I'm sure this will be a sensitive subject for some people, so I'd like to apologise in advance if I cause any offense. I've read recently that Paramount and another production company are developing two different projects about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. One is about Flight 93, the hijacked plane destined for the Pentagon which was brought down by passengers who sacrificed their lives. I think the other project has Nicholas Cage attached and is about the World Trade Centre attacks.

My questions are, do you think these types of films are appropriate at this time? When people may only be starting to get over 9/11? Or do you think these films should be made to remind people of the great American spirit and how a country, as well as the world, united and stood firm in the face of these attrocities?

I knew that a film about September 11th was bound to happen. But I didn't think it would be this soon, with all the trouble and uncertainty in the world. Is Hollywood right to be doing this? Or is it just trying to line its pockets?  

When it comes to art no subject should be off limits. It's our way of coping. It's cathartic and seves a greater purpose. So I say if it's done well...fine!

Ditto... I'm not American so obviously it affected me in different ways, but enough time has passed to put the events into a proper context and therefore use the events to explore the issues surrounding it...

However these films at the moment sound like safe-ground, movie of the week heroism stuff... Still, fair-play and al that...

What offends me more is this...

Quoted Text TSUNAMI MOVIE WASHES INTO THEATERS 08.09.05 By Dave Davis Contributing sources: Variety Unlike the events of 9/11, which filmmakers are just now collectively daring to approach nearly four years later, there's no such waiting period for tragedy affecting other parts of the globe.  So... tsunami movie! The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and resultant tsunami killed over 300,000 and affected millions of unfortunate people in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and even Africa (or, as they're all known in the US, 'foreigners').  Writer-director Michael Patwin will focus on the grim aftermath of this disaster with Hereafter, which will center on an unshod American who slogs through 70 miles of destroyed property and shattered lives on a quest to find his wife and kids. Leave it to the Hollywood mentality to take the anguish of millions and reassign it to the POV of a single American... The producers plan to donate a large percentage of the film's potential earnings to disaster relief organizations, thereby giving the impression they're not benefiting too much from the misery of others.

Article

Not even a year...  

If the film was done right then I would be happy. I just wouldn't like to see big star names attached because to me this would make it less realistic, and this is a film that has to be realistic in order to satisfy people.

Personally, I think there is only one way to go with this film, and that is to represent faithfully every party which was involved; the plane passangers, people in the WTC, fire and police crews, etc. This could be done by designating one or two main characters to each group. That way we would get to see everybody that was involved, instead of just concentrating on one story.

I know this would be hard to do, but it could be done. Look at James Cameron's Titanic, which showed passangers from the different social classes who were all involved in the same tragedy. This way you got to see everyone who was involved throughout every stage of the disaster; from the ship hitting the iceberg, to the people left stranded on the rescue ship.  

Quoted from Acroname If the film was done right then I would be happy. I just wouldn't like to see big star names attached because to me this would make it less realistic, and this is a film that has to be realistic in order to satisfy people. Personally, I think there is only one way to go with this film, and that is to represent faithfully every party which was involved; the plane passangers, people in the WTC, fire and police crews, etc. This could be done by designating one or two main characters to each group. That way we would get to see everybody that was involved, instead of just concentrating on one story.

To be honest, I think you'll see that movie someday, but I daresay it'll be done with 'big names' - Towering Inferno stylee...

I think if the critical, audience and (let's be honest) box-office reaction to these two films is positive then you'll see a glut of 9/11 movies hitting the production pipeline! Right now studios only seem to bbe dipping their toes into these perilous waters.

True. Hollywood does tend to milk franchises these days. Although I never thought of 9/11 as a movie franchise. I know its all about business with these big film Executives but surely they wouldn't sink that low just to make money...?  

Quoted from Acroname I know its all about business with these big film Executives but surely they wouldn't sink that low just to make money...?

I think they would, the trick for them is to make it look like that's not what they're doing... Let's look at it this way, no studio is going to invest $50-100+ million in a film (which is probably what these'll cost) purely out of social conscience... Those days have now passed, if they ever existed...  

Yeah but they need to invest such money in something they're sure will be a crowd pleaser, especially for a film of this magnitude where so many people have strong opinions about it. If audiences aren't satisfied then negative word-of-mouth will spread very fast and less people will bother to go and see it. This is one film that can't be done half-as*ed. Hollywood can't attempt this film just for the money - this film has to please audiences. This is more than just a money-spinner. Far more.     

Donate any profits to the families and funds alike and I'll say it's a good idea if not it's bad; Imagine what the families are thinking about this news.

