posted
I know we've had other threads about this, but I went to the movies tonight and saw TWO promotions for this before the film. One was a regular trailer, and the other was some long interview with the director or something.
Am I the only one who just really, really doesn't think this movie is a good idea?
posted
I don't think it's a good idea because they already did a documentary on it on Discovery Channel or something.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's a good idea either, but apparently the writers/directors went to the families of each member on the plane and asked them if was alright.
Still, I just don't think it should be made.
Posts: 1789 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ancient people understood that the cruelest thing you could do to a villain was forget him, now you people glory in villains and want to forget our heroes. I am ashamed. Remember the heroes maybe you or somebody you know will be faced with the same choice, we can only hope you make the courageous one.
posted
BC, that's not why I won't see the movie. I think it's disrespectful to the dead. I didn't think it was a good idea to begin with-- and I think it's a worse one having seen the promotions.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's one thing to glorify your heroes, and it's a completely different thing to profit from tragedy.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's too bad the writer/director didn't have the advantage of having heard the actual black box recordings prior to making the movie. They just now released those for the Moussaoui trial.
I plan to see the movie if I can.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm all for remembering fallen heroes, but not in the form of a summer blockbuster popcorn flick. Not when I still remember the actual tragedy so clearly.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, here's my take on it.. I was surprised the government let this movie go through, and I thought to myself.. What beneifit would there be that the government would somehow prosper from it (because ticket sales arent going STRAIGHT to the government).
And this is how I see it:
The majority of civilians believe Bush is failing, and now this war is a bad idea. It's been 5 years since 911 and the war has gone very different from what we originally planned. And so now, in a "desperate" time of war, when recruitment numbers are so low that they're changing the way they train the soldiers, some sort of propoganda is needed.
Instead of flowering America with propaganda posters like the times of World War II, maybe an inspiring movie such as United 93 will instill a reborn sense of nationalism in people and remind them EXACTLY what happened because it was a few years ago that this happened.
So I think the government sees this as an opportunity to remind Americans of a brave story and help create some sort of support for the war again.
Regardless if it's at the expense of these families, I'm rather excited to see this movie, I want to see how they portray this event, it could very well be a very sentimental movie and heartfelt movie. Who knows.
Posts: 9 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those of you against seeing this movie -- how is this any different than the profit-making efforts of Michael Moore a year ago?
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
TheMaker, you can't be serious. This is the United States of America. The Government has absolutley no control over what Hollywood produces. They might make hissy fits, but they can't stop a movie from getting made. Now, if your argument is that the government helped produce the movie for whatever reason I think it would make more sense. But, otherwise, you just come out sounding like a pathetic conspiracy freak.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I almost never watch historical movies, since usually what actually happened is more compelling and truthful than anything a movie can tell. If I know anything about the subject, I especially won't watch it... and I've read enough accounts of 9/11 to never want to see ANY movie about 9/11. The words and accounts of the people who died and survived are more real and more moving than anything Hollywood can ever do.
(Book recommendation -- a good account of the Twin Towers = 102 Minutes by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn. It does an amazing job of trying to piece together all of the chaos and horror of the attacks.)
(I did see Fahrenheit 9/11, but that movie's more of an opinionated documentary about politics related to Bush and 9/11 than it is about what happened on 9/11. My memory of the film's fuzzy, but if I remember right, Moore didn't show any of the usual explosion-type footage of 9/11 -- only some footage of stunned and horrified New Yorkers looking upwards at the devastation that we're not directly shown.)
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: Ancient people understood that the cruelest thing you could do to a villain was forget him, now you people glory in villains and want to forget our heroes. I am ashamed. Remember the heroes maybe you or somebody you know will be faced with the same choice, we can only hope you make the courageous one.
BC
Um. The people who died during 9/11 were, by and large, victims -- not heroes. Those who've martyred them seem to have done it for primarily political purposes to demonize those who speak against the administration.
I have a great deal of respect for the police and firemen who died that day, but those who were in the towers and airplanes were there by unlucky coincidence, not self-sacrifice. This film will almost certainly not reflect that reality, and if there's one thing I've grown tired of over the past six years, it's the American media glorifying in tragedy for the sake of universally sympathetic head-nodding.
I attend NYU. I'm friends with a girl who attended high school not a block away from the WTC the day of the attacks. She has friends who died during the collapse. Another of my closest friends was dangerously near the WTC at the time. We actually risked losing those we love -- and I'm really tired of watching the Republican party exploit grief to push their own political agendas.
