Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:32 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
September 11, 2011: "The Day that Changed Little" 
Author Message
Post Re: September 11, 2011: "The Day that Changed Little"
So anyway to refer back to James' blog, especially the title, I'm inclined to agree. 11/9 didn't do much except get people's attention. It's not as if people loved the States prior to the incident and somehow the people at the top still didn't seem to acknowledge this little fact. If you consider the 'point' of terrorism is to send a message, the message clearly wasn't picked up by the people who could act. Even now, with new governments in both the UK and USA, I still can't see the situation improving.
I cannot speak for the states but the problem the UK has is both domestic AND international. We supported Bush in his interference (one could argue about how justified we were in toppling Saddam another day) which has made us more of a target however at home, there is massive friction surrounding the balance between the treatment of what makes people different from others. The legislation to protect one group seems to infringe on another, which in turn causes said group to kick off about it, thus provoking a reaction. A balance is needed both domestically and internationally.


As for the cultural impact, I think it's all cooling off a little. Or a lot, I cannot really tell as I've not seen every movie under the sun (or television show) but people are slowly getting back into the mood for carnage, mass destruction etc.


Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:43 pm
Post Re: September 11, 2011: "The Day that Changed Little"
If there's one thing 9.11 didn't affect, it was our appetite for mass destruction, in fact, rentals for actions films actually INCREASED significantly following 9/11, I can't which article I read that in though.


Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:09 pm
Post Re: September 11, 2011: "The Day that Changed Little"
Vexer wrote:
If there's one thing 9.11 didn't affect, it was our appetite for mass destruction, in fact, rentals for actions films actually INCREASED significantly following 9/11, I can't which article I read that in though.


It became MORE of a guilty pleasure :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya5fAW1_ ... ture=feedu

The guy makes the point that you probably wouldn't have the ending of Fight Club (the movie, not the book) in a movie now. I'd have agreed maybe 5 years ago, not too sure now.


Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:21 pm
Post Re: September 11, 2011: "The Day that Changed Little"
I've often heard it said that the first one to lob out a personal attack in an argument, loses the argument. So thanks for that!

nologo wrote:
I see we have our own little ahmadinejad's of the denialist movement here


Tue Sep 20, 2011 9:22 pm
Post Re: September 11, 2011: "The Day that Changed Little"
Dragonbeard wrote:
Vexer wrote:
If there's one thing 9.11 didn't affect, it was our appetite for mass destruction, in fact, rentals for actions films actually INCREASED significantly following 9/11, I can't which article I read that in though.


It became MORE of a guilty pleasure :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya5fAW1_ ... ture=feedu

The guy makes the point that you probably wouldn't have the ending of Fight Club (the movie, not the book) in a movie now. I'd have agreed maybe 5 years ago, not too sure now.

Yeah, we've seen major cities get attacked/destroyed in films like G.I. Joe, Transformers, Battle: Los Angeles, etc. Despite what JB said in his review of Joe, I think most people have long moved past feeling uncomfortable at seeing major landmarks being destroyed in films.


Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:41 am
Post Re: September 11, 2011: "The Day that Changed Little"
I'd forgotten about Transformers 3... that was destruction on a pornographic scale.

Perhaps I've heard the phrase "In this post 9/11 world" too many times now and it's sunk in.


Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:49 am
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:16 am
Posts: 115
Post Re: September 11, 2011: "The Day that Changed Little"
johnny larue wrote:
I've often heard it said that the first one to lob out a personal attack in an argument, loses the argument. So thanks for that!

nologo wrote:
I see we have our own little ahmadinejad's of the denialist movement here


You guys have nothing but slander against Gore and not only did you refuse to back it up, you just went further down the denialist rabbit hole of absurdity posting links to non-science and a fiction writer...

If you were the least bit interested in having a *good faith* argument the comparison wouldn't have been accurate.


Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:05 pm
Profile
Post Re: September 11, 2011: "The Day that Changed Little"
nologo wrote:
johnny larue wrote:
I've often heard it said that the first one to lob out a personal attack in an argument, loses the argument. So thanks for that!

nologo wrote:
I see we have our own little ahmadinejad's of the denialist movement here


You guys have nothing but slander against Gore and not only did you refuse to back it up, you just went further down the denialist rabbit hole of absurdity posting links to non-science and a fiction writer...

If you were the least bit interested in having a *good faith* argument the comparison wouldn't have been accurate.


nologo...you are obviously very passionate about this topic (to the point of zealotry), whereas I, admittedly, don't really give much of a crap about it too much. I keep an open mind on the subject but when people start spouting off about absolutes, on either side, it kind of rubs me the wrong way. You just happen to be an absolutist on the side of climate change; had someone been as fervent in their beliefs against climate change, I probably would have thrown out snarky counter commentary at them too. I'm not so arrogant to say that it's settled one way or the other, and frankly couldn't be bothered to wade through the piles and piles of journals to form a strong opinion (see "not giving a crap" above).

Perhaps it is my apathy that offends you the most. So be it.

I would probably say my feelings on the matter most closely mirror the point of this Wall Street Journal editorial from last weekend. I know, I know...it's the Wall Street Journal, the press corp of the Republican Party and it's a (gads!) opinion piece to boot, but they apparently give a bigger crap on the subject than I do, and it seemed apropos.

Wall Street Journal Editorial wrote:

'High School Physics’
That’s how Al Gore described the science of climate change this week, by which we suppose he meant it’s elementary and unchallengeable. Well, Mr. Vice President, meet Ivar Giaever, a 1973 physics Nobel Laureate who resigned last week from the American Physical Society in protest over the group’s insistence that evidence of man-made global warming is “incontrovertible.”

In an email to the society, Mr. Giaever-who works at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute-wrote that “The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me . . . that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”

Mr. Giaever was an American Physical Society fellow, an honor bestowed on “only half of one percent” of the members, according to a spokesman. He follows in the footsteps of University of California at Santa Barbara Emeritus Professor of Physics Harold Lewis, a former APS fellow who resigned in 2010, calling global warming “the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

Other dissenters include Stanford University physicist and Nobelist Robert B. Laughlin, deceased green revolution icon and Nobelist Norman Borlaug, Princeton physicist William Happer and World Federation of Scientists President Antonino Zichichi. Our point is not that all of these men agree on climate change, much less mankind’s contribution to it, only that to one degree or another they maintain an open mind about warming or what to do about it.

One of the least savory traits of climate-change advocates is how they’ve tried to bully anyone who keeps an open mind. This is true of many political projects, but it is or ought to be anathema to the scientific method. With the cap-and-trade movement stymied, Mr. Gore and the climate clan have become even more arch in their dismissals of anyone who disagrees. Readers can decide who they’d rather study physics with-Professor Giaever, or Mr. Gore’s list of politically certified instructors.


Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:06 pm
Post Re: September 11, 2011: "The Day that Changed Little"
@Johnny Larue - just nod slowly and let's get back to discussing movies.


Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:50 pm
Post Re: September 11, 2011: "The Day that Changed Little"
nologo wrote:
You guys have nothing but slander against Gore and not only did you refuse to back it up, you just went further down the denialist rabbit hole of absurdity posting links to non-science and a fiction writer...


http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Al_Gore


Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:15 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr