The teaser trailer for Kathryn Bigelow's controversial Zero Dark Thirty hits the web


25 Responses to “The teaser trailer for Kathryn Bigelow's controversial Zero Dark Thirty hits the web”

  1. unit_1421 says:

    I would have preferred getting him alive.

  2. p1130 says:

    So they wont release the movie because it may influence the elections…

    But they’ll show the trailers anyway…

    • factbased says:

      Didn’t you hear? The Supreme Court says that influencing elections is no reason to restrict our beloved corporations.

  3. Sign Ahead says:

    Please tell me Chris Pratt plays an FBI agent.

  4. Ian G says:

    One of the things surprisingly under-reported in almost all stories about the killing of OBL is that the CIA put thousands if not millions of people’s lives around the world in danger by using doctors as agents to find him. Doctors have a humanitarian role that has for the most part remained above suspicion, but now terrorists, criminals and governments are seeing our use of them as spies as a threat, and blocking access to care. The Taliban has banned polio vaccinations and even shot a doctor who was providing them as a result of our use of doctors as spies, and now thousands will suffer. Not sure if our actions are a violation of international law or not, but someone should be held accountable for sure. Bet that’s not in this movie….

    • I can imagine many won’t like me saying this, but…

      It’s especially bad because killing Bin Laden can’t have done much anyway.  Won’t there be some other guy to step right into his shoes?  This isn’t toppling a dictatorship, it’s just removing a high-profile member of a loosely connected terrorist organisation.  I totally understand why we went after the bastard, but has killing him actually achieved anything?  Maybe it has, maybe it’s crushed moral, or something – anyone confirmed that terrorism has ended yet?

  5. Trevor Walsh says:

    Macklin, you son of a bitch…

  6. soul68 says:

    So conservatives are crying like little babies about it because “their guy” didn’t finish the job, and they dont want the guy who did to get credit. 



  7. BookGuy says:

    I suppose I can sorta-kinda see why they delayed it, but I still can’t convince myself that it makes sense.  Why would this have any more undue influence than slimy attack ads?  I’m sure Karl Rove would have made a full-length movie about a cowardly swift boat veteran if he’d come up with the idea.

    • Attack ads are explicit, so I’d treat those a little differently.

      But given the news media’s tendency to lie and distort the truth for political allegiances, wouldn’t they be a far more deserving target than Hollywood when it comes to third party propaganda, if this is a thing now?

  8. Chris Pratt damn well better be playing Burt Macklin, FBI. I refuse to see this film otherwise.

    Good day, sir.

  9. Matthew says:

    I’m sorry, but isn’t this the exact kind of thing the “Citizens United” ruling was supposed to allow?  So, this documentary (or whatever it is) is not allowed to show, but Super PACs can release ads saying “Obama smells” or “Romney looks funny” and it’s ok?  What’s going on?

    • max00 says:

      The issue isn’t that a commercial company made a film that makes the president look good, the issue is that the administration and/or CIA helped the filmmaker with the film.

      Do you think the government should be involved in helping the President get re-elected?

  10. PRDiddy says:

    The way Holder botched the other terror trials that he wanted to hold in NYC, there was no way that they were going to take him alive, even if he came out waving a white flag, they were putting one through his head regardless.  Good riddance.

  11. franko says:

    can we just recap just who “chris pratt” is, and why we should know or care?

  12. z0phi3l says:

    If it’s as “Accurate” as The Hurt Locker, then I don’t see how a piece of fantasy would have an affect on the Election.

    Then again a lot of people fell for that whole “Hope and Change” gimmick the went nowhere ,so maybe they are correct in delaying the movie

  13. Martyn Drake says:

    Nah, this couldn’t be more controversial than, say, Oolon Colluphid’s Where God Went Wrong and his subsequent follow-up, Some More of God’s Greatest Mistakes.  It can’t be.

Leave a Reply