I've seen few examples of either, but the longer I live, the more I hope both Hell and justice exist.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have a lot more respect for the movie if I didn't have to buy a $9.50 ticket to see it.
Lalo: I think you make an exceptional point.
However, I think before I make a decision about if I will see the movie or not, I'm going to poke around their website and try to figure out what propelled them to make it in the first place.
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The force behind the Flight 93 film -and- the upcoming WTC film is Hollywood seeking to make big bucks. Plain and simple. Vote with your wallet.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo- I thought the idea behind United 93 was that they were heroes. The people on flight stopped the terrorists from achieving their objective at the cost of their lives. That is heroism. I also don't see any reason to suspect that the Republican party is behind this movie.
I have no plans to see this film. I think it is far too soon after the event for something like this to be appropriate. I also have trouble with exploiting grief for profit.
quote:For those of you against seeing this movie -- how is this any different than the profit-making efforts of Michael Moore a year ago?
I'm not fan of Moore, but I do think the two are different. Moore tries to create change in our government through his efforts. He is not simply profiting from pain.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: Lalo- I thought the idea behind United 93 was that they were heroes. The people on flight stopped the terrorists from achieving their objective at the cost of their lives. That is heroism. I also don't see any reason to suspect that the Republican party is behind this movie.
I have no plans to see this film. I think it is far too soon after the event for something like this to be appropriate. I also have trouble with exploiting grief for profit.
quote:For those of you against seeing this movie -- how is this any different than the profit-making efforts of Michael Moore a year ago?
I'm not fan of Moore, but I do think the two are different. Moore tries to create change in our government through his efforts. He is not simply profiting from pain.
No, I don't suspect the Republican party is behind the movie -- but I am sure the party will, as it has since September 11, try to whip up a fury of patriotic adoring fervor for the lost heroes of September 11, and shout down anyone who disagrees with Republican policies as disrespectful to the dead and unsupportive of the troops and unfaithful to the country.
Also, to be fair to the people on United 93, I don't think they intentionally crashed the plane to avoid harming others. Most likely, the passengers fought for control of the plane against the hijackers, and the plane crashed either in the fight or through deliberate means by the hijackers. It's self-preservation, not heroics. I'm glad that they had the chance to fight for themselves, but unless the word's definition has considerably laxed, they're not heroes. They've unfortunate victims.
The tsunami in India was an impossibly greater catastrophe, and I don't see anyone rushing to label the victims there heroes -- unless, of course, they died trying to save others, a luxury the people on United 93 never had. Let's try to keep ourselves from blurring the lines between definitions, or we run the risk of believing, for example, that those who don't want to start wars don't support American troops.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, I totally don't believe that all of the families gave this film the okay.
Secondly, the idea of people watching this movie over nachos makes me very uncomfortable. I mean, it's one thing to see Final Destination 2. That is a case in which nachos and death don't bother me. But this? No.
Thirdly, what Lalo said. I, too, have a friend who went to that high school.
posted
I think the movie is going to be just as bad as the Passion. Everybody is going to see it, but it's gonna screw everything up in the movie. The critics won't like it but nobody will listen to them because it's a movie about 9/11. The story is going to be one-sided, full of holes, and have HORRIBLE acting. The movie is going to be bad but everyone is going to see it, not because they want to, but more because they feel it's their DUTY to. The movie is just an excuse for a blockbuster.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, to be fair to the people on United 93, I don't think they intentionally crashed the plane to avoid harming others. Most likely, the passengers fought for control of the plane against the hijackers, and the plane crashed either in the fight or through deliberate means by the hijackers. It's self-preservation, not heroics.
quote:unless, of course, they died trying to save others, a luxury the people on United 93 never had
It is my understanding that the people who stood up to the terrorists were doing exactly that. After hearing about the WTC, they were not going to let that plane be used as a terrorist weapon. While I'm certain they would have liked to save themselves as well, it also seems that they were trying to prevent another tragedy. Perhaps the majority of the people on the plane were victims, but those that fought against the terrorists acted heroically and prevented a major disaster.
quote:Let's try to keep ourselves from blurring the lines between definitions, or we run the risk of believing, for example, that those who don't want to start wars don't support American troops.
