Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Quint visits the set of Oliver Stone's WORLD TRADE CENTER!

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with the exclusive that rounds out the biggies I got to hit on my trip to LA/Santa Barbara. You've seen my report on Robert Zemeckis' BEOWULF and my interviews with James Cameron and George Clooney and now I've got an inside look at questionably the most controversial film to see release this year: Oliver Stone's WORLD TRADE CENTER.

I had actually gotten my hands on the first draft of Andrea Berloff's screenplay shortly before my trip to LA, before I even knew I was going to spend a couple hours on the set.

I don't know about you, but what I heard was Oliver Stone's film was going to be Nicolas Cage playing a heroic fireman running around the burning buildings all Steve McQueen and Paul Newman style saving people. I honestly don't know where that came from. Maybe it was just an assumption that they were going to turn this story into a sort of popcorn action film.

My buddy Kraken had it in his mind that this film was going to be Oliver Stone at the height of his conspiracy theory madness.

Neither one of us were anywhere close to putting our fingers on what this film is.

The movie is based on two real life survivors of the World Trade Center attack, Sgt. John McLoughlin (Nic Cage) and Officer William Jimeno (Michael Pena). They weren't firemen, but Port Authority Officers.

They are one of the first teams to respond to the first tower getting hit. McLoughlin forms a group together and they grab supplies in building 2... air tanks, med packs, etc. I figured around here that the movie was falling into the more action-y flick I was expecting. They use the underground concourse that connects Tower 1 and Tower 2. That's where they are when the buildings collapse.

About 20 pages into the story our main two characters are pinned underneath tons of rubble and the story becomes much smaller than I had anticipated. From this point on our time is divided between McLoughlin and Jimeno trying to break free, feeding on each other's will to live, and their families at home glued to the TV, going through hell.

The lovely Maria Bello plays Nic Cage's wife and the equally lovely Maggie Gyllenhaal plays Michael Pena's wife.

The script was very personal, very intimate and really smartly made an interesting creative decision... We never see the towers in the script. We see Ground Zero when the rescuers are searching the rubble, but before that we're either underneath the buildings, in the lobby of one... even when we're on the street the buildings are obscured by ash. When the families of the Port Authority Officers are watching TV the script never says they are watching the burning buildings or the second plane hitting or anything like that. We just see their reactions.

Having said that, the script had a really solid foundation, but was pretty sloppily written. I'm told there were massive rewrites and what I saw on the set seems to support that. The scene I saw filmed had very realistic and natural dialogue as opposed to the forced and... well, fake, dialogue in the script. So, good news.

From this point on I'm going to be getting into some spoilers. This is a historical event, based on true life characters and their experiences, so I'm sure with a simple google search you can find out what happened to these two men and if they made it out. I won't be going into specifics, but I will be talking about meeting certain people who are being represented in the film, so... fair warning.

When I arrived at Playa Del Rey I was introduced to a very nice lady that I feel like a real bastard for not remembering her name. This nice lady walked me around the two outdoor sets that were built. One is just a long street littered with ash and rubble. This is Vescy St. It was very quiet which gave this set a rather haunted feeling to it... but that was nothing compared with where she took me next.

For the film they had recreated one full acre of Ground Zero. Twisted metal beams, jagged chunks of what was obviously the very recognizable outside of the towers and a field of broken concrete met my eyes. This set was 1:16 the size of the actual Ground Zero, which was a full 16 acres big. You get a feeling of just how impossible it seems that anyone not only would survive this falling on top of them, but also be found in the rubble.

Every moment from the 11th came rushing back to me. That day where I couldn't keep from watching CNN with a sort of wide-eyed awe. That was actually happening. I remembered that vulnerable feeling... what's going to happen next? The set was amazing and you could tell the few crew that were out there held great reverence for what it represented.

They weren't filming on this set the day I was there. I was taken into these gigantic buildings... These buildings were massive on the inside, one of those places you go that just seems to breath history. I was told that I was standing in the very hangers that Howard Hughes built the Spruce Goose in, which I must say... kinda blew my mind a bit.

The hanger where they were shooting was smokey, atmospheric. Like a sort of twisted Wizard of Oz, Oliver Stone and his crew were filming behind a gigantic black curtain. This curtain was pulled into a square that must have been 50 feet by 50 feet and at least 5 or 6 stories tall... maybe bigger.

I was introduced to one of the producers, a fellow by the name of Michael Shamberg, who produced such films as GARDEN STATE, GHOST WORLD, PULP FICTION and THE BIG CHILL, and we chatted briefly about the tone of the film. He recognizes there is a fine line they are walking, but is convinced that by focusing on the American people pulling together and selflessly helping strangers as well as keeping true to the real people portrayed in film that the filmmakers will produce a film that will avoid disrespecting the event.

I heard more than once on my visit that 9/11 has been very politicized (by both sides) and that the aim of the film is to remind people how we reacted to the attack, before politics came into play... When, for at least a day, humanity pulled together.

Shamberg walked me over to the plank that led up to the platform where they were shooting. Oliver Stone was at the foot of the plank talking to one of his crew members. As we approached, Stone finished his conversation and Shamberg introduced us.

Another misconception I had about this film was turned on its head. I didn't expect Stone to be a jerk or anything, but I wasn't prepared for how warm and receiving he was. I had heard many stories of how difficult he was to deal with on a movie set, but there was no evidence of that here. The crew all seemed to love him.

We didn't talk much, but he did tell me to come up and watch a take or two on the crowded platform above.

When the buildings collapse, trapping our leads, the floor beneath their feet collapse as well. McLoughlin is trapped a full floor below Jimeno. Hence the reason for the platform.

Even though Cage wasn't shooting while I was there, they had Pena on his level and a fire burning somewhere below, illuminating (in part) the scene I saw shot. That explains the smokiness of the studio.

Hanging around the stage were 3 or 4 chunks of rubble on wires that Stone told me could be moved around depending on how claustrophobic he wants the scene to be or where the camera is positioned. It's like a breakaway wall on a sit-com and it just gives him tons of creative freedom in placing the camera and quickly being able to turn around. I thought that was pretty neat.

The scene was from late in the movie after the rescue teams find our two leads. Scott Strauss (played by Stephen Dorff) is crawling around Michael Pena's character, trying to help him get free of the giant concrete slab that's pinning him to the ground. Strauss himself was on set and Stone introduced us when we first arrived at the top of the platform.

He just repeated over and over how right they're doing this, that he as well as the real McLoughlin and Jimeno wouldn't be involved at all if they weren't sure that Stone and the producers were trying to politicize the event or in any way dishonor those who suffered in the attacks or the resulting aftermath.

I know that in most cases on films this controversial the idea is to downplay it to the press and public, but I have to tell you... from reading the script, meeting the people involved and seeing what I saw I tend to believe the party line this time around. The subject matter is, of course, going to hit on a still raw nerve for many Americans, but does that mean McLoughlin and Jimeno's stories and the stories of those who banded together to save their lives should never be told?

I watched the first take from on the platform. I couldn't really make out much that was going on with all the crew doing their jobs in between myself and the actors, but I tend to love that kind of stuff. Just sitting back and watching a monitor is great, but that scene from that angle will be in the film. I can watch that forever if I want, but I have one moment in time to get a completely different perspective by watching near the camera. One of my most cherished memories on my visit to the RETURN OF THE KING set was sitting as the tent opening when Elrond gave the reforged Narsil to Aragorn. In the film you have great coverage of the meeting, but I now also have a separate set of memories that see that scene played out from the side-lines, to Aragorn's side, looking almost straight on with Hugo Weaving.

I love that shit, so when I was asked if I wanted to go watch them get the first take on the monitor, I chose to stay and watch the take as I stood 3 feet from Stone, crouched at his monitors, and standing right next to the real life Scott Strauss as his film version tried chip away at the concrete.

The DP of the film is a man by the name of Seamus McGarvey, who shot THE HOURS and HIGH FIDELITY. He seemed like a real character and had the exact right accent a bloke by the name of Seamus should have. When Stone called action, Seamus was just off camera holding a small light on a pole and illuminating the scene as it unrolled. Considering they're trapped in an almost cave-like environment the lighting must be tricky... how to show them without having an unexplained godlight just illuminating everything.

There were grips also holding poles... at least 3 different people that used the hollow poles to drop stuff on the actors. One was filled with ash/grit, another had pebbles and bigger chunks of rock and the last had a pole that dripped water.

The take was at least 4 minutes long. When they cut, I left the crowded platform to give the crew a bit of room to maneuver. I made my way down to the video village below and took a seat to watch the next take.

The scene had 3 people in it: Jimeno (Pena), Strauss (Dorff) and Frank Whaley playing another rescuer. You guys know Whaley as Kevin Spacey's abused assistant from SWIMMING WITH SHARKS or "Check out the big brain on Brett!" from PULP FICTION. He's a long time Oliver Stone actor, from films like BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, THE DOORS and JFK.

Pena is screaming in pain as Dorff is trying to use a small jaws of life device to chew through the concrete. Strauss creates some small talk to try to get Jimeno's focus off the pain of his shattered lower-half and they're interrupted by a voice from below. McLoughlin speaks up from below (I'm not sure if Cage was there or if it was prerecorded) and he sounds really out of it.

At this point the dialogue between Jimeno and Strauss is about trying to dig McLoughlin out first, since he's the one closer to death. They can't start going further down without clearing Jimeno out of the way first, so Jimeno tells them to take his legs. If they cut off his legs they can pull him free in minutes and then begin on freeing McLoughlin.

Do they? Well, you'll either have to wait or set your fingers a-typin' on google.

The second take was done with more close shots of Dorff and Pena, covered in concrete dust and bits of rubble as well as closer shots of the Jaws of Life at work on the rock.

I took off shortly after they cut from the second five minute-long take, heading back out through both Spruce Goose hangers and out into the sunshine and fresh air again.

I'm not completely sure how the film will come off, but I am convinced everybody involved is making this movie for the right reasons. At its most political it seems to simply just want to take back this tragedy from the politicians and give it back to the Americans who actually banded together (physically like in New York or emotionally like the rest of the country), to highlight our true strength in the shadow of our greatest fear.

I hope that movie is what shows up on the screen.

