How long before a TV movie about the tsunami is made?

[namkcuR]

How long before some money-lusting Hollywood producer decides to make a TV movie about this tragedy to make money, just like they do with everything else? Call me cynical, but I say a script is already being worked out and casting agents are well into the brainstorming stage.

Not that I agree with it. I find it appalling the way people in Hollywood feel the need to make a TV movie about everything that ever happens. I stress 'TV' movie, because I actually wouldn't have any problem with a real, theatrical film. Why? Because the primary motive for a TV movie would be money, and I find the idea of capitalizing off this tragedy and using these peoples' death and/or suffering to make money, to be sickening. However, money wouldn't be the only motive for a big-screen film. I'm not naive enough to say it wouldn't be A motive, but it wouldn't be the ONLY motive. Look at Hotel Rowanda. I haven't even seen it but I already know it's academy award good just from looking at a few clips. They have real, GOOD/GREAT actors in there, and a polished script that no doubt is as accurate to history as it could have been under the circumstances. I'm sure that film will touch people. And that's the difference here. Whereas a TV would likely star actors who can't find work in real movies, and be based on a very average script, a real film would include the things mentioned above, great acting and a script that had effort put into it, not to mention having a film director behind the camera, etc etc. The point of all of that is that in the end, it would at least be a final product that would, in its quality and in the effort put into the project to make it result in a product of that quality, show respect to both those killed and those who surived this thing. And when concerning a subject like this, that should be the first motive for making such a film, with money being a #2 or #3. And that simply would not happen with a TV movie. End rant.

 

[U2democrat]

give it 6 months-1 year or so. I don't agree with it either, but this event seems like a really bad TV movie. Unfortunately its real. .

 

[verte76]

I really don't like the idea of a movie about this disaster but someone is probably going to do it. If there is half a chance of making money off of something it will happen.

 

[nbcrusader]

I really don't like the idea of a movie about this disaster but someone is probably going to do it. If there is half a chance of making money off of something it will happen.

Why not just show the Poseidon Adventure?

 

[Irvine511]

actually, we've already put together a show -- but this is documentary television, so the point is to educate viewers.

and also to pull in big ratings. that's how it works -- and it's not always a bad thing. big ratings means people are interested and watching, and hopefully learning from it.

did "schindler's list" exploit the holocaust because it made over $100m at the box office? the answer is yes and no.

mass media is a fickle thing, i often find it very hard to determine if i'm doing evil or good.

 

[burns]

hopefully never
having just had a look at one of the threads in EYKIW about the death toll in 9/11 (the thread about the tsunami benefit concert in cardiff) and then moving to this thread is making me physically sick, quite frankly.
on that note however, they haven't made a film about 9/11 yet. Perhaps this is a sign that hollywood has learnt to lay off from exploiting one persons personal diaster(sp) into a corporations profit

 

[financeguy]

How long before some money-lusting Hollywood producer decides to make a TV movie about this tragedy to make money, just like they do with everything else? Call me cynical, but I say a script is already being worked out and casting agents are well into the brainstorming stage.

Not that I agree with it. I find it appalling the way people in Hollywood feel the need to make a TV movie about everything that ever happens. I stress 'TV' movie, because I actually wouldn't have any problem with a real, theatrical film. Why? Because the primary motive for a TV movie would be money, and I find the idea of capitalizing off this tragedy and using these peoples' death and/or suffering to make money, to be sickening. However, money wouldn't be the only motive for a big-screen film.

I hate to say it but the same thought occured to me. I totally agree with your post. There's no way a movie about a disaster of this scale could be appropriate.

 

[ultrraviolette]

It's definitely not appropriate, especially so soon after.

 

[verte76]

"Schindler's List" was a great piece of art, not just a money-making scheme. As it turned out it also served as a great educational tool for many people in the old East Germany in particular as they had not been taught about the Holocaust under the Communist government. Just ask Katarina Witt, the figure skater. She skated to music from "Schindler's List" as a professional skater.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

"Schindler's List" was a great piece of art, not just a money-making scheme. As it turned out it also served as a great educational tool for many people in the old East Germany in particular as they had not been taught about the Holocaust under the Communist government. Just ask Katarina Witt, the figure skater. She skated to music from "Schindler's List" as a professional skater.

