WTC: What's This Crap?

I think making distinctions between civilian death, non-American civilian death and military death is a shitty idea.

  1. Atlantik (1929) aka “Titanic” - Australia, Canada (English title), India (English title)
  2. Titanic (1943)
  3. Titanic (1953)
  4. Titanic (1984) (TV)
  5. Titanic (1989) (VG)
  6. Titanic (1993) (V)
  7. Titanic (1996) (TV)

Dammit I don’t want to be a Bill D. sycophant but here goes: he said it way better than I did.

Do you have any idea how many times the Titanic story has been filmed? It’s way more than just A Night to Remember (1958) and the modern version.

Edit: Jason filled in the blanks

So we should only make movies about the easy issues? Art is incapable of exploring complex themes? Uhhhh…

If we don’t make movies about Titanic, the icebergs will have won.

-Tom

The main reason this movie should be made is on the offchance it turns out to be pretty good*. Hang on, because that’s not actually the main reason, it’s the necessary setup for the main reason: so someone can have an entertaining class-three forum meltdown and tell us all we’ve shamed ourselves and our family names.

Frankly, if there’s a string of 9/11 movies that encourage that reaction, everyone wins.

    • Granted, it probably won’t. Oliver Stone being Oliver Stone, the best we can hope for is over-the-top goofy. As Ruthless once reviewed “Any Given Sunday,” the man doesn’t make films so much as he makes two-hour-long lines of coke.

Seriously, the post you’re referring to has got to be the best post of 2006 and I’m just sad for all those that missed out on it.

Add A Night to Remember (1958)

I beat you to it by about five posts, Andrew :-). Look up a bit.

It should still be around, but you’d have to wade through the United 93 thread to find it. Shame. A perfectly good movie thread ruined by a guy who’s scared to get on a plane with two or more Arabs, but who’s not above calling out my own mother.

-Tom

Does The Deer Hunter count?

No.

(No)

I see your Deer Hunter and raise you The Green Berets.

Probably just as well he popped his clogs ages ago, they’d have had to ask the second plane to circle round the towers while Johnny got a film released.

Post #163 of Quarter To Three Forums - Qt3 Forums?

I make it a purpose to get on to planes with as many Arabs as possible, just so’s I can keep my eye on’em.

Everyone has made some really good points. Just to clarify, I’m not suggesting anything be censored or anyone be barred from making art based on tragic events or selling it. My example with the statues was to suggest that there should be equity. To me, a plastic statue of the towers with the word “Remember” on the base is far more tasteful than a bunch of Hollywood types running around on a set pretending to die in terror attacks. Yet, the city officials of NYC chose to ban the statues.

People can make films or music or paintings about whatever they want. We can all vote with our dollars to show them how we feel about their creations. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth to imagine the life-changing events of that day as a platform for some cheesy melodrama. The subject is so emotionally charged that it almost seems like an “easy button*” for someone to evoke emotion, kind of like the musical stingers in scary movies that are supposed to startle us.

There were some terrific examples given of events in our history that have later been fictionalized. I’m just wondering if anyone knows of a fictional movie that was “based on a true story” of Pearl Harbor or Hiroshima made less than five years after the actual events and premiering in the effected location. That would be an accurate equivalent for Stone’s movie.

    • I believe I saw someone on another board somewhere use this term, but I think it fits nicely.

Here’s a direct link to the post. Man, that thread had everything. Frankly, I can’t imagine the Oliver Stone version will be able to top it.

-Tom, aka “candy butt”

Well, the “premiering in the effected (sic) location” is a high standard to match and is probably an irrelevant criteria in any case. If the movie is made and you find it offensive, it would be offensive if it premiered in Hoboken - plus it would eventually make it to NY in any case.

I can understand the misgivings about Stone making the movie since he fancies himself more of an auteur than he actually is. His penchant for anti-estabishment film-making makes it likely he could de-sanctify 9/11, which is fine for me but could offend a lot of people.

Oh, and “Remember Pearl Harbor” was made in 1942 - less than a year after the attack.

Troy

That’s still 17 years.

I’m not at all upset about the movie, I just won’t see it. The main problem I see is previews with some kinds of footage, but the movie theaters around here already put up disclaimers about stuff about Flight 93.

All I know is I heard at least three people around me in the theatre on Saturday night say, “I really don’t need to see that.” right after this preview.