f13.net

1.  Watch almost 3,000 people die in horrific terrorist attack.
2.  ...
3. Profit! (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/10/28/television.miniseries.reut/index.html)

I'm sure the most lucrative ad spots will come just before the part where people leap from the top of a tower onto asphalt to avoid burning to death.

So is it that you disagree with people making movies that include death, or just 9/11 in particular?  Or is it that the small screen is tasteless, while the big screen is noble?  Making a movie about the torture and death of someone who is touted by many as being God is ok, making a movie about wars where thousands on both sides die is ok, making movies about the lethality and horror of slavery is ok, but making a movie about 9/11 is not ok.  

Because...?

I bet Keanu plays a firefighter.

That can fly.

And play air guitar.

And surf.

OMG I wanna watch that miniseries!

The Passion was informative.  Documentaries on 9/11 are informative.  Dramatic miniseries are (intended to be) entertainment.

The surprise ending got you too?

Roac, I hope you are being obtuse for the sake of being the devil's advocate, because if you honestly believe that the guy who WROTE "Speed" should be involved in recreating one of the most nationally dramatic moments of the decade, then you need to pack it up for France, bud.

What I believe is that the US allows people to write whatever the hell they want, regardless of past endeavors.  France, on the other hand, is far more into the habbit of squelching, both socially and legally, what is allowed to be said or written about past traumatic events.

I didn't say "OMG someone make this illegal quick."
I said it was in poor taste.

Please don't tell me you've already jumped to a first amendment justification already? That's a last resort. Besides the question was not whether he CAN write it. It was whether or not it was tasteful to do so, and if this was the medium to portray disturbing history. Not to mention the timing involved. I don't think a man known for writing a screenplay about bombs on a bus is going to do it much justice.

They're making this thing because they are betting that people will watch it.  I'd say point the finger at the consumer.

Comedy Central, BBC, and an occasional sporting event.  That about summarizes my whole purpose for even having a television.

No kidding.  That might be why my last post wasn't in response to you.



You were the one who wanted to extend the argument beyond a discussion of taste and into patriotism/nationalism.  The attitude of "agree with our taste, or get out" is much closer to a French one than a US one.  If you feel citizenship should be related to one's taste, feel free to grab a boat to the land of wine.  Or at least exit the dock waterside, irrespective of the boat.  Otherwise, leave the patriotism cheap shots in Europe.

Far as the title of the thread, about money being more important than taste - yes, exactly.  Welcome to the US.  Money was a/the primary motive for... about every bigscreen/smallscreen/book/play written.  It's nice when taste and money overlap.  When they don't, and a writer realizes that his talent doesn't allow for him to stick to taste to make money, he takes the easy way out.  I'm not surprized.  I am surprised that anyone else is, because this series is no different from... about anything else ever done.



Fine, that's fair.  I doubt I'd to like it either, but I won't be watching it to know.  But before you're too harsh on the writer, keep in mind that most writers have had to get their starts somewhere, and it usually wasn't with writing award winning pieces.  You could apply the same argument to say that Mad Max couldn't do justice to a passion play.  Or you could look at the fact that Graham Yost was also a writer for Boomtown and Band of Brothers, and decide that just maybe, a decent writer decided to have fun with a movie (Speed).

But I still won't watch it because I don't care for miniseries, or most things on TV.  Doesn't suit my taste, and maybe not yours.  But SHOULD he write it?  Well, that's for the TV brass to decide, IMO.  He should if they think it'll make money, because that's how our system is intended to work.  Will it be 'tasteless'?  No clue.  The article says that they intend to give the incident a lot of respect.

Durka durka durka!

People have been dramatizing human misery since Medea and Oedipus Rex.

Same as it ever was.

Then again, when those plays were first performed they weren't interrupted every 10 minutes for a series of erectile dysfunction pill commercials.

Didn't cost as much to produce, either.

