Boing Boing had a mini-review that was equally enthusiastic. I admit, I'm intrigued.

i still don't really want to see it.

Yeah, I don't plan to.

I was actually going to ask, in general, how would folks go about either criticizing or defending the act of making a movie drawing on this subject matter? I think the question can to some extent at least be answered independently of the quality/style of the presentation. The review was interesting, but with all due respect, Ebert's insistance that the movie manages to avoid many of the more obvious pitfalls of such a project rang somewhat hollow to me. I also think to some extent some of the same questions are in play in terms of broadcasting the black box recording in conjunction with the Moussaoui trial- what exactly did we gain from that? In my mind there's an unavoidable element of pornography to it, no matter what the intentions/mode/etc.

I don't know, style of the presentation is extremely important. This movie could've easily been made into an overly sappy tv movie-of-the-week-style tear-fest with booming music reminiscent of Armageddon during the climax. From what I've read, that's not the case here.

Pornography? Maybe, but then so is Titanic. I think the timing issue is key.

Yeah, I agree with you that there's bad and worse, and timing is key- I guess what I mean to say is that it doesn't matter what the nuances of tone are because at this point in time the movie doesn't need to make statements- it signifies what it signifies, something that is very immediately alive and kicking. And yeah, I'm no prude, I just think that we can all use our imaginations about what went on in the cabins for the time being. No disrespect either, in fact quite the opposite.

Although disturbed the trailer (Why make this movie?), I am now intrigued by all the positive reviews. However it grosses me out that profit will be made from this film. Even more insulting is the fact that 10% of the movie's opening weekend proceeds will go to a United 93 memorial fund. The filmmakers are admitting that there is something unseemly about making money of this film, so they are giving their guilt lipservice.

i was about to write a longish spiel about how the reality is that no one would have considered making a Pearl Harbor movie soon after the event, and how this callous need to put something to film (either in an exploitative or apologetic-non-exploitative way) is a modern notion -- but then i realized From Here to Eternity came out in 1953 -- admittedly 11 years later, but still fairly soon by the standards of the day.

i no longer think there's a "too soon," but i do think that it's obnoxious that someone intended to make this movie and that oliver stone has a WTC movie coming out.

especially since the government totally shot down that plane -- and there's nothing wrong with that -- but there is something wrong with spreading a folksy lie about these "let's roll" people.

also, From Here to Eternity is a fantastic film. was that on the 102 must-see list?

ps -- that's weird. i don't remember ever using "duke" before -- must have been months ago.

Hey JBG,
Do you really believe that the government shot down the plane? I mean it's less stupid than your thinking that you're not white.

The government did not "totally shoot down that plane."

But regardless of the facts or however such conspiracy theories may entertain people like JBG, there are still many people who remain convinced that

1) the moon landing was faked

2) an alien civilization built the "Face on Mars" (which recent new pictures have shown in indisputable high resoution photos as nothing but ordinary hills)

My point? I realize that no amount of evidence will convince people like JBG that there was no conspiracy because like the face on Mars, conspiracy theorists will take scraps of evidence here and there and stitch them into a Frankenstein monster of a theory whose conclusion has already been pre-determined. Thus, there is no possibility regardless of any real or hypothetical evidence that their pet conspiracy theories can EVER be disproved in their minds (which is really convenient for the longevity of the conspiracy). New data and new facts only serve to act as another patch or stitch on the Frankenstein theory, and the more unwieldy and complex it gets, the better because ironically, it require one to waste more time and energy to even begin to grasp what it's trying to say (thus create the appeal of being exclusivity of "hidden" knowledge)

It's a sad, sad world when such conspiracy theories passes for "educated analysis."

Unfortunately for said conspiracy theorists, "United 93" shows that the only conspiracy on 9/11 was the one committed by a group of highly determined, single-minded terrorists.

yes, i completely believe the plane was shot down.

yes, i completely believe everything i read in the newspapers. yes, i completeley believe everything the president tells me. yes, i completely believe everything that someone says on the internet.

yes, you should always take everything said on a blog completely seriously.

yes, you are a total and complete asshole.

ps if i'm white, how can i totally get away with saying "nigger?"

For anyone that is in to conspiracy theories there is a great one that suggests that not only was United 93 shot down, but that it was also loaded with the passengers from the other three planes. You see the planes that hit the WTC and the Pentagon were remote control drones operated by people in the US government. What to do with all the passengers on the other flights? Why, kill them aboard United 93.

if i were making the call, i would have shot down the plane, no question. i have no reason to believe that THIS GOVERNMENT, OF ALL GOVERNMENTS thought any differently.

you honestly think that the military, the CIA, the FAA, Congress and the President were just sitting, waiting to "see what would happen?"

say yes to any of that, and you my friend, are the stupid.

ps maybe the president was, but, well, you know.

pps it should go without saying that i don't really appreciate your immediate assumption that i think the moon landing was faked, or that there is a face on mars, simply because i made an innocuous comment about something that probably has a 50/50 chance of being accurate, considering the severity of the situation and the parties involved (i.e. the government, what's got guns).

after all, i don't go around saying you're a pretentious blowhard, even the only evidence at hand would suggest so.

Eh, why would the president bother lying about shooting down the plane? It would only have made him seem bigger than life in the early days. I don't think they shot it down becuase they didn't claim they shot it down.

They had no major reason to lie about it.

Whereas I can see the government might have reason to lie if they shot down the plane, I still doubt that they did. What I don't doubt is that jbg goes out of his way on this board to show us all he is an asshole. Considering that this is just a blog, I gotta hand it to the guy for making me think he is such an obnoxious fuck.

I propose, while fully acknowledging my role in the whole thing, that we all attempt to avoid allowing this to spiral into a really unpleasant (in the sense of how it would reflect on all parties involved) debacle.

I'll admit my last post was out of line. Perhaps I am the asshole. Good call Jesse, although I don't think that you bear any of the guilt here, as I alone brought this discussion down many a peg.

No, no, not in this post, but in previous posts I did exactly the same thing. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but as you seem to agree, we should avoid it. Crazymonk's blog deserves better, ey?

No argument here. I definitely agree that the blog deserves better. I regretted post 18 almost immediately and tried to delete it, but could not figure out how. Crazymonk's blog deserves better and if any controversial post results in some sort of flame war, then there really is no fun. I'll place my vote for lively debate and a spiritted exchange of views.

L**** H***** is a black asshole.

Edited by crazymonk.

"Do you really believe that the government shot down the plane? I mean it’s less stupid than your thinking that you’re not white."

yup. lively debate and a spiritted [sic] exchange of views.

thanks jesse, for once again proving your [sic] the better man.

I think "your" was used properly in that sentence. I don't blame you for the mistake. You are non-white after all.

Yo JBG,
I want to hang out with you and see you say "N....." in front of some actual non-whites, so I can see your lilly white ass get a beating.

except i'm not white.

except i say it in front of other non-whites all the time.

and i feel bad for you if your joy in life comes from watching idiots getting beat down.

ps. dear everywon [sic]. you can keep on saying and saying and saying "your [sic] not white, jbg] -- but, a lot like the president saying that saddam and osama were besties, it doesn't make it true.

and if i can't explain why you telling someone what race they are is stupid, then you'll never, never, never learn.

and now, even I'M done talking about it. mama always said there ain't no point in speaking truth to ignorance.

You got me, I have made some spelling errors, but my use of "your" in post 9 is correct.

When did you become so damn obnoxious?