ROTTEN TOMATOES: An Early Peek at the Other "World Trade Center" Movie

An Early Peek at the Other "World Trade Center" Movie

by Scott Weinberg | April 05, 2006

With everyone buzzing about Paul Greengrass' United 93, another 9/11-centric project has fallen into the background ... for now, anyway. But IGN FilmForce has a few tidbits reharding Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, including a plot recap, a cast list, and a pair of pics.

Says IGN FF: "Set for release on August 11th, 2006, is Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, starring Nicolas Cage (Matchstick Men), Michael Pena (Crash), Maria Bello (Coyote Ugly), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Donnie Darko) and Frank Whaley (The Doors). The movie tells the story of John McLoughlin (Cage) and William Jimeno (Pena), Port Authority police officers who were trapped for 22 hours at Ground Zero.

In early November of last year, upon commencement of photography, the filmmakers were quick to emphasize that the movie will not focus on the large political issues. "We're not doing the Towering Inferno-Titanic version," producer Michael Shamberg told The Associated Press. "We're not doing everyone's story that day. We're trusted with the accuracy of the particular story that we're telling."

Related Items

Movie:	World Trade Center
	Crash
	Matchstick Men
	Donnie Darko
	Coyote Ugly
	Titanic
	The Doors
	The Towering Inferno
Celeb:	Oliver Stone
	Michael Pena
	Maria Bello
	Paul Greengrass
	Maggie Gyllenhaal
	Frank Whaley
	Nicolas Cage

(1-20 of 43 posts) | Reply

AgeOfApathy writes:
on Apr 05 2006 08:57 AM

[b]I wish Hollywood would stop marketing on Tragedy[/b]
Too bad marketing on tragedy makes sooo much money. Ala Titanic making 600mil domestic. The reason I guess it's so popular is because we love to watch a 'train wreck.' (This includes myself) However, I feel it's too soon, the main reason it's probably being done is because of the movie box office slump. It's just not really respectful to all the lives lost and the families that went through that horrible disaster. But Hollywood feels that a Disaster Movie (average 300Mil) and a 9/11 movie (FH 9/11 made over 100mil) would = 'lotsa money.' Being a big movie fan (I watched almost 1000$ worth of movies , rented and in theatres last year, yikes!) I haven't really gone to see anything lately. The only movies I've seen this year were V for Vendetta, The Matador, Inside Man, and Slither. They just don't make appealing movies anymore, it's hard for people to go out and say "Yeah I'll pay 10$ a ticket to go and see Big Momma's House 2." Frankly I probably won't go to the theatres until X-Men 3 comes out (and I won't go if it gets bad reviews, well, maybe).

(Reply to this)

ace6i9 writes:
on Apr 05 2006 11:33 AM

[b]Totally agree[/b]
I totally agree with you...I know we all still remember the images from 9/11, and making movies about what happened that day seems so...I don't know...callous. When I first heard about these movies, World Trade Center and United 93, I just imddediately thought that it was the wrong thing to do.

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Apr 05 2006 12:31 PM

It is difficult to accept this premise as the basis of a feature film, and we're all justified in being uneasy or finding it distasteful. I personally was quite able to watch the "United 93" trailer online, but when I saw it on a theater screen weeks later, it hit me that we'd be watching actors, on a set, with lights, and reshoots, and special effects, and a thunderous score, all portraying something very, very real. So that didn't sit well.

The divisive nature of even producing these movies, however, is yet another reason why producers are (reluctantly, I assure you) signing off on these projects. Good idea or bad, they will get people talking. They already have, right here. Depending on how you look at it, this is either an act of exploitation, utilizing built-in controversy, or meant to stimulate heated discussion and thus important filmmaking. Furthermore, I imagine they will handle the tragedy with layers upon layers of respect; in fact, if you can even imagine so, I gather that they'll coddle us too much. But movies that don't put me at ease are the kinds of movies I love to watch, so I'm reserving judgment until I see it.

A smart move on the producers' part would be to take a large percentage of the proceeds and put that towards an amnesty fund or aid fund, to let moviegoers know that this is about remembering the lives of those on that flight, not about dollars. There's more they could do to be completely respectful (such as not make the movie at all), but this was going to happen at some point. I figure if they made it 100 years from now, it wouldn't be important, and maybe not even worth making. Putting distance between a tragedy and it's adaptation to film often makes things worse -- if "Pearl Harbor" were made in 1947, I doubt it would be a rock-'em sock-'em/love-triangle/video game disasterpiece. I bet it would be a movie that we'd still be watching, and analyzing, and treasuring today.

(Reply to this)

Decade_e_a writes:
on Apr 05 2006 01:27 PM

I hate Nic Cage's teeth, and that's all there is to the reason I won't see this movie.

