Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I think what you are really worried about is that GW and the Republican fear machine might not smell so good after the story is told of some real people in 9/11.

Those of us who actually lived through 9/11 voted against GW.

I had the smell of death coming through my windows and the cinders of burned flesh on all the surfaces of my home.

If Oliver Stone can capture that, maybe the War in Iraq will move down a few more percentages in importance.

Matt,

After the attack on Pearl Harbor and WW2 went into full swing, so did Hollywood…and it didn’t take five years of waiting either. “Cookie Cutter” “feel good” “we win the war” movies came out almost daily. Were we ready for those movies?

But don’t worry or get upset about this 9/11 movie.

If as many people go see it as went to see Alexander, you’ll have VERY FEW people to discuss it with.

I think 9/11 might attract a little more interest than Alexander, don’t you?

If Mel Gibson or Bill O’Reilly made a film about 9/11, I’d go see it. With Dramamine, of course.

BushCheney is like a vampire, they explode into dust when in the day light. Maybe the movie will destroy them once and for all.

Nope…

Hi Matt,

“Is America ready for a 9/11 movie?”

No! It’s in horrible taste to make a movie about it now.

“And, is Oliver Stone the right guy to make the movie?”

No, I don’t think he is.

Oliver Stone used to be as close to a “wonderkind” movie director as there was. Every movie he put out was a hit not only at the box office, but critically as well.

Over the years, Oliver’s creativity and movie making ability has just gone in the dumper. I really think someone else should direct this movie. Someone who isn’t on their way down and out.

Well first, I think this will probably be a crappy movie. It has Nick Cage in it, after all.

But what I really think is interesting is what I see as a post-9/11 conservative mantra of, “This is not the time for…”

This is not the time for blame-gaming.
This is not the time for finger-pointing.
This is not the time for criticizing the President.
This is not the time for discussing HOW we got to war.
This is not the time for a movie about 9/11.

As for the latter, the market will ultimately decide, I suppose. But I say the time to discuss almost anything is sooner, rather than later. We should have movies about 9/11 now precisely because the memories are so fresh. “Time heals all wounds,” the old saying goes, and so it often seems.

Mr. Johnston says it, himself. We should have movies about 9/11, as he puts it, “when the memory starts to fade.” To that, I say, Hell No.

We should NOT wait until time has pulled a blanket of forgetfulness over that day. We should NOT wait until memory has become suffused with and supplanted by myth.

I believe Mr. Johnston might fear that “opening a psychic scab covering a national wound that has not healed” would cause us to re-evaluate the events since that day, and that such re-evaluation would reflect most poorly on those in power.

But to keep Mr. Johnston’s medical analogy, sometimes, real healing requires exactly that type of re-opening wounds. When a broken bone is poorly set and healing crookedly, it must often be broken again and re-set. When a dressed wound becomes infected, it must often be re-opened, cleaned, and allowed to heal again.

Perhaps now is exactly the time for such cleansing. If more on the right agree with Mr. Johnston, then perhaps it is exactly that time indeed.

I can’t believe I actually agree with louis XIV!?! I agree, not now, not stone.

You left wing cool-aid drinkers are all the same! Just like the democrat party which is the party of (CUT & RUN). You have no clue about national security nor America’s greatest cultural history! You all have no answers, just hate speech which is the same old rhetoric used for the last 40 years! Then you all wonder why the democrats haven’t won an election since 1994! “Would somebody tell me what the Democrat Party is doing that is inspiring anybody to give them more power? Would somebody tell me what policy they’re advancing, what idea for economic growth, what idea for national security?â€

Mr Stone is a bleeding liberal that doesn’t care @ all about America and what it stands for! Most people in America know what the cause of 9/11 was, and it certainly isn’t GW! President Bush cares about this country unlike the former President that cared only about the stains in the blue dress! “I told you people, and I’ve been telling you for the longest time, that when the Democrats lose power — and when they’re out of power, and when they feel power even further loosening from their grasp — they get wacky. They just get crazy, and in the process they tell us who they really are because of the panic that sets in.â€

“Bill Clinton and his administration first talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein’s regime to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network, years before George Bush made the same statements.â€

“We’re learning now all of these things that Clinton said about Saddam in ‘98, including the fact that he was linked to al-Qaeda. That’s ignored by the Democrats, ignored by Howard Dean, ignored by the media — because, of course, the template is to blame Bush for all this, and of course it’s also to promote McCain and his anti-torture amendment.â€

“No Democrat presidential candidate, folks, has received even 50% of the vote since 1980, in the popular vote. That has not happened. Now, you tell me this is a party on the rise? You tell me this is a party that’s going anywhere?â€

“Joe Lieberman is speaking out for the war like a true statesman. Democrats, on the other hand, are continuing to crack up. Kerry is out their slandering soldiers again; Murtha has been exposed as somebody who likes the bright lights a little bit too much. Howard Dean has surrendered before the French even have the chance to surrender!â€

“This balanced budget, the way the Democrats mean it, is tax increases — and nobody wants a Democrat balanced budget the way they’re going to do it. History has proven this.â€

“John Kerry doesn’t think anybody has the right to question him. Nobody has the right sometimes to even look at him, such is his countenance.â€

I hope that any 911 movie will be done tastefully. If it is done in the manner of Farenheit 911 (ie; as an attempt to point fingers and lay blame), then I’d concur its the wrong time. It may be okay if its done properly, but I’d agree with Louis that its a bit too soon in our politically charged society.

