Dean Devlin disgusts me!

[lene morissette]

I read in the newspaper the other day that he is planning to make a film of the events of September 11th with none other than Kurt Russell!

Firstly I think it's terrible that, so soon after the event, they want to make money out of the tragic event. Secondly I think it's even worse considering the people who are doing the film. What was their reasoning? Might it have been something along the lines of 'Oh we can't do another Stargate film so how 'bout we do one about *very* recent deaths of thousands of people instead, regardless of the feelings of those people's families and friends'?!? At least with 'Titanic' they left a few years when emotions weren't as raw.

anyone agree?

 

[CynVision]

History Channel is doing a doccumentary week on the entire year starting today, I think, with a doccumentary on the World Trade Center. So, it's already being made into a viewer "attraction" of sorts. You can't avoid it. It's a done deal. Just change the station if you don't like it.

That said, it is highly odd that someone of Dean Devlin's style would make a movie that would be anything unlike his "blow-up-everything" style. So we'd assume that it be sensational rather than something akin to that filmmaker on public television (can't remember his name but he did all them mini-series on baseball and New York and the Civil War) Wood? Woods? If it were "tastefully" done, with feelings of those sensitive to it in mind, it would be better. Do you shun Sex in the City for mentioning what happened? Working it into it's stories? Following flap over the Starbucks tea ads and a few other over reactions, I think there's some that are highly upset people out there. But I'm not one of those. I think the media dropped the stories about the WTC and like aways are ready one year later to pull ratings up by running endless tributes to the event. Are you less disturbed that the car makers and papertowel makers are going to purchase ad time during these TV programs?

 

[PTeppic]

One, or more, 9/11 "feature" presentations (c.f. documentaries) were going to appear, inevitably. Only days after those miners in U.S. were rescued they announced a media deal including film rights. People today want to see real-life stories, good and bad.

The two issues with this report are the style of any film produced/directed by someone such as Devlin (but we won't know for sure till it is seen) and the timing of the making.

More so perhaps for 9/11 than any other incident in recent history any film will have to be remarkably accurate, in itself something of a shock for Hollywood. Over dramatisation, hype, and so on will be intolerable. Conversely, I would imagine that anything that portrays anything other than heroism from those involved, despite reality, will also be deplored, if not liable to legal action. This, I would have thought would make the production of this film too difficult for any profducer.

As for timing, when is it long enough? I'm hoping not to be insensitive, but the Twin Towers site has been cleared, and we are almost a year on. Each of us at some point will have to move on, and move forward. The difficulty is that to some people, 5 years time will be too soon, to some, now is fine, to others it will never be too long. There is no "right" answer. Despite the horror, gratuitous loss of life and suffering, there was also astounding bravery, dedication, perseverance and escape. These stories also deserve to be told. But, if enough people tell Devlin & Co to wait, hopefully he will wait another year/two/five, if that is the majority opinion.

[From a purely practical point of view, the cinema market is not just domestic, and emotions are less raw in countries outside the U.S.]

 

[webmouse]

Any event -- blessing or tragedy -- is most keenly remembered on its first anniversary. After that, time heals all wounds. Is it time for a 9/11 cinematic extravaganza? Perhaps in another few months past that anniversary.

Some events have not been turned into films. The Columbine Massacre, for instance, is probably far too painful. And it took some years before the Texas Tower shootings were made into a film (starring, I believe, Kurt Russell -- the lad does seem to get around).

As for "Titanic" -- the first film was turned out within weeks of the sinking, starring a young actress who was a survivor of the ship, wearing the dress she wore that fateful night in April.

 

[lene morissette]

I just think it's disrespectful, especially since it inevitably won't be factually accurate. It will b made to please Hollywood filmmakers, not to be true to the facts.

 

[CynVision]

Originally posted by PTeppic
[From a purely practical point of view, the cinema market is not just domestic, and emotions are less raw in countries outside the U.S.]

Less raw or a totally different spin was put on events depending on what country we're talking about. I don't feel the numbers of the dead in the event made as much impression as places hit by earthquakes often or other terror stuff. Or even American bombing in the Gulf War. There's more bad feelings toward the Americas than we ever expected as we tooled along. If some sort of movie production could be done in such a way the international audiences could understand just what this event meant, it would be of some sort of empathic value. I don't think they pay much attention to what ABC, NBC and CBS have done interviewing survivors last year and all that.

 

[keltikkitty]

This may sound a little insensitive to people but I can't help that.

Originally posted by PTeppic
People today want to see real-life stories, good and bad.

