Good question. My problem with the movie is that it depicts individuals where I assume the people you mentioned did "big picture" songs or whatever about the entire event.

NY Madman: I have to disagree with you on that. Calling profits from a movie made about a terrorist attack that occurred on American soil is not blood money. Especially not when victims families were involved in the process.

From thefreedictionary.com :

blood money
n.
1. Money paid by a killer as compensation to the next of kin of a murder victim.
2. Money gained at the cost of another's life or livelihood.

By definition 2, it certainly is blood money, at least technically. It's fine to disagree, my point is that no one should profit from the events of 9/11. If it doesn't go to the families, ok, it just shouldn't be going to a corporate bottom line.

NY Madman: The families of the victims have no problems with the film. There is no reason anyone else should have a problem. The producers at least had the courtesy to include them in the process. How many Hollywood people actually do that? Will Oliver Stone be doing that with his upcoming film "World Trade Center"?

It's also wrong to think that every cent regarding everything new related to 9/11 should go to the victims families. The families have been well compensated and are set for life. The events of 9/11 are also not wholly owned by the families of the victims.

I'm calling on some of my experience as an airline disaster responder here, and yes, the families have "no problem" with the film because it's human nature for them to want their loved ones' story told. It's also commendable that they've been included in the filmmaking. That's all fine; again, my objections are 1) a corporation profiting from 9/11 and 2) regardless of how well they've researched the film, much of it will still be supposition.

NismoXse02: I love when people take movies so seriously. It's a freakin' movie! "Friday Night Lights" was still a great movie... watched it again tonight on Starz. My wife is from Midland and thought they did a wonderful job. Who cares where directors get their inspiration from? No one's going to make an exact reenactment.

I love when people reply but have totally missed my point.

Make a movie, fine. Don't market it as a "true story" when it's not. That's my issue, because most people don't seem to have the ability to differentiate between what really happened and what the filmmakers portray. Thus, art becomes history. Not good.

NismoXse02: This flight and the Pentagon always take a back seat, yet they're the most interesting. If you have some personal politics that you don't like about all this, don't go see it. No one's going to force you.

I agree with your point about the WTC getting a disproportionate amount of attention.

As for my personal politics, they have nothing to do with my views on this film.

As stated earlier, 9/11 (and perhaps Oklahoma City) are just different from other tragedies. I can't really articulate my feelings any better I'm afraid, other than to say nobody should be making money off of them. IMHO of course.