"World Trade Center"- the movie

[SweetQintheLights]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 2:13am

I searched and could not find a thread on this. I thought someone would have posted it by now but I just found out about it.

Are we going too far too soon?


World Trade Center

[DG]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 7:49am

Q - you said you highly recommend that people see UNITED 93, but then question this project. I'm curious what the difference is for you?

[new_philosophy_girl]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 8:59am

I think the main difference people are going to see between these two movies is that United 93 was just the retelling of the story. There was no subplot. It was just the true story of what happened on that plane (or what we believed happened by piecing together everything). World Trade Center focuses on two PA cops (one played by Nicolas Cage) who are trapped in the rubble.

[Craig]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 9:05am

Yes.. but it's also based on the true story of the last two removed from the pile...

"In the aftermath of the World Trade Center disaster, hope is still alive. Refusing to bow down to terrorism, rescuers and family of the victims press forward. Their mission of rescue and recovery is driven by the faith that under each piece of rubble, a co-worker, a friend a family member may be found. This is the true story of John McLoughlin and William J. Jimeno, the last two survivors extracted from Ground Zero and the rescuers who never gave up. It's a story of the true heroes of that fateful time in the history of the United States when buildings would fall and heroes would rise, literally from the ashes to inspire the entire human race."

[new_philosophy_girl]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 9:07am

Ahh...I didn't know that Craig. Considering it's being directed by Oliver Stone, I think it'll be made just as well as Flight 93.

[Holly Therese]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 9:27am

It just makes me sick that Hollywood is going to profit from such a tragedy, but I guess it is really no different than them making money over the many other tragedies that they already have.

Updated On: 5/1/06 at 09:27 AM

[Wicked_fan]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 9:28am

2 movies about 9/11 this soon...

it's only 5 years later, this issue is still very emotional for a lot of people.

I personally believe it's in poor taste and just hollywood milking a tragedy for all the money they can get. I will definitely not be viewing these films.

EDIT: wow, Holly took the words right out of my mouth. :)

Updated On: 5/1/06 at 09:28 AM

[Craig]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 9:36am

I have mixed feelings at best. I have close friends that died that day.. and while I see the point you two made, I also know that I would love for the stories of my friends to be known as they were wonderful people who will be dearly missed.

As bad as this might sound to some - sometimes the end justifies the means. While hollywood may get rich off some stories - the upside is that the stories of people we lost will be told.

Like I said.. I have mixed feelings. But I wouldn't count these movies out. They aren't making movies ala titanic or towering inferno. So far both movies are real life stories...

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 9:41am

"I personally believe it's in poor taste ..."

This phrase always strikes me as the first vestige of the scoundrel because it usually leads up to something censorious.

In March and April of 1985, the plays As Is and The Normal Heart opened off-Broadway. This was fewer than four years after the first cases of "Gay Related Immune Deficiency" were reported in the New York Times. People were living through a disasterous tragedy in their midst: a disease picking off their friends and loved ones and that might possibly have had them in its crosshairs too.

Artists often use art to impose some semblance of order on what feels like the utter randomness of the universe and audiences are often very lucky to have what artists offer them for a whole host of reasons, confrontation and comfort being two of the most glaringly obvious.

And you know, in '85 people said those two plays were in "poor taste" too. That it was "too soon."

Updated On: 5/1/06 at 09:41 AM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 10:14am

I well remember the NORMAL HEART controversy, as I had a friend in the original cast. People were so quick to be "offended," and some thought it "bad taste" to indict Ed Koch on the NY stage. What a pitifully quaint thought, in light of AIDS' worldwide impact today -- embarrassing Ed Koch, a lapse in taste. To my thinking he still gets off easy, and is culpable for much.

I felt a strangely nostalgic vibe of NORMAL HEART as I sat at STUFF HAPPENS at the Public. Same theater, same high-stakes issues. Same controversy: "is it appropriate?" The theater does its job best when it dares to hold our world up to us, preferably with a strong point of view.

We need more Larry Kramers and David Hares.

I think it's interesting that NORMAL HEART still hasn't been made into a film, despite the years with Streisand fiddling with it, to no end, sadly. It should now be made to document an era that will live in infamy.

Spare me any artistic decisions based on the grounds of "taste."

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 10:15am

"Artists often use art to impose some semblance of order on what feels like the utter randomness of the universe and audiences are often very lucky to have what artists offer them for a whole host of reasons, confrontation and comfort being two of the most glaringly obvious. "

I agree.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 11:14am

Nicholas Cage - The reason not to see this movie.

[SweetQintheLights]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:00pm

"Q - you said you highly recommend that people see UNITED 93, but then question this project. I'm curious what the difference is for you?"

DG- I do recommend people see United 93. I never said this project wasn't going to be good. I questioned United 93 before I saw it; why should I not question this one?

Updated On: 5/1/06 at 12:00 PM

[DG]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:03pm

Q - I was referencing the question you asked, which didn't seem to have anything to do with whether it was good or not. You asked whether it was too far too soon. So I'm wondering where you draw the line - assuming you accept now that UNITED 93 didn't cross that imaginary boundary.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:05pm

Mister Matt, I agree.

[SweetQintheLights]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:19pm

DG- Before I saw United 93 I was questioning if it was too much too soon. After seeing Uninted 93, I realized that it wasn't. But, after hearing of this new movie, I am questioning it again.

[Mamie]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 4:04pm

I knew about the existence of the film because Greg Jbara has a small part in it. I didn't know the story line until now. (Thank you Craig.) I don't think it's too soon. The arts have always reflected life and news and events of today. I don't see it as exploiting those who died or their families - although I can certainly see why others would see differently. Considering the story line, I do believe this is a film that will help refresh our memories re the role played by the firemen, police, and other rescue workers that day. I can see the good in that.