Oliver Stone to make first major US film about September 11

[Wyatt_Junker]

Criminey. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050708/ennew_afp/afpentertainmentfilmus_050708212608)

[DesertFox]

Welp, there goes history. We'll find out how rotten America is and how wonderful Islam is, for the x-tieth time, from the liar who told us all about how Vietnam wasn't.

[Large_Al]

OH LORD !!

[Beowulf]

Here we go! The Leftist will once again twist the truth to suit their agenda.:flame:

[Bluemoon_Rising]

"It's a work of collective passion, a serious meditation on what happened, and carries within a compassion that heals," Stone said in a statement issued by producers.

In short, a pack of lies.

[aaron11]

Vulture...

[Warlady]

What was it that guy said to that creep in GB? "He's sticking his forked tongue in a pool of blood".

[tacitus]

It will be interesting to see what HIS version of 9/11/is, and how it could have been different before and after.

[UnkHiram]

I cannot imigine how this Moron/idiot/scumbag/antiamerican Jack**s would "Tell" the story of 911. No doubt we will discover that President Bush was actually flying one of the planes that hit the WTC.

[PrezLeefun]

Ditto Unk! This is wrong and disrespectful.

[Riverboat]

Could be Moore worse, I guess. Is Tom Cruise going to be in it?

[DoctorDoom]

What was it that guy said to that creep in GB? "He's sticking his forked tongue in a pool of blood".In response, minister Adam Ingram accused Mr Galloway of "dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood".George Galloway : London Bombings is Price British Pay for Iraq (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=24589)

[DoctorDoom]

One wonders how many bombs the jerk will have to make before Hollywood tosses him out on his butt.

[DesertFox]

Unfortunately, Stone has arrived at the same iconic place that Steven Sondheim and Woody Allen occupy -- failure to make a buck means that the audience is too torpid and unsophisticated to catch on. IOW, what he makes is, er, art, and all right-thinking people love him because of his far-seeing, über chic failures.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Woody who?

[RayChuang]

Oh gawd, this is the last director we need for this type of movie!

I am so not looking forward to see Stone rehash all those looney bin theories about the 9/11 attacks that have been circulating on the Internet. http://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/disagree/45.gif

[TempestTossed]

Here we go! The Leftist will once again twist the truth to suit their agenda.:flame:
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2435/dim9da3rb.jpg

[Warlady]

TT is that the best you can do on editing that graphic? It looks like a first grader. At least Republicans know how to create professional looking graphics. You are such a riot. Shame on you. :baby: Poor widdle baby.

[Pendragon_6]

Stormcrow:

Your attempts to disparage Beowulf shows the forum that you don't belong here. You libs come in here for no other reason than to flame us for our beliefs, while it is your beliefs [neo-communist left] that are attempting to destroy the last free nation on earth!

[Trevelyan]

From reading the description, I do not see how the scope of this film is one that allows for it to be something about some conspiracy theories or anything else along the lines of what has been speculated here. Also, the script was written by someone else, not Stone.<O:p</O:p

[BEST45CAL]

Jeeeeeeeeeez...I can see it now...

9/11 was America's fault and Bush planned the whole thing with the help of the Saudis and the Bildebergers so he could get reelected.

Have another blunt, Oliver 'Stoned.'

http://saturn5.com/~peter/ljphoto/duh/cat_rolling.gif

[TempestTossed]

Stormcrow:

Your attempts to disparage Beowulf shows the forum that you don't belong here. You libs come in here for no other reason than to flame us for our beliefs, while it is your beliefs [neo-communist left] that are attempting to destroy the last free nation on earth!Get a hold of yourself, my libertarian beliefs are not trying to destroy the last free nation on Earth. I am not in here strictly to flame anyone. Sometimes I flame someone, but, sheesh, I have never been the target of so much vile hate and condescension. You should read DoctorDoom's posts. According to his repeated abuse, I'm not even a human being. To flame Beowulf, all I did was slightly alter the image that he uses in the signature of EVERY ONE OF HIS POSTS, to show the irony of that against whining about a Hollywood film he knows almost nothing about.

[Maggie_T]

To flame Beowulf, all I did was slightly alter the image that he uses in the signature of EVERY ONE OF HIS POSTS, to show the irony of that against whining about a Hollywood film he knows almost nothing about.

And a sorry shoddy job you did, too. But never mind, you do that with every single one of your posts.

Guys, make no mistake. Stone's film will be a "Me too! Me too!" to Moore's delirium tremens fantasy, Farenheit 911. I won't even bother to bet on that. Too predictable.