I tend to be one of those people that like to see "based on an actual event stories" My POV is that it pays a certain respect to those involved in the event. But the bad thing about that is that it only gives the viewpoint of the side the director/producer is on. The true stories are usually biased and that is what annoys me. I give dibs to Jerry Bruckheimer in Pearl Harbor because he not only showed the American point of view but the Japanese point of view as well. And if Stargate has taught me anything, it would be to respect other cultures and beliefs. You may not believe in suicide for your religion or country but they did. I'm not saying it was right nor am I condoning their actions, but I am saying it was their belief and it was what THEY thought was right. You can't condemn all the other people of that religion because the people who did it were a part of the radical party within the religion/government. There has always been a radical and a conservative part of any religion and government. Look at the Christians of old. If you were an individual of a tribe or country that was taken over by the Christians you were either Christian or you were dead. The Spanish Inquisition for example got rid of heretics on the basis of heresy. But mostly it was done out of personal gain. Many Jews and non-Catholics died of torture or “an act of faithâ€. Over 300,000 accused heretics died.

More so perhaps for 9/11 than any other incident in recent history any film will have to be remarkably accurate, in itself something of a shock for Hollywood. Over dramatisation, hype, and so on will be intolerable. Conversely, I would imagine that anything that portrays anything other than heroism from those involved, despite reality, will also be deplored, if not liable to legal action. This, I would have thought would make the production of this film too difficult for any profducer.

This again brings up the point of view matter. It may be "remarkably accurate", but only to the American standpoint. I know a lot of American's right now don't wont to see the other side because of what happened but, hey, it did happen and nothing is going to change that. Live with it. {I know it’s hard}

As for timing, when is it long enough? I'm hoping not to be insensitive, but the Twin Towers site has been cleared, and we are almost a year on. Each of us at some point will have to move on, and move forward. The difficulty is that to some people, 5 years time will be too soon, to some, now is fine, to others it will never be too long. There is no "right" answer.

I'm one of the people that think it has been long enough. Six months ago was long enough for me. I didn't have anybody up in New York or on the planes that got hurt so that would probably be the reason. Please don't think me callous. The reason why I say it's been long enough is because of all the media frenzy about it. Yes this tragic event happened. Yes it was horrible and the amount of lives lost or damaged was extensive and irreparable but there’s a time when the media coverage is good and when its not. Every month after 9/11 you would hear on the TV: Well it's been one month, or two months or six months. I know that. The whole world knows that. Get over it. And the reporters just make it worse. That special that was on a couple of days ago where they showed all the babies that had been born to widows of 9/11, IMO was stupid and just a bit crude. Leave the widows alone so they can grieve in peace. They don't wont to be followed around because of what happened. They want to grieve and try to get on with their lives.

Despite the horror, gratuitous loss of life and suffering, there was also astounding bravery, dedication, perseverance and escape. These stories also deserve to be told. But, if enough people tell Devlin & Co to wait, hopefully he will wait another year/two/five, if that is the majority opinion.

You could make a whole series about all the brave people who showed dedication, perseverance and camaraderie. I'm sure that's what some evil little scheming mind in Hollywood is doing right now. Coming up with a series based on it. But alas, I do agree somewhat with that statement. IF you’re going to tell the story, tell the whole story.

I know that was hard to hear, and I also know that a lot of you, especially fellow Americans are going to be yelling at me but it had to be said. Many of you are probably thinking that she's evil and sadistic but I don't care. It's my opinion and for once somebody might listen to me. To anybody I offended, I'm truly sorry. Especially you, lene morissette

 

[Texane]

I do not believe some of the international community will ever understand what 9/11 meant to us . . . they do not value life as we do, women are property in their world, and they have as little understanding of us as we have of them. Their opinions mean nothing to me. 9/11 will be what it is to each human being individually.

And yes, I agree. I strongly urge anyone presented with a despicable presentation of 9/11 to use their remotes.

 

[imported_TheDoc]

Originally posted by CynVision
I don't feel the numbers of the dead in the event made as much impression as places hit by earthquakes often or other terror stuff. Or even American bombing in the Gulf War. There's more bad feelings toward the Americas than we ever expected as we tooled along. If some sort of movie production could be done in such a way the international audiences could understand just what this event meant, it would be of some sort of empathic value. I don't think they pay much attention to what ABC, NBC and CBS have done interviewing survivors last year and all that.

I hope you're not serious with that statement, cyn. how can you judge wether the rest of the world cares or not? I was in canada when the horrible attack happened, and I cried. I still cry today when I see documentaries - I will never forget the picture of those people waving out of the windows, desperately crying for help - and then the towers collapsing. how can you even THINK about we'd value an american life less than any other?!? people were following the news here just as shocked and interested as you, that's just a fact. they were queuing up to donate.