I suppose it would be more salient to ask those who lost people on 911 what they think about it. My perspective is distanced, since I don’t know people who were lost. In any event, the studio might avert a firestorm of criticism by ensuring they have the support of those who were more involved in that day.

Oliver Stone—-well, what is there to say. A pretty good and competent filmmaker, but fast and loose with the facts. He took a rather flimsy concept to make the movie ‘JFK’, and ran with it as if it were factually based. He took a melange of isolated incidents in ‘Born on the 4th of July’ and presented them as if they were the norm. He even added a war rally that occurred at Syracuse University—only problem was that no such rally existed.

Stone should stick to making movies that are truly fictional, instead of ones about events that really happened that he turns into fiction. He’s free to do as he pleases, and his movies tend to make money, indicating at the least a popularity, if not critical acclaim.

Personally, I don’t think I need to see a movie to remember 911, nor do I need a movie to present a Hollywood version of the accurate truth. My thumbs are down just on the concept.

Hi Joe F.

“You have no clue about national security nor America’s greatest cultural history!”

You have Democrats confused with your mother.

It’s time for a movie.

If you can’t handle it, dont go see it. If your too naive to believe the mountains of evidence that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll, because it will burst the bubble you live in, don’t go see it.

Oliver Stone. Like Leni Riefenstahl, he can make a compelling movie. They share the same “love” of truth.

He should not touch the subject.

Do I want Stone to make this movie? Hell no, and I’m a democrat. I know what a movie means to Republicans. It means endless talk about how Hollywood is against you and how unfair it all is, blah, blah, blah. I don’t want anything to detract from the very real and obvious failures of this administration. I don’t want people confusing Democrat criticisms with what’s in Stone’s movie, like you did with Michael Moore’s.

I accepted a long time ago that Republicans are children whose pride is easily wounded. They cannot be trusted to watch a movie, or for that matter, take on any kind of criticism whatsoever without crying in their milk. I don’t want any of you spinning this movie, as I know you will. If you think all democrats love that this movie is being made, you’re dead wrong.

A good Video to help Oliver Stone

Schwamp,

Good point. I would go see this movie, but if your not ready to see it then don’t. I’m sure it will be released on DVD and you can watch it whenever you are ready. Nobody is forcing anybody to go see a movie about 9/11, it’s your choice.

Joe F.

Grow up. Any ideas are better then what we have now.

9/11 is a wound that has become seriously infected. It needs to be exposed to the air to kill the stench of foul infection.

Joe F, what do you have to worry about national security? I’m sure there’s nothing of value to bomb in your red state. The terrorists knew where the important part of the US is, where the brains are.

Those of us who really have something at stake in this debate have voted for the better side.

I’m sure there’s nothing of value to bomb in your red state. The terrorists knew where the important part of the US is, where the brains are.

Typical blue state comment. Their continued arrogance will cause them to lose in 2008 as well.

”..the democrats haven’t won an election since 1994!”

Really Joe? You must have missed the mid-term elections.

Joe F.,

So, you have jumped on here and said nothing about the subject at hand. Just a bunch of repubby talking points and nothing to really offer. What are your suggestions for solving the issues? What has this congress done with their majority and power? Stop spewing thew same kind of “rhetoric” you are condeming and bring facts to the forum!

Matt,

I Like the topic. Should Stone make this movie. Well yes and no. If he can keep his personal politics out of the story line then it has the potential to bring out the real emotion of the topic. And remind the people in the US why we went to afghanistan and what remains unfinished? This could back fire for the current administration, more questions about the real war on terror. If he decides to tell it from his own view, he should not go there. Follow the screenplay.

As far as if it is too soon? No. the president uses 9/11 at any opportunity to push his faith and policy on the public. the administration uses it to their advantage. Maybe the public, as a whole, needs to be reminded of the little things that happened and how it affected the nation as well as the world, and not just how the current administration views how it can be used.

Typical blue state comment. Their continued arrogance will cause them to lose in 2008 as well.

I know, right… Those damn liberals are too smart to trust.

BTW, you made a comment, but didn’t respond.

Is it too early for this movie to be made? No. America has forgotten this horrific event. Don’t agree with me? Then why are we not talking about Osama Bin Laden EVERY DAY OF EVERY WEEK until we find and hang this guy? The answer is quite simple. Iraq. We dropped the ball and decided that oil and a Christian crusade is more important than our national security. Ironic that you conservatives are complaining about a movie that hasn’t even been made, but have no problem with Bin Laden directing a Trilogy since our attacks. You guys are brilliant!

