Doesn't anyone else wonder why there hasn't been a major motion picture made about the Columbine shootings? I mean, it was one of Americas greatest tragedies and Hollywood is usually quick to cash in on peoples emotions. Plus I think it could be a pretty good movie if it told the real story. Anyone else agree?
"You're not trying to draw a psycho picture... You really are crazy."
I agree and I disagree.
I agree with you because everyone needs to understand the true reason why Eric and Dylan did this and also to understand that Eric was actually a sick monster who could care less for human life and Dylan was suicidal and depressed and felt he had no other friend to go to than Eric, (He's best friend started dating and his older brother was kicked out of the house, those two were the ones Dylan was closest to).
And I disagree because why put the victims through all these horrible memories again. And it would be giving Eric what he wanted, which was fame and having the whole world know that he mastermind one of the world's worst school shooting.
[deleted]
If you're referring to the rumors that Eric and Dylan were bullied and that is why they pulled the massacre, that is mostly false. Were they picked on by the Jocks? Yes they were. Did they hate the jocks? Yes they did and they did want to kill them. But it wasn't the bullying that caused them to do this. It's so much more than that. Dylan was emotionally depressed and suicidal and had (or felt he had) no one else to go to for his problems aside from Eric (in my opinion, Dylan is the only shooter that I would say is a victim) while Eric was a psychopath and cared little for human life and wanted to kill EVERYONE!
I would suggest you read Dave Cullen's 'Columbine' before telling someone to get their facts right and call them an idiot.
I would suggest you read Dave Cullen's 'Columbine' before telling someone to get their facts right and call them an idiot.
Pathetic, do you think you're cool because you speak disrespectfully about the deceased? 12 students died and 1 teacher died. Kids go to school for a reason, an education and to obtain moral values. Sure sometimes revenge is warranted, but not the taking of a life. Who are you to judge those you didn't even know? You don't know a thing about them, only what you may have heard. Mature a bit, your ignorance surely must be bliss.
@Original question:
I believe a movie about Columbine would be pointless. There are many films that highlight the abuse in schools, but taking from a real life event would be too realistic, not to mention it'd borderline a documentary and legal issues. Sometimes, events are better left learned from rather than profited from.
Theres a movie similar to Columbine, its based on a true story too. Its called Polytechnique. Its in french/english. Its amazing, and I cried. On youtube theres videos about columbine. Like the library scene which i thought was real!! but my friend said it wasnt :S
GO MICHAEL PHELPS!!
and to obtain moral values.I think I cracked a rib laughing so hard at this
and to obtain moral values.
I think I cracked a rib laughing so hard at this []
Eric Harris was a sociopath, and contrary to popular belief they really weren't bullied. Plus if it was all about the jocks, than how come only about one or two of the kids who got shot were jocks and the rest weren't? How about you get YOUR facts straight and get your head out of your a$$?
sharehttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363589/
I'll just leave this here....
Ya either gonna love it or hate it...probably.
Gotta return some videotapes
Gus Van Sant’s Elephant probably as close as there should ever be to a Columbine movie. Why would it be weird there isn’t a more on the nose film? It’s not that important an event other than being a horrible, pointless tragedy.
shareI didn't really like Elephant, to be honest. I thought the last 15 minutes were good but the rest was just really slow and disjointed, and dare I say, boring. Just because a movie deals with a very serious matter that touches our emotions on a deep level doesn't make it a good movie. You could make a crap movie about Columbine and enter it into the Sundance film festival and everyone would praise it.... not because it was a good movie.. But because of the emotion they had about the event. The movie would still be crap.
shareGus Van Sant’s Elephant probably as close as there should ever be to a Columbine movie. Why would it be weird there isn’t a more on the nose film? It’s not that important an event other than being a horrible, pointless tragedy.
yes this is true that it is heavily based on Columbine.
sharethere has been two movies somewhat about it. Elephant and Zero Day. Zero day is good
share
I have not seen Elephant but have seen Zero Day, Zero Day is suppose to what the basement tapes are like, I have always wanted to see the real basement tapes maybe someday
"Take nothing but photographs; Leave nothing but footprints."
That is a good question. I never did understand why Hollywood seems to afraid to go near Columbine, and even movies with similar themes always seem to bomb at the box office, and yet there have already been 2 or three big blockbusters about 9/11.
As someone else said, Elephant is about as close as there is right now. Originally, it was actually supposed to be about Columbine. In addition, there are a few other little-known films such as Zero Day, Bang Bang You're dead, and We Need to Talk About Kevin. Also, there is an episode of the TV series Zero Hour that has an excellent minute-by-minute reenactment of the CHS shooting.