I understand very well what this attack means - it was the first time america had real terrorism in its own country. people were robbed of their feeling of security. that's a horrible experience, and exactly *because* we have gone through this horrible experience, we know how you must feel. I was stuck once for five hours in a tube. you know why? because the IRA was about to blow the thing up. I've spent better hours, you may believe me. knowing terrorism makes us more passionate.

yes, there are a lot of angry feelings towards america. but towards the american politics, not the american people. don't mix this up, please. yes, I have a VERY big problem with a government that declares that "the usa are gods leading nation", because, with all due respect, I doubt god has written an email to george w. bush to let him know he loves america more than other countries. jesus, at least, has always been with the poor, so who knows - maybe god's leading nation is ethiopia.

but this does NOT mean I value the americans any less than other. I don't see people as part of a nation, I see them as human beings, and judge them individually.

and on a side note: also four swiss citizens died in the twin towers. swiss insurances don't cover acts of terrorism - mainly because swiss hardly ever get involved in them. one of the victims left a pregnant wife and two little kiddies. after getting a negative feedback from the insurance about any kind of payment (which is a shame for the swiss insurance company, no discussion about that) she turned to one of those organizations for help which collected money for the victims of the attacks. know what she was told? "no, we can't give you anything. the money was collected for the *american* heroes." now *that* really made me want to hit somebody.

sorry for the rant - but people here in europe cared and care a lot for you guys over the pond.

the doc

 

[CynVision]

Originally posted by TheDoc
I hope you're not serious with that statement, cyn. how can you judge wether the rest of the world cares or not? I was in canada when the horrible attack happened, and I cried. I still cry ... I understand very well what this attack means - it was the first time america had real terrorism in its own country. people were robbed of their feeling of security.

I'm not saying there are not other nations that care. I'm fully aware that there's nations that have put a lot of resources into tracking suspects following the WTC bombing. But the magnitude of what was done last year was lost on a lot of people. To so many interviewed on-site it was described as unreal or the apperance of a special effect. It is the unfortuate that images on a TV can't convey what happened. No where but five or six select cities have any buildings that size. How could any person ever imagine two of them coming down if they've never seen a 110 story building? The people in other nations that had a negative spin were the ones that I saw cheerfully looking at headlines and saying the US had gotten just desserts. I can't help thinking that if it weren't a hate of Americans, they'd not be so appreciative of it. If it were a hate of American politics, they'd be better pleased by a American leader being assinated than over 2,800 people from a number of nations. And maybe the media went out of it's way to find people like that the week following the building collapse. It's a lack in our reporting that I'm less aware of other friendly nations. But I'm betting they're nations that viewed along with most of the American nation in real time on satelite feed TV.

It wasn't the first act of terrorism. People involved in the 1993 explosion in the WTC were just as much victims of terrorism. And why didn't government officials take notice then? Because it was considered a failed attempt. The WTC adjusted a few security measures and life blindly went on. I think we can lay a lot of blame on the media for not recognizing that event was terrorism. And we can blame Americans' attitude for sitting back and accepting the spoon-feeding of news we get. I only learned yesterday that the collapse vaporized their memorial in the WTC courtyard.

And Doc is saying that individual American's aren't looked down on, but don't most American's get a bad rap not knowing cultures, enough basic local language and customs and being "too loud" when abroad? That sounds like something other than politics. But we've brought it on ourselves by being ignorant, arrogant, freedom-loving Americans.

 

[DragonBaby]

