You are on an individual archive page

Click here to return to the main page

Wikipedia does good things. Reward them.

The Daily Links Page
Got a link to submit?
  • New Evidence Proves First Flag Made By Betsy Ross Actually Shirt For Gay Friend
  • Colbert Leads Huntsman in S.C.
  • Polish prosecutor 'shoots self after news conference'
  • Jim Rome leaving ESPN. Bonus: Footage of Jim Rome getting attacked by Jim Everett & crying like a baby
  • Broncos, Tim Tebow stun Steelers in OT, win 29-23 in NFL playoffs
  • Video: Remember 2008
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop-Bop faces weapon and drug charges
  • Video: Green Bay anchorman loves lamp
  • Video: Rodgers & Raji in the new Discount Double Check ad
  • Jim Rome: out of The Jungle and onto the (horse) farm
  • New IL Law Requires Photo ID To Buy Drain Cleaner
  • Fawn Cuddles Kitten, Hearts Explode
  • The priest who changed the course of history for the worse... by rescuing four-year-old Hitler from drowning in icy river
  • Get Fit or Get Fined: Web Service Offers to Charge You for Skipping the Gym
  • Fine proposed for botching US national anthem
  • Why Best Buy is Going out of Business...Gradually
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Edina boutique takes heat for trashing $4,000-plus gowns
  • Law Student Goes 'Homeless by Choice' Touts Value of Gym Club Membership
  • VIDEO: Snoop Dogg on 'The Price Is Right'
  • Flynn and Out
  • Don't put Bielema on the firing line
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Your end of the season Vikings comment thread
  • Mass. budget motel fights forfeiture by feds
  • Vikings scrutinize downtown Mpls. stadium site near basilica
  • Kelly Clarkson criticized on Twitter after singer endorses Ron Paul for President 
  • Political Predictions for 2012
  • We're All Doing The Best We Can
  • Video Of Little Girl Getting Pissed Off About Pink Toys Will Make Your Heart Swell
  • The 10 best sports-related Hitler Reactions of 2011
  • Happy Endings on the housing crisis
  • Why You Just Got New York Times Spam
  • There Will Be No Friday This Week In Samoa
  • The Most Hipster State In The US
  • Online Merchants Home in on Imbibing Consumers
       [ 1 comment ]
  • On islamic fashion
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Sears as Lampert's 'Mismanaged Asset' Loses Customers to Macy's
       [ 1 comment ]
  • 5 social network predictions for 2012
  • Cheetah, chimp star of classic Tarzan movies, dies at 80
  • The Hottest Things on TV in 2011
  • Beer in cans: It's not just for Bud anymore
  • Seven Packers earn Pro Bowl selections
  • The Worst Angry Christmas Tweets In the World
  • Minnesota cities try to hold back on rented housing
  • Why Iowa Shouldn't Vote First Anymore
  • Some Falcons Players Upset Drew Brees Went For The Record Last Night
  • We've Identified Jilted Packergirl
  • With its 'W' initiative, ESPN tries to solve the equation of serving women sports fans
  • Owner surprised to find cat regularly catches bus
  • Charles Barkley: Skip Bayless Has Surpassed Peter Vecsey As The Biggest Jackass In The History Of Journalism
  • Handicapping the 2011 NFL MVP Race, 2.0


  • 9/11 Movie Poll

       August 22, 2005

    I've been watching the results of our 9/11 movie poll. As of now, our readers are split 50/50 on whether or not it's too soon to make movies about 9/11.

    I already gave my opinion on the matter, so now I'm curious why some of you think it's inappropriate or just too soon for movies. If you think it's too soon, how long do you think it's respectful to wait? Are you worried more about a particular type of movie? Basically, I want to understand why this is such a divisive question.

    Feel free to expand on your opinion in the comment section.

    Posted by at August 22, 2005 01:10 PM

        The trackback entry for this page is :


    Trackback Entries



    #  August 22nd, 2005 2:36 PM      BVBigBro
    I fail to see what a movie would accomplish. Plenty of film, photos, testimony and stories already exist. A documentary I can understand. A movie would just be an attempt to interject editorial and drama into something that requires neither; all in the name of making money off of someone else's misfortune.  
    #  August 23rd, 2005 9:07 AM      kris
    So, it makes a difference to you that the original events were televised?

    I guess I can see that point, and, to be honest, I'm not really interested in arguing about any of this, I'm more just curious about the different viewpoint.

    Would it make a difference to you if a film were focused on something we didn't see, like the events in Cantor Fitzgerald or in a plane? I can't really imagine such a film, however, because it would be just devastating to watch.  
    #  August 23rd, 2005 9:36 AM      BVBigBro
    Any such film would be almost entirely speculation. It would be purely and simply an attempt to make money off of a tragedy.  
    #  August 23rd, 2005 9:42 AM      kris
    Okay, that I disagree with. I don't think it's just a money-making thing.