Below you'll find the poster that is about to hit theaters... I'm not sure what to think of it... I am sure that it'll spark more negative controversy than the poster should. But I do like the framing of the poster. You do get the feeling of the towers lumbering over the two small men... I don't know what I would have done differently, but I can already hear the enraged outcry by people who don't really have any idea what the movie is about because of the teaser one sheet.

I hope I was able to clarify the film for a lot of you or at least decently convey my experiences on the set. I also hope you guys enjoyed reading about my visit.

I'll be back with the bulk of my coverage of the Santa Barbara Film Festival later tonight and over the next couple of days. 'Til then, this is Quint bidding you all a fond farewell and adieu.


Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Feb. 10, 2006, 8:44 p.m. CST


    by jimmy_009

  • Feb. 10, 2006, 8:54 p.m. CST


    by occula

    it had to happen sooner or later, i guess.

  • Feb. 10, 2006, 8:54 p.m. CST

    another potential concern?

    by Avenger534

    Enter the stereotypical idiot consumer, who sees the poster, thinks the buildings look like a Roman numeral two, and scratches his head, trying to remember the first film.

  • Feb. 10, 2006, 8:55 p.m. CST

    Stone is to be paid in pot plants for this movie.

    by Yoda's Ball Sack

  • Feb. 10, 2006, 8:57 p.m. CST

    Stone insisted he be paid in pot plants

    by Yoda's Ball Sack

    for this movie. Its true.

  • Feb. 10, 2006, 9 p.m. CST

    Sorry for double post.

    by Yoda's Ball Sack

    Talk-Back got screwd up.

  • Feb. 10, 2006, 9:11 p.m. CST

    sounds good, not exploitative...

    by mrgreentheplant

    i really like that you have to squint at the poster to see that nicolas cage is in it. stephen dorff always sucks, but i have faith in the way they're handling the tragedy aspect, without politics. could be good.

  • Feb. 10, 2006, 9:15 p.m. CST

    yeah that's what we need

    by oscarmike

    a movie pretentious movie about 9/11. you're the man quint

  • Feb. 10, 2006, 9:28 p.m. CST

    Brace yourself for the talkback shitstorm...

    by Chief Redcock

  • Feb. 10, 2006, 9:30 p.m. CST

    It's interesting...

    by Chief Redcock

    Quint's given the first negative evaluation of the script I've read. Until then, it's been pretty glowy... hopefully they'll do this right. This would be an easy project to botch. But I am undeniably curious, as well as a big Stone/Cage fan.

  • Feb. 10, 2006, 9:32 p.m. CST

    After reading this and thinking about it

    by Bean_

    I guess it's a good start with 9/11 films. I still don't think there should be a PEARL HARBOR type movie made for at least 10 or 20 years. FLIGHT 93 still seems pretty stupid to make, the details about that plane are shaky at best, and all this fake-dramatic bullshit they'll put in to it... Right now WTC looks like the better 9/11 film.

  • Feb. 10, 2006, 9:34 p.m. CST

    I like the poster...

    by Tubbs Tattsyrup

    except it makes the towers look like sculptures or something, rather than buildings. They're tiny!

  • Feb. 10, 2006, 9:45 p.m. CST


    by Bean_

    So far it hasn't, why do you have to bring it up?

  • Feb. 10, 2006, 9:50 p.m. CST

    I agree with Avenger534

    by Undead Neverhood

    People these days just look at the picture on the poster and don't really read it. Many of them are going to think the movie is called "2" and then shrug their shoulders, hit the speed dial for someone else on their cell phone, and walk into the theater showing Final Destination 3.

  • Feb. 10, 2006, 10:25 p.m. CST

    Hoorah! Another Oliver Stone TB to fling spittle in!

    by HogCholera

    I think I'll sit this one out.

  • Feb. 10, 2006, 10:55 p.m. CST

    How ironic...

    by Ribbons

    ...homewrecker is the first one to actually inject salacious politics into the TalkBack thread. Good going, homewrecker.... or should I say DOCPAZUZU!!!!?!?!?!!

  • Feb. 10, 2006, 11:07 p.m. CST


    by Orionsangels

    No matter how you slice and dice it. 9/11 is becoming a comercialize product. No surprise, other than how soon it's happened. So typical of us Americans to do this. Hate to a quote a movie, but it fits. "For me the grief is still to near." This movie just trivializes the events of that day. They really don't mean anything to this movie, other than being an action movie and box office results. Even if the money goes to charity. It's still just a way to glorify an event and get oliver stone somemore attention.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 12:28 a.m. CST

    they still let Stone make movies?

    by Silver Shamrock

    Gotta love Hollywood, colossal failure is not just an option, it's a way of life.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 12:58 a.m. CST

    Stone needs a hit movie

    by Undead Neverhood

    Because he sure has made a lot of movies that turned into fiscal trainwrecks. Even though this is a 9/11 film I still would be a little nervous if I was financing this movie given his track record. I think it will turn out good though.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 1:25 a.m. CST

    honestly, I think America might need this movie...

    by Kraken

    ... to wipe some of the political sludge that has been thrown all over the phrases 9/11 and WTC. This story isn't about all that bullshit. It's about remembering what happened from the perspective of people that didn't use it as political ammunition afterwards, but instead remember it as a time when this country came together. I for one, am very much looking forward to that story and that perspective being put back into the forefront.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 2:26 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    ...I have to give homewrecker credit for actually being relatively early in the game for once, rather than crawling in on his yellow belly a week after the talkback starts in order to post chickenshit sniping instead of actually debating. Then again, look who I'm talking about: home "if you don't like P Diddy then you're a racist" wrecker. How's that IP number tracking of all my other identities going, HW?

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 2:33 a.m. CST

    for the last word on this bollocks

    by heywood jablomie


  • Feb. 11, 2006, 2:34 a.m. CST

    Great article. This movie might be something special.

    by Spacesheik

    It has a great cast and Oliver Stone seems to be doing it for the right reasons. With Stone you know it will be masterfully edited and have a great John Williams score and a rousing dark undercurrent. This looks good, I'm looking forward to it, lets just hope they avoid the APOLLO 13 cliches: wives at home waiting for husbands etc, the port authority team /leader trying to communicate wiht the trapped men etc..

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 2:36 a.m. CST

    BTW Am I the only person who thought NIXON rocked?

    by Spacesheik

    One of the best and most moving films of the 1990s in my humble opinion - its a great fucking film

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 2:55 a.m. CST

    Nice try, DocPazuzu...

    by Ribbons

    ...or should I say homewrecker?!?!?! I'm on to you... you and your games...

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 3:21 a.m. CST

    Wide Berth I say, Wide Berth...

    by seppukudkurosawa

    I hate this particular sub-genre of talkbacks, so I'm staying the fuck out of this one. and Spacesheik, you ain't the only one, Nixon was a damn mensch! Oh you mean the movie, yeah that was good too...

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 4:54 a.m. CST

    Could be very good (and, yes, Nixon is a great pic)

    by Dickie Greenleaf

    Good to see someone else appreciates what a strong piece of work Nixon is. Not as good as JFK (which I believe is one of the finest films I've ever seen), but a mature and complex exploration of a very difficult figure. Like all Stone films, the technique is mind-boggling, which brings me to World Trade Centre. Seeing one of the most visually ambitious filmmakers of current times go about shooting a story restricted to the confines of such a claustrophobic setting will be interesting. But this does sound like it has great potential, and could be extremely powerful if done right. Stone really does need to get this right. The reaction to Alexander must've hurt, and there's a degree to which he needs to restore his rep, despite the legacy of important films he's made. And this is from someone who liked a lot about Alexander. But reaction to the new film concerns me, because there's nobody the critics (and, perhaps, the media as a whole) like to target more than Stone. Had Alexander come from another filmmaker, I don't think it would've suffered so much. Not that its a masterpiece, but I think its a better film than, say, Troy, which had a luke-warm response from critics but nothing like the venom directed at Stone's far more ambitious, and dare I say it, more impressive film. So how people react to World Trade Centre will be a key factor in the film's success. I hope those that have the first opportunity to form opinion on the film look beyond whatever prejudice they have against Stone. He's been an erractic and controversial talent, but a talent he remains, and his voice is still very much vital.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 5:44 a.m. CST

    For authenticity...

    by BannedOnTheRun

    I think the crew should rebuild the twin towers on Ground Zero.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 7:07 a.m. CST

    at least the poster looks good:

    by newc0253

    but i fear for oliver stone doing this. i like him as a director but as a political thinker? he's an asshat.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 9:10 a.m. CST

    by LeFlambeur

    I really wish they would have cast some unknowns in this. Making a movie about 9/11 is trivializing enough, but to put Nic Cage in the lead just seems silly. At the towers ordinary people did extrordinary acts of heroism, we've seen Nic Cage do all kinds of crazy shit in movies, whatever he does here won't seem as, I don't know, extrordinary.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 10:11 a.m. CST

    Stone's arguably the most courageous working filmmaker

    by Buck Turgidson

    Stone pushes the boundaries in everything he does, and for that I'm grateful. Ever since Platoon I've been a huge fan. His body of work is stunning and I'm amazed at how polarizing a figure he is.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 10:25 a.m. CST

    This should be interesting.

    by moleperson78

    When 9/11 happened Oliver Stone talked of making-a picture from AL Queda's side like Battle of Algiers-an operational-kind of thing--i think if he'd made that he would of been tortured, raped by the right and most of the left in this country. Now after Alexander was a monumental commerical and critical failure (I actually thought the film uneven but containing some pretty amazing things)-hes going after something he thinks lots of people will love. I say for him this movie is a crap shoot if he fucks it up this could be the end...of mr. stone, if it becomes a success-if it becomes a sort 'The Best Years of Our Lives" for our generation, I mean Wyler made that in 1946-when the events of that awful day in american history known as Pearl Harbor happened only 5yrs. prior-and its a great film-a little sentimental but real powerful, so if this film of an equally awful day in american history works i say stone will be the hollywood hot shot for a while-even after they almost murdered him if it was filmed 15yrs from now it would probaly be directed by Mr. Bay and we all know what great movies he makes especially when there about historically important events

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 10:32 a.m. CST

    And for anyone to say "he sucks, see Alexander"...

