>>93403076It was obviously offensive enough for people to initially pull it for a few years. And it's still offensive enough that SOME things haven't made it back into syndication yet. Most people have backed down from that now, yeah, but there is still an unspoken rule about showing the WTC in a certain light.
Like, we might have movies set in the 70's that still show them in the skyline, but we're never going to have an action movie set in 80's NYC where Twin Towers get destroyed along with every other landmark. That shit would cause fucking riots. And you know that to be true, and in that regard, it still kind of is a touchy subject.
I mean, look at the Titantic. We have a ton of fucking jokes in movies and cartoons involving ships hitting icebergs and going down. Ghostbusters had a joke that no one finds offensive of someone calling the police to tell them the Titantic just docked and it cuts to a bunch of ghosts and a ghost ship. You think we're ever going to have ghost Twin Towers in the foreseeable future? I don't think anyone would even dare to make that joke in the next 50 years.
If you've ever looked at current works that show modern NYC, you'll notice that a large majority of establishing shots, ads, and even tourist merch fail to include the new One World Trade Center but almost exclusively use the Empire State and Chrysler Building, whereas prior to that, it was almost exclusively the Twin Towers to showcase "we're in New York". There's a subtle reason for that and I think it goes beyond, "People don't recognize that building".
Marvel is probably one of the few big name studios that actually includes the building in their skyline shots.