I do not see how the two are connected. I find your connection of the two offensive. I can simultaneously see people whose bravery averted a tragedy as heroes and also disagree with the war.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't see the Passion because I was taught from a young age that it's disrespectful to attempt to capture the suffering of Christ in such a way. We didn't even have Easter plays that depicted the crucifixion.
posted
Same here, I heard that while they were filming the crucifiction for that movie, the actor, and the cross, were struck by lightning just as they mounted him up.
When I saw the movie I was offended at what Hollywood has become.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, to be fair to the people on United 93, I don't think they intentionally crashed the plane to avoid harming others. Most likely, the passengers fought for control of the plane against the hijackers, and the plane crashed either in the fight or through deliberate means by the hijackers. It's self-preservation, not heroics.
I think it's sad that you consider the scenario in which everyone acts completely selfishly to be "more likely". Based on what ... just cynicism?
I personally think that when the passengers on 93 found out their plane was going to be crashed, they lost any real belief that they were going to survive, no matter what they did. At that point, they had a choice. Either cling to their seats in fear, or act to stop the terrorists. The latter choice was scarier and more difficult, but they did it anyway, and succeeded, which in my mind definitely makes them heroes.
If those people weren't heroes, I'm really curious who would qualify, in your mind.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If those people weren't heroes, I'm really curious who would qualify, in your mind.
Really? Because if your scenario is the correct one -- that they lost any real belief that they were going to survive, so at least decided to frustrate the terrorists' ambitions while dying -- then I can think of a LOT more heroic things.
I'm not entirely comfortable with establishing a strict hierarchy of heroism, but it seems like your scenario is equivalent to being second-to-last in a line of bank hostages and, after the other hostages have been shot in the back of the head, execution-style, deciding to lunge at your attacker instead.
These people were pretty clearly victims, not heroes, although I can understand why we feel it necessary to turn them into martyrs.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: If those people weren't heroes, I'm really curious who would qualify, in your mind.
Really? Because if your scenario is the correct one -- that they lost any real belief that they were going to survive, so at least decided to frustrate the terrorists' ambitions while dying -- then I can think of a LOT more heroic things.
I'm not entirely comfortable with establishing a strict hierarchy of heroism, but it seems like your scenario is equivalent to being second-to-last in a line of bank hostages and, after the other hostages have been shot in the back of the head, execution-style, deciding to lunge at your attacker instead.
These people were pretty clearly victims, not heroes, although I can understand why we feel it necessary to turn them into martyrs.
Wow that's an interesting way of thinking of them, because I do think of them as heroes. You claim they did it just to frusterate the terrorist's ambitions. But how do we know that hte passengers on the planes knew the Terrorist ambitions?? What if they were just trying to save their plane by destroying the Terrorists, how did they know the plan to crash it into a building? how did they know about the Twin Towers and Pentagon? Unless the Terrorists told them, I think it's highly unlikely any of the passengers knew that they were "destroying a terrorists ambitions" of carrying out a suicide crash.
I think it's heroic of them to at least try to risk their lives in an attempt to recontrol the plane.
AND P.S. I don't know how to double quote, but to those who posted above me that claimed that the government has no right to control what comes out in movies.. I'm pretty sure they do. It's not entirely free speech, I know there was a movie like this that was supposed to come out a few YEARS ago, but the government had some hand in preventing it. Correct me if im wrong though
Posts: 9 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was under the impression that the people on the plane called their families on their cell phones during the hijacking, and the families told them about the other planes.
quote: If those people weren't heroes, I'm really curious who would qualify, in your mind.
Really? Because if your scenario is the correct one -- that they lost any real belief that they were going to survive, so at least decided to frustrate the terrorists' ambitions while dying -- then I can think of a LOT more heroic things.
I'm not entirely comfortable with establishing a strict hierarchy of heroism, but it seems like your scenario is equivalent to being second-to-last in a line of bank hostages and, after the other hostages have been shot in the back of the head, execution-style, deciding to lunge at your attacker instead.
These people were pretty clearly victims, not heroes, although I can understand why we feel it necessary to turn them into martyrs.
Wow that's an interesting way of thinking of them, because I do think of them as heroes. You claim they did it just to frusterate the terrorist's ambitions. But how do we know that hte passengers on the planes knew the Terrorist ambitions?? What if they were just trying to save their plane by destroying the Terrorists, how did they know the plan to crash it into a building? how did they know about the Twin Towers and Pentagon? Unless the Terrorists told them, I think it's highly unlikely any of the passengers knew that they were "destroying a terrorists ambitions" of carrying out a suicide crash.
