I'm sure this will be a sensitive subject for some people, so I'd like to apologise in advance if I cause any offense. I've read recently that Paramount and another production company are developing two different projects about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. One is about Flight 93, the hijacked plane destined for the Pentagon which was brought down by passengers who sacrificed their lives. I think the other project has Nicholas Cage attached and is about the World Trade Centre attacks.

My questions are, do you think these types of films are appropriate at this time? When people may only be starting to get over 9/11? Or do you think these films should be made to remind people of the great American spirit and how a country, as well as the world, united and stood firm in the face of these attrocities?

I knew that a film about September 11th was bound to happen. But I didn't think it would be this soon, with all the trouble and uncertainty in the world. Is Hollywood right to be doing this? Or is it just trying to line its pockets?  

When it comes to art no subject should be off limits. It's our way of coping. It's cathartic and seves a greater purpose. So I say if it's done well...fine!

Ditto... I'm not American so obviously it affected me in different ways, but enough time has passed to put the events into a proper context and therefore use the events to explore the issues surrounding it...

However these films at the moment sound like safe-ground, movie of the week heroism stuff... Still, fair-play and al that...

What offends me more is this...

Quoted Text TSUNAMI MOVIE WASHES INTO THEATERS 08.09.05 By Dave Davis Contributing sources: Variety Unlike the events of 9/11, which filmmakers are just now collectively daring to approach nearly four years later, there's no such waiting period for tragedy affecting other parts of the globe.  So... tsunami movie! The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and resultant tsunami killed over 300,000 and affected millions of unfortunate people in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and even Africa (or, as they're all known in the US, 'foreigners').  Writer-director Michael Patwin will focus on the grim aftermath of this disaster with Hereafter, which will center on an unshod American who slogs through 70 miles of destroyed property and shattered lives on a quest to find his wife and kids. Leave it to the Hollywood mentality to take the anguish of millions and reassign it to the POV of a single American... The producers plan to donate a large percentage of the film's potential earnings to disaster relief organizations, thereby giving the impression they're not benefiting too much from the misery of others.

Article

Not even a year...  

If the film was done right then I would be happy. I just wouldn't like to see big star names attached because to me this would make it less realistic, and this is a film that has to be realistic in order to satisfy people.

Personally, I think there is only one way to go with this film, and that is to represent faithfully every party which was involved; the plane passangers, people in the WTC, fire and police crews, etc. This could be done by designating one or two main characters to each group. That way we would get to see everybody that was involved, instead of just concentrating on one story.

I know this would be hard to do, but it could be done. Look at James Cameron's Titanic, which showed passangers from the different social classes who were all involved in the same tragedy. This way you got to see everyone who was involved throughout every stage of the disaster; from the ship hitting the iceberg, to the people left stranded on the rescue ship.  

Quoted from Acroname If the film was done right then I would be happy. I just wouldn't like to see big star names attached because to me this would make it less realistic, and this is a film that has to be realistic in order to satisfy people. Personally, I think there is only one way to go with this film, and that is to represent faithfully every party which was involved; the plane passangers, people in the WTC, fire and police crews, etc. This could be done by designating one or two main characters to each group. That way we would get to see everybody that was involved, instead of just concentrating on one story.

To be honest, I think you'll see that movie someday, but I daresay it'll be done with 'big names' - Towering Inferno stylee...

I think if the critical, audience and (let's be honest) box-office reaction to these two films is positive then you'll see a glut of 9/11 movies hitting the production pipeline! Right now studios only seem to bbe dipping their toes into these perilous waters.

True. Hollywood does tend to milk franchises these days. Although I never thought of 9/11 as a movie franchise. I know its all about business with these big film Executives but surely they wouldn't sink that low just to make money...?  

Quoted from Acroname I know its all about business with these big film Executives but surely they wouldn't sink that low just to make money...?

