Days of “Star Wars” and “Star Trek” come to an end…or have they?

All good things come to an end.

I take that back. I am not so sure everyone thinks the word “good” applies to the Star Trek television spinoffs and the Star Wars prequels given that several fans, not to mention the critics, have become disenfranchised with both franchises over the years.

Next month, two multi-million dollar, (would I be too far off if I said, “billion dollar?”) franchises come to an end on television and the big screen.

"Star Trek: Enterprise" (2001-2005) is signing off on its flagship station, UPN, which has been home for all the incarnations of Star Trek since “Star Trek: The Next Generation” debuted in 1987.

On May 19, the curtain falls on the final Star Wars prequel titled “Episode III – Revenge of the Sith.” There will be no more Star Wars movies (at least that is what director George Lucas keeps saying) after this nor will there be any more “Midnight Madness” at the local Toys “R” Us stores for the fans to shell out their hard-earned money on new film related merchandise.

This fall, for the first time in 17 years, there will be no Star Trek television shows.

What will the vast legion of faithful Vulcans, Klingons, Romulans, Jedi Knights and Imperial Stormtroopers do with themselves?

I always knew this day was coming and to be honest, I am not particularly broken up about it.

My love for “Star Trek” has always been and will always continue to be with the original series that ran for just three years on NBC from 1966-1969. I did watch “The Next Generation” off and on when it ran from 1987 to 1994. When series creator Gene Roddenberry died in 1991, however, I never felt “The Next Generation” was “Star Trek” to me.

At least with “The Next Generation,” the series creators paid homage to some of the classic characters of the original series by having Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy), a 100-plus-year-old Dr. McCoy (DeForrest Kelley), and Scotty (James Doohan) make guest appearances.

I don’t think I have seen a single episode of “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine” (1993-1999) in its entirety. As for “Star Trek: Voyager,” (1995-2001) all right, I’ll admit it. I tuned in sometimes because I thought Seven of Nine (Jeri Ryan) looked attractive in that tight looking gray spandex suit.

The creators behind “Star Trek: Enterprise,” however, decided to go where no producer should have ventured out before it aired four years ago and that was promoting the series as taking place before the days of Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock. Being a fan of the original, I found this downright sacrilegious.

I just know every one of you Starfleet officers out there reading this who loved this show and rallied to keep the series on the air before Paramount’s studios the past few months probably now have their phasers set to kill. Admit it. You people have the latest copy of the Et Cetera’s entertainment page with my picture and article on it ready to burn the paper in effigy. Of course, in the real world, phasers don’t really work but I guess for you people some charcoal and lighter fluid will do the trick, not that I am giving you any ideas.

Well, I must put my foot down. Having a Star Trek television series open with some rock song much less having a captain take his pet dog around with him in space is not Star Trek to me.

If there is any consolation though, I will watch or record the series last two episodes next month to see how it all ends. I have only seen brief clips, but I could have sworn I saw Captain Archer (Scott Bakula) sporting that green shirt worn by Kirk in the original series.

As for “Revenge of the Sith”, as a fan who has spent hundreds of dollars on Star Wars toys since Hasbro and LEGO unleashed the line back in 1996, the truth is I am burned out on Star Wars merchandise.



I don’t find this much of a surprise. When “Return of the Jedi” came out in 1983, I was going into eighth grade. I was obviously getting a little older and my interests were starting to change. I was no longer interested in Star Wars toys. Granted, I did love the film despite the presence of those cute furry little teddy bears that helped the rebels topple the Empire. Watching “Return of the Jedi” today still brings out the kid in me in much the same way “Star Wars” (1977) and "The Empire Strikes Back" (1980) do.

But the fact is just like I was getting older back in my grade school days when “Return of the Jedi” came out, being just one more year away from becoming a freshman in high school, I am much older now five years after “Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace” came out in 1999.

Is it all a sign of growing up?