I think it's heroic of them to at least try to risk their lives in an attempt to recontrol the plane.
For clarification, Tom is quoting Geoff's scenario that the passengers "lost any real belief that they were going to survive."
And, again, unless the word's definition has significantly relaxed, acting in self-preservation doesn't qualify as "heroics." They'd heard that their plane was going to be crashed into a building, and tried to stop that from happening -- and I don't think it's overly cynical to consider that their first thought was their own safety.
In my mind, a hero is someone who sacrifices himself for the sake of others. I don't doubt that these passengers saved lives by acting in self-defense, and bully for them for standing up for themselves, but I'm not nearly so insecure in their quality that I need to martyr them in order to assure their worth to history. They were unfortunate victims, and when they found out their impending doom, tried to avoid it. Their self-preservation saved others, no doubt, but that certainly doesn't mean they fought to save any lives but their own.
I don't need to beatify these people to grieve for them. Shame on anyone who feels they need to lie about these people to truly miss them. And if there's justice, to hell with anyone who abuses these people's deaths as a political tool.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, I've got to weigh in. Apologies if this gets long. Feel free to skip it, but I've got to get it out.
Assumption:It is in poor taste to "profit" from tragedy. A product that is for sale that depicts or commemorates tragedy is exploitative.
Rebuttal: While I, personally, do not own a single bit of 9/11 "merchandise," I have family members that own exactly three.
The first is a DVD documentary. The filmmakers, two brothers, were originally making a documentary about a particular depart of the NYFD, but they ended up getting caught up in the events of the day. One of the brothers was even in one of the buildings for a while, rolling footage.
It is powerful and compelling.
The other two were books of photographs. They're almost as moving.
All three were done with the appropriate respect and reverence.
I'm not taking an extreme position, like suggesting that no product is exploitative.
But to dismis the seriousness of a product simply because someone charges money for it is equally extreme. Cash is the medium of exchange for our time. Whether the product is fun or serious, exploitative or reverent, evil or good, the only way we have to get our hands on it and compensate the guy that made it is money.
Not saying this film isn't exploitative. I haven't seen it. I just don't see the fact they're charging money for it as being an argument one way or the other.
Assumption B:Because the product is a feature film, it is exploitative. It is certainly less noble than a documentary, and far less noble than a book.
Rebuttal: I was originally going to point out that there exists a portion of our population for whom things aren't "real" until they've seen the movie, but I realized that was a little condenscending and missed the point.
The fact is, feature films are the premiere art form of our time. More people see a hit movie than watch a hit TV show. There is no way to touch more hearts or enlighten more minds.
By converting true stories into fiction, we gain a power with them that cannot be achieved by docmentary or book alone. Fiction can do things, move us in ways that the facts alone cannot.
Fiction does also distort--I'll grant you that. But the distortion is not inherently bad. While it can be a Disney-esque rubbing away of the edge of the story, it can also be a razor-sharp honing of it.
Again, not casting judgement on this movie one way or the other. Just saying the fact it's a feature film doesn't automatically mean we know it's going to be.
Also, as we can even see in this thread, there's wide confusion on what happened on that, and the other planes that day. While the basic story is available for free in the first chapter of the 9/11 Commission report, putting it in a film, if accurate, would give everyone a real understanding of the events of that day.
Assumption C:The airing of this movie will benifit / is sponsored by / would be stopped by / one particular group or party.
Rebuttal: If the film simply depicts, as accurately as it can, the events of 9/11, then it should not help or hinder any political party any more than the day itself did. If it does, it will be because the facts that led to opinions had been distorted.
Again, not saying the film doesn't take a political stance. It might. But it's not inherent to the idea of making the movie that one group would benifit.
The liberals could easily use the depiction of the independent terrorists making the attack to reiterate that the Iraqi government was not involved. The conservatives could use it to get rah-rah over terrorism and taking out people who look at us the wrong way.
In other words, it would serve exactly the same poitical ends the day itself has come to serve. It will just make the dialogue more informed.
Assumption D:Jack is going to see this, because he's a flag waving right winger.
Rebuttal: Nah, I already feel like I've read enough that I understand what happened pretty well.
If I see it, it will be because the guy that played Sledge Hammer! is in it. __________________________________
Dickie: How do you know it's a stupid play if you haven't even seen it?
