9/11 Movies... really?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing

Originally posted by defythetyrants

Originally posted by sealing

Originally posted by defythetyrants
reply to post by iunlimited491
 


yes, that i understand.

however, the way I am viewing this is as just another way to perpetuate the false story and generate another string of propaganda concerning what is by far the worst tradgedy i have ever witnessed.



I think you hit the nail on the head.
I think TPTB certainly took their time
to come out with this. I'm sure they'll
say it was out of respect, but I think
they waited to see where the whole
Official Story would shake out.

Throw Tom Hanks in a movie and you'll
have the hearts and minds of an entire world.
The only story that will matter to the audience
is the one they saw on the big screen.
Brilliant move if they did this as propaganda.

not just Hanks but America's "sweetheart" Sandra effing Bullock as well! great addition.







Wow, you said it. Throwing those two together
into 2 hours of thought control is dangerous.
Especially for gullible, heart-wrenched Americans.
It's like they've weaponized a movie.


Welcome to 1984 where all you see serves the powers that be!
*sigh*




posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by defythetyrants
it is based on the family, but that being the case how could it still be viewed as a film not related to 9/11?


That's just it. By putting in the plotline that the kid's father was killed in the 9/11 attack for no appreciable reason it does make it a film related to 9/11, which in my opinion is setting a very, VERY bad precident. What will be coming out of Hollyweird next, a story about a cat that was killed in the collapse and her kittens have to wander starving and alone through the cold hard streets of NYC? Instead of a little boy, there'd be the adorable kittens with glistening sad eyes and huddling frightened in the wreckage of the WTC crying for their dead mother. Inventing stories involving the 9/11 attack and using them to instigate a specific desired emotional response IS milking the 9/11 attack for financial gain, regardless of how the Hollyweirdos (or the damned fool conspiracy web sites, for that matter) protest otherwise.

FYI if there are any Holyweird moguls reading this, I want a percentage if you do make "Kittens of 9/11" into a movie.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by defythetyrants
it is based on the family, but that being the case how could it still be viewed as a film not related to 9/11?


That's just it. By putting in the plotline that the kid's father was killed in the 9/11 attack for no appreciable reason it does make it a film related to 9/11, which in my opinion is setting a very, VERY bad precident. What will be coming out of Hollyweird next, a story about a cat that was killed in the collapse and her kittens have to wander starving and alone through the cold hard streets of NYC? Instead of a little boy, there'd be the adorable kittens with glistening sad eyes and huddling frightened in the wreckage of the WTC crying for their dead mother. Inventing stories involving the 9/11 attack and using them to instigate a specific desired emotional response IS milking the 9/11 attack for financial gain, regardless of how the Hollyweirdos (or the damned fool conspiracy web sites, for that matter) protest otherwise.

FYI if there are any Holyweird moguls reading this, I want a percentage if you do make "Kittens of 9/11" into a movie.

Thank you so much for the addition Goodoldave, i look forward to spending $15.62 on seeing Kittens of 9/11, i hear its a real tear jerker, but joking aside it is (in my opinion) disgusting to say the least for ANY capital to be gained from such a horrific event.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Listen, they are not endorsing the events leading up to 9/11. They are not depicting the hi-jacking of aircraft, or telling the story of who did 9/11 and why. They are simply telling a story regarding the days after, and how some people may have coped with the tragedy.

This is in no way diverting attention away from "false-flag" terrorism, or whatever you wanna call it. It's not about any of that. It's about a families journey, after the event that was, September 11, 2001.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
With the possible exception of an independent comedy about a bunch of stoner truthers (which I heard is in the works) no one is going to seriously consider presenting "alternative" scenarios for mass consumption.


Interesting. Maybe that "independent comedy" will feature a re-enactment of this:



That is a father who lost his son on 9/11, the reverse of the film plot under discussion, and the psychopath on the phone is Troy Sexton, a "debunker" and a "patriot". And it's only the tip of the iceberg.

The same person cheered on someone else publicly discussing stabbing a truther to death on a "debunker" blog.

