Anyone else seen this preview? It starts in a couple of weeks and I haven't heard much about it. Stars Nicolas Cage (with an authentic moustache), directed by Oliver Stone. What do you think? Here's the trailer:



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/trailers-screenplay-E27504-10-2

7/21/2006 12:37:10 AM

saw the preview a week or two ago... i mean it looks like itll be a good movie.. but i gotta be honest it feels a little awkward that they made the movie about the WTC

7/21/2006 12:40:38 AM

it may be a bit early for a movie about this

7/21/2006 12:43:59 AM

^ at least

7/21/2006 12:45:25 AM

yea i think its a bit too early for it.

7/21/2006 12:50:12 AM

I'm just surprised I haven't seen or heard much about it. Maybe they are doing that on purpose, but I don't know. It looks a little too "Pearl Harbor" as well.

7/21/2006 12:54:45 AM

who the fuck is getting paid to think up movie titles these days

7/21/2006 1:23:44 AM

there's already a movie about the flight that crashed in PA might as well be a movie about the towers.

out of place definitly....

is anything sacred in hollywood ? not at all

7/21/2006 1:37:23 AM

Indeed. I am not gonna see this movie. Probably not gonna see any Oliver Stone movies either. Its not much, but its all the I can do.

7/21/2006 1:40:50 AM

I'm not watching this movie either.
This is in poor taste IMO.
Documentaries are fine.
Drama + Profits are not.

7/21/2006 2:32:11 AM

didnt watch the flight movie either... im sorry but these movies are just kinna... sick... "sacred" is hard to come by anymore

7/21/2006 3:19:06 AM

i WILL be seeing this movie. perhaps on the first night of release.

this is the kind of shit i get excited about

7/21/2006 4:04:56 AM

yea, trying to immortilize the heros of a tragic situation is horrible

7/21/2006 4:07:30 AM

i agree that it's fine to immortalize heros, but i can see where a lot of people are thinking that hollywood is just trying to make a boatload of money off of the 9/11 tragedy. i think there are some better ways in which to go about it. how about a memorial that will be there for many years to come. most of the public knows what went on. we've heard all of the stories, and for the most part we can remember it like it just happened yesterday. i think it's not so bad to tell heroic stories from wars and tragedies from many years ago, b/c much of the public didn't live during those times and those that did, have had plenty of time to cope with it. stories like Saving Private Ryan should be told, b/c the majority of people didn't live during that time, and don't have a real sense of what soldiers of that time truly went through. for the most part people only know of the World Wars and wars during the Cold War era based on what they read in a history text book. i think i would probably feel more at ease about the two movies had they been released at least a decade after the incidents.

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 5:34 AM. Reason : ]

7/21/2006 5:32:12 AM

OMG, Oliver Stone made money off the Kennedy tragedy!!!

7/21/2006 5:36:52 AM

i admit i'll probably rent the two movies down the road.

7/21/2006 5:38:39 AM

You people need to realize that drama is rooted in the truth of human experience. Art must continually draw upon actual events to stay relevant. Whether it's a direct dramatization of something that actually happened or a work of complete fiction inspired by actual events, the influence of real human experience, including tragedy, is what fuels artistic output.

There's no such thing as "too soon," and there's no sin in profiting from disaster.

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 9:21 AM. Reason : ...]

7/21/2006 9:17:52 AM

same thing but bad timing is what most people have against it.

7/21/2006 9:21:34 AM

It was almost five fucking years ago.

7/21/2006 9:22:03 AM

you have no point.

7/21/2006 9:24:14 AM

It would be nice if they donated the profits to a memorial or something, but we all know that won't happen.

7/21/2006 9:30:36 AM

After the debacle that was the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, I can't blame anyone for not wanting to waste money on a memorial.