(Reply to this)

Decade_e_a writes:
on Apr 05 2006 01:30 PM

In reply to this comment (#833258)
there is NO WAY that Pearl harbor could ever have been (or ever will be) a good film. Michael Bay is a piece of shit! How dare you say such nonsense. I don't even care about the analogy... you were absolutely wrong. We don't even joke about Michael Bay making a good film, because we all know it'll never happen.

(Reply to this)

elcid08 writes:
on Apr 05 2006 01:52 PM

Ive got to say i disagree with what most of what you guys are saying...I dont believe it is too soon to be making a movie about this tragedy...In fact I think its the perfect time. People say they will never forget 9/11, but i dont believe that to be the case...I think the average people that watched it on tv are forgetting it. I believe it is important for people to relive the awful feelings of that day, so that we will once again promise ourselves "NEVER AGAIN!!!" Im not trying to start a political debate here, so dont take this the wrong way...but 9/11 officially started the War on Terror, a war that is still being fought but that I feel is being forgotten by the people at home...Maybe some 9/11 movies will remind people that we are at war and why we are.
But, hollywood should do it in a tasteful manner, which is possible despite what some may think about hollywood. Not all movie execs are evil money counting people, There are those that actually care about the films and events they are portraying. If the movie makers consulted the families as much as they say they did while making "Flight 93" and they are all ok with it then i dont have a problem with the movie. No matter when u make the movie and release it, next month or in ten years, im sure there will always be controversy behind it.
And just for something extra, They were making WWII movies before the war even ended completely (A tragedy on a much larger scale)...and gung-hoe ones too...Sands of Iwo Jima was made in 1949 (not during the war i know)...Same thing with Vietnam (a very unpopular war). The Green Berets was made in 1968.

(Reply to this)

A_Voice_of_Reason writes:
on Apr 05 2006 02:11 PM

In reply to this comment (#833259)
[b]Nic Cage's Teeth[/b]
My wife hates Cage's teeth too. She can't look at him.

(Reply to this)

Roadhg67 writes:
on Apr 05 2006 03:53 PM

In reply to this comment (#833261)
Personally... I feel like its a good thing when people can get back to normal and stop talking and thinking about 9/11. I know I certainly don't want to live in fear, although our government and news media would love it... good ratings for them.

(Reply to this)

Roter writes:
on Apr 05 2006 04:37 PM

[b]Ugh...[/b]
Everyone knew it was just a matter of time before they made a movie. All I can say is..."why?"

(Reply to this)

tinster writes:
on Apr 05 2006 05:04 PM

In reply to this comment (#833260)
LOL. Michael Bay IS a piece of crap director. No arguments there.

I suggest you guys check out this really old movie from the 60s called "Tora!Tora!Tora!". It is a really well put together account of the events leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Present from both the US and Japanese perspective.

It's a little dated looking, but the account is nicely presented.

(Reply to this)

BrokebackYoda writes:
on Apr 05 2006 05:47 PM

[b]They are not marketing Tragedy[/b]
They need to tell the stories of what happened to these people. A lot of people don't realize what happened there. A relative of one of the victims of Flight 93 says the same thing. So if THEY are saying its time...then it must be. They know there was courage, but they don't know the people behind the courage, and that what they want to see. It was five years ago, that is long enough. People need to stop over-reacting to all of this. You all knew it was bound to be made into a movie. And movies like "Farenheight 9/11" interest people. So shut up. And "Titanic" grossing so much money had nothing to do with the shipwreck. It was the characters and emotions and the love story that drew people to it. I bet you if you ask anybody the names of the two lovers in "Titanic" then they will tell you. Would you rather sit down through "Shes the Man" or "Titanic"? SO AGEOFAPATHY you need to shut your mouth. Idiot. The reason they make that much is because of the stories. They don't plan to make that much. Do you think Michael Moore intended "Farenheight 9/11" to be the highest grossing documentary ever?? NO. People just hate Bush. IT is about time they make some good pictures. I am exited to see "World Trade Center" and "United 93", allthought I am afraid Oliver Stone will make it badly, like Alexander.

(Reply to this)

elcid08 writes:
on Apr 05 2006 06:07 PM

I totally disagree with what Roadhg67 said about how its a good idea about forgetting about 9/11 and moving on...we dont need to stop thinking about that day because the effects of that day are still being felt five years later...But at the same time we do not need to be living in fear...if anything we need to live our lives normally but at the same time remember what happened and be aware of the fact that something like that could very well happen again...
And would people please stop talking about Farenheight 9/11...most of the info in that movie was a bunch of bs with nothing to back it up....Also, i happen to think Bush is doing the right thing...we are doing what we need to do...people need to stop being so damn week minded about this war on terror and realize that in order to win we must have UNCONDITIONAL victory over the terrorists...and that will take lots of time, money, and most importantly, lives.

