I agree 100% eddie. I don't think that we should sweep the WTC under the carpet either, and I hope I don't come across sounding like that's what I want at all.
------------------
Printable View
I agree 100% eddie. I don't think that we should sweep the WTC under the carpet either, and I hope I don't come across sounding like that's what I want at all.
------------------
10 years from now I predict this will be made into a cheesy television movie... It has potential to be something much better, however. And it is the film I most want to see (after StarWars Episode 7)
------------------
Plus the film would probably be banned, seen as all movies have had pictures of the WTC "edited" out.
http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
Mods
------------------
Mark "Mods" Lovegrove
I think that is just rediculous. I think it's kind of insulting, trying to pretend like the WTC was never there. I'm suprised they haven't recalled Escape from New York to edit out the skyline.
------------------
Okay, so we're talking rhetorical. We're talking unlimited budget, and some art house guy just has 2 million dollars and makes a movie that's insightful and poignant and all that. Super. You're right, so next discussion.
But. I assumed when you asked the question you meant "Would it be in bad taste if -I- made a movie about WTC." And my assumption, being that I don't know you and we communicate over the internet and we could both be old fat naked men for all we know, I would assume yes. Because what's the point of you making a film about it? You don't have the resources to make a good movie about it, (because we established a comedic love story would just be tripe, and I don't think any of us have the budget to produce a gripping drama about this subject, with many of you living in the Old Country I doubt you could fly a film crew to New York and get shooting permits and blah blah blah) so it would look like you were trying to cash in on tragedy. And that's what makes it distasteful.
Eddie, I think that was a cheap shot justifying cashing in on tragedy with someone making some other movie about something else that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Let's take a vote of who here would say making a movie about incest is in bad taste. I'm willing to bet very little. Because just saying, "I'm going to make a movie about incest," leaves it so open. You can say oh yeah tell me about your characters tell me about the story. If it's a movie glorifying incest, well, of course it's in bad taste. But a movie just about incest, you can't say we'll you wouldn't like that would you? Ha, you're closeminded, WTC movie is now proven to be okay. Because if someone says, "I'm going to make a movie about Sept. 11," I'm instantly going to think they're trying to cash in. All these shitty flash apps that got made with that _stupid_ Enya song and just some pictures of the WTC, they sucked so much ass, and people sent the URLs around and e-mailed them to me with title headings like "Touching flash about the tragedy, I cried" and I click on it and they were miserably made. The person had no flash talent, it was just a badly strung together series of images with some sappy music playing. And they got millions of hits. But they wouldn't have at any other time because they were so shit. I think the same would be true for a WTC movie. You could get away with making a shitty one, because there's guaranteed attention. But if you wait a few years, I think you'd be pressed to actually make a good movie because if you make a shitty one, people will call you on it. They'll say, "man, that movie sucked dude." But now, they'll smile and say man that was touching just because WTC is still fresh, just like those rediculous flash apps. I bet no one e-mailed the makers of those Flashs saying "Man, your flash fucking sucks, you MORON. I hate you." Which would happen in three years if the same Flash apps got spread around.
::inhale:: Sorry to write so much, but Chance said no one was giving him an answer, so I did my best.
------------------
hiya, sure, I agree with what you say - you hit the nail on the head. Its impossible to say whether something is tasteless or not, with no information about it.
You could make a tasteless film about Morris Minors for heavens sake. Of course it depends on how you deal with the subject.
Sure the thread was heading into trivia zone- a WTC comedy? a WTC action movie?
But what Im trying to say is that hiding your head in the sand is no way to respond to anything. I cant be arsed to type in all my ideas about these things (such as War Zone) and explain it all - But I think that the reasons for the attack must be dealt with by the US and the UN. It affects every person that accepts and lives a certain lifestyle.
These things are bought at a cost - and that cost must be dealt with.
A while ago a painting of a UK Child Killer, Myra Hindley was made (from a collage of childrens handprints) which caused a huge stir, and rightly so. It unearthed some awful memories, but is actually a very sad and tragic picture. Is it a cash in? I dont know, but I think its a very moving picture.