Tommy: I'm an American. I don't have to see something to know it's stupid.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, again, unless the word's definition has significantly relaxed, acting in self-preservation doesn't qualify as "heroics."
Acting courageously is the essence of heroism. Anyone who thinks that it doesn't take courage to do something dangerous, even when it's to save ones own life, sorely lacks an understanding of fear and what it can do to a person.
quote:Shame on anyone who feels they need to lie about these people to truly miss them.
Shame on you for branding as "lying" someone who has a less limited definition of hero than you do.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming that one could read the minds of the passengers and KNOW they were heroes is bad.
Assuming one could read the mind of the passengers and KNOW they were scared victims lashing out is bad.
That seems to be the two points being repeated over and over in this thread. Am I right?
Trying to construe anything of what one was not a personal witness to is bad...and yet historical fiction exists. Is it all bad?
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being scared does not make one any less a hero. It is perfectly acceptable to infer that the passengers were very scared when they made their move yet made their move anyway. It's perfectly acceptable to infer that they were motivated to some degree - possibly a very high degree - by a desire not to be crashed into a building.
The latter does not reduce the heroism involved in the former.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
After seeing some promotions on television, I can't imagine watching this movie. I'm not worried about politics or nationalism, I just know that I can't handle it. I remember when Discovery did its presentation of the events on Flight 93 and was interested to see it, but when the show started I felt sick and had to change the channel.
I guess I don't understand its purpose. Talking with my friends and family, I have yet to hear one person express a desire to see it. We were all watching the news that day. We saw the planes hit the Towers and the Pentagon, we saw the remains of the plane that crashed before reaching its target. I don't need to see the recreation when I saw it for real. And while none of us were THERE on the planes, we know the stories. We've heard families share the last words of the ones they loved. Those images and sounds are forever burned into my brain.
Make the movie for my kids and my kids' kids. Release it then, but I can't imagine what good it can do for anyone in this country because its a rare person who wasn't glued to their television, running for their lives, or praying for their loved ones that day.
All visual art is entertaining to some degree and I just don't want to be entertained by this movie.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to see it. Like Shanna says, I couldn't handle it either. I'd be a wreak for days afterwards. Maybe that makes me a coward.
As for the tastefulness of the movie, or not... well, the prospect of this film seems to hold at least some element of what my housemate likes to call 'car-crash TV' - it's awful, you know it's terrible, but you can't tear your eyes away because it's just so intriguing. While film is a perfectly valid art form for telling a story or bringing history to life, there are better ways to remember heroism, IMO. On my journal entry on 9/11, one of the things that I wrote was that I knew that one day someone would make a movie - although I was thinking in terms of about ten or twenty years time - and that I couldn't imagine how it could be done tastefully. I still can't imagine it.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Same here, I heard that while they were filming the crucifiction for that movie, the actor, and the cross, were struck by lightning just as they mounted him up.
When I saw the movie I was offended at what Hollywood has become.
Wow. Hollywood didn't have anything to do with the production of the movie. And I have a very hard time believing God resorts to scare tactics.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that the actions of the people on Flight 93 were heroic. I think the circumstances brought out the heroism in the people on that plane, whether it was as a last-ditch effort to try to save their own lives and the lives of the rest of the passengers, to deny the terrorists their goal, or to save the lives of countless others. Their motivation doesn't matter to me. They were heros.
Still think the movie is tasteless, exploitive, and manipulative, mind you, and that it's way too soon to be making movies about the events of September 11th. But it's not because I don't think they deserve to be recognized as heros. Hell of a lot better to consider them heros than professional sports stars or singers or race car drivers, as far as I'm concerned.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is only time that divides a tragedy and the people who die in a tragedy from unacceptability. Every year there are war films depicted real people, such as Hotel Rwanda, Schindler's List, and even Titanic. It's only time and distance that turns these tragedies into applauded films that make a lot of money. (I should note that at least one person in this thread has said they do not watch historical films).
Before there were films, people wrote books dramatising tragedy. Before there were books, they wrote poetry: with all due respect, the Bible is probably the best well known depictor of tragedies and people buy Bibles all the time.
I have no intention of seeing this film. Like Bella Bee said, it would destroy me. Generally, I do not survive tragedy films very well and I rarely watch them if I can help it.