Or is it that when you get older, the desire to spend money on trivial things is no longer as great as the desire to save one’s money for a very rainy day.

I admit owning an 18-inch Darth Vader doll or a 14-inch Luke Skywalker or Han Solo that are of the utmost museum quality from Sideshow Collectibles would be cool but some of us have more important things to spend our money on. What fans pay $350 on for a Darth Vader doll, I use that money to make monthly payments on my car. Others probably use that money to buy food, pay utility bills, auto insurance, rent, etc.

Believe it or not, though, there is a light at the edge of that long dark tunnel for you fans who are mourning your childhood franchises are coming to an end.

The truth is “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” will continue in other forms. Despite the low box office earnings of “Star Trek: Nemesis” (2002), the creators behind the Trek franchise still insist that another movie is in the works.

As for “Star Wars”, Lucas has hinted that another television series is on the horizon besides the Clone Wars cartoons. Then there is the re-release of all six movies being brought back to the big screen again this time in 3-D beginning with “Star Wars” in 2007 in celebration of the film’s 30th anniversary. Each one will be re-released every year until 2013. And let’s not forget that ultimate DVD box set of all six films that Lucas probably still has planned to release years from now that will no doubt force consumers to spend more money.

The future is always in motion to quote a little green, pointy eared Jedi Master named Yoda who has graduated from being a talking hand puppet on invisible string to becoming a digitally enhanced lightsaber wielding visual effect.

I don’t know if it is “The Force” or the world of movie marketing talking but something tells me that Trekkies are not quite ready to live long and prosper nor is this galaxy’s band of Jedi Knights ready to shut off and hang up their lightsabers for good.

©4/20/05

Appreciation: Pope John Paul II (1920-2005)

Hundreds of people, a lot of them young, were interviewed on the news two weeks ago planning expensive pilgrimages to see Pope John Paul II's body as it lay in state at Vatican City for four days.

Watching these interviews made me want to ask a few questions. I wondered if these people did this because they felt the pontiff touched them in some way during his 26-year-reign, or if they were headed to St. Peter's Square just so they can be a part of history.

What is the legacy Pope John Paul II left us with? Or to be more precise, what did Pope John Paul II teach me personally

Reading Time and Newsweek's obituaries on the Pope's life made me realize and reconsider some of my own beliefs and shortcomings when it comes to forgiving others and the lessons of life and death.

I have consistently refused to forgive people who have done me wrong over the years. When Pope John Paul II forgave his would-be assassin, Mehmet Ali Agca, in 1981 and later granted him absolution in 1983 when he visited him in prison, it showed how little of a person I was in my unwillingness to forgive others who have offended me.

I now understand what the lyrics from that Don Henley song, "The Heart of the Matter," mean that say, "There are people in your life, who've come and gone. They let you down. You know they hurt your pride. You better put it all behind you because life goes on. You keep carrying that anger, it'll eat you up inside."

Thanks to Pope John Paul II beliefs, I realize now that life is precious whether he or she is paralyzed from the neck down and needs a feeding tube inserted in them in order to eat and drink, or they have been sentenced to die in prison.

It isn't our decision to end a person's life.

Up until recently, I have never understood why people are against the death penalty when it comes to some of the heinous crimes today's murderers have committed. I have always been of the belief, an eye for an eye, when it comes to divvying out justice.

I certainly felt that way in the case of Scott Peterson who was sentenced to die by either lethal injection or the gas chamber for killing his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Connor, last month. While everyone else was cheering that this guy was getting what he deserved, I saw nothing positive about the fact this monster would be spending the rest of his life behind bars. The fact is Peterson will likely die in prison thanks to California's appeals process that takes years before someone is executed.

I felt lethal injection and the gas chamber were too humane for this guy who deserved something far worse for what he did to his wife, and how both she and her son were found.

Now I understand, to some point, why people are against the death penalty. It is basically murdering someone else because he or she murdered someone close to you. Executing that person, though, is not going to bring the other person back.