I dont think this is a cheap shot. I think it is comparable, to the WTC. These things should be discussed and brought out into the open, or it will happen again and again....
------------------
yeah but you all know why. Its because the large studios are terrified of offending anyone and loosing their reputation, so they play safe. I dont think they have any courage at all.
As a bunch of wannabe film makers, I think everyone here should be capable of making a decision, no matter how controversial, and sticking to it and justify it. Otherwise you will just turn out clone work.
And whats the point of having such an amazing medium at your fingertips, only to use it at its basest.
I know thats all strong fancy words, but I do beleive that. Film is a loud voice, and there are already too many loud voices talking shit. You have to tell some sort of truth.
Yeah, yeah - blah de blah.... http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
Then again,
The wtc attack has all the ingredients for a freaking great film (and money spinner) consider this, the two great towers than for so many symbolised so much, a nation won from the hard yards taken by the few economists and brokers willing to "go out there", to explore those nether worlds and bring them kicking and screaming into the next fiscal year. Yet, as all threats to great honest empires emerge, from within two doom destined inosence riddled aeroplanes there emrges an anger!
By using the great nations generosity and glut of post-vietnam pilots, these evil doers from the deserts of sodom and germorrah, drive their happless innocent victims into the twin towers!
Not only is the worlds thirst for "towering inferno" satiated, not only are pyrotechnic heads clutching their hearts in envy of that bastard with the 20 millionth sony handy cam which was produced to help a willing america protect itself in a frenzy of voyuerism, but every gollywood screenwriters wet dream! N.Y.C's finest and bravest are running up the stairs to save the screaming thousands running down.
Then, when you thought this horrid could bring no more unleashed evil from the foul pits of a little arab brain, he somehow filled the streets with looters! Oh, how the marines did scrape the gun barrels of justice that day!
The only way the wtc was a tragedy is if one looks at all sides, the planes hitting the buildings where the climatic point in a process that began fifty odd years ago in a place called Malta. Film-makers, amatuer and proffesional often make the mistake of assuming that what they see is the story.
------------------
I agree with Mr Blackstock, it does all seem to be much like a "film" in its events.
If anyone were to make a serious film about the tradgedy, i'd sure help. But a half arsed comedy about it and I wouldn't want to be involved.
http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
Mods
------------------
Mark "Mods" Lovegrove
Unfortunately a WTC film would only serve the mills of propaganda by showing a maddenned bunch of arabs cold-heartedly flying planes into the twin towers. Such stereotyping would definitely lead to arab bashing.
There'd surely be no mention of the CIA's admission that it is still producing Anthrax and using it. No mention that the FBI has sourced the particular strain of Anthrax used to 6 top secret CIA bases.
There'd be no mention of the strange insider dealing which went on in the days before the 11th. And no mention that the insider dealing, which was betting on a huge decrease of value on American Airlines shares, was sourced to a wing of the Deutschebank who's Director is 3rd in command to the CIA.
There'd be no mention of the American Airforce pilots who, despite being told immediately of the hijaakings by airtraffic control, were told to `stand down` by their superiors for a full hour until all the planes had hit their targets.
And what of Ariel Sharon? What about Mossad, the secret Isreali intelligence organisation who's motto is `we shall make war, by means of deception`? 50 Isreali's were arrested immediately after the attack. 6 were filming the incident and jumping for joy.
Now a big scandal is rocking America as mossad is discovered to have been taping the white house's phone lines, scrutinising telephone exchanges across America, and of seeming to know what was going on but failing to warn the president.
And what of the two people from the Jewish Defense League who have just been arrested for attempting to blow up a mosque in America? Are these Isreali's terrorists fighting a war against America? Or is America's `war on terrorism` really a front for more stupid excesses of its foreign policy?
No all this will be jettisoned and we'll end up with some stupid story about a bunch of evil fanatical arabs who, without any state backing, organised an event which even the greatest intelligence service in the world did not know about, even though it had been 4 years in the making and only months previously the same intelligence service had been paying these arabs a monthly wage.
The word `patsy` springs to mind for some reason.
------------------