Was Hollywood Changed by 9/11?

First, this from the Daily Caller:

Disney sends 9/11 docudrama to Never Never Land -- TheDC's Matthew Boyle reports: "Activists tell The Daily Caller that The Walt Disney Company is refusing to re-air a 9/11-related docudrama, effectively burying politically inconvenient facts about the events which led to the 9/11 terror attacks, in order to protect the political future of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. 'The Path to 9/11,' first aired on ABC in 2006, portrayed President Bill Clinton's administration as ignoring warnings and signs that Osama bin Laden and al Qaida were planning a major attack on the United States — a finding supported by The 9/11 Commission Report. But since 2006 Disney CEO Bob Iger has repeatedly refused to rebroadcast it, or to sell the rights to other broadcasters... 'The Path to 9/11' was nominated for seven Emmy awards, and won one. It also received an American Cinema Editors 'Eddie' award. But the film, which cost $40 million to make, has not aired in the U.S. since, nor has it been released on DVD... Tom Borelli, the director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise project and a Disney shareholder, told The Daily Caller that he has formally offered to purchase the film's rights from Disney — only to be ignored... Borelli has pressed Iger on the film's disposition at several Disney shareholder meetings, but the CEO hasn't budged for years on the issue — even telling Borelli 'F*** you!' during one such meeting." 9/11: Never forget... unless it reflects badly on the Democrats.

Protecting the Clinton Administration has been a recurring theme in Hollywood, while denigrating America has become a consistent post-911 theme.

Last night I was watching KTLA in Los Angeles and their entertainment reporter Sam Rubin did a piece on whether Hollywood was changed by 9/11. He went on to recount a number of post-911 themed movies, most of which involved war movies based in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how badly those movies did at the box office. His conclusion was that moviegoers weren't interested in the subject and that's why the movies did so poorly.

He missed the point.

These movies tanked at the box office because almost without exception they had a decidedly anti-American tone. American soldiers and policymakers were the bad guys, terrorists were just poor misunderstood freedom fighters, and all that nonsense. Americans don't want to pay good money to see their country maligned on the big screen.

The people that made these movies, like The Hurt Locker or Redacted, love to claim that such moviemaking is "courageous", but there's nothing courageous about making a film that mirrors Hollywood's animosity towards America and its military. Had someone tried to make a move showing George W. Bush as a strong leader and our military as selfless heroes, THAT would have been courageous. And that guy would probably never get a job in Hollywood again.

I'm convinced that people who make these kinds of movies don't make them for the moviegoers, they make them for each other so they can win awards and peer recognition. The Hurt Locker won an Academy Award and yet it had the poorest box office in history for an Oscar-winning movie. I'm sure that didn't really bother the producers at all. They got what they wanted.

Rubin also wondered about the next post-911 movie on the killing of Osama bin Laden which is due out next Fall. I can tell him right now that this movie will be another box office disaster. Why? Two reasons. Number one, by the time the movie comes out bin Laden will have been dead for almost a year-and-a-half and will be an afterthought for most people. Secondly, the timing of this movie is a clear attempt by Hollywood to influence the election. I guarantee you that the hero in this movie will not be Seal Team 6 that carried out the attack, but the president that ordered it. It will be seen by moviegoers as a desperate attempt to save Obama and they won't appreciate it. Nor will they buy tickets to see it.

Yes, Hollywood was changed by 9/11.  They became more rabidly anti-American and anti-military.  Maybe if a Democrat had been president when it happened and had ordered the retaliatory attacks things would be different.  We'll never know.