When it comes to murder cases, there are no heroes. The families of both the killer and the victims are affected. There is never any closure.

Which brings me finally to the subject of mortality. Most, if not all of us, have witnessed the pain of seeing a loved one wither away from some life-threatening disease or coming to terms with their own mortality. We've seen it in recent years hearing about the Pope's medical condition. We even saw it a few weeks ago on television when ABC news anchor Peter Jennings, unable to speak coherently, announced he had lung cancer and would begin chemotherapy.

I have always hoped, and continue to hope, that when my day finally comes that I die in my sleep. If only all of us could be so lucky.

Pope John Paul II showed us, however, that suffering is a part of life and the best way to cope is to have faith that everything is in God's hands.

I can only hope that some, if not, everyone learned something about themselves as they bid farewell to the man many called "the People's Pope." It is a legacy that his new successor, Pope Benedict XVI, will hopefully continue.

©4/20/05

Women always have the upper hand over men on "Desperate Housewives"

I must admit the commercials I saw late last August promoting ABC's “Desperate Housewives” made me think this was going to be the year's most talked about network flop. I just know that those female fans reading this, most likely every single woman in America, will take that as a typical male response.

Would it make any of you females happy if at the same time, I had also predicted another show on ABC about a group of plane crash survivors stranded on an island would never take off and how wrong I was on that one?

Were it not that I no longer work on Sundays, I would never watch “Desperate Housewives” and would be completely oblivious to why it has become so popular were it not for the front-page cover stories I have seen in Newsweek, Entertainment Weekly, and Vanity Fair.

I understand now why women love it so much and why it seems, not a week goes by that I don't see Diane Sawyer on “Good Morning America”, “The Oprah Winfrey Show” or the ladies of “The View” talk about what happened the day after Sunday night's episode.

It's because for one hour on Sunday nights, it is a world where females all over the country get to shout, "I am woman. Hear me roar!"

They can cheer for their favorite residents of Wisteria Lane who come in the forms of emotional basket case Susan Mayer (Teri Hatcher), perfectionist Bree Van De Kamp (Marcia Cross), unfaithful wife Gabrielle Solis (Eva Longoria), stay-at-home mom Lynette Scavo (Felicity Huffman), and neighborhood sex pot Edie Britt (Nicollette Sheridan). On Sunday nights, the score is women five, the men zero. It is a world where females reign supreme and the men from the teenagers on up are complete jerks with an assortment of personal problems.

You do not believe me? Well then consider this sordid cast of male creatures.

There is Bree's husband, Rex (Steven Culp), who pays Maisy Gibbons (Sharon Lawrence), the neighborhood dominatrix and call girl living down the street to enact his submissive sexual fantasies that his wife, Bree, would never understand. Lynette's husband, Tom (Doug Savant) may not only have an infidelity secret we don't yet know about but also has an eye on the young nanny (Marla Sokoloff).

Gabrielle's husband, Carlos (Ricardo Antonio Chivara), wants a baby so much that in one episode he tampers with his wife's birth control pills. I just know that when Carlos, who is in trouble with the law, told Gabrielle he is the head of the household, women viewers cheered when she took his bucket of fried chicken and walked out the front door. She sat on the curb across the street taunting him as she chowed down, knowing he cannot go ten feet away from the house without his electronic ankle bracelet going off.

"Man of the house?" she said. "You can't even leave it."

I could almost hear the words, "You go girl!" when Bree gave her husband, Rex, a tongue lashing in front of everyone at an elegant restaurant when he wanted to leave because all the patrons, women in particular (no surprise there), were staring at him in disgust. This is all thanks to the newly published client list the dominatrix had that was conveniently leaked to the public following her arrest.

Now I know what the phrase, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" means.

Is there no man on this street who has any level of moral decency?

Well, there is Mike Delfino (James Denton), the handsome new plumber, who just moved in the neighborhood. Trouble is I don't think one bottle of liquid Drano will be enough to unclog his criminal past.

