Quote:

I kind of see your point, but I don't think seeing the disaster on film would be any more compelling to tell the disaster more acurate years later.

For example, seeing old film of people dying at Pearl Harbor (film of the USS Arizona exploding into a Fireball and the rest of the U.S. Fleet being destroyed) did not make the new Pearl Harbor movie (2001) with Ben Affleck any more accurate. If anything, the movie was a discrase compared to the earlier "Tora! Tora!, Tora! movie in the 1970s.

Just like Titanic, the new Pearl Harbor movie had a fictional love story and much more artistic liscense was used to distort one of the most important dates in my country's history.

My Grandparent's generation saw those ships explode time after time in the news of the day in theaters. Yet the disaster was exploited in propaganda films, war films, and later on, even a sci-fi film, "The Philadelphia Experement".

I think sometimes (but not always), the closer to a disaster, the more acurate the filmaker is willing to make it, because they know that the public is not willing to stand much makebelieve or "artistic liscense". (that is, with the well accepted information known at the time). Not to say that the public is going to enjoy watching the real thing, as is apparent in the 911 movies.

If anything, I think future movies on 911 will have even more Hollywood in them than say Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center".

Look at Titanic. We go from a faily good story purely about Titanic and its passengers in "A Night To Remember", to Jack and Rose's story in the 1997 (not saying that ANTR was perfect either)