World Trade Center

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 7, 2006, 2:51 pm

It's an Oliver Stone movie but doesn't delve into the political aspects like a lot of his previous movies.

http://www.ctnow.com/movies/stv-worldtr ... 10.wmvfile

I don't really have an opinion on it yet like some people. I'll have to see it first.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 7, 2006, 3:57 pm

I won't go see it. I saw the previews for it in the theaters before The Break Up, and I was a crying mess. I'm sure it will be fine, but I can't put myself through that.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 7, 2006, 4:21 pm

They should hold off releasing this until closer to the 2008 elections.

I'm not a big fan of movies that play on emotions to make a buck. Being an Oliver Stone movie, there's hope that he'll bring up that it's obvious the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 7, 2006, 5:39 pm

Winnow wrote:They should hold off releasing this until closer to the 2008 elections.

I'm not a big fan of movies that play on emotions to make a buck. Being an Oliver Stone movie, there's hope that he'll bring up that it's obvious the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

lol

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 7, 2006, 6:48 pm

not gonna bother seeing

from what i can tell its going to be one of those godamn dramas where 75% of the film involves someone crying, not into those movies at all

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » August 11, 2006, 8:21 pm

I wonder if the recent captures of terrorists will help this movie.....

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 11, 2006, 8:47 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I won't go see it. I saw the previews for it in the theaters before The Break Up, and I was a crying mess. I'm sure it will be fine, but I can't put myself through that.

what a fucking pussy.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » August 11, 2006, 8:54 pm

It's Titanic with a fresher premise and non-fake characters.

I'll be passing on this as well as I find the exploitation of the event distasteful.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » August 11, 2006, 9:34 pm

You fuckers better not spoil the ending.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 11, 2006, 9:38 pm

I guess that brings up an interesting question.. When is a movie that is ' inspired by true events' no longer considered an "exploitation" of those events? 5 years? 20 years? Never?

I haven't seen it.. But based on the few reviews I read it doesn't really sound like Oliver Stone is exploiting anything.

I had the same feeling when I heard about the United 93 movie but that got mostly very good reviews. I'll probably watch both of them eventually.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » August 11, 2006, 10:11 pm

I don't think it's a specific amount of years but rather is the event part of history or still very current events.

We have terrorists that are still trying to blow up planes and attack the US even today. I don't think Shindler's List would've been appropriate 5 years after WW2 or if Titanic were showing in 1917.

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » August 12, 2006, 8:24 pm

It was damn good. Not as gritty as your typical Oliver Stone movie, but not cheesy. Of course there were lots of heart wrenching moments, so those of you too manly to cry may want to steer clear. It didn't seem like exploitation to me at all, rather just an accurate telling of a story that should be heard by all spectrums of people and all spectrums of political beliefs.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » August 13, 2006, 3:08 am

A large number of people would probably consider it exploitation regardless of time passed, unless the profits from the movie were handed over to some charity.

I was debating watching it until I saw a quick blurb from Cage indicating that it wasn't made to be entertainment, but rather a tribute. He could have just been blabbering, but it seemed genuine.

noel · Post by **noel** » August 13, 2006, 4:05 am

Aslanna wrote:I guess that brings up an interesting question.. When is a movie that is ' inspired by true events' no longer considered an "exploitation" of those events? 5 years? 20 years? Never?

I think the actual time required might vary from person to person.

However, let me try answering your question with the right answer:

When all the proceeds from such a movie are donated to the survivors of the tragedy.

Just my opinion, but if that were the case I'd consider seeing it. As it stands there's no chance in hell because not enough time has passed for me to not consider it (like United 93) exploitation of events and I'm not interested in someone's perspective on events I saw unfolding live.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 13, 2006, 6:45 am

I saw the worst camcordered movie I've ever seen of World Trade Center.

I'm not sure what to think. Ignoring the subject of the movie, it's not the best movie. I don't think it exploits 911 too much. It's more of a rescue movie IMO. There's zero politial slants in the movie and mostly portrays confusion of the common people including police during the attack.

I think it does a good job of recreating the confusion and what it was like to be around the WTCs between the initial hit and the collapses.

The acting wasn't that great but the emotional pull of 911 keeps your interest.

6.5/10

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 13, 2006, 10:19 am

noel wrote:When all the proceeds from such a movie are donated to the survivors of the tragedy.

Just my opinion, but if that were the case I'd consider seeing it. As it stands there's no chance in hell because not enough time has passed for me to not consider it (like United 93) exploitation of events and I'm not interested in someone's perspective on events I saw unfolding live.

I can't remember what channel I was watching at the time, but I saw a something about this movie yesterday. They mentioned proceeds (maybe a percentage) being paid out from the first 5 days of the movie's opening. I cannot remember which "group" they were giving the money to though. They interviewed some of the Police and Port Authority people who were portrayed in the movie, and they were saying that they felt the movie did a good job of portraying the events they experienced in the thick of things. When asked if it was too soon to make the movie, one of them answered that he felt it was best to do it now before the politics surrounding the aftermath clouded the memories any more than they already had.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 13, 2006, 3:13 pm

Also, I doubt there will be a lot of profits, if any, to be donated. I believe the movie cost 60 odd million to make, plus 30 odd million to market. I don't think anyone expects it to make that much back (also providing credibility to the 'tribute' theory).

Although I haven't and won't see it (I hate movies), it doesn't seem to me to be exploitative in the slightest.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 13, 2006, 3:49 pm

9/11 Filmmakers Slam "Cashing In" Claims

Filmmakers working on Oliver Stone's upcoming 9/11 movie World Trade Center have slammed claims they are cashing in on the 2001 terrorist attacks, insisting the movie is about heroism. World Trade Center, which stars Nicolas Cage, tells the story the last two people found alive in the rubble of the collapsed twin towers, and their rescuer. Some relatives of people who died have spoken out against Stone's film, because they do not want to relive their initial pain following the attacks. But producer Moritz Borman says, "I know there is one widow out there who didn't want it to be made because she felt it was too painful to see her husband die. But I am convinced that when she sees it she will be resolved. We never went out to explore the whole story of 9/11 and its impact on America and the rest of the world. Nobody went into this film and thought this was the explanation for why 9/11 happened or its geopolitical impact. It's a tale of heroism."