Exactly. If a movie's made about a tragedy for educational purposes, I don't see that as a bad thing (we watched "Schindler's List" in my 9th grade English class, as a matter of fact).

But to make a movie about a tragedy to make some big bucks at the box office... . Don't like that at all. And with movies dealing with rough times in history, you can usually get an idea of who is sincere with the movie they're making and who isn't.

Angela

 

[financeguy]

I think you have to give disasters like this a lot of historical space even if you are making a movie for educational purposes. Maybe in 50 years time a movie might be appropriate - like with Schindler's List, as has been said above - but not right now.

 

[namkcuR]

I have no problem with Schindler's List. I said in my original post there is a distinct difference between TV movies and big screen films.

 

[kobayashi]

I stress 'TV' movie, because I actually wouldn't have any problem with a real, theatrical film. Why? Because the primary motive for a TV movie would be money, and I find the idea of capitalizing off this tragedy and using these peoples' death and/or suffering to make money, to be sickening. However, money wouldn't be the only motive for a big-screen film.

in the end, not very many movies would be made unless there was money being made.

some films, and herein there is no need for a TV movie/theatrical movie divide as both are apt to be overly commercial and both have the ability to be artistically valuable, may offer greater intrinsic value. but that is intrinsic value which leads to money.

it is not so much the nature of the medium, but rather, that of the production and distribution scheme surrounding the medium.

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: How long before a TV movie about the tsunami is made?

it is not so much the nature of the medium, but rather, that of the production and distribution scheme surrounding the medium.

well ... yes and no. if no one sees your movie, does it exist? if no one watches your TV show, does it exist?

mass art in our age -- and even terms like "art" need to be rethought -- has no original; i.e., there is no original print of a film in the way that there is an original of the Mona Lisa. therefore, the exclusivity of art, art as a destination for tourists, or art as the exclusive property of an aristocrat, is pretty much gone from the main art forms of the modern ear (music, books, film, television). it's all sold at Borders now, and only becomes art, performs its function which is to interact with the word, and that's done via consumption.

anyway ... as for the "tsunami," i think there's a difference between what my channel is doing -- an educational show, to a degree, but don't think for a moment that the producers arent' doing everythign they can to make the show exciting and to keep you from flipping the channel, it will adhere to the rules of television which is to give you a compelling reason to continue to watchin within the first 3 minutes of the program, because this isn't school afterall -- and making a movie of the tsunami complete wtih actors and manufactured drama and peril. for one thing, we don't yet have a story through which to depict the disaster -- one of the reasons Schindler's was made was that it was the *only* real happy Holocaust story, and it had a natural story arc and a character who changes and goes on a journey, and therefore you could build a brutal depiction of the Holocaust around your typical 3-act story -- but that will come in time. respect for the dead, and the rawness of this all, will prevent anything too maudlin from coming out of Hollywood soon. after all, offending anyone isn't necessarily good for business (unless you're as shrewd as Mel Gibson).

 

[babyman]

someone will do a movie, a day or the other. if it would be merely a documentary there wouldn't be any problem, we mustn't forget what happened, but that's the problem, will it be a documentary?........or hollywoods next money maker?.........

 

[Golightly Grrl]

I'm afraid Jerry Bruckheimer would make a schlock-fest of a movie about this tragedy, complete with a cheesy Diane Warren song.

 

[Irvine511]

i'll refrain from guessing the maudlin title of the song ... horrible thoughts like "My Love Will Never Wash Away" ... though i bet it will be sung by Scott Strap of Creed who'll be trying to start a solo career as a sort of Christian Goth version of Michael Bolton.

 

[dandy]

:shudder:

 

[babyman]

i'll refrain from guessing the maudlin title of the song ... horrible thoughts like "My Love Will Never Wash Away" ... though i bet it will be sung by Scott Strap of Creed who'll be trying to start a solo career as a sort of Christian Goth version of Michael Bolton.