I think they would, the trick for them is to make it look like that's not what they're doing... Let's look at it this way, no studio is going to invest $50-100+ million in a film (which is probably what these'll cost) purely out of social conscience... Those days have now passed, if they ever existed...  

Yeah but they need to invest such money in something they're sure will be a crowd pleaser, especially for a film of this magnitude where so many people have strong opinions about it. If audiences aren't satisfied then negative word-of-mouth will spread very fast and less people will bother to go and see it. This is one film that can't be done half-as*ed. Hollywood can't attempt this film just for the money - this film has to please audiences. This is more than just a money-spinner. Far more.     

Donate any profits to the families and funds alike and I'll say it's a good idea if not it's bad; Imagine what the families are thinking about this news.

Hollywood is taking advantage of the ones who died and even though I'm not American it affected us all. This is wrong and whoever attaches themselves to it I hope they enjoy exploiting the victims.

That's exactly what I thought when I first heard about this. I really think its too soon to be making films about 9/11, especially with the recent London bombs and the ongoing war in Iraq. The film industry should allow people to escape from the trouble going on around the world, not remind them of it, and I think thats what these films will do.  

If you really think about it, though, Hollywood has been about victim exploitation for quite some time. *cough*Titanic*cough* That was one of the greatest disasters in maritime history and there are at least a dozen movies about it. Wars have probably hundreds of movies about them and the people in them -- obviously called "war" movies. Gettysburg was the bloodiest battle on American soil killing over 300,000 people, and we have movies about it.

Murderers have their fair share of movies; especially serial ones. These are smaller scale tragedies, but not small scale to the ones who lived through them. Even little things like the Jon Benet Ramsey tragedy get movies made. A six year old gets killed as soon as it is plastered all over, the filmmakers wants a piece of it.

I think we're stuck with these movies, because we always have been. Whether these movies are made now or not, they will be someday and forever. Especially 9/11. In 50 years, we'll go to the theatre and there will be another movie about it, but that time, 50 years later, it'll be even more graphic and explicit.

Do people forget? No. Even James Cameron and his Titanic had a member of the family of the guy who shot himself in the head after he refused the bribe. They insisted he did not kill himself and were offended that Cameron had him do that. Does Hollywood care? No.

I'll go back to writing my fictional stories again now...

I suppose nothing WE say will change Hollywood's mind now anyway. Afterall, we're only the people who PAY to get into these films and make the studios their mega-millions, so who are we to disagree with them?

I believe the problem is that people DO pay to see them, which is why they continue to be made. If no one ever goes to see these films, then Hollywood would never make them. As long as people keep going; they'll keep turning them out.

I never thought about it like that but you're right. But then that's how Hollywood works; if a particular kind of film is successful, they assume there is a trend for it, so they continue making similar movies to follow the trend. Then the trend becomes overdone and dies out, then they follow another trend. I suppose they'll do the same with 9/11 films if they do well at the box office.

I think I'm veering off topic here, but I can't understand why Hollywood filmmakers don't just break the mould and do something completely different instead of following trends because I think film-goers quickly get bored of seeing similar films.      

Quoted from Acroname That's exactly what I thought when I first heard about this. I really think its too soon to be making films about 9/11, especially with the recent London bombs and the ongoing war in Iraq. The film industry should allow people to escape from the trouble going on around the world, not remind them of it, and I think thats what these films will do.

I think the issue is whether or not these films are, or will be seen to be, 'exploitational.'

Truth be told, these won't be the first films to deal with 9/11 and its aftermath... Spike Lee's 'The 25th Hour' took the brave step of showing 'Ground Zero' and addressing the issue of post 9/11 New Yorker feeling, when most film-makers where doing everything they could do literally erase the 'Twin Towers' from their movies as if they never existed (eg. Serendipity). Also Antonia Bird's 'The Hamburg Cell' is a fictionalised account of the putting together of the group of 9/11 terrorists and the religious 'brainwashing' involved... Pretty good it was too, all told.