Loren,
Unless you and your fellow New Yorkers seceded from the USA before 9/11/01, I think it’s pretty arrogant for you to say that the impact of 9/11 only affected NYC. The entire nation rallied behind NYC, DC and PA afterwards. That is something the Kool-aid drinkers don’t understand…UNITED WE STAND/DIVIDED WE FALL. 2004 was the first time in 20 years that a president was elected by more that 50% of the popular vote. Even the wonderful Billary never did better than 43%.

I don’t know if another Hollywood “documentary” of 9/11 is needed. We all see how those self-absorbed hipocrits and their political arm are trying to re-write recent history with their selective memories and statistics each and every day. All we need to do is listen to Dean, Murtha, Pelosi & Reid on CNN and MSNBC.

I do think that what happened on 9/11 needs to be burned into everyone’s memory, but use a true documentary…not a political hack.

One that comes to mind is the film that was made by 2 French brothers (Jules and Gedeon Naudet)who intended to film a documentary on a FDNY rookie. There was no politics, just raw footage of what happened, it’s affect on people and the nation. It’s shown on the Discovery channel and History channel from time to time. It’s simply called “9/11”. These 2 guys make me re-think my opinion of France each time I see their film.

I think the funniest thing about our society is that one of our first reactions to anything is….will there be a movie? Good God….does everything have to be mortalized in feature film? Talk about a de-moralized nation!
How do all those other nations possibly survive w/out a crappy film and half-wit actors to portray every major event that happens in society?

Rich,

That movie was unbelievable. I doubt there can be another one that even comes close to it.

On a side note, I would use voting statistics when referencing our President. The guy didn’t even get the “Popular” vote in 2000. I know you are making a point that people came together, but that only lasted a year. Once people figured out that we had a lame duck President, the country split again. I have to admit that the Repbulican spin machine was brillant in conning the nation into believing 9-11 = Iraq. Too bad for you people have finally woken up.

Vic:

Watchblog should not be a place where vapidly simplistic caricatures of people are used. In this thread, some who would fit the mold of Democratic have said the movie should not be made. So have some who would fit the mold of Republican.

Many of the people who don’t want this movie to be made are taking more exception to the person making the movie, namely Oliver Stone. And what is being said is that the movie shouldn’t be made in a political manner with a political statement. Others have said that it might be too soon to have a Hollywood view of 911—in that it might not honor those lost on that day.

There is nothing in those sentiments to deserve the caricature that you presented in your post. Its not even an accurate caricature, since you focus on only an inane view of what Republicans are, despite the fact that some Democrats disagree with the idea of the movie as well.

Get with it, man, get with it. Lets see you do better next post.

Why shouldn’t Stone shouldn’t make a 9-11 movie if that’s what he wants to do?

To date, Hollywood has shown extreme cowardice when it comes to producing anything having to do with 9-11, Iraq and the war on terror.

This is surprising turn of events (or maybe not?) concerning the way they usually congratulate themselves and dole out awards for their self-proclaimed “bravery” in taking on risky subjects (which of course are hardly ever actually risky to a left-wing worldview).

In other countries, people who have produced feature films or documuntaries about Islamic terrorism have been threatened or even killed; it’s hardly the same kind of “bravery” required for Hollywood’s typical and tired bashing of American conservatism.

If Stone wants to produce one of his far-fetched tin-hat conspiracy theory productions, it’s only going to backfire. And conservatives would love to have that debate. The media (of which Hollywood is only one part) have been extremely complicit in trying to bury the reality of that day, so lets take another look at it by all means. Even if it’s not Stone’s intention, the ensuing debate will remind the public of whats at stake and why we fight.

There are too many people who won’t stand for say, a movie that says that the 9-11 hijackers were really Israeli agents or that the Pentagon demolished the towers with explosives (two of of the loonier theories out there).

And Loren, when the International Association of Fire Fighters endorsed Kerry in the last election, the local New York branch broke ranks and endorsed Bush. The Uniformed Firefighters Association of Greater New York endorsed Bush and presented a strongly pro-Bush video at the Republican National Convention.

In a poll, 87% of New York’s first responders said they supported the president even when their union leaders endorsed Kerry. So you’re right about one thing—those who really have something at stake in this debate have voted for the better side.

Matt great post I agreed with you completely untill the last paragraph.

I think that any film director who under takes the first movie that is based on the events of 9/11 will run the risk of politicizing it. I think it would be almost impossible to make such a picture that didn’t lean either left or right. That is were I see the problem with Stone. He is has expressed his feeling towards this administration, and didnt hold back when doing so.

I still think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Stone has made some great films, and I having read his comments about the screenplay I think this movie will be a good one.

As far as it being to early about a 9/11 movie I disagree.

I remember a few years back when CBS aired a documentry about 9/11. It was filmed by a French crew that was working on a day in the life of a fire fighter. I remeber watching it and I’m not a big tv guy. I also remember that it got huge ratings. If you watch channels like the History Channel or National Geographic channel you have likley seen some of their programming based on 9/11 and the run up to it.