But I do understand. What is disrespectful about the idea of this film is only time. The wounds are perhaps too fresh.
But, assuming this film is not disrespectful in the way it is made I do not think that dramatising and selling what happened that day is inherently disrespectful unless it was intended to be that way.
I guess my point is that even if this film means nothing today, or in ten years, it might be useful to have such an immediate recollection available years down the line. For my history class this year I had to read "Journey's End" which is a WWI play first performed in 1928. I grant you, that is ten years grace, but it can't have been the first play or book or film to tell a WWI story. I imagine then that many people thought it incredibly disrespectful, and I don't blame them. However, now, I read this story for class and I can feel its immediacy.
We need to tell, and, yes, dramatize, the stories of people who died in tragedy, even when the wounds are only five years old and the scars have hardly begun to heal. It is part of human record. You may not approve, you may not go and see it as I have chosen not to, but it is there, it exists. (Perhaps it is, in a way, a form of speaking for the dead? or the survivors, even? In a way, this film might tell the story of the survivors more than those who died simply from the way it has been made.)
For that reason, I do not think it is a bad thing this film was made. Maybe in fifty or sixty years my hypothetical grandchildren will watch United 93 in their history classes?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, while I would not say it was God resorting to scare tactics, I have heard about several lightening strikes on the set of Passion. According to IMDB's trivia page James Caviezel, the actor who played Jesus, was hit by lightening during the Sermon on the Mount scene and experienced hypothermia during the crucifixion scene. It also says the assistant director was hit by lightening during the filming, although it doesn't specify when. The article I remember said there were something like 11 lightening strikes during the filming, and that the cast and crew took it as a sign of God's favor, of the power of the film they were making. I'll see if I can find the reference.
Added: Here's the take from the official faq, so that's probably the most accurate, although it mentions lightening during the crucifixion scene and every other source I've found says serom on the mount.
quote:Did someone get hit by lightening during production? Assistant director Jan Michelini was struck by lighting twice during filming, according to The Associated Press. The first time, a bolt struck his umbrella, singeing the tips of his fingers, and the second time, several months later, both Michelini and star Jim Caviezel were hit. Neither were seriously injured.
In an interview, Gibson said, "There have been a lot of unusual things happening, good things like people being healed of diseases, a couple of people have had sight and hearing restored, another guy was struck by lightning while we were filming the crucifixion scene and he just got up and walked away."
quote: The latter does not reduce the heroism involved in the former.
Out of interest, is there a point at which acting out of self-interest or a desire for self-preservation does reduce heroism?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Also, while I would not say it was God resorting to scare tactics, I have heard about several lightening strikes on the set of Passion. According to IMDB's trivia page James Caviezel, the actor who played Jesus, was hit by lightening during the Sermon on the Mount scene and experienced hypothermia during the crucifixion scene. It also says the assistant director was hit by lightening during the filming, although it doesn't specify when. The article I remember said there were something like 11 lightening strikes during the filming, and that the cast and crew took it as a sign of God's favor, of the power of the film they were making. I'll see if I can find the reference.
Added: Here's the take from the official faq, so that's probably the most accurate, although it mentions lightening during the crucifixion scene and every other source I've found says serom on the mount.
quote:Did someone get hit by lightening during production? Assistant director Jan Michelini was struck by lighting twice during filming, according to The Associated Press. The first time, a bolt struck his umbrella, singeing the tips of his fingers, and the second time, several months later, both Michelini and star Jim Caviezel were hit. Neither were seriously injured.
In an interview, Gibson said, "There have been a lot of unusual things happening, good things like people being healed of diseases, a couple of people have had sight and hearing restored, another guy was struck by lightning while we were filming the crucifixion scene and he just got up and walked away."
And to think that you guys didnt believe me...
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One person said that they didn't believe that God resorts to scare tactics. Nothing I posted proves them wrong. People get hit by lightening all the time. Most of them survive. The fact that two people on the set got hit does not show either that God was mad at them for making the movie and started tossing lightening bolts or that God was with them and miraculously saved them from the lightening.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I just figured that they didn't believe that they got struck by lightening at the crucifiction scene.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I meant just what I said. God doesn't need to resort to scare tactics. Sending down nonlethal repeated lightning strikes on the set because The Passion was going to be a blasphemous movie wouldn't be something I would expect. I hadn't considered that they could have been miraculously healed. Although I doubt that too.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Although I doubt that too.