7/21/2006 9:32:46 AM

whatever. i'm not really against the movie, but i can see where some people might be mad about it. good timing is something that isn't so easily determined. what if the movie was released a year after the incident? how long should a grieving period be? i think Vietnam and World War movies are more readily accepted now b/c there are less people that went through it, and everyone that went through that has had plenty of time to make amends. not everyone can get over something as fast as others. if i lost a family member just 5 years ago i know i would have tough time seeing hollywood make a profit from it. did the movies need to be made? no. should they have been made? that remains to be seen, especially when you determine if the movie makers were true to the story and what they plan on doing with the profits. i'd think that they'd probably donate some of it to a charity or foundation for the family of those that were lost that day. i still think a memorial would have been a more sincere way to honor those people.

7/21/2006 9:33:08 AM

You're an idiot. I should make a fantastically compelling and poignant movie about the World Trade Center attack and blow the profits on coke and whores. Let history fucking vindicate the artist on the strength of his work, not his deeds.

Fucking Casablanca exploited World War II three years before the war ended, for God's sake. Where's your fucking righteous indignation over that?

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 9:38 AM. Reason : ....]

7/21/2006 9:35:16 AM

is gold up?

7/21/2006 9:40:18 AM

yes

no consequences for actions

just the bottom line

7/21/2006 9:40:24 AM

mostly i won't see it because it looks like it's going to suck.

reminds me of:

7/21/2006 9:41:51 AM

Consequences for producing art? Is this the fucking Dark Ages?

Look, here's a fun game. Pick any despicable human tragedy of the 20th century. Go to IMDB and type it in as a keyword. Search your results by date. Marvel at the sheer glut of art inspired by said tragedy within a year. It's always been this way. It is human nature to respond to tragedy like this. Laughing at death is the only power we have over it.

7/21/2006 9:42:56 AM

im not talking about the goddamn stupid fucking 'artist'.

I am talking about the people who actually suffered loss and pain in this occurence.

I would support it if perhaps the profits the stuido got went to 911 charities or even the rebuilding costs. who knows, maybe they will suprise us.

no, apparently exploiting others losses and pain for profit is another power we have over death.

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 9:51 AM. Reason : *]

7/21/2006 9:49:36 AM

Why should any of that money go to them? Do you think any profits Marvel makes off stories featuring Magneto from the fucking X-Men should go to Holocaust survivors and shit just because the character himself is a Holocaust survivor? OMG, someone's profiting from tragedy! Grow the fuck up. Human tragedy belongs to all of us, and we are each free to respond to it as we see fit.

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 9:54 AM. Reason : ...]

7/21/2006 9:52:29 AM

Quote :

"no, apparently exploiting others losses and pain for profit is another power we have over death."

welcome to america.

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 9:52 AM. Reason : df]

7/21/2006 9:52:32 AM

Quote :

"and there's no sin in profiting from disaster"

so then you think it is, how do i say, non-sinful to charge $200 for a cab ride out of lebanon when it is normally $20 or to charge $4000 for a plane ride from cyprus when it is normally $2000?

7/21/2006 9:54:15 AM

That's right, because I don't believe in the concept of sin. It might be a shitty thing to do, but that's relative.

7/21/2006 9:54:54 AM

Frosh your analogy is weak.

Youre goddamn right we're allowed to respond to it as we see fit. And if people want to boo and jeer at the fucksticks that are going to make a profit off of it they are well within their right to do so.

Did I say once they shouldnt be allowed to make this film? I think you need to grow the fuck up and realize not everyone responds to this kind of shit the same way your narrow 'artistic' point of view does.

Quote :

"It might be a shitty thing to do"

could you be getting the point now?