In the real world, you would not only expect to see a mother upset that an older woman like Gabrielle had an affair with her son, John Rowland (Jesse Metcalf), who isn't even 18 yet, but the father would be as well. Such is not the case on Wisteria Lane. The elder Mr. Rowland tells Gabrielle he wished he had been that young so he too could have had the opportunity to sleep with such a goddess.

Why is it the men on this show are young teenagers who either rebel against their parents or are having trouble wondering if they are gay? Why is it always the men who have skeletons in their closets like widowed father Paul Young (Mark Moses) who I wouldn't be surprised if there are bodies buried in his backyard under the swimming pool.

What about George Williams (Roger Bart), the lonely male pharmacist who gets off watching security camera videos of Bree while eating his microwave dinner and for all we know, his former roommate was the creepy character Robin Williams played in “One Hour Photo” (2002)?

CBS President Leslie Moonves' comment in the April 2005 issue of Playboy fails to raise any brownie points for us males who are not low life scum. When asked about how the ABC hit has beat out CBS' “Survivor”, Moonves didn't just say it was because “Desperate Housewives” is a good show.

"I know a lot of guys who watch the program - it has beautiful, sexy women," he was quoted saying.

Are we male creatures the equivalent of the skid marks left by tires then where the only reason we watch a television show is because the actresses, most of whom are in their early to mid-40s, still look hot, with the exception of Texas A & M graduate Longoria who is 30? I will admit they are beautiful, but that is not the reason I have tuned in this year.

I find the show entertaining in a raunchy, twisted way. It is the poor man's answer to HBO's “Sex and the City” for those who cannot afford cable or satellite television. I know that won't hold up, however, in the eyes of the female crowd who will say I am a liar when it comes to my saying the only reason I read Playboy and FHM (For Him Magazine) is because I like to read the articles.

If there is any consolation for us guys it is that at least the women characters on “Desperate Housewives” are not angels. Their behavior is just as bad as the men's.

Susan looks to her daughter (Andrea Bowen) for advice when her dating relationships fizzle out. Gabrielle just wants to live off Carlos' wealth and not have to work for a living. Lynette does not like being a stay-at-home mom taking care of three kids. She yearns for the days when she oversaw a corporation. Yes, even Bree, my favorite character who is a conservative, a member of the NRA (National Rifleman's Association), and has a picture of President Reagan hanging near the utility room, is far from perfect. The fact her kids resent her and her husband, at first, wanted a divorce and eventually cheated on her, literally define the term "dysfunctional."

As for Edie well, all I am going to say is there is no one on my block who dresses in shorts and high heels while washing the car and if there is, I have been too busy to notice.

Then there is Mary Alice Young (Brenda Strong), a loving wife and mother who blew her brains out in the first episode for reasons only the show's creators know. She is always heard but rarely seen, except in Lynette's dreams, providing witty commentary every week the way Rod Serling narrated episodes of “The Twilight Zone”.

Are these the kinds of female characters women aspire to become or already are? I may be in the minority here, but I think I can safely say that not all men are flawed pigs. All right, most of us guys are flawed, (even me, believe it or not) but not all of us are vile disgusting creatures.

It is only in Hollywood, or in this case, on some street called Wisteria Lane where women will always have the upper hand in this immoral battle of the sexes.

When it comes to how both parties act in the real world, though, the score continues to be even.

Women: 0 Men: 0

©4/6/05

"NYPD Blue" signs-off but war over adult content on TV continues

"This police drama contains scenes of nudity and adult language. Viewer discretion is advised."

If the above warning failed to convince what you would be tuning in to at 9 p.m. Tuesdays back in the fall of 1993 was the equivalent of R rated material found in only movies and on cable television shows, then perhaps this particular shot did.

