SilverNRed Posted July 9, 2005 Posted July 9, 2005 Link NEW YORK - Nearly four years after the collapse of the World Trade Center, Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone will direct a film based on the story of two police officers who were trapped in the rubble on Sept. 11, 2001. Nicolas Cage, who won a best-actor Oscar for "Leaving Las Vegas," will star as Port Authority police Sgt. John McLoughlin. McLoughlin and fellow officer William J. Jimeno became trapped during rescue efforts after the collapse of the twin towers. Sounds like a good movie if he plays it straight.... But Stone is pretty famous for being a conspiracy theorist. Should be interesting.
Nanker Posted July 9, 2005 Posted July 9, 2005 I know I'm gonna lose it right after we pull a sneak attack on Hiroshima and start WWII causing the Russians to declare Cold War on us and Joe Hill takes over the Kennicot Copper Mine to keep Warren Beatty in Moscow during the Bolshevik revolution.
SilverNRed Posted July 9, 2005 Author Posted July 9, 2005 I know I'm gonna lose it right after we pull a sneak attack on Hiroshima and start WWII causing the Russians to declare Cold War on us and Joe Hill takes over the Kennicot Copper Mine to keep Warren Beatty in Moscow during the Bolshevik revolution. 378104[/snapback] My guess is Stone claims the CIA was behind 9/11 and the entire attack was designed to kill one person working in the WTC who had knowledge that could prove the moon landings were all faked and that Fidel Castro received more votes in the 2000 election than either Bush or Gore. Oh, and one or two historical figures will turn out to be bisexual.
Chilly Posted July 10, 2005 Posted July 10, 2005 My guess is Stone claims the CIA was behind 9/11 and the entire attack was designed to kill one person working in the WTC who had knowledge that could prove the moon landings were all faked and that Fidel Castro received more votes in the 2000 election than either Bush or Gore. Oh, and one or two historical figures will turn out to be bisexual. 378119[/snapback] Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. Matt Damon. (Proud Member of FAG!)
UConn James Posted July 10, 2005 Posted July 10, 2005 Oh, and one or two historical figures will turn out to be bisexual. 378119[/snapback] Bernie Kerik? Wouldn't surprise me......... Is America ready? I don't know. If people go to see it, I guess we are. And then maybe some better ones can be made. Because the plotline here sounds like a lot of narrow filler dialogue and very short on any meaningful commentary or overarching story. Kind of like his other movies. Here's the question -- would you show a point-of-view pan-up camera shot following along as the plane crashes in? How do you show something like that?
Ghost of BiB Posted July 10, 2005 Posted July 10, 2005 Bernie Kerik? Wouldn't surprise me......... Is America ready? I don't know. If people go to see it, I guess we are. And then maybe some better ones can be made. Because the plotline here sounds like a lot of narrow filler dialogue and very short on any meaningful commentary or overarching story. Kind of like his other movies. Here's the question -- would you show a point-of-view pan-up camera shot following along as the plane crashes in? How do you show something like that? 378240[/snapback] Off subject...but has anyone flown a flight where they show a pilot's eye view of takeoff and landing? ANA (777's) has a nose mounted camera that you can flick to a channel on and see what's in front of the plane. I've always wondered if that was that great an idea. What would happen if you change the channel and see nothing but water? Landing in Hong Kong can be adventurous on a good day.
blzrul Posted July 10, 2005 Posted July 10, 2005 Off subject...but has anyone flown a flight where they show a pilot's eye view of takeoff and landing? ANA (777's) has a nose mounted camera that you can flick to a channel on and see what's in front of the plane. I've always wondered if that was that great an idea. What would happen if you change the channel and see nothing but water? Landing in Hong Kong can be adventurous on a good day. 378250[/snapback] I sure don't want to see it. But then I have been watching too many "Seconds from Disaster" episodes on the National Geographic channel lately. I better stick the The Deadliest Catch (which my husband calls "Guys Fishing for Crabs").
RkFast Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 Here's the question -- would you show a point-of-view pan-up camera shot following along as the plane crashes in? How do you show something like that? 378240[/snapback] I did something like this a few times on Microsoft Flight Simulator. I loaded up a 767, took off from JFK and smashed it into the Empire State Building at 400 knots. Basically, just pointed the aircraft at the tower and then jammed the throttles to FULL on the joystick. Maybe its becuase I knew I was simulating a real-life event, but even on a somewhat crude in-home PC simulation, it was downright chilling when I slammed my virtual 767 into that tower.
PTS Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 Way too soon for a 9/11 movie. 378099[/snapback] I agree and disagree. I feel like much of America already forgot what happened on 9/11. I wish TV networks replayed that day on every 9/11 for those that forgot. Also, profits from any movie about 9/11 should got to 9/11 victims. No company should profit off of this.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 Also, profits from any movie about 9/11 should got to 9/11 victims. No company should profit off of this. 378801[/snapback] Except for that stupid dipschit who has already gone through her 4 million or whatever and cried on ABC that she had to buy 5,000 pairs of shoes for "therapy" purposes. Fug her.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 Except for that stupid dipschit who has already gone through her 4 million or whatever and cried on ABC that she had to buy 5,000 pairs of shoes for "therapy" purposes. Fug her. 378807[/snapback] And Michael Moore. Anyone know how many of the profits from "Farenheit 9/11" went to families of 9/11 victims?