As far as you comparing this movie as a scab being ripped off of a wound that hasen’t healed I think you are wrong. I can’t remember the last time I have heard any speech by the president when he doesn’t mention 9/11 a bunch of times early and often. I also have noticed when he is really tring to sell something the more his speechs bring it up. If W can invoke 9/11 as often as he does with little or no criticizm,I don’t see how Oliver making a movie about it can be any worse.

Hi Sanger,

“those who really have something at stake in this debate have voted for the better side.”

Your “reasoning” goes: “my side is better”?

I’m sure that works for you but in discussions with others it’s weak.

Here is a link worth looking at.

Rich
I never said that 9/11 only affected nyc, and if you think my feelings reflect arrogance, then you didn’t understand anything I said. I have a family, and GW has made me feel unsafe. What I am trying to say is that my feelings should count.

I didn’t drink any kool-aid. I watched the towers fall with my own eyes. I wasn’t reading a children’s book. And it’s amazing how some people use the united we stand argument as long as it means everybody does what YOU say.

Joebagodonuts,

Vapidly simplistic caricatures? You don’t have to get the thesaurus out to prove your vocabulary. I would respond by saying that my thoughts are a little more intricate than the common use of the term “Cool aid drinkers†on Watchblog. At least I can think of my own comments and don’t need Limbaugh or O’Reilly to create funny names for me. But since you are so astute, why don’t you respond to my point? Why is it that you have a problem with this director, and not Bin Laden directing his own tapes? That comment was not made in jest, it was a serious point. The conservative party has forgotten Bin Laden. I know it serves the republican fear machine well to keep the “boogyman†out there. That way they can still scare everybody like they have since 9-11.

Loren,

BTW, you made a comment, but didn’t respond.

Uhhhh…I’m not usually in the habit of responding to my own comments.

Those damn liberals are too smart to trust.

More “Howard Dean” blue state arrogance.

It’s what lost them the presidency in 2004 and will lose it again in 2008.

As far as the ORIGINAL subject, I say again that it is time to make a movie about 9/11, but Stone is NOT the director to make it.

Guys,

Great. The movie isn’t even funded that everybody seems ready to spit on his director.
Please guys, wait. Nobody will ever force such movie on you. If you’re curious enough, as I suggest you to be, go see it.
At least to be able to debate on it afterward.
Debating on a movie that doesn’t exist yet just because you think what his director will do is, well, pretty useless.

Rich,

These 2 guys make me re-think my opinion of France each time I see their film.

Care to elaborate here?

Your frenchly,

JBOD:
“I suppose it would be more salient to ask those who lost people on 911 what they think about it.”

I lost a dear friend on 9/11 - Amy Jarret. She was a flight attendant on UAL flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC. I think it is well past time for a mainstream film. As someone stated upthread, we are already in the process of forgetting 9/11, and we all suffer as a result. The President speaks of 9/11 every chance he gets, others should have the same opportunity.

But again, I think the film will be a piece of crap. I hope I’m wrong.

And Loren, when the International Association of Fire Fighters endorsed Kerry in the last election, the local New York branch broke ranks and endorsed Bush.

Not to sound too cynical, but they also endorsed Bloomberg while he was closing firehouses. I think it had something to do with the Local Union Leadership trying to get a favorable contract from a cheap city administration.

BTW, on the same 9/11 cultural line, did any of you guys read Frederic Beigbeder latest novel, Windows on the World? What did you think of it?

Your frenchly,

First, I would say that there are already movies about 9/11 out there, both those that engage that event itself (mostly documentaries) and those that convey its impact on our culture indirectly.

Culture feeds on the events that shape our lives. 9/11 is one such event. It’s inevitable that somebody’s going to make a movie about it at some point, and I’m sure no movie will make everybody happy (not that any movie ever does) concerning their interpretations of events.

Stone’s movie will rise or fall based on what meaning it can extract from events.

My advice, as a humble telecom student who’s never made a movie? Where heroism is obvious, make the choice not so obvious. The distinction between the mundane/cowardly action and the heroic is often one of making a difficult choice between alternatives when one alternative might be perfectly acceptable given the circumstances.

When you get the chance, you should give people a sense of the danger and the obstacles in a fresh, iconic way. If you rehash the shot compositions, blocking, editing, and general arrangement of the scene in a way that too strongly echoes another movie, you flatten out the film’s emotional power. Familiar things in a scene can be useful, but a reliance on conventions of how a scene is supposed to develop or certain kind of sequence work out can put the audience on autopilot when you really should want them more involved.

I think America is ready to talk about this. The longer we make a sacred cow about it, the more we drown it in simplicities and convenient illusions. I don’t want the real 9/11 to be worn down as an event into irrelevance.

I don’t really give a damn if a movie is made about 9/11 or not. But Stone is the wrong person to make it. I haven’t like him sense the lie he made with Platoon.
He, like the rest of Hollyweird, has an agenda. That agenda is to make three types of people look stupid.
1. Men. Look at the number of TV shows where they make the man look like a complete idiot while the woman is the super smart one.
2. Relegious. 99% of the time when they have a relegious charater on a show or in a movie they portry them as nut cases.
3. Conservitives. When was the last time you saw Hollyweird portry a conservitive as anything but stupid idiots?
But what can you expect from people that promise to leave the Country if a certian canidate wins. Then disappoints those hoping they will.

