ABC Mini-series - Path to 9/11

[jmiller82]

All in all, I wil say that the miniseries, docu-drama, or whatever you want to call it, was a very detailed and intense depiction of the vents leading up to the attacks on the WTC, the Pentagon, and the field in Shanksville, PA (is that right?). Regardless of the minor inconsistencies with the true story (such as what airline, etc.), as pourts pointed out they are insignificant and only add to the dramatization (Hollywood's lure) of the story, the story merits a great deal of success for what it set out to do: outline the events leading up to the morning of September 11, 2001, including the inadequacies of the prior Clinton administration AND the G.W. Bush administration. These accounts were based on the book, "The Cell" and the 9/11 Commission Report, among other sources, so yes, it does contain SOME (if not A LOT) of validity as to the accounts of 9/11 and the time leading up to it.. I think the general consensus among most Americans is that the government slipped up and got caught napping and we paid dearly for it. Now it is time to learn the lesson, apply it, and move on with the execution of the solution - that is targeting the al Qaeda's and anti-American, militaristic factions that so intently want to destroy our people, our interests, and our way of life..

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Even the Bush administration wasn't portrayed as being "on the mark," but I don't hear them complaining about their portrayal..

Reminds me of what ex-SecNav John Lehman said "if you don't like the hits to the Clinton administration, well, welcome to the club. The Republicans have lived with Michael Moore and Oliver Stone and most of Hollywood as a fact of life."

Anyone remember Clinton or any of his buddies jumping up and down like monkeys crying about the factual inaccuracy of self-professed "documentary" Fahrenheit 9/11? No, wait, Gore's own campaign spokesman (Chris Lehane) jumped aboard the Michael Moore war room to defend that "documentary"...

Ahh, intellectual honesty

 

[Cate]

Use this rule of thumb: the dramatized parts are the insignificant details that aren't important as far as the story is concerned in a holistic sense.

And that's exactly my point: the little things like that, the little throwaway bits, are the bits most likely to smear someone - someone like, for instance, American Airlines, if people are ticked off that "AA let terrorists on the plane!!! OMG!!!eleven!!" And the little throwaway details are the ones the people aren't likely to go back and research.

I'm not saying that all movies need to be perfectly factual, and I'm not saying that the "drama" part of "docudrama" doesn't indicate that liberties have been taken with the story. But the "docu" part of "docudrama" means that a lot more people are going to take it a lot more seriously than they would ABC's world broadcast premiere of Lilo & Stitch, and to pretend that innacuracies won't be significant if you just throw a disclaimer at the beginning is naive at best.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

And what? The point of the film is that it's a drama. Mike Scheuer was adamant about the fact that Massoud wasn't nearly that much of a hero, but the whole thing raises valid points, if not for the sake of drama... for the sake of continuity. Does anyone really believe that the leader of the Northern Alliance was on the phone with the CIA talking about the 9/11 plot? No. It's a dramatization.

Again, there are "documentaries" which claim to be legitimate.. even news reports which claim to be factual, and they do nothing but smear the CIA. Why? Because CIA isn't going to raise a fuss about it. Clinton is now... Why? Because he has a constituency...

 

[Flash]

I don't disagree with that. I haven't addressed that part of your argument because it really has nothing to do with the film. If you had watched it, you'd know what I'm talking about.

It was used to make a point, obviously you missed it.

You're basing this view on someone else's view who did watch the film, but who also may have a different interpretation of how things really happened. Or they're just biased. Either way, I prefer to make up my own mind.

The dispute is not how things happened, but whther or not they happened at all. Some of the scenes, quoted word for word in news reports, are patently false. Just because a movie says they happened doesn't mean they did.

I'm not one to listen to rap either, but every now and then one comes out I do like. If someone asked me to critique a rap song I've never heard because they were interested in buying the single, I'd be doing them a disservice if I said it sucked because all rap sucks.

I am not going to buy an album or a song either to see if I lik eit or not. If I hear a clip or preview I don't like, why bother?

Umm, to make up your own mind maybe. Apparently, you let the newpapers and online news sources do that for you. That's ok so long as you acknowledge that's what you're doing.

I am not going to give ABC the satisfaction of my viewership for this particular show, which is just what they want, to verify what news accounts (in mroe than just a newspaper or two). I made up my own mind when I read abotu the scenes that were created from thin air, with no basis in fact.

I have nothing against the Post. I subscribe to the weekly edition.

I did not even realize they had a weekly edition, I learn something new every day.

I'll let you get away with saying that AFTER you've seen the flick. Until then, you're just going off of supposition and conjecture.

Direct scene quotes from the movie in news reports is not supposition and conjecture.

I guess you prefer the Michael Moore type of "documentaries." So on one hand you think the film should be called a documentary, because not doing so is disengenuous. But on the other hand, the film is fiction, pure and simple (your words). If they called it a documentary, you'd attack them for doing so based on the fictional nature of the movie. At some point, you're going to have to pick a side. You can't have it both ways.

I misspoke, good catch. What I intended to say was something along the lines of this: For them to trumpet that they got their info from the 9/11 Commision report, be advised by one of the co-chairman, and use other 'published materials' and then leave it up to the viewer to figure out what is fact and fiction is disingenuous.