    by Buck Turgidson

    That's like saying, "Stan Musial sucked because he had a bad game." Nevermind that Musial was a career .331 hitter, and had a single-season high of 39 home runs. Stone has been an Academy Award nominee eleven times, and won the Oscar three times. He's an exceptiona filmmaker.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 10:38 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    So you say, sir. As if I didn't know that you're me. Nice try, but if anyone is going to fool me it's going to be you. I mean me. No, you.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 10:39 a.m. CST

    Anyone who needs an Ollie Stone movie...

    by LilOgre

    to remind them what 9/11 is all about needs to really re-think their personal philosophy. maybe its just because i live in nyc that i have not forgotten what it was "really" about and sure as hell do not need to see nick "gone in 60 seconds" cage strutting around in a port authority costume to remember this day.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 11:09 a.m. CST

    I'll Save Everyone Some Time Here

    by Ill Clinton

    Hopefully Stone will reveal the truth about the Bushies in this film and won't be afraid of what the government will do in retaliation. He's already on their list, so he might as well go down swinging. It's well documented that Bush and Rove knew about the attacks before they occurred, and did nothing to prevent them so they would have an excuse for the never ending war to benefit the military industrial complex and the oil barons. I'm curious to see if executive order 2002 is even mentioned, the order "suggesting" that the first responders in New York be comprised of the gay personnel on the police force and fire department. No 9/11 film can do justice to the tragedy without discussing how the Pentagon moved all white personnel out of harm's way hours before a jet collided into mostly empty offices, empty except for the minorities that somehow were not informed to leave their desks along with the hand-picked shadow government of the New America. Will Stone dare show Bin Laden leaving the US on a Saudi plane after observing his handiwork with the apparent knowledge of US officials? Somehow I doubt it. Stone has been bought and paid for by the RupubliKKKans and this will be a propaganda feel good piece of patriotism.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 11:10 a.m. CST


    by Magic Rat

    Personally, I think we should wait until we have another president before we do a movie about 911.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 11:17 a.m. CST

    TNT Sucks...

    by seppukudkurosawa

    See above.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, noon CST

    Wow Ill Clinton...

    by JackRabbitSlim

    Wheres the part of the secret Israeli telegram that saved all those Jews? Or are the Klan members of Amerikka joined together with those evil Heimies in a dastardly plot to control the world? And what part do those Illuminati-controlled Oil Corporations have to do with it. Conspiracy theorists - what fucking morons.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, noon CST

    Oliver Stone rules...

    by blackstormy

    see Scarface. Stone created Scarface, with the help of Pacino of course, but he wrote the screenplay and that is one of the most memorable character and movie of our lifetime, the man deserves respect.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 12:33 p.m. CST

    The Truth?

    by moleperson78

    Oliver Stone is always obessesed with getting to the bottom of IT. But with this one, i agree with the guy up a bit who said this is gonna be feel-good(well for a WTC) movie-the old stone maybe would have made--something else-but i heard him talk at SVA and i think he really wants an audience pleaser-just my opion-anyway the truth of what REALLY HAPPENED i think its a little to soon to jump to any conclusion (i mean i know Bush sucks), but the complexties go far beyond that---movies can't uncover that kind of truth anyway-stone has made damn powerful movies in the past but a movie should not make up your mind on a subject thats just stupid---watching John Ford's They Were Expendable right now- i think thats what stone is going for-if succeds only time will tell

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 12:35 p.m. CST

    TNT868: May Bill Clinton mistake you for an Intern!

    by Spacesheik

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 12:36 p.m. CST


    by Ribbons

    Truly you have a dizzying intellect... or is that me, because I am you? And does that mean homewrecker is me too? My head hurts.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Sounds like a remake of DAYLIGHT.

    by FluffyUnbound

    It seems strange to me that you'd sit down to make a movie about 9/11, and a remake of DAYLIGHT is all you come up with. I know everyone is afraid of politicizing a film about these events [particularly in Stone's hands] but I think you pretty much HAVE to do that to do the story justice. Oh, and by the way, TALK RADIO and SALVADOR are fucking great films. I'm an Oliver Stone hater, and even I know that.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 12:53 p.m. CST

    watch platoon or jfk again. he does sort of stink.

    by all

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 1:29 p.m. CST

    So why does Ollie Stone suck?

    by Yoda's Ball Sack


  • Feb. 11, 2006, 2 p.m. CST


    by butnugget

    why would you want to commodify yet another tragedy and one of the biggest in history at that? Some people would dry hump a dead fireman to get a buck out of the misery of the nation. yeah, I'll go see it.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 3:30 p.m. CST

    These Are the Baby Steps

    by Jervis Tetch

    Flight 93 (which has already been done now as a TV movie, next for theaters) and this one...are the "starting points." Then there's an ABC miniseries being made that will offer a study of the whole event. But some year, some studio's gonna go "all the way": full "Titanic"/"Pearl Harbor" big disaster movie treatment, with a money shot of some guy at his desk in the WTC looking out the window and seeing a jet coming right at him. There's too much money on the table. Worldwide a billion, maybe. I'll bet every studio is quietly maneuvering for that day...who'll go first?

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 4:04 p.m. CST

    Blackstormy - too bad DePalma directed SCARFACE eh?!

    by LilOgre

    Yeah sort of puts a whole in your theory as the one good film you think Stone made someone else directed. And I heard that in Stone's version he wanted Tony Montana and the Cuban Mafia to team up and work under the leadership of LBJ.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 4:17 p.m. CST

    My personal favourite Stone film is without a doubt...

    by seppukudkurosawa

    Salvador, which TNT figured was one of the reasons why Stone sucks (you seen it by any chance?). It's an incredibly powerful film, and though I admit it is kind of disjointed, I think that works in its favour. The fact that it starts off like a Hunter S Thompson adaptation makes the inevitable horror of some of the scenes (the raped-and-killed nuns, the killing of the photographer looking for the perfect shot) all the more affecting. It may not be completely true, but as a movie it's a kick-in-the-head. And the performances are great in it, especially Woods', who apparently got quite freaked-out at how unhinged the filming had become and tried to hitchhike home- but this only adds to the tension inherent in his character. If you are even half-interested in Stone films you should look this one up (or if you've heard The Clash's Sandinista album).

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 4:21 p.m. CST

    He's lost it

    by Shropshire Slash

    It's a short drop from "edgy" and "original" filmmaking to "hacky" and "has been" as Stone proves ... he's all out of original ideas I guess (and a lot better conspiracy theorists out there making films like Clooney, Soderbergh, Moore, etc).

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 5:18 p.m. CST

    This shouldn't be called 'World Trade Center'

    by performingmonkey

    I don't think they'd be allowed to show the towers collapsing (not even WTC7 :) ) in a movie so this is why we're gonna see it from below like Spielberg WOTW style when Cruise is in the basement and holy shit is taking place above. Also, everyone has the images of the towers collapsing engraved in their memory so to try and recreate that with effects would just suck. This is about the story of some lucky survivors of the 'incident' and their families. The tales of suffering and death on September 11th 2001 should never be forgotten because it is the day that the U.S. government officially announced that it doesn't give a fuck about innocent peoples' lives. Sure, this had been suggested previously, but usually they weren't sitting back and letting American people die on their own soil. No-one could turn a blind eye to what happened on September 11th 2001, whereas most people didn't give two fucks if Americans died in military service. Cheney has the blood of thousands on his hands. Any 9/11 movie should be called 'Blood On Their Hands'. Actually, the attacks were orchestrated to minimize loss of life but kill enough people to make an impact. Notice how high up the first plane hit, and how the attacks happened when thousands hadn't arrived at work. Why not hit low down when the buildings were full of people? Because they were orchestrated that way, that's why. The second plane could hit lower because more people had exited the second tower after the first plane hit. The USAF were forced away from NY prior to the attacks or else they would have DESTROYED the planes. Normally, fighters are scrambled when they don't get a response from an airliner after a few minutes. But they were all hundreds of miles away at the order of Cheney. WTC7 was destroyed by demolition charges inside the building. Why were they there?

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 5:23 p.m. CST

    inappropriate patriotic urges

    by cantankerous

    Yeah, we never see the towers in the film because that might trigger inappropriate patriotic urges among the filmgoers and serve to remind them what we

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 5:35 p.m. CST

    re: performingmonkey.

    by cantankerous

    Is that part of your comedy routine? It is funny, but you need some fresh material.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 6:10 p.m. CST

    Not showing the towers

    by Anakin Whoopass

    Does that mean we NEVER see the towers in the movie, even before they collapse? The older this movie gets the weirder and weaker that's going to seem. It'd be like not showing JFK in JFK and Stone sure didn't hold back there.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 6:43 p.m. CST

    Now that FINAL DESTINATION 3 used 9/11 imagery...

    by LaudnerGomez

    America needs a swift kick-in-the-balls reminder of this event more than ever.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 6:47 p.m. CST

    They saved Jimeno's legs.

    by 3 Bag Enema


  • Feb. 11, 2006, 8:25 p.m. CST

    If it's not exploitation, then what the hell is it?

    by scrumdiddly

    School? A film either entertains us or teaches us. Or, I suppose in most cases, neither. Doesn't anyone find this thing offensive? I do, and I'm not even American.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 8:59 p.m. CST

    Not to trivialize the event or anything...

    by SK909

    but the way it's constantly compared to Pearl Harbor and made to sound as though it overshadows every other event in history is ridiculous. I just can't believe how historically uneducated people can be. I even remember Giuliani calling it, in a speech shortly afterwards, "the bloodiest day in American history." Really? Ever hear of a place called Antietam? How about Gettysburg? And Pearl Harbor touched off our involvement in a war that would come to an end in the Pacific with the immeasurably higher count of civilian casualties than 9/11 via the use of the atomic bomb. Of course there has never been a higher count of AMERICAN civilian casualties in our history, but the more politicians and media outlets make it out to be the bloodiest day in the history of the world, the more it means events like this will always be repeated for the lack of historical perspective. Believe it or not, there are a lot of morons in the audience who hear all of that political hyperbole and then they think that World War II or the Civil War must have been nothing compared to 9/11 and therefore not even worth considering on the scale of violent human events in history. It's sad, cause that kind of thinking, the line that acts as though 9/11 is the 'Ground Zero' of history, the point in the story at which nothing that comes before matters and everything after does, the worse off we are as a species. And that's not even getting into the way that it's been co-opted so much by the media as a way to turn people into news bucketheads during the days since and by the politicians as a sort of short-hand or currency to let the proverbial tail wag the dog, meaning that it's being used to take the power away from the people. Again, I know people who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks, but I still believe it's become a 'me' generation disaster, leaving all the shit I've listed above in its sorrowful wake.

