Jeffrey Lyons on KO, a

[PCIntern]

movie reviewer kept saying that he was going to have trouble watching the film t's all 'too soon' to see this stuff and that all 40 families agreed to the film - he couldn't understand why they would do that.

Perhaps there are a lot of reasons that brainless might consider.

Then of course they both had to admit that Oliver Stone's film would have an agenda - conspiratorial - and 'who knows?'

The best part is that they've already condemned films they haven't seen...Tom Wicker did that With JFK - one more example of how the MSM sets the agenda and expectations of the sheeple.

[babylonsister]

1. Interesting. I just watched that segment w/my husband. He

wants to see it, me-not so much. I think it's too soon myself.
Maybe the families think this is a good way to honor their family members?:shrug:

I don't think they were condemning it, just questioning how tasteful it may or may not be.

[PCIntern]

2. funny... my wife said the same thing you did

could be a gender thing...hoo nose?

[Danieljay]

3. I heard the trailer...whats with the "scrambling jets" thing? We're jets

scrambled that morning? Were they even armed? I heard they were scrambled but unarmed? Whats up with that?

:shrug:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/united93/large.html

about the film:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/united93/look_large.html

[babylonsister]

4. That's one of the mysteries no one in authority will answer. nt

[PCIntern]

5. yeah they scrambled jets

and flew halfway to London before they turned around...OOOPS!

[Berry Cool]

6. I also think it's too soon, and I don't have to see either movie to

believe that.

I didn't see either one of them "condemning" either movie. What I saw was them discussing the issue of whether or not it was too soon to make any such movie. That's not the same as condemning a movie on the basis of deeper content before you have seen the deeper content.

And jeez, what's wrong with speculating that an Oliver Stone movie might, just might, have some sort of an agenda to it?

[PCIntern]

8. Damning with faint praise...

the point I guess I was trying to make is that it's a negative to pre-judge the film...there is no question that the matter can be handled with some sensitivity and respect for those who died. We don't know until we've seen the film. What a reviewer should say is that he or she has no idea how he or she might feel until after the screening of the movie.

As far as Stone goes, of course he ahs an agenda. The word agenda is like the phrase Conspiracy Theory. It tends to diminish the validity of such an agenda. Remember that you're preaching to the choir, I suppose.

You don't hear the guys on Fox dissing a Tom Clancy book or some such thing. Only dems and liberals are self-effacing and even-handed. And that's our problem.

[Berry Cool]

10. Well, if that's the worst thing you can say about this, it's not much.

The argument "We have to be as biased as they are just to stay even" isn't going to wash with me. Besides which, since when are these two guys "dems and liberals"? I think they're just two guys speculating about a movie or two. And questioning whether or not it is too soon to make a movie on the TOPIC is just not the same as "prejudging the film." That's a whole different issue.

Some people may believe it's impossible to make a movie that shows respect and sensitivity on this subject until more time has passed, because only time will provide the sensitivity and respect needed. If you believe that, it doesn't matter how the movie was made or what the movie is like...it was made too soon in your eyes, so the point is moot.

Maybe you can't see that point of view, but, given that I hold it, I can.

And maybe some people do feel skeptical about an Oliver Stone movie because they assume he has an agenda, even if they don't yet know what it is. That's not a foolish thing to think, given his reputation.

You don't have to be a "dem or a liberal" or not one to have these opinions. They're just opinions. And I don't understand why, if you are a "dem or a liberal," you're obligated not to speculate on what kind of movie Oliver Stone might make on 9/11. Why can't you have whatever opinion you have? Why does it have to be an "opposite reaction" to whatever you think repugs/conservatives will say?

[Atman]

7. Here's what I wrote to Jack Cafferty this evening

His question of the day was whether or not Americans are ready for a film about 9/11. I didn't stick around to hear if he read it, but I doubt it...

---

Jack, we already had a movie about 9/11, and not only weren't Americans ready for it, the GOP pilloried the filmmaker for telling the truth. Perhaps you've heard of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911?" - Sign me ATMAN from Connecticut.

[PCIntern]

9. Good one...n/t