I agree that it's in bad taste, but for me it's more a matter of sentimentalizing the issue that I object to.
2006-10-03 08:38:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Kango Man 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
What a long sentence!
But yes, I agree. I saw the film and it was disturbing, not just for the subject matter but just the fact that actors are acting out such personal moments in real peoples lives. ie starring at the sky (on a sound stage) in horror, cut with the real footage of real people falling out the windows. It left me cold.
It distorts peoples memories of what happened that day and puts a screen (a real one in this case) inbetween the individual and reality, a bad thing in my opinion.
I dont think it glorified what the terrorists did but I do think it has put the scale of what happened that day into a little box on a video shop shelf that is too small for what it deserves.
But thats Hollywood I suppose. Schindlers List, and Titanic do the same, there is a place for these films but I do think it was too soon and Oliver Stone, as much as I love some of his work, was the wrong choice.
2006-10-03 15:50:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you feel this way then would you agree Titanic should never have been filmed?? I dont think it is glorified at all and more telling the story of so many. We dont know what happened that day to people on a personal level only what we see on the news etc.. I understand the film was researched and had the authority of many of the victims it portrays. Sure it is hard hitting and because it was such a horrific loss of life we automatically have an adverse reaction to it. If you dont want to spend your money to go see it that is your personal preference but if you want to know what personal tragedies happened that day and to learn more about people as individuals instead of numbers i would recommend you go watch it.
2006-10-03 15:49:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree, I won't go and see the film, it will be too devestating for me I think, I would cry instantly just thinking about the huge loss of life (Iwas the same with the Titanic, not because it was sad but because it was fact, so many people died)
I think if it was a movie that was made on facts and not one cent or penny was made from it, or any profit it did make went towards the families of the victims or the survivors, then I feel that would, and only that would be acceptable.
2006-10-05 17:58:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by pinkytickle 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I personally believe that any films glorifying any act of terrorism or war, or showing tragedies which are recent and affect people still living should be approached with extreme caution...war films all tend to have a happy ever after element added to appeal to the masses and it's wrong. Yes these things happen, all the time, all over the world, but we do not need to have it repeatedly turned into glossy pictures to show our children that it doesn't matter how evil war is, that it all has a fairytale ending..as long as we perpetuate the myth that all wars end with two people having a snog, and truth and goodness and justice always triumph...following generations will not learn any real valuable lessons...
2006-10-03 15:48:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by pinkerfluffierbadger 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think your emotions are getting into the way of your objectivity. If someone wants to make a movie about the World Trade Murders, it is the right of the movie makers. They have all the right in the world to make the movie. If is for you the movie attendees to see it or not. If all of you that feel you should not see it, as I do, just don't go. Just that simple. We movie go-ers are not made to look at this movie. It is our choice. If the movie is slanted one way or another then those who can't get enough of this kind of thing will attend it. We who don't want to glorify it can stay at home or go watch another movie. God Bless America as we do have free choice, to make, and / or view it.
2006-10-03 15:52:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by NIck N 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, I was in the theater to see DaVinci code and the preview of it can on. and it became dead silent, and then the plane went over and I saw including me people duck and cringe. and no one said a thing about it. that being said. It has been 5 years, profits went to the families. and we can never forget what happened. as it was a well made movie. had it been a crappy movie, and within a couple years or so that would have been bad, A lot of the survivors were in favor of it because they don't want people to forget what happened.
2006-10-03 16:33:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by Belladonna 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I didn't even worry about that. Filmmakers have shown us over and over again that they don't much care what's in good taste as long as they can make money from it. I show my approval or disapproval of a movie the old-fashioned way: if I think it's in poor taste, I don't go. I don't spend my money on tickets or rentals or purchasing a DVD or on pay-per-view. That's the language they speak: money. So I communicate through it. Does it matter that they can't hear my individual voice? Not really, because I wasn't robbed. ;-)
2006-10-03 15:45:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by J_Solo 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think all the money made from the movie should go to the families of those who lost their lives, in the worlds most tragic experience
2006-10-03 15:38:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by Candy 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
If 50% or more of the proceeds of the movie went to the families of the victims, I'd support it. As it is, I think it's distasteful to create a movie about this five years after it happened. America waited 50 years before making the pearl harbor movie, and rightfully so.
2006-10-03 15:39:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by AnswerBlaster 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think it would be nice if it were done as a rememberance film and if the profits went to the families of the lost loved ones and to rebuilding the Trade Centres or what ever they are putting in their place.
2006-10-03 15:44:48
·
answer #11
·
answered by someoneoutthere 5
·
0⤊
0⤋