  • Feb. 11, 2006, 10:09 p.m. CST

    re: SK909

    by performingmonkey

    "the line that acts as though 9/11 is the 'Ground Zero' of history, the point in the story at which nothing that comes before matters and everything after does" This is EXACTLY what the Bush administration wanted 9/11 to be. They wanted to say 'Fuck everything that's gone before, fuck all the bad things we've done in history, fuck all the lies we've told over the years, fuck the fact that we're the only nation ever to have nuked someone, fuck the number of innocent people that have died and are about to die under our regieme. Forget all that. We've just been attacked on our own soil - WE'RE GOIN' TO WAR BABY!!!'. And the WTC attacks were perfect because EVERYONE could see them, and middle America would sit up and take notice as they saw the slaugtering of their own. No-one sees people dying in the middle-east. It's too far away, we don't even know how to spell these countries, let alone point them out on a map. Attacking the WTC and Pentagon, symbols of American strength? Shit like that didn't even happen in WWII. Pearl Harbour is the closest thing, and frankly the more I read about Pearl Harbour the more I question whether that was also allowed to happen in order to bring America into the war. Ahem...

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 12:28 a.m. CST

    This is a Damn Shame

    by chains

    JFK is one of the most powerful films of all time, and 9/11 presents an opportunity to make an equally influential film. The fact that Stone isn't addressing the conspiracy (it's not a theory if you can prove it) is disheartening. I hope someone has the balls to make a JFK-type film about 9/11... it may be the only thing that wakes Americans up out of their media-induced slumber.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 12:32 a.m. CST

    By the way,,,

    by chains

    Yes, our government knew in advance. Yes, they allowed 9/11 to happen. Yes, they used it an a pretext for waging war against an enemy that by definition cannot be defeated (ever). Yes, they used 9/11 as an excuse to take away our civil liberties. And yes, if you don't do your own research into the truth about 9/11, you deserve to live in the police state that America is bound to become.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 3:05 a.m. CST

    The Set

    by The_General

    I drove past the "Ground Zero" set the other night and all I can say is, "spoooky". It was night and all we saw were these giant condors with huge lights shining down into the center of the wreckage, with plumes of smoke coming up. There really isn't much to see (they've got walls around the set), but you can definitely see the skeletal remains of the two towers jutting up from the set. Even at 1/16th scale it still gave me goosebumps to see it! If anyone is in the LA area I'm pretty sure the set is still there (I could be wrong). Just take Centinela all the way to Jefferson and look straight ahead. You can't miss it.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 6:59 a.m. CST

    The whole world knows

    by GingerTwit

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 7:33 a.m. CST

    TomBodet, you're stupid.

    by chains

    Stupid, stupid, stupid. Go look up the numerous warning signs Dick Cheney and the administration ignored. Pants down, my ass...

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 8 a.m. CST

    Conspiracy or not...

    by seppukudkurosawa

    I don't give a shit. Read The Wasteland, and the passage Death by Water... You'll realise you're all doomed either way.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 8:25 a.m. CST

    wasteland - death by water

    by GingerTwit

    perhaps I'm not as artsy as you seppu.... but what the fuck??

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 8:38 a.m. CST

    Come on, you have to admit that doc was anal as fuck

    by seppukudkurosawa

    And the hip-hop editing at the this like some kind of litmus test, and anyone who survives the fist three minutes gets all the juicy conspiracy info? How can you base your life on shit like this, it's just leeching the news... The Truth as delivered out of the mouth of some whitey stoner who watches too much television. Motherfuck yo' conspiracies, go on a pilgrimage to Mecca; write a book (about something other than half-baked conspiracies); go fuck your second cousin, I don't give a shit, anything other than this whiney, "you're being lied to, take the red pill" business.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 8:48 a.m. CST

    And yeah I admit-

    by seppukudkurosawa

    talking about The Wasteland was a bit random. It's a good poem though, you should check it out.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 8:50 a.m. CST

    Alexander was awesome

    by c4andmore

    Harry was right about that one, fuck you haters!!!!!

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 9:14 a.m. CST

    Right ON!, SK909

    by cantankerous

    What a maroon that Giuliani. Saying 9/11 was the bloodiest day in US history. Doesn

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 9:31 a.m. CST

    DAMN RIGHT, chains!

    by cantankerous

    JFK is one of the most powerful films of all time! Ok, I know that almost all of it has been debunked but that

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 9:42 a.m. CST

    No Towers

    by Jabber_Jaw

    I like the fact they are not showing the Towers. It shows respect.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 11:11 a.m. CST

    Disaster films or Dramas

    by Spacesheik

    In disaster movies or dramas like VOLCANO, TOWERING INFERNO, etc the boring part sof the film are the ones that revolve around someone trapped under rubble etc - since Stone's film will focus on that aspect and not the disaster or overall rescue itself he's gonna have to be very visually inventive to keep audiences glued to the screen - i think some snappy editing, some bombastic rousing john wiliams, some great dialogue and cinematography - he could pull it off

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 11:13 a.m. CST

    You're right, cantankerous...

    by chains

    Oswald acted alone, 19 arabs with box cutters were responsible, and the Communists were responsible for the Reichstag fire. Now go back to sleep.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 11:15 a.m. CST

    cantankerous, what was it like when...

    by Cod Profundity

    they put that little chip in your head that's wi fi'd right up to Scott McClellan's mind? You might as well just type "the official version is the ONLY version anything that contradicts is MUST be fake i couldn't bear the thought I was beng lied to by my government" over and over again, it's all you really add to these things anyway.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 11:24 a.m. CST

    To sum it up...

    by chains

    JFK was killed by a lone nut. Martin Luther King was killed by a lone nut. RFK was killed by a lone nut. 3,000 people were killed on 9/11 by 19 nuts masterminded by Osama bin Laden with a laptop in a cave. Case closed. Oh, and anyone who challenges those theories is a lunatic conspiracy theory nutjob.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 12:12 p.m. CST

    Yeah, Chains, that would pretty much be true.

    by FluffyUnbound

    There's a possibility that King's death was a result of a conspiracy, but the rest of that is right on. Do you know what the biggest problem with the conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassinations are? The fact that the motives are half-ass bullshit. They're based on revisionist hagiographic bullshit about those wonderful, wonderful [handsome] Kennedy brothers that has no basis in fact. JFK simply would not have ended the Viet Nam war, and anyone who thinks that he would have is blowing themselves. He started it, and he would have continued to prosecute it, especially considering the fact that he had a re-election campaign coming up, and he had won election in the first place by claiming that Richard Nixon [RICHARD NIXON] wasn't HARD ENOUGH on Communism. So any conspiracy theory centered around the notion that the "military industrial complex" killed JFK so he wouldn't end the war in Viet Nam is a demented fucking school child's fantasy. JFK was one of the best friends the military industrial complex in this country ever had, since he started the war in Viet Nam and ALSO kick-started NASA to funnel defense contractors EVEN MORE billions. This is not a man they needed or wanted to assassinate. And as for RFK, RFK's anti-war stance was about eleven minutes old when he was assassinated, and there's no reason for anyone to assume it would have survived a general election campaign. There were plenty of Democrats with SINCERE AND LEGITIMATE anti-war credentials who were way in front of RFK in the assassination queue, if the "military-industrial" complex really needed to start assassinating people. RFK was the political equivalent of a two dollar, who had in his political lifetime been both hawk and dove, both pro- and anti-Joe McCarthy, and had been both pro-civil-rights and an obstructionist on even that issue. There was little or no reason to assassinate RFK because any policy of his you had a problem with, you just needed to wait five minutes and he'd change his mind. A few decades of TV specials with sad music and pictures of people crying have convinced you morons that these men were gods who somehow needed to be "taken down" by sinister forces opposed to the utopia they were on the threshold of creating, and it just ain't so. They were charming hacks, no different from a thousand other politicians who will die in their beds.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 12:30 p.m. CST


    by tango fett

    weren't we being threatened as far back as the Clinton administration, plus the attack on the USS Cole was in '99, before Bush came to the presidency? I'm not exactly trying to be a prick about it but saying the Bush administration knew about it and didn't do anything could be said for the Clinton administration as well. Just sayin' is all.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 12:32 p.m. CST

    The real hero of this event

    by Razorback

    Was the guy who survived the first collapse and tried to dig the two guys out but was killed when the second tower collapsed.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 12:58 p.m. CST

    The movie is about...

    by SalvatoreGravano That's all. Controversy sells and scandal sells better. And Stone knows that needs a big sale after the failure, destruction and humiliation that he brought upon himself with that sleeping pill named "Alexander".

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 1:45 p.m. CST

    ALEXANDER didnt seem like an Oliver Stone film

    by Spacesheik

    It was very bland looking, CGI, point of view war scenes, dull dialogue stretches, - the only interesting part was the pink filtered look of the Indian elephant stampede fight scenes at the end - the rest was bland bland bland - like it was directed by paul verhoeven or something

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 1:53 p.m. CST

    ALEXANDER: more comments

    by Spacesheik

    You gotta love the terrible Angelina Jolie Bela Lugosi accent and her snakes and shit - horrible performance - Val kilmer was surprisingly moving for some reason, maybe it was the eye patch and the beard - as for colin farrel what a fucking joke, he looked like a teenage chump, always on the brink of tears - Richard Burton he aint - why does hollywood pick these little pretty fuckers to star as heroic figures - oh shit and that blonde wig he had on - like something out of duran duran circa 'wild boys' video 1985...anthony hopkins wobbled about from scene to scene - literally - boring as shit and christopher plummer had a nice little cameo playing aristotle talking about 'men laying with men...being true love.' the whole theatre laughed during the "brotherly love" sequences notably the jared leto scenes and that RENT actress with her terrible accent pointing at Leot and going "Joo Luv HEEEM?!" --- the movie was too much, unintentionally campy and tedious all at once - oh and the Vangelis score - what the fuck was that?