It's the infamous crotch grabbing scene shown within the first five minutes of the premiere episode of ABC's controversial police drama "NYPD Blue" (1993-2005) in which Dennis Franz's Detective Andy Sipowicz tells a female district attorney to "Ipsa this, you prissy little bitch."

First season's cast of NYPD Blue.

The comment seemed to make Franz's partner Detective John Kelly played by David Caruso exhibit a look of embarrassment and I am not all that certain it was part of the act.

When it comes to Hollywood testing the waters of decency on network television shows, my comment has always been and continues to be if you don't like it, don't watch it.

As much as the old folks would like the networks to return to the days when shows like "Bonanza" (1959-1973), "Hawaii Five-O" (1968-1980), "Happy Days" (1974-1984), and "Leave It to Beaver" (1957-1963) were free of nudity and profanity, the bottom line is those days are over.

There is no doubt when "Blue" premiered, hundreds of Christian conservative groups who protested against it were hoping once the show's novelty had wound down, viewers would stop tuning in and the series would be history over the course of a season.

The fact several television stations, including Dallas' WFAA, refused to air the program during its Tuesday night 9 p.m. time slot for a couple years just added more fuel to the fire getting more viewers interested in seeing what all the fuss was about.

Steven Wheeler, general manager of WSIL in Harrisburg, Ill, whose station was among the 50 plus affiliates that didn't air the series, said it best in a March 2, 2005 article by Jake Tapper and Avery Miller on abcnews.go.com. "As a practical matter, if it's a huge success and it runs for 10 years, then I'd have to cave in at some point," he said.

Controversy sells and in the case of "NYPD Blue," it sold well. Christian conservatives lost the war, and prime time would never be the same.

Or has the battle over adult content always been the same before viewers got the chance to see what male actor on Blue had the hottest looking rear end? When was the last time TV viewers were given the chance to grab an up close and personal piece of female cheesecake so long as nothing was shown below the waist? As the days counted down to Blue's final episode March 1, I was amazed at the entertainment media's claim that the series changed what we now see in today's television shows. The fact is the battle over what is considered appropriate to air has been waged for decades ever since "the boob tube" was invented.

How many racial slurs did the censors allow Archie Bunker to get away with saying on "All in the Family" (1971-1979)? How many times did you hear George Jefferson refer to his interracial neighbors upstairs on "The Jeffersons" (1975-1985) as "honky" and "zebras?"

What about the episode on "St. Elsewhere" (1982-1988) where Ed Flanders' Dr. Donald Westphall pulled his pants down and mooned Ronny Cox with the comment, "You can kiss my ass pal?" It may be true that "NYPD Blue" opened doors for other shows to voice what Mr. Spock from "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" (1986) referred to as "colorful metaphors" and air scenes of nudity. Over the 12 and a half years of the police drama's run, I have heard the words "asshole" and "bitch" uttered on “ER.”

While on two episodes of CBS's "Chicago Hope" (1994-2000) viewers were treated to a close-up on a woman's breasts following surgery and heard Mark Harmon's character utter the phrase "Shit happens" that got conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh's attention. The day after the episode aired, Limbaugh commented on his radio program now he knows what the "S" in CBS stands for.

Those who think Janet Jackson's Boob-gate fiasco at the 2004 Super Bowl and "NYPD Blue signing off into syndication heaven after 261 episodes and 15 plus Emmy wins means a hopeful return to good clean profanity/nudity free programming during what some think is "family hour" guess again.

Keep in mind, the first line out of comedian Chris Rock's mouth when he came out on stage to host the 77th Annual Academy Awards Feb. 27 was "Sit your asses down" after receiving a standing ovation. As Blue's producer Steven Bochco said in an article on CNN on March 1, 2005, "You just can't put the genie back in the bottle. It's not going to happen, notwithstanding the fact broadcast television in these days has become an extremely conservative and frightened medium."