A movie about the "debunker" phenomenon, exposing the psychopathic, government idolizing antics of the "debunker" crowd? Now that, in it itself, would be well worth exposing.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by defythetyrants
Thank you so much for the addition Goodoldave, i look forward to spending $15.62 on seeing Kittens of 9/11, i hear its a real tear jerker, but joking aside it is (in my opinion) disgusting to say the least for ANY capital to be gained from such a horrific event.


I agree...but in a culture where we've been so indoctrinated by mass entertainment to the point where we think those Kardashian bubbleheads are the most fascinating people in the world, I think we're the minority.

FYI I am certainly joking about "Kittens of 9/11", and besides, I'm sure Hollyweird would never make manipulative tear jerkers involving helpless animals. Why' you might as well say they'd try to make a movie about a helpless farm horse that was forced to fight on the battlefields of world war one.

Um, wait a minute...



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Gotta keep the "media is truth" Americans hating whatever nation their government wants them to hate.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by iunlimited491
Listen, they are not endorsing the events leading up to 9/11. They are not depicting the hi-jacking of aircraft, or telling the story of who did 9/11 and why. They are simply telling a story regarding the days after, and how some people may have coped with the tragedy.

This is in no way diverting attention away from "false-flag" terrorism, or whatever you wanna call it. It's not about any of that. It's about a families journey, after the event that was, September 11, 2001.


So since this is fiction, why couldn't the father have died from cancer instead? From where I'm sitting, they're doing this because Hollyweird is testing the waters to see if it's safe to use the 9/11 attack for their mass entertainment, now.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I understand where the disgust for using 9/11 as a plot device comes from, but I also see the flip side - I'm an artist, and I don't like the idea of anything being off-limits for art. I do have problems with films that present propaganda as fact (both OS and Truther propaganda - I'd put World Trade Center, Flight 93 and Loose Change on this list, among others), but from what I've seen in trailers this film doesn't seem to be doing that.

Whatever your opinion of what actually happened that day, it was a tragic, emotional experience for just about everybody in the world, and a story that references that tragedy will resonate with a large audience. That's one of the important things that art does, and it's inevitable that artists would address the emotional impact of the events of 9/11.

In terms of this particular movie, I'll reserve judgement until I have a chance to see it - which I probably will, since like most Americans I'm a sucker for Hanks and Bullock. And kittens, too; I can't wait to see GoodOlDave's film

edit on 9-1-2012 by magicrat because: sometimes spelling things right isn't the right thing to do



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by iunlimited491
Listen, they are not endorsing the events leading up to 9/11. They are not depicting the hi-jacking of aircraft, or telling the story of who did 9/11 and why. They are simply telling a story regarding the days after, and how some people may have coped with the tragedy.

This is in no way diverting attention away from "false-flag" terrorism, or whatever you wanna call it. It's not about any of that. It's about a families journey, after the event that was, September 11, 2001.


So since this is fiction, why couldn't the father have died from cancer instead? From where I'm sitting, they're doing this because Hollyweird is testing the waters to see if it's safe to use the 9/11 attack for their mass entertainment, now.


"World Trade Center" starring Nicholas Cage, was released in 2006.

They're not 'testing the waters' for anything. Do you know how many television shows, documentaries etc. have been made about the event? September 11th, is permanently embedded in peoples brains. Trying to show something like that in a different light, isn't a bad idea.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by iunlimited491
"World Trade Center" starring Nicholas Cage, was released in 2006.

They're not 'testing the waters' for anything. Do you know how many television shows, documentaries etc. have been made about the event? September 11th, is permanently embedded in peoples brains. Trying to show something like that in a different light, isn't a bad idea.



That's completely different because all those were either documentaries or based upon real events. Several Port Authority police officers WERE trapped in the rubble and a marine DID show up and risk his own life looking for survivors (though it turns out the marine who did that was really black rather than white. Whatever). I have no problem with that. What I have a problem is when Hollyweird uses the 9/11 attack to embellish something that otherwise has nothing to do with the 9/11 attack because they know including it increases ticket sales. Leonardo DeCaprio could have just have easily seduced Kate Winslet on a tramp steamer instead of the Titanic, but he didn't. Guess why.