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Conspiracy theories are ALL pretty much bullshit

    by Cameron1

    And people who think the administration knew specifically about 9/11 are idiots. HOWEVER there are so many discrepancies and "odd" things about 9/11 and the Al Qaeda threat I do beleive it is possible that portions of the governement may have had more than an inkling that something very bad was going to happen. heck you only have to look at Cheney's comments about "a new pearl harbour" being needed to get the US public on the side of the PNAC et al's aims to be a little concerned. I wouldn't trust this administration as far as could throw Karl Rove, but then I can't think of a presidency I would trust in the past 40 years. Dodgy shit happened regarding 9/11 and to deny that is as stupid as claiming it was missiles that hit the towers. I would just like to point out that 40 million dollars was spent on trying to impeach Clinton and only 15 million on investgating 9/11. Those are some seriously out of proportion figures.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 2:40 p.m. CST

    Should be a powerful film

    by watashiwadare

    But one should respect what great artists have to say.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Exactly, SK909.

    by Novaman5000

    Well said.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 2:52 p.m. CST

    Paul Verhoeven fucking rules

    by moleperson78

    He's early dutch work was so edgy and great. And Starship Troopers, Total Recall and Basic Instinct are so subverse and interesting-don't shit on him-he doesn't deserve it--its so typical to shit on him--think of all the other Hollywood hacks there are shit on them

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 3:12 p.m. CST

    moleperson: SPEED 2 and THE HAUNTING

    by Spacesheik

    need i say more? but ROBOCOP did fucking rule but that was a long time ago mate

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 3:13 p.m. CST

    oh and dont forget SHOWGIRLS moleperson

    by Spacesheik

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 3:37 p.m. CST

    Chill, Brother Cod!

    by cantankerous

    I am hip to the cause. The Man is to blame for all out misfortunes, and anything that comes out of the month of The Man should be subject to ridicule and scorn. If George BUSHitler didn

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 4:28 p.m. CST

    the super secret society???

    by Cameron1

    Are you mental? It's common fucking knowledge. And so is what cheney said about pearl harbour. And that Cheney and Wolfowitz amongst others wanted Clinton to invade iraq in 98 to ensure oil supplies. That isn't conspiracy bollocks it's documneted fact. I see what Cod meant about you not being able to look past what the administration tells you. When a piece of evidence comes along which might refute your world view you say it's all conspiracy. That's an interesting insight into your mindset, you can't argue with facts so you assume that they are false, well done at sticking your head in the sand so effectively. You are the rightwing equivalent of Oliver Stone. Bravo for being able to type while being evidently quite nuts. Of course you will probably turn this into me being a conspiracy nut despite the fact I said they were all pretty much bullshit. I must implore you to continue you doing it, for every time you do, you prove to everyone how dumb you really are. You can't argue with what I actually say you just twist my words to fit what you CAN argue with. It may work for you in highschool but in the real world (or the internet apparently) it makes you look very very stupid. I wonder why you mention military spending in regards to cheney's comments as he was talking about furthering a POLITICAL agenda not a military one, but of course you need to make shit up to keep your narrow minded view intact. You have my pity more than my scorn, but hell you have my scorn a lot. Perhaps you should actually read some books and then comment back when you can debate reasonably and regarding the points mentioned, not your own fanciful ideas. Cod was right, you physically can't comprehend the idea that perhaps the administration might not be being entirely honest with you, and when you are confronted with the suggestion you go back to sticking your fingers in your ears and babling that everyone else is crazy. You probably think Patrick Fitzgerald is a liberal puppet too. Have a nice day.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Spacesheik, imdb is your friend.

    by I Dunno

    That was Jon Debont [sp].

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Hey, Avenger534:

    by Hamish

    That's not as silly as it sounds. A few years back my wife and her friends were walking past a theatre with posters up for Jungle 2 Jungle. Her friend asked the rest of the group "Did any of you ever see Jungle Jungle 1?"...

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 4:59 p.m. CST

    Semi-secret dude, SEMI-secret.

    by cantankerous

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 5:12 p.m. CST

    yep you got me, semi secret.

    by Cameron1

    However I think A LOT of people will know what the PNAC is and a thinktank isn't even Semi-Secret. Not well known is VERY different to secret. Secret implies that it's trying to be hidden, and it isn't. Yep I've read the document and it wants to allow pre emptive attacks to such a degree that NO evidence of an immediate attck is needed, which completely ignores international law. And before you say that it's ok to ignore international law, it's only even slightly understandable if there is threat to the States from the country and that that threat is immediate, which it wasn't. The point about the PNAC is that the goal for regime change in Iraq was a pre existing agenda which was then shoehorned into the War on Terrorism overlooking Saudi Arabia, in favour of furthering the strategic dominance of the US in fields of Oil at the expense of a far more integral victory against terrorism.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Okay, Shitheads...

    by chains

    To explain those of you who deny any government corruption in relation to 9/11, I quote Stephen Colbert: "I'm not a fan of facts. You see, facts can change, but my opinion will never change, no matter what the facts are." This is your attitude, but the fact is that those who have profited most from 9/11 are: 1) the neocons who've wanted wage war in the middle east for over a decade. 2) Dick Cheney's buddies at Halliburton (making hundreds of billions of dollars a year ever since). 3) Oil companies like Condoleezza Rice's former employers at Chevron (reporting record earnings in the 4th qtr of 2005). But I'm sure they appreciate your reach-around while they're fucking you in the ass.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 5:49 p.m. CST

    Then lets fight government!

    by Orionsangels

    It's war, lets wage war on them and turn this world into a warrior wasteland, like madmax. no laws, no government. let the rock n'rollers take over the world!

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 5:51 p.m. CST

    see, cantankerous, homewreckers post is the one

    by Cameron1

    you can moan about, it's postitvely nutty. And for the record, I Iran is FAR more a threat to the world than Iraq ever was, unfortunately after the lies and truth twistting over Iraq it's now even harder to convince people over the far more dangerous Iranian threat. But hell Cheney, Wolfowitz and others are getting their US hegemony (which whatever you fucks say is a BAD thing) so they probably don't give a shit about public opinion.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 7:17 p.m. CST

    by Cameron1

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 7:19 p.m. CST

    so I said that 9/11 wasn't specifically known about

    by Cameron1

    and that some people MAY have known SOMETHING was going to happen, you will have to explain how that is self contraditing.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 7:52 p.m. CST

    WOAH! Chains just called you guys shitheads!!!!!!

    by J-Dizzle

    Are you going to take that?

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 7:53 p.m. CST

    Sometimes AICN really upsets me....

    by bunkhousejb9

    They bitch to no end and are complaining about trivial matters such as X3 and the direction of the new James Bond film, when they don't even think to question the appropriateness of this 9/11 film being made....If you want to complain, make it two-fold, and not forget to complain about what needs complaining...

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 8:23 p.m. CST

    Speed 2-Verhoeven didn't make speed 2

    by moleperson78

    speed 2 was directed by the same motherfucker that did the haunting a great Cinematographer i'll leave it at that-showgirls-i didn't find sexy-but it was funny and sleazy, and good at showing the shitty side of america...oh by the way i forgot to tell u Rent your so dead on about that one-fuck that movie-cloying annoying-looked like a early Bon Jovi video-i like Rosia Dawson-but i fucking hate chris columbus (Home Alone, Stepmom, Bicential Man, Mrs.Doubtfire (williams rules but not this movie). ---he wrote Gremlins which the only keeping me from wishing him harm. If only Spike Lee made Rent maybe then it could have been better Maybe

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 9:42 p.m. CST

    It shouldn't be called WTC.

    by Jaka

    That's my most clear thought on the movie now - even more clear after this article. It just should not be called World Trade Center. That's some Oliver Stone shit right there. And really, am I the only one that just wants to see Oliver Stone make a good movie? One that necessarilly controversial. Otherwise....whatever. I'm really not leaning one way or the other on this film yet. I just think it's in bad taste to call the film WTC - particularly after hearing more about it.

  • Feb. 12, 2006, 10:36 p.m. CST

    On the contrary...

    by chains

    I always accept free beer. And you know what, I'm really not angry, just frustrated that people aren't willing to do their own research. Too many Americans get all their news from TV. This causes people to be incredibly uninformed, while carrying the belief that they know everything that is worth knowing, otherwise it would've been on CNN. Well, I've worked for CNN, and I can assure you that is not the case. Many people at CNN are frustrated with the dumbing down of news that has taken place due to Fox News' unfortunate popularity and a need to boost ratings. You should read former anchor Aaron Brown's recent comments about the state of news today. The important issues are not being discussed. So regardless of what conclusions people form about what happened on 9/11, I merely wish they would be open-minded enough to consider that what they currently believe may in fact be false. The conspiracy theories may be bullshit, but at least I'm reading and investigating on my own. So please, insult me and make jokes in an attempt to look clever. I'm sure at least 2 or 3 people out there actually find your Motel Styx and Leopard Hall references amusing... and will eagerly check back soon looking for more.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 12:32 a.m. CST

    Too soon.

    by DarthCorleone

    I'm not saying it's wrong to make this. Maybe it will turn out to be a great film in perfectly good taste. I simply don't think I'll be ready to see it for a while. I wonder if many Americans will feel similarly.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 2:03 a.m. CST

    No way anchorite! Martha Stewart....

    by Jaka

    ..., that's taking it too far!! I'll take Maggie over Martha. lol. And I meant, up there a bit, wouldn't people like to see Oliver Stone make a film that is NOT controvertial? It somehow came out all wrong. I think that concept has become a crutch for him. Controversey doesn't necessarily mean quality.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 2:54 a.m. CST

    yes yes jan de bont was SPEED 2 and HAUNTING

    by Spacesheik

    and yes hes a great cinematographer (DIE HARD) but a shit director - SPEED was a fluke - the rest of his films: SPEED 2, HAUNTING, TOMB RAIDER 2 were utter shiite

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 7:02 a.m. CST

    Wow. just

    by GingerTwit

    Iran is worse than Iraq? Well, that right there proves homewrecker's statements about the 24/7 shills. Or perhaps it was the appologist who stated that 'the government had no knowledge of the 911 attacks' (said with such gusto and authority) 'anyone who says different is a conspiracy loon' (again said with such gusty and authority) "by the way, sure some people in government may have known, but they were little unimportant people who we don't need to think about" (seriously, what the fuck?)