Hollywood is taking advantage of the ones who died and even though I'm not American it affected us all. This is wrong and whoever attaches themselves to it I hope they enjoy exploiting the victims.

That's exactly what I thought when I first heard about this. I really think its too soon to be making films about 9/11, especially with the recent London bombs and the ongoing war in Iraq. The film industry should allow people to escape from the trouble going on around the world, not remind them of it, and I think thats what these films will do.  

If you really think about it, though, Hollywood has been about victim exploitation for quite some time. *cough*Titanic*cough* That was one of the greatest disasters in maritime history and there are at least a dozen movies about it. Wars have probably hundreds of movies about them and the people in them -- obviously called "war" movies. Gettysburg was the bloodiest battle on American soil killing over 300,000 people, and we have movies about it.

Murderers have their fair share of movies; especially serial ones. These are smaller scale tragedies, but not small scale to the ones who lived through them. Even little things like the Jon Benet Ramsey tragedy get movies made. A six year old gets killed as soon as it is plastered all over, the filmmakers wants a piece of it.

I think we're stuck with these movies, because we always have been. Whether these movies are made now or not, they will be someday and forever. Especially 9/11. In 50 years, we'll go to the theatre and there will be another movie about it, but that time, 50 years later, it'll be even more graphic and explicit.

Do people forget? No. Even James Cameron and his Titanic had a member of the family of the guy who shot himself in the head after he refused the bribe. They insisted he did not kill himself and were offended that Cameron had him do that. Does Hollywood care? No.

I'll go back to writing my fictional stories again now...

I suppose nothing WE say will change Hollywood's mind now anyway. Afterall, we're only the people who PAY to get into these films and make the studios their mega-millions, so who are we to disagree with them?

I believe the problem is that people DO pay to see them, which is why they continue to be made. If no one ever goes to see these films, then Hollywood would never make them. As long as people keep going; they'll keep turning them out.

I never thought about it like that but you're right. But then that's how Hollywood works; if a particular kind of film is successful, they assume there is a trend for it, so they continue making similar movies to follow the trend. Then the trend becomes overdone and dies out, then they follow another trend. I suppose they'll do the same with 9/11 films if they do well at the box office.

I think I'm veering off topic here, but I can't understand why Hollywood filmmakers don't just break the mould and do something completely different instead of following trends because I think film-goers quickly get bored of seeing similar films.      

Quoted from Acroname That's exactly what I thought when I first heard about this. I really think its too soon to be making films about 9/11, especially with the recent London bombs and the ongoing war in Iraq. The film industry should allow people to escape from the trouble going on around the world, not remind them of it, and I think thats what these films will do.

I think the issue is whether or not these films are, or will be seen to be, 'exploitational.'

Truth be told, these won't be the first films to deal with 9/11 and its aftermath... Spike Lee's 'The 25th Hour' took the brave step of showing 'Ground Zero' and addressing the issue of post 9/11 New Yorker feeling, when most film-makers where doing everything they could do literally erase the 'Twin Towers' from their movies as if they never existed (eg. Serendipity). Also Antonia Bird's 'The Hamburg Cell' is a fictionalised account of the putting together of the group of 9/11 terrorists and the religious 'brainwashing' involved... Pretty good it was too, all told.

If the issue is dealt with seriously, and openly, then I don't see what is to feared from 9/11 movies... As George wisely says - they will be made sometime... If, however, somebody is planning a heist movie where a robbery is taking place in one of the twin towers on the morning of 9/11. Then that would be in poor taste.

EDIT: To me, it sounds as if Hollwood are playing it safe with the two movies planned... They seem to be pitched at the 'triumph of the sprit' level... Ie. showing the nobility of human nature in the face of adversity... ie. risking their own lives to save others. To be honest, this seems to me like TV 'movie of the week' stuff that's only going big-screen because of the 9/11 issues. Should they be made? I don't know... Will they add anything to the 'debate' by their existence? We'll have to wait and see... There are some pretty good documetaries that cover some of this ground anyway, one following a fire-crew on 9/11... It's actually called 9/11 and if you haven't seen it then it's well worth seeking out.

To adress your second point, that movies should only be made to provide escapism... Sorry but I can't agree... Fictional (ie. Non-documentary) films can also, and should, be used to raise and deal with societies issues - however they should also tell a good story too, of course... The current prevailing idea that the audience does not want to think is a big part of the reason that a lot of Hollywood's output has been aimed at the 'lowest common denominator' as of late.

I love pure escapism as much as the next guy, but I'll take one 'Salvador' over a hundred 'Van Helsings' anyday!