What else do you expect for Hollywack? :rolleyes:

[Pendragon_6]

Stormcrow:

I gave up 'getting hold of myself' in highschool. You part of 'wankersRus'?

[DoctorDoom]

You should read DoctorDoom's posts. According to his repeated abuse, I'm not even a human being.Kid, you're not worth the effort of abusing you. IAC, you're a liberal, which is hardly human.

[DoctorDoom]

BTW, here the unvandalized graphic.

<center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/FCDemSeal.jpg"></center>

Don't give up your day job.

[CzechPrince]

I'm willing to see it and then bash it if I feel it needs to be. It doesn't even have a title yet, and from the article, it appears it is going to be mostly about 9/11 victims.

[aaron11]

I might just take a pass...
The visions of that day still pass through My minds eye often enough...
I will say that I am surprised the left isn't trying to suppress this, which is why I have a bad feeling about it...You would think the left would fear the emotions and patriotism that revisiting the Murderous Catastrophe of 911 will most certainly bring to the surface...unless...

[TempestTossed]

...unless one of them somehow thought it more important to make lots of money.

[Jag Wife]

One wonders how many bombs the jerk will have to make before Hollywood tosses him out on his butt.

Unfortunately, that's the sort of thing Hollywood likes. Mel Gibson got "blacklisted" for making Passion of the Christ, which paid for itself many times over (in more ways than one).

[jag]

Unfortunately, that's the sort of thing Hollywood likes. Mel Gibson got "blacklisted" for making Passion of the Christ, which paid for itself many times over (in more ways than one).

Hi Jag Wife, your absolutly right.

BTW, seems you may have an identity crisis - I'm jag and have no wife :grin:

[RayChuang]

Unfortunately, that's the sort of thing Hollywood likes. Mel Gibson got "blacklisted" for making Passion of the Christ, which paid for itself many times over (in more ways than one).

But yet, because the movie made so much money outside the standard Hollywood studio system, Mel Gibson could easily make another film without the need for the Hollywood crowd and still make a boatload of money. :thumb:

[Trevelyan]

I'm willing to see it and then bash it if I feel it needs to be. It doesn't even have a title yet, and from the article, it appears it is going to be mostly about 9/11 victims.

Hah, at least there was one other person who seemed to be reading the same thing I was. :thumb:

[Wyatt_Junker]

I'm willing to see it and then bash it if I feel it needs to be. It doesn't even have a title yet, and from the article, it appears it is going to be mostly about 9/11 victims.

Yeah, then read this (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/011022ta_talk_the_pictures)

Now, would you like a metal or a more traditional wood bat?

[Wyatt_Junker]

From my link above...

Afterward, the panelists had lunch nearby, at Gabriel's. Hitchens stood outside, holding a glass of Scotch and a trembling cigarette. He was about to leave for Pakistan. "To say that this attack in any way resembles the French Revolution means you are a moral idiot, as well as an intellectual idiot," he said of Stone. "The man has completely lost it."

Inside the restaurant, Stone made his way, grinning, through the crowd. He plunged his hands into the hair of a young female producer and tugged, asking, "Is this real?" Although it seemed to most observers to be early afternoon, he twice observed that it was a wonderful night.

Stone sat in a booth, cradling a glass of white wine in his hands, and remarked that he hadn't slept in days. "The new world order is about order and control," he said. "This attack was pure chaos, and chaos is energy. All great changes have come from people or events that were initially misunderstood

According to Stone, 9/11 was like the uprising at Tianamen Square, or the French Revolution.

Its all about bringing down the man and his zionist NWO.

[Jag Wife]

But yet, because the movie made so much money outside the standard Hollywood studio system, Mel Gibson could easily make another film without the need for the Hollywood crowd and still make a boatload of money. :thumb:

I hear ya, RayChuang. In fact, it seems like the only films worth watching these days are low-budget, independent films. They actually have something the Hollywood whine-and-cheese crowd doesn't--depth of characters, a plot, and a message!

[PaulRevere]

Don't tell me - let me guess:

Oliver Stones heroes will be the Arab terrorists

and they will all be gay

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

From Wyatt's link, just especially for those too lazy to click and read it:

"On the morning before the United States bombed Afghanistan, HBO Films presented a panel discussion, at Alice Tully Hall, entitled "Making Movies That Matter: The Role of Filmmaking in the National Debate." The people in the audience were restless, eager for someone to put their anger and unease into focus, and it wasn't long before one panelist, Bob Shaye, the C.E.O. of New Line Cinema, got them going by insisting that movies should entertain, not explain. Referring to his studio's forthcoming "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, he declared, "What the world needs now is hobbits."
As hisses filled the air, Oliver 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 bullshit! 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—' "

"Excuse me," a fellow-panelist, Christopher Hitchens, said. " 'Revolt'?"