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 8:16 a.m. CST

    I detest the Bush government...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...but lest anyone think GingerTwit is the epitome of rationality and clearsightedness, you would do well to remember that he once stated (among many, many other outrageous things) that "Recent studies have shown the Moon's gravity is six times that of the Earth" (said with much gusto and authority).

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 8:53 a.m. CST


    by moleperson78

    Yeah...Speed-was a fluke-real fun the first time--everything thing else-not so good- I mean The Haunting was kinda watchable-but did you ever see Robert Wise's Version-it's actually creepy-the guy who made Ringu-considers it one of his favorite of my favorite horror films of the 60's right up there with Seance of a wet Afternoon, Repulsion, Night of the Living Dead, Peeping Tom, Psycho, The Birds, Cormans Poe stories

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 8:57 a.m. CST

    by moleperson78

    I didn't waste my time with Tomb Raider 2-because i hated the first so much...and i'll usually watch anything-i even saw awful shit like Crossroads, Summer Catch and Spice World in the theatre--

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 9:02 a.m. CST

    US hegemony is bad?

    by cantankerous

    Compared to what? Who would take advantage of the global-political vacuum that would be created by a US withdrawal from the world stage? China? Russia? Do you think that any of these players would be better than the US? Or do you think that once the US stopped being the dominant power in the world all the other would-be hegemons would put aside their own ambitions of dominance? Not likely. The last time the US was not the sole world super-power we were playing nuclear chicken with the other top contender. Of course many pinko-liberals probably feel that the wrong side came out on top in that one.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 9:39 a.m. CST

    what makes you conspiracy-junkies tick

    by cantankerous

    Personally, I found the 9/11 conspiracy theories fascinating a few years ago. I worked with a colleague who bought into every hair-brained theory and had compiled a huge folder of

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 9:57 a.m. CST

    Here's a crazy thought

    by Monkey Butler

    Why the fuck does the US have to rule the world? There's a little thing called the UN that the US trampled in its stampede towards whatever it is they want (peace in the Middle East really doesn't seem all that likely). If governments actually co-operated (y'know, like in a democracy) then the UN would be able to work just fine, and there wouldn't be this giant fucking mess that is global politics.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 10:39 a.m. CST

    "JFK one of the most powerful films of all time"???

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    Sure...maybe in a complelling drama sort of way. But do you know how much misinformation is in that flick? Do you know how many conspiracy theories Stone lumped together into one big mess for that movie? Do you know how many accepted facts he distorted in that conspiracy conglomerate? Do you know that most folks' idea of what happened on the day of the assassination are based off of that movie? A movie that even Stone himself has said is not truthful? Hey, I'm just sayin.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 11:15 a.m. CST

    It's a nice thought, Monkey Butler, but the US

    by jim

    is a democracy and it is highly divided. There are only two major players in the US and they almost never see eye-to-eye. Yes, if governments co-operated, instead of having their heads up their collective asses, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately for us "politics" is more about being political than being useful.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Will someone please shut down this DocPazuzu joker?

    by HogCholera

    Having been, I believe, the original DocPazuzu alias, I'm asking someone to please blow the fucking lid off this a-hole and his evil dancing Jewish machinations before we are all irrevocably trapped in his web of LIES!!!

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 11:30 a.m. CST

    I hate Cage

    by Meremoth

    Doubt I'll see just cuz of that alone.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 11:40 a.m. CST

    JFK was good -

    by Spacesheik

    Tommy Lee Jones in drag - whats not to like?

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Whoever said anything about the US withdrawing...

    by Cameron1

    from the world stage, we can be a key player and should be a key player without wanting total global dominance, if you can't see why a US global hegemony is a bad thing then you really need to do some reading other than some conspiracy theorists folder.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 11:58 a.m. CST

    P.S. I'm one of the good guys

    by HogCholera

    He's poisoned you against me. Fight the Man...and stuff. Yeah. You can trust me. You will trust me...Won't You. Yes. You want to listen to me. You are compelled to listen to me. Now hear this: The 9/11 Conspiracy is part of the 9/11 Conspiracy. You're playing into the 9/11 conspirators hands the more you speak of it. My suggestion: Don't speak of it any more. The less you talk about it, the fewer people know about it, the more the conspiracy fades into nothingness. Makes sense right? So just don't talk about it. [wink]

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 12:06 p.m. CST

    WTC worker is suing Bush & pals

    by Hobbes104

    WTC Maintenance worker Willie Rodriguez, the last person who left the North Tower alive, is suing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others for complicity in the attacks. This movement isn't just extremists or liberals... it's firemen, police officers, families of victims, physicists, lawyers, former intelligence officials who have been fired & gagged, among others. It's a legitimate argument and it's spreading.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 12:22 p.m. CST

    Uh, how else would the US relinquish its hegemony?

    by cantankerous

    It would withdraw/vacate/retreat/abandon/discard its position as world leader and then someone else would fill the vacancy. Who would YOU like to see as world leader if it wasn

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 12:27 p.m. CST

    HAAHAHAHAHA, maybe you should understand what...

    by Cameron1

    hegemony means. World leader DOESN'T mean world contoller. And it's possible to have partnerships that are equal rather than one sided. You really seem to have a very limited knowledge of what you are talking about cantankerous, but that's ok because apparently YOU are a winner. Hmmm yes I'm sure you are.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 12:32 p.m. CST

    Gee, if the janitor says Cheney did it, I guess he did.

    by FluffyUnbound

    I can't argue with that. After all, if any of the tens of thousands of people who fled the WTC that day think something is true - it is. If we fail to acknowledge this, it's like we're spitting on the memory of the dead. Right?

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 12:56 p.m. CST

    Viciousness on this site

    by Hobbes104

    I would like to ask those of you who so vehemently defend the story put forth by your government the following questions: What indisputable proof have you seen that validates the 9/11 Commission's story? When the government refuses to answer questions by declaring "national security," do you accept their benevolence in good faith? Why the hatred and ridicule directed toward anyone who challenges this official story? As an American citizen, I welcome any investigation that would reveal further truths. People who seek to ridicule and discredit any ideas which oppose their own always have an agenda of their own. What's your agenda?

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:03 p.m. CST

    What happened at the WTC?

    by Pageiv

    Sounds suspicious to me. What exactly happened at the World Trade Center? I think Stone will make some conspiracy about Islam fanatics hijacking US planes to kill thousands of Americans if you ask me.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Cheney shot a man he was hunting with... "accidentally"

    by Novaman5000

    Whoops!!! Cover up, anyone?

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 1:40 p.m. CST

    Google this: The Carlyle Group...

    by Ninja Nerd these are the people who run the world. Check out the former and current roster of the Board of Directors. Look at the businesses and countries these people own or control. Now, did they cause or "let" 9/11 happen? Probably not. Influence? Maybe. As much as a conspiracy sounds all neat and scary and maybe believeable, I fear the truth is far simpler; our country is run by idiots. Rich greedy idiots who probably WOULD have done something like 9/11 to gain enormous wealth and power, but that's just not the case. A conspiracy is giving them too much credit. Plus, the Bush Administration doesn't have anyone who's read "Watchmen", so they didn't have any way to come up with the whole "let's fake an attack on NYC to get our personal agenda advanced" plan. In closing, remember the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 2:03 p.m. CST

    World leader, world controller,

    by cantankerous


  • Feb. 13, 2006, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Yes, too soon.

    by ejcarter9

    I agree with DarthCorleone above, this is too soon, at least for me. And there's something... offputting... about Hollywood doing this. Well, I don't know, maybe this is exactly what America needs right now, a reminder of how that day was for many of us and a closer look at how horrific it was for tens of thousands who were near the scene or who had family and friends trapped or killed. I just don't know. I guess we'll see how it plays out.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Er a world leader IS NOT a world controller

    by Cameron1

    Influencing other countries doesn't mean we control them. What right does the US have to control other nations? And I wouldn't like to see any one country as world leader because it invariably means other countries are getting fucked over in the process. NOT A GOOD THING, only a sociopath would think it was. Global influence is a very different matter than global control and a Hegemony would mean control of people or countries we have no right to bend to our will. France and German and many other countries didn't want to invade Iraq so they didn't, the US couldn't and can't do anything about it. And if you believe in freedom for everyone as much as the current administration apparently does then how can you be infavour of a US hegemony over the world? Freedom and Hegemony are mutually exclusive.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 2:35 p.m. CST


    by Bishop6


  • Feb. 13, 2006, 2:44 p.m. CST

    by cantankerous

    I don

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:15 p.m. CST

    President Bush:

    by Lord Asriel

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Bush said that the:

    by Lord Asriel

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Rice stated:

    by Lord Asriel

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:25 p.m. CST

    Lord Asriel

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    Conversely, was there anyone out there (other than those not paying attention to past/current events) not already aware of that information? I don't mean to sound like I'm defending Bush here when I say that but...I could have written that memo and I'm not an analyst or terrorism expert.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:26 p.m. CST

    Bush claimed:

    by Lord Asriel

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Well apparently Bush wasn't aware of that information

    by Lord Asriel

    He said he didn't know the enemy was going to use planes to attack.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Rice said:

    by Lord Asriel

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Bush said:

    by Lord Asriel

    "Gosh, I don

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:43 p.m. CST

    I woul be very very happy...

    by Lord Asriel

    to hear specific explanations for those incongruities. I voted Bush in 2000 but, don't you get the feeling that the administration isn't being entirely honest with us?

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:47 p.m. CST

    La La Land.

    by cantankerous

    Where no nation tries to dominate another, everyone plays nice, and only sociopaths would rather be holding the reigns than give them up to someone else.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:54 p.m. CST

    Um, not really.

    by Cameron1

    You asked me what I'd LIKE, well wouldn't you LIKE to live in peace and harmony with everyone? It doesn't mean I think it will happen. Oh and what right does the US have to control other countries? You ignored my points cankerous.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 3:57 p.m. CST

    "specific explanations for those incongruities."