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 9:58 AM. Reason : *]

7/21/2006 9:57:24 AM

look i'm not arguing against the movie. i'm saying that i understand why people will feel bad about this movie. it's natural nowadays to feel like hollywood is only looking to make a profit and not produce anything of real worth. i hope this movie is not that way, and like i said i probably will rent it when it comes out on DVD afterwards. Casablanca while capitalizing off of WWII did not profit from someone's death, which seems to be why some are so upset about this movie. Casablanca was just about a night club owner who did the right thing by helping out his former love interest. it was actually probably a great movie for the time b/c it gave everyone an inspirational story to give them hope that the war would be over soon. i am all for art. i'm not trying to argue whether it's good art. i'm trying to have a good discussion about what determines when things should be released, what determines if they are in good taste, etc.

7/21/2006 9:59:07 AM

It's my right to defend said fucksticks. Anyone who criticizes this shit on principle without seeing it first is shortsighted and prejudiced.

Brass Monkey: IMDB lists nine feature films based on true stories produced and released while the war was still going on. Is that a better example for you?

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 10:00 AM. Reason : ...]

7/21/2006 9:59:17 AM

look i'm just playing devil's advocate. why the personal attacks? wouldn't you agree that the way the public percieves hollywood has changed? a lot of people are in disgust with hollywood, while then movies were all the rage. they were an event.

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 10:02 AM. Reason : ]

7/21/2006 10:02:32 AM

^^noone is unprejudiced.

I dont think most are criticizing that the film will suck without seeing it. The issue people have is the timing of it. Not to mention the history we have of exploiting these kinds of things that you love to bring up in every breath only adds feul and creates a precedent that people indeed can criticize on principle.

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 10:04 AM. Reason : *]

7/21/2006 10:03:46 AM

Quote :

"That's right, because I don't believe in the concept of sin. It might be a shitty thing to do, but that's relative."

ok then your statment is empty and meaningless. if you believe there is no sin in, say, the holocaust or raping children, then saying their is no sin in profiting from disasters means absolutely jack.

7/21/2006 10:04:48 AM

The timing could be perfect depending on the content. You won't know until you see it. If you're a grown-ass man and you still don't know how to reserve judgement and avoid prejudice, eat a fucking bullet.

7/21/2006 10:05:46 AM

just watching the trailer i get i tears in my eyes so god only knows i'll be bawling during the movie. i'll probably wait till it comes out on dvd. it's not really up on my must see right now.

7/21/2006 10:12:23 AM

You think the content can justify the timing. Many dont. Its still a hollywood movie turning a profit off of an tragedy that is still very fresh on the american mind. Its content or quality are irrelevant.

If it happens to be a great film, it will still be a great film farther down the line. You seem to get very upset that not everyones thresholds for taste/distaste line up with your psych 101 view of the human species.

7/21/2006 10:22:34 AM

Of course I'm hung up about it. I'm living in a population where a significant number of people who weren't directly affected by a tragedy are having knee-jerk reactions to a movie based on said tragedy sight unseen nearly five years after the fact. That's fucking ludicrous. These are not people I want to live among, these are not people I want voting. Can't you see that hesitation to take ownership of 9/11 means the terrorists have won?

7/21/2006 10:26:58 AM

Quote :

"You seem to get very upset that not everyones thresholds for taste/distaste line up with your psych 101 view of the human species."

ahahahahahah

7/21/2006 10:26:59 AM

Quote :

"there's no sin in profiting from disaster."

Quote :

"That's right, because I don't believe in the concept of sin."

Way to contradict yourself.

And, sin has nothing to do with poor taste. Don't confuse the two.

7/21/2006 10:32:29 AM

Way to go, eagle eye.

7/21/2006 10:35:46 AM

^^yea i already called him out on that, you are late

7/21/2006 10:38:06 AM

Quote :

"but i can see where a lot of people are thinking that hollywood is just trying to make a boatload of money off of the 9/11 tragedy"

i can see where everybody KNOWS that hollywood is just trying to make a boatload of money from any movie they make...they're a for-profit capitalistic business you know...the idea is to make money from your products

7/21/2006 10:40:47 AM

yeah quit riding hollywood's nuts

7/21/2006 10:41:10 AM

9/11: The Cereal!

7/21/2006 10:43:38 AM