MR. RON BROWN!

Okaaaay where do I start? Okay:

1)So you are saying that they will make the women responders look better thatn men?

2)You’re saying that the religious responders will look worse than the secular one’s I suppose.

3) And you’re saying (?) that they will make liberal responders look better than conservative ones (Like political talking points will be a conversational portion of the movie while they are moving through smoky stairwells gasping for air).

Admit it please, Ron that that was kind of a silly post. If not please by all means explain.

As for me my sentiments are that regardless whether it’s Ollie Stone, why must everyone be a exploitational douchebag. the topic of 9/11 I do not want to be made into an action adventure. this is a very large topic with international ramifications. And it just seems like a glorification of it as well as someone profitting off of it. As if selling coins minted from silver found in the basement wasn’t enough. Must everyone be such god-damned whores?

Someone said republicans will “cry into their milk” about it. Yes we will hear this every time the topic is brought up after this, a point I didn’t even take into consideration until I began reading some of the posts, good point!

Another reason I can say is a bad idea especially if Oliover Stone makes a political move//or worse has Ollie as a pundit on everytime there is some discussion of 9/11.

The republicans will use this advantage yes.

HERE’S WHAT I WONDER: If the city of NY will reject it or if there might be some picketing and backlash. That could ALSO be on the table possibly upon it’s release. JUST A THOUGHT.

Personally I think it’s trashy but he is actually a good artistic director so it might be really well done, who knows.

“The conservative party has forgotten Bin Laden.” This seems to be a common thread among liberals these days. I guess they gave up on the whole “they forgot about Saddam” after we caught him.

The conservative party has forgotten about Bin Laden about as much as they’ve forgotten about 9/11. Which is to say, they haven’t. Even an AP government class of liberal high school seniors could figure out why people are saying the conservative party has forgotten Bin Laden, though they knew they hadn’t. What is there to say about Bin Laden every day? “Another day, and we didn’t catch him. We could tell you where we think he’s hiding, but then, of course, he’s going to know we know and move.” As soon as our government were to announce that they thought they knew where Bin Laden was, that information would become useless. Does anyone honestly believe that our government has stopped looking for Osama Bin Laden? I think it’s also apparent that he’s very good at hiding.

Well, duh, since the several Al-Qaeda officers that have been captured obviously walked up to American/Pakistani/Iraqi/Afghani forces and just surrendered. So of course nobody’s looking for Bin Laden either, right?

I would welcome the idea of a movie being made by him and even though I strongly disagree with Mr. Stone’s use of “creative liberty” in movies that were supposed to be nonfiction. But without some of his movies that I think were either just bad or totally off the mark, I would not done any research and would not have gained an understanding on some of the more important issues of our history.

As for the movie possibly being his personal political statement, so what? We tend to have preconcieved notions and try to fit “our reality” into it. If he seriously tries to turn it into a rewrite of history in any way, he will be exposed before it hits the theaters.

If he just tells the story of 2 Port Authority Workers that acted heroicly, I believe that roughly 40% of the people(die-hard democrats) will say that it is too easy on the lying President, while 40% of the people(die-hard Republicans) will say it was typical Liberal Hollywood Propaganda. I think that America is about 20% ready.

I would like to see us focus for a time on the heroes of the day instead of the politics that followed, so I think if he believes he can market a quality product, he should do it.

Sorry about above typos, my proofreader is apparently dislexic.

Foxbat,

You are my favorite news show mascot, quit with the rhetoric, yer’ killin’ me. Yes no one has forgotten about Bin Laden, he’s an a**-hole we get it. thanks start a news page, you can ask highschool kids whether they forgot about Zarqawi or something—very informative stuff.

I didn’t mean to offend anyone! I also didn’t bring anyone’s parent into the conversation! Lets make one thing clear! Was born and raised in Astoria Queens. Retired from the NYPD as a detective! Moved to FLorida in the 90’s. Lost several good friends on the NYPD & FDNY, and went back to work @ ground zero for a month immeditely after 9/11. Would like to know if any of you went back to work and look for loved ones? Would also like to know why the left wing liberals are saying we can’t win the war against terror? Would like to know why your democrat leaders are calling our troops terrorist? Most importantly, where do you want to fight and kill the terrorist, here in America or where they train and breed? As far as the movie goes, if Stone wants to make a movie this is a free country, but consequences comes with actions good or bad!!! The last time I checked Hollywood is suffering big time and they will continue to suffer. Also, since 1994 the Deomcrats have lost the House, Senate and the Presidency!!

Joe F.

AS far as your last post as to “what has the left wing done to give them more power?” It appears we don’t have to do anything the cavalier spending by the republicans will do it all for us.