The western world all watched in horror and had the deepest sympathy for all those affected by 9/11. Everyone I know was glued to the tv, in shock and disbelief at first, and later longing for the news of survivors. Here in the UK many could empathise. We have had a great deal of terrorist attacks in the past, not to mention all the horrors of the blitz during WW2. I heard in a recent interview that the mayor of new york actually read books about Winston Churchill and the blitz to help him deal with 9/11.
I do think its a shame the way some of the press dealt with the aftermath. Initially the general opinion here was sympathy for all of America, but feelings began to change as reports came across of political statements. George Bush was reported saying things that made it sound as if no other nation had ever suffered in this way, that no one could possibly understand what Americans were going through. Many nations lost people in that tragedy, I'm sure they all understood perfectly. Later statements like "nations are either with us or aginst us" regarding the war. I dont think many people disagreed with the war but to say we either had to fight or were enemies of America was going too far. Often we know see the American leaders acting as if they are in charge of the world, that they decide what happens, when and where. It seems like its either Americas way or not at all. However I dont believe anyone blames that on the individual people in the US. It is a GOVERNMENT thing. We all still grieve and sympathise with those who lost someone.
But if nations like the UK, who are democratic and free like America can get irritated by all the "American way is the best way" hype imagine how countries who do not belive in democracy feel? A lot of countries actually choose not to be democratic. They do not believe the American way to be the best, and this doesnt make them wrong, just different! No other nation has the right to tell a country how it must be ruled. American politicians are too quick to assume that these countries need "saving". Not everyone in the world wants to be another US. When the US (or any other nation) has achieved perfection, with no poor, no suffering, no fights or trouble, then maybe that country can start telling the rest of the world how to live. Until then we should leave these nations in peace to live their own way. Maybe then we wouldnt see so much anger for the western way of life. It isnt right to assume that these poorer nations are "jealous", many of them think the democratic way to be an appaling way to live, and they are free to make that choice.
As for a movie, well I've been expecting that for months. I agree it needs to be tastefully done and MUST represent ALL view points, not just the Wests. But done it will be. And I for one wil watch it, and so will many others who would like to get a clearer picture of what happened that day. I watched a dramatisation of the flight 93 events last night. included interviews with the relatives. I now know how brave those people on the flight were and they truly are hereos, before I just knew that the flight never made its destination, no idea why. Its good for us to see the full story. Lets just hope the movie is done well and accurately and portrays all those poor people in a decent but honest way.

 

[keltikkitty]

DragonBaby
But if nations like the UK, who are democratic and free like America can get irritated by all the "American way is the best way" hype imagine how countries who do not belive in democracy feel? A lot of countries actually choose not to be democratic. They do not believe the American way to be the best, and this doesnt make them wrong, just different! No other nation has the right to tell a country how it must be ruled. American politicians are too quick to assume that these countries need "saving". Not everyone in the world wants to be another US. When the US (or any other nation) has achieved perfection, with no poor, no suffering, no fights or trouble, then maybe that country can start telling the rest of the world how to live. Until then we should leave these nations in peace to live their own way. Maybe then we wouldnt see so much anger for the western way of life. It isnt right to assume that these poorer nations are "jealous", many of them think the democratic way to be an appaling way to live, and they are free to make that choice.

I agree DragonBaby. I all too often get fed up with the way America tries to put it's nose in everybody elses business. If they choose to not be democratic, go for it. But hey, that's politics, or at least, US's and i doubt it will change anytime soon.

After reading my first post here, I decided I need to reiterate somethings.

I'm not condoning their actions nor am i trying to disrespect any one of the same religion.

I sympothize with my fellow americans about what happened. It was a tragic event. I hate it and wished it never happened. The point being that television and the movie industry is trying to capitalize on everything because they know that either a) most people want to find out more about the event or b) some people feel guilty for what happened and they think they can pay their respects by watching the specials and the movies. That is what is disgusting. :disgust:

keltikkitty:aliengray

 

[DragonBaby]

I agree kitty. The makers of these movies are in it purely for the money but I guess while people, myself included, are prepared to watch such things they will carry on making them.
Its a bit like the Princess Diana thing. The press were blamed for causing her death, for hounding her and never giving her any privacy. The public screamed that the press should be controlled, the same public who bought ever damn newspaper and magazine she was in!!! If they wanted to give her privacy why didnt they stop buying them, the press would have stopped bothering her if she was no longer a "marketable product".
Truth is millions of people want to read this stuff and see movies about it so the industry keeps on providing it. Maybe its just human nature.
I guess the best we can hope for is that the producers of this movie donate a portion of the profits to one of the related charities. That way we can all feel better about them making it and about ourselves watching it.

 

[CynVision]

Originally posted by keltikkitty
You could make a whole series about all the brave people who showed dedication, perseverance and camaraderie. I'm sure that's what some evil little scheming mind in Hollywood is doing right now. Coming up with a series based on it. But alas, I do agree somewhat with that statement. IF you’re going to tell the story, tell the whole story.

No need to wait. The New York Times has had an ongoing series of articles and the Discovery Channel has made a sort of pilot program that's covering a few of the stories. The documentary makers have been making TV shows about the bombing for the whole year. I liked the one showing photographs taken by local news photographers. But I've yet to see one reenact the events from the "inside." I'd guess that is the angle the bigger budget movies would try. But we could only hope for respect to those involved. And it's making me wonder who exactly is selling the rights to their personal story.

 

[keltikkitty]

I know DragonBaby. My mom did the whole Princess Diana thing too. I hope they do give a portion to charity.

CynVision: I kinda figured there were some sort of ones. <after I posted. And I guess I see a whole series idea in my head.>

I just get rather annoyed and angry about this thing. :angryfire :angryfire I tend to rant on about it.