Ghost of BiB Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 I agree and disagree. I feel like much of America already forgot what happened on 9/11. I wish TV networks replayed that day on every 9/11 for those that forgot. Also, profits from any movie about 9/11 should got to 9/11 victims. No company should profit off of this. 378801[/snapback] I hate to prod the bear, but I don't think there should be any more 9/11 payouts. People die, tragically, every day. It's definitely a feel good thing but the truth is, Americans have died through terrorism before that, and are likely to again. Who's running the telethon for the next one? If Stone makes a movie, people watch it and whoever makes money, it's their money. Public opinion might force a contribution to something, but it's business. Anyone who feels strongly can voice their opinion by not watching it.
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Author Posted July 12, 2005 I hate to prod the bear, but I don't think there should be any more 9/11 payouts. People die, tragically, every day. It's definitely a feel good thing but the truth is, Americans have died through terrorism before that, and are likely to again. Who's running the telethon for the next one? If Stone makes a movie, people watch it and whoever makes money, it's their money. Public opinion might force a contribution to something, but it's business. Anyone who feels strongly can voice their opinion by not watching it. 379165[/snapback] I think there should be payouts to families of those killed or injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Victims of 9/11 are just that - victims - but the people who enlisted in the armed forces and lost their lives defending our country are heroes. The disparity between what a 9/11 family gets and what a military family gets is disgusting.
Alaska Darin Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 I think there should be payouts to families of those killed or injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Victims of 9/11 are just that - victims - but the people who enlisted in the armed forces and lost their lives defending our country are heroes. The disparity between what a 9/11 family gets and what a military family gets is disgusting. 379366[/snapback] It'd be better if the government would give us more than $250K in life insurance. Alot of life insurance companies won't cover you if you're killed in combat.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 And Michael Moore. Anyone know how many of the profits from "Farenheit 9/11" went to families of 9/11 victims? 379042[/snapback] Well, let's do the math, shall we? The film cost approximately $6 million to make. The standard industry rule is to use equal that amount in prints and ads. For 9/11, they did a lot of advertising. Let's double the 6 and say they spent 12 million on ads (It's probably a lot more) As far as I know, and it may very well be more than this, before DVD sales, and PPV, etc., the film had grossed well over 150 million in box office. According to Disney, they are giving 60% of the profits to the charity, as per the contract and agreement they made with Moore and Miramax. Moore probably pocketed 20 million or so from his profit package. Miramax took some millions. Disney some. That still leaves 100 million or so. I would estimate that Disney, to date, has probably donated, oh, approximately, ZERO of that so far. Give or take a buck.
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Author Posted July 12, 2005 It'd be better if the government would give us more than $250K in life insurance. Alot of life insurance companies won't cover you if you're killed in combat. 379401[/snapback] Forget the government. Thanks to donations to the red cross that and telethon right after 9/11, didn't the average 9/11 family rake in a couple million bucks or so? Another telethon on network TV could easily rake in tens of millions of dollars and that would go a long way towards helping thsoe families. Unfortunately, Hollywood has absolutely no motivation to do something like this because they don't like the war. They just like to support the troops....by doing absolutely nothing. (Similar to Chris Rock bashing everything the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing during his opening Oscar monologue and then finishing by giving a "shout out" to them. Rang pretty hollow.)
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Author Posted July 12, 2005 I would estimate that Disney, to date, has probably donated, oh, approximately, ZERO of that so far. Give or take a buck. 379418[/snapback] Sounds about right.
SilverNRed Posted July 13, 2005 Author Posted July 13, 2005 Oliver Stone, one month after 9/11..... Link [O]liver Stone, another panelist, shook his head in disbelief. From the start of the discussion, Stone, the writer-director of such political films as "Salvador" and "JFK," had seemed jumpy, swivelling his thick neck like a turret gun at the sound of any foolishness or naïveté. Now his voice rumbled up from his chest and he began to illuminate the dark levers that move the film industry and, by extension, the world. "There's been conglomeration under six principal princes—they're kings, they're barons!—and these six companies have control of the world," he said, referring to such corporations as Fox and AOL Time Warner. His voice grew louder as his ideas took shape. "Michael Eisner decides, 'I can't make a movie about Martin Luther King, Jr.—they'll be rioting at the gates of Disneyland!' That's bull sh--! But that's what the new world order is." There was a storm of applause. "They control culture, they control ideas. And I think the revolt of September 11th was about '!@#$ you! !@#$ your order—' " Could this man be any less sane? And he's the one Hollywood picked to direct the first big budget 9/11 movie???? Yeah, sounds about right.
Recommended Posts