'72 Olympic Terror to Be a Film by Spielberg

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by Musa
29 years ago. Though the relatives and friends of the people who were killed will never forget this, isn't the timing of this movie rather odd? Why not 10 years ago? Why not 15? Speilberg has been making movies for a while.


Edit: My bad, it was 32 years ago. I misread the date

Controversial historical events often get made a few decades after they happen.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Musa
But is Moore's movie going to affect the lives of innocent people?

...

You're kidding, right?

Why do you think he's calling it Fahrenheit 911? Hello! McFly!

The only reason you seem to be opposed to this is because it happened to Israeli atheletes.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Musa
No movie should be made with the knowledge that people could be harmed if this movie is made. And people could be harmed. The timing of it is awfully coincidental. Why not 5 years ago? Why not 10 years ago? Why now?

10 years ago the movie would seem as if it was done in order to stop the Oslo agreements peace process. 5 years ago it would seem as if it is done in order to stop a final peace agreement from being reached. At what time could he possibly have made the movie without it appearing to be done for political reasons?

Originally posted by Musa
When Muslims are obivously being targeted with a War on Terror, is that why this is needed? Obviously. Speilberg wants to catch the attention of people, and terrorism seems to be the hot topic these days, eh? More public support for Israel - something it has enough of.

Terrorism and wars were the hot topic in ME politics for the last century. And no, Israel doesn't have enough public support. I've never heard about a country that didn't want more support from other countries. There's no such thing as a right amount of public support.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by Musa
Now do we need another thing to get Anti-Arab sentiments up? Is this really necessary, at this day and time? When public opinion of Arabs and Muslims is already very low, why is Steven Speilberg making a movie on a subject such as this? I know that Arabs were responsible for this, but is this truely the right time for this movie?

I agree the timing is off, June is a bit late to start production considering it won't be done before this year's Olympics when the interest would be the highest. As for the public opinion part, very few people blame the Germans today for the atrocities of the Nazis yesterday.

 

[allhailIndia]

Well, how will making a movie of a true incident affect politics?

 

[HannibalBarka]

S.Spielberg has every right to make any movie he wants. I found the "passion" arised by "The passion" riduculous also. Evry time is suitable for every movie, it is called "free speach" and it is the most important thing in western democracies.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by HannibalBarka
S.Spielberg has every right to make any movie he wants. I found the "passion" arised by "The passion" riduculous also. Evry time is suitable for every movie, it is called "free speach" and it is the most important thing in western democracies.

I believe the debate isn't about his right to make the movie, but rather about how smart it is to make it at this time.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Originally posted by G-Man
I believe the debate isn't about his right to make the movie, but rather about how smart it is to make it at this time.

That is precisely why I said "Every time is suitable for every movie"

 

[Sh3kel]

Wait wait wait wait wait, let me get this straight.
When people make a movie about killing Jewish guys, only they film it in arameic, latin and ancient hebrew, and make the Jews look like the perpetrators as well as the victims, it's alright. "The Passion" is a permissible example of moviemaking even though it clearly depicts a brutal punishment and eventual execution of an innocent Jew by what may have been the Jews or may have been the Romans or may have been both, but nobodoy actually knows because everyone has a different version. Making a movie that makes Jews and Romans look like insensitive and sadistic bastards is pefectly alright, even though we don't really know who killed Jesus.
But when someone else gets to making a movie about dead Jews that are were factually, not possibly, not "perhaps", killed by Palestinian Muslim fanatical terrorists, it's not alright because we raise anti-muslim sentiments?!?

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG YOU PEOPLE?!

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by Sh3kel
Wait wait wait wait wait, let me get this straight.
When people make a movie about killing Jewish guys, only they film it in arameic, latin and ancient hebrew, and make the Jews look like the perpetrators as well as the victims, it's alright. "The Passion" is a permissible example of moviemaking even though it clearly depicts a brutal punishment and eventual execution of an innocent Jew by what may have been the Jews or may have been the Romans or may have been both, but nobodoy actually knows because everyone has a different version. Making a movie that makes Jews and Romans look like insensitive and sadistic bastards is pefectly alright, even though we don't really know who killed Jesus.
But when someone else gets to making a movie about dead Jews that are were factually, not possibly, not "perhaps", killed by Palestinian Muslim fanatical terrorists, it's not alright because we raise anti-muslim sentiments?!?

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG YOU PEOPLE?!

What the Hell is wrong with you too ?

When we see the violence and hate against Mel Gibson, we can't say that it was ok for him. Come on ! Mel Gibson couldn't find anyone to distribute his movie in France and the movie have almost not been shown in here because of it. You can't say "what is acceptable for Gibson is not for Spielberg". Who's the biased guy in here ?

Both movies should be made if there are people who think so. This is what free speech is about.

Personally, I won't judge a movie which hasn't been made yet. My only point is that if he wants his movie to be a success, he should put it in a wider perspective and not simply show us evil arabs murdering innocent jews in Munich. Actually, I trust in Spielberg, his movies are in general well thought.

I still consider that when we show the violence of one side, we shouldn't forget the violence of the other side. Especially when we talk about an issue as tricky as is the Near East. That's my humble opinion. If I say so, it's because too many people are suffering in the world because they just want to see half of the truth.

 

[Leha]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
What the Hell is wrong with you too ?

When we see the violence and hate against Mel Gibson, we can't say that it was ok for him. Come on ! Mel Gibson couldn't find anyone to distribute his movie in France and the movie have almost not been shown in here because of it. You can't say "what is acceptable for Gibson is not for Spielberg". Who's the biased guy in here ?

Both movies should be made if there are people who think so. This is what free speech is about.