If the issue is dealt with seriously, and openly, then I don't see what is to feared from 9/11 movies... As George wisely says - they will be made sometime... If, however, somebody is planning a heist movie where a robbery is taking place in one of the twin towers on the morning of 9/11. Then that would be in poor taste.

EDIT: To me, it sounds as if Hollwood are playing it safe with the two movies planned... They seem to be pitched at the 'triumph of the sprit' level... Ie. showing the nobility of human nature in the face of adversity... ie. risking their own lives to save others. To be honest, this seems to me like TV 'movie of the week' stuff that's only going big-screen because of the 9/11 issues. Should they be made? I don't know... Will they add anything to the 'debate' by their existence? We'll have to wait and see... There are some pretty good documetaries that cover some of this ground anyway, one following a fire-crew on 9/11... It's actually called 9/11 and if you haven't seen it then it's well worth seeking out.

To adress your second point, that movies should only be made to provide escapism... Sorry but I can't agree... Fictional (ie. Non-documentary) films can also, and should, be used to raise and deal with societies issues - however they should also tell a good story too, of course... The current prevailing idea that the audience does not want to think is a big part of the reason that a lot of Hollywood's output has been aimed at the 'lowest common denominator' as of late.

I love pure escapism as much as the next guy, but I'll take one 'Salvador' over a hundred 'Van Helsings' anyday!

Maybe I'm coming across wrong. I enjoy watching films which deal with modern society and consequently make me feel differently about it. I myself have wrote scripts about the problems within modern society. Afterall, this is one of the film industry's most powerful attributes, that it can have an effect on how people view the world they are living in through pure fiction. So when I said the industry should allow people to escape from the problems going on in the world, I didn't mean that should be the only reason to make films.

I meant films about 9/11, which is an extremely controversial subject to be exploring because in the real world the repercussions of that day are still being felt and people are still getting hurt. This is what I meant when I said people don't need reminding of it in another trend of big-budget, block-buster films.  


   

I don't like the film Titanic, it's one of those pointless movies a lot of gullable people wasted good cash on.

I watched a documentary on raising the Titanic and exploring the Titanic, both were very interesting and weren't exploitative because they focused on the ship itself at the bottom of the ocean.

Granted they make films about serial killers but those films suck anyway, why do we need more true story bulls*** that sucks and probably costs more money than it takes to make a good film?

Make a documentary about it, we don't need any films.

Quoted from Acroname Maybe I'm coming across wrong... I meant films about 9/11, which is an extremely controversial subject to be exploring because in the real world the repercussions of that day are still being felt and people are still getting hurt. This is what I meant when I said people don't need reminding of it in another trend of big-budget, block-buster films.

Ah, re-reading your post, I think I read it wrong the first time... Thanks for clarifying!

Still, I think that the answer to whether or not the issue of 9/11 should be addressed, at this time, in film, boils down to intention... As in, what are they intending to do with the issue? My gut reaction to these announcements are that they'll be little more than emotionally manipulative 'Oscar Bait.'

I think maybe it 'is' too soon for 9/11 movies, in my mind not for the same reasons as you feel, but rather that the film-makers will pull their punches and not do the subject justice. I think that, at the moment, most of the media is still aware that attempting to take a larger world view of everything leading up to, detailing, and coming off from that event tends to be decried as un-American and un-Patriotic. (Wasn't Maggie Gyllenhall subject to this recently) I think that the film-makers will have this in mind when making them.

I don't think these movies will really offend anyone through their content, they sound to me like they're going to be pure 'flag-waving' fests...  

However some will rightly question the motives behind these films 'at this time.' Which is a perfectly valid question...

Crikey, I'm knackered... Does the above make any sense?

BTW: IMDB page for Oliver Stone 9/11 pic

Quoted from Acroname I suppose nothing WE say will change Hollywood's mind now anyway. Afterall, we're only the people who PAY to get into these films and make the studios their mega-millions, so who are we to disagree with them?

