Should Makers of 'Zero Dark Thirty' Apologize to Family of 9/11 Flight Attendant During Academy Awards?

by SodaHead News Posted 2013/02/23 21:37:39

Related Topics: Zero Dark Thirty, 9/11, Flight Attendant, Academy Awards, Oscars, Sony, Betty Ann Ong

262 votes
Read all 276 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	133 votes	51%
	No	129 votes	49%

The hit film "Zero Dark Thirty" has received rave reviews and could be taking home an Oscar at the Academy Awards. However, the makers of "Zero Dark Thirty" might also have to admit some wrongdoing should they win the Oscar. According to The New York Times, "Zero Dark Thirty" used the voice of flight attendant 9/11 flight attendant Betty Ann Ong in its opening--much to the chagrin of her family.

Ong was on call right before her plane struck the World Trade Center. Her family is extremely unhappy, citing that neither Sony nor the filmmakers, reached out to them for permission to use Ong's voice. The family is so upset that they want the filmmakers, should they win an Oscar, to apologize to them on national television.

They also request that Sony donate a certain amount of money to a charity established under Ong's name. Those behind "Zero Dark Thirty" have claimed the film is a small tribute to the victims of 9/11--those affected directly and indirectly. But this isn't the first time they have been accused of being exploitive with certain scenes depicted in the film.

Should Makers of Zero Dark Thirty Apologize

Add a comment above

me 2013/02/24 10:47:41

Yes

+7
So the celebs make millions and throw a party in honor of themselves for making this movie and they can't apologize or empathize with this family? It's time we stop making them exempt from acting any semblance of human.
>> See Replies

More polls by SodaHead News

skyebrand 2013/03/12 05:18:13

Yes

Asking permission would have been the right thing to do, but this is Sony so I would have been surprised had they actually done the right thing!

reply
Swordfish 2013/03/01 15:41:12

No

I think they COULD, but they don't have to.

reply
Jeffery Lucas 2013/02/27 18:31:01

No

+1
People need to get over it. They just want a cut of the money. and they Don't need the family's permission to use her voice she was over 21+ .

reply
projimg 2013/02/27 12:47:24

Yes

I am sure from a legal standpoint that they have to, not to mention it is the right thing to do.

reply
smiffjp 2013/02/26 02:51:50

No

+2
over ten years ago....people need thicker skin. Or did they want a cut then it would be greed. I heard JFK's voice use repeatedly...I dont see the Kennedys getting upset all the time

reply
DonaldDodson 2013/02/25 15:01:24

Yes

yes and they should pay in both money and offer to add in the flight attendant to the credits along with an in loving memory credit.

reply
scubagal 2013/02/25 13:42:21

Yes

+2
Under normal circumstances, I would say "no big deal, let it go"; however, this situation is different that just using someone's voice or song in a movie without permission. This is a family's lost loved one - and they were probably very surprised/disturbed to hear the voice of someone very dear to them who is no longer living. It would really upset me to hear my mother/sister/father's voice after their death in this setting. The least they could do is apologize. I think PC has gone way to far in most cases, but this is simply a case of sensitivity to others.

reply
anna.wooten.9 2013/02/25 04:48:57

Yes

Yes

reply
Shadow_Wolf 2013/02/25 03:44:21 (edited)
iatethe... to Shadow_... 2013/02/25 04:07:45 (edited)
Shadow_... to iatethe... 2013/02/25 20:02:01

+1
Voice recording owned by the air liner she worked for. It's common courtesy to ask, but not required by law.

reply
scubagal to Shadow_... 2013/02/25 13:44:15

+2
I don't think it's a matter of ownership, just being sensitive to others. They should have used an actor to re-create the conversation.

reply
DonaldD... to Shadow_... 2013/02/25 15:04:01 (edited)

+2
They are asking for a public apology as well as a donation to a specific charity which they will not benefit from.

reply
Shadow_... to DonaldD... 2013/02/25 20:20:40

Give a piece to one and all will want from the pie

reply
iatethe... to Shadow_... 2013/02/26 01:10:00

A piece of the donation/appology pie???

reply
Shadow_... to iatethe... 2013/02/26 02:41:08

Somewhat

reply
iatethe... to Shadow_... 2013/02/27 23:04:22

That would be the weirdest threat ever. "I SWEAR TO GOD YOU BETTER APOLOGIZE AND MAKE A SIZEABLE DONATION TO MY CHARITY OF CHOICE, OR WE WILL HAVE WORDS."