"Whatever you want to call it," Stone said.

"It was state-supported mass murder, using civilians as missiles," said Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair and The Nation.

Stone wagged his head and continued. "The studios bought television stations," he said. "Why? Why did the telecommunications bill get passed at midnight, a hidden bill at midnight? The Arabs have a point! They're going to be joined by the people who objected in Seattle, and the usual ten per cent who are against everything, and it's going to be, like, twenty-five per cent of this country that's against the new world order. We need a trustbuster like Teddy Roosevelt to take the television stations away from the film companies and give them back to the people!" There was more applause, and a few uncertain murmurs. "Does anybody make a connection between the 2000 election"—for the Presidency—"and the events of September 11th?" he asked, and added cryptically, "Look for the thirteenth month!" He went on to say that "the Palestinians who danced at the news of the attack were reacting just as people had responded after the revolutions in France and Russia."

* Oliver Stone's OWN words


And THIS is the man who is going to make a movie about 9/11? Yeah, right. :rolleyes: :coco: (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=29#) :smack: (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=29#) :drooling: (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=29#) :hang: (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=29#) :ktoe: (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=29#) :NoWay: (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=29#)

[Hudson]

from the liar who told us all about how Vietnam wasn't.

Oliver Stone was in Vietnam and Platoon was based on 'his' (not others) own experiences there.

I've read that Born on the 4th of July was based on the autobiography of Ron Kovic (anyone read this? How similar are the film and the autobiography?) who was also in Vietnam.

My friends Dad was there (you could almost say he never left, he still wears his Combat Jacket from Nam all the time). He told me stories about how they were 'all' on acid all the time out there and that it was completely f**ked up out there. The most memorable thing he said to me was 'All the brave guys died out there'.

If we can't believe the people who were there, who should we believe?

However I find it dispicable that anyone would want to engage in a money making enterprise (all hollywood movies are), profiteering from the loss, misery and death of others, unless there is a greater good to the film (making a valid point or sending a clear message).
I had similar sentiments about the 'Black Hawk Down' film (excellent book). It completely failed to form any beneficial conclusions.
If a film is going to be based on horrific historical events, I would at least like to think they would have a meaningful message (such as Schindlers List did).

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Oliver Stone was in Vietnam and Platoon was based on 'his' (not others) own experiences there.

I've read that Born on the 4th of July was based on the autobiography of Ron Kovic (anyone read this? How similar are the film and the autobiography?) who was also in Vietnam.

My friends Dad was there (you could almost say he never left, he still wears his Combat Jacket from Nam all the time). He told me stories about how they were 'all' on acid all the time out there and that it was completely f**ked up out there. The most memorable thing he said to me was 'All the brave guys died out there'.

If we can't believe the people who were there, who should we believe?

Oliver Stone may have been there, but you cannot honestly say after reading his own words above that his brain has not been affected. My Uncle was in Nam, some fellow church members and friends of mine were too, and they shared stories as well. There's were true, and do not compare to to the ones you offered -- could it be that they saw two different wars? Could it be that the effects of the war were more significant in some than in others? Could it be the way these brave men who were ONLY doing what their country asked, were negatively affected by the response they received when returning home?

I won't negate Mr. Stone's experience, but my own as they relate to his films, shows me that his "versions" are not reliable. Nor do they tend to instill confidence that this is the RIGHT choice for a movie regarding such a sensitive, horrific NATIONAL event.

However I find it dispicable that anyone would want to engage in a money making enterprise (all hollywood movies are), profiteering from the loss, misery and death of others, unless there is a greater good to the film (making a valid point or sending a clear message).
I had similar sentiments about the 'Black Hawk Down' film (excellent book). It completely failed to form any beneficial conclusions.
If a film is going to be based on horrific historical events, I would at least like to think they would have a meaningful message (such as Schindlers List did).

Personally, I must say I disagree with the making of ANY movies regarding historical events -- documentaries are a different matter, and THEY are the venue that is most appropriate when dealing with history, IMHO.

As a homeschooler, we utilize any resources we can get our hands on. In doing so, we find a VAST amount of historical innacuracies in "movies." By their very promotion, people are viewing them, and allowing their children to view them, and they come to believe the fabricated, the exaggerated, the altered for time and content, are in fact, fact. This is simply wrong -- yet no one is out there making corrections . . . not even the schools which are allowing them shown IN CLASS without discussion of the innacuracies and distortions.