So don't pay to see it when it comes out, Boycot the film. They already did do a 9/11 film anyway I can remember seeing the trailer for it on a late night show. I'm sick of all these Hollywood fat cats who have nothing better to do than make green and have their fingers stuck in every hollywood corporate cake that's going.

Fine films like TERMINATOR we need but taking profits from the misery of others and the lives that where taken on 9/11 is just a complete farce. Back then I had a script on a terrorist group in the works but when that happened i stopped the script I killed it and it was just for posting on here. I couldn't write it after seeing the atrocities that had taken place.

If the film is done to cope and to shed light on the heroism of the people involved, it's fine.

I'm glad a lot of you share my views on this, even though my views are a little mixed at the moment! And Roger I totally get what you're saying! I've kinda lost faith in the film industry recently, and when I heard they were doing these 9/11 movies I really doubted that they could pull them off successfully. It all seems rushed to me. I really don't see the point of making films about 9/11 yet, except that the studios must think it has the potential to make a lot of money. This seems to be the only logical explanation for attempting a film like this. Like Roger said, the days when Executives invest millions of dollars into a production purely for social conscience are long gone.

Thanks again for your views everyone! This was a good, informative debate. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the filmmakers come up with. But if they don't do this film right, I will have serious doubts as to whether today's filmmakers are competent enough to be making films.    

Some updates on both films.

United 93

The trailer can be seen here

World Trade Center

Poster can be seen here

-Zavier

You know what the problem is?  Well, first off, I don't mind that either film is coming out, what I don't like is how these films are only a few months apart in their release dates.  Do we need 2 9/11 movies in one summer?  Come on.  This is like the Matrix sequels crap.

The trailer for "United 93" looks more like a movie made for cable TV, which I'm pretty sure one has already been filmed and aired numerous times.  "World Trade Center" looks like it recaps all of the 9/11 events, which could make for a solid epic.  The problem is that any movie based on 9/11 can't even have a remotely happy ending because we never got the bad guys.  Pearl Harbor gave you some satisfaction at the end because we got the bad guys.  We won.  

So I'll probably see both of these.  I'm questioning the production value of "United 93," because I also noticed that it has a bunch of no-names in the cast.  I'm still completely against the idea of releasing these so close to each other.  I think it's stupid.

Wow, Oliver Stone is doing World Trade Center. They pulled some muscle on that one, didn't they?

The trailer for Stone's World Trade Center can now be seen here

-Zavier

WOW.  I think Oliver Stone has topped himself.  Looks great!

Quoted from The boy who could fly WOW.  I think Oliver Stone has topped himself.  Looks great!

Agreed, I was one of the few people that actually saw Alexander. After that I seriously doubted if Stone could redeem himself but this looks really good.

-Zavier  

United 93 was not only a GOOD movie but the way it was done was almost as a memorial to those on that fateful flight...

i dont mind movies about 9/11 and the tsunami... as long as it's done  and handled with care and respect.

Quoted from Nixon Agreed, I was one of the few people that actually saw Alexander. After that I seriously doubted if Stone could redeem himself but this looks really good. -Zavier

Alexander was a mess, but most of his other stuff is usually good.  I think he is the perfect director for this, it dosn't look exploitive at all, instead it looks very respectful.

This film looks so good it isn't even funny. I can't wait for this to come out. Just the trailer tops United 93 as a whole (though it was an OK movie.)

I can't wait until August 9th...

-Chris

I thought Pirates was gonna be the best film of the summer.  I think I spoke too soon, this looks like the one

Pirates will be the best in box office, but this'll be the most  acclaimed film and the most...respected film.

I think this may be one of those movies with stay power, like the 6th sense, it really doesnt have that much competition by that time, I mean Pirates, superman, MI3, Da Vinci code, Miami vice , x men 3 will have been out for a while.  And I'm sure adults will be happy that there's a movie for them out there, cause I think the only "adult" movie this summer is Miami Vice.