We simply went to the wrong country when we went to Iraq. Bush and Company got greedy for that oil, if we were in the business of finding terrorists we would have gone to Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bush would never had been appearing in public holding the Arab Sheiks hand! WHY? Because that is the root of not only the Wahabist Schools but the Wahallah banking system. Iran is also a major funder of terror what are we doing there?

I can play rhetoric too.

Hollywood is suffering big-time? Ya’ know what? I’d love to hear about that.

Joe F:

“Mr Stone is a bleeding liberal that doesn’t care @ all about America and what it stands for! “

Oh, you mean like independence. In thought and in deed.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Vic:

I would respond by saying that my thoughts are a little more intricate than the common use of the term “Cool aid drinkers†on Watchblog. At least I can think of my own comments and don’t need Limbaugh or O’Reilly to create funny names for me.

If being just “a little more intricate” than those folks is your goal, perhaps you have reached it. Maybe you’ll even reach a point where you know that ‘kool-aid’ is spelled with a “k” and not a “c”. But on to your point.

Bin Laden is still out there, but not forgotten. He was the figurehead of Al Queda—the public persona of them. I’d like to see us get him, but truthfully, if he were the only Al Queda member left, I’d be okay with that. We have diminished Al Queda’s abilities greatly, and that is a key factor. Bin Laden is holed up somewhere most likely along the Pakistani border and appears to be very limited in his ability to communicate, command and move. The more he remains bottled up, the better.

But make no mistake—I’d love for him to be found. Its just not an easy task, nor necessarily the highest priority at this time. AT one point it was. If you want to call it a failure, that’s okay. I wouldn’t even disagree with you on that point. But to make that simple little point a major part of your thought process is just plain…well, vapidly simplistic.

Ron-
Oliver Stone actually served in Vietnam, and from all reports, his experience informed his movie strongly.

1)It’s a common trope in sitcoms, one with a venerable history (Remember the Honeymooners?) but even in those days, you had I Love Lucy, where Ricky Ricardo was the more level-headed of the two. Even nowadays, though, hit series include men of great intellence. Of the top of my head, you’ve got E.R., The X Files, CSI, Farscape and any number of recent shows, including Numb3rs, which features a math genius in the lead.

2)Touched by an Angel. The endless stream of religiously centered TV movies, including The Five People You Will Meet in Heaven. Gandalf describing the afterlife in Lord of the Rings. Nightcrawler stirring prayer for the soul of the apparently dead Jean Grey in X-Men 2. The Prince of Egypt. Dogma, and even the wildly irreverent Bruce Almighty. And what of the recent box office champ, The Chronicles of Narnia? The problem really is, there are very few people willing to take the flak from the religious and non-religious alike to make challenging, creative, well-informed films about religion.

3)It depends on what kind of conservativism. The mainstream conservatism may be more present in terms of attitudes and issues than you might realize. But as for old fashioned conservatives. beating up on them is more a generational thing than necessarily an indication of politics.

The warning I would give is that Hollywood often finds it difficult to portray an ideology when nobody’s found the time to dramatize it effectively. Hollywood has few real leaders, so if you want a real paradigm shift, you need a skilled filmmaker coming from your camp who knows how to couch their viewpoints in a popularly acceptable package.

Witness Spielberg’s effect on our perspective on warfare. How many people my age watched Saving Private Ryan and reconsidered their perspective on what that generation did, and what a difficult fight the soldiers of the Greatest Generation (a concept that grew out of the attention Spielberg’s movie garnered for that generation.)

But the think to keep in mind is that good cinema and culture are rarely so neatly tied in ideological boxes. Spielberg’s movie, in this case, does the almost unimaginable. It glorifies World War II by exposing just how horrific it’s combat was, and by showing that everybody wasn’t utterly stoic about it. It gave emotional grounding to experience of my Generation’s grandparents in WWII. Do not underestimate the importance of that, because many of the men who now fight this war are of my generation, and my generation was right dead center for this cultural event.

Hollywood is a convenient punching bag for you and others because it’s always easy to find a trite, stereotyped film, a negative attitude towards something you like, and a vapid celebrity putting their foot in their mouth. But the truth is, Hollywood is as culturally complex as any place in America.

But that, of course, isn’t as sexy as Hollywood being a unified liberal front against family values.

WELL SAID STEPHEN,

The hype is present that all media is liberal so, people believe what they are reinforced to believe even when the truth is glaring.

Our media is very Conservative as well although they may not reinforce the activism and talking points of the more extremist right. They do have a concensus right edge. How many left wing pundits have a show where they are not being shaperoned by a right winger opposite them? Now how many right wingers have a news discussion show that they don’t have a left wing counterpart?

Come on. Do you honestly think that the majority of U.S. citizens can’t think for themselves. We all know that a little bit of favoritism will be taken when anyone makes a movie. We are ready for movies on this topic. I think that with any subject it is much better to have more information then less. Most Americans have half a brain and can analyze the movie for themselves. Of course there will be a very small minority that will be convinced that this movie is fact, but this does not represent the majority of America. I think this post is pathetic.