(Reply to this)

AgeOfApathy writes:
on Apr 05 2006 09:18 PM

[b]Marketing on Tragedy[/b]
In Response to 'Brokeback Yoda' Comment #512098. I really wish people would correctly read a post before ignorantly replying and making themselves look a fool. I'm sorry that you believe that I need to "shut my mouth." However, seeing that this is an open place to leave whatever comments I wish, I will choose not to. If you READ if you and are capable of that correctly you will notice that I put "The reason I guess it's so popular is because we love to watch a 'train wreck.' (This includes myself)." This includes myself. I would not want to watch the garbage they are feeding us (aka "She's the Man") Which is why I've already said what movies I've already seen. I enjoyed both FH 9/11 and (to a lesser extent) Titanic. Disaster movies are a widely known high grosser(go to Boxofficemojo.com if you don't believe me). Titanic, however you wish to color it, was ultimately a movie made about a disaster, a very real one where very real people died. The same goes for these new 9/11 movies. I agree with other posts that if Hollywood truly wants to make this kind of movie, they should donate a percentage of the gross total for benefiting the families whose lives were effected by this. So if anyone wishes to reply to mine or other people's comments, I think that they should READ them first before spewing childish retorts. So, BROKEBACK YODA, you should just "shut you mouth" unless you can take the time to understand what other people are saying. "Idiot." ;)

(Reply to this)

ArmyofJuan writes:
on Apr 05 2006 11:45 PM

I just think it's a horrible idea for a film.

Im just waiting to see how they portray the hijackers. Because since it wasnt Al Queda who crashed the planes,im just wondering what they are going to do.

(Reply to this)

eye_see writes:
on Apr 06 2006 05:28 AM

"Im just waiting to see how they portray the hijackers. Because since it wasnt Al Queda who crashed the planes,im just wondering what they are going to do."

Why does this website get so many nut cases.

anyways, the only reason why they donate the money now is so that you people with issue over the film wont be able to complain as much.

Once they got a few films going and the american public get used to seeing 9/11 on the big screen, they can stop donating and will be able to bring out the big guns. The "Towering Inferno-Titanic version" Personal Im looking forward to the TIT version. Should be good. I just wonder which teen boy star will get the leading role.

If you have a problem with people making fact distorting films about real events, and in the process lots of money, you best go move into the country and become a hermit cuase in the real world this is what happens.

(Reply to this)

elcid08 writes:
on Apr 06 2006 09:36 AM

It wasnt Al Queda....what bs source did u get that from?

(Reply to this)

lovelykeira writes:
on Apr 06 2006 01:07 PM

I'm looking forward to this more that Flight 93, I love Cage, and Pena, plus Stone is always interesting and a good amount of the time good. And I'm with elcid08 support the war on terror, enough with the stupid Bush bashing.

(Reply to this)

FreshTomatoPicker writes:
on Apr 06 2006 01:50 PM

I really dislike Bush's government - their approach on terrorism is totally wrong. And explain to me how you can 'win' the war on terrorism. Evil is something that can be fought back and lessened, but never destroyed completely.

And it is even worse that Bush was re-elected... So many Americans actually think he's a good choice.

(Reply to this)

elcid08 writes:
on Apr 06 2006 04:38 PM

You know what, I hear that same bs about how the bush admin approach to the war is totally wrong...But u know what i never hear Freshtomatopicker, is what would all of you bush bashers do differently...And considereing the fact that John Kerry or the rest of the Dems couldnt give their own plan for Iraq and Afghanistan and kept contradicting themselves...Ya, I would say Bush was the right choice, he actually has a plan...
And evil can never be defeated..Thats funny, we beat the Nazis and Japanese...and look at where they are now. If we can defeat them, we can defeat the terrorists.... If they breath they bleed...

(Reply to this)

ArmyofJuan writes:
on Apr 07 2006 12:42 AM

In reply to this comment (#833274)
This is the most absurd comment i have read.

OF COURSE we beat the Nazi's and the Japanese during WWII. Why? Because they were an actual clearly defined enemy, in which they all wore the exact same fucking uniform so we could clearly tell them apart and they were on an actual side.

Heres the defintion for terrorism, because i don't think you quite understand and fully grasp the word and it's meaning:

ter-ror-ism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

MEANING, that terrorists and terroist groups sprout up like fucking weeds because there will ALWAYS be PEOPLE or PERSONS AGAINST a certain GROUP or IDEA. Which is why TERRORISM HAS BEEN AROUND FOREVER AND WILL ALWAYS BE AROUND. It is IMPOSSIBLE to defeat terrorism.

And as for the whole "Bush" thing, all im going to say about his plan is that it is like an ameoba in that it is always changing and taking new shape and form. Reason being is that we constantly change the time span for when we are going to pull soldiers out and how much it is going to cost etc etc etc.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

United 93

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links