Wow... that trailer was great. I really love the end titles "two men saw something else"

Upon seeing the trailer, I don't think the film looks that good. For a start, I think they were wrong to add big names such as Nicholas Cage to the mix, because that will disassociate a lot of people from the reality of what happened that day. Nick Cage was probably in Barbados sipping a cocktail when the planes hit. They should have got unknowns to play the lead role(s). It wasn't big stars who got trapped under the rubble of those towers, it was unknown, ordinary people.

They shouldn't have focused centrally on the two police officers and they're families. Too many people were involved that day to focus on just two families. They should have shown families from every side of the story; the passangers on the planes, the people in the towers, the police officers and rescue teams, and ordinary bystanders; and how the events that day affected, or ended, their lives. I understand that all of these people will probably be seen through the main characters, but no paticular focus is being placed on them. I think this is wrong.

And also, I don't think the film should have been made this soon. The war is still continuing.  

If they didn't focus on one or two particular characters, they wouldn't have a film to work with.

These guys were the last people saved, so it was the perfect two characters to "Focus" on.

But I do agree about the Cage thing. He didn't need to be in it.

-Chris

Quoted from FilmMaker06 If they didn't focus on one or two particular characters, they wouldn't have a film to work with. These guys were the last people saved, so it was the perfect two characters to "Focus" on. But I do agree about the Cage thing. He didn't need to be in it. -Chris

WOW.... I actually agree with Rapture , well except for the nic cage part , he is one of the best actors around, and in a film like this he could excel in  

I know this probably isn't the most appropriate example to use, but take Pulp Fiction for example. Look at the different characters and stories explored in that film. Tarantino had plenty to work with. And he handled it all well.

And I know I've already used this example above, but think about Titanic. James Cameron designated characters for each of the different social levels explored in that film, and showed them through all the stages of that catastrophe. I know the central story was about Jack and Rose, but even then, the film would not have had that kind of impact without the secondary characters such as Molly Brown, Thomas Andrews, William Murdoch, Fabrizio and Tommy, etc.

But this is just what I think. The film will still probably do well at the box office. I just think it would have been better if all the other people affected that day were better represented.  

the movie would probably be like 5 hrs long if you showed how it effected everyone.  This is a great story about 2 men who survived this, I mean a building collapsed on them and they lived, that's amazing, That's a real story.

I think I'll write my own fan script and you'll see exactly what I mean. It can be done, within the normal running time for a feature film. As I said, the film will probably do well anyway. I'm just saying I think it could have been done better, as it is with most Hollywood films nowadays. We'll agree to disagree lol!  

lol...it ok

Quoted from Acroname And I know I've already used this example above, but think about Titanic. James Cameron designated characters for each of the different social levels explored in that film, and showed them through all the stages of that catastrophe. I know the central story was about Jack and Rose, but even then, the film would not have had that kind of impact without the secondary characters such as Molly Brown, Thomas Andrews, William Murdoch, Fabrizio and Tommy, etc. But this is just what I think. The film will still probably do well at the box office. I just think it would have been better if all the other people affected that day were better represented.

Have you seen the film yet?

If all you have seen was the trailer then it is still to early to say that the film does not show the lives of the many different people that were affected by the tragedy.

Like in most of the Titanic promo's the central focus was on the love story but like you pointed out James Cameron showed the many different stories as well, in the actual movie.

We'll just have to wait for this movie to come out to judge its' effectivness. Trailers are often misleading.

I couldn't agree more about trailers being misleading. But, I've read the official synopsis for the film as well as a few others and all they talk about are the two police officers. But then again, I suppose they can only say so much in a synopsis! I still don't have a lot of faith in this film, but like you said, Screamer, I'll just wait until the film comes out and see if it satisfies me.