"why hasn't there been a major motion picture made about the Columbine shootings?"
Short answer is there was, almost, except that it was fictionalized. Gus Van Sant's "Elephant" is close enough to be called a Columbine movie, with a Leopold and Loeb twist if I remember correctly. There've been others about mass shootings by kids/young adults, like "Rampage," though the plots weren't directly inspired by Columbine. As for why no movie officially about the actual Harris and Klebold, here are several reasons:
1). Hollywood may be greedy, but it's also full of scaredy cats. "The Basketball Diaries" has been virtually forgotten, shoved down tge memory hole for having anticipated a school shooting with long, black coats. Look at all the flack the "The Matrix" got merely for featuring the coats and guns without the school (though it didn't seem to hurt the box office). Neither had anything to do with Columbine, I hardly need mention.
2). They'd have to pay to tell the actual story. Easier to concoct a fictional version, which is what "Elephant" was.
3). Despite its talent for exploitation, moviedom doesn't cash in on every tragedy. They know stuff like Columbine evokes strong emotions on every side, and that could lead to backlash at the ticket booth. Notice how they've told the JFK assassination story a million ways, from most conceivable angles, without ever telling the story straight up. I think there was a movie about Zapruder that came out for the 50th anniversary, but what before then? Oliver Stone's "JFK" went into it in detail, but only in flashback, through an investigation and court case after the fact, and then only hypothetically.
4. Maybe they were being responsible for once, and didn't want to encourage others.
"why hasn't there been a major motion picture made about the Columbine shootings?"
Short answer is there was, almost, except that it was fictionalized. Gus Van Sant's "Elephant" is close enough to be called a Columbine movie, with a Leopold and Loeb twist if I remember correctly. There've been others about mass shootings by kids/young adults, like "Rampage," though the plots weren't directly inspired by Columbine. There was the sorta documentary "Bowling for Columbine," which made alot of money for a documentary. As to why no movie officially about the actual Harris and Klebold, here are several reasons:
1). Hollywood may be greedy, but it's also full of scaredy cats. "The Basketball Diaries" has been virtually forgotten, shoved down tge memory hole for having anticipated a school shooting with long, black coats. Look at all the flack "The Matrix" got merely for featuring the coats and guns without the school (though it didn't seem to hurt the box office). Neither had anything to do with Columbine, I hardly need mention.
2). They'd have to pay to tell the actual story. Easier to concoct a fictional version, which is what "Elephant" was.
3). Despite its talent for exploitation, moviedom doesn't cash in on every tragedy. They know stuff like Columbine evokes strong emotions on every side, and that could lead to backlasfor Columbine," which wash at the ticket booth. Notice how they've told the JFK assassination story a million ways, from most conceivable angles, without ever telling the story straight up. I think there was a movie about Zapruder that came out for the 50th anniversary, but what before then? Oliver Stone's "JFK" went into it in detail, but only in flashback, through an investigation and court case after the fact, and then only hypothetically.
4. Maybe they were being responsible for once, and didn't want to encourage others.
"why hasn't there been a major motion picture made about the Columbine shootings?"
Short answer is there was, almost, except that it was fictionalized. Gus Van Sant's "Elephant" is close enough to be called a Columbine movie, with a Leopold and Loeb twist if I remember correctly. There've been others about mass shootings by kids/young adults, like "Rampage," though the plots weren't directly inspired by Columbine. There was the sorta documentary "Bowling for Columbine," which made alot of money for a documentary. As to why no movie officially about the actual Harris and Klebold, here are several reasons:
1). Hollywood may be greedy, but it's also full of scaredy cats. "The Basketball Diaries" has been virtually forgotten, shoved down tge memory hole for having anticipated a school shooting with long, black coats. Look at all the flack "The Matrix" got merely for featuring the coats and guns without the school (though it didn't seem to hurt the box office). Neither had anything to do with Columbine, I hardly need mention.
2). They'd have to pay to tell the actual story. Easier to concoct a fictional version, which is what "Elephant" was.
3). Despite its talent for exploitation, moviedom doesn't cash in on every tragedy. Stuff like Columbine evokes strong emotions on every side, and that could lead to backlash at the ticket booth. Notice how they've told the JFK assassination story a million ways, from most conceivable angles, without ever telling the story straight up. I think there was a movie about Zapruder that came out for the 50th anniversary, but what before then? Oliver Stone's "JFK" went into it in detail, but only in flashback, through an investigation and court case after the fact, and then only hypothetically.
4. Maybe they were being responsible for once, and didn't want to encourage others.