"World Trade Center", & "Flight 93" versus "Path to 9/11"

[KurtNYC]

Flight 93 opened with much fanfare and the press asking if it was "too soon" for a movie on this subject. Now we see ABC ready to try their hand at cashing in on 9/11/2001 so I did a little research on how well received "Flight 93" was earlier this year:

The total gross to the end of August 2006 was $31.4 million domestically it was well reviewed by critics but failed to find an audience.

Compare that to the film which opened the same weekend: "RV" with Robin Williams. RV grossed $85,165,001 on the Worldwide Box Office, in spite of almost being universally rejected by North American critics

Another film, Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" also dealt with the same subject matter. It too was met with a lukewarm response: $62 million gross. Compare any of these numbers (which I cite as a gauge of how much interest there is) with Pirates of the Caribbean II: opening weekend $135 million / total worldwide take now $986 million.

Hollywood is very sensitive to numbers like these. If ABC is counting on this film for ratings they better hope Waterworld isn't running on TNT opposite them. In fact they better hope that the satellites which carry every other station fail. I really think people are sick of hearing about 911, "the lessons of 911," etc. As often as I worry that many people are sick for considering someone else's tragedy, even death, to be suitable entertainment fare, I am happy to see glossy fictionalized entertainment movies about the deaths of 2,794 innocent NYers on 9/11/2001 rejected over and over.

[Drum]

1. I agree with your final conclusion 100% n/t

[MadHound]

2. Frankly I doubt that this is really about rating with these people

It is all about pushing the propaganda. After all, corporate America wants Republicans in office, the corporate media has benefitted mightily from Bushco's terms. Therefore, they want to keep this gravy train rolling, and will therefore do whatever it take to keep it rolling, including producing blatant propaganda pieces. Hell, Faux developed a whole network devoted to propaganda, the rest are now playing catch up.

So in this election year, the corporate media will continue to beat the drum that has been effective so far, terror and fear, fear and terror, on and on it goes. And sadly people will continue to lap it up and call it good. This isn't about making money, this is about catapaulting the propaganda.

[LTR]

3. Making a movie about 9/11/01 is tough

Because we saw it all as it unfolded. What more could we learn from a dramatic depiction?

I mean, look at that Showtime movie a few years ago. It got laughed at and is now nearly forgotten.

Documentaries of what happened seem to fare better. "9/11" was an excellent one. "Fahrenheit 9/11" was also good, as it tied in the terrorist attacks, the war in Iraq and Saudi influence in our government.

"Inside the Twin Towers" was a pretty good doc on Discovery Channel this past weekend. There are dramatic reinactments, but is still a good show about the human aspects of the attacks. If it comes on again, I recommend it.

I heard that "United 93" was good, but I'm not sure I'm ready to see it. Same with "World Trade Center".

We already had the reality telecast endlessly. Why do we need the dramatic tellings?

[Spearman87]

4. "The Path to 9/11" may be the only one of the 3

that offers some little-known facts and opportunities to actually learn something signigicant. I saw F-93 and it was extremely well done and fairly riveting. But I had read almost all the details of that day so nothing was "new" to me. For "The Path", I doubt that will be the case.

[proud patriot]

5. While I know you are correct

it's the fact that this is being pushed as
some kind of Documentary , Fact based etc..

it really bothers me when Americans get lied to.