Adult content in television shows is here to stay. The only difference now is it's not going to be publicized as much the way it was for 12 years on Tuesday nights when Andy Sipowicz and the detectives at the 15th squad were out solving murders and dealing with their own caseload of personal problems.

©3/23/05

Dan Rather retires with a whimper instead of a bang

March 9, 2005, will probably go down in the eyes of most, if not every right-wing conservative, as what Darth Vader said as the Death Star was thirty minutes away from destroying the rebel base in Star Wars (1977). “This will be a day long remembered.”

For conservatives on the radio talk show circuit, March 9, 2005, seemed to be a day of complete jubilation. I didn’t get a chance to hear what Rush Limbaugh had to say about what was CBS’ anchorman Dan Rather’s final newscast that night. I did, however, catch Sean Hannity’s program, which airs immediately following Limbaugh’s Monday through Friday from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. on WBAP.

I wasn’t at all surprised to hear Hannity’s program open with the words from the song, “Na Na  Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye” in celebration of Rather’s retirement. For much of that entire hour I was tuned into his show, Hannity discussed the newscaster’s fall from grace with last September’s “memo-gate” fiasco; the infamous National Guard story that aired in which Rather and his team failed to authenticate documents regarding President Bush’s military service.

A story that Rather still thinks, had he and his team had more time, could have proved the documents weren’t forgeries while talking with David Letterman a few days before his final newscast.

"We were not able to authenticate the documents as thoroughly as I think we should have,” he said. “Given a little more time, perhaps we could have."

I have not watched a single half-hour of “The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather” in the entire 24 years he was on. I have only watched him in spades and even then, I don’t think that amount of time would add up to thirty minutes. The thing I saw most of him was when he first said George Bush was the winner on Election Night 2000. I went to bed early that morning believing that only to find out hours later I had awakened to a national nightmare.

The other time I caught Rather was when he broke down while talking to Letterman a few days after the September 11 terrorist attacks. This was far different from the brief moments I saw Peter Jennings at ABC and NBC’s Tom Brokaw almost break down during their individual coverage of 9/11.

After reading two pieces about Dan Rather, one published in the March 2005 issue of Texas Monthly by Gary Cartwright, and a not too flattering piece by Ken Auletta in the March 7, 2005 issue of The New Yorker, I can understand the reason and perhaps sympathize with why the right wing is so happy to see the long running anchorman go.

I’ll give Rather some credit. He was simply doing his job during the Watergate era when President Richard Nixon asked the soon-to-be news anchor, “Are you running for something” and Rather responded back, “No sir, Mr. President. Are you?”

On the other hand, I cannot argue that there wasn’t a pattern in the way the often-controversial newsman went after Republicans over the years.

When he confronted then-Vice President George Bush during an interview in 1988 about the Iran-contra scandal, Bush recalled the incident when Rather walked off the set in 1987 due to CBS’ decision to delay the evening news and opting instead to continue coverage of the U.S. Open.

“It’s not fair to judge my whole career by a rehash on Iran,” Bush said according to Auletta’s New Yorker article. “How would you like it I judged your career by those seven minutes when you walked off the set?”

Then there is Rather’s defense of President Bill Clinton by saying he thinks he is an “honest man” when questioned by Bill O’Reilly in an interview back in May 2001.

“Yes, I think he’s an honest man,” Rather said. “Listen, who among us have not lied about something? I think at core, he's an honest person. I know that you have a different view. I know that you consider it sort of astonishing anybody would say so. But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.”

Reading about that alone makes me want to consult Websters dictionary to find out what the exact definition of not just what a liar is but lying as well.

Still, I must give the native Texan some small amount of praise. After reading those two magazine pieces and looking up several “Ratherisms” found on various websites, I am almost sorry I didn’t catch more of his newscasts during those 24 years.

Rather’s news comments, as off-the-wall as they were, I cannot say they weren’t innovative, though I am not sure his journalistic prose would win any accolades with film critics or garner Oscar nominations for best original screenplay.