It's probably the only way the american masses will ever find out anything about the attacks. They don't want to read books and learn facts, just give 'em the damned mini-series. That's why Bush is neck-n-neck ;)

I really don't know what to make of that, you went one way and then another. I feel its more than fair to question the taste of the TV brass when they decide to try and sell a tragedy so near its inception. It would be like doing a traveling show on the Holocaust in 1949. It shouldn't air right now IMO, and the idea that "just because it will make money" is a terrible reason not to object.

You said yourself you won't watch it, and that's the only way we can really object, so that's fine with me. I don't think citizenship should be related to one's taste. Like you said, it was a pithy remark.

Another avatar change? I don't know who you people are anymore!

No, object away.  Nothing wrong with calling the exec's taste crap, or the public's taste in general crap, or my personal taste crap.  The reason for my (very) first post is that I couldn't figure out exactly WHAT the objection was.  TV execs are money-grubbing bastards?  They have lousy taste?  Yeah, and?

So far the objections that've been given are
1) 9/11 was tragic, and mini-series are entertainment (entertainment off trauma is bad).  
a: Pearl Harbor was entertainment too, but only the movie critics objected.

2) "The guy who wrote Speed" sucks at writing / won't respect 9/11.
a: He's written other stuff which was good.  Successful writers hit their target audiance, and he did that with a no-brain action movie.  The point of Speed WASN'T to include deep philosophical discourse.  I've seen Band of Brothers though (he wrote an episode), and it shows he's fully capable (imo) of respectful and talented writing.

3) TV isn't / may not be the right medium to display disturbing history.
a: I would strongly disagree.  I love the History Channel.  Many of its shows are disturbing, entertaining, and on a convenient medium.

4) Bad timing - ie, too soon to dramatize traumatic events.
a: Maybe.  Bad storytelling about an event that really matters to someone (family member of someone who died, etc) tends to get under their skin.  A lot.  Disrespect of the event will REALLY get under their skin.  They will need to tread lightly.  However, the article mentioned that they intend that this mini-series be somewhere on par with Roots - that's their goal at any rate, and slavery is something that still pisses off more than a few blacks more than a century after the fact.  That series was exceptionally well received, and many blacks have identified with the series.

I think we lack entirely too much info to make a good judgement on whether the mini-series will be in poor taste or not.  A well handled delivery may strike an emotional cord with people.  Or, it could be on the same level as that earthquake series that came out a few months ago, and people will be wanting to firebomb the studios.  They are definately playing with a sensitive issue, and it could be bad for them if they mishandle it.



How?  If FOX wanted to air a new show titled "Who wants to marry a 9/11 widow?" with the season finale on 09/11/2005, you and I would agree the show is in lousy taste.  Should they air it?  Well, if the execs think they could make money, then that would mean there are enough people who think it's something they should be exposed to.  It would mean there are enough people who disagree with you and me to make it happen.  I wouldn't watch it, and I wouldn't want to be professionally involved with anything like that, but whether I think something is in good taste, and whether I think they should do something, are entirely different questions.

With the proper treatment and attention to facts, it could be a great thing.

Blackhawk Down certainly was disturbing enough.

The idea of a 9/11 miniseries annoys me, but Im annoyed by most made for tv movies anyways.  So long as they stick to the known facts and don't over extrapolate, fine.  You know that it will literally be dripping with superhuman patriotic angst though, and that isnt my cup of tea.

The one recent one that did really piss me off was the Jessica Lynch one.  That one bugged me because they went ahead and made a movie based on the "facts" that were all over the media when it happened, despite the fact that most of those facts ended up being propagandized bullshit.

At least it seems to be an attempt at an accurate dramatization (like that TV movie about Flight 93 that crashed in Iowa), rather than using the vent as a backdrop for, say, a love story.

Because you know, 60+ years from now, they're going to make a _Titanic_-like movie version of 9/11, you know, with one lover trapped in one tower and the other in the other, or some shit like that.

Bruce

And as the first tower falls, the man inside makes a spectacular leap as his lover in the second jumps to embrace him. They meet in the center, and proclaim, "I'll never let go; I love you as much as I love America, Jack!"