Toodles everybody, last post of the evening

Keltikkitty:aliengray

 

[DragonBaby]

Originally posted by CynVision
No need to wait. The New York Times has had an ongoing series of articles and the Discovery Channel has made a sort of pilot program that's covering a few of the stories. The documentary makers have been making TV shows about the bombing for the whole year. I liked the one showing photographs taken by local news photographers. But I've yet to see one reenact the events from the "inside." I'd guess that is the angle the bigger budget movies would try. But we could only hope for respect to those involved. And it's making me wonder who exactly is selling the rights to their personal story.

Yep like Cyn says people are SELLING their story. Probably not so much for the money but because they want to get their story told. In the flight 93 reconstruction there were lots of family members interviewed, talking about phone calls they recieved from people on the plane and events as they happened. I suppose these people must want to tell the story to their world. They are not being forced to do it, or having other people make it up so maybe for them it is a way of dealing with what happened. I'm sure that anyone who wants to be left alone and not have their story told will be respected.

 

[Dave]

This is an interesting discussion, with lots of good points, but to return to the original one, I don't think Dean Devlin is "disgusting" for making a film of this. If people don't want to see it, they needn't go, I don't think it should be some sacred thing, never allowed to be touched.

Personally, I don't like these real-life drama things at all, and as has already been said, they usually don't tell the full story, and they over dramatise other parts, so they aren't a realistic portrayal of the story. But they are popular, and they're also nothing new. The was a film of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster made very quickly afterwards.

I know people in Britain did understand what it meant to Americans, and in other parts of the world too. I think that it Britain we have become a little immune to acts of Terrorism being able to shock us so much, we have had so many, but the WTC still did, probably because it was such a major landmark. That's exactly why it was chosen.

This was more shocking to America simply because they never believed it was possible, or refused to believe. But with the Murrah Federal Building in Atlanta, and now the Twin Towers in New York, they need to wake up to it.

And California lives under threat of Earthquakes too, it isn't just third world countries who live with that threat.

 

[CynVision]

Originally posted by DragonBaby
Yep like Cyn says people are SELLING their story. Probably not so much for the money but because they want to get their story told.

I donno. Directly after the WTC collapse there was a knee jerk reaction of some of the CEOs of the companies involved balking at the relatives of the people that died saying they were entitled to future wages. The seemingly "act of God" nature of the collapse had them thinking "why should you get money, your spouse isn't alive to work" sort of thing. When the press got wind of that they changed their minds and provided some portion of salary. Also, there was a time where who was going to get funds when was in the news. People need money, are never happy with what is given, and will do what is needed to get more. And not everyone could be this way, but there must be a few desperate people in the survivors and relatives who'd consider selling stories.

Originally posted by DaveH

And California lives under threat of Earthquakes too, it isn't just third world countries who live with that threat.

But how many people die in any one quake? Less in California because of better building standards and rescue options. I'm unsure of the numbers. But I'm thinking of the mental picture brought into the mind of someone in a country were 2,000 dying in one event would seem small. I have to admit I'm not clear on this issue in my own head. My ideas are usually way out there, so don't mind me. I'm still thinking there has to be people that when told or reading what happened just cannot picture the enormity of the situation. Until we have a virtual reality playback technology that could place someone next to a reconstruction of the rubble... it's too much for a person to imagine unaided.

Originally posted by DaveH
I don't think Dean Devlin is "disgusting" for making a film of this..

My sister and I got into talking about this. We can't be disgusted with Dean Devlin for wanting to make a film that may or may not be different from his other films than we can critize Robin Williams for making a few horror/suspense films where he's a bad guy after he's been a comdian for much of his career. Actors and directors want to challange themselves. So if he's wishing to try it, he will and he'll get feedback from the movie reviewers and public.

 

[Texane]

Originally posted by DragonBaby
imagine how countries who do not belive in democracy feel? A lot of countries actually choose not to be democratic. They do not believe the American way to be the best, and this doesnt make them wrong, just different!

And anytime they want to STOP calling on our government to prop up their banks, send food and medicine, give them tariff/loan breaks, and clean up their messes, we are sure ready. I really would rather my tax dollars be sent to the Swiss families whose insurance companies did not provide for them.

 

[DragonBaby]

Oh sure I agree with that. I hate they way the western world gives more and more and the requests are never ending. I may think Bush has said and done a lot of wrong things but I admire his stand on the world summit. They shouldnt be telling us how to live, and we shouldnt be telling them. All countries should be left to develop at their own pace. But maybe those checks and aids should come with conditions rather than given freely, then the country attacked by force?