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    I'm sorry to say, Lord Asriel, you will never hear them. No matter who is sitting in the "seat of power" of any government, no matter what they say (perhaps even truthful at times); the other side will always call, "Bullshit". It seems that honesty and truth in American politics is no longer the's about the perspective and the agenda. I still think truth(s) can be found out there but it's like trying to capture a ghost.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 4 p.m. CST

    yes cantankerous, "indisputable" is a tall order

    by Hobbes104

    I have always approached this 9/11 conspiracy stuff with a healthy amount of skepticism. I also belive we have a responsibility to suspect ill motives from the government, otherwise those with power (regardless of idealogy) will inevitably abuse it. During my research, I have stumbled upon many websites which have done exactly what you describe (cherry-picking, doctored photos, lots of exclamation points and grammatical errors). I ignored these in favor of sites like this one: This site, established and maintained by scientists, engineers, and other professionals, is one of many credible sources of information available (also see Please disregard the raving lunatics and focus on the educated minds who take the time to do the research. Take care.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 4:01 p.m. CST

    yes cantankerous, "indisputable" is a tall order

    by Hobbes104

    I have always approached this 9/11 conspiracy stuff with a healthy amount of skepticism. I also belive we have a responsibility to suspect ill motives from the government, otherwise those with power (regardless of idealogy) will inevitably abuse it. During my research, I have stumbled upon many websites which have done exactly what you describe (cherry-picking, doctored photos, lots of exclamation points and grammatical errors). I ignored these in favor of sites like this one: This site, established and maintained by scientists, engineers, and other professionals, is one of many credible sources of information available (also see Please disregard the raving lunatics and focus on the educated minds who take the time to do the research. Take care.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Unfortunately we

    by cantankerous

    on the semantics between

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 5:42 p.m. CST

    re: I woul be very very happy...

    by cantankerous


  • Feb. 13, 2006, 5:43 p.m. CST

    "I think the US has every

    by Cameron1

    in the world to control whomever it wants, the same

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 5:52 p.m. CST

    don't you see how silly you are being...

    by Cameron1

    cankerous. You know perfectly well that the US has NO right to go round bullying less powerful nations into doing it's bidding, but of course you can't say that because then it makes your whole defence of "hegemony is a good thing" argument look pretty damn shaky. So instead you play dishonestly and start spouting of bullshit that every country in the world has the right to do what it wants to another. That makes you look stupid or crazy. You can pick which.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 5:56 p.m. CST

    re: I

    by Lord Asriel

    Hmm, seeing as neither you or I believe it was the US repsonsible for the attack it must be incompetence then? Not too comforting. And I was wondering how you know that the white house was in the habit of ignoring memo's about terrorist threats.

  • Feb. 13, 2006, 9:10 p.m. CST

    The Religion of PEACE

    by Kamala

    I can see it now, the arab muslim terrorists will have their race and religion changed in the film to be terrorist from some former soviet union country. They don't rampage and kill if they see a cartoon about them. See for yourself at:

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:50 a.m. CST

    Propaganda: noun...

    by Monkey Butler

    The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. Yep, there are a number of muslims waving signs threatening to destroy the West. There are a number of muslims that wouldn't mind seeing every country in the world under Islamic rule. They're no more wrong or right than the Christians that believe the same thing. And since you brought it up, would you find a cartoon showing Jesus being shit on offensive?

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 8:08 a.m. CST

    Monkey Butler=No Very Smart

    by Kamala

    What about this? Where are the Christians burning down buildings and calling for another 9/11? Please think before you post that bullshit like you do.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 8:11 a.m. CST


    by cantankerous

    The guy who retreats to

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 8:13 a.m. CST

    re: Lord Asriel

    by cantankerous

    Incompetence is a rather strong word. I don

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 11:33 a.m. CST


    by Cameron1

    The US doesn't have a global hegemony. Certain people want to create one but at this point, the US is not in a position of global control. You asked me who I'd like to see as world "leader(controller)" so your question was dishonest as we have established leading and control are not the same. Your argument about heemony is flawed because we have a realistic alternative that there is NO hegemony by any country. You said every country has the "right" to control another, well I think Iran destroying Israel would show ultimate control. And what about my Iraq having the right to control the US point? Again you are putting influence/control as the same thing when by your own precedent in Webster's we both agree it ISN'T, you are dishonest with both your questions AND answer's. And then try and turn it to me when I show up the gaps or dishonesty in your points.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 12:35 p.m. CST

    You are hopelessly entangled in semantics again.

    by cantankerous

    If you didn

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 12:57 p.m. CST

    The US doesn't have total global control.

    by Cameron1

    But you still maintain influence and control mean the SAME, and that definition clearly shows they don't.(are you really trying to argue different after the definitions have already been pasted here?) Similar is not Same afterall. Hegemony is more than economic dominance. Hegemony means total control over trade.(illegal, immoral, non democratic) Militarily we are the most powerful but we are not an uncheked force. I don't want the US to relinquish it's dominance. But I don't want us to become an essentially imperialist nation which is what hegemony would mean. If you can't see that hegemony is bad for everyone then you have some very shortsighted ideas. And if you don't care about anything other than the US then I pity you and your pathetic ingnorance, and lack of morals. I'll ask again what do you believe in, freedom or hegemony?

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 1:13 p.m. CST

    Oh and I'd love to quit with the semantics...

    by Cameron1

    but you keep using the wrong words for things. I can't help it if you need some schooling.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 1:16 p.m. CST

    re:"Incompetence is a rather strong word....

    by Lord Asriel

    I don

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 1:30 p.m. CST


    by dirty old len

    I don't really know where i stand on this subject. It was always gonna happen. At least they put it in stones hands. It could've so easily have gone to the historically inaccurate purveyor of celluloid shit that is michael bay. Saying that though these subjects can be handled with tact. Anyone who watched denis leary's "RESCUE ME" will know what i mean. Leary's a brilliant sarcastic stand up, and that coupled with his choice of movie roles (demolition man, ice age) he could've turned it into a huge fuck off farce. Instead it was poignant, heartfelt, and watchable. Whether stone will have the same appeal remains to be seen. As for nic cage..... i think he can do it. I know the likes of gone in 60 seconds and con air stick in folks minds. But that said the turd that was 8mm gave cage a new angle, and showed a pretty mature actor. Like i said, i'm on the fence on this one. But i do hope This film is a global success and tells those that matter that the west will bounce back, no matter what you throw at us (here in the U.K. we've suffered at these hands too) You know who you are.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 1:58 p.m. CST


    by cantankerous

    hegemony means dominance or predominant influence of one group over another group. There are different levels of hegemony. One is the level we currently enjoy (see Noam Chomsky, he

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 2:04 p.m. CST

    LOL, that was fantastic.

    by Cameron1

    You use Chomsky to specify the kind of hegemony you mean??? Riiiight. I have no idea why you think I mean some jackboot totalitarian fantasy. Imperaialism (which is basically what those in favour of hegemony, want) is bad but it's not some ridiculous notion of a fascist US ruling the world by force. Economic dominance doesn't equal hegemony. So I was wondering, do you wat other countries to be controlled by a US hegemony or do you want them to be free?

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 2:54 p.m. CST

    this whole argument...

    by Cameron1

    stemmed from my points about the PNAC and it's will to power for it's specific level and brand of global hegemony.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 3:41 p.m. CST


    by cantankerous

    You are now chasing your own tail. If hegemony does not mean dominating other nation by military force or the threat of military force (jack-boot Gestapo run amok) and it does not mean economic dominance, then what do you think it means? If you are going to say HEGEMONY = IMPERIALISM = BAD, please specify which flavor of non-military, non-economic imperialism you

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 3:52 p.m. CST

    This should be a good one

    by cantankerous

    And what exactly is the specific brand of non-military, non-economic global PNAC driven hegemony that's got you all in a tizzy?

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 3:53 p.m. CST

    you confused yourself with your need to simplify.

    by Cameron1

    waaaay back up in this talback I made a comment that the PNAC's particular brand of hegemony was a very bad thing.(which is what I have been arguing about since, I don't know about you) Hegemony as YOU say has many levels. What the PNAC want is a hegemony imposed by military force AND economic control over non US interests. You used the words "jackboot gestapo" to describe another type. And I'm saying there are other levels as well. Levels not as overtly dangerous as the gestapo thing, but very dangerous nonetheless.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 4:57 p.m. CST

    If you thought the MOVIIE discussion on hre was tedious

    by 1908LOL

    you should read the political flame wars sometime

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 6:37 p.m. CST

    Ah simplify.

    by cantankerous

    US hegemony = BAD. No hegemony = GOOD! Someone else replacing the US as the world hegamon = TOO COMPLICATED!

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 6:55 p.m. CST

    I'm sorry you think it's complicated.

    by Cameron1

    Maybe you should go and do some reading and come back to me when you feel a little more enlightened on the subject.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:01 p.m. CST

    I'm sorry you think it's complicated

    by Cameron1

    Maybe you should go and do some reading and come back to me when you feel a little more enlightened on the subject.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:04 p.m. CST

    oh noes!! a typo

    by Cameron1

    it should read "too complicated". Ah well.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 10:48 p.m. CST

    who lets ollie stone do this movie?

    by ZO

    are they mad? do they have a clue?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 8:36 a.m. CST

    Oh, reading your stuff is enlightenment enough!

    by cantankerous

    I have renewed insight into the liberal mindset. Not ready for prime time and stubbornly unwilling to grapple with real world conditions. Perhaps one day (over the rainbow?) we will all live in peace and harmony but until that time I prefer the US to be at the helm.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 9:26 a.m. CST

    yes, but you are an idiot cankerous

    by Cameron1

    and unable to answer pretty much all of my questions, let alone debate my points.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 11:43 a.m. CST

    realist = idiocy

    by cantankerous

    Any question I was

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 12:10 p.m. CST

    So you are talking about ONE question you asked.

    by Cameron1

    Which in itself was a dishoenst question. And that i gave a flippant answer to (the only appropriate answer for a dishonest question). Good to see you haven't been paying attention to anything else.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 12:57 p.m. CST

    by cantankerous

    Ok, you

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 1:41 p.m. CST

    oh so it's the last word you wanted.

    by Cameron1

    riiight. How mature of you.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 2:05 a.m. CST

    Quite entertaining talkback...

    by DoctorWho?