Our common knoledge of 911 should tell us if the movie is biased or not. A movie could help or hurt either political party. My insight is that a movie will force Americans to re-live 911 in the’ir own minds and be glad that we have a president that want’s to go get them instead of a president that wants to look good. This president didn’t take us to war. Bush responded to war, and took out husein in the process, as it was his time to go.
So let them make their movie and let’s see what comes out of it. As an earlier post said, I don’t need a movie to remind me of 911.

Is it time for a movie? When is it EVER time for a movie??? Let him make his movie. If it is time, people will go and spend their money to see it. I would prefer someone other than Oliver Stone be first to take a crack at it, but I haven’t really liked any of his movies. He tends to put to much into each scene and character, making them amalgamations of people and events. History gets seriously skewed (and screwed) in his versions, and we all suffer for it. Ask your kids about some of the historical events he’s covered, and you’ll see what I mean.

Oh, Loren-
I watched from my bedroom as the Towers fell. I sat transfixed, like the rest of the nation; only I had the disadvantage of both TV and seeing it in person. To try and portray the NYC metro area as “voting against Bush” is a generalization, as bad as Ollie Stone ever attempted. There are more reasons than 9/11 that Bush didn’t carry NYC. In fact, among New Yorkers who’s primary concern was the war on terror and 9/11, Bush won their vote. 9/11 is NOT the reason Kerry carried NYC. It has more to do with too many people in the region who are clueless about politics, and simply vote for whomever the Democratic Machine tells them to. Despite New Yorkers claiming to be progressive and open-minded, they are generally as intellectually repressive and bigoted as any “Christian” conservative from the Deep South. They are just as easily led by empty promises and rhetoric as those they complain about. They fear new ideas and ways as much as any group in this country!

Personally, I voted for McCain (really, I did). Andrew Kohut, in the 10/21/04 edition of the NY Times put it best: “While many Americans are strongly committed to re-electing President Bush or getting rid of him, there remains a relatively large bloc of swing voters who are critical of the president but who still cannot comfortably back Senator John Kerry.”

Maybe the two major parties can give us a choice in ‘08, other than a guy who is clueless and one who is a vacillator???

How typically red column.

Criticize a movie for its content before it’s made, or even having read the script!

Take a dump on open expression and free enterprise by stating that a movie shouldn’t get made because you don’t like the director or are just terrified that it may reflect badly on the idiot politicians you elect.

And hell, throw in a Nazi reference, as Jack has done, for good measure.

I think this movie is a great idea. Perhaps it will remind our President that 9/11 wasn’t just the day that his poll numbers peaked, or the day that he read his last book. And perhaps he’ll actually get around to pursuing those responsible and actually implementing the demands of the 9/11 commission to make this country safer. In case you were unaware, Bush and the Republican controlled congress got an “F” in virtually every category of the 9/11 commissions recent report card. Bravo!

P.S. As Ron Brown would say, Mr. Stone THANKYOU FOR YOUR SIRVICE

GW blew up the WTC. Anyone with half a brain can see that the buildgings were blown-up. Im not sure how Oliver Stone can do a movie about it. It should be called “GW commits genocide in the USA”.

Geez, Burt.
Take a pill :-){we have a great Pharma industry, don’t forget},
stop reading that peer reviewed literature{ignorance is strength),
and let’s go see Jason’s movie on a credit card (so the Amerinazis can track our spending habits).

Loren,
You said “Those of us who actually lived through 9/11 voted against GW.”

To me that is implying that those who voted for GW did not “actually live thru 9/11”….they were not affected by the events of that day. Not true.

I also note that you (and I suspect much of the left) didn’t vote FOR Kerry, but AGAINST Bush. You’d likely have voted “for” anyone who ran AGAINST Bush. As I said….Kool-aid drinker.

I am also suspicious that 9/11 was the reason you voted against GW, as you implied. You are quick to note that GW didn’t have the popular vote in 2000 in an attempt to discount GW having over 50% of the popular vote in ‘04. Gore didn’t have over 50% either. While popular vote is not how the president is elected, I think it is noteworthy that GW went from receiving about 45% of the popular vote in 2000 to about 52% in ‘04. There were a significant number of people whose opinion of GW shifted dramatically in GW’s favor in post 9/11 America.

Have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!!

Rich,

I like how you smear 9/11 survivors who voted against Bush as “Kool-Aid drinkers”. I guess being attacked by terrorist made them suffer TOO much…

The movie is not really about 9/11. The end of the movie will reveal that GW was really the 2nd man on the grassy knoll and the his father and LBJ conspired to create the Watergate scandle in order to bring down Nixon. GW will also be named as the real DB Cooper and how he used those funds to run for office. It will also reveal that GW caused the 1929 stock market crash though Oliver will have to stretch that a bit since GW wasn’t born yet. Look—its a movie—you don’t have to watch it, rent it, or buy it. There are no conservatives in Hollywood so don’t expect a real movie about 9/11 unless somewhere in movie land there is someone “bravehearted” enough to take on the subject. Mel?