Consider this sampling of quotes from politicalhumor.about.com compiled by Daniel Kurtzman on what Rather said during the 2000 presidential election.

"This race is humming along like Ray Charles."

"This situation in Ohio would give an aspirin a headache.''

"We need Billy Crystal to Analyze This.”

On the 2004 presidential election:

"This race is tight like a too-small bathing suit on a too-long ride home from the beach."

"This will show you how tight it is - it's spandex tight."

"We've lived by the crystal ball; we're eating so much broken glass. We're in critical condition."

My personal favorite Rather quote, however, has nothing to do with any presidential elections.

“Stay with CBS now for more news, including: Is there a pall over the mall as holiday shoppers think small?”

After reading those two magazine pieces, I also must give him credit for being someone who didn’t just sit behind the news desk unlike his counterparts. He covered things happening around the world reporting with on-the-spot news coverage from Vietnam and Tiananmen Square and Iraq and Afghanistan to his fascination with hurricanes and tornadoes in various parts of the country.

Dan Rather was more a news reporter than he was a news anchor which explains why in recent years he always placed third next to ABC’s Jennings’ and NBC’s Brokaw. Viewers wanted a prettier face to tell them what’s happening in the world and give it to them without all the witty comments.

Or if you want it in simpler terms, they want someone like William Hurt’s not too bright good-looking Tom Grunick from “Broadcast News” (1987). They don’t want an unattractive garrulous, ego-driven on the spot news reporter like Albert Brooks’ Aaron Altman was.

I kind of feel sorry that Rather exits the newsroom on a less than positive note being remembered more for “memo-gate” than all the other things he’s done in his long running career. This isn’t the first time a well-known face has been brought down by an embarrassing scandal.

No one remembers anything good Richard Nixon did during his presidency. They just associate him with Watergate. I’ll always remember President Clinton more for lying about his affair with an intern and his impeachment than anything else he did in the two terms he was in office.

Perhaps over time, people will look back on Dan Rather a little more fondly than they do now, though I doubt conservatives will.

"It is going to loom large," said Alex Jones, director of Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy in a March 9 article on Cnn.com on what Rather’s legacy will be. "Over time, this is something that will be put in better perspective, especially if he has another chapter in his career."

©3/23/05

Is America ready for a 9/11 movie?

Is America ready for a 9/11 movie?

Picture this. It is early May, two or three years from now and the start of the summer movie season. You've just paid your $6.50 ticket and are sitting amidst several others in the dark auditorium opening day to watch what is certain to be one of the most talked about films of the year.

After 30 minutes’ worth of trailers and commercials, the big event finally begins.

The camera pans in on the twin towers of Manhattan's World Trade Center. There is a little ticking clock posted in the bottom right-hand corner reading 8:35 a.m. It is the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

The camera then pans in on several scenes of activity inside the top floors of the North Tower. We see more than a hundred patrons having breakfast at the Windows on the World restaurant, while five hundred or more employees are at their desks of the brokerage offices of Cantor Fitzgerald.

We see a woman checking e-mail in her office on the 89th floor of the North Tower. The ticking clock now reads 8:46 a.m. As she sips her morning coffee, we hear the roar of two turbine jet engines, followed by what some think is an exploding transformer, that knocks the woman to the floor as the 110 story building reels from the impact of a Boeing 767 flying in at 450 miles per hour.

Then all hell breaks loose.

Get ready for 9/11: The Movie, one of many as yet untitled projects coming soon to either a theater near you or on a television network a few years from now.

I have always known Hollywood would sooner or later plan a film about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but I personally would have preferred later, as in decades from now, as opposed to sooner.

A couple of dramas about 9/11 have already been made like “The Guys” (2002), which starred Anthony LaPaglia as a fire chief enlisting the aid of a psychiatrist (Sigourney Weaver) to come up with several eulogies for the men he lost at the World Trade Center.

