world trade center
In 'za' movie, wtc appears and release of the movie was in 2002, well known the fact that wtc collapsed in 9.11.2001. It really tooked allmost a year to complete this movie? why wasn't realeased in 2001?
shareThey had to find a studio to release it.
mfg Hazuki
Why didn't they remove all scenes featuring the WTC from this movie?
I can imagine people being upset by the WTC still standing in this movie when it came out. Imagine going to this movie to get your mind of the loss of a loved one and seeing the towers in which they died in it.
There weren't that much scenes featuring it and they could easily have redone all acting scenes that featured it in a different location.
Based on that theory then why do people keep pictures of beloved that died? You can't remove everything because something happened, what happened that day was a tragedy, but it can't be changed, and to edit every movie ever created with shots of the WTC is nonsense.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I agree. It's the same logic that has led some people to demand the opening credits of the 30-year-old sitcom Barney Miller be changed because you can see the WTC. It's been nearly 5 years -- time to stop going nuts everytime you see the towers (of course if you were actually there or lost someone in the attack, then some psychosis is perfectly understandable, but for the rest of us, get over it already). Also, this film isn't exactly a multi-million-dollar blockbuster -- they most likely didn't have the budget. Hell, the film took nearly 5 years to be released to DVD -- and it probably would still be on the shelf if Milla didn't have Ultraviolet coming out.
sharePlus, David Krumholz has a much higher profile due to the success of Numb3rs (I definitely rented the DVD because he was in it and I love him on the show).
P.S. I agree, I wondered why they left the WTC shots in the movie, but figured the movie was set before 9-11-01 and it was there then! The movie makes great use of NY locations and I applaud the inclusion of the WTC because it's part of what so many of us love (loved) about NYC.
[deleted]
"because it's part of what so many of us love (loved) about NYC"
Yes, I'm from London but if Big Ben or whatever was destroyed I wouldn't want to pretend it never existed. Leave it in there, it was an important part of New York City, and still is.
Yes, leave it there, the whole remove the towers thing is completly idiotic. beside it's not like spiderman, they didn't have millions.
share