World Trade Center not doing good at boxoffice?

[GasX]

The movie isn't bad per se, but it is only related to the WTC tragedy by way of the fact that it is a true story. As far as hollywood drama is concerned, it could well have been an earthquake that trapped the two or any other disaster. If thatwere the case, it would be seen as a mediocre movie at best.

 

[eLiu]

Originally posted by: ballmode
We know the ending already

That didn't seem to hurt Titantic... no, that didn't hurt Titantic in the least. That movie should have failed... POS.

I'm not seeing it b/c frankly I don't really care anymore. Yes yes it was a big tragedy, yak yak yak... doesn't mean it'd be solid movie material. We've been plagued with enough repetitive history/discvoery/tlc/news/etc/etc/etc/etc/etc shows on this already.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: pulse8

There were Pearl Harbor movies that came out the following year. Give me a break.

And those were too soon, also. You proved the point that film makers want to cash in on tragedy.

That doesn't prove anything!

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Baked

Originally posted by: drum
people don't want to revist one of the greatest tragedies in US history? unpossible!

Slavery? Civil War? Native American genocide?

All of those happened way back in the 1950s, so it's ok to make hilarious movies about them now, since enough time has passed.

Those all happened back in the 50's?

LMAO! Public schools are really going downhill...

Yeah, I remember that civil war...back in '52, and all those Indians dying was horrible in '55...

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: pulse8

There were Pearl Harbor movies that came out the following year. Give me a break.

And those were too soon, also. You proved the point that film makers want to cash in on tragedy.

That doesn't prove anything!

It provides an example that very soon after a disaster that there will be someone willing to make a buck off it.

Is that better?

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: pulse8

There were Pearl Harbor movies that came out the following year. Give me a break.

And those were too soon, also. You proved the point that film makers want to cash in on tragedy.

That doesn't prove anything!

It provides an example that very soon after a disaster that there will be someone willing to make a buck off it.

Is that better?

Yes, but you make it sound like Paramount are the first to do so. Every other documentary or program about 9/11 wouldn't make the air unless the network showing it could make money off of it. This is the way our society works.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Baked

Originally posted by: drum
people don't want to revist one of the greatest tragedies in US history? unpossible!

Slavery? Civil War? Native American genocide?

All of those happened way back in the 1950s, so it's ok to make hilarious movies about them now, since enough time has passed.

Those all happened back in the 50's?

LMAO! Public schools are really going downhill...

Yeah, I remember that civil war...back in '52, and all those Indians dying was horrible in '55...

bahahahaha

 

[cloude27]

Originally posted by: AznAnarchy99

Originally posted by: drum
people don't want to revist one of the greatest tragedies in US history? unpossible!

Pearl Harbor?

I think the big difference is that your average movie watcher, like myself lived throught it. It the same as when my grandmother refused to ever watch saving private ryan, becuause she lived throught that time first hand.