Oh yeah, I never mentioned Michael Moore, why bring him up? Strawman? He is an easy target, being so big....and the shocking thing is that I think he is a moron. A pompous, grandstanding, fat and disgraceful moron. I have watched some of his 'documentaries', they are showpieces for him to get his point across. I am not going to defend his documentaries or use them as an example.

I'll guess they'll have to read the reviews in the Washington Post.

Or the 9/11 commision report and other published material on the attacks. How many people are going to do that, not many.

 

[Flash]

And that's the problem with all of the "tiny, insignificant changes to improve the story"; we're told that some parts are dramatized, but we aren't told which parts, and some people are going to take it all as gospel anyway. "Screw AA! They have lax security!" Except no, buttercup, that part was dramatized.........

And that's exactly my point: the little things like that, the little throwaway bits, are the bits most likely to smear someone - someone like, for instance, American Airlines, if people are ticked off that "AA let terrorists on the plane!!! OMG!!!eleven!!" And the little throwaway details are the ones the people aren't likely to go back and research.

I'm not saying that all movies need to be perfectly factual, and I'm not saying that the "drama" part of "docudrama" doesn't indicate that liberties have been taken with the story. But the "docu" part of "docudrama" means that a lot more people are going to take it a lot more seriously than they would ABC's world broadcast premiere of Lilo & Stitch, and to pretend that innacuracies won't be significant if you just throw a disclaimer at the beginning is naive at best.

That is what I have been trying to say, you just did a much better job of it than I have.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Oh yeah, I never mentioned Michael Moore, why bring him up? Strawman? He is an easy target, being so big....and the shocking thing is that I think he is a moron. A pompous, grandstanding, fat and disgraceful moron. I have watched some of his 'documentaries', they are showpieces for him to get his point across. I am not going to defend his documentaries or use them as an example.

The reason I bring him up is because of your insistence that the 9/11 movie should be called a documentary (or at least, that's what I thought you were trying to insist). Using Michael Moore's documentaries as an example was used to show that not all documentaries are truthful either. Because of this, it makes no sense to me to insist on calling the 9/11 flick a documentary.

Or the 9/11 commision report and other published material on the attacks. How many people are going to do that, not many.

Concur. But that's not ABC's problem.

 

[jmiller82]

Not to intervene in this debate, but could it be that some people don't watch these types of films/stories because of what they have already heard by the critics/media? I mean, I never went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 because of what I heard from friends and such.. They are mostly in support of the war.. However, I know that the media made a big stink of how ABC portrayed the Clinton administration (how the Clinton admin. even wanted the entire series removed and not to be shown).. Could it just be underlying political biases or simply that we don't want to watch something because it sheds a negative light on our role models/heroes / you fill in the blank?

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Not to intervene in this debate, but could it be that some people don't watch these types of films/stories because of what they have already heard by the critics/media? I mean, I never went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 because of what I heard from friends and such.. They are mostly in support of the war.. However, I know that the media made a big stink of how ABC portrayed the Clinton administration (how the Clinton admin. even wanted the entire series removed and not to be shown).. Could it just be underlying political biases or simply that we don't want to watch something because it sheds a negative light on our role models/heroes / you fill in the blank?

I don't know. I typically watch both sides and make up my own mind. I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 when it came out on DVD.

 

[Cate]

Does anyone really believe that the leader of the Northern Alliance was on the phone with the CIA talking about the 9/11 plot? No.

Source?

 

[Flash]

The reason I bring him up is because of your insistence that the 9/11 movie should be called a documentary (or at least, that's what I thought you were trying to insist). Using Michael Moore's documentaries as an example was used to show that not all documentaries are truthful either. Because of this, it makes no sense to me to insist on calling the 9/11 flick a documentary.

I agree with the bolded part. I must have not gotten my point across, because I never intended to argue that the ABC movie is a documentary. I think it has been presented in the best possible light by being as factual as possible by ABC "look at the facts we based it on", but then they don't bother to say what parts are 'dramatized'. The movie in no way can be described a documentary and that is not what I was trying to argue, it is fiction as I have argued before. Plain and simple. And please don't bring up Michael Moore anymore, it makes me nauseous.

 

[AllAmerican75]

September 10 and 11 ABC will air the Mini-series "Path to 9/11"

Those that have attended a pre-screening of the series say it is honest, accurate and very well done.

One scene that is said to be very moving is when the CIA and the Northern Alliance have Bin Laden surrounded in a house, Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, refused to give them permission to capture him, afraid of the fall out in the Arab world.

Highly recommend.:icon_rage :icon_rage

Ah, more great television that I have missed.

 

[pourts]

Oh yeah, I never mentioned Michael Moore, why bring him up? Strawman? He is an easy target, being so big....and the shocking thing is that I think he is a moron. A pompous, grandstanding, fat and disgraceful moron. I have watched some of his 'documentaries', they are showpieces for him to get his point across. I am not going to defend his documentaries or use them as an example.

Something with which we can all agree: Michael Moore is miserable.

 

[pourts]

Source?

That was a "dramatized" scene in the movie.

 

[Cate]

That was a "dramatized" scene in the movie.

No, I was asking him for references indicating that people actually knew that that particular scene was dramatized. He said that no one believed it; I was just asking for a link.