As I said, I can't really say any more until I know more about the flick, because for all I know, this IS based upon the actual events of how a family coped with the loss of a loved one on 9/11. After all, Tom Hanks did do "Apollo 13 and that was most certainly real.
edit on 9-1-2012 by GoodOlDave because: Corrected misspellings to placate the grammar Nazis



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I share your skepticism about the movie simply capitalizing on people's emotions without 'really being about 9/11'.

The author of the book this is based on has a doctorate in philosophy and teaches writing at NYU. He writes fiction that is considered serious. I'd want to read some more reviews of the book before I jumped on the 'exploitation' bandwagon.

If it's a good movie with serious intent, I'll overlook any misgivings about abusing peoples sentimentality.

If it's wrong to make a living off the raw emotions of 9/11 then Richard Gage needs to knock off his act.

If truthers somehow expect every movie made about 9/11 to reflect a conspiracy mindset, they're going to be watching on Youtube only


I'm probably going to watch this film because the treasurehunting aspects appeal to memories of friend whose father played similar games with him.

Edit: to say that I'm definitely going to watch this film. It has everything going for it, having reviewed the creative team, etc. Should be very good.
edit on 1/9/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: as shown



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
Whatever your opinion of what actually happened that day, it was a tragic, emotional experience for just about everybody in the world, and a story that references that tragedy will resonate with a large audience. That's one of the important things that art does, and it's inevitable that artists would address the emotional impact of the events of 9/11.


Hmmm. I think I may need to reconsider, since I do see your point. After all, Tom Hanks likewise did a "Brutal Normandy Landing" movie as well as a "slowly going nuts from being stuck on a deserted island" movie, and neither of those were based upon real people, but were more of an examination on how major events would affect the human psyche. Perhaps this movie deals with the horror and frustration inflicted on a family that would be unique to the 9/11 attack (I.E. seeing their loved ones dying on national TV, etc), which does make the 9/11 attack relevent to the story.

To the OP- this is one of the more intellectually stimulating questions I've seen here yet. Thank you for posting. I'm giving you a star for your effort.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 



That is a father who lost his son on 9/11, the reverse of the film plot under discussion, and the psychopath on the phone is Troy Sexton, a "debunker" and a "patriot". And it's only the tip of the iceberg.

Well, then you should talk to some of the truther folks right here on ATS who will tell you that his son never existed!



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
I was just about to argue with your Titanic comparison, but I think we're on the same page on this one. In fact, you've made a really good point that takes my argument a step further: that, as with other historical events, there were specific (yet universal) emotional contexts that were unique to the experience of living through 9/11, and therefore the historical event is relevant to the fictional story.

Of course that doesn't mean art can't be misused, or shamelessly exploit emotional pain for financial gain, but that always ends up in the eye of the beholder.

This is a good question and interesting thoughts so far. I hope we all come back to this thread and share thoughts after we've seen the movie...



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by snowcrash911
 



That is a father who lost his son on 9/11, the reverse of the film plot under discussion, and the psychopath on the phone is Troy Sexton, a "debunker" and a "patriot". And it's only the tip of the iceberg.

Well, then you should talk to some of the truther folks right here on ATS who will tell you that his son never existed!


In fact, I have, and I treat them with the respect they deserve, which is none.

Nothing about that changes the fact that a psychopathic lunatic, and a "debunker", called up and actually harassed Bob McIlvaine, calling him a "piece of trash" and telling him to go kill himself.

Troy Sexton is a very good approximation of your usual hundred percenter government lover who will stop at nothing to exculpate his criminal government, except of course when a black Democrat is in power.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by defythetyrants
 


Already been several movies based on events of 9/11

UNITED 93

www.youtube.com...

WORLD TRADE CENTER

www.youtube.com...