Personally, I won't judge a movie which hasn't been made yet. My only point is that if he wants his movie to be a success, he should put it in a wider perspective and not simply show us evil arabs murdering innocent jews in Munich. Actually, I trust in Spielberg, his movies are in general well thought.

I still consider that when we show the violence of one side, we shouldn't forget the violence of the other side. Especially when we talk about an issue as tricky as is the Near East. That's my humble opinion. If I say so, it's because too many people are suffering in the world because they just want to see half of the truth.

Why should he made it in "wider perspective"? "Spartacus" was about riot of gladiators. "U-571" was about capturing of german submarine. Lots of historic movies are depicting historic events. And the less moviemaker is adding of his "vision", the better. Let us decide what was right and what was wrong.

Sportsmen were killed by terrorists. Spielberg wants to make movie about this. What is supposed to be in "wider perspective" here ? Certain arabs killing innocent jews aren't evil ? You can agree, you can disagree, but those events were truth. They are real.

 

[thestonesfan]

If people wish to hate Muslims, they don't need a movie to do so.

Spielberg has enough tact not to paint a picture of all Muslims being terrorists.

As for the timing, well, it's his creation, he can do what he wants with it. The western world will no doubt be having conflicts with muslims for the next couple decades. What should we do, ban it? I don't think anyone would support such a suggestion.

Just don't go see it.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Yeah of course leha, we should see only how evil are palestinians and how innocent are israelis. That's the most accurate analyzis of the Near East issue. There are good people and bad people. It's so easy once we're brainwashed.

 

[Leha]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Yeah of course leha, we should see only how evil are palestinians and how innocent are israelis. That's the most accurate analyzis of the Near East issue. There are good people and bad people. It's so easy once we're brainwashed.

Why, again, start all the mess about Israelis and Palestinians?
Why? Now, every time somebody will make movie or write story about jews ( or israelis ), no matter story is true or not, you will say with sarcasm " But of course, Palestinians are bad and Israelis are good" ?
What would you want, that Spielberg'd show that before sportsman is killed for nothing his brother is mutilating some palestinian? That terrorist got his mind screwd up after seeng millions of palestinians killed and desided to kill dozen of sportsmen? What is your definition of wider perspective?

 

[Hitro]

I think someone else should do it, but that's simply because I think Spielberg's "serious" movies suck (while the non-serious ones are actually very well done).

I saw a pretty good documentary about the attack on TV here some years ago (I guess 2002, considering the date), it was rightly focused on the political and police aspects of the day, the series of failures and tragic mistakes than led to the catastrophic "showdown" in Fürstenfeldbruck.
This includes the rescue attempt that was foiled by East German television broadcasting it live into the hostage takers rooms (it wasn't a bombing as someone said here...) and the police crew leaving the plane because it was "too dangerous", amoung other things.

A movie on it should be focused on what actually happened and not on some kind of tragic love story and cool explosions as we can expect from Spielberg.

 

[SanPellegrino]

In contrary to most, I think it is perfectly timed. the 1972 massacre was the first sign of the problems we face today (at least for people in Western Europe), so it is not a bad idea to make a movie about it.

but Hitro is right, Spielbergs serious movies are too full of Hollywood stuff, I would prefer a serious documentary.

 

[Stile]

I don't think the movie will incite hatred of Muslims. I expect it will be anti-Palestinian terrorist, but merely by portraying the truth through a Hollywood lens. Like in real life I doubt most people will link the situation with the current war on terror or muslim terrorists in general, much less your average Muslim. That is unless the movie is titled "Black September, 11 dead" or something like that. (Black September was the name of the terrorist group that committed the act.)

 

[Alexnm]

people will link the situation depicted in the movie with the current "war on terror", oh yes. people are already doing it in this thread.

but, in the end, I don't think that the movie will "convert" people to this or that point of view. those who already hate Muslims will still hate them.

 

[Capulet]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
...

You're kidding, right?

Why do you think he's calling it Fahrenheit 911? Hello! McFly!

The only reason you seem to be opposed to this is because it happened to Israeli atheletes.

I'm kidding? Do you even know what Fahrenheit 911 is about? In Moore's documentary, he is depicting the murky relationship between the Bush family and the family of Bin Laden (not to say there is one, I don't know)

The reason I care about this is because the timing seems oh so odd.

My points are valid. You cannot draw an analogy to the Passion of the Christ. The Passion of the Christ depicted Jews for something that happened more than a 1000 years ago. People have learned from what happened from prior anti-semetism, and the world will not stand for something like the Holocaust to happen to Jews again. But "Islamophobia" is alot more common now in the U.S.

Like I said before, this movie has every right to be made, this horrible act was really comitted, but the only thing I am saying is that Speilberg is obviously hoping to "cash in" big time because of the topic of terrorism. Not enough public support of Israel? Israel gets practically everything it wants from Bush. Need another military loan? Sure. Need parts of the West Bank? Sure. There's not that many things that Israel cannot get from an American Administration due to the monopoly Israeli donors have on Congress.

Speilberg hopes to capatalize on the topics of Islamic Terrorism and Israel, and that is what he's going to do. People who watch this movie are going to be more reassured that Muslims must be evil if they commit these acts all over the world. Speilberg should have made this movie a long time ago, but he has caught the right moment to make it.

 

[a_dead_rat]

Both Christians and Muslims go against their religion when they are being anti-Semetic.

Christians can't be anti-Semetic because Jesus Christ was Jewish.

Muslims can't be anti-Christian or anti-Semetic because Jesus is one of their prophets, and most of the prophets were Jewish. (Muhammed wasn't)

Speilberg is excersing his right to free speech. I have no problem with that.