The Showtime original made-for-cable movie, “D.C. 9/11: Time of Crisis” (2003), could most likely be referred to as the film Michael Moore doesn't want you to see. Unlike Moore's “Fahrenheit 9/11” (2004), President Bush, as played by Timothy Bottoms, is portrayed as a real commander-in-chief the moment he learns America is under attack.

The closest we've seen of what went on inside the twin towers was the television documentary “9/11”, shot by Jules and Gedeon Naudet who were making a film about a newcomer firefighter. It was luck that they happened to have their cameras rolling when American Airlines Flight 11 hit the North Tower.

It is Hollywood's latest venture, though, that will likely show us the horror of what went on inside both towers from the time the first plane hit to the moment the North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m. This is all thanks to a newly published hardcover book called “102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers” (2006 - Henry Holt & Company Inc., 352 pages, $26) by New York Times reporters Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn.

If you haven't heard much about book, that's because it has barely received any press since it came out early February. You will not find it on the shelves of bestsellers at Barnes & Noble or Borders but instead find it sitting amongst a slew of other new hardcover books on tables where there are only a handful of copies available. There have been no reviews written in Time, Newsweek, or Entertainment Weekly. I, myself, would have known nothing about it had I not been browsing Newsweek's website for back issues and came across a brief online article about the title.

The book, however, is now getting publicity, thanks to Columbia Pictures, which, according to an article in Variety, is in the process of buying the rights and appears to be the latest in a series of projects set to go before cameras in the coming years. According to the same article, producer Brian Grazer has plans to make an eight-hour mini-series about 9/11 based on the Commission Report published last year.

The fact such films are being planned begs me to ask a slew of questions. Is America ready for a big screen recreation of the horrors we saw live on television that unseasonably warm September morning, which will no doubt be released either during the summer movie season or late fall to be a contender for Oscar nominations, if promoted right?

Are we ready to see highly paid stars portray real life victims as he or she make their final heart-breaking phone calls to loved ones to cancel unexpected birthday trips and to say good-bye?

Are we ready to bear witness to the desperation of hundreds of people near the point of impact and above trying to escape the searing heat and smoke obviously knowing how this is all going to end? When exactly is the right time to release such a film and is there a right time?

Perhaps the only way to answer the question if the time is right for a film about Sept. 11 is the notion that time eventually heals all wounds.

There was a moment when I was surprised at how quick one year had gone by since the terrorist attacks and I felt the same way on the second anniversary. I asked myself where the time went. Now 9/11 feels like it happened decades ago.

Our attitudes are different from what they were in the weeks and months after the attacks. We have accepted we must now show up two hours early before boarding time at airports for check-in. We have accepted that there will always be a police/military style presence at such events like the Super Bowl, the World Series and at New York's Times Square on New Year's Eve.

American patriotism is back to what it was before 9/11. There are no flags flying outside many homes on national holidays and support for our armed forces abroad seems split down the middle, depending on who you talk to. Today, we laugh when late night talk show hosts like Jimmy Kimmel make jokes about Homeland Security and the never-ending terror alerts.

The question studio executives should ask themselves when it comes to green lighting movies about 9/11 is, are they doing this so Americans will never forget? Is it all for the sake of macabre entertainment as we sit gulping down our large cokes and chow down on the large, buttered popcorn and Milk Duds in awe of the terrifying special effects that will most likely be supplied by the digital gurus working at George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic?

I won't deny such a film will have all the winning ingredients of a tragic tearjerker as we learn of various tales of heroism, if it's done right. We will no doubt meet characters who got out in time before the towers' collapse as well as feel for those who did not. But not everyone's wounds have healed, in particular the people who lost loved ones that morning which will likely never heal.

This year will mark the fourth anniversary of Sept. 11.

The idea of making a film dramatizing those tragic events is too soon to be considering, but then again, has Hollywood ever pondered how audiences, not to mention, the families of loved ones, would feel about such a project being adapted for the big screen?

©2/23/05