9/11 was a historical event and has and will be portrayed in movies, docudramas. Tv shows and such

Question is how will be portrayed. Several have eluded to use of 9/11 simply as plot device for emotional
impact.

On same vein do you object to portrayal of HOLOCAUST or World War 2 in movies ? Been countless movies
uising such themes

What about 1960's TV show "HOGAN HEROES" about fictional POWs in prison camp ?

en.wikipedia.org...'s_Heroes



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Troy is a whackjob and embarassment to all debunkers ......

Now do you object to the same mentally unbalanced behavior among truthers. Like knocking handicapped
girl out of her wheel chair or shouting down speakers or posting spam over every website on the internet?

Such behavior seems to the norm among truthers....

What about truthers involved in murder aka Gerald Loughner ?

Do you know was a member here ?


Loughner's best friend, Zach Osler, said, "He did not watch TV; he disliked the news; he didn't listen to political radio; he didn't take sides; he wasn't on the Left; he wasn't on the Right." Osler also noted that conspiracy theories had a profound effect on Loughner, particularly the online conspiracy theory film Zeitgeist: The Movie, with which friends claimed Loughner held an obsession. He was a member of the conspiracy theory message board, "Above Top Secret," although members of the site did not respond warmly to his posts. Loughner espoused 9/11 conspiracy theories; a New World Order conspiracy theories; and beliefs in a 2012 apocalypse, among other controversial viewpoints. Reports appearing after the shooting noted similarities between the statements made by Loughner and the views of conspiracy theorist David Wynn Miller.


In any event as big as 9/11 will attract the mentally unbalanced from all directions....



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
subliminal messages if you like it or not?

|



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Troy is a whackjob and embarassment to all debunkers ......

Now do you object to the same mentally unbalanced behavior among truthers. Like knocking handicapped
girl out of her wheel chair or shouting down speakers or posting spam over every website on the internet?

Such behavior seems to the norm among truthers....

What about truthers involved in murder aka Gerald Loughner ?

Do you know was a member here ?


Loughner's best friend, Zach Osler, said, "He did not watch TV; he disliked the news; he didn't listen to political radio; he didn't take sides; he wasn't on the Left; he wasn't on the Right." Osler also noted that conspiracy theories had a profound effect on Loughner, particularly the online conspiracy theory film Zeitgeist: The Movie, with which friends claimed Loughner held an obsession. He was a member of the conspiracy theory message board, "Above Top Secret," although members of the site did not respond warmly to his posts. Loughner espoused 9/11 conspiracy theories; a New World Order conspiracy theories; and beliefs in a 2012 apocalypse, among other controversial viewpoints. Reports appearing after the shooting noted similarities between the statements made by Loughner and the views of conspiracy theorist David Wynn Miller.


In any event as big as 9/11 will attract the mentally unbalanced from all directions....


Yes, on that we agree. But the criticism is usually directed at truthers, as if truthers represent all that's loony and ill in this world.

Is this guy a truther?

N.Y. man charged with stabbing cab driver for being Muslim

Are these truthers?


Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, anti-Muslim hate violence skyrocketed some 1,600%.


FBI Reports Dramatic Spike in Anti-Muslim Hate Violence

Are these guys truthers?

The Maywand District killings refers to the murder of at least three Afghan civilians perpetrated by a group of U.S. Army soldiers in 2010, during the War in Afghanistan.

How about that psychopathic torture in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, and various secret prisons around the world... committed by truthers?

Navy Seal Chris Kyle, who slaughtered 255 human beings from behind the comfort of his rifle scope, and refers to his victims as "savages", then makes questionable claims about punching Jesse Ventura, is he a truther?

I could go on and on.

Sometimes conspiracy theories drive people to violence. Sometimes injustice and foreign policy does. Sometimes anti-Muslim hatred and nationalism does.

The truther-violence connection is statistically insignificant, despite careful mainstream media propaganda which would have us believe otherwise.

Loughner's primary motivator was paranoid Tea Bagger ideology and hate rhetoric from the right wing media, not trutherism. That might be called "stochastic terrorism". Yet nobody wants to discuss that....






top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join