It may not be an epiphany, but watching just a few seconds of the news coverage I thought of the number of times many of those things had happened to NYC in summer disaster movies.
If I had cameras, boats/kayaks, a few actors & friends to help out, shoot overnight on the deserted river roads, a few lines of dialogue and a rough idea for a story, I'd be out there trying to shoot with big-budget backgrounds that would normally cost tens of millions in sound stages or post-production. Though since I'm currently in Toronto, can't really do it.
If I'd been able to plan (or had the idea a few days ago to be able to plan and know in advance how it would likely look), for perhaps $10-20k (mostly for rented boats, cameras and bail money) could have had a semi-decent looking disaster movie or a good short film. Getting the moment the lights went out from some high vantage points & down on the water would have been amazing too.
While it appears clever it is in fact inhumane. While people suffer and die during these days and every spare pair of hands is in need, you'll be making a movie out of it to entertain masses and make a buck.
False equivalence: clever (here: profitable) vs humane.
You can easily be one without being the other. Or both, or neither.
Moreover, people suffer and need every spare pair of hands these days just as they do every day. In NY, in NJ, everywhere. What's your excuse for "making a buck" and not helping, the rest of the year?
So you are implying that it is acceptable to have a camera crew filming people while they are dying? Well, that's being too literate, but anyway, if it was a documentary film - I would have no problem with that. The author however quite clearly compares it to "disaster movies" which are not. And making a profit out of an event that caused people's sufferings without helping them out is not what I consider to be good.