As a rule, I do not watch the "true life" movies (or at least, very few. I did watch some, and of them, only Schindler's List was worthy of the film on which it was captured.) Even the movies aimed at children (Pocahontas and Spirit-Stallion of the Cimarron come to mind), are filled with incorrect information, or at the very least deceptive insinuations (such as Pocahontas' implied age in the movie vs. reality).

Anyway, that's just my .02 cents.

[Hudson]

I won't negate Mr. Stone's experience, but my own as they relate to his films, shows me that his "versions" are not reliable.


I said 'his' experiences, I did not say the general experiences. If they were his experiences, then we can hardly say they are wrong, just because are not the same as the experiences of others.

Just as the experiences of Ron Kovic are 'his' experiences. Everyone did not come back in a wheelchair and turn into an Anti War protester, but he did.


documentaries are a different matter


I agree completely. While they may still be comercial enterprises, they generally serve to make a point, which to me is the key point. I 'offer amnesty' to a film based on any tragedy as long as it teaches valuable lessons or makes valid points, as we both agree Schindlers List did.


Even the movies aimed at children (Pocahontas and Spirit-Stallion of the Cimarron come to mind), are filled with incorrect information, or at the very least deceptive insinuations (such as Pocahontas' implied age in the movie vs. reality).
I personally boycott such movies. I am interested to see the new Pocahontas movie, The New World (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402399/) as it looks like it will be a reasonably accurate version and they are not shying away from 'sensitive' issues like Pocchontas's age and John Smith's occupation

But that also is just my 2c.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I said 'his' experiences, I did not say the general experiences. If they were his experiences, then we can hardly say they are wrong, just because are not the same as the experiences of others.

Just as the experiences of Ron Kovic are 'his' experiences. Everyone did not come back in a wheelchair and turn into an Anti War protester, but he did.

Hudson, I get your point -- that is why I said I won't negate his experiences. I said that I don't consider them to be reliable, and so I will add, as to the experience of being in Vietnam on a whole. I TOO know people who were "over there," and they speak of NOTHING like he portrayed on film. This makes my very point -- if he had offered up a documentary, based it upon his experiences over there, I would take them more seriously. I do not trust MOVIES that qualify themselves by saying "based on a live, real, or true event." You cannot say he did not use license to "beef up" the story, nor can you say he didn't tweak the dialogue, camera angles, lighting, etc., to imbelish a personal point he wished to make. I am saying I do not agree with making MOVIES such as this -- documentaries yes, movies no.

I agree completely. While they may still be comercial enterprises, they generally serve to make a point, which to me is the key point. I 'offer amnesty' to a film based on any tragedy as long as it teaches valuable lessons or makes valid points, as we both agree Schindlers List did.

By and large, I don't want my MOVIES to teach a lesson or even make vaild points -- I want them to entertain me and take me away from those lessons and points that real life is providing. While I support Spielberg's film, I still say the same arguments can apply (as above to Oliver Stone's), and so there is still room for doubt as to actual historical veracity. A documentary, by definition,
<DIR>doc•u•men•ta•ry \'dä-ky€-"men-t€-rÈ\ adj 1 : consisting of documents; also : being in writing <~ proof> 2 : giving a factual presentation in artistic form <a ~ movie> — documentary n

</DIR>(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Is a much better way to tell a historical story, with less room for such troubling technicalities.

I personally boycott such movies. I am interested to see the new Pocahontas movie, The New World (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402399/) as it looks like it will be a reasonably accurate version and they are not shying away from 'sensitive' issues like Pocchontas's age and John Smith's occupation

But that also is just my 2c.

As I said, I distrust the "movies" to portray anything historical, accurately. As it stands at this moment, I cannot say I care one way or the other to see this "movie." I do reserve judgment to change my mind, but I don't see it very likely.

[Wyatt_Junker]

My friends Dad was there (you could almost say he never left, he still wears his Combat Jacket from Nam all the time). He told me stories about how they were 'all' on acid all the time out there and that it was completely f**ked up out there.


They were ALL on acid, ALL the time, ALWAYS and it was completely F.UCKED UP, eh? Gotta like a pretty little word like ALL. Its all inclusive.

Love that quote though... it be fukked up o'er there, it be fukked up real good.


If we can't believe the people who were there, who should we believe?



You tell me. John Kerry was over there too and his stories were ALL manufactured to pack fudge onto his embryonic political career.

John Kerry was there and I don't believe a word he said.