    ...exchanging favorite conspiracy websites...dove-tailing one complex theory into another...Gee, can I play too??...let's cut class, grab a Starbucks and renew our NY Times subscriptions on our laptops! Man, these are dark times! "We don't care who's wrong or right...all we wanna do is fight!"

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 9:12 a.m. CST


    by NubtheSquirrel

    If Oliver Stone pulls this one off, we might have not only the most important film of the decade but quite possibly the best picture of the year. That poster alone is powerful. This movie needs to come out sooner!

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 12:05 p.m. CST

    The problem, Cantankerous, is that Bush's policies

    by FluffyUnbound

    don't even advance hegemony. So if it's hegemony you're interested in, you need a new horse. The US' world position has declined under Bush, not advanced. The issue isn't idealism vs. practicality - the issue is that the things you think are practical, aren't. If ruthlessness was practical, the Germans should have achieved hegemony, or at the very least Stalin should have been able to contrive it. By any reasonable measurement, open and liberal societies have outcompeted "hard-bitten and realistic" societies in every single last area of human endeavour, and have been doing so for, oh, six hundred years or so. How many more hundred years will it take you to wake up?

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 3:25 p.m. CST

    Nicolas Cage? Oliver Stone?

    by Nadine_Cross

    I'm sure this will be even-handed and sedate!

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 9:16 p.m. CST

    Does this blog have the truth about 9/11?

    by darthflagg I hope the blogger reveals what he found on that site. It sounds like scary stuff . . .

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 9:47 a.m. CST

    Yawn, ok I

    by cantankerous

    If you

  • It gets rid of some of the refuted stuff like the 'pod-theory' and other things and adds an additional 24 mins.

  • Feb. 20, 2006, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Cantankerous, that's a good point.

    by FluffyUnbound

    I would agree that there is no reasonable alternative I would prefer to US hegemony, because a multipolar system would not be stable [as has been proven over and over, not least in 1914 and again in 1939] and because I don't think much of the other possibilities as hegemon. But, since you seem to be both an advocate of US hegemony, and a Bush defender, it would seem to be incumbent upon you to reconcile the conflict between those two positions - namely, the fact that Bush is fucking up the US hegemony [as Cheney would say, "bigtime"]. If you advocate US hegemony, it would seem that you should be against Bush. And as for historical examples, 600 years ago the polities in Europe were more flexible and open than societies in the far east and in Latin America; 500 years ago societies in Britain and the Netherlands were more open and flexible than Spain; 300 years ago Britain was more open and flexible than France, and the American colonies were more open and flexible than Britain; 200 years ago Britain was once again more open and flexible than Bonapartist Imperial France; 150 years ago the Union was more open and flexible than the Confederacy; 100 years ago the US, Britain and France were more open and flexible than Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire; 60 years ago the US and Britain were more open and flexible than Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy [and the Soviets were tied with these opponents, so that one is a wash]; and the US was more open and flexible than the Soviet Union basically the day before yesterday.

  • Feb. 21, 2006, 9:28 a.m. CST


    by cantankerous

    Bush has done a few things right and more than a few things wrong. The problem is there is no alternative. The Democrats have painted themselves out of the picture by catering to the Looney Left who are unwilling to face the fact that we are witnessing the opening salvo of a clash of cultures, a war of civilizations. I

  • Feb. 22, 2006, 4:15 a.m. CST

    cantankerous, the problem is...

    by Lord Asriel

    that with Clinton in power (for all his faults) the US' postition as world leader was far stronger than it is today. That's down to this particular administrations miscalcuated beligerent attitude. (and hey I voted for Bush in 2000). Come 2008 do you really think the real neo-cons are going to want to return to a traditional republican candidate or are they going to try and continue to further their damging dangerous agenda? There is no war of civilisations coming. And you call the left paranoid, oh the irony!!

  • Feb. 22, 2006, 6:16 a.m. CST

    I assume you have heard of Francis Fukuyama, cntks?

    by Cameron1

    Have a read: As we approach the third anniversary of the onset of the Iraq war, it seems unlikely that history will judge the intervention or the ideas animating it kindly. More than any other group, it was the neoconservatives inside and outside the Bush administration who pushed for democratising Iraq and the Middle East. They are widely credited (or blamed) for being the decisive voices promoting regime change in Iraq, and yet it is their idealistic agenda that, in the coming months and years, will be the most directly threatened. Were the US to retreat from the world stage, following a drawdown in Iraq, it would be a huge tragedy, because American power and influence have been critical to the maintenance of an open and increasingly democratic order around the world. The problem with neoconservatism's agenda lies not in its ends, but in the overmilitarised means by which it has sought to accomplish them. What US foreign policy needs is not a return to a narrow and cynical realism, but rather the formulation of a "realistic Wilsonianism" that better matches means to ends. How did the neoconservatives end up overreaching to such an extent that they risk undermining their own goals? How did a group with such a pedigree come to decide that the "root cause" of terrorism lay in the Middle East's lack of democracy, that the US had the wisdom and the ability to fix this problem, and that democracy would come quickly and painlessly to Iraq? Neoconservatives would not have taken this turn but for the peculiar way the cold war ended. The way it ended shaped the thinking of supporters of the Iraq war in two ways. First, it seems to have created an expectation that all totalitarian regimes were hollow and would crumble with a small push from outside. This helps explain the Bush administration's failure to plan adequately for the insurgency that emerged. The war's supporters seemed to think that democracy was a default condition to which societies reverted once coercive regime change occurred, rather than a long-term process of institution-building and reform. Neoconservatism, as a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support. The administration and its neoconservative supporters also misunderstood the way the world would react to the use of American power. Of course, the cold war was replete with instances wherein Washington acted first and sought legitimacy and support from its allies only after the fact. But in the post-cold-war period, world politics changed in ways that made this kind of exercise of power much more problematic in the eyes of allies. After the fall of the Soviet Union, various neoconservative authors suggested that the US would use its margin of power to exert a kind of "benevolent hegemony" over the rest of the world, fixing problems such as rogue states with WMD as they came up. The idea that the US is a hegemon more benevolent than most isn't absurd, but there were warning signs that things had changed in America's relationship to the world long before the start of the Iraq war. The imbalance in global power had grown enormous. The US surpassed the rest of the world in every dimension of power by an unprecedented margin. There were other reasons why the world did not accept American benevolent hegemony. In the first place, it was premised on the idea that America could use its power in instances where others could not because it was more virtuous than other countries. Another problem with benevolent hegemony was domestic. Although most Americans want to do what is necessary to make the rebuilding of Iraq succeed, the aftermath of the invasion did not increase the public appetite for further costly interventions. Americans are not, at heart, an imperial people. Finally, benevolent hegemony presumed the hegemon was not only well intentioned but competent. Much of the criticism of the Iraq intervention from Europeans and others was not based on a normative case that the US was not getting authorisation from the UN security council, but on the belief that it had not made an adequate case for invading and didn't know what it was doing in trying to democratise Iraq. The critics were, unfortunately, quite prescient. The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the US from radical Islamism. Although the ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with WMD did present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem. Now that the neoconservative moment appears to have passed, the US needs to reconceptualise its foreign policy. First, we need to demilitarise what we have been calling the global war on terrorism and shift to other policy instruments. We are fighting counterinsurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and against the international jihadist movement, wars in which we need to prevail. But "war" is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle. Meeting the jihadist challenge needs not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world. As recent events in France and Denmark suggest, Europe will be a central battleground. The US needs to come up with something better than "coalitions of the willing" to legitimate its dealings with other countries. The world lacks effective international institutions to confer legitimacy on collective action. The conservative critique of the UN is all too cogent: while useful for some peacekeeping and nation-building operations, it lacks democratic legitimacy and effectiveness in dealing with serious security issues. The solution is to promote a "multi-multilateral world" of overlapping and occasionally competing international institutions organised on regional or functional lines. The final area that needs rethinking is the place of democracy promotion in American foreign policy. The worst legacy from the Iraq war would be an anti-neoconservative backlash that coupled a sharp turn toward isolation with a cynical realist policy aligning the US with friendly authoritarians. A Wilsonian policy that pays attention to how rulers treat their citizens is therefore right, but it needs to be informed by a certain realism that was missing from the thinking of the Bush administration in its first term and of its neoconservative allies. Promoting democracy and modernisation in the Middle East is not a solution to jihadist terrorism. Radical Islamism arises from the loss of identity that accompanies the transition to a modern, pluralist society. More democracy will mean more alienation, radicalisation and terrorism. But greater political participation by Islamist groups is likely to occur whatever we do, and it will be the only way that the poison of radical Islamism can work its way through the body politic of Muslim communities. The age is long gone when friendly authoritarians could rule over passive populations. The Bush administration has been walking away from the legacy of its first term, as evidenced by the cautious multilateral approach it has taken toward the nuclear programmes of Iran and North Korea. But the legacy of the first-term foreign policy and its neoconservative supporters has been so polarising that it is going to be hard to have a reasoned debate about how to appropriately balance US ideals and interests. What we need are new ideas for how America is to relate to the world - ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of US power and hegemony to bring these ends about.

  • Feb. 22, 2006, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Yes, I have read some of Fukuyama

    by cantankerous

    If you

  • Feb. 22, 2006, 2:24 p.m. CST


    by Cameron1

    this is from a book and edited with fukayama's consent from a UK paper, so it is representative of the book. It explains rather succinctly the problems with the neo-cons. Glad you've already read it.

  • Feb. 23, 2006, 9:36 a.m. CST

    Fukuyama was premature ...

    by cantankerous his optimism after the fall of the Soviet Union. I think he is also premature in his pessimism about Iraq today. I don

  • Feb. 28, 2006, 12:20 a.m. CST

    It's Brad, not Brett

    by slicer

    You quoted Pulp Fiction and you wrote, "Check out the big brain on brett", It's not Brett, it's Brad. Just thought I'd point that out!