Spacky said:Could be worse, could be Arnie.
Yea but he wouldnt get trapped..
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/acff2/acff25e8e0f3553880111f7dfb81686cf78ab820" alt="Frown :( :("
Spacky said:Could be worse, could be Arnie.
anksta said:you dont see hollywood making a film about anyone gettin hit by a drunk driver on the way home, and if they did then I'd think it wouldnt be too much to give the family of that person some sort of donation.
Zefan said:Watch Lord of War.
fozzybear said:Very poor film imo.
No film will be able to sum up what happened that day. i'd much rather watch the 9/11 documentary by French filmmakers, Jules and Gedeon Naudet.
PikeyPriest said:But is the film about anyone specifically? From what i have seen its just about an event that happened with fictional characters. Should every WW2 family be given funding from every film based on WW2 because they were there/died? Films have no obligation to give money for being about an event.
Dont get me wrong, im not against charity (probably the opposite), but i think the amount of funding for 9/11 families is ridiculous in comparison to the amount given to cancer/heart disease research groups (especially as the death toll from these makes 9.11 nearly insignificant)
anksta said:Well for a start, its based on about 5 real people who were there, cant remember their names but its a true story, not just based on the events.
And also, if there was no crime, no hatred in the world then people would still die of cancer and heart disease but the people who died in 9/11 were innocent people. I'm not sayin people with cancer arent innocent but disease is just part of the world, an unavoidable part.
Scam said:Was that on the BBC a year or two ago? That was a great-- very moving.![]()