America’s not ready for a 9/11 film? It sounds like you’re not ready. America is always ready for a ‘good’ film about any subject. It’s clear that Oliver Stone has the potential to make a great film. Some on this thread seem more scared of the political slant Stone might put on the film than the actual subject of the film. If the film focuses on the 2 characters and the events of the day, there won’t be much time for the politics in the first place. Which reminds me, if Stone steps up to the plate, not only is he great at depicting the chaos of the day on screen but he could also bring home the personal story as well. If you are still not sure, just check out SALVADOR, PLATOON, BORN ON THE 4TH OF JULY or NATURAL BORN KILLERS.

Foxbat,

—“We could tell you where we think he’s hiding, but then, of course, he’s going to know we know and move.†As soon as our government were to announce that they thought they knew where Bin Laden was, that information would become useless.”—

Not true. There is just as good a chance of catching him ‘on the move’ as much as finding him in a hole in the ground somewhere.

With that said, the reason we don’t hear ANY updates is obvious, there hasn’t been any progress. If there had been some progess, you can bet we would be hearing all about it on every network.

I think that capturing Al-Qaeda lieutenants definitely qualifies as “progress” in the war on terror. I don’t know when or how Bin Laden will be caught, or if ever (maybe he will die first). But I do know that the reasons to stop looking for Bin Laden are miniscule and pathetic compared to the reasons to find him. Would any politician not want to be able to say “I’m responsible for capturing the world’s most wanted terrorist” or something to that effect?

novenge: It’s not rhetoric, it’s logic. I was responding to quotes from previous comments about how conservatives have supposedly forgotten about Osama Bin Laden. I don’t watch Fox News, in fact I don’t watch much TV news at all. “Foxbat” comes from the U.N. designation of the Soviet MiG-25. I use it as an online pseudonym because I am in fact still in high school. That doesn’t mean my opinions shouldn’t count! A fox also happens to be my school mascot, and “fox” is part of the name of the municipality in which I live. I also proofread my own posts.

Oliver Stone making a movie about 9/11? Ron Howard making a movie about the 9/11 Commission? I see Hollywood is hungry for ticket sales to increase. I get a kick out of everyone’s concern over a movie. No matter what, the movie is fiction. Our pop culture is showing its true colors; we care more for a fake version of the truth rather than the truth itself. There are a number of documentaries and books already out there discussing 9/11. And if you are somebody who hasn’t viewed any of them, I warn you, be prepared for the truth. If you adhere to the laws of physics above Big Media news/publicity version of reality, you’ll discover that what occurred on 9/11 is nothing like what you’ve heard before.

I have to tell the truth. One month ago I was calling my neighbor a kook for thinking we didn’t recieve the whole truth about what happened on 9/11. Has anyone here read David Ray Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor. I’m still in a near state of shock. You know, maybe because I was thinking our country was somehow isolated from the rest of the world, it prevented me from thinking I had to pay attention to individuals in our government. Something has been going on surrounding 9/11 and I believe most of the public is being kept in the dark about it.

Now if this isn’t the most peculiar thing I’ve ever heard. Last week down at the VFW Post one of the boys has been hounding everybody to get together to watch that David Griffin fellow talk about 9/11. He was on a videotape. We finally gave in, just to shut him up. I’ll tell you this folks, this David Griffin guy was no wierdo, I think he’s some sort of Theologian. Looked like a nice fellow. He was pretty convincing, had most of us questioning things we never thought twice about. Except old Earl, but he’s dumb as dirt anyway. He told us about the Northwoods project. I checked it out at the library, it was true, our government had a plan to kill US cititzens to get all of us interested in invading Cuba. Hell, back then they didn’t have to try to convince me, I was more than willing to take out Fidel. Now I’m not sure what happened on 9/11. I’m not sure of any of these guys in our government anymore.

Woody,
“I like how you smear 9/11 survivors who voted against Bush as “Kool-Aid drinkersâ€.” - I’m sure you do “like” the idea. Gives you a chance to deflect the debate away from real issues. I suppose Loren has the “moral authority” to not have his/her statements studied and challenged because he/she watched the WTC collapse thru the window instead of on TV as I did.

Any other words you want to insert in my mouth? I NEVER smeared any “9/11 survivors”….no doubt that you desperately wish that I did. The connection you make is weak.

The “kool-aid” reference was directed at several mindless talking-points that Loren was regurgitating. “Bush didn’t really win in 2000”. “Bush was reading a children’s book when the attack happened”. Blah, Blah, Blah. The people who blame GW for 9/11, but don’t lay any blame on previous administrations….etc. Hell, Clinton was probably getting blown when the when the WTC was bombed the first time, or when the Cole was attacked, or Khobar towers, the list goes on and on…where’s the outrage there?

The simple point I was illustrating was that I suspect 9/11 had nothing to do with influencing Lorens political views, but is a sad example of using a tragady to try to advance a political agenda. THOSE people are the ones I was “smearing”. If some of those people happen to be Yankees fans, that does not mean that I’m criticizing them because they like the Yankees.

Nice try. Better luick next time.