reply
Shadow_... to iatethe... 2013/02/27 23:53:57

Like they wouldn't do it though.

reply
dredogg 2013/02/25 03:28:21

Yes

+1
to relive that would be hell!!!

reply
projimg to dredogg 2013/02/27 12:48:52

This still haunts me every time I see it, I do not care what you believ ein this is all of our history, I could not imagine what it would have been like ot have family involved.

reply
Bunk11 2013/02/25 03:11:46

No

+2
Although they should probably kick in a few dollars to the family, the amount they would have paid Ms. Ong had she been an actress in the film.

reply
gregaj7 2013/02/25 01:47:44

Yes

Legalities are legalities.

reply
Eddie Arnold 2013/02/25 01:41:55

No

+3
Some of the things the family said seem reasonable, but as I read the whole article, it seems the family is just in it for the money. The film doesn't have to ask for permission to use a sound file that was made public, not to mention over 10 years ago.

reply
skyebrand to Eddie A... 2013/03/12 05:20:38

They didn't ask for anything for themselves. They asked for a donation tocharity.

reply
polock 2013/02/25 00:58:04

No

why should they, because they made a movie?

reply
S123 to polock 2013/02/25 02:13:20

Did you read the description for the question?

reply
Paddington Frisk 2013/02/25 00:23:08
Ms. Macabre 2013/02/24 23:53:23

Yes

+3
When it comes down to it, the family is the one who lost someone dear to them, and if they don't like it, then the very least these people could do is apologize.

reply
alex 2013/02/24 23:49:21

No

I think theyre lying. If they used my voice without consent in a way like that I would want more than an appology. I would want conpensation. But who knows, if they are telling the truth then they deserve something.

reply
Padding... to alex 2013/02/25 00:21:47
alex to Padding... 2013/02/25 19:05:40 (edited)

Exactly!! Its been years and im sure the family went through a lot worse, why get upset at this particular intsance her voice was ussd?? Im saying if it was against their wishes clear as day then they should maybe get something.

reply
diane.woodcock 2013/02/24 23:29:57

Yes

+2
First of all I think it was awful that thay used her voice without the knowledge of her family and personally I don't know what they could possibly say at this stage its way too late!

reply
john richardson 2013/02/24 23:14:03 (edited)

No

+2
For telling an accurate account of what happened? It takes a movie to bring folks to the realization this whole thing was about the human element of the story All 3,000 that died, from the jumpers to those on flight 93. Since the movie pissed off some sensitive people maybe Micheal Moore should make a version for the left. If any money is offered it should be distributed evenly to all, and I wish they would.

reply
Padding... to john ri... 2013/02/25 00:24:56 (edited)
john ri... to Padding... 2013/02/25 01:35:53

+1
Yes I thought it was a good film and I'm far right however I didn't see anything but history, the film showed the long meticulous search that spanned over a decade. The problem is, it contradicts the idea that Barack gave the order to find him and kill him since Bush refused to and waterboarding was a useless republican ploy. And the movie showed in that case we got the info we needed.
When she did hurt locker she had to compete with avatar a very liberal movie so this lady has the cards against her. Btw she took alot of criticism for that also because she didn't show the troops as baby killers and racist like the other lib directors did in the past.

reply
S123 to john ri... 2013/02/25 02:18:06

+2
They famlily wants them to appologize for using the flight attendent's voice without their permission, not becuase they were offended.

reply
john ri... to S123 2013/02/25 02:34:52 (edited)

S, please don't think I'm not sympathetic to the family's. But we're talking history here. now to be fair to the family Id say replace the voice and I'm just voicing my thoughts here but I would be proud my daughters voice was used to tell a story that belongs to us all. But that's me and yes let's respect them no matter and I'm betting the film maker would have obliged but then who thought one of them would have been hurt and I pray this isn't over money.

reply
Christy Lee 2013/02/24 22:48:41

Yes

+1
I think they should if they have offended the family. I also think.it would be nice if they donate some money to the charity

reply
Gloria 2013/02/24 22:40:05

Yes

+2
Yes they should apologyze but they should call first to ask if it will make them feel worse than they already feel.
And they should support the charity. After all they are going home with swag bags.

reply
Christine 2013/02/24 22:21:40

Yes

+2
No one should use someone's likeness, voice, or property without permission and/or some sort of compensation.

reply