Hollywood ready to make movies about 9/11

I'm shocked -- shocked, I tell you -- that it has taken four years to get a 9/11 movie ready. Are you kidding, rover? Four years is a long time. And I can safely predict that the film will be a box-office smash. It would have been more of a smash, maybe, two years ago when the memory was still quite fresh. People looove disaster movies, with all those nifty visuals, and it's doubly enticing when the disaster is based on historic events. Think 'Peral Harbor.' Think 'Titanic.'

I dunno....it says something about us that we have to have a fictionalized account of something so traumatic that everybody remembers it in great detail.

Apparently, there are no fewer than three movies in the works. Two for the big screen and one for TV.

What are these gonna tell us that we don't already know?

Exactly.

Skwerl, they ain't gonna tell us nothin' that we don't already know. But what do we learn by reading the sports pages about a game we watched on TV the day before? It's the old let's-slow-down-and-watch-the-ambulances-evacuate-the-victims-from-the-scene-of-the-crash syndrome.

yuck.

I'm looking forward to the scene where bush reads my pet goat for 11 minutes.... portrayed by Alfred E Newman of course.....

I'll stick to Dukes of Hazzard. Not nearly as depressing and nobody gets hurt.

You know, I was really hoping that maybe, maybe Hollywood would stay away from 9/11 and it was beginning to look like they would but...for me it's a little different than Titanic or Pearl Harbor even.

By the way, when was the first commercial Titanic movie? I recall a b/w with Barbara Stanwyck and Clifton Webb from the 50's, I think.

IMDB seems to be down right now, eoe, so I couldn't get the official info. But, from memory, yes, the movie you refer to was 1950s. There was another one made at roughly the same time, based on the non-fiction book of the same name, "A Night to Remember." Don't know if there were any Titanic movies before those two. You have to remember that the special effects back in those days were not in the advanced state to enable blockbuster disaster movies like that to be viable. For example, naval battles in historical movies were routinely staged with ship models in fishtanks (sometimes with startlingly good results as in "Captain Blood," Errol Flynn's first Hollywood flick). When Frank Capra made "Lost Horizon", he had his actors carry chips of dry ice in little wire boxes in their mouths so that their breath would be visible in the Himalayan "outdoor" shots. Nothing was filmed outdoors in that flick; it was all on a sound-stage.

They waited at least 10 years for those movies. I could be wrong, they probably had some cheesy war movie with Ronald Reagin about Pearl Harbor. But I still see it as Hollywood cashing in on a tragedy. It makes them no better than Hallaberton cashing in on New Orleans and Iraq.

I would have been more comfortable if they had waited a Decade. Then I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought.

Every movie has a fictitious element. I wonder how they will try to twist the story to make someone look good.

Hollywood in it for $
Gee, Hollywood to make money off 9/11? Sean Penn goes to New Orleans with his own photographer & Matthew McConaughey goes to Austin to "tour" the refugees from LA.
I think the "karma" is turning on Hollywood & that's why the box offices are failing.

Re: Hollywood in it for $


Hmmm, I don't really have a problem with Celebrities getting political. They have a rite to be interested in Politics. My problem is with the big corporate executives whose only problems are back pains caused by sitting on a fat wallet.

No joke roverroad, go read the email letter I got awhile back, I thought it was so good I posted it here.