Reply #91: I don't agree that fixing it would be cheaper. [View All]

[tomreedtoon]

The problem is, the director, writer and other creative personnel...probably including the actors...may have final cut or creative control written in their contracts. To change the film to the point where it was airable would involve paying them off or making deals with them.

It really would have been cheaper for them to bury the project, or to use the non-actor portions of the film as "stock footage" for other movies or TV shows. Even use it to illustrate September 11 stories done by ABC News.

It would be cheaper for ABC to run another movie instead. In case you didn't know, the failure of their summer dance competition series "The One" was handled in just that way. The substitutes were long rerun nights of their regular series like "According to Jim" and "George Lopez" and "Desperate Housewives."

That might be one reason for they running the show anyway; having killed one expensive project, killing a second so close to the disaster of "The One" would probably get some high-level execs fired. And as mentioned before, their ability to "fix" might have been limited by the participants's creative control.

But still...the article didn't say why the movie was made in the first place, using that particular attitude. Who approved that mess to begin with, instead of something more balanced, factual and honest? Who decided that a September 11 movie, shown on an anniversary of that painful and unresolved day, was a good idea to begin with?

If I were a stockholder, I'd be asking those questions at the next Disney shareholder meeting. And if the New York Whore Times had anything resembling journalism any more, they might have asked those questions too.