    I want to know what happened to those people. Hmmm, that sounds horrible and it doesn't really get at what I mean. What I mean is that I want to understand what it was like for them. The NYT had a really good article about all the calls and emails that people from the Towers made.

    Here's the google bypass to the link

    I think what I like about it is that it puts a human face on 9/11. The images of 9/11 are so spectacular and so powerful that it's like you forget that there were actually people on those planes and in those buildings. Going inside of them would reinforce that this attack happened on a human scale.  
    #  August 23rd, 2005 9:47 AM      james
    movies are supposed to make money, and the aim of movies is rarely to "accomplish" anything.

    if they make a movie, and if it's profitable, then more power to them. this is america.
    #  August 23rd, 2005 10:13 AM      BVBigBro
    Kris, everything you wrote essentially is documentary material, not a movie.

    James, so what now? Are you arguing that there should be no social standards regarding media and what is acceptable conduct?  
    #  August 23rd, 2005 10:33 AM      james
    Are you arguing that there should be no social standards regarding media and what is acceptable conduct?

    im not arguing, im stating. there is no supreme board of social conduct overseers that approves movie ideas, nor should there be. you have an opinion that the movie shouldn't be made. perhaps your opinion should instead be that you won't go see it.  
    #  August 23rd, 2005 10:37 AM      BVBigBro
    Correct, sort of, and no one is arguing a ban on anything. But a movie about 911 would be in bad taste, produced by the lowest of the low, and the ensuing public condemnation would be entirely appropriate.  
    #  August 23rd, 2005 10:41 AM      james
    i disagree. i dont think it would be in bad taste, and dont think that one has to be "low" to make it.

    there are a bazillion movies about dday and pearl harbor.  
    #  August 23rd, 2005 10:46 AM      BVBigBro
    There is also precious little film and photography of DDay. There is the one awesome Pearl Harbor film and some photos, but not much. Also, aside from a Ford film that focused on people not at all, these films were done decades after the event. They also portray fictional characters in many instances, or public figures. A 911 movie would have to deal with real people, and private people.  
    #  August 23rd, 2005 10:52 AM      kris
    That's not necessarily true. You could create fictional characters that were in the Towers or on a plane. Just like they did in Titanic.  
    #  August 23rd, 2005 10:59 AM      BVBigBro
    Nice, but once again, Titanic went down in 1912, the movie was largely speculation about events that were not particularly well documented, and the audience was not well versed on the subject. Regarding 911, everyone knows about it. A documentary is the appropriate vehicle. Maybe an IMAX documentary.  
    #  August 23rd, 2005 11:00 AM      james
    i dont see what the amount of film and photography available has to do with anything at all. both are "national tragedies."

    you're trying to argue that making a for-profit movie about a national tragedy is by definition in bad taste or somehow "low." the only reasons you give are that you can't see "what it would accomplish" and you're throwing down some sort of moral superiority argument that i can't say i understand. you're asserting that anyone who makes a dime off of anything related to sept 11 is a terrible, evil person, an argment that i have to say, coming from you, really surprises me. the thousands of books about sept 11 make money. the thousands of magazines and newspapers that ran stories about the day made money by doing so. things in america _make money_ or they don't get done. that's how life works. making money isn't an evil or despicable act.

    you're also arguing that since all of the sept 11 victims had names and were all real people that movies can never be made about them, as if you somehow believe that dday was carried out by imaginary, nameless and faceless people. why a movie character representing a dday soldier is "ficitonal" while a movie character representing someone trapped in tower 2 isn't fictional i dont understand, either.  
    #  August 23rd, 2005 11:10 AM      BVBigBro
    No, that's not what I said. DDay movies like the Longest Day were made well after the fact, and took great pains to avoid depicting actual people except in a good light. Their blood and gore is minimal. Private Ryan depicts entirely fictional people on a fictional mission, once again long after the fact of any actual events even remotely connected to the movie.

    With 911 the people, real people, either live or die, and that is basically the heart of the story. The interesting stories are with the dead, and are by necessity largely speculative. There have been documentaries made, and they have been done in good taste, but give the survivors of the dead a break and let them remeber the dead as they see fit.  
    #  August 23rd, 2005 1:03 PM      Laura
    Were any of y'all aware of this? The first I heard of it was today on LGF.  
    #  August 23rd, 2005 1:06 PM      kris
    Yep, I linked to a review of it on the Daily Page a few days ago.  
    #  August 23rd, 2005 2:28 PM      Laura
    Sorry, I missed that somehow. I like the daily page, I don't know why I don't use it more often.  
    #  August 23rd, 2005 2:33 PM      kris
    I think it was on there on a Friday and I generally have a little more time to put stuff in it on Friday mornings so sometimes I have a TON of links in there-it's easy to miss one.  



      page rendered in 0.0413 seconds | ©2004, 2005