics so I don't think he'll throw it in that much since he'll be desperately looking for a hit after the stinker that Alexander was at the box office.

11-09-2005, 04:03 PM
Oliver Stone, as a director, blows....I just thought I'd get that out of the way.

Brian F
11-10-2005, 12:36 AM
^ You're giving him too much credit, IMHO

Chris L
11-10-2005, 01:48 AM
Just as long as Oliver Stone doesn't try to turn this 9/11 national tragedy into another sappy love story disguised as a look back in the past (AKA PEARL HARBOR and TITANIC), then I'm fine with it. But to tell you how I really feel, I pretty much doubt it won't have some kind of romantic story tied into it. 'Cause really, Farenheit 911 already covered the event on motion picture medium in a documentary style/serious tone. To repeat that would be a major rip on the studios part and I can really see it not make any money if it's like Farenheit 911.

Ugh. Please DO NOT cast Leonardo DiCaprio as some young New York homeless man that falls in love with a wealthy daughter of an entrepreneur in the city - whose actress portraying her looks awfully like Kate Winslet. I'll be sick to my stomach..............from all the LAUGHTER. That would be classified as a comedy would it not? :lol:

11-11-2005, 12:51 AM
Well, it really won't be either. It's not going to be at all like a documentary. It's also not going to be like a Titanic or Pearl Harbor rip off with a huge romantic angle to it. From what I've read, it's going to be the story of two police officers trapped under rubble from the towers. Sure, they might be a wife or girlfriend awaiting news and hopefully their return but I don't think it will be filled with endless romantic moments.