Oliver Stone makes a movie and people ask: Is it too soon?

Frikkinjerk on 17/5/2006 at 18:53

Quote Posted by Fragony

Depends, if it isn't all conspiracy theory like his JFK, why not.

The term conspiracy theory is a misnomer. We don't apply it to government agents or agencies when they come up with crazy ideas, but the moment someone throws a spotlight on an unpopular idea that's contrary to the popular misconception of our, supposedly, democratic government then they are just fucking nuts. People seem to be unable to entertain any ideas that don't appeal to them regardless of what the facts are.

Besides leaving rednecks to scratch their asses in confusion (that's where their brain is) JFK was also an interesting experiment in how most people can't seem to pay attention when they watch a movie. Tom Cruise's first Mission: Impossible movie was another. You had professional film critics like Jeffrey Lyons who said the plot was too difficult to follow. Did these people spend the whole time at the snack bar? The plot makes perfect sense - if you pay attention. People want to complain about how dumbed down and idiotic most movies are, well, the movie-going public is to blame for being so damn retarded. The film industry is just giving you what you really want.

Agent Monkeysee on 17/5/2006 at 20:54

Quote Posted by Frikkinjerk

Gee that's kinda begging the question. There are legitimate conspiracy theories out there but they are few and far between and, you're right, once exposed as such people don't actually classify them as conspiracies anymore.

Strictly speaking the 9/11 plot, and in fact Al Qaeda in general, is a conspiracy.

The problem is conspiracy "theorists" are typically entertaining completely implausible, but fantastic, unorthodox explanations for what are usually well-established events. It's not our fault that their complete lack of credibility and fanatical devotion to their own complex explanatory web has ruined a perfectly good word.

Quote Posted by Frikkinjerk

People seem to be unable to entertain any ideas that don't appeal to them regardless of what the facts are.

Much like any conspiracy theorist I've ever interacted with.

Scots Taffer on 17/5/2006 at 23:59

I forgot about United 93, by all accounts it is supposed to be the better of the two - at least insofar as script reviews are concerned. I may get around to seeing that, but I think I'll give this one a miss.

It's like Armageddon in New York.

Kaleid on 18/5/2006 at 00:11

Quote Posted by Dr Sneak

Stone is a sick individual, I dont think a movie should be made.:p Hollywood shouldnt treat terrorist attacks like a money making machine.:devil: Edit: I'm talking about the real thing, not idiot B-flicks.

And WTF are the politicians (+ military industrial complex) doing? They already renamed GWOT to the long war that would last decades. Gimme a break, by this time USA had already beaten the enemy in WW2.

A journalist put it well: “[In 1992] the goal was global dominance, and it met with bad reviews. Now it is the answer to terrorism. The emphasis is on preemption, and the reviews are generally enthusiastic. Through all of this, the dominance motif remains, though largely undetected.”
Read about PNAC. There's the real agenda.

These people saw 9/11 as "godsend".

Dr Sneak on 18/5/2006 at 01:10

Quote:

This is about Hollywood morons not 'America is so evil', so lets keep it on topic. I think making movies about 9/11 is disgusting and I wont spend a dime on them.:nono:

Quote:

Yeah, I think Stone sucks, but wouldn't you rather have a few films that denounce the horror of actual terror and violence than non-stop stupid fantasies that make it all seem OK? Stone will make a complete bgs of the whole thing, but you have to leave the door open to assholes, as well as geniuses if you want to have good art.

I dont call what most of Hollywood makes 'art'.:rolleyes:

Kaleid on 18/5/2006 at 02:26

Quote:

This is about Hollywood morons not 'America is so evil', so lets keep it on topic. I think making movies about 9/11 is disgusting and I wont spend a dime on them.

I don't think America is evil and certainly don't hate americans. But the PNAC people are nuts are the agenda is far more disgusting than any 9/11 movie.

Strangeblue on 18/5/2006 at 05:02

Quote Posted by Dr Sneak

I dont call what most of Hollywood makes 'art'.:rolleyes:

I don't call most of what you post "art," either. So what? Are you saying that only artsy indie film-makers can produce a decent product? Or that only they should be "allowed" to make films about real-life events because you see them as morally "pure"?

Here, let me rephrase my original statement so you can "get" it: Movies--by any and all forms of the film industry--have always represented real-life events for "entertainment" purposes (for suitably broad definitions of "entertainment".) They make money off it, but that is not entirely a bad thing--people have to eat, even those who make dumb films. If we're to have good films at all, we also need to allow people to make dreck so people who make good films can also eat.

So, unless you think all film by anyone is worthless dreck, you missed my point.

And Stone's still a jackass. We agree on that?

Scots Taffer on 18/5/2006 at 06:52

Comandante was a very interesting movie, but I cannot attest to his assiness based on that one piece of evidence.

theBlackman on 18/5/2006 at 07:43

To go with Strangeblue the TV special "Sword of Gideon" which followed 5 assassins sent out to do the terrorists in.

1986 Plot Outline: Chronicles a Mossad team hand picked to hunt down the terrorists involved in the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre of Israeli athletes.

Matthew on 18/5/2006 at 09:59

Quote Posted by Dr Sneak

I think making movies about 9/11 is disgusting and I wont spend a dime on them.:nono:

But why do you think that?

Take the example of Omagh - I believe that it was very well received by the relatives of the victims and was a powerful film. Was it wrong to do it? Was it too soon?

Sadly, maybe in Northern Ireland we're just more used to it.