9/11 Movie by Oliver Stone - Is it too soon?

**Wes** · #1 11-03-2005, 03:44 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movi....ap/index.html

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 · #2 11-03-2005, 04:26 PM

Like they haven't already cashed in on it...

SheiKra · #3 11-03-2005, 04:30 PM

Cough! Michael Moore Cough!.....

Excuse Me!

Commonsense · #4 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.

coasterlove · #5 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.

**Andrew Polcyn** · #6 11-03-2005, 07:37 PM

^I agree...as long as the politics are left out.

Raptor · #7 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.

Aaron · #8 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.

RllrCoasterFan · #9 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.

Katie · #10 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.

coasterlove · #11 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???

Katie · #12 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.

coasterlove · #13 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.

slipknot8